Briefing by Deputy Director of the Foreign Ministry Information and Press Department Alexey Zaitsev, Moscow, August 9, 2023

On August 15, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will speak at the opening of the 11th Moscow Conference on International Security. This event has been held since 2012 and has become one of the main international platforms for a wide-ranging discussion between experts from domestic and foreign defence departments, scientists, and political analysts. About 100 countries and 8 international organisations have been invited to the conference, whose representatives will discuss various aspects of security in the context of forming a multipolar world order, as well as ways to restore constructive international cooperation under the Euro-Atlantic elites’ aggressive claims to world domination.

The Foreign Minister’s speech will focus on the world majority countries’ search for ways to develop outside Western mechanisms, including by strengthening the newer multilateral associations like the SCO, BRICS, the EAEU, the CSTO, and the CIS.

Ukraine crisis

The Russian armed forces continue to successfully repel attacks by Ukrainian military groups and systematically liberate new territories from neoNazis.

Meanwhile, the Western countries are turning a blind eye to the high losses of Ukrainian troops and demanding a senseless and murderous “counteroffensive” from the Kiev regime. The other day, the American media wrote, citing Ukrainian sources, that according to various estimates, more than 400,000 Ukrainian soldiers are considered dead today.

Having no results on the battlefield to demonstrate to their Western masters, the neo-Nazi regime in Kiev continues to vilely resort to terrorist methods against people in Russia, striking civilian targets, including those far from the front line.

On the night of August 4, the Armed Forces of Ukraine tried to attack the port of Novorossiysk, and on August 6 they fired at the bridges between the Crimea and the Kherson Region. Attempts to attack civilian targets in Moscow and the Moscow Region continue. On August 6, the air defence forces shot down a Ukrainian drone in Podolsky district, Moscow Region. On the night of August 5, a Russian civilian vessel on a roadstead near the Kerch Strait was attacked with an unmanned sea drone. Luckily, these actions did not lead to a large environmental disaster in the Black Sea. Tonight, two drones were shot down on approach to Moscow.

None of these attacks have any military significance; they are purely terrorist in nature.

Russian law-enforcement bodies are thoroughly documenting all crimes committed by the military of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, Ukrainian nationalists and representatives of the Kiev regime. Inevitable punishment awaits them.

Last week alone, verdicts based on collected evidence were handed down to the following persons: A. Prilutsky who fired a grenade launcher towards a civilian in Severodonetsk (LPR); A. Pinkovsky who threw a grenade into the yard of a private household in Lisichansk, injuring a woman; E. Kolesnik who wounded a civilian with a grenade launcher in Popasnaya; Ye. Kozlov who fired a grenade launcher at a minibus with civilians injuring a woman as they were leaving Rubezhnoye for Russia; Ye. Sokolov who threw a grenade at civilians in Rubezhnoye, wounding a 60 year-old woman; and R. Kosenko who threw a grenade at two residents of Mariupol. All criminals were sentenced to long terms in prison.

It is revealing that NATO countries are supporting the barbarous actions of the Kiev regime, and continue supplying it with arms, training Ukrainian soldiers and supplying Ukraine with intelligence information for dealing strikes with missiles and drones, including at strictly civilian facilities.

In this context, we would like to note the reckless decision of the French authorities to supply Ukraine with SCALP long-distance missiles. Sane citizens of the French Republic expressed regret over this step.

In addition, according to the American news agency CNN, the Pentagon recently approved shipping the first batch of Abrams tanks to Ukraine. Overall, it plans to deliver 31 M1A1 tanks of the old type.

We noted Polish media reports about higher radiation levels in Western Ukraine and Eastern Poland. According to their information, this happened after the destruction in May of depleted uranium ammunition at a warehouse in the city of Khmelnitsky. London had sent it to Kiev earlier. Obviously, Kiev’s Western sponsors will stop at nothing to achieve their goals. They do not care about the threat posed to the health and lives of the local people, even if part of Ukraine or Poland becomes a new exclusion zone.

It is worth noting in this context, that the Polish authorities asked the European Commission for 1 billion euros to increase Ukrainian grain transit via their country. It cannot be ruled out that such an impressive sum is required, among other things, for the reclamation of contaminated lands.

Having no interest in the peaceful settlement of the conflict in Ukraine, its Western sponsors continue promoting Vladimir Zelensky’s “peace formula” that has nothing to do with peace and is merely an incoherent compilation of ultimatums for Russia.

In the meantime, other countries, including our partners from the Global South understand this really well, which was borne out by the consultations on the crisis in Ukraine held in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, on August 5-6 of this year at the initiative of the Kiev regime and the G7. Such events on issues related to this crisis provide no added value without Russia’s participation and consideration of its interests.

It is worth noting that countries of the Global South were in the minority at the meeting in Jeddah. There were about 15 of them out of the 40 participants and some of them attended the meeting via videoconference. Thus, Western countries – the instigations of the crisis in Ukraine, suppliers of arms to the Kiev regime and fomenters of the escalation – accounted for two thirds of the audience.

The collective West is demonstrating its exclusively consumer attitude to Ukraine and its residents. This is evidenced not only in the use of rank-and-file Ukrainians as cannon fodder on the battlefield.

Many Ukrainians who moved to Western Europe are facing difficulties trying to integrate into society. According to the Nuremberg Employment Research Institute, almost half of employed Ukrainians do not work in professions in which they have significant formal training. The median monthly pay for full-time employed Ukrainians is almost a thousand euros less than the average salary of all other workers in Germany.

In addition, human trafficking is flourishing in Ukraine largely because Western capital is using the country for its own benefit. In the past few years, Ukraine has become one of the leaders in organ trafficking, which was facilitated by the passage of new, more liberal legislation in this area. There is no doubt that the unprecedented corruption and lawlessness in Ukraine are conducive to such crimes.

All these facts convincingly show that the neo-Nazis in power in Kiev and their Western patrons have no concern for millions of Ukrainians no matter where they are. The NATO countries are using Ukraine exclusively in their political interests. They are going all-out to inflict on Russia a strategic defeat with Ukraine’s help.

Laos responds to US decision to send cluster munitions to Ukraine

The decision by the United States to send cluster munitions to the Kiev regime has provoked a negative reaction on the part of Laotian leadership, the local expert community, and the public in general. In particular, the Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Laos, Saleumxay Kommasith, in his speech on August 1, on the occasion of the 13th anniversary of the Convention on Cluster Munitions, urged countries to refrain from using, producing, transferring or stockpiling such monstrous weapons, and to accede to the convention, as well as to intensify efforts to provide substantive support to the countries most affected by cluster munitions.

Vientiane's official position is by no means random. Laos is still feeling the consequences of the barbaric, massive bombing by the United States during the "undeclared war" in Indochina. Thus, in 1964-1973, the Americans carried out more than 580,000 sorties, dropping over 2 million tonnes of munitions of various types on Lao territory, which exceeds the number of bombs used against Japan and Germany during the Second World War. As a result, Laos tops the sad ranking of countries in terms of the number of bombs dropped per capita.

In the course of bombing the territory of Laos, cluster munitions were actively used (in total, about 270 million bomblets, of which at least 80 million did not detonate and remained lying in the ground). Over the 50 years that have passed since the war in Indochina, more than 30,000 people have died in Laos because of unexploded ordnance, and more than 20,000 others have been seriously injured, including the loss of limbs. According to Laotian authorities, some 300 civilians have suffered various degrees of injury from such explosions each year for the past decade.

Unexploded bombs hamper economic development, as 37 percent of Lao territories are still recognised as unsafe for habitation or agricultural activities. The cost of constructing roads, schools, hospitals and other infrastructure and social facilities had increased significantly owing to the need for expensive demining operations beforehand.

The above was confirmed by six former US ambassadors to Laos who, in an open address to the Joe Biden administration, referring to their being "witness to the damage cluster munitions continue to cause Laos," called Washington's actions in transferring cluster munitions to Kiev causing "deep dismay and disappointment."

All of this once again demonstrates the United States’ policy of "double standards." Before making such an inhumane decision, Washington should first atone for its own sins and answer for the criminal acts that led to numerous victims and irreparable losses in Laos and other countries, as well as be concerned about humanitarian demining operations in the countries affected by its actions. The United States has allocated only $350 million to Laos for this purpose over the years, a laughable sum compared to the tens of billions of dollars in funding for Kiev.

For its part, over the past five years, Russia has regularly sent to Laos specialists from the International Mine Action Centre of the Russian Armed Forces, who not only pass their experience on to Laotian engineers but also, at the risk of their own lives, carry out humanitarian demining on the ground. They have already defused thousands of explosive devices throughout Laos.

Niger update

We are following with concern the developments in the Republic of Niger, where President Mohamed Bazoum was removed from power on July 26 and the military declared a power takeover.

We consider it is extremely important to prevent further escalation of tension in Niger. We believe that there is no alternative to the restoration of law and order and the start of an inclusive national dialogue as soon as possible. According to incoming information, the situation in the country is generally stable, and state institutions continue to work normally. The National Council for the Safeguard of the Homeland created by the military has initiated the process of forming a new government.

We support the mediation efforts undertaken by the African community to help the people of Niger overcome the crisis. At the same time, we believe that an intervention by the troops of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) in a sovereign state is unlikely to contribute to the achievement of lasting peace in Niger or the stabilisation of the subregion. In this context, we note the negative reaction to this scenario from a number of states bordering Niger, including Mali, Burkina Faso, Chad and Algeria. We hope that mutually acceptable solutions can be found through ECOWAS's diplomatic efforts in Niger.

According to the Russian Embassy in Mali, which is also responsible for Niger, no incidents involving Russians have yet been reported. The diplomats keep in touch with the few compatriots living in that country, and are working out the necessary measures to ensure their safety. We continue to recommend that Russian citizens refrain from travelling to the Republic of Niger until the situation is fully normalised.

EU releases 2022 Annual Report on Human Rights and Democracy

We have taken note of the 2022 report by the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on human rights and democracy in the world. We have to admit that the focus of the report is fully in line with Brussels' destructive policy of instrumentalising the protection of human rights to achieve political objectives and promote its highly selective approaches in this area.

The EU continues to shamelessly exploit the human rights agenda to openly interfere in the internal affairs of independent states in a misguided belief that they are a model of high moral standards entitled to lecture others. At the same time, Brussels stubbornly refuses to notice the long-term deterioration of the human rights situation in the European Union itself. Massive violations of the rights of the Russian-speaking population in the Baltic States are completely ignored. The EU seems to regard it as normal that people are denied the right to education in their mother tongue, that journalists are systematically harassed and that some people remain non-citizens or stateless persons in those countries. The rampant Russophobia encouraged from above in the EU member states since the start of the special military operation does not seem to bother the head of EU diplomacy either.

The European official’s selective approach is especially evident in the context of the human rights situation in Ukraine. Brussels emphatically ignores the blatant violation of the rights of the non-Ukrainian-speaking population. The openly discriminatory law on national minorities adopted by the Ukrainian parliament in 2022 is referred to as “a step towards bringing Ukrainian laws in line with European standards and best practices.” A rather self-critical statement on the part of the EU, given that we are talking about a policy of total oppression of national minorities imposed by the Ukrainian regime. Is this really what the European Union is striving for?

In addition, according to EU representatives Ukraine allegedly “continues to guarantee” its citizens freedom of religion and belief. In reality, Brussels is justifying the persecution of the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church describing it as steps “to limit Russia's influence through the use of religious organisations.”

At the same time, the European Union uses every opportunity, even the most insignificant pretexts, to criticise Russia, to the point of absurdity. The EU found discrimination against women's rights in Russia allegedly “disguised as protecting traditional family values.” At the same time, characteristically, the report leaves out the situation of women in certain EU member states, the systematic violence against them and the restrictions of their rights, in particular reproductive rights.

On the other hand, Brussels does not seem shy to laud its own “achievements,” even the unanimous EU vote at the UN General Assembly against the traditional Russia-sponsored resolution on combating the glorification of Nazism. We consider this direct evidence proving that the West is ready to go to any lengths, including justifying Nazi accomplices and tolerating the openly neo-Nazi manifestations of the Kiev regime, to achieve its goals in Ukraine.

In this context, Brussels’ attempts to moralise on human rights look hypocritical. It is obvious that the human rights agenda is used by the EU members, nurtured in line with the Western neo-colonial ideology, solely as a tool to exert pressure on sovereign states, as well as to reward their “vassal” countries that are ready to play along with the Brussels “gardeners” in the implementation of their flawed policies. There is no real concern for human rights there.

The OSCE’s ersatz events in Poland

It was announced the other day that some sort of “Warsaw human dimension conference” would be held in early October of this year under the aegis of the 2023 OSCE Chairmanship of North Macedonia.

Let me remind you of the prehistory. The OSCE rules provide for holding an annual Human Dimension Implementation Meeting, a major event within the framework of the OSCE’s humanitarian dimension. The decision to this effect, including on the venue and dates, should each time be adopted by consensus by all the member states. And this was the case until recently: the members generally managed, albeit through tense negotiations, to find mutually acceptable solutions as to the subject matter of discussions to be held during an upcoming implementation meeting, and, as a consequence, adopt relevant decisions on holding these meetings in Warsaw.

Last year, however, Poland, the then Chairperson-in-Office, took an openly anti-Russian position in the context of Russia’s special military operation, something that was displayed, among other things, by the decision to discard the decades-old practice of coordinating the implementation meeting topics with the member states. The situation was further aggravated by the fact that the Polish authorities were both unable and unwilling to provide security guarantees to the Russian participants in these forums in their territory, let alone refrain from creating artificial visa problems and other obstacles.

Naturally, we could not agree to so gross a violation of the OSCE rules, including the key consensus rule, and blocked the decisions. Moreover, Russia demanded that the Implementation Meeting be moved from Warsaw to a neutral country capable of both providing security and ensuring normal working conditions for all member states.

Conscious that the ploy did not work, the Polish Chairmanship-in-Office organised under its own aegis a “Warsaw human dimension conference” in an attempt to palm it off as a regular OSCE Implementation Meeting envisaged by the OSCE rules.

This year, we observe a similar picture. Taking over from Poland as Chairman-in-Office in January 2023, North Macedonia recently sent around an invitation to the “Warsaw human dimension conference,” which it intends to hold in the Polish capital in the first half of October, 2023. They are not even hiding the fact that this “get-together” is due to replace the annual consensus-based Human Dimension Implementation Meeting. All of this is taking place against the background of no negotiations, or sham negotiations, on the forum’s dates and venue. More than that, like last year, Warsaw is offering no security and visa guarantees.

To top it all off, the OSCE’s largest executive body, the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), which is due to play the role of a technical organiser, actually tacitly supports at the North Macedonians’ free-wheeling conduct. We want to warn everyone that this behavior by the ODIHR leadership as well as that of other OSCE executive agencies answerable to the member states, behavior that is at variance with the consensus decisions accepted by the OSCE, will not be left without a Russian response.

Like last year, Russia declares that it will officially boycott the aforementioned ersatz conference in Warsaw. We hope that common sense will prevail, with other states following the Russian example.

The situation in Pakistan following the arrest of former Prime Minister Imran Khan

On August 5, 2023, Imran Khan, the former Prime Minister of Pakistan and the leader of the largest opposition party, Pakistan Movement for Justice, was arrested in Lahore and imprisoned in the Attock prison in Punjab. The trial court in Islamabad sentenced the politician to three years on corruption charges.

The incident is an internal matter of Pakistan. We hope that the general parliamentary elections in the country, scheduled for this autumn, will be held peacefully and in accordance with Pakistani law. We are open to developing partner relations with Islamabad regardless of who wins the elections.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing anniversary

On August 6 and 9, 1945, the United States dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan. Both cities were completely obliterated, and 150,000 people were killed instantly by the explosions. The diseases caused by radioactive contamination resulted in hundreds of thousands of other painful deaths years and decades later. It can be stated that the total number of victims of those nuclear raids exceeds 450,000 people to date.

It is customary for US politicians to claim that the goal of the bombings was to force Japan to surrender. However, historical research directly contradicts that: it was a demonstration of a destructive potential that was unique for those times and that Washington expected to use to ensure its global dominance in the post-war era. As we can see, the United States has not abandoned that idea to this day, as they continuously raise the stakes in relations between nuclear powers and irresponsibly teeter on the edge of a direct conflict with Russia.

As concerns Japan, the country is an active helper to the Americans in their dangerous game. And yet, Russia is, without substantiated reasons, framed as a country that threatens with nuclear weapons and creates nuclear risks. Meanwhile, Japan is actively building up its military nuclear cooperation with the United States and South Korea under their “extended deterrence strategy” that includes, in particular, increasing the presence of US forces in the region. The ballistic-missile submarine USS Kentucky ostentatiously calling at Busan, South Korea, was an idiosyncratic present to mark the anniversary of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. Speculating about nuclear threats, Tokyo somehow fails to remember that this class of submarines carries 20 Trident II missiles, each having an explosive capacity dozens and hundreds of times higher than the nuclear bombs dropped by the United States on the Japanese cities in 1945. The Japanese leaders should realise that the course they are steering their country down at the behest of the United States may lead to a disaster multiple times bigger than the tragedy Japan lived through 78 years ago.

Bolivia’s Independence Day and the 125th anniversary of Russian-Bolivian diplomatic relations

I would like to congratulate our Bolivian friends on their national holiday, Independence Day (1825), celebrated on August 6. I am sure that people in Moscow noticed the illumination of the buildings on Novy Arbat in the colours of the national flag of Bolivia on Sunday night.

Today, August 9, marks another important common date for us: 125 years since the establishment of Russian-Bolivian diplomatic relations.

Today’s Bolivia – a state that looks confidently to the future, is strengthening its economy, pursuing an independent course in internal and external affairs – is one of Russia’s key and priority partners.

We are united by the desire to build a more just and democratic multipolar world. We have common approaches to key issues on the global agenda and upholding the norms and principles of international law, including the protection of sovereignty and rejection of any form of interference in internal affairs and the practices of neo-colonialism. It is important that these basic postulates are based on the fundamental interests of both Russia and Bolivia.

Today, bilateral relations are developing in the spirit of strategic partnership. The positive dynamics of the political dialogue are harmoniously accompanied by the implementation of mutually beneficial cooperation projects in all areas of interest to both our countries from energy and high technology to agriculture and education.

The new Centre for Nuclear Research and Technology in El Alto was a flagship project that gives Bolivia access to unique innovations in the field of agriculture and the fight against cancer.

I would like to stress that this and other projects, as well as our efforts in the Bolivian direction in general, go together with the transfer of technology and knowledge, and include the training of specialised Bolivian professionals.

Russia and Bolivia, as truly multiethnic countries with a thousand-year history, and with a rich diversity of cultures and traditions, are important partners for humanitarian and educational exchanges.

One more detail: the Russian company Marka has issued a special postal envelope to mark the anniversary, which, I am sure, will have a place in any collection.

National holiday of Ecuador

August 10 marks a national holiday in the Republic of Ecuador: Independence Day. The liberation uprising that broke out in Quito in 1809 was one of the first in Latin America. It inspired many countries in the region to fight for their own sovereignty.

The nations of Russia and Ecuador have comprehensive relations that are built on equality and mutual respect. Significant parts of our mutually beneficial cooperation include trade, energy, industry, and agriculture. Extensive ties are maintained in the cultural and humanitarian spheres, and the interest of Ecuadorian youth in obtaining a higher education in Russia is high.

We hope that relations between our states will continue to develop productively. We are open to frank dialogue and constructive interaction with Ecuador in multilateral platforms, including in the UN Security Council, on the principles of respect for international law in the interests of building a more just and secure world order, free of unilateral restrictions and neocolonial practices.

We wish the friendly Ecuadorian people peace, success, progress and prosperity.

43rd anniversary of the foundation of the Latin American Integration Association

August 12 marks 43 years since the Montevideo Convention was signed paving the way for the activities of the Latin American Integration Association, one of the region’s major integration projects, which brings together 13 countries, from Mexico to Argentina.

We wish this association every success as it seeks to create a common market based on pluralism, flexibility and a differentiated approach to its participants, as well as on various methods of regulating mutual trade.

We are interested in developing mutually beneficial cooperation with this association, including at the Eurasian Economic Union level. We are ready to work on the details of the likely mechanisms of cooperation.

In this connection, we would like to specially emphasise that Russia invariably stands for a united, consolidated and economically strong Latin America, which is one of the important pillars of the modern multipolar world.

Answers to media questions:

Question: On August 6, 2023, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres sent a special message to those present at the events in Japan to mark 78 years since the United States dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. He did not, though, mention who had carried out this barbaric attack. Nor did Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida and the Mayor of Hiroshima in their speeches refer to those who did this. How would you comment on these examples of historical amnesia?

Alexey Zaitsev: We heard nothing new in the statements by the Japanese authorities on the occasion of the 78th anniversary of the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki – this is nothing but cynicism, suppression of the truth and Russophobia, as well as the refusal to invite Russian officials to the events commemorating the victims of the nuclear attacks under the pretext of the “tense geopolitical situation”.

The administration led by Prime Minister Fumio Kishida has for the umpteenth time obscured the role of the United States as the author and executor of this inhuman act that made no military sense. Simultaneously, Tokyo continues to hurl fictitious accusations of “nuclear blackmail” at Russia, seeking in vain to hide its faint-hearted servility to Washington when it comes to the situation in Ukraine, which has nothing to do with the tragedies of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

This “selective amnesia” combined with Russophobic rhetoric can only alienate sensible people. The USSR was in reality the only country that from the start alerted the world to the truth about the terrible implications of those catastrophic events, including the publication in full of archival documents containing stark revelations about Hiroshima and Nagasaki; those documents included rare Soviet documentaries shot at the site immediately after the atomic bombings. These documentaries were passed to official Tokyo in 2016, however, they have not been made public yet.

Hypocrisy like this and an approach to the history of WWII informed by current political considerations has become a trademark of official Tokyo, which is obsessed by revanchist dreams and has embarked on a path of accelerated remilitarisation, and is willing to consign to oblivion the real reasons for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Japanese in August 1945.

Question: How would you comment on US Secretary of State Antony Blinken's statements that Washington has done everything it can to ensure that the grain deal issues are resolved, but has not received a response from Moscow? Did you really receive any letters from the White House?

Alexey Zaitsev: According to US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, he has sent letters to certain banks. Please take note of the detailed Foreign Ministry comment on August 4.

The American side is glossing over the real state of affairs. The Westerners are leaving out the fact that most of the Ukrainian grain, mainly fodder, went to well-fed Europe. They avoid mentioning that the Kiev regime has been using the maritime humanitarian corridor from Odessa to Istanbul for terrorist attacks against Sevastopol, the Crimean bridge and Russian ships, or that Russian agricultural exports are systematically hampered by the illegal unilateral sanctions.

Under these conditions, our approach remains the same; we have reiterated our requirements many times – first, the systemic issues need to be resolved (Rosselkhozbank reconnected to SWIFT, the supply of spare parts resumed, transport logistics and insurance reinstated, and Russian companies’ access to their foreign assets restored). Only after that will we consider the possibility of resuming the Black Sea initiative under the stated humanitarian goals.

Question: Does Moscow plan to negotiate with the rebels in Niger? As you know, US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland has met with representatives of the military group that removed the country's president from power.

Alexey Zaitsev: This isn’t about the visit itself; the point is that there should be practical results from it. Our Western colleagues do not always succeed in this.

We believe it is extremely important to prevent further escalation in Niger. We believe that there is no alternative to the early restoration of law and order and the start of an inclusive national dialogue. According to incoming reports, the situation in the country is generally stable, and state institutions continue to function.

In looking for ways to resolve the conflict in Niger, we continue to rely on the African solutions to African problems approach. We support the mediation efforts undertaken by the African community to help the Nigeriens overcome the crisis. At the same time, we believe that an intervention by the troops of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) is unlikely to contribute to achieving lasting peace in Niger.

Question: Foreign Ministry representative Denis Gonchar said Baku and Yerevan are not ready to sign a peace treaty on any terms because there are outstanding and complicated issues. However, spokesperson for the US Department of State Matthew Miller noted that the parties could still reach a peace agreement, regardless of any comments by other countries. Is this an implication regarding Russia’s mediation? Can you respond to this? What outstanding difficulties was Mr Gonchar talking about?

Alexey Zaitsev: In his interview, Mr Gonchar said there was no point in accelerating the process to reach a good and reliable agreement. Maybe someone is interested in rushing things, but the question is how all this will be fulfilled later. This is what the Director of the Ministry’s 4th CIS Department Denis Gonchar said.

I can only repeat what we have said about this on several occasions. The drafting of a peace treaty between Armenia and Azerbaijan is an element of the tripartite agreements between the President of Russia, the President of Azerbaijan and the Prime Minister of Armenia. Russia is working to help Baku and Yerevan draft this document through political and diplomatic channels at all levels. Trilateral summits take place every year, and foreign minister meetings are held regularly.

Any indication from Baku or Yerevan about a commitment to reach a peace agreement as soon as possible does not mean that they are ready to accept every term. They still have to find solutions to a number of complicated issues.

Question: (retranslated) Russia has held a number of meetings with the presidential candidates in Lebanon. Does Moscow view Suleiman Frangieh as a potential candidate for this post? Could this be in Russia’s interests?

Alexey Zaitsev: We believe holding a presidential election as soon as possible is now a key issue for Lebanon and a major condition for ensuring domestic political stability and improving the difficult socio-economic situation in that country. We hope the Lebanese will manage to overcome the differences preventing them from resolving this vital domestic task by reaching a national consensus and a balance of interests between the leading political parties and ethnoreligious groups.

We do not have a preference for a specific candidate. We will not interfere in the strictly domestic affairs of other states.

As for the leader of the Marada Movement you mentioned, we know him well. He has visited Russia more than once. On April 15, 2022, he met in Moscow with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Special Presidential Representative for the Middle East and Africa and Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov.

Suleiman Frangieh is a seasoned political leader and a befitting candidate for the presidency. But the decision is solely up to the Lebanese people themselves. What is good for the people of Lebanon is good for us. We will treat their choice with respect.

Question: (retranslated) What does Russia think about the Western-supported threats of ECOWAS to carry out a military intervention in Niger? Could Russia be a mediator in resolving this situation, considering its long-term partnership relations with countries like Burkina Faso and Mali?

Alexey Zaitsev: As for ECOWAS, their next session is scheduled for tomorrow. A decision on the possible use of force has not yet been made. We believe that the way out of the situation in Niger will be found via a political and diplomatic settlement. This is what we insist on and what we proceed from. I have already spoken today about our negative attitude towards the use of force.

Question: Mikhail Podolyak, advisor to the head of Zelensky’s office accused Russia of organising a state coup in Niger. What can you say about this?

Alexey Zaitsev: It is pointless to comment on statements by various Ukrainian politicians because they change them a hundred times a day.

I will just say that even our Western partners, who often criticise Russia for no reason, have never said anything like this. There are no grounds for such a statement; it is idle talk.

Question: The “peace summit” in Saudi Arabia was followed by reports that Ukraine allegedly had not insisted on the withdrawal of Russian troops from the territories that it considers its own. How do you interpret this? What do you think about this meeting as such?

Alexey Zaitsev: As for this position allegedly expressed by Ukraine, we would suggest asking those at the Jeddah meeting for an explanation. Russia was not invited to this meeting. As far as we know, at this meeting, Kiev and the Western countries were promoting Vladimir Zelensky’s ultimatum-like “peace formula.” One of its demands is that Ukraine’s 1991 borders be recognised. This is impossible in principle.

As for the event in Saudi Arabia, we have already expressed our view of it. Two thirds of the participants were the orchestrators of the crisis in Ukraine, whereas the Global South nations were in the minority and many attended the meeting via video conference. Any meeting on this issue without Russia or consideration for Russia’s interests offers no benefit and is simply pointless. At the same time, we appreciate the initiatives of the countries in the Global South that are aimed at reaching peace. As distinct from Kiev that banned any talks with Russia, we are open to truly serious proposals and are ready to discuss them.

Question: Five citizens of the PRC were denied entry to the Russian Federation. What can you say about this and how will it affect bilateral relations?

Alexey Zaitsev: We are in close contact with the Chinese Embassy in Moscow regarding the denial of entry to the five Chinese citizens at the Karauzek automobile checkpoint (Astrakhan Region) of the Russia-Kazakhstan border on July 29 of this year. China’s official note was received on August 7 of this year and sent to the FSB Border Service of Russia which is responsible for issues related to crossing the state border. We do not have more detailed information about this for the time being.

I would like to note that Russia-China relations of comprehensive partnership and strategic interaction are at a record high level and are the best in our history, which allows us to promptly and effectively resolve any issues that may arise, including matters of practical cooperation. We share a mutual interested in tapping the full tourism potential of the two countries and enthusiastically welcome the arrival of Chinese guests. We are working hard to restore tourist exchanges and ease visa requirements as soon as possible. Naturally, this depends on foreign citizens following the law regulating the terms of their entry-exit and stay.

Considering the substantial scale and diversity of Russia-China ties, it is rather difficult for us to completely avoid some issues. Nonetheless, our responsible authorities look into all such incidents promptly, thoroughly, and in the spirit of friendship.

Obviously, the incident in Astrakhan has no political connotations. We are sure that it will not affect the general condition of our bilateral relations in any way.

We believe the hype over this incident benefits our common ill-wishers that are trying to drive a wedge into Russia-China friendship. However, both we and our Chinese partners strive to consistently develop and deepen our practical cooperation, as graphically illustrated by the substance and character of Sergey Lavrov’s telephone conversation with his Chinese colleague Wang Yi on August 7 of this year.

Question: Is the Foreign Ministry taking part in drafting an intergovernmental agreement with China on the new Russia-China land grain corridor? How can this agreement promote Russian grain exports to the PRC?

Alexey Zaitsev: Issues related to Russia-China cooperation in agriculture are regularly discussed during bilateral contacts at the top and high level, as well as at relevant platforms of interdepartmental interaction. We are also conducting an intensive dialogue on Russian grain supplies to the Chinese market.

One of the main elements of the Russia-China new land grain corridor – a grain transshipment terminal in the Trans-Baikal Territory – has been included on the list of important projects by the Russia-China Intergovernmental Commission on Investment Cooperation. Joint communiques adopted following regular meetings of our prime ministers noted repeatedly the importance of promoting cooperation in agriculture, and expanding the scale and diversification of the range of Russian exports.

Important agreements on building up grain exports to the PRC were reached during the February 2022 visit to China by President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin. At present, we are seeing serious positive dynamics in bilateral trade in agricultural products. We are rendering comprehensive foreign policy support within our competence to promote mutually beneficial cooperation in this area.

Question: What do you think was the real purpose of the Jeddah summit, if it was clear from the start that it made no sense without Russia’s participation?

Alexey Zaitsev: I have already commented on this. I can only say it again that the Foreign Ministry has taken note of the consultations on the Ukraine issue held in Jeddah on August 5 and 6 at the initiative of the Kiev regime and the G7. The consultations involved our BRICS allies and other partners. We hope that in keeping with our agreements, they will share their assessments with us. We reaffirm our position on the so-called Zelensky “peace formula,” which the Kiev regime and the West are attempting to promote during such meetings. None of its 10 points is aimed at finding a negotiated diplomatic or political solution to the crisis, while in their totality they represent a senseless ultimatum to Russia.

What was their aim? Hard to say. Perhaps it’s better to ask the organisers.

Question: Ambassador of the Republic of Sierra Leone Mohamed Yongavo said that his country wanted to re-establish a direct air link with Russia in the belief that the country’s white-sand Atlantic beaches could become an attractive destination for Russian tourists. Has Sierra Leone sent an official request for resuming direct air travel?

Alexey Zaitsev: No official request has come in.

Question: US journalist Clayton Morris branded Ukraine as the capital of worldwide trafficking in children and surrogate mothers. Does the Foreign Ministry possess facts confirming what he says? If it does, what number of sold children is on record?

Alexey Zaitsev: Ukraine is indeed one of the few countries allowing commercial trans-border surrogate motherhood. This means that childless married couples living elsewhere can “order” children for themselves. According to the Ukrainian Justice Ministry’s official statistics alone, about 1,500 infants are born in this manner each year, with 90 percent of them taken out of the country by their foreign parents.

But this legalised trafficking in children is just the tip of an iceberg. Last week, the Ukrainian authorities exposed a large-scale scheme whereby newborn infants were smuggled across the border under the cover of surrogate motherhood. The group of organisers includes heads of reproductive medicine clinics in Kiev and Kharkov. It has been reliably determined that eight infants left Ukraine for other countries, and an investigation is in progress on another 40 cases.

There are other channels for trafficking in children as well. In June, a man was detained on the Ukrainian-Slovak border who bought children from their parents and sold them to EU countries, including for spare-part surgery. He had pulled off at least three deals of this sort.

We have repeatedly drawn public attention to these horrendous facts. There is also an aggravating factor: this man is a former school headmaster and teacher at an orphanage. No one knows how many parentless kids have become his victims.

Trafficking in children and black transplantology are now a lucrative business in Ukraine. In a combat situation, where the government has authorised a forced evacuation of children, with thousands of orphans taken abroad, this business has reached an unprecedented scale. The West is consistently turning Ukraine into both a testing ground for its advanced weapons and a supplier of human material.

Question: Can Russia as the legal successor of the USSR raise the issue of the occupation of the Soviet Union by NATO troops after 1991, or the part of the Soviet Union where they are currently based?

Alexey Zaitsev: The Foreign Ministry’s attitude to NATO activity since 1991 is well known. After the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and the USSR, the reasons for NATO to operate further no longer existed. And yet, the bloc took every effort to restore its relevance, something that primarily benefits this organisation’s officials. NATO is essentially a vestige of the Cold War and today the point of its existence is not entirely clear.

Washington is determined to breathe new life into the alliance and use the NATO format to consolidate the collective West for the deterrence of Russia and China, which remain an obstacle to Western dominance in the world.

You know very well that, despite promises not to expand, this military bloc has continued to exercise its principle of open doors and done everything to create new dividing lines. Instead of listening, for example, to Russia’s proposal to create a common security space, the bloc organised security only for its close circle. Until recently, we tried to reverse this tendency and suggested negotiations but, as you know, Western countries did not meet Russia’s proposals with a positive response.

Question: What about the occupation of the part of the Soviet Union? Can Russia raise this issue and object to NATO’s activity?

Alexey Zaitsev: For the past years, we have repeatedly raised claims against NATO concerning its activity. You know that.

Question: Why are many lawyers saying that the only borders on our territory enshrined in international law are the borders of the Soviet Union?

Alexey Zaitsev: Frankly, I am not aware of lawyers’ statements to this effect. I would rather categorise them as opinions from political science or political philosophy.

Let’s refer to the Constitution of the Russian Federation, where this matter is clearly documented. There is also the Law On the State Border of the Russian Federation and many corresponding bylaws. The Russian borders are officially and legally enshrined in our laws. The main law is the Constitution of the Russian Federation. So, that is our main point of reference.

Question: What does Russia need to do to change the Military Doctrine? Can the Foreign Ministry become the initiator of this process?

Alexey Zaitsev: As you know, President of Russia Vladimir Putin approved the current version of Russia’s Military Doctrine in December 2014. It is a strategic planning document, which is updated at regular intervals, the same way as the Foreign Policy Concept of the Russian Federation, for example. At the same time, the Military Doctrine’s provisions can be adjusted as necessary, to accommodate changes in the nature of military dangers and threats for our country, its national defence and security objectives, or development requirements.

The main points of the country’s state security policy and its military policy objectives are determined by the President, while the Security Council of the Russian Federation is the body responsible for drafting the Military Doctrine in accordance with the Federal Law On Security. It is a lengthy process involving various ministries and agencies, and the Russian Foreign Ministry is certainly a part of it. But the Ministry of Defence is the key actor here. Therefore, questions about the practical aspects of the Military Doctrine are best addressed to our colleagues at the Ministry of Defence.

Question: Citizens of Ukraine, the Baltic States, and Armenia are calling us, sending videos and writing letters asking Russia not to leave them. In a most recent case, a journalist from Armenia, who is a patriot of a single multinational Fatherland, was left to fend for himself after the pro-Russian media outlet he used to work for was closed. He is struggling with unemployment and discrimination. Can people like him get support from Russia?

Alexey Zaitsev: Each situation is different, so it is best to deal with each specific case individually. At any rate, discrimination cases must not be hushed up. If you have specific information that you would like to bring to our attention, please send it through the available channels to the Information and Press Department, to our press centre. We will consider it and decide what we could do in our area of responsibility.

Table of contents

Additional materials

Photos

The main foreign policy news

International security