Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, July 20, 2023

The meeting participants will discuss the promotion of the BRICS strategic partnership, including its institutional development, and focus on preparations for the upcoming 15th BRICS summit on August 22-24.

Sergey Lavrov to attend the ceremony for the commemorative cancellation of a postage stamp dedicated to Alexander Gorchakov’s 225th birthday

On July 20, a ceremony for the commemorative cancellation of a postage stamp dedicated to Alexander Gorchakov’s 225th birthday will take place. The postage stamp was issued by Russian Post as a continuation of the History of Russian Diplomacy series.

An outstanding Russian politician and diplomat, Alexander Gorchakov made an invaluable contribution to protecting Russia’s interests on the global stage. He became the head of the Foreign Ministry in 1856, at a difficult turning point for Russia after the end of the Crimean War. His efforts, which emphasised political and diplomatic means, largely succeeded in strengthening Russia’s international prestige.

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov is expected to take part in today’s ceremony, which will also include the heads of the Ministry of Digital Development, Communications and Mass Media, Russian Post, JSC Marka, and Foreign Ministry staff.

Briefing with Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Vershinin

We have received a lot of additional questions for today’s briefing on the Black Sea Initiative and Russia’s decision to suspend its participation in the grain deal. The situation was described in detail in the Foreign Ministry statement on the Istanbul agreements and in numerous comments.

Interest in this issue remains high because there are many political and technical implications.

In this context, a briefing with Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Vershinin on the Istanbul agreements of July 22, 2022 will be held on July 21.

The briefing is scheduled for approximately 15:30. Everyone will be able to watch it online on the Foreign Ministry’s official social network accounts and the Foreign Ministry website in Russian, and also with translations in English, Spanish, and French.

Details will be available at our website. I invite all of you to watch it. I believe that after this briefing you will be left with fewer questions. I can answer some questions today, but I still invite you to watch tomorrow’s media briefing.

Ukraine crisis

The day before yesterday, on July 18, following the most recent (14th) meeting of the Ukraine Defence Contact Group aka the Ramstein group, the United States announced another package of military aid to Ukraine in the amount of $1.3 billion. Air defence systems, kamikaze drones, counter-drone equipment, and sizable amounts of ammunition and other types of weapons will be supplied to the Kiev regime.

On the same day, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley opened up during a Pentagon news conference saying that Western curators had carefully planned the counter-offensive operation by the Ukrainian Armed Forces.

I’m tempted to recommend that the US administration coordinate what its representatives have to say. We keep hearing the White House say it is not involved in what Kiev is doing on the battlefield, not only with regard to the armed forces, but also with regard to civilians. At the same time, Mr Milley holds a different view. According to him, the United States has trained 17 brigades with over 63,000 troops. However, Kiev deemed these numbers were not enough for the Kiev regime to report, preferably by the time of the NATO summit, about “new victories” which it promised its masters to achieve as it continues to ask for more aid. Today’s state of affairs in the theatre of military operations clearly does not sit well with them. Now they want one thing from Zelensky’s regime which is to earn his keep and to continue the suicidal counter-offensive at any cost. Mr Milley made it clear that it is far from being over and, quote, “This is going to be long, it’s going to be hard, it’s going to be bloody”.

What kind of regime do you think Kiev is if it is prepared to follow every whim of its handlers, who will turn its life into a slow, hard, bloody existence?

On July 18, British Secretary of State for Defence Ben Wallace confessed that Ukraine is a 21st century “combat laboratory” for the West. Clearly, London thinks of the people of that country as lab mice or guinea pigs and treats them as expendable material, as it continued to call for more decisive actions on the battlefield.

However, the regime installed by the West is responding to it in the same way it usually responds to its Nazi chants. They claim they are willing to make their territory available for testing Western weapons and not only new ones. We have repeatedly quoted people from the Kiev regime urging the West to test its new weapons and do so not at a firing range, but in Ukraine and on the Ukrainians.

All of that shows that the Anglo-Saxons are catalysing the Ukraine crisis and contributing to its escalation. They cannot be stopped by the loss of civilian lives and enormous losses of Ukrainian troops. The American and British generals find it easy to wage a war sacrificing people that are not their own. Clearly, they don’t care about Ukraine. They have only one thing on their minds which is the “strategic defeat” of Russia.

In the early hours of July 17, the Crimean Bridge was targeted by another terrorist attack with the use of two Ukrainian water surface drones. Civilians Alexey and Natalya Kulik died in the attack, and their 14-year-old daughter Angelina was seriously wounded.

I have a word or two to say about the international community and Kiev’s reaction to that. Just think of it: Kiev proudly recognised the involvement of the Ukrainian special services in this attack. Did you see the reaction of the public, which is afflicted with Nazism? They suggested that the wounded girl, who witnessed the death of her parents and who found herself covered with the wreckage of the car and the bodies of her mother and father, come to Azovets camp for children. They openly mocked Angelina, invited her to “come over and spend her vacation with them” and even told her they would find her “normal,” as they think, parents, from among Ukrainian Nazis.

We are not surprised. And not even shocked after all we had seen before. We’ve been talking about this for years, decades. We urge the international community to take a look at those who the West raised and now armed and ideologically prepped to follow in the footsteps of the organisations that have been banned in Russia, such as ISIS and Al-Qaeda, to name a few.

The reaction to this brutal murder by this supposedly children’s institution is a separate matter. It is no secret that Ukraine has created a system for educating minors in the spirit of the Hitler Youth, including the pro-Nazi camps operated by the nationalist battalions where children are taught to handle weapons and hate people of other ethnicities. These camps are used to promote exceptionalism of the Ukrainian nation and teach children to take joy in the killing of Russians, including civilians. Just killing Russians no matter who they are. This is another aspect of the Kiev regime’s Nazi nature.

Just look at the response of the international community. Nobody noticed the attack, killed civilians and a girl who went through hell on Earth. This family was simply driving on the bridge. As a refresher, usually the West makes loud information campaigns of much less horrible and tragic stories but only if these images service its ideology. If something does not fit in into their philosophy, they are not interested in the fates of children. They are interested only if it helps them lash out at Russia once again – invent a myth, a fake story or an excuse to discuss and denounce the event in question. If there is an opportunity to simply express sympathy and say that this must not be done because civilians are killed and children are suffering, the West has no feelings or emotions. It is cold-blooded and even disgusted because these are not the “right” children. They are not “exceptional,” they don’t belong to “the wonderful garden,” to the “white swans” as the Western elites. It is a disaster for humanity when a vast number of people (political and public figures and journalists) behave like that at the time when they should display sympathy.

On July 16 of this year, Spokesman for the Air Force Command of the Ukrainian Armed Forces Yury Ignat said that Kiev was deliberately deploying air defence systems near its residential districts. We heard similar admissions on the sidelines of the NATO summit when Ukrainian representatives were saying such things, apparently in an attempt to toady to the West. Now we heard a new admission. He said that in their current condition, these systems cannot operate away from residential areas. In effect, he confirmed that Ukrainian militants are deliberately hiding behind civilians, using the practices of terrorist groups.

I would like to say a few words about the Kiev regime’s attitude to the Crimean Peninsula. Kiev just cannot give up its illusory hope of returning Crimea to Ukraine and continues drafting plans for what it calls “its further development.” To enhance the economic appeal of the peninsula, it suggests cultivating narcotic plants there on a scale that would make it possible to launch full-scale production of narcotic drugs and their exports to other countries.

A few words about economic development and profit. Crimea has fantastic tourism and resort potential. We saw with our own eyes in what shape Crimea was in 2014. Why didn’t the Kiev rulers consider it necessary to derive benefits from Crimea’s natural riches – its nature, geography and climate? Why didn’t they do anything? Why didn’t they build airports, new roads and tourism infrastructure? Why didn’t they develop anything? Because they were engaged in “creeping genocide.” They wanted to do at least something to impede the development of the territories inhabited by Russian speakers that associate themselves with the history, culture and legacy of Russia. They did everything they could to make this territory suffer. When they saw, starting in 2014 when the Crimeans expressed their will, that the island received a new lease of life and began to breathe freely, it gave them a fit of inhuman anger. How come these people are getting the opportunity to make use of everything they have (their land and resort potential)?

Simultaneously, the Zelensky regime still plans to clear out people alien to Ukraine, primarily, Russians, from Crimea. They want to subject them to mass repression and deportation. The figures cited range between a million and 800,000. “Native” Ukrainians will be blacklisted, first of all, Crimea residents who “collaborated with the Russian authorities.”

Unlawfulness, reprisals and marijuana fields is the future which the Ukrainian neo-Nazis and their ideological masterminds in the West who are behind their policy have prepared for Crimea. Do you think I am telling you fairytales? Everything we talked about, including drug legalisation, has already become a reality in Ukraine. Three, four, five, six, seven, even eight years ago, not only did we foresee the direction in which Europeanisation was taking Ukraine but we analysed and forecasted it, they laughed at us and said that this was all propaganda and a lie. Will you call this a lie? Everything has come true. Fortunately, the peninsula is being protected by the Russian armed forces. I want to remind you that before Crimea reunited with Russia in 2014, the atmosphere reigning there was one of complete neglect and unwillingness on the part of the Kiev regime to help this region develop. The official Kiev authorities looked at it as their territory, however, they saw no need to develop it. Later, former Ukrainian President Petr Poroshenko expressed this logic as he was speaking about Donbass residents. He said that all of them would suffer and live in cellars while those who pledged allegiance to the Kiev authorities installed by the West would prosper. The same calls were heard high and low in Crimea. During these years a giant breakthrough has been made, with highways laid across the peninsula, hotels and health resorts restored and repaired, a new airport built in Simferopol and the unique Crimean Bridge was built, a bridge which the Kiev regime believed could never be built. All this existed in “Moscow’s imagination.” Russia did this to develop the economy and tourism in Crimea.

Ukraine can only destroy, but not the country Ukraine, which is destroyed itself, but the Kiev regime. This was proved again on July 17 this year by the attack on the Crimean Bridge – a strictly civilian facility. And just a couple of days later, on July 19, as Chief of the Ukrainian Defence Ministry’s Main Directorate of Intelligence (MDI) Kirill Budanov admitted, the MDI and the Armed Forces of Ukraine started a big fire in Crimea’s Kirov District, which led to the closure of the Taurida motorway. They reported on the work done. As they say, they “are dealing strikes on their own.” Make up your mind on Bankova Street – what is your attitude towards Crimea? Do you treat it as someone else’s territory? But don’t you claim it as yours, as it were? It’s wrong that you treat “your own” like that. Or do you intend to continue your “creeping genocide” in this land? I think the second assumption is correct. This is obvious. Terrorist methods have become routine for the Kiev regime and the most odious terrorists in world history would envy the scale of it.

One more issue related to the horrors perpetrated by the regime. Kiev continues bullying priests at the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC). Viceroy of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra Metropolitan Pavel was put in a pre-trial detention centre last week despite having a serious disease. In fact, this action is tantamount to torture.

He could be released on bail, a prohibitive 33 million hryvnias (almost 80 million roubles) during the investigation, but only a global oligarch could afford to pay this. Moreover, the authorities did not even let his sympathisers help him. The account for donations to pay the bail was blocked.

Here’s an indicative comparison which is telling and should be remembered. Bail for a criminal accused of selling small children for organ trade in the Trans-Carpathian District amounts to… how much do you think? It is 1 million hryvnias, or 33 times less than for the priest. Can you imagine this? A pedophile or a man who is even worse, who sold children for organs (although both are horrible) could be released on bail of 1 million hryvnias. What do you think happened to the child abuser? The bail was paid with ease and the offender accused of this grievous crime has long been released, free to look for new victims. But the bail for Metropolitan Pavel is 33 million hryvnias. This 33 million is 30 pieces of silver. Surprising but true. This is further evidence of the Satanist nature of the Kiev regime. This suggests an allusion to the Biblical story of how Christ was crucified and the murderer Barabbas was released. This is how history repeats itself.

Accusations and bullying against a hierarch of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church is yet further evidence of the large-scale violations of human rights and freedom of religion, using the universally accepted terms of international law. In simple, human terms, this is an absolute outrage, lawlessness and certainly Satanism.

Where is the West with its annual reports and accusations against those who persecute representatives of different religious confessions? It would seem that they have a chance to make a statement. But nothing is said. They don’t see, hear or notice anything.

We do not rule out that the prosecution of Orthodox clergy is part of Kiev’s campaign to steal and send to the West Ukrainian cultural valuables and relics. Many of them are kept in the churches and monasteries of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, including the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra. Metropolitan Pavel was an obstacle to these plans.

Let me remind you that 16 unique items from the Bogdan and Varvara Khanenko Kiev National Museum of Arts are already in France. We have talked about this. The French media have announced art exhibitions of another seven Ukrainian museums. Do you think their display items will be brought back to Ukraine? Certainly not. According to Deputy Director of the Khanenko Museum Yelena Zhivkova, “Ukraine’s goal is to transfer as many items as possible to the museums of Poland, Germany, Lithuania and France.” Why are you surprised? After all, it is the West that brought us the Vladimir Zelensky government and all those whom they “appointed” to administrative positions. This is the price, this is the order. They are carrying it out. Land, Ukrainian black soil has already been brought there. Now came the turn of art pieces and religious artifacts.

Last week, the Armed Forces of Ukraine continued shelling civilian facilities in the residential areas of the new regions of Russia. This is further evidence that the regime has long been treating their residents not as its own compatriots but as its worst enemies and is trying to clear the territory of their presence in the direct meaning of this word.

On July 14-15 of this year, residential areas of the city of Alyoshki in the Kherson Region were subjected to shelling several times. Incendiary ammunition was used. Four houses and civilian transport were destroyed. The media published videos depicting how on July 14 Ukrainian militants shot a car with civilians near the city of Ugledar. They tried to conceal the traces of their crime and pushed the car with killed people away from the road. Where is everyone? Where is the UN Secretariat that so attentively watched the trajectory of the flight of a North Korean missile? According to the Secretariat, this missile fell in the special economic zone of our country. We are officially publishing this information. A good reason for the UN Secretariat to start investigating this incident.

The Armed Forces of Ukraine launched an artillery strike against the Kuibyshev District of Donetsk, staring a fire in a residential building. There are children among the injured. A woman died of wounds after the militants shelled the Chervonogvardeisky District of Makeyevka.

These are just several facts from a list of crimes committed by the Armed Forces of Ukraine in several days. The Investigative Committee of Russia is probing all attacks against civilians by Ukrainian nationalists. The criminals cannot evade punishment.

The cited facts and everything that remains beyond the limits of public scrutiny confirm the continued importance of the goals of the special military operation to demilitarise and de-Nazify Ukraine, and remove from its territory the threats to the security of Russia and its citizens. It is clear now that this is also a threat to the security of Europe and the rest of the world. Don’t forget they are also shelling nuclear facilities.

EU-CELAC Summit

And now about the circus that the West is arranging together with the Kiev regime. They hired a clown and now they are having a show.

On July 17-18 of this year, Brussels hosted the first EU-CELAC Summit since 2015. Latin American countries had no small hopes that it would strengthen interregional cooperation in the interests of socio-economic development, and help Latin Americans overcome their urgent problems with assistance from their partners in different regions of the world, including the EU. I will recall that the West created many of these problems itself.

The discussion showed that the EU countries coercively conditioned approval of such decisions – just listen to this – on the readiness of Latin Americans “to denounce the Russian aggression.” They even tried to stage at the summit yet another pro-Ukrainian show with Vladimir Zelensky’s participation but this attempt failed because the Latin Americans hold a principled position. Somewhat later (according to Western newspapers), EU officials told Zelensky that his services would not be required.

The EU blackmailers continue this arms twisting. It wasn’t the first time (and unfortunately won’t be the last) that we saw how this had to be resisted by those Latin American countries that proceed from the inviolability of international law rather than loyalty to “the rules-based order.” Nobody has ever read these rules for the simple reason that they don’t exist. Those Latin American countries that support a political decision that takes into account the sides’ legitimate concerns (and didn’t sign onto any ultimatum demands) also came out against this outrage that the EU has been trying to stage, with Washington calling the tune.

The Latin American countries that are concerned over the use of cluster munitions also opposed being treated this way. They said with good reason that it was pointless to discuss the anti-Russia theme that was not on the agenda of the EU-CELAC dialogue.

We have talked more than once about the “forced Ukrainisation of international relations.” This theme is vital now. This is not about the Russia-Ukraine conflict but about the hybrid war unleashed by the West. The West is using Ukraine as a tool to influence our country. It is one thing to discuss essential issues (either a settlement of the crisis, or the reasons it emerged) and quite another to impose on others slogans in the form of ideas or memes that are turned into documents and the agenda for the West’s communication with partners in other parts of the world. Such slogans have no place in their dialogue.

Those who respect international law and elementary diplomatic ethics came up against the EU’s undisguised dictating and unseemly exploitation of the natural striving of all Latin Americans to strengthen CELAC and draft coordinated responses to a broad range of challenges facing the region. EU members were openly trying to set Russia and Latin America at loggerheads. Meanwhile, we are linked with Latin America by decades of friendship, cultural affinity and mutually beneficial cooperation.

There was no other goal in this dictating. What would have changed if some ideas about Ukraine had been reflected in some documents? Nothing would have changed on the battlefield or as regards illegal sanctions. Food security wouldn’t have been improved, either. Their goal is to use meetings with Latin Americans not for discussing ways of overcoming the crisis in Ukraine but in imposing on them the Western view and compelling Latin Americans to accept it. The goal is to set Russia and Latin America at loggerheads and create difficulties in their communication. In addition, they want to show that they can dictate and coerce. The West is truly proud of this.

This neocolonialist reluctance to listen to a different view prevented consensus on the final declaration that Brussels presented as an “approved” document and published on its website as such. The Foreign Minister of Nicaragua made an official statement on this (many other countries spoke about this as well).

As for Russian-Latin American ties, those who tried to sow strife between us have not succeeded and won’t succeed. We have good traditions of mutual sympathy and openness to equitable interaction and mutually beneficial dialogue. We proceed from universally accepted norms of international law, primarily mutual respect, consideration of each other’s interests and understanding of modern global realities. All of these traditions will only continue growing stronger.

Foreign Ministry’s report on the violation of children’s rights in the international adoption process in the United States

On July 12, 2023, the Foreign Ministry published a report on the violation of children’s rights in the international adoption process in the United States. It is available in English.

For many years now, the sphere of international adoption in the United States has been non-transparent, corrupt, resource intensive and not protected against neocolonial political considerations. Here is what this means. The United States has routinely violated the essential rights of the child, and there have been repeated and recorded cases of child abuse. At the same time, Washington has repeatedly refused to join the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Why so, if the US claims to care for children around the world? If this were true, it would have joined it. Just to remind you: the US is the only country that has not ratified that international document. The reason is that if it did, it would have had to put an end to empty talk and machinations and to start honouring the relevant commitments, which Washington is averse to.

The UN convention sets out the basic standards of the comprehensive protection of children’s rights. Washington has also repeatedly refused to sign relevant bilateral agreements with the origin countries of children. It has refused to assume any obligations because of its “exceptionalism.” The US believes that it alone can be the “geographical site” of lawmaking in this sphere and the only one to formulate rules and the only one with the right to monitor compliance with them. They think that nobody else has the right to do this. It has nothing in common with international law. It is wholesale arbitrariness.

Children from Russia often became victims of American adoptive parents. Just to remind you: until January 1, 2013, Russia was the leading origin country of European children adopted by American citizens. We pointed out many times that race is an important factor for Americans. Would-be adoptive parents asked for – sorry, but I have to quote them – “white children.”

We remember the horrible cases of ill-treatment and abuse of underage children adopted from Russia. There were also grave crimes such as murder, rape and bodily harm. Children were left alone in dangerous circumstances, with fatal results. The number of adoptions of Russian children by same-sex families and transfers of parental rights was increasing. The transfer of parental rights was actually resale, because adoptive parents received benefits in the United States. The relevant US agencies often disregard their obligations, and the US Department of State covers up their inaction.

It is interesting that when we held talks on these issues back then, calling on the United States to respect at least some legal norms, they said that the State Department was not to blame and that it was the responsibility of local governments, which make the decisions on the form of adoption and on monitoring compliance with adoption rules. It is local governments that can approve or deny representatives of the origin country access to adoptive families and adopted children.

You probably remember that the Commissioner for Children’s Rights under the President of Russia and the Foreign Ministry Commissioner for Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law joined forces to gain access to children in the notorious Ranch for Kids. They were denied access, and nobody can tell what happened to children there.

The US Department of State is covering up the situation in the sphere of international adoption. It does this very simply, by hushing up numerous high-profile violations of US criminal, administrative, migration and social laws during the adoption of Russian children. There is more to it.

The US authorities, acting contrary to international law and the bilateral Russian-US Consular Convention (1964), withheld forensic documents in cases of crimes against adopted children from Russia and denied consular access to underage victims of physical or sexual violence. They disregarded relevant requests from concerned Russian bodies, including the Prosecutor General’s Office and the Investigative Committee, and many times lowered adoption standards for American adoptive parents.

Do you remember how American “parents” placed their adopted Russian child on board a plane and “sent him back to his grandfather.” It could have made sense if they had warned the “grandfather.” But they just put him on the plane unattended and told him to go back to Russia, even though there is the Russian Embassy in the United States, Russian consulates and a large number of NGOs and civil society representatives who would have risen to the occasion and would at least have provided company for the child. This shows the standards of international adoption in the United States and the level of their irresponsibility and unaccountability.

This is why we banned the adoption of Russian children by American citizens on January 1, 2013. Following that, they moved their attention to Ukraine and other post-Soviet countries, which they regard as the new sources of the international adoption of children, predominantly children of European origin. They have a special term for them, “white Caucasian.” So much for the lives and skin colour that matter.

When the Russian Federation had to start the special military operation to demilitarise and de-Nazify Ukraine and to protect Donbass, the issue of the adoption of Ukrainian children by American parents became especially poignant. The US administration regards Ukraine as one of the main sources of the international adoption of children, predominantly children of Slavic origin.

You understand that these children are not just hostages but victims. There is a special adoption procedure, and nobody will ever know what will happen to them after their adoption. We have seen all this before. We worked for years to learn what happened to the children who were adopted in the 1990s. Where are they? Are they adults now? What are their lives like now? What do they need? Do they need our support and assistance? We received no answers. We got no information at all. We tried to monitor the well-being of children adopted in the 2000s. We just wanted to know if such children remained alive after adoption by an American family. Even that often turned out to be impossible. As for the children who the Americans are removing from Ukraine now, you can only feel sorry for them.

Information about all these negative elements, including numerous facts and statistics, is available in the Foreign Ministry’s report. I would like to repeat that they concern systemic drawbacks rather than individual errors. This is how the adoption system works in the United States, where children’s rights are not protected appropriately. Neither the adoptive parents, nor the US legal system nor American public organisations can guarantee the protection of children’s rights and interests in accordance with international standards. The United States’ efforts to pose as one of the main defenders of children’s rights on the international stage have not been supported by the relevant domestic legislation or law enforcement practice. Washington has little to show in this sphere.

We are convinced that the US system of protecting children’s rights is ineffective, corrupt and needs to be not only reformed but also controlled by the international community.

I once again strongly recommend that you read the report.

Washington’s double standards in internet regulation

Another issue in which the United States considers itself a pioneer is freedom of speech.

We have taken note of yet another indication that US intelligence services gravely violate rights and freedoms on the internet. According to a US House of Representatives report of July 2023, the FBI, prompted by the Kiev regime, forced Meta and Google to block the accounts of users who allegedly promoted Russian propaganda that is, had pro-Russia views. Notably, both US citizens and, ridiculously, the US State Department’s Russian-language page took the rap. As the saying goes, when you investigate, the most important thing is not to identify yourself as a culprit. The United States manages to do this on a regular basis.

The incident is yet another example of double standards: lecturing the rest of the world on freedom of speech, including online, the United States was once again caught practising censorship. Moreover, censoring their own citizens constitutes a breach of US laws, the notorious First Amendment to the US Constitution. Now Joe Biden’s administration is contesting the recent court injunction prohibiting the authorities from interfering with social media activity. And it is understandable. The White House has a mortal fear of losing these levers of control over public opinion.

This is worse than censorship. Every country develops its own customs: sometimes the professional community exercises censorship. For example, public activists, representatives of different occupations (journalists, human rights activists, lawyers, etc.) censor extensively or selectively, based on clear laws. Here we see a remarkable mix of the Kiev regime’s influence and the US intelligence services’ jobs. It is beyond censorship. It is dictatorship, which is significantly worse.

The story is also symptomatic of American IT giants’ lack of independence. Despite their advertised status of transnational corporations that used to prohibit themselves from imposing any sort of restrictions running counter to the freedom of speech, pluralism and other values declared in the US, Meta and Google are now willing to forsake both market and ethnical principles in favour of the deep state, the US Government. It is not a secret that these corporations and their fellow tech companies like Apple and Microsoft serve, without protest, Washington’s ideology and actively help intelligence services by engaging in what their own US laws define as unlawful activity. We urge all users of the above companies’ products to remember this and to understand who controls Silicon Valley.

In this context, the rhetoric of the United States and its satellites protecting a business-centric internet regulation model sounds particularly ridiculous. What business? Businesses have been brought to heel by US intelligence. The goal is simple: by proxy of obedient IT corporations, Washington is striving to take over the entire ICT industry.

Meanwhile, Russia and most developing countries speak at specialised multilateral platforms in support of building a transparent intergovernmental system for global network regulation that would guarantee genuine equality (including in the eyes of the law). It is particularly relevant for countries without their own major IT corporations.

Biased publications in the Bosnian and Herzegovinian media on the Srebrenica tragedy

We have taken note of an aggressive information campaign launched in the Bosnian and Herzegovinian media on the 28th anniversary of the Srebrenica tragedy (July 11, 2023). This time, the campaign specifically targeted our country. We consider the free rendering of Russia’s stance on this matter as intentional provocation by the Western sponsors of these sort of publications.

By way of a reminder, Russia calls for an objective investigation into illegal actions against all ethnic groups in the Balkans, including Bosniaks, Serbs and Croats. The guilty parties must carry the punishment they deserve regardless of their ethnicity or faith. The demonisation of the Serbs as a “genocidal” nation is unacceptable, runs contrary to international law and will not facilitate a true interethnic reconciliation.

Once again, we insist that the events pertaining to the conflict of 1992–1995 be assessed not by politicians but by historians. Politicising these issues only aggravates inter-ethnic tensions and will not help peacebuilding and security in the region.

Unveiling a monument to Red Army soldiers who perished in Raca during World War II

On July 4, a monument to Red Army soldiers who perished during WWII was unveiled in Raca in the Republika Srpska (Bosnia and Herzegovina). Local officials and representatives of the Russian Embassy attended the ceremony that was widely covered by regional media.

We welcome this event as evidence of respect for our shared past and confirmation of firm traditions of cultural and spiritual solidarity and common positions in the struggle against the falsification of history. We are grateful to municipal authorities and concerned citizens who carefully preserve the memory of our heroes who liberated the Balkans from Nazi invaders. We praise the Serbian people’s unfailing attention to and genuine care about Russian war memorials.

The 80th anniversary of the Battle of Kursk

The Battle of Kursk, one of the most crucial events of the Great Patriotic War, raged from July 5 to August 23, 1943. During the battle, the Red Army aimed to stave off a major enemy offensive and to defeat the main German forces. This became a key battle of the Great Patriotic War in terms of its scale, the number of forces and resources involved and the military-political consequences. The battle tipped the scales of the war, a process that began following the Battle of Stalingrad, and the Red Army seized the strategic initiative.

The 900,000-strong Nazi formation, deployed near the Kursk Bulge, faced three Red Army fronts, specifically, the Central Front (Army General Konstantin Rokossovsky commanding), the Steppe Front (Colonel General Ivan Konev commanding) and the Voronezh Front (Army General Nikolai Vatutin commanding). During the battle, on July 11-12, 1943, the greatest tank engagement in history took place near the town of Prokhorovka.

The heroism and courage of the Soviet soldiers and the professionalism of their top commanders enabled the Red Army to thwart the Nazi offensive, called Operation Citadel (Unternehmen Zitadelle) and to launch a large-scale counteroffensive during the Kutuzov strategic offensive operation aimed at liberating Oryol and Belgorod. Both cities were liberated on August 5, 1943, with Moscow hosting the first festive gun salute on this occasion.

Kharkov was liberated on August 23, 1943, ending the Battle of Kursk. Following the abortive Operation Citadel, the Wehrmacht’s high command realised that Germany faced inevitable defeat. Hitler’s European satellites became more nervous, and they started frantically searching for ways of withdrawing from the war. In early July, the allies landed in Sicily, and Italy, the staunchest ally of Berlin, withdrew its support for the Third Reich in September 1943. The defeat of German forces near Kursk hastened the opening of the Second Front.

Russia marks August 23 as the Day of Soviet forces’ Victory over Nazi troops in the Battle of Kursk of 1943 under Federal Law No 32-FZ of March 13, 1995 Days of Military Glory (Victorious Days) of Russia.

I would like to finish this section with a quote from Marshal of the Soviet Union Alexander Vasilevsky who took part in the Battle of Kursk. Here is what he said: “While recalling the battle on the Kursk Bulge, people show respect and gratitude to their heroic army that performed a great patriotic feat. No distorters of history will ever be able to erase this feat from the memory of the world’s nations.” We are convinced that today, 80 years after the end of the Battle of Kursk, when Nazism has reasserted itself on the territory of Ukraine, these words are more relevant than ever and should serve as a call to action.

The Days of Russian Spiritual Culture in Ethiopia

From June 28 to July 3, 2023, Addis Ababa hosted the Days of Russian Spiritual Culture in Ethiopia. This heralds an incipient cycle of events marking the upcoming 225th birth anniversary of Alexander Pushkin, under the auspices of the Russian Ministry of Culture.

The main events, including a roundtable discussion on preserving the spiritual-cultural heritage of both countries, took place in the capital of Ethiopia at the Russian Science and Culture Centre where a photo exhibition of the Kizhi Museum-Reserve opened.

In his welcoming remarks, Yevgeny Terekhin, the Ambassador of Russia to Addis Ababa, noted that more intensive cultural-humanitarian and scientific interaction was a key aspect of strengthening the diverse Russian-Ethiopian partnership. It was noted that both Russia and Ethiopia highly valued the cultural and spiritual ties between their peoples and countries, which have profound historical roots.

Representatives of government agencies, academic-and-education community, heads of cultural institutions and specialised experts from Russia and Ethiopia, as well as the Russian Orthodox Church and the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, took part in the events. Reporters from three major Ethiopian information agencies, including Fana Broadcasting Corporate, the Walta Information Centre and the Ethiopian News Agency, covered these cultural events.

The Days of Russian Spiritual Culture became an important event in this country’s public and political life, providing a powerful impetus to the expansion of bilateral cultural and humanitarian ties and cooperation.

Russia’s participation in the international philatelic exhibition NITRAFILA 2023

On July 3-7, 2023, the city of Nitra, Slovakia, hosted the international philatelic exhibition NITRAFILA 2023, marking the 1160th anniversary of the creation of the Slavic script by Saints Cyril and Methodius Equal to the Apostles. Organisations and representatives from Slavic and other European states took part in the event.

Russia’s Marka (Stamp) helped set up stands showcasing stamps and other postal products. These stands became an important element of the exhibition. Visitors could see images of Saints Cyril and Methodius, the first Slavic enlighteners, and Ivan Fyodorov who pioneered the Russian printing industry. They were able to trace the history of Russian literature that also owes its existence to Saints Cyril and Methodius. The exhibition also featured postal miniatures in the Literary Russia series, dedicated to prominent Russian writers and poets Alexander Pushkin, Leo Tolstoy, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Ivan Turgenev, Anton Chekhov, Alexander Kuprin, Ivan Bunin, Anna Akhmatova and others.

Russian stands stole the limelight and were highly praised by the organisers. The peoples of Russia and Slovakia continue to jointly cherish the legacy of the Thessaloniki (Soluni) Brothers.

National holiday in the Republic of Colombia

On July 20, 2023, the Colombian people, with whom we historically share close friendship and multifaceted cooperation, mark their national holiday, Independence Day. On this day in 1810, Bogota set out on the path of liberation from colonial dependence.

In Russia, Colombia is known as a country with a rich history where traditions and national identity are carefully preserved; a country that stands for progress while adamantly protecting its sovereignty and right to independent development.

We value the constructive, self-reliant nature of relations between the two states, their readiness to maintain an open and trustful dialogue, and to strengthen mutually beneficial ties in trade, energy, industry and the cultural and educational spheres. We welcome the interest of the Colombian people in Russian literature and culture and in receiving education in Russia.

We are united by similar approaches to building a just, multipolar, democratic and safe international order, based on the principles of international law and adherence to a collective search for solutions to global challenges and threats. Being a permanent member of the UN Security Council, Russia will continue its active participation in international efforts to facilitate the peace process in Colombia.

We are confident that the time-tested relations between Russia and Colombia will continue to develop fruitfully in the interests of both states. We wish the friendly Colombian people peace, unity, prosperity, wellbeing and success.

Festival of Latin American and Caribbean culture in Moscow

On July 21-30, 2023, Moscow hosts the annual Festival of Latin American and Caribbean Culture. It is organised by the Moscow Government. These countries’ embassies in Moscow are providing active support.

The festival is aimed at familiarising Moscow residents and tourists with the unique and distinctive culture of the Latin American peoples. The festival will include various events, in particular, performances by dance and song ensembles, traditional fashion shows, workshops for adults and children and themed lectures devoted to the history and culture of the Latin American and Caribbean countries. Visitors will also be able to see spectacular and distinctive works by the region’s filmmakers.

This culture festival is a landmark event for Russian-Latin American cultural and humanitarian cooperation. The Foreign Ministry will take part in the opening ceremony.

We consider Latin America a friendly continent, with which Russia maintains a dynamic dialogue and productive cooperation, free of external interference.

To learn more about the festival events, go to the Moscow Government website.

Global Values international forum of young filmmakers

On July 21-24, Sevastopol will host the 3rd Global Values International Forum of Young Filmmakers. This year, the forum will bring together young creators from Russia, Greece, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Senegal, Slovakia and Uzbekistan.

The programme will include the screening of 17 short films devoted to acute issues in the contemporary world: protection of traditions, national identity, professional duty, patriotism, traditional family values, counteracting globalism and hegemony of certain countries. Following the competition, the best directors will receive awards.

The Global Values international forum aims to build mutually beneficial creative dialogue between the youth in Russia and foreign countries.

Answers to media questions:

Question: The other day, the EU announced a new initiative to create a special-purpose fund of 20 billion euros (in addition to the European Peace Facility) to support Ukraine’s armed forces over the next four years. What can you say about this initiative?

Maria Zakharova: We know from media reports that discussions to this end are being held within the EU, and this issue will be discussed at the next ministerial meeting of the Council of the European Union. If they adopt this reckless decision, it will mean continued massive investment in drawing out the hostilities in Ukraine. On the other hand, they claim, that this is their goal. The EU and its member countries have already spent 15 billion euros on arms supplies to Ukraine. Had they added a little more money to that amount, they could have paid off the US national debt. Everyone would be pleased to see them pull the United States out of the debt pit. However, this money is being spent on military equipment, which the Ukrainian army is using to kill civilians and to destroy civilian infrastructure on a daily basis. The EU has allocated these funds through bilateral channels and the European Peace Facility, which is rather a war facility.

Without a doubt, this kind of policy pursued by the current EU leadership has nothing to do with concern for security or stability in Europe. It is just in-your-face cynicism. What we are witnessing is a terrible reality that is entirely detached from morality where European “strategists” who have lost their minds to their militaristic ambitions, like the head of European diplomacy Josep Borrell, are trying to force EU citizens to pay out of their own pockets for four more years of bloodshed. The EU does not even think about making funds available to developing countries in need even though it keeps talking about food security, in particular. Is there anything simpler than that? If you want to save the world from food shortages and make agricultural products available to those in need, use this money to buy food, cover transport and insurance costs and deliver it.

All this reaffirms the fact that the EU sees Ukraine and its people exclusively as a testing range for waging a hybrid war against Russia. Hegemonic geopolitical ambitions are the attributes of neo-imperialism, and private companies are the ones to derive profits from this reckless adventure and arms supplies. All of that has been declared “new values,” and the EU is clearly acting as a keeper. The environmental fallout of these actions cannot be assessed even though, like food security, the environment appears to be high on the list of EU priorities. This is a greater effort than inviting Greta Thunberg to speak at a conference. Here, you need to sit down with a pen and paper and run the numbers to see how much of the 15 billion was spent on destroying the region’s systems and how much it will cost to rebuild it. At the same time, they are not analysing how the weapons that are now being supplied en masse to the black market will be used. The issue is about illegal weapons, because many shipments don’t even make it to Kiev, much less the battlefields. They end up in the hands of dealers and then fall into the hands of terrorists and extremists. This will exacerbate the terrorist and extremist threat on the continent. We are witnessing the EU’s complete departure from its foundational principles, the Eurointegration project. They have gone back on everything: business has been put under control; freedom of speech is nonexistent; and corruption is running wild. Everything that is dressed up as values is not respected, and anti-values have been put on a pedestal. All of that kind of fizzled out.

It’s not hard to foretell that the East European states, particularly Poland and the Baltic States, which are particularly interested in obtaining EU subsidies, will try to profit from the conflict by providing inflated invoices for obsolete and decommissioned weapons that they are supplying to Ukraine. We are well aware of these grey “democratic” schemes in the EU countries. We and even the Western media have mentioned this on many occasions just like the push to use the hostilities in Ukraine to maximise defence industry companies’ profits.

New deliveries of heavy and long-range weapons, cluster munitions, and depleted uranium shells will be a weighty factor in proving the EU and its member states’ involvement in the conflict.

Not long ago, I gave an interview to a foreign media outlet in the run-up to the NATO summit. They wanted to know whether NATO and its member states are parties to the conflict. How does Russia qualify this? How can we qualify this if money, weapons, instructors, intelligence, political support are not just provided, but are planned to be provided for years ahead. This can only be qualified as direct involvement. Perhaps, political scientists or lawyers should provide a qualification of the difference between direct and indirect involvement. In this case, we can back it up with the facts: these actions qualify the West’s and, in particular, the EU’s activities as a hybrid war against our country.

Especially so, if the weapons and military equipment that the Western curators are making available to Kiev are to be used against civilians, civilian infrastructure and the territory of the Russian Federation. One of the fundamental tenets of the use of weapons against civilians has been absolutely trampled upon by the European Union. Without a doubt, the shelling of the Crimean Bridge was made possible with aid and supplies provided by Western countries. Not just shelling attacks, but other acts of sabotage, terrorist attacks and acts of extremism as well.

Russia will make every effort to reliably ensure the territorial integrity and security of its citizens and to bring to justice everyone involved in committing war crimes and terrorist attacks against our country and its citizens.

We are often asked whether we have accurate data showing that a particular drone or a particular part of a shell was supplied by NATO or the EU countries. We do have such data. In addition, we have made public serial numbers, facts, and photographs. Most importantly, intelligence and targeting data are provided by Western operated satellites, intelligence equipment and instructors. In reality, these people are behind the Kiev regime and have been planted there by Western countries. What is there to discuss? The Western countries are directly responsible for all Kiev’s criminal activities.

Question: President of Türkiye Recep Tayyip Erdogan recently said that Russia would withdraw from Nagorno-Karabakh in 2025, as stipulated by trilateral agreements between Moscow, Yerevan and Baku. Can you comment on this statement?

Maria Zakharova: I would like to recall that Ankara is not a party to the Statement by the Leaders of Russia, Armenia and Azerbaijan of November 9, 2020. The Russian Peacekeeping Contingent was deployed in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict zone precisely under this document. Moreover, this document alone clearly sets forth deadlines for deploying the contingent in the region and the parameters for extending its stay for another five years.

Russian peacekeepers continue to fulfil an important stabilising role in Nagorno-Karabakh. Their main function is to enforce the ceasefire regime and that for ending hostilities. The contingent’s activities remain in high demand at this time of persisting regional tensions. Efforts to maintain peace in the South Caucasus meet the interests of Azerbaijan and Armenia, as well as other regional nations, including Türkiye. In this connection, we would like to note our well-coordinated collaboration with our Turkish partners within the framework of the Joint Russia- Türkiye Centre in the Agdam District.

Question: Could you comment on the refusal by the European Court of Human Rights to review a Russian application with regard to Ukraine, submitted on July 22, 2021, citing the failure of Russian authorities to reply to multiple court inquiries?

Maria Zakharova: This is another “masterpiece” from the European Court of Human Rights. I cannot use the word “document” here. We should regard this “opus” as a collection of aphorisms demonstrating the extent of double standards that have become normal for the Council of Europe. This again confirms the correctness of Russia’s decision to exit this organisation.

As a reminder, in 2021 Russia submitted a huge amount of evidence highlighting the infringement on human rights by the Kiev regime. This included discrimination against the Russian-speaking population of Ukraine, systematic atrocities against Donbass residents, persecution of “pro-Russian” journalists and media outlets (this is what they were called in Ukraine). Add to this failure to investigate the tragedy in Odessa, murders on Kiev’s Independence Square and failure to close Ukrainian airspace that caused Flight MH-17 to crash, the water blockade of Crimea and other flagrant violations by the Kiev regime.

In 2021, it became obvious that the ECHR wants to sweep the undesirable application under the carpet and to pretend that they had seen or heard nothing. The Court turned down two Russian applications on stipulating temporary measures that would force the Kiev regime to honour the European Convention on Human Rights. In an effort to delay the process, the Court declined to append the Russian application to the cases already being reviewed by it, although it appended another slanderous Ukrainian application 12 months later.

Today, the ECHR does not even have to conceal the fact that it is pandering to Kiev. The Court declined to analyse gross human rights violations by Euromaidan authorities in Kiev because it did not receive a Russian reply to its letters! By the way, this does not prevent the Court from rubberstamping hundreds of anti-Russia decisions. This is absurd, and it reminds one of Nikolay Gogol’s play “The Inspector-General”. The Court ought to start reviewing the Russian application because Article 37 of the European Convention on Human Rights states expressly: “However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.” According to the ECHR, this does not apply to Ukraine because anyone can submit individual applications against the Kiev regime.

This incomprehensible formalism has reached the point of absurdity. If Donbass residents and everyone else defended by Russia were able to obtain justice in Ukrainian courts or in Strasbourg, then Russia would not have to file an application with multi-volume addenda. Where are the so-called high EU standards?

I would like to ask the court separately why it continues to send its letters to some unspecified address via an online portal that Russia no longer uses, and which is purely voluntary for states? We now understand the motives for persistently ignoring our numerous notes stating that a diplomatic channel, specifically, the Russian Embassy in Paris, is the only way of communicating with Moscow. I would like to confirm once again that our position on this issue remains unchanged.

Question: During a July 18 briefing in Chisinau on the outcome of the NATO summit in Vilnius, Secretary of State of the Moldovan Ministry of Foreign Affairs and European Integration Ruslan Bolbocean announced the authorities’ desire to step up political dialogue and practical interaction with the North Atlantic Alliance. He also mentioned their interest in having access to the opportunities offered to NATO’s partner countries under various programmes and cooperation instruments. What can you say about such statements?

Maria Zakharova: We have expressed our concern over NATO’s provocative enlargement policy more than once, including attempts to draw Moldova into the alliance contrary to its neutral status enshrined in its Constitution.

We have taken note of Chisinau’s increasing interaction with Euro-Atlantic organisations, which the country’s current pro-Western forces in power are doing contrary to national interests and in disregard of the opinion of their own citizens. According to recent polls, over 60 percent of Moldovan citizens are against joining NATO. But the Moldovan regime, which is financed by NATO countries, has no regard whatsoever for the opinion of its citizens. NATO is forcing its will through those it has brought to power.

It is obvious that the Moldovan people, who, unlike their current government, have a traditionally friendly attitude to Russia, are fully aware of NATO’s aggressive nature and understand that the situation in neighbouring Ukraine was largely provoked by the bloc’s reckless enlargement plans. Evidence of this is the absence of a positive agenda, creative experience or solutions to global issues.

In this context, it would be reasonable to remind you of the long list of aggressions and the destruction of the states where NATO tried to spread “democracy,” such as Yugoslavia, Libya, Iraq and Syria. Regrettably, the list goes on and on. I have only mentioned the countries that have suffered a fatal blow at their statehood, in one way or another. Many of them ceased to exist as states or have only preserved this status nominally because they have been divided and are unable to restore the natural status of their governments and domestic life after NATO’s “blows,” both military and political ones. There are many states and areas around the world where NATO did not act intellectually or strategically, where they used non-military instruments, from subversions to regime change, to serve their own interests by interfering in others’ internal affairs. You will need a big brush and a lot of paint to mark these sites on a world map.

I doubt that Moldovans want their country to be turned into another area of geopolitical confrontation through the implementation of various “partner formats.” Nobody wants this. People in Moldova want to work, live and develop. They don’t want to be involved in a conflict or become a reason for or an instrument of a conflict, which is the future NATO obviously has in mind for Moldova.

We hope that the Moldovan political elite will catch on to the truth that rapprochement with NATO won’t strengthen their country’s security but will lead to a complete loss of sovereignty.

Question: At a meeting with Chinese Minister of National Defence Li Shangfu on July 18, former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said that “neither the United States nor China can afford to treat the other as an adversary”. Why, do you think, Washington believes it can afford to treat Moscow as an adversary?

Maria Zakharova: First, let me remind you that Mr Kissinger is not a public official, but an elder of international relations. He expressed an engaging point of view as an expert who has been in this field for a long time. He can change his opinion at will which is important. We have seen him do so on multiple occasions.

Second, he is not just believed to be, but is an expert in the subtle interactions that occur within the Moscow-Beijing-Washington triangle which can be seen, in particular, from his book White House Years published in 1979. It shows the philosophy which he clearly adhered to when he said that in the intricate trilateral entanglement of contacts.... the United States is improving relations with each side, thereby increasing its capabilities. Later in the text, he put it even more bluntly saying that America’s relations with potential adversaries must be better than the adversaries’ relations with each other. There’s the answer to your question. Call it duplicity or American-style democracy embodied in their foreign policy.

In line with this precept articulated almost half a century ago, over the past 18 months, the former Secretary of State has been providing relatively balanced assessments of the developments surrounding the Ukraine crisis to the media and in his articles. For example, in The Wall Street Journal edition of August 13, 2022 he predicted that America was on the brink of war with Russia and China because of issues created by the United States itself. He believes Washington has no idea how this will end or where it should lead. At the Davos forum in January 2023, Kissinger put forward peace initiatives, albeit non-starters, and said differences should be resolved at the negotiating table.

Regretfully, lately he has been going back on his proposals and ideas and acting not as a balanced diplomat and intellectual of high standing, but merely relaying the viewpoint of the Washington establishment at the helm. These forces continue to insist that they have no peace plan for our region, and they advocate unspecified strategic strikes (meaning the strategic defeat of Russia – political and economic defeat, defeat on the battlefield, and so on). We have heard other, more down-to-earth phrases like “kill as many Russians as possible,” “destroy Russia, dismember it, and put it in a state of total dependence,” and the like.

What is there to say? If this US diplomat with a wealth of life and professional experience continues to devolve into a kind of “radio station” from which he is not sharing his own ideas, but rather relaying ideas that someone is suggesting to him, we will be sorry to see another thinking person go, given the existing shortage of intellectuals. If he can muster the strength to share interesting ideas that may not be accepted by all the parties involved, but are based on political science, facts, knowledge of history, and analysis, i.e. on professionalism, it will be interesting to read more of what he has to offer.

I think that Chinese leaders are well aware of it. They have no illusions. They are realists. We have no doubt that close cooperation with Russia is in China’s national interests. Frankly, I see no alternative to it, given that the United States has repeatedly let down its closest partners. The desire to pit Beijing against Moscow is so obvious that even Washington is not hiding it.

Question: Austrian Chancellor Karl Nehammer has supported a peace initiative for Ukraine proposed by President of Brazil Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. This is notable, considering that Austria is an EU member. According to the Brazilian plan, the international community should recognise Crimea as part of Russia. Do you think this idea could gain popularity in Europe or the Non-Aligned Movement?

Maria Zakharova: We appreciate the efforts of those who are sincerely trying to find a solution to this global problem. We are grateful to our Brazilian partners, who are really trying to formulate proposals for a peaceful settlement of the Ukrainian crisis. We see that Brazil has consistently advocated respect for the objective security concerns of all parties. But as far as I know, they have not yet finalised the parameters of their peace initiative.

The statement by Austrian Chancellor Karl Nehammer on supporting the Brazilian peace initiative is a positive sign. It shows that the Austrians are gradually coming to see the importance of a peaceful solution based on realistic plans rather than on Vladimir Zelensky’s unsustainable take-it-or-leave-it “peace formulas.”

On the other hand, there is an obvious contradiction in Austria’s stance. Austria is fuelling the escalation of the conflict by advocating pro-Kiev approaches, abandoning its traditional neutrality and strictly following the EU’s policy, which includes large-scale military aid to Ukraine. Therefore, Austria’s support for the Brazilian peace initiative will only have credibility and sense if it begins to encourage Kiev to resume talks and consider peace, and stops approving weapons supplies and making aggressive statements. Regrettably, a number of them have been made with regard to Moscow.

I would like to remind all those who are waiting for our reaction to various peace initiatives and those who are preparing such initiatives, that it was Kiev who unilaterally walked out of the peace talks in April 2022. Several months later, in the autumn of 2022, the Ukrainian authorities formally banned any talks with Russia by decree. I believe that this is a key factor that should be taken into account.

Question: Tehran is not satisfied with Moscow’s explanation regarding the statement signed following the Russia-Gulf Cooperation Council ministerial meeting. Foreign Minister of the Islamic Republic of Iran Hossein Amir-Abdollahian said, when speaking on July 17, 2023 at a joint news conference with his Omani colleague: “We consider the explanations inadequate <…> We will never tolerate the repetition of such a procedure in the statements and interference in issues related to the territorial integrity of Iran.” As we know, he is referring to three islands in the Strait of Hormuz which Iran believes it owns. As was already said, Iran’s Foreign Ministry voiced their protest to Russian Ambassador Alexey Dedov. Will this dispute hinder the drafting of a treaty on strategic partnership between Russia and Iran?

Maria Zakharova: The results of the sixth round of the Russia-GCC strategic dialogue held on July 10, 2023 in Moscow were discussed during a telephone conversation between the foreign ministers of Russia and Iran on July 18. As the relevant press release said, the two foreign ministers reaffirmed their commitment to the fundamental principles of international law, formalised in the UN Charter, in their entirety and interdependence, including respect for the sovereignty of states and their territorial integrity.

The drafting of a new, major interstate treaty is underway. The parties confirm their interest in concluding the coordination process and signing this document as soon as possible.

Question: Deputy Foreign Minister Andrey Rudenko has confirmed Moscow’s readiness to hold a meeting between the foreign ministers of Azerbaijan, Armenia and the Russian Federation. Yerevan says that it has not received an invitation yet. A public dispute took place earlier between the foreign ministries of Russia and Azerbaijan. Against this backdrop, what are the chances of holding such a meeting in Moscow anytime soon?

Maria Zakharova: I think that the chances are good. As soon as we receive concrete information about the dates from experts who are coordinating the meeting, we will share it with you.

Question: A high-ranking European source told journalists in Brussels that the EU wants to hear from the UN on Russia’s possible conditions for resuming the grain deal, and then they will adopt decisions, including on their anti-Russia sanction policy. What does Russia think about the EU’s actions? How likely is it that Brussels will agree to the conditions that Moscow has set? If the likelihood is low, what is the main factor or obstacle preventing the EU from agreeing to them?

Maria Zakharova: This is what we have said many times: the EU has painted itself into a corner. You phrased the question based on the European Union’s position: “The EU wants to hear from the UN on Russia’s possible conditions for resuming the grain deal.” It is absurd to resort to mediators considering that the EU was the one that blocked contacts with Russia. We see the outcome of the policy that was – it is completely clear – imposed on the European Union by the United States. In the absence of the ability to follow a sovereign course, the EU, apparently, broke and is now reaping what it sowed. The EU needs somebody to tell it about Russia. Just think about it. With dozens of countries as members, countries that have embassies in Moscow; with a great number of diplomats, bureaucrats, officials and High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell, the EU needs a mediator to find out what Russia thinks.

What are the EU diplomats accredited in Moscow busy with? What are you doing if you cannot report Russia’s position on the Istanbul agreements to Brussels? What is the EU Representative Office doing? What are all of them doing?

This proves once again that they have reached an ideological deadlock. They are making futile attempts to convince the international community (and probably themselves) that the restrictions imposed by the European Union on the Russian agricultural industry are not destroying global food security.

Now they are starting to get worried. And to think that they are using a whole set of sanctions: a ban on exporting a wide range of agricultural equipment and components to Russia, an embargo on specific types of Russian fertilisers, personal sanctions against the owners and top managers of Russian fertiliser producers and exporters such as Uralchem, EuroChem, PhosAgro and Acron; the economic blockade of Crimea and Sevastopol, including their port infrastructure; disconnecting Russian banks from SWIFT, including Rosselkhozbank, which processes the exports of Russian agricultural products; numerous restrictions on providing financial, broker, insurance and transport services to Russian companies; restrictions on Russian commercial fleet movements. I have mentioned only part of the extensive sanctions imposed by the European Union against our country.

More than a year ago, we created a regularly updated section on the Foreign Ministry website called Busting European Union Myths where we expose, with facts, down to analysing each article of the respective EU regulatory framework, the EU’s targeted activity to undermine the international efforts on providing the countries in need with food and fertilisers. Individual exceptions from the anti-Russia sanction regimes that primarily serve as recommendations and that have been so actively publicised by EU leaders are not working – not only because of utterly confusing bureaucratic procedures that have been farmed out to EU member states but also because EU businesses and the business communities in third countries have been intentionally intimidated by Brussels, down to threats of criminal persecution. This is what you should know about democracy. The EU even established a special EU emissary who tours the world forcing officials of sovereign countries to comply with the EU’s illegitimate restrictions. And then they find out, to their own surprise, that the measures against Russia affect the global situation in general.

In reality, improving the situation is only possible by amending the EU sanction regulations. The legally non-binding “clarifications” that are so precious to the European Commission are nothing but a waste of breath. They are meaningless. They might as well be kept to oneself.

The key point is that any changes must be approved by all EU member states. While Russophobia remains off the charts in certain European capitals, this option seems rather unrealistic. We have said, repeatedly, that the EU’s pro-US minority, such as the Baltic states and Poland, simply dictates to the EU’s majority what to do and how. We see that they are ready to make any sacrifices when it concerns EU nations while completely ignoring the developing world. It means nothing to them. The most important thing is not to show weakness in front of Russia. If the EU leadership needs to rely on the UN's authority as potential leverage they could use to pressure their own advocates of the EU’s sanction terrorism, we can only welcome any of Brussels’ contacts with UN representatives.

In any case, Russia and its reliable partners will continue to take active independent efforts to ensure global food security.

Question: The US’s plan to supply Ukraine with cluster munitions has been met with widespread condemnation and controversy. This plan was opposed by the United Nations, Great Britain, Germany, Spain, and Canada. How does Russia assess the fact that Washington ignores the opinion of the international community, including its allies, and insists on such military support to Kiev?

Maria Zakharova: We will use the same wording the US came up with for countries using cluster munitions. The Americans believe these countries are war criminals. I don’t see any sense in arguing this.

Why do they keep ignoring international opinion? Because they are exceptional. Or simply deaf. Perhaps both. I believe it’s because the stakes are too high. For them, the situation around Ukraine is of principal importance to demonstrate their military capability. Given that gambling on such a blitzkrieg, economic strangulation, interference – to the point of disturbance – in internal affairs did not work out (and they do not see any prospects that it will), they are moving on to nervous, neurasthenic actions contrary to their own obligations and their policies of previous years. In order to just sporadically, hysterically continue to put pressure on us on all fronts. Basically, they are digging their own grave.

Question: Foreign Minister of Russia Sergey Lavrov will lead the Russian delegation at the BRICS summit. He will be among those who will be in Johannesburg in person. However, earlier South African media reported that it was suggested to Russia that Sergey Lavrov should head the delegation, but Russia declined. Can you confirm these reports? Why has it been decided that it will be the foreign minister who will lead it?

Maria Zakharova: Let us begin with the second question. You know very well, and you can find such cases in the past (at least over the last ten years), that this arrangement was used many times, for example, when statements at the summit were made either by President of Russia Vladimir Putin (in writing or video), or by the Foreign Minister, or by a representative of another of our departments authorised by Russia’s leadership. We have used this arrangement many times.

It is the country that determines who will represent it, and not newspapers (with all due respect), not political scientists, or anyone else. The country itself makes this decision. And our country has made it.

About the discussion. To be honest, I do not have any additional information that might be of interest to you. I cannot confirm what you have said. I don’t have any such information. I want to stress once again that we have used similar arrangements for attending and participating in summits more than once, for a variety of reasons.

Question: Can you confirm that in this particular situation it's tied to the ICC ruling that everyone is talking about?

Maria Zakharova: I just answered this question. This decision has been adopted. This formula has been in use many times. I have no additional information on this issue to offer that might be of interest to you.

I’m convinced there’s no need to read too much into it, to look for some intrigues and so on. I realise there’s a lot of food for thought there. At some point it may spiral into media hysteria. It is important to be able to re-establish reality. Russia participates in many international formats. It’s not just Russia. Many other countries do the same. We understand and respect this. I think we can expect others to understand and respect our decisions as well.

Question: A couple of days ago, Politico posted a piece on the hypothetical alternatives to the grain deal. According to the publication, the Turkish Navy escorting Ukrainian grain ships could be one alternative. Politico says this option is not yet believed to be realistic because it could provoke an open confrontation between Türkiye and Russia. What can you say about this? Could this provoke an armed conflict between the two countries? Also, with the Russian Defence Ministry claiming that Russia will see any vessel in its zone as potentially dangerous (related to the transport of weapons), would Russia oppose alternative routes for exporting Ukrainian grain to global markets, if it is able to do so?

Maria Zakharova: You are right. Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Vershinin will hold a briefing tomorrow to discuss the details of this issue.

Now, with regard to the article in Politico on alternative grain and food shipment routes.

This is a strange story, indeed. A year ago, the deal and every other agreement were signed after the global hysteria in publications like Politico to the effect that the world is about to go hungry, that the countries most in need are starving and that they urgently need grain to be sent their way. One year later, have the Western media not spotted any inconsistencies in their purported goals and the way they were fulfilled? Are they reluctant to deal with the obvious? The whole thing has become a charade. Nothing is left of the purported humanitarian goals.

By and large, the Western media were used by the financial and political elite as a tool to conclude this deal, which, in essence, was a purely economic transaction. Are they ashamed to admit that this hysteria was just a PR stunt? The purported goals are a good starting point. Is this a commercial project? By the way, hostilities continue there, and terrorist attacks are being launched against our Black Sea Fleet and people.

I understand that, for Westerners, this money either doesn’t smell at all or has a pleasant odour. We have people dying in attacks by Western intelligence backed Kiev acts of terrorism. Why is this not being addressed while the story on the deal is being fomented without even looking into who is behind it, or what the true purpose and motives behind it were? It’s amazing. With that, the Western media regularly conduct investigations, which they excel at, for a variety of reasons. This is a good reason to open an investigation. When this year-long deal is analysed, and the people behind it, the beneficiaries, and the lobbyists, as well as the people who did it in the media, are identified, then I think we will need to start evaluating alternative ways to ship grain.

It is necessary to find out who, this time, is benefitting from alternative supply routes and who pays for them, including in the media. This kind of information attack launched a year ago, was impossible to carry out without “fuel and lubricants.” I am absolutely sure of it. It is impossible to endlessly watch this scheming and tampering with public opinion. This is the root of the matter, the gist of it around which the discussion should be built rather than about the Western companies that are lining their pockets, companies we have listed, and who are double dipping on the scams that their governments are engaged in, and will continue to deceive the international community. Because they are not supplying grain to the countries that are most in need. The poorest countries received 3 percent of the total shipments. They took it themselves: they have stuffed their pockets and silos to the point where a number of EU countries have lost their farmers and their own markets. This situation is about that, not about someone moving this grain under the table to some obscure destination. What matters is where to move it, who will move it, and with what goal in mind.

I'll add to this the issue about the ammonia pipeline. Everyone seems to have forgotten about it being bombed. You see? What, the countries most in need no longer need fertiliser? The pipeline met the needs of 45 million people. So, neither Politico nor the international community is interested in what has become of the ammonia pipeline or fertiliser in general? Have they lost interest? That's their level. The articles you see in Politico and similar publications are obviously put-up jobs. I’m not sure how it works. I don't have the information. But I can see the result. They are paving the way for the beneficiaries who are profiting amid bloody developments, and are protracting the scams in which they themselves are involved. It’s impossible not to see this.

Question: I would like to ask you to clarify one thing. According to RIA Novosti, the Russian delegates have left the Joint Coordination Centre for the Grain Deal in Istanbul. Can you confirm this?

Maria Zakharova: We have already said that this has stopped functioning. I have some details on how the centre completed its work, but I cannot share anything with you. The centre has basically closed, and this has obviously caused discontent among some participants.

Question: It has been more than a month since President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko, hosting the foreign ministers of the CSTO countries in Minsk, spoke about “settling crises in the CSTO region,” referring to the relations between Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov also expressed an opinion on the matter, pointing to the fact that the United States and the EU are attempting to enter the region and push Moscow to the side. In particular, they are trying to resolve the situation around Nagorno-Karabakh in their own way. What is the current state of these two agendas?

Maria Zakharova: Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan are Russia’s strategic partners and allies; therefore, we are interested in extending this constructive cooperation, overcoming disagreements and preventing tensions between CSTO allies to ensure stability in Central Asia. We welcome the intention of our friends to settle any existing arguments with respect to their common border by using exclusively political and diplomatic means.

We know that Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan continue to discuss delimitation of their border. Our partners demonstrate willingness to find mutually acceptable solutions and wish to resolve the matter in a bilateral format without using intermediary parties.

On our part, we are ready to provide assistance in this border dispute that would be acceptable to both countries, with due consideration for the agreements reached at the meeting of the presidents of Russia, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan in Astana on October 13, 2022. If we receive corresponding requests from Dushanbe and Bishkek, we will do it – but only with both countries’ consent.

As concerns the Nagorno-Karabakh situation, we comment on the current state of affairs regularly, discussing Russia’s efforts towards fulfilling the trilateral agreements at the highest level. The latest review is provided in the Foreign Ministry statement of July 15, 2023.

Nagorno-Karabakh is outside the realm of responsibility for the CSTO. At the same time, the Organisation’s mission in Armenia could significantly contribute to stabilising the situation at the Armenian-Azerbaijani border. The ball is in Armenia’s court.

Question: My question is about the terrorist attack on the Crimean Bridge that injured a girl and killed her parents. Did diplomatic missions of any Western countries express condolences or regrets about the incident to the victims’ family? What was other countries’ reaction to the incident conveyed through diplomatic channels?

Maria Zakharova: I have not seen anything to this effect although we made inquiries. According to our experts, there were no public reactions, including through diplomatic channels. I have already commented on this. This lack of response speaks for itself.

I think you should address this question to the embassies of the Western countries. They can be contacted through their press services. You can call them and ask.

Question: Russia was quite positive about the efforts of UN employees in the attempts to save the grain deal. Can you tell us in more detail what exactly the UN did in this regard? Were there any attempts to coordinate a search for solutions between Russian and Turkish representatives? What position does Ankara occupy now that Russia has announced its withdrawal from this initiative?

Maria Zakharova: I would like to emphasise that Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Vershinin is a direct participant in the talks, including with the UN. Tomorrow, he will share his impressions with you on interaction with UN employees, proceeding from his own experience. Address these questions to him during his briefing tomorrow. I think his answers will satisfy you.

Question: Were there any consultations in the Government or the Foreign Ministry on some alternative plan for the export of Russian grain and fertilisers? Are there any discussions with foreign partners of alternatives to the Black Sea Initiative?

Maria Zakharova: Keep all these questions for tomorrow’s briefing. It will be devoted to this issue precisely so that we don’t just make random comments and take a comprehensive approach to this problem.

Question: The leaders of the five BRICS countries announced their readiness to review the expansion of the group. What countries does Russia see as its new members? What agreements have already been made?

Maria Zakharova: We are seeing great interest among developing nations in this organisation. They want to join BRICS but it is still too early to talk about candidates. Now BRICS experts are working on approving the modalities of the expansion as such, on instructions from its leaders. Once a consensus is reached on all parameters, it will be possible to discuss an opportunity to review applications.

We welcome the aspiration of South Africa as the current BRICS Chair to ensure progress in discussing the expansion. We hope this issue will receive due attention at the BRICS Summit in Johannesburg on August 22-24.

Question (retranslated from English): According to Ukrainian intelligence sources, Russia will transfer some prisoners captured during the special military operation to Hungary next month. If this is true, what is the reason for this? Can Hungarian service personnel (conscripts) in Ukraine’s Armed Forces expect similar treatment if they surrender in the future?

Maria Zakharova: I will not comment on media leaks by Ukrainian special services because it’s pointless. We realise that this is part of their information sabotage.

Regarding captured Ukrainian service personnel, they are treated humanely in Russia. You can learn more about this from our official sources, including materials by Human Rights Commissioner in the Russian Federation Tatiana Moskalkova. She regularly publishes comments filled with specific facts and provides them on a regular basis. Captured Ukrainian service personnel corroborate this. They get medical treatment, normal food and accommodation.

Here is an important nuance showing how citizens of Hungary or ethnic Hungarians with Ukrainian or other foreign citizenship are captured. I would like to note that our attitude towards prisoners does not depend on their nationality. I cannot say anything about other countries’ traditions, but Russia is a multi-ethnic country with a multi-ethnic society. Every sphere of life, including culture, science and education, hinges on multi-ethnic principles. We use the same principles when dealing with complicated issues like captivity. I can assure you that our attitude towards prisoners has nothing to do with their nationality, the shape of their eyes, noses or ears or the size of their skulls. Other countries behave like this historically. Today, this is happening with regard to prisoners and other people. The West provides medical assistance and various services. You know that many states implement ethnically-biased policies. We have nothing like this.

I would like to note that, every day, more people are becoming reluctant to fight for the Armed Forces of Ukraine preferring to lay down their weapons. This is highlighted by the way the current mobilisation is proceeding in Ukraine. This is basically like medieval barbarism rather than a mobilisation. They drag people into the streets, force them into vehicles, bind and handcuff them, so that instead of just fighting and defending their homeland, they are being led to the slaughter and killed.

Question (retranslated from English): I want to ask about the Transcarpathian Hungarians and their ties with Ukraine. Like Russians, Hungarians have suffered because of the Kiev regime's chauvinistic policies. What do you think about this?

Maria Zakharova: Forced mobilisation is under way in Ukraine. People are being beaten and abducted against their will and taken to the front line as cannon fodder without normal combat training. The western regions of the country, including Transcarpathia, are no exception in this regard. Nationalism is rampant in Ukraine. Hungary is well aware of this, including from the public assessments of Hungarian representatives.

Question (retranslated from English): As far as I know, the Rheinmetall Group and Kiev are ready to build a factory in Transcarpathia next to an ethnic Hungarian community. Don't you think that this is a kind of provocation or an act designed to force the Hungarian government to give up its neutrality if Transcarpathia becomes a target of Russian troops?

Maria Zakharova: Yes, there was information that the Rheinmetall Group is planning to build a plant in Transcarpathia next to an ethnic Hungarian community.

If this information is confirmed and these plans have factual confirmation, then we could be talking about a global provocation. We are talking about further evidence of the West militarising Ukraine and pumping weapons into it, leading to a further escalation of the conflict. Such a plant, if it is built, will become, along with any other facilities of Ukraine's defence complex, a legitimate military target for the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. If these plans are real, then this is a provocation that the Kyiv regime and its Western patrons are so fond of resorting to.

Question: What do you think about the current situation in Kosovo and Metohija? What is the role of Pristina’s Western handlers? How can this situation be resolved? Would it be reasonable to hold a referendum there?

Maria Zakharova: The position of ethnic Serbs in the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija is difficult and even tragic, and it continues to deteriorate. The Kosovo elite is fanatically trying to turn that part of Serbia into an ethnically clean Albanian territory. They don’t want to live with the Serbs despite their claims to the contrary.

Pristina is using a broad range of repressive measures to attain its goals, from discriminating legislation to armed Nazi-like raids of the regions populated by the Serbs, victimising defenceless local people, including children. Albin Kurti, the so-called “prime minister” of Kosovo, has trampled on the Brussels agreements with Belgrade, discredited dialogue under the EU umbrella and is threatening to provoke a new disaster in the Balkans. Serb associations in Kosovo have been declared terrorist organisations, and northern Kosovo has been occupied by Pristina’s law enforcement units. All these are tragic developments.

Mediators from the United States and the EU continue to play a peace-making game, allegedly looking for what they regard as a fair solution to the problem. It is obvious that everything they are doing, even when their actions have been coordinated at NATO, is in conflict with Pristina’s actions. The developments in Kosovo are full-scale chauvinism, which is terrible and tragic. This is only aggravating the crisis. It may seem that the West has grown tired of “prime minister” Kurti. They have started to criticise him and to introduce minor restrictions, as if trying to restore order on the external perimeter. But there is no doubt that ultimately the West has always been and remains anti-Serb. The Serbs’ interests are not just of secondary importance to them; a number of influential Western figures regard the very existence of the Serbs as a mistake.

Besides, rebuking and pretending to dissociate themselves from Kosovo extremism and leading Belgrade to believe that the United States and the EU wish Serbia well could be nothing more than a strategy. In fact, they have no good wishes for Serbia. If they did, they would have long ago implemented their economic promises, would have given Belgrade the loans they promised to give several years ago, and would have allowed it to become integrated into the EU’s economic space. None of this has been done or will be done. The West uses this approach with all countries.

Washington and Brussels are using the Serbs to attain their own political goals in the region; this is clear from their efforts to undermine the foundations of a settlement based on international law, to force Belgrade to recognise Kosovo’s “independence,” to pump weapons into Albanian forces in Kosovo, and to support Pristina’s refusal to establish the Community of Serb Municipalities in Kosovo, which should have been given broad executive authority long ago in accordance with the written guarantees the EU signed back in 2013.

This traditional Western policy has given free rein to the Kosovo Albanians and is leading the process further away from the legal framework of the settlement set out in UN Security Council Resolution 1244, which is binding on all sides. Only that fundamental document offers a chance to find a safe, lasting and viable solution. Any other auxiliary initiative, such as the referendum you mentioned, can only be regarded from the viewpoint of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Serbia.

I have heard and read a great deal, including in Serbian sources, that the UNSC resolution is ineffective. If not for that resolution, the situation would have been different, with more disadvantages for Serbia and more opportunities for the Western plans of breaking Serbia up. If somebody says that the resolution is not needed and cannot help, it’s an acid test showing that these people are not to be trusted. The resolution is the only document working in favour of Belgrade, the Serbs and Serbia as a state. If not for this, the idea of the irrelevance of such documents would have prevailed, and nobody would have heeded Belgrade’s opinion. The resolution is really very important, and compliance with its provisions and its active implementation will give Serbia an opportunity to preserve its vital tenets.

Question: The Republic of Artsakh continues to be affected by a serious humanitarian crisis. The republic is on the verge of starvation. We have noted that Azerbaijan has been ignoring any calls from the Russian Foreign Ministry to unblock the Lachin corridor. Does Russia have any other way to unblock the corridor besides the calls that Baku is not heeding? In particular, is it possible to deliver supplies to the republic by air?

Maria Zakharova: As concerns ways to unblock it, we continue working with all the parties, and not just publicly. As for supplying humanitarian aid, it is our understanding that certain countries and international bodies are working on different solutions to this problem.

Question: President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev has allocated $7.6 million for purchasing electronic equipment for Ukraine. This is not the first time that Azerbaijan has provided political, economic, financial or information support to Ukraine since the start of the special military operation. Russian military correspondents have even reported that the Ukrainian army has used Azerbaijani weapons against Russia. What does Moscow think about Baku’s support for Kiev in this conflict?

Maria Zakharova: We discuss all matters, both constructive and problematic, directly with Baku. We don’t need intermediaries.

Question: Almost every day, National Liberation Movement activists hold authorized one-person or mass pickets and rallies in central Moscow, close to Red Square, outside government offices, the Federation Council, the State Duma, the Prosecutor General’s Office, the Central Bank, the embassies of the United States and Great Britain and the offices of major Russian media outlets. They come out with all sorts of posters in support of sovereignty and President Vladimir Putin, like “USA – hands off Ukraine” or “Ukraine is our land.” They call for investigating the 1991 events, introducing flight missions for strategic missiles; they demand that NATO countries stop supplying weapons, and so on. How helpful is this civic initiative to the government officials defending Russia’s position? Does the Foreign Ministry feel this support from people on the international scene? Perhaps it should be multiplied so that Russia can change the game in its confrontation with NATO?

Maria Zakharova: Please do not separate us as a government agency from the people. This agency consists of these people. It would be strange to break everybody down into groups and separate public servants and Russian diplomats from the rest of the nation. We are united as a country but this does not mean that we all have the same opinion. Every person has their own view of literally anything that happens, although when it comes to existential issues, our country demonstrates amazing unity.

It is not a matter of help or lack thereof. It is about manifesting the unity that has formed in Russia. The Foreign Ministry shows this with its diplomatic work and in public affairs. Our civil society demonstrates this unity otherwise, including through the means you mentioned. I believe it is less of help and more of demonstrating unity in different areas.

Question: Why does Russia have to go to war with Ukraine and why can't it threaten the United States itself, so that the latter in turn would reflect on supplying weapons further?

Maria Zakharova: Russia is not at war with Ukraine. Russia is resisting hybrid aggression on the part of the West. Ukraine has become its "bargaining chip:" both hostage, victim and toolkit. It is necessary to clearly distinguish these things. It is the same old story of manipulation. Everything seems so obvious. There is Russia, Ukraine, and there is a conflict. For the uninitiated, who do not know either modern or global history, it may look like this. Unfortunately, this is how it is presented in the Western media, promoted in remote regions of the world where there is less familiarity with these events. In reality, this is not the case.

All these decades, Russia has had no desire to do anything other than co-operate. We recognised Ukraine's sovereignty, built a genuine relationship of respect for it as a sovereign state, exchanged embassies, made international agreements, sent political-level ambassadors. All this spoke to there being a special relationship, but at the same time respect for sovereignty. Not only that, never in all the decades before the 2014 coup d'état that set in motion the destructive dynamics of the collapse of Ukrainian statehood did Russia make any claims or raise the question of Crimea's affiliation. It only helped its compatriots. It developed humanitarian and economic ties on the basis of bilateral relations. Agreements on the basing of the Black Sea Fleet were exclusively legal. They were beneficial first of all for Ukraine, which received colossal funds for this. There was no intention to aggravate problematic issues, to turn them into conflict situations.

But the West stepped in. Right after the beginning of Ukraine's sovereign course. It had been there before, but illegally. Then it began to legalise its status. State authorities of Ukraine were "stuffed" with special services of the United States and NATO countries in the first place. Foreigners, people directly affiliated with foreign countries, having passports, residence permits, grant support and pursuing Western interests began to occupy places in government agencies. Accordingly, it began to destroy the statehood of Ukraine, putting it under the control of the West. Puppet figures and the government were put in place. As dictated by the United States, the ties that we had with Ukraine, both within the USSR and before and after, began to be destroyed.

Then the country began to turn into a NATO training ground in preparation for becoming yet another NATO base with obvious aggressive intentions towards our country. All kinds of political and diplomatic efforts were taken, proposals were made to resolve this absolutely absurd issue. Because we were given assurances about NATO’s non-expansion eastwards. This issue could have been resolved through political and diplomatic means. We made all the necessary proposals, but they were declined by the West. Consequently, amid the growing nationalist sentiments, which appeared not ten years ago, but were for a long time promoted and nurtured by the West, coups took place and statehood collapsed. All of this has led to the beginning of direct conflicts between NATO and Russia.

Let me remind you that in the summer of 2021, during a military exercise, a British destroyer violated the Russian border in the Black Sea. In the autumn of 2021, NATO aircraft were seen in the Russian airspace in dangerous proximity to Russian and foreign civil aircraft. Why talk of a Russian-Ukrainian conflict when the issue is the actions of the alliance, led by the US, United Kingdom, and their satellites such as the Baltic states and Poland, to initiate a conflict in Ukraine aimed against our country? We should also add the economic sanctions against Russia, imposed long before 2022 and designed to strangle our country economically and make it dependent on the Western countries. The energy sector used to be one of the main draws for the West in Ukraine to gain control over Russian gas deliveries to Europe. It was an absolutely normal economic project, which provided Ukraine with big revenue; an absolutely peaceful project designed for the cooperation of the entire European continent. And it was a bone in the throat of the US. It constantly poked this sore spot and stirred up trouble to control Russian gas deliveries to Europe, influence prices and create an unnatural zone of tensions and instability around the energy agenda on the European continent, to replace Russian gas with American gas and control the entire situation. I could not help but respond, proceeding from your wording.

As for your question, Russia is not the aggressor, the US is. We are only repelling the aggression by doing everything necessary to that end.

Question: Why are they doing it? Because there is no threat to the US itself, Maybe Russia should…

Maria Zakharova: No. There is a threat to the US. You would be surprised. We just spoke about Serbia. The Americans consider the very existence of the Serbian state and Serbian nation a threat. They have a different perception of threat.

They consider a multiethnic, multireligious, strong Russia that has resources that are used in the interests of the people of our country and not in the interests of their big capital a threat. Their threat is their own economy. The US’s state debt is $32 trillion. They will do everything in their power to create spots of instability all over the world and maintain them through their debt that they will never be able to settle. It is a different mentality, a different logic.

They already have a huge number of threats in their country. The Americans need aggressive expansion in various areas from the economy to direct conflicts on their external borders to defend themselves from their own threats. They cannot admit their own crisis, from the economy to social and political life. The Americans are “exceptional,” the masters of the world, as they believe. They are dominating over everything. This is the difference.

The American opposition says that the transition to national currencies in settlements is a direct threat to the US. Think about it. Countries want to settle payments for their own products in their national currencies. And this poses an existential threat to the US because it controls the circulation of the dollar. On what grounds does the US Department of the Treasury and US intelligence agencies control all dollar transactions? They have no such authority. It is illegal any way you look at it. But they are doing it. Then, when other countries begin to break out of the US-created template, it is considered not just willfulness, but a threat to itself.

Question: But it is still possible to target nuclear missiles at US cities to force them to stop arms supplies, isn’t it?

Maria Zakharova: We have a document, the Fundamentals of Russia’s Nuclear Deterrence State Policy that makes everything clear. I have repeatedly cited this document.

Question: There is much information on the internet on the Partnership for Peace (PfP) Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) of June 19, 1995. People are very concerned about this because, based on the agreement, NATO can legally introduce troops into Russia under certain circumstances. Can you explain the basics of this agreement to alleviate these concerns somehow?

Maria Zakharova: These concerns are due to misunderstanding of the document. The SOFA document between NATO and countries participating in the PfP programme of June 19, 1995, signed by the Russian Federation on April 21, 2005, and the additional protocol to it, regulate the legal status of the troops of one side of the agreement, which can remain on the territory of the other side with its consent.

The majority of European states are party to this agreement, and it is a universal standard for determining the legal status of troops during their stay abroad. It is a framework agreement and implies the signing of separate agreements between the sides as regards the dispatch and reception of armed forces in each specific case, for instance, for taking part in military exercises, attending academic courses and so on.

That said, our country has not used this agreement since 2014 after the NATO Council decided to suspend practical military and civilian cooperation with Russia on April 1 of the same year. This document does not commit our country to anything. It does not make us hot or cold. And, of course, this document does not provide an opening to bring foreign troops into our territory.

This document exists in theory. There are grounds to question its expediency but only in one respect: why have it if it doesn’t work? As for the concerns you mentioned, there is no reason for apprehension.

Question: The Foreign Ministry has given detailed information on its website about the repression of Russian media outlets and journalists abroad. It cites many negative and sometimes outrageous facts. However, there is no information about certain countries (for example, the Czech Republic, which was one of the first countries to be included in the blacklist of hostile states to Russia; is everything all right there?). The Foreign Ministry's website cites facts about Germany regarding a fine and an attack on a residential house where the staff of the Russian media corps in Germany live. Some unequal working conditions, because at the same time, a record number of correspondents (19) are accredited with the Russian Foreign Ministry and we have not heard of any restrictions on them. By the way, we have never seen them at a briefing. What are they doing in the Russian Federation? How does the Foreign Ministry respond to repression and restrictions on Russian media outlets and journalists abroad? And what possibilities and types of response are available to the Foreign Ministry?

Maria Zakharova: The Russian Embassy in Berlin is in constant contact with representatives of the Russian media in Germany. It is aware of all the problems.

Information about instances of their harassment by the German authorities and other incidents affecting their working conditions is promptly reported to the Foreign Ministry. Our staff immediately responds to each negative incident in accordance with the competences set out in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961. Appropriate diplomatic demarches are being made both in Berlin and to the German Embassy in Moscow.

The situation with the aforementioned fines imposed by the German authorities on the German-language editorial office of the Russian media group RT- RT Deutsch - is part of a long history of the German state's struggle against alternative voices in the information space of the Federal Republic of Germany, which began long before the special military operation. Berlin is clearly frightened and annoyed that more and more Germans no longer believe the anti-Russia propaganda of the German mainstream media. It should be recalled that in response to the revocation of RT Deutsch's licence to operate in Germany, the Russian side closed the Moscow bureau of the German state media corporation Deutsche Welle. Deutsche Welle is Berlin's main propaganda mouthpiece abroad. If necessary, action will be taken against other German media in Russia.

Why they don't go to informational media events is a good question. We asked them many times. And what they are doing here...

Regarding the attack on the apartment building of Russian journalists in the capital of Germany on May 6, 2022, we can inform you that last week the German prosecutor's office, following an investigation, brought official charges of committing this crime against a 55-year-old Russian citizen who has been a permanent resident of Germany for many years. According to available information, including from German state media, this person claims to be a Russian "liberal activist in exile" (however absurd and ironic this may sound in view of the crime he committed). Who they welcome and nurture on their territory is a question for Berlin.

It is important to understand that we have a toolkit of known measures against the harassment of Russian media abroad, and we are using it. We do this not to punish their media here, but to show them that they will not be able to go rogue and engage in blatant pressure on our media and get away with it. In many ways it sobered them up. We use various methods to respond. Not all of them are publicised. Some of them bring specific results, and there is no reason to highlight them publicly. We do not use the principle of "collective responsibility" against anyone. Unlike "advanced democracies," which only pay lip service to pluralism of opinion and freedom of access to information, but in practice use all means to exert pressure and burn out alternative sources of information from their public spaces, we have never betrayed these principles and have not resorted to such methods.

Retaliatory, restrictive measures against journalists from unfriendly countries exist and are in place. Some are mirrored, others are asymmetrical. The work is done on a case-by-case basis. On the whole, they do not block their professional activities. We are interested in working with journalists in accordance with the law On Mass Media, as our international obligations require it.

Nothing prevents the German journalists mentioned above from coming to our open events. They sometimes come. The problem is that many journalists based in Russia have a different task. Not journalistic work. We know this too. It is enough to get acquainted with the reports of most of them. They cannot even be called media workers, because they do not cover events objectively, but are engaged in tailoring the details to fit a desired result.

Table of Contents

Additional materials

Photos

The main foreign policy news

International security