Excerpts from the briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, November 15, 2023
Table of Contents
- Sergey Lavrov’s upcoming talks with Foreign Minister of Venezuela Yvan Gil
- Sergey Lavrov’s participation in a joint meeting of the CSTO Council of Foreign Ministers, the Council of Defence Ministers and the Committee of Security Council Secretaries
- Ukraine crisis
- Briefing by Russian Foreign Ministry Ambassador-at-Large on the Kiev Regime’s War Crimes, Rodion Miroshnik
- ‘Effectiveness’ of the EU’s anti-Russia sanctions
- NATO’s activities to protect critical undersea infrastructure
- NATO Cyber Defence Pledge Conference
- Foreign Ministry website’s new section on updates regarding the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE)
- Update on Palestinian-Israeli conflict
- Xenophobia and anti-Semitism increases in the West
- Consideration of the fourth report of the Russian Federation under the Universal Periodic Review process
- Continuing discrimination against Russian athletes
- Historical parallels to the rules developed by International Gymnastics Federation for Russian and Belarusian neutral athletes
- 25th anniversary of Russia’s accession to APEC
- Upcoming scientific and practical conference on human rights
- International Students’ Day
- The 78th anniversary of launching the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg
- The Kiev regime’s violations of the Ottawa AP Mine Ban Convention
- Statements by the Foreign Ministry of Armenia
- Prospects for the return of Armenians who have left Nagorno Karabakh
- Europeans’ concerns regarding Ukraine’s EU accession
- The APEC CEO Summitt 2023 in San Francisco
- The 12th package of anti-Russia sanctions
- Armenia’s turnaround towards the EU and NATO
- Some ideas prevalent among the Armenian leadership
- Statements by the NATO Secretary-General
- Prospects for Ukraine’s NATO accession
- Russian-Armenian contacts
- Russia-Moldova relations
- Opportunities for strengthening international security
- The passage of ships via the Baltic straits
- Various approaches to strikes against civilian infrastructure
- Armenia’s possible withdrawal from the CSTO
- The status of individuals with dual citizenship
- The situation with Russian citizens evacuated from Gaza
- Statements by the Interior Minister of Finland regarding possible restrictions on the Russian-Finish border
- Statements by US politicians regarding the Arctic LNG-2 project
- Statements by the Prime Minister of Hungary
- The appointment of Tony Blair as a humanitarian coordinator for the Gaza Strip
- The escalation in the Gaza Strip
- Statements by Romanian politicians with regard to Ukraine
- The role of the collective West in governing Ukraine
- The International Forum: The Media and Digital Technology Facing the Challenge of Information and Historical Falsifications
Sergey Lavrov’s upcoming talks with Foreign Minister of Venezuela Yvan Gil
On November 16, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will hold talks with Foreign Minister of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela Yvan Gil. More information is available on the Foreign Ministry’s website.
On November 22, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will take part in a joint meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers, the Council of Defence Ministers and the Committee of Secretaries of Security Councils of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation. Belarus will preside at the event, which will be held in Minsk ahead of the upcoming CSTO Collective Security Council session.
A discussion on the military-political situation in the CSTO’s area of responsibility and adjacent regions, as well as review of the results of multilateral cooperation within the CSTO and prospects for the further development of the Organisation’s collective security system are envisaged.
The heads of delegations are expected to approve a number of joint documents.
Ukrainian militants persist in cynically attacking civilian facilities in Russian cities in Donbass, and Kherson, Zaporozhye, Belgorod, Bryansk and Kursk regions using multiple launch rocket systems (MLRS), large-calibre artillery, and shells, including those with cluster warheads, as well as drones.
On November 11, the Ukrainian Armed Forces attacked the village of Malye Kopani, Kherson Region. Two civilians were killed and two more injured. On the same day, two people were killed and two more were wounded as a result of Ukrainian shelling in Donetsk and Gorlovka.
On November 12, a woman in Donetsk and a resident of Aleshek, Kherson Region, died from shelling by the Ukrainian Armed Forces; one person was wounded in Novaya Kakhovka.
On November 13, the village of Novenkoye was shelled in the Suzemsky District of the Bryansk Region. In the Kursk Region, two people were injured in the Glushkovsky and Sudzhansky districts as a result of explosive devices being dropped from a UAV.
On November 13, Donetsk was once again barbarically shelled by the Ukrainian Armed Forces. One person was killed and five injured. On that day, Ukrainian armed forces launched a kamikaze UAV attack on a construction camp in the village of Koloski, DPR. One person was killed.
Ukrainian neo-Nazis persist in using terrorist methods. On November 8, Mikhail Filiponenko, a deputy of the People's Council of the LPR, former head of the Joint Centre for Control and Coordination of the LPR, former department head at the People's Militia of the LPR, was killed in a car explosion in Lugansk.
There is no doubt that anyone who commits such crimes will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
The courts in the Russian Federation continue to deliver sentences against Ukrainian neo-Nazis who have committed serious crimes against civilians based on evidence collected by the Investigative Committee of Russia.
Oleg Zavaletsky, a Ukrainian militant responsible for the murder of six people in Mariupol last spring, has been sentenced to 30 years in prison.
Vitaly Matviyenko, who, together with two of his colleagues, shot up a car carrying a family last spring, resulting in the death of a woman and the injury of her husband, received a similar sentence. A few days later, he ordered his accomplices to open fire on three cars carrying civilians, killing four men and one woman.
Ukrainian neo-Nazi Yaroslav Ivasev received 25 years in prison for the murder of two civilians in Mariupol in the spring of 2022.
Three thugs from Azov, Alexei Zhernovsky, Igor Kim and Gennady Kharchenko, received sentences of 24 or 25 years in prison, respectively, for shelling civilian infrastructure with mortars last March in Mariupol. As a result of these criminal actions, one civilian was injured, civilian buildings were damaged, and private houses were destroyed.
Two Ukrainian militants, Vitaly Savchenko and Nikolai Kondakov, were sentenced to 22 years in prison for the murder of a civilian last spring in Mariupol.
The Investigative Committee of Russia sentenced Verkhovna Rada deputy Vladimir Parasyuk in absentia to 11 years in prison. On March 9, 2016, together with other radicals, he took part in an attack on the Russian Consulate General in Lvov. After entering the premises, Parasyuk tore down the State Flag of the Russian Federation from the flagpole, trampled on it, and called for violent actions against the institution and its employees. He has been placed on the international wanted list.
Recently, the West has been openly talking about widespread corruption in Ukraine. Until recently, Kiev tried to avoid the issue. Vladimir Zelensky demanded the media keep a low profile about this, saying that it undermined national security. Now it is impossible to hide the scale of embezzlement, which has been elevated to the level of state policy in Ukraine. Government circles are now increasingly admitting to the problem.
Some of the stories have been published in the West. On October 30, Time magazine described unsightly details of corruption in Vladimir Zelensky’s government. However, the Western elites are unlikely to have had an epiphany; this is their way of trying to dodge responsibility. Elections are coming up in the United States, and the current White House regime has been involved in corruption schemes for years.
It all began long before Vladimir Zelensky. We remember that in 2014, Joe Biden (the US Vice President at the time) visited Kiev where he supervised the work of the Ukrainian government, sat on the presidium, and removed the incumbent president. We know about the scandals his family has been mired in, in particular his son. Those corrupt schemes had roots in Ukraine. Now there will be more and more publications in US, British and other Western-controlled media alleging that Vladimir Zelensky and developments in Ukraine have nothing to do with the United States. But they do. They are primarily linked with the US, in fact.
By failing to defeat corruption in Ukraine (which was impossible under the paradigms that the West used to undermine the Ukrainian state) and by pouring fabulous sums of money into the country, they have only increased it. Why would the American establishment, the deep state, need this? To have their share. They are certain that their dealings cannot be verified because the war will write off everything. The war unleashed by the United States has wiped out colossal sums of money in favour of the White House and all those behind it.
When you read in American newspapers such as The New York Times, or in British magazines, about the details of corrupt connections, actions and steps in Ukraine in recent years, remember that the Western world needs this to deflect any suspicion of their involvement in it. The responsibility will be fully placed on Vladimir Zelensky. He will never be relieved of this responsibility. That man is rotten through and through. But no corrupt schemes would have been implemented if this money had not been channelled to Ukraine and divided.
This makes the collective West, led by the United States, entirely responsible for the rampant corruption in Ukraine, as those countries have been churning out decisions to provide colossal sums to the Kiev regime almost on a daily basis for all these years (especially the last year and a half). What does this indicate? How many of the Western weapons actually reach the warehouses controlled by the Kiev regime? How much of them are stolen before they reach Ukraine? Future investigations will show. We do not know right now. But I can guarantee some future revelations. And huge numbers of US and UK officials are directly involved in this.
On November 9, Secretary of the National Security and Defence Council Alexey Danilov, in a bid to justify himself, said Ukraine only had “petty corruption.” It is clear to everyone that they are not sparing their people. Ukrainians have been reduced to hostages of the situation and cannon fodder. But one really has to be a hardened ghoul, an egregious cold-blooded cynic to blame the Kiev regime’s corruption (nurtured by the US and the UK) on their own people who were thrown into hell. On the other hand, who doubts what they are?
With all the fabrications, they have still been unable to downplay the scale of the problem. According to reports, between 20 and 36 percent of Western financial aid was misappropriated by Ukrainian officials, primarily the former leadership of the Ministry of Defence (but all connections lead to the United States). What happened to that money next? That's a big question.
A few days ago, Director of Ukraine’s Anti-Corruption Action Centre Daria Kaleniuk complained that the Armed Forces of Ukraine have been sustaining significant losses due to corruption, and would be starved for weapons if “state funds were not effectively protected.” Maybe they should admit just once that they need to defend themselves not from Russia, not from the Kremlin, but from themselves, from the chaos and disarray in their heads that their Western puppeteers have created by instilling liberal values? The Ukrainian Defence Ministry said that it was going to add dyes to fuel to prevent its resale and blending.
Who is to blame for this? Vladimir Zelensky, Petr Poroshenko and Viktor Yushchenko were so loud and adamant that Ukraine had to dissociate itself from everything that linked it with Russia, the post-Soviet landscape and neighbouring countries and peoples, because they wanted a life like in the West. They thought that all bad things were coming from here. What has happened now? They have remained “dissociated” from us for years, and their new government was put in power by the United States, Great Britain, etc. These people earned degrees and received grants from the West. They introduced Western standards and laws in Ukraine. Now what do some post-Soviet relapses or historical problems have to do with what they are dealing with? This is the modern generation of Ukrainian officials. And they are embezzling state money on a scale no one ever dreamed of in the Soviet Union or before it. It is incomparable with any other historical period.
The Kiev regime, accustomed to parasitising on others, is incapable of fighting the rampant corruption that has become the “signature piece” of modern Ukraine. Even if they could, they would not be allowed to – it is a joint “business” with the United States. Obviously, without Washington and London, corruption would never have reached such a scale in Ukraine. No one would allow it. All they can do now is cover it up if they have the media resources and the appropriate capabilities for this.
At the same time, Ukraine is torn not only by a fight for its Western handlers’ wallet, but also by a fierce struggle for power. A recent interview with Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Valery Zaluzhny in The Economist, where he admitted the failure of the counteroffensive and the shortage of weapons, triggered another round. It created quite a stir among the Kiev elite that took his bold statements as a manifestation of his presidential ambitions, and is now prepared to go to any lengths to prevent this scenario. There is no doubt that domestic political turbulence in Ukraine will increase, and the army’s failures at the front will contribute to this.
We also took note of the news that British scientist Christopher Busby reported an increase in the concentration of uranium particles in the southeast of the UK after a depot containing Western depleted uranium munitions was destroyed in Ukraine. It means that Poland, Germany and other countries that have been in the path of radioactive particles are far more contaminated.
I have never pretended that we can outshine British scientists, but it looks like we did in this case. We have been talking about this for a long time. It’s a simple analysis. One does not need a degree in science or a specialism in this field. It only takes logical thinking, the use of facts and an understanding of the historical realities in which similar scenarios have been implemented. It’s a good thing that British scientists are finally there now.
According to Dr Busby, even an insignificant amount of these particles inhaled by people can have an extremely harmful effect on their health and affect their descendants. We have repeatedly warned that the supply of shells with depleted uranium could have serious consequences not only for Ukraine, but also for other countries. The most absurd thing is that the consequences are actually affecting the countries that supply these weapons to Ukraine. But it will be a secret to their people.
Ukraine is implementing a forcible reconfiguration of its citizens’ national identity through the adoption of discriminatory laws that have to do with their language, education and media. Russophobia is becoming widespread and distorted interpretations of history are being imposed. Recently, Mikheil Saakashvili used a new phrase – he spoke about “mental correction,” adding that Russians cannot be fixed. But this term should rather be applied to Ukraine. “Mental correction” is being forced on Ukrainians now, only not by enemies or some invented occupiers, but by people who have posed as pro-Ukrainian politicians for years.
That seems the limit, doesn’t it? But there is no limit to “perfection”– to degradation in this case. It has come to the point where the Kiev authorities are openly denying there is an ethnic community of Russians in that country (the Constitutional Court issued a ruling on this matter in 2021) – when Russians are actually a state-forming nation in Ukraine.
On November 9, Ukraine’s Deputy Prime Minister for European Integration Olga Stefanishina confirmed that there is “no Russian minority” in the country, not a single “legally registered community” that would identify as a Russian minority. What is this? This is Nazism, pure and simple. Not the one from WWII footage, the Third Reich posters or the Nuremberg Tribunal decisions, but a reincarnated variety. In fact, such decisions deny Russians the right to exist. Why? Who decided this? What is the conceptual basis underlying such statements made in Ukraine? According to the 2001 census, more than 8 million people in Ukraine officially identified as Russians, that’s almost 20 percent of the population.
This policy is supported in the West. Brussels agrees that the rights of Russians do not need to be taken into account when assessing Kiev’s compliance with the protection of minorities requirement as one of the criteria for joining the EU. Is this liberalism? There can be no other interpretation. These values come from misanthropy.
Modern Ukraine has become an outpost and a tool the West is using to fight dissent and the Russian world. Various international agencies, created to protect human rights, remain shamefully silent when it comes to the violation of the rights of Russians. They fail to see anything or apply any of the rules they have been developing for years. “Civilised” Europe, which considers itself the “gold standard of democracy,” has given the green light to the Nazis in Kiev.
The Kiev regime continues to fight its own history and cultural heritage. It has been less than a week since the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Kiev from the Nazi invaders (November 6). On November 10, the government of Ukraine ruled to take the grave of Soviet military commander Nikolai Vatutin off the state register of cultural heritage sites under the “decommunisation law.” Vatutin liberated that territory from the Nazi troops.
I have read multiple debates about blasphemy, what the notion implies and what kinds of behaviour can be viewed as blasphemous. When it comes to examples of this kind of attitude, here is one. A cynical desecration of the memory of the man who led the operation that liberated Kiev. In fact, this is a “deferred” Nazi act. Back then, they failed to defeat the people who opposed Nazism and fascism. Today, whatever remained of Nazism, whatever was not thwarted by the Nuremberg verdicts is flourishing in Ukraine.
The government decision I mentioned also included the monument to the great Russian poet Alexander Pushkin in Odessa, built 135 years ago with contributions from the city population. That monument has survived a lot. Even the Nazis and the Romanian occupiers did not touch it. But their ideological successors, the Ukrainian neo-Nazis, cannot rest while it survives. Fortunately, there are still caring people in Odessa who understand that once started, the dehumanising process cannot be stopped. A few days ago, the historical and toponymic commission of the City Council recommended keeping the monuments to Pushkin and to Governor General of Bessarabia, Prince Mikhail Vorontsov. Let’s see what happens.
This suggests that the US puppet regime of Vladimir Zelensky continues to kill Ukraine as a state and Ukrainians as an ethnic group in cold blood to please its Western handlers. Everything is being destroyed: history, culture, and most importantly, the future, which is impossible without the past.
On November 20 at 11 am, Ambassador-at-Large on the Kiev Regime’s War Crimes, Rodion Miroshnik, will hold a briefing at the Foreign Ministry Press Centre, to present facts and details of the most high-profile violations of international humanitarian law and human rights committed during the conflict in Ukraine, and to demonstrate Kiev’s main approaches to crimes against civilians.
The briefing will take place online. Media representatives are invited to take part.
‘Effectiveness’ of the EU’s anti-Russia sanctions
Citizens and business circles in the European Union are increasingly wondering about the purposes of the sanctions and whether they are worth the sacrifice they have had to make as part of the sanctions war against the Russian people launched by their self-assured pro-Atlantic elite.
I remember that a year ago, in her programme speech at the European Parliament, President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen said literally the following: as a result of the harshest sanctions the world has ever seen, planes in Russia are grounded, the Russian industrial sector is torn to shreds and the financial sector is on life support. It is surprising how the Russian industrial sector could be torn to shreds if only ten years ago, US President Barack Obama claimed that the same was happening to the Russian economy.
Only recently, High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell wrote in his article on the anti-Russia restrictions: “Some people claim these sanctions have not worked. This is simply not true.” To substantiate his point, he intentionally quoted outdated statistics. He presented Russia’s GDP decrease of 2.1 percent in 2022 as a great success for the “strangling” sanctions. As if he forgot that the West had predicted an economic collapse for Russia. As if he was not familiar with Ursula von der Leyen who had said that we were torn to shreds, were on life support, etc. In his article, Josep Borrell also assured that the EU sanctions were hitting Russia’s technological sector the hardest, including car manufacturing, the production of computers, transport and electronic equipment. And that the sanctions have an accumulative effect for Russia like slowly intoxicating poison.
Think again. He wrote that with pride, as if he was writing not about people, a country or a nation and individuals, but about scorched land with scattered rocks. He was writing that about live people.
These two topics, a mother abandoned on the porch of a Russian diplomatic mission, and savouring the damage caused to specific people and the nation in general, are the same thing. They are both rooted in the notorious liberal values that the West is pushing everywhere. For what purpose? To dehumanise.
Josep Borrell predicted a decline of the Russian economy in 2023 by 2.5 percent (he actually expected more). Neither Ursula von der Leyen nor Josep Borrell or other EU officials are talking about the consequences of this sanction mayhem created by Brussels, for the EU itself. They are evading this topic. Let’s help them. I believe that the beauty of debt is paying for it.
And there are things to stay quiet about. Since the second quarter of 2023, the EU’s potential for economic growth has been completely exhausted, down to zero. In Germany, which was once the driver of the European economy, the GDP dropped 0.4 percent in the third quarter and industrial production dropped 3.7 percent in September 2023. The majority of the EU countries are suffering from chronic budget deficiency and excessive state debt (83.5 percent of the GDP across Europe and in some countries, over 140 percent). Why don’t Josep Borrell and Ursula von der Leyen boast about their achievements? They did what it took to make them happen.
The EU’s auto industry took the greatest hit from the sanctions, along with the chemical industry, pharmaceutical production, metals production, mineral fertilisers, pulp, paper and concrete production. According to Eurostat, in August 2023, the EU’s industrial production dropped by 4.4 percent compared to August 2022. Businesses in the EU foresee further decline. The de-industrialisation has been aggravated by production facilities having been moved from the EU to the United States. Real wages in the EU decreased by 4 percent in 2022, and the negative trends remain.
For many years, Russia has been adapting to the sanctions restrictions and continues to do so. Now let’s look at our data. Unemployment is at a historic low of 3 percent. This is half of what the EU has. Last summer, Russia’s GDP fully compensated for the decline in 2022. By the end of 2023, we expect GDP growth of 2.8 percent. In August and September, Russia’s GDP grew 5.2 percent monthly. Over the nine months of 2023, industrial production went up 3.3 percent; the manufacturing industry 7.1 percent. Technology-intensive sectors are showing higher-than-anticipated growth, including machine engineering (+22%), computer and electronic device manufacturing (+34.5%) and electric equipment (+22.2%). Automobile manufacturing, whose deep decline Josep Borrell so proudly envisaged in 2022, grew by almost 50 percent in the third quarter of this year. So, the production facilities abandoned by Western companies in Russia are not standing idle, as you can see.
The Russian fuel and energy sector has successfully withstood the onslaught of the “total” sanctions. What they predicted for us did not come true. Instead, we have redirected our exports to friendly countries. The initiative of the G7 and the EU to impose a price cap on Russian oil and oil products is not working. Last month, the price of Urals oil averaged $81.5 per barrel, or higher than a year ago, before the introduction of the price cap. In 2023, we expect an increase in the production of petrol by 6.4 percent and diesel fuel by 7.6 percent. Russia is producing a record amount of coal. With pipeline gas exports having fallen due to the Nord Stream terrorist attack so blatantly concealed by West, our LNG exports to other countries have soared. Industrial production in the EU now has to rely on US gas that costs them three or four times more than to US manufacturers.
So, where is the commentary, the articles or columns by Josep Borrell or Ursula von der Leyen? Those are their achievements indeed. My question for the EU is, how does it feel to be second-class citizens under Washington? What goes around comes around. For many years, the countries of today’s EU exploited their colonies under the guise of empires and now they have become US colonies themselves.
One of the outcomes of the EU’s sanctions has been the strategic revamping of the entire scope of Russia’s foreign trade links. Russia’s total leftover trade with the European Union is today half of what we trade with China (the EU’s is at 16 percent versus China’s 31 percent). I wonder if this is what the EU dreamed of.
I can imagine all this success in trade and the economic relations with China happening simultaneously with success, development and achievements in the European Union – but they are directly interdependent. The more our trade develops with China, for example, (we work with other countries as well and have diversified our economic relations that were affected by the EU’s actions), the worse Brussels is doing. These things are related. Is this what Ursula von der Leyen and Josep Borrell dreamed of? In 2023, our trade with China will exceed $200 billion (as opposed to $140.7 billion in 2021). Our trade with our EAEU and SCO partners is growing by dozens of percentage points.
Certain difficulties in the Russian economy persist, without doubt. The United States has created an extremely serious challenge for the entire world. But no matter how EU “political bureaucrats” show off, one can only feel sorry for the current state of the EU economy. It is an unprecedented blow to the EU countries delivered by the EU’s officials themselves.
According to the World Bank, the Russian economy became the largest in Europe in the GDP’s key indicator of purchasing power parity, running ahead of the German economy. The EU is steadily losing its position in the global economy relative to the US as well, with every new set of figures released. If we take the estimates of the EU-linked Bruegel economic think tank, in the past 15 years, the EU’s share (without Great Britain) in the global economy has dropped from 25.3 to 16.7 percent while the share of the United States has remained at around 25 percent. This is the logical outcome of the EU political elite bowing, like vassals, to the US course for the EU’s self-isolation from Russia.
If one does not learn from history, mistakes will be repeated. We have spoken about this. Doesn’t the EU know its own history? Don’t they know that they were literally persuaded and pulled from cooperation with our country only to prevent Europe and European unity from becoming stronger? Didn’t they know what motives dominated in the United States? Are they not familiar with the history of the 20th century?
The European Union presumptuously considered itself an irreplaceable partner for Russia. Apparently, they thought they would hurt us so badly we would certainly crawl back. But this didn’t happen. Instead, they caved in. Now I don’t even know if they can still crawl. The facts about the economic situation in the EU have finally buried any illusions Brussels had about it – although they prefer not to talk about it.
NATO’s activities to protect critical undersea infrastructure
NATO has long been extensively engaged in safeguarding underwater infrastructure. The bloc has set up a special centre within its maritime command. This effort involves expanding intelligence sharing among allies and conducting drills to practice the protection of critical undersea infrastructure, using any excuse to justify its increased activity in this area.
The recent incident involving the Balticconnector gas pipeline prompted an increased focus on air and maritime patrols in the Baltic Sea, coupled with heightened monitoring of underwater infrastructure. All these efforts are ostensibly driven and justified by perceived threats originating from our territory.
I would like to remind you that the investigation into the incident that resulted in damage to the pipeline and telecommunications cable has not yet been completed. A pertinent question arises: if this investigation is still underway and there is no mention of the Nord Stream pipelines in the West, could it be that the threat does not originate from our side? Perhaps it would be prudent for them to wait until their own investigation is completed to identify the actual source of the threat to the European continent, especially the EU space. Or will they persist in echoing statements made by the Americans?
There are no genuine reasons for NATO’s efforts to militarise the formerly very peaceful Baltic region. Or perhaps they disregard the real threats they are facing because they are not explicitly labelled as such. The bloc’s disproportionate engagement in the area has the potential to undermine regional security entirely. We will take the bloc’s activities into account, including in our doctrinal concepts, documents and military plans.
NATO Cyber Defence Pledge Conference
The first NATO Cyber Defence Pledge Conference took place in Berlin on November 9-10. All alliances and countries appear to be holding respective regional, international, and global forums and roundtable discussions now. What was this particular event about? German Federal Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock spoke at the conference and came up with another set of brazen anti-Russia remarks. This time, Russia was accused of “destroying the telecommunications infrastructure in Kherson.” Is it us who, according to Annalena Baerbock, is destroying the telecommunications infrastructure in Kherson? Judging by it all, the German Foreign Minister doesn’t know what she’s talking about. Once she said that a 360-degree turnaround is a radical change that could lead to fatal consequences in terms of changing direction. I realise that this time as well she seems to be unaware of what it was that she said and the absurdity of the situation. I would like to remind Ms Baerbock that she has no evidence to back up her words about the telecommunications infrastructure in Kherson allegedly destroyed by Russia. However, I have evidence to corroborate Germany’s efforts to destroy the Russian telecommunications structure.
Remember what happened to the RT channel in the German language? The German authorities did everything to make the operation and broadcasting of this channel impossible (in every sense of the word).
From the very beginning, they created a negative image of this broadcasting entity in German society and among official bodies. It started with attempts to block its bank accounts and services, and then they refused to register it with the authorities. They told Luxembourg not to do so, either. In September 2021, with the strong insistence of Berlin, YouTube deleted RT DE accounts without the option to restore them.
On December 16, 2021, just five hours after RT started broadcasting in German, YouTube blocked the channel that broadcast exclusively live, despite the fact that the Russian operator took every precaution at every stage to avoid breaking national or EU laws.
On February 2, 2022, citing the lack of a permit issued by the national regulatory authorities, Germany’s Licensing and Supervision Commission issued a directive to cease satellite and other broadcasting to the German-language RT DE channel.
The fact that this media outlet operated under a Serbia-issued licence for satellite broadcasting in full compliance with the European Convention on Transfrontier Television, of which Germany is a participant, was ignored. All questions regarding whether Germany has a license for the German language, considering that it is not the only country on the European continent where this language is official, were ignored.
Under far-fetched pretexts, the local media regulator repeatedly imposed fines on the channel. In February 2023, under pressure from the authorities, the Berlin-based RT DE Productions GmbH, which produced content for the Russian German-language channel RT DE, announced the termination of journalistic activities in Germany. In March of the same year, it announced the freezing of its bank accounts.
At the same time, the German diplomat deliberately omitted any mention of the destruction of the communication infrastructure in the Donetsk People’s Republic (DNR) and the Lugansk People’s Republic (LPR) by Kiev, not to mention the ongoing shelling of civilian targets in Donetsk, Lugansk, and other cities.
If this person is truly concerned about the importance of telecommunication network broadcasting, if in another country and place that does not border Germany and has no relation to it, where there is no German broadcasting or German journalists, why does Annalena Baerbock feel the need to comment on all of this? Why not start with themselves and let everyone know how they disrupted the broadcasting of a specific channel in their own country? They did everything they could to prevent a specific broadcaster from working in their country (I’m talking about the people rather than the geography): they mistreated people, created a false impression of this channel, and eventually came to attack it technically. Indeed, they did not use missiles or act like when the Nord Stream pipelines were destroyed, but the result is the same – there is no broadcasting for their public.
So why didn’t Annalena Baerbock talk at the NATO conference on cybersecurity about the methods the German government is using to disrupt broadcasting channels, corporations, and media within its own borders, for its own viewers and audiences? They know how to do it. We gave them a tip today. Perhaps, next time Ms Baerbock speaks at a conference, she will think about her country’s efforts to disrupt the broadcasting of a specific television channel.
I talk about Ukraine and the Kiev regime, and how many journalists they have killed. I do this literally at every briefing. But apparently, Annalena Baerbock doesn’t find this interesting, either. However, Russia has repeatedly and publicly presented relevant facts and evidence, including on specialised platforms such as the International Telecommunication Union and the Universal Postal Union.
The above Berlin conference saw many run-of-the mill Russophobic insinuations. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg and other high-ranking officials again tried to portray Ukraine as a victim of alleged Russian “cyber aggression.” This is absurd. In reality, the Russian information infrastructure is constantly subjected to mass cyber attacks by the so-called Ukrainian hacker IT army, which was created with direct assistance from the United States and its supporters.
Moreover, this information cyber aggression at the level of real terrorism was unleashed from the territory controlled by the Kiev regime and the United States many years ago. Telephone con-artists from hundreds of call centres threaten Russian citizens, commit credit card and other fraud, and use personal data. This has been going on for many years. It is worse than the danger of being robbed or intimidated. The point is that these cyber operations, namely calls about mining, other extremist calls, threats over many years against our people and civilian facilities such as schools, hospitals, and kindergartens, originate from the territory of the Kiev regime and the United States. Has anyone said anything about this during the conference?
In fact, at some point, this criminal conglomerate (the Kiev regime and the United States) has effectively gone out of control (even their own control). The Hungarian authorities openly state that a significant portion of the funds stolen in their country as a result of crimes using ICT, including phone fraud, is sent to Ukraine. The terrorist and extremist Nazi Kiev regime and everything created for it by the United States is what represents the real threat to the so-called Western democracies. It is not Russia or China, whom the United States and their allies traditionally present as the axis of evil or the wrong side of history. It is what the young democratic state of Ukraine has turned into – a real terrorist nest from which all of that is spreading.
Not a word was said about this at the NATO conference. But there are many publications and articles in Western media, prompted by NATO member countries’ government bodies, that we are creating threats, including by withdrawing from the CFE Treaty.
In the context of completing Russia’s withdrawal from the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE), the West is once again trying to accuse us of wrecking the European arms control system.
As we have seen, the current situation confirms the need for providing updates on the CFE Treaty in order to highlight the contrast between the Russian and Western approaches towards the entire European arms control system.
In this connection, on November 15, we created a special Russian and English language section on the official Foreign Ministry website that covers the situation regarding the CFE Treaty. The section features the main statements and comments by the Foreign Ministry reflecting the official Russian position on this issue.
Update on Palestinian-Israeli conflict
The deplorable situation in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict continues to get worse. The number of deaths, caused by the unprecedented escalation of hostilities in the Gaza Strip, continues to increase catastrophically. These tragic events have already claimed the lives of thousands of people, including over 1,000 Israeli citizens and 11,000 Palestinians. Tens of thousands of Palestinians have been wounded, primarily civilians, including many women and children.
Israel has imposed a strict blockade on the Palestinian enclave, and this serves to expand the scale of the humanitarian disaster. The Gaza Strip remains hard-pressed for food, medications and fuel. Due to the ongoing hostilities, the Rafah border crossing with Egypt, the only facility for handling incoming humanitarian relief aid, operates with substantial restrictions. This amount of humanitarian relief aid is not enough to meet demand.
In turn, we remain involved in the humanitarian effort to mitigate the suffering of the civilian population. On November 10, 2023, Russian Ministry for Civil Defence, Emergencies and Disaster Relief planes flew from Kazan to Egypt to deliver another shipment of food and medication to Gaza Strip residents. In total, Russia has delivered over 140 tonnes of humanitarian relief aid, and the Egyptian Red Crescent Society has received this latest shipment for distribution among the needy people of this besieged Palestinian enclave.
According to international organisations, Israeli air strikes have destroyed 50 percent of residential buildings in the Gaza Strip and have critically damaged vital civilian infrastructure, including medical institutions. Over 1.6 million people were forced to leave their homes. A comment, posted November 13, 2023 on the Foreign Ministry website, provides more detailed insight into UN representatives’ assessments of the crisis.
We prioritise the safety of Russian citizens in Israel and on Palestinian territories. We maintain permanent contact with them via our diplomatic and consular missions.
On November 12, 2023, we started relocating Russian citizens, their families and foreign citizens that requested our assistance, from the Gaza Strip to Egypt, step by step. The list of these people also includes compatriots and citizens of other countries requesting assistance. Once again, we would like to thank representatives of all countries who are helping us organise this process. The evacuation is ongoing. We regularly post related information on the Foreign Ministry’s media resources.
Due to the disastrous situation in the Gaza Strip, we prioritise the goal of ending the hostilities as soon as possible and providing humanitarian assistance for all needy people.
We note the efforts of the Arab League and Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) countries whose representatives gathered for a joint summit in Riyadh on November 11, 2023. Following the summit, they passed a statement on the need to reach a ceasefire, to lift the blockade and to assist the Gaza Strip’s population.
This position coincides with our principled approach. We are ready to closely coordinate our future actions with our Arab and Muslim partners and other like-minded countries in the interests of de-escalating the situation in the conflict zone and subsequently launching a search for a comprehensive political-diplomatic settlement in accordance with the well-known foundation of international law on this issue.
Xenophobia and anti-Semitism increases in the West
At a recent briefing, I described in detail the four-fold growth in anti-Semitic incidents in the United States since the start of the escalation in the Middle East. The White House administration also noted this. According to some American media, the problem is even more serious. Many American journalists insist that these figures are underrated. In reality, anti-Semitism in the US is much stronger.
This is happening not only in the United States. The situation in neighbouring Canada is no better. In the past year alone, there have been 15 attacks against Jews in Toronto, 14 attacks against Muslims in Montreal, swastikas on the homes of rabbis and assaults on mosques. Not infrequently, religious intolerance leads to the use of firearms.
The situation in the EU countries is similar. The European Commission stated on November 5 of this year, that the surge in anti-Semitic incidents in Europe had reached an “extraordinary level.” Molotov cocktails were thrown into a synagogue in Berlin on October 18 of this year; the Star of David was painted on houses in Paris and its suburbs in late October; a Jewish cemetery was desecrated in Vienna on November 1; Jewish shops and synagogues were attacked and anti-Jewish demonstrations were held in Spain; demonstrators burned an Israeli flag in front of a synagogue in Malmö (Sweden) on November 4 of this year. According to the American Jewish human rights NGO Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the number of anti-Semitic acts in Germany increased by almost 2.5 times on October 7-15 of this year compared to the same period last year. The situation in Great Britain is similar – 1,019 such cases were recorded between October 7 and November 3, 2023, which is five times more than in the same period the year before.
Officials in the EU countries have been forced to recognise this problem. Thus, Felix Klein, Federal Government Commissioner for Jewish Life in Germany and the Fight against Antisemitism, admitted that Germany had lost its “immunity against anti-Semitism.” He noted in his special report that the Jews were in an “extraordinary situation,” and that May 8-9 was now seen as a German defeat rather than a liberation.
Who is to blame for this? What is the source of this attitude? This was merely detonated by the October 7 events. The background for this was created by the demolition of monuments to the heroes of WWII all over Europe, lack of response to historical defamation, imposition of an ideology that turned history upside down, glorifying Nazi accomplices and collaborationists, zero reaction to torch marchers and demonstrations by the “forest brothers.” Nazism, that had been gaining momentum everywhere, has not brought any reaction.
The current Global Majority did all it could (from supporting relevant UN General Assembly resolutions to practical steps) to restrain the onslaught of neo-Nazism. What did the West do? It merely encouraged it. For it, neo-Nazism was fertile soil for planting its own people in power, banning everything linked with Russia and conducting many political and geopolitical experiments. Now everyone is sounding the alarm. For whom does the bell toll? For all those who for the last 30 years did not want to see, hear, understand or analyse these processes, and by so doing encouraged them directly or otherwise.
In one year alone, the Secretariat of the Federal Government Commissioner for the Fight against Antisemitism recorded more than 10 incidents of vandalism as regards monuments to the victims of the Holocaust. Less than 80 years after the furnaces of the concentration camps were shut down, anti-Semitism is being revived in Germany on a large scale. Vandals are desecrating the graves of those who lost their lives defending the victims of Nazism and driving it back (to where it belongs). Was anyone concerned when the graves of Red Army soldiers were desecrated and moved to other places under far-fetched pretexts, when people were deprived of the opportunity to lay flowers at these graves? Was anyone worried when neo-Nazis and their collaborators were holding marches, or when anti-fascists were not allowed to protest in the streets and cities in Baltic countries when war monuments were demolished? The victims of World War II cannot be separated from the heroes fighting against Nazism, but many in the West are doing exactly that.
Despite these dangerous processes, every year, the US, Canada, Great Britain, Ukraine and the EU countries have sneered at the Russian draft of the UN General Assembly resolution condemning Nazism. At some point, the EU countries felt ill at ease with this practice and adopted a neutral attitude by abstaining from voting (which they presented as a great achievement). Later, they broke down and opposed the resolution again. The US, Ukraine and Canada always voted against it.
On November 13, the fourth report of the Russian Federation on national efforts in the field of human rights was reviewed in Geneva at the 44th session of the Working Group of the UN Human Rights Council on the Universal Periodic Review (UPR).
The Russian delegation informed the international community in detail about the measures taken by the Russian federal and regional authorities to promote and protect human rights. Special emphasis was placed on efforts to support socially vulnerable categories of the population and to create conditions for their active involvement in all spheres of public life. It paid considerable attention to efforts to eradicate discrimination and intolerance. The report emphasised Russia's efforts in the international arena to combat racism, xenophobia, aggressive nationalism, ethnic and religious intolerance and neo-Nazism, including in the context of preserving historical memory and countering falsification of history.
The review of the Russian report aroused great interest among representatives of other states. Delegations from 116 countries took part in the discussion. Many speakers welcomed Russia's experience in combating all forms of discrimination, protecting traditional spiritual and moral values and the institution of the family, motherhood, fatherhood and childhood. They noted efforts to protect the rights and empowerment of women, young people and the elderly. They noted significant progress in ensuring the economic, social and cultural rights of citizens, improving legislative and law enforcement practices, and actively promoting tolerance and interfaith dialogue.
Unfortunately, the countries of the collective West once again demonstrated their determination to artificially politicise human rights issue and use it to interfere in the internal affairs of sovereign states. They once again made accusations against Russia that were not supported by facts and they gave biased assessments.
They tried unceremoniously to place on the Russian side the entire responsibility for the situation in neighbouring countries, including Abkhazia and South Ossetia, as well as for the rapidly deteriorating human rights situation in Ukraine. (Now, it turns out that we are responsible for this too. No, it is not to us, it is to the West, the United States first). At the same time, they hypocritically glossed over the criminal policy of the Kiev authorities, which is plunging the country further and further into the abyss of lawlessness, corruption and chaos. We consider such moves to be incompatible not only with the foundations of the Universal Periodic Review but also with the UN Charter as a whole.
At the same time, this custom-made anti-Russia attack has had no noticeable impact on the constructive and businesslike atmosphere of dialogue with the Russian delegation and on our future work.
The approval of the final report on Russia's passage through the UPR procedure will take place at the 55th session of the UN Human Rights Council in March 2024. The Russian delegation will express its position on the recommendations made by the UN member states.
For its part, the Russian Federation intends to continue its consistent line on the unacceptability of politicising human rights issue and the imperative of conducting human rights activities solely on the basis of equal cooperation and mutually respectful dialogue. The Universal Periodic Review in the UN Human Rights Council is an effective mechanism for developing such cooperation.
Continuing discrimination against Russian athletes
Yet again, we are forced to note international sports agencies’ ongoing use of sports as a tool to enforce the policy to cancel Russia and its athletes.
This time, it was the International Gymnastics Federation, which has developed discriminatory rules for admission of Russian and Belarusian athletes to international competitions.
In addition to banning the use of symbols of our country (such as the anthem, flag, associations with a national sports federation, etc.), which is not surprising anymore, the sports functionaries instructed that our gymnasts perform in completely neutral single-coloured blue or white leotards, which must be coordinated with the international federation.
Let me read a piece from this statement: “Women’s competition leotard, unitard or competition shirt must be of a solid light blue colour. Men’s competition singlet, unitard or competition shirt must be of a solid light blue colour. Men’s competition pants or shorts must be completely white. The Track suit worn by Individual Neutral Athletes and their support personnel must be of a solid light blue colour. In Rhythmic Gymnastics, the hand apparatus must be completely white.” This is the 21st century. At this point in time, the world has gone through all kinds of segregation and condemned it.
We consider the appearance of such blatantly discriminatory and unjustified criteria as yet another manifestation of the lack of morals and ethics in those at the wheel of international sports organisations, as well as a display of the real segregation of athletes based on their nationality, and hatred towards athletes from our countries. It is unacceptable in global sports and it is a blow to the global sports and Olympic movements.
The aggressive imposition of humiliating and unjustified conditions for sports events on our athletes based solely on their nationality contradicts the Olympic Charter and violates the fundamental principles of the Olympic movement.
It seems that international sports officials have decided to take the opportunity to eliminate the strongest competitors by putting our gymnasts in the most unfavourable conditions. However, in the end, these sports officials in their desire to strike a blow at Russian rhythmic gymnastics are harming sports, the Olympic movement, fans and a huge audience.
You are mistaken if you believe that the use of special clothing and uniforms to conduct coercive racial segregation of people of various ethnic and national background was invented by the sports officials in Lausanne this November. This is not true.
I am not talking about the yellow Stars of David in ghettoes and coloured triangles in the concentration camps in Nazi Germany, even though these associations do come to mind, honestly.
It is not Germany alone that came up with the idea of dividing professional unforms into two groups: for those who are better than others, and Untermenschen. This is in principle a Western idea.
Back in the 19th century, the British Empire manufactured different kinds of military uniforms for white and Black units in its armed forces. There is historical evidence, namely lithographs by Richard Simkin. It did not have any military purpose, only a social one. One uniform for white people, and another for people of other races and nationalities. This was Britain, the 19th century.
To distinguish white people from Black people during the First World War (long after slavery was abolished in the US), Black American soldiers were provided with old uniforms from Civil War times by their white commanders.
In the 1940s, in the US, white men who sympathised with the Ku Klux Klan often distinguished Americans of African and Latin American descent by zoot suits that the whites did not wear. There are photos of thugs who are waiting for zooters, representatives of non-titular nations in the US, with sticks. Zooters were repeatedly beaten.
During the era of segregation, everyday clothes for Blacks and whites complemented segregated buses, schools and hospitals where nurses wore a special uniform. Everyday clothes also differed. Blacks fought for the right to wear business suits like respectable white Christians in the 1960s. In stores, Black women were not allowed to purchase dresses for whites.
The Black population has been still fighting for certain rights in the US.
Clothes, just like other tools of oppression, were used to discriminate, segregate, separate and humiliate. In the 19th-century Britain, it was the local population of the colonies, in Germany in the 1930s-1940s it was Jews and Roma people, and in the 20th century America it was people of colour.
In the 21st century, the International Olympic Committee and sports federations went after Russians and Belarusians by instructing them to wear uniforms that differed from everyone else’s. This is not only unacceptable in terms of international law, but also immoral, unconscionable, inhumane and horrendous for any normal person.
I want to address our female athletes, members of the rhythmic gymnastics team. They mean to hurt you, to deprive you of our flag, and humiliate. I do not know how it happened, but they achieved the opposite. They wanted to take our flag away. But what colour is it? It is a tricolor. Look, blue is your unitards, white is your gymnastic balls, ribbons and hoops. You say, where is red? They simply do not know that “red” (krasny) in Russian also means “beautiful.” And you all are beautiful.
25th anniversary of Russia’s accession to APEC
In November of 1998, 25 years ago, Russia first took part in the APEC summit following the first year of its activities in this major regional association.
We have always viewed the forum as a core unifying platform in the Asia-Pacific region that provides the necessary conditions for fine-tuning the Asian economies’ approaches to key challenges for further development and integration. The unique spirit and principles of cooperation based on mutual respect and consensus ensure that APEC plays an essential role in the architecture for cooperation in Asia.
For our part, we make a substantial contribution to this organisation’s productive, dynamic activities. In our cooperation with friendly economies – particularly, China, ASEAN and the Latin American countries – we consistently promote a constructive dialogue and advocate the necessity for a comprehensive response to emerging challenges, with a focus on developing economies and consideration for particular situations in remote territories. We resist the West’s attempts to politicise the discussion.
We make a particular effort to use the opportunities provided by this forum for promoting our economic partnerships in the Asia-Pacific region, create a favourable institutional environment for domestic economic operators, and expand business contacts.
As part of its APEC chairmanship in 2012, Russia focused on economic integration, efforts to boost food and energy security, and the development of innovations, transport and logistics. During our chairmanship, a relevant initiative was put forward to lower the duty threshold for sustainable goods to a maximum of 5 percent.
This year, the city of Vladivostok hosted the 12th APEC International Conference on Cooperation in Higher Education, whose programme included the 8th competition among female entrepreneurs. We are implementing a number of practical projects aimed at coordinating climate regulations, unlock women’s potential in creative economy, and boost tourism in remote areas. We are actively interacting with the forum’s upcoming chair, Peru, discussing new prospective initiatives within APEC.
We have kept our momentum going this year as well, during the United States’ chairmanship of APEC, despite the organisational and visa barriers created by the Americans to prevent our full participation. The beginning of leaders’ week demonstrated that the majority of our friendly partners, particularly the Southeast Asian and Latin American economies, share stances similar to ours, seeking to de-politicise APEC processes and focus on substantive discussions.
Against this backdrop, even the United States began sending signals that it is ready to engage in a pragmatic, informal dialogue with us, although behind the scenes so far. Yet, Washington is still sticking to a policy of futile verbal sparring. The United States publicly takes such an aggressive stance, creating various obstacles for proper work. Then, it attempts to address some things behind the scenes – this interferes with constructive work of all the delegations, and erodes the approaches that have been developed within APEC for years. But this will not make us lose our chosen path.
We believe that the ultimate outcome of the US chairmanship will depend on the host party itself as well as its willingness for reasonable, flexible approaches and compromises, which are the foundation of the APEC forum.
Upcoming scientific and practical conference on human rights
Ahead of Human Rights Day, annually observed on December 10, the Foreign Ministry, together with the Patrice Lumumba Peoples' Friendship University of Russia, will hold a scientific and practical conference on November 23, titled Russia and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – 75 Years: Achievements and Challenges, dedicated to the anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration.
The conference will focus on the current state of international relations, the process of building a multipolar world order based on international law and the UN Charter, as well as the challenges faced by Russia and its partners in the human rights field. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will address the organisers and participants in the conference with a message of greetings.
The event will feature insightful discussion with representatives of Russian federal executive bodies, human rights groups, the scientific and expert community, as well as the diplomatic corps in Moscow.
On November 17, the world marks International Students’ Day, a holiday of young people around the world. It was established in 1941 at an international meeting of students from countries fighting against fascism.
The Russian Federation traditionally attaches great importance to engaging with young people, particularly with the dynamic student community. Today there are over 3.5 million students in our country, including more than 350,000 from foreign countries. Russia also celebrates Russian Students’ Day, a holiday whose history is associated with the establishment of Lomonosov Moscow State University, which will mark its 270th anniversary in 2025.
Of notable importance is the upcoming major international youth event, World Youth Festival, which Russia will host at the beginning of next year. It will take place on March 1 to 7, 2024, in the Sirius Federal Territory. This festival, hosted in Russia for the fourth time, will continue the rich traditions established during the World Festival of Youth and Students, which was held in 2017 in Sochi.
It is expected that 20,000 young people will take part in it, with 10,000 of them representing more than 170 countries as international guests. The festival will bring together young leaders from diverse fields, including business, media, international cooperation, diplomacy, culture, science, education, volunteering, and sports. Teenagers representing various children's organisations will also be active participants.
The festival will become an important global gathering, initiating promising youth initiatives and fostering unity among young people around the vision of building a more harmonious and equitable multipolar world.
The 78th anniversary of launching the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg
Next Monday, November 20, marks the 78th anniversary of the commencement of the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg. At our previous briefing, we spoke about another memorable date linked with the history of World War II. On November 12, 1948, the International Military Tribunal for the Far East concluded its work.
While acknowledging the importance of the Tokyo War Crimes Trial, which brought Japanese militarists to justice, it is crucial to recognise that the Nuremberg Tribunal, which was co-founded by the Soviet Union, played a pivotal role in legally formalising the outcomes of the war. The Judgement of Nations delivered a severe and just verdict on the ideologists of fascism and Nazism, finding them guilty of systematically preparing for and committing war crimes and crimes against humanity. From both the legal and political perspectives, this verdict is final and irrevocable.
Today, Western historians, politicians and public activists are striving to downplay the actual approaches of the top leaders of the Anti-Hitler Coalition’s Anglo-Saxon segment towards establishing the Tribunal. They are trying to hush up the fact that the Soviet Union was the first to articulate the concept for holding an international trial that would involve Nazi criminals, and that from the start of the war it made efforts to set forth the standards for equitable court proceedings with regard to Nazi criminals.
Here is another lamentable example of trampling upon the ideals of Nuremberg: Western countries, including former Axis members, have launched a campaign against the Russian initiative to combat the glorification of Nazism at the UN. Despite their efforts, the members of the Third Committee of the 78th Session of the UN General Assembly passed a resolution on this issue, drafted by Russia and co-sponsored by 37 other states. This document serves as a warning to those forces in the contemporary world that are trying to undermine the legacy of Nuremberg and pandering to rampant Nazism in certain countries.
The 25th anniversary of launching construction of the International Space Station
November 20 marks the 25th anniversary of launching construction of the International Space Station (ISS) in near-Earth orbit. A quarter of a century ago, a Proton-K rocket launched its first element, the Zarya (Dawn) functional cargo module, which remains a part of the station’s Russian segment to this day.
The ISS remains the largest multi-national project in the field of space exploration. The capabilities of this unique research laboratory make it possible to pursue a wide range of applied science objectives in the interests of all humankind. The experience gained by Russian specialists during the successful operation of the ISS over the years provides a solid foundation for further expanding mutually beneficial and equitable cooperation in outer space with all the interested partners.
Maria Zakharova: Ukraine's use of anti-personnel mines (APMs) in violation of its international legal obligations has been noted not only by the UNIDIR but also in Western media, which have all pointed to their use by the Ukrainian armed forces against civilians.
At the relevant multilateral platforms, the Russian Federation constantly draws the attention of the international community to Ukraine’s non-compliance with its obligations under the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons and its protocols, as well as the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention, to which it has been a party since 2006.
Upon joining the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention, Kiev was obligated to eliminate all stocks of APMs by 2010, retaining only the minimum amount required for the development of mine detection methods and specialist training. However, the reality suggests that the destruction was largely confined to paperwork, making it difficult to reliably ascertain the extent of transfers, burials and usage.
The Russian Federation’s interagency coordination headquarters for humanitarian response regularly records instances of mass and indiscriminate mining of urban and rural areas by the Ukrainian Armed Forces. The most egregious example is the use of PFM-1 Lepestok (Butterfly) anti-personnel mines against civilians. In just a year and a half since the start of the Special Military Operation, there have been 130 cases of civilians, including 11 children, falling victim to PFM-1 mine explosions in the Donetsk People’s Republic alone.
While not a signatory to the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention, the Russian Federation is effectively implementing its strategies to counter the mine threat under the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons and its Amended Protocol II. We are proactive in our efforts to create a mine-free world.
Maria Zakharova: I am tired of these insinuations. I’ll give you a comprehensive answer.
To begin with, we do not use the term “Zangezur Corridor.” In this part of the region, we refer to the routes from Azerbaijan to Nakhichevan via Armenia’s Syunik Province.
Second, Russia is not exerting pressure on anyone (I cannot even imagine this happening). We advocate not for the creation of a specific route, but for the complete unblocking of economic and transport connections in the South Caucasus on transparent and mutually beneficial conditions. These are not just words. The Tripartite Working Group, jointly co-chaired by the deputy prime ministers, is actively carrying out this work in the interests of Armenia, Azerbaijan and their neighbours. Isn’t Yerevan aware of this? Of course, it is. Has the work of this group faced criticism? Never. Why? Because it is based on equal rights.
Third, the Tripartite Working Group is confident that the countries should enjoy sovereignty and jurisdiction over the routes passing through their territory. Extraterritorial corridors were never part of the discussion, and the Armenian party is well aware of this.
Fourth, the Tripartite Working Group bases its activities on the agreements between the leaders of Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia of November 9, 2020 and January 11, 2021. They clearly define the role of Russia’s FSB Border Service in overseeing transport connections between Azerbaijan and Nakhichevan. I spoke in detail about this at the previous briefing.
This is no news for Yerevan and in this context, we find the emotional reaction from the Armenian Foreign Ministry to our previous comments on this issue even more surprising.
It’s worth noting that for many years, Russian border guards have been successfully protecting Armenia’s borders with Iran and Türkiye in accordance with bilateral agreements.
And one more point. It is important to bear in mind the aspect that, regrettably, Yerevan has kept quiet about. The process of unblocking connections, which the three leaders launched in January 2021, has not been completed to this day. Over these years, we were close to adopting a package of mutually beneficial decisions that would have allowed both Armenia and Azerbaijan to use each other’s road infrastructure. This would have been a great step towards improving Armenia-Azerbaijan relations and fostering overall stability in the South Caucasus.
However, this opportunity was missed more than once, including this year. Following the tripartite summit in Moscow on May 25, the leaders instructed the Tripartite Working Group to finalise the approval of technical issues related to the unblocking. A week later, at the group’s 12th meeting on June 2, its members recorded substantial progress in the talks, leading to a common understanding on restoring and organising railway connections between Armenia and Azerbaijan.
However, something again prevented the Armenian leaders from finalising these agreements on paper. We know what it was – the “helpful” advice from the Western friends of the current Armenian leaders. Instead of facilitating the implementation of the trilateral agreements and fostering reconciliation between Baku and Yerevan, these friends are torpedoing all positive achievements and Russia’s efforts. They are trying to impose their own recipes for Armenia-Azerbaijan normalisation, but these efforts amount to pseudo-normalisation. This is exactly what we saw at the meeting in Granada under the EU aegis on October 5 of this year. Incidentally, a statement on regional affairs was adopted in the absence of Azerbaijan. This is their methodology. It is either equitable work in the tripartite group or the way it was done under the afore-mentioned circumstances.
By acting on advice from the US and the EU and straying from the trilateral agreements, Armenia is running a serious risk of being isolated from the future configuration of regional connections.
Allow me to provide evidence. The US and the EU have often played the role of guarantors (both together and separately) but have rarely managed to achieve anything positive. More often than not, they promise a lot but deliver little, exploiting the situation for their own purposes.
Their agenda is marked by Russophobia and anti-Russia measures. This is their roadmap, their obsessive passion. They have little concern for the future of states in this region. They do not think at all about how local people will get out of these situations and what losses they will sustain. They are interested in only one goal – to put all these states at loggerheads. They want to sow discord in this region and incite a conflict among its nations. There are numerous examples to this effect.
Maria Zakharova: This question is being asked increasingly often, both by journalists and by residents of Nagorno-Karabakh who have left their homes.
We welcome the recent statements by a high-ranking representative of the Presidential Office of Azerbaijan regarding guarantees of rights, security and economic protection for Armenians who want to return to Karabakh. I see it as an important and timely signal.
We will do our utmost to facilitate this process, which is of fundamental importance for the reconciliation of Baku and Yerevan, including with the use of the Russian peacekeeping contingent.
We have taken note of a series of fake stories being planted to prevent the region’s residents from returning. People are being intimidated with unlikely threats or discouraged by false information claiming that there is nothing left of their homes. This is not true.
We are aware of these persistent information campaigns, but it is better to rely on official statements like the one I quoted from the representative of the Presidential Office of Azerbaijan and from the Russian side, as I have just mentioned.
Maria Zakharova: I am aware of the report you mentioned. These scenarios are hypothetical. But it seems quite obvious that the accession of a large agricultural country such as Ukraine would trigger the need for an overhaul of the EU's common agricultural policy, and a retargeting and reduction of subsidies and money from ESI funds.
Agriculture has always been an extremely sensitive area for the EU member states, influencing both inter-state relations and domestic politics. In many EU countries, farmers not only constitute a substantial portion of the voters, but also represent influential sports and social movements. It is important to realise that the stakes are high, considering that the EU Common Agricultural Policy accounts for about a third of the EU budget, or 53.7 billion euros in the draft budgetary plan for 2024. Understandably, European capitals are hesitant to compromise the interests of their farmers and share a significant part of their financial resources, either now or in the future.
In this context, the situation with the export of Ukrainian food to the European Union was quite telling. As we know, Brussels’ policies led to the oversupply of cheap and sometimes low-quality Ukrainian products in the Eastern European markets bordering Ukraine (Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and Slovakia). This eventually prompted the local authorities to close their markets to Ukrainian food, escalating tensions and triggering clashes and violent protests in those countries. The notorious EU solidarity cracked, undermined by the EU’s own politically motivated decision to partially open its markets to Ukrainian food. If Kiev is admitted as a member, the problems in the EU agricultural sector are anticipated to snowball rapidly, as highlighted in the article. The EU will be grappling with lower-quality food products in its markets, the erosion of its environmental and food security standards, and the potential outflow of significant international investment to Ukraine due to a substantial wage difference.
We recognise all these concerns. It is our concern, too. Many will ask what it has to do with us. The political manipulations with Ukrainian grain and the politicised and contrived statements, including those from the European Union, about the supposed “threat” from our agricultural sector have not gone unnoticed. We have seen the dissemination of trivial fake stories and intricate multi-move strategies. These scenarios will undermine economic stability (let alone Ukraine's accession to the EU). All this will certainly have an impact on the European continent.
Maria Zakharova: I have already provided extensive comments on APEC today. I can only add a few points. APEC summits are a key platform for honest and practical top-level dialogue in the Asia-Pacific Region. Russia invariably strives to engage in constructive cooperation with all APEC members with a view to advancing a shared agenda. An interdepartmental delegation headed by Deputy Prime Minister Alexei Overchuk participates in the APEC Economic Leaders’ Week events in San Francisco.
We hope that this year, the forum participants will achieve tangible and practical results, strengthening APEC’s central role in the regional arena as a focus of in-demand ideas and initiatives. There is every prerequisite for this.
For our part, we are ready for this. We discussed candidly the status of the multilateral trade system and the WTO. We compared our positions on the problems of the energy transition and attending requirements, primarily of the developing economies. We placed our priorities on healthcare, digitisation, fishing, IHR and women’s participation in the economy.
The majority of our partners share the motivation for productive work in the traditional APEC spirit of mutual respect and compromise. The Russian delegation is closely interacting with China. Together we are countering the politicisation of APEC discussions, which is being imposed on its members by some economies, primarily by the US. We have fruitful contacts with Peru, which will take the helm next year. We are discussing a number of promising projects on the APEC platform. We are also deepening cooperation with Indonesia, Malaysia and many other economies.
We believe that only the current summit hosts may undermine APEC’s inherent positive dynamics. Throughout the hosting year, the US has shown a readiness to compromise the forum’s fundamental principles in favour of its own goals. Attempts to turn this economic platform into a political battleground have largely failed. There have been violations of basic hospitality rules, such as visa denials, restricted access to events, etc.
Faced with growing resistance from the delegations unwilling to conform to the US paradigm of dominance and one-way traffic, the US is trying to fuel centrifugal trends in the Asia Pacific Region. It is attempting to replace comprehensive unifying initiatives, including APEC, with narrow bloc projects, including the well-known Indo-Pacific concepts that are primarily driven by Washington’s efforts to promote its own norms and standards in Asia. We see these destructive endeavours as a significant threat to integration trends in the Asia-Pacific Region and to the recovering economic growth.
We will continue working for the success of the entire APEC and seek the normalisation of its activities. Our cooperation with our Chinese partners remains crucial in this regard, as we act together from identical or closely aligned positions.
We are also actively cooperating with Peru, the upcoming APEC chair, jointly analysing projects on digitisation, foreign trade and sustainable development. We hope that Lima’s watch will restore the forum’s positive dynamics.
Maria Zakharova: This is not just another package of sanctions; it’s a manifestation of hybrid warfare. Many media outlets label it as “another package/set of sanctions.”
These measures are integral components of hybrid warfare, representing the latest offensive by the EU in the form of anti-Russia sanctions. This aggressive activity from the West is a clear violation of international law by the European Union. Once these sanctions are formally adopted and thoroughly examined, we will give a comprehensive assessment.
In essence, these restrictions are nothing new. The trends are evident and well-established. Brussels has been consistently targeting sectors of the Russian economy not yet covered by sanctions, desperately trying to achieve some semblance of success (as I mentioned earlier today, these sanctions have backfired on the EU itself). The ineffectiveness of these measures is obvious in the intended framework from the Western perspective – they harm, sometimes directly and sometimes indirectly, the European Union itself. In reality, given this endless flow of anti-Russia sanctions, the European Union has turned into Washington’s “useful idiot, a bludgeon, a tool utilised to carry out its anti-Russia agenda without asking either Brussels or people living in these countries how much this aligns with their interests and whether or not it contradicts their goals and objectives.
We will continue to work to address the challenges of creating favourable external conditions for Russia’s socioeconomic development in the emerging new, more democratic and fairer world order. We rely on our trustworthy partners and allies who represent the real global majority, and not a narrow group of countries engaged in one thing only: aggression and a destructive impact on global processes, all the while undermining their own economy at the behest and in the interests of Washington.
Undoubtedly, the anti-Russia actions taken by the European Union will not go unanswered. This goes without saying. In essence, it’s a familiar story.
Maria Zakharova: It’s not so much Armenia’s desire. This future is sooner imposed on it. Probably, this is done via some political instruments and people that can pursue foreign interests that are alien to the Armenian people. I don’t think it is possible to say that Armenia has adopted a course of making an about-face from one side to some other.
The ideologists behind these shifts promise things but their promises are not buttressed by practice. Then they declare something contrary, and try to explain what they meant, and so on.
When we talk about actions made on behalf of the country and the people, it is implied that the people support them, that they have delegated the relevant powers to the authorities, see their goals and tasks and can compare them with the results.
I haven’t seen anything like that in this area. Many officials from the current leadership have made promises that did not materialise. All of them have received different results in practice. How does this happen? This is not a question for us. It must be resolved within the state in question.
We consider the recent statements and steps by Armenia’s leaders to be links of the same chain. I am referring to the refusal of Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan to take part in the upcoming meeting of the CSTO Collective Security Council in Minsk; revelations of the afore-mentioned Armen Grigoryan on “Euro integration” or Armenia’s “non-bloc status,” the expansion of Western arms supplies to Armenia and Yerevan’s sudden “friendship” with the Kiev regime. But this is a chain of enslavement not the breaking of fettering shackles.
So, who wants to impose this ideology on that country and its people? Obviously, the West. Nobody conceals this. Now that its plans in Ukraine have completely failed, the West is gripping Armenia in the same stranglehold. It is trying to break Armenia away from Russia. What does this mean? We are sovereign states and all interstate agreements were signed voluntarily. Moreover, as distinct from many Western promises, these documents produce concrete results expressed in economic, financial and energy bonuses received by Armenia as a state. Attempts are made to discard this and deprive Armenia of many things. This has already happened with many countries.
I cited examples of the EU. Let’s see how Washington “tore” the EU from Russia. What was the result? A total decline in the economic growth rates and a collapse of economic ties in the EU. This happened with the EU that overall had a leading global economy, potential, opportunities and power. This is the logic of the West – NATO and the US – who are now imposing this philosophy on Armenia and pursuing it through Armenia’s political figures.
We are convinced that this fully contradicts the fundamental interests of the republic and the Armenian people. Not because we think this but because it is clear from the assurances and promises given by the national political elite to the Armenian people. We do not believe this will help enhance stability in the South Caucasus. Apparently, the Armenian authorities have forgotten that the country’s prosperity was largely based on bonuses received from cooperation with Russia and the EAEU membership. This is backed by real figures and facts as distinct from the West’s empty statements and promises.
Our partners are asking us to keep all this but are taking steps, in part, in security, that are damaging bilateral relations and ignoring Russia’s interests. How do we see this? If this is an attempt to sit on two chairs, this approach has never done any good for anyone.
Maria Zakharova: We are tired of the verbal gymnastics that we hear from some representatives of Armenia. This is undignified. They should tell the truth.
During bilateral consultations, Russia put forward corresponding proposals to use the ICC mechanisms without ratifying the Rome Statute. There is such a practice. Unfortunately, our proposed compromise solutions were ignored. Despite all the warnings, especially amid the anti-Russia policy unleashed by the West through (or using) the ICC against the leadership of our country and officials, Yerevan nevertheless decided in favor of ratification, purely for political reasons.
If Yerevan remains interested in resolving the problems created by its own hands, then we believe there are opportunities for this within the Armenian legal system.
In addition, Deputy Foreign Minister of Russia Mikhail Galuzin commented on all this in his interview with RBC on November 9, 2023. In particular, he said, “we expected that Armenia will refrain from this step. The same ICC rules allow that for those countries that for some reason are not signatories to the Rome Statute, it is quite possible to turn to this court, even without ratifying the Rome Statute. In this paradigm, I do not see any possibility of taking Armenia’s proposal seriously.”
Maria Zakharova: He probably heard the recent statements by EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Josep Borrell, that it would be impossible for Ukraine to defeat Russia on the “battlefield” in the near future, and wanted to clarify their next strategy, given their joint statements that there is no place for peace or talks, and that everything can only be decided on the “battlefield.”
I do not know what they think or what they want. We can see that this is an aggressive group of countries that have only the logic of war, destruction, and the elimination of international law. What do they want to discuss among themselves? It is hard to imagine anything but another aggressive outburst.
Maria Zakharova: There is some kind of necrophilia on the part of the West with regard to Ukraine – to take it in pieces (this was proposed by former NATO Secretary General Anders Rasmussen), then Poland demands “exhumation” as a condition for joining Euro-Atlantic institutions. If we proceed from the fact that there is no place for peace and negotiation in the West (they will not consider these scenarios for Ukraine), since they focus exclusively on aggression and war, this is the logical conclusion of such a philosophy.
We constantly clarify our position on Ukraine’s accession to NATO. Let me remind you that since 2008, when the alliance first promised Kiev membership, it has not changed. In parts, without parts, in any form, Ukraine’s accession to the North Atlantic bloc is unacceptable to Russia. Participation of this neighboring State in an aggressive military alliance poses a threat to the security of our country.
I would like to recall the goals of the special military operation: de-Nazification and demilitarization of Ukraine, which should remain a neutral state and not join any military bloc. First of all, we are talking about NATO. With all its activities over the past decades, the bloc has demonstrated its disregard for international law and the sovereignty of individual states, its inability to understand and take into account the concerns and interests of alternative centers of power. On the contrary, through its expansion to the detriment of the security of others, the alliance has been trying to strengthen itself and assert itself for a long time. Our position in this regard has not changed.
There is another factor. Inclusion (in parts or not) in one way or another implies the establishment of certain frameworks and boundaries. Apparently, this is not included in Poland’s plans, which has its own views on the western part of Ukraine. Its appetites have not disappeared. This is what politicians in Poland are talking about. Many materials by Polish experts are also devoted to this issue.
Maria Zakharova: Of course, there are intensive contacts between our two countries. Agreements reached at the highest level and set forth in the corresponding documents are the primary focus in these discussions. There are contacts as part of the existing mechanisms, as I have said, plus efforts to carry out the agreements our two countries concluded at the highest level.
We remain proactively engaged in our mutual commitments, agreements and bilateral relations. In some instances, we find it impossible to overlook the aggressive rhetoric which goes beyond common courtesy. It comes from certain politicians in Armenia and targets not only Russian officials, but also journalists, analysts and our country in general. There is no way we can leave these statements without a response.
There are also specific official actions and steps Yerevan has been taking. They have been at odds with all our agreements and what our two countries subscribed to. They run counter to what we had at the outset. Of course, we will not leave these developments without a proper response.
Maria Zakharova: Maia Sandu is simply lying, no point in beating around the bush. You do not have to come up with ways to put it more mildly. In fact, the President of Moldova said a lot of extraordinary things in her interview. She sought to demonstrate that our two countries have nothing to discuss. This is a lie, a falsehood. I cannot find any other way to describe it.
As for the facts and figures, can it be that she simply fails to identify with Moldova? Or maybe she does not believe that this is her country? Could it be that she has a sense of belonging to another country which has nothing to discuss with Russia? We do have things to discuss with Moldova. In fact, this goes beyond just talking to each other since there are so many commitments and projects we share.
I suggest that we look at the topics we can discuss and the practical matters piling up on our agenda which have yet to be addressed. Our two countries have maintained close trade and economic ties. Maybe Maia Sandu ignores this fact or has other things on her mind, focused as she is on Russophobia and subverting bilateral relations. In 2022, Russia-Moldova trade exceeded $3 billion. How can it be that we do not have anything to talk about between our two countries? Aren’t they interested? We maintain cultural and humanitarian ties, as well as people-to-people contacts. Accordingly, consular contacts and interaction between our respective law enforcement agencies retain their relevance, and so does the bilateral intergovernmental commission for economic cooperation, although Moldova suspended its work on this. Major projects have been put on hold, including those dealing with renovating and rebuilding several historical and cultural sites, including Alexander Pushkin’s house-museum and the Rose Street Theatre building in Chisinau.
Unfortunately, the Moldovan authorities have opted for cutting short our bilateral ties. They have indefinitely paused all contacts on practical matters, while our political contacts have been reduced to summoning ambassadors. In July 2023, Moldova took a totally groundless decision to reduce the number of people employed by the Russian foreign missions in Moldova. For what reason? It may be that this comes from the nothing-to-discuss logic.
Maia Sandu accused our country of failing to respect the interests of the people of Moldova. This is how far she has gone in her statements. This is a lie. Russia stands for mutually respectful dialogue with the friendly people of Moldova and has never interfered in Moldova’s domestic affairs. All we do is respond to their outrageous attacks, false accusations and endless anti-Russia rhetoric that we have been hearing from the Moldovan leadership. These people, not us, are ignoring the aspirations of their own people to better serve their Western sponsors.
You don’t even need to scratch the surface to illustrate this fact. Take, for example, the initiative to designate the Moldovan language as Romanian, which caused so much popular resentment in Moldova, or attempts to curtail the use of the Russian language, even though 80 percent of people in Moldova speak it. There is also an effort to expel Russian-language media from the information space and thus deny people access to objective information.
Quite tellingly, in the interview you mentioned, Maia Sandu, who, let me remind you, is the head of the Moldovan state, could not resist openly blackmailing her own citizens, the people of her country. She said that only the communities which elect pro-European candidates and support European integration would benefit from European funding. She could just as well make people wear special outfits to segregate them: those who voted for a pro-European candidate would be entitled to wear vests, overcoats, pants, skirts, and hats in a certain colour, while those who did not support a pro-European candidate or voted for somebody else would wear a different colour. This way, they would be able to see right away who gets the money and who does not, who can ride the bus and who must walk, or who can buy a newspaper. We have already talked at length on this topic today.
Moreover, the President of Moldova refused to offer a cabinet seat to Gagauzia’s elected head. Why? The only reason is that she represents the opposition and, as Maia Sandu framed it, belongs to a “criminal group.”
Moldova views officials from Bankova Street in Kiev, where the Office of the Ukrainian President is located, who are now accusing each other of corruption and every other possible crime, as a democratic force. Meanwhile, Maia Sandu calls her own people a “criminal group.” This is the way she shows her respect to the people of Moldova.
As for our relations in the gas industry, Gazprom has proven its readiness to take Moldova’s interests into consideration many times. In October 2021, Gazprom held talks with Moldova’s Deputy Prime Minister Andrei Spînu and accepted almost all the proposals coming from the representative of the Moldovan government. They signed minutes to this effect, but the Moldovan authorities did not fulfil any of the agreements.
On September 6, 2023, Moldova’s Energy Ministry released an audit report on its historical debt. The country’s authorities have been using it to claim that they do not owe much at all even though this report fails to meet international auditing standards or impartiality requirements. In this context, it cannot be viewed as an appropriate report on an independent audit, while the conclusions contained in it cannot affect the debt in terms of the amount and how it has been calculated. In fact, there are documents to confirm that this debt is real, as well as the corresponding audits by international arbitration bodies.
Maia Sandu’s opinion on this matter does not change anything. Let me reiterate that she, quite possibly, does not identify herself with Moldova.
Maria Zakharova: What do you mean by “recently”?
Question: During the past several weeks.
Maria Zakharova: I haven’t heard about Britain’s withdrawal from the Greenwich time treaty or a change to the Mayan or Lunar calendars or the hourglass. What recent months are you referring to? This has been happening over several years. Indeed, we are seeing the dismantling of the system of arms control agreements, which was launched not several months ago but in 2001. This is when the United States unilaterally withdrew from the 1972 ABM Treaty. Didn’t anyone know about this? We talked so much about this issue. Since then, Washington has pursued a course towards destroying the arms control system by systematically walking away from the existing agreements or creating unacceptable terms for fulfilment by the other side, as was the case with the START Treaty and the CFE Treaty.
The reason for this course is the striving of the US-led West to spontaneously achieve military superiority. In the process, it is unashamedly creating direct threats to the security of those countries that are advocating the formation of a multipolar world order and firmly upholding their interests. On top of that, they do not want to be bound by any commitment because this implies an equality between the parties to the agreements.
I agree that this is a very dangerous road without any plan. To prevent the situation from following a worst-case scenario (and this is your main question), it is necessary to address this question to Washington rather than us. Apart from asking this question, we know what needs to be done. The United States and its satellites must renounce their destructive line and demonstrate a real willingness to hold a mutually respectful dialogue based on equality and consideration for the interests and concerns of all sides involved.
Maria Zakharova: I will not talk about the potential consequences if they already published a denial. I will just recall how the passage of ships through straits is regulated.
In this case, this is the 1857 Copenhagen Convention and provisions of the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. In accordance with these documents, all ships, including Russian ships, have the right to unimpeded and safe passage through the Baltic Straits. Any transgression of these norms or any actions contradicting them is a violation of international law. You can probably guess what it is fraught with. I won’t repeat it.
Maria Zakharova: We consider the West's position s something that is beyond the bounds of morality and law, because both were violated. There can be no double standards or double interpretation of the same legislative and international legal norms. Juggling standards and using different yardsticks is immoral. This does not happen accidentally; it is a strategy.
We have repeatedly emphasised the unacceptability of indiscriminate strikes during hostilities in densely populated urban areas since such tactics lead to mass civilian casualties and the destruction of civilian infrastructure, including Al-Shifa which is the largest hospital in Gaza. We have made this position public on many occasions, and I recommend documenting it. We regularly post materials about it on the ministry’s website and news feed. As I mentioned in the opening remarks, we posted a detailed article on this matter on November 13. I’m not sure if there’s any need to add anything more to this factual and gruesome information.
Maria Zakharova: First, I think you should address this question to the Armenian side. It is a sovereign country with its own plans, strategy, and responsibility to its people.
Second, we have no specific information on this matter. We have not received, seen, or read anything about it.
Third, we assume that CSTO membership provides Armenia with an adequate level of security. There are several examples to corroborate this. The information must not be manipulated.
Unfortunately, we often see the Armenian media and information resources combine things that should not be combined. I’m talking about assessments on the CSTO’s effectiveness and the situation with Nagorno-Karabakh, which has a completely different legal nature and different forms of resolution, etc. Unfortunately, these matters have been mixed up to manipulate the public which is bad for Armenia itself. But still, you should direct your question to them.
Maria Zakharova: I will find out and get back to you. Perhaps, we will also issue a statement in the media.
Maria Zakharova: If you are talking about someone specific, you should give us an opportunity to check the facts and understand what it is.
These cases abound. We have commented many times on the situation of the people holding citizenship or residency of another state in various parts of the world. They find themselves in dramatic circumstances, outside the law, get detained, face actions by law enforcement agencies, and sometimes end up behind bars. Legal mechanisms are then activated, either via lawyers regarding which country and citizenship to appeal to, or using other avenues. There are lots and lots of such cases. At this point, we cannot draw a line and say that there is a single method to address this matter.
I am aware of a large number of cases in various parts of the world where such situations have been used for provocative purposes. People changed or retained citizenship only to do something and later explain it by the availability of a second passport. This is a reality that creates problems and gives rise to questions that have no answers. Each case needs to be investigated before an answer is provided.
International terrorist groups that are outlawed in our country have people with fairly exotic papers, but this in no way means that a particular (individual) case has anything to do with the policies of a particular country.
To reiterate, this is a complex matter. It needs to be addressed on a case-by-case basis. As for how people with dual citizenship act and manifest themselves, how selective they are about the orders or commands of their commanders, it is for them to answer.
Frankly, not to blame or condemn anyone, I have often asked myself how people navigate in complex life situations when they have more than one citizenship and need to choose a position amid conflicting views? I would never want to find myself in this situation. I have one citizenship, as does my entire family, one passport each (each of us holds a passport from one country). I made my choice a long time ago. For me, it is a natural and straightforward thing to do.
At the same time, I understand that people may have different life circumstances: extended families, where people may be scattered due to geopolitical changes, as happened with a large number of my compatriots who suddenly woke up citizens of other countries. No one asked them about it then. Can we blame them for this? Each situation is distinct.
We went through pivotal times in the late 1980s and 1990s, so painting everyone with one brush and saying they are all guilty because they hold dual citizenship, two passports, and so on is not something we should be doing.
A large number of people were victimised by circumstances. Every situation is unique. I would not leverage this issue, or especially draw general conclusions.
Maria Zakharova: Let’s begin with our zone of responsibility. I can provide the figures. As of now, 168 people from Gaza have returned home. They are Russian citizens and their family members. Many more people from Gaza have entered Egypt. It is impossible to give the exact figure so far. Of them, 168 people have been flown to Russia. Many more [Russian citizens] have crossed the border and are currently in Egypt. We will provide the relevant information depending on the situation.
As for whether specialists have talked with them, there are psychologists among the Emergencies Ministry staff who meet them. It is their area of responsibility.
Question: Are there injured or wounded people among them?
Maria Zakharova: This question is for the Emergencies Ministry. Thank you for asking. We will prepare the necessary materials and forward them to you, and post them on our website.
Maria Zakharova: We have taken note of the Finnish authorities’ decision to consider – please note that the decision has not been taken yet – additional restrictions, up to closing traffic through the checkpoint on the border with Russia. Helsinki’s argument is that they must react to the nascent migration crisis on the border with Russia created by the spike in the number of refugees from other countries, according to Finland.
I don’t know why they have put the blame on us. We hear again unsubstantiated accusations of Russia deliberately allowing people without the necessary entry documents to cross the border into Finland contrary to the “established practice.” The Finnish media have started speculating on Russia’s “hybrid influence” and “deliberate stirring” of the migrant crisis in response to Finland’s accession to NATO. What made them think of that?
Such allegations can only be described as disinformation. They are completely unfounded. The Finnish authorities themselves have admitted that Russia is not obliged to “screen” migrants, as they put it.
We hope that common sense will prevail, and Helsinki will abandon the destructive idea of closing the border, which would ultimately create new dividing lines in Europe.
On the other hand, it is nothing to be surprised about in light of Finland’s decision to build a fence on the Russian-Finnish border. If the Finnish authorities have any concerns or desire to address issues together to prevent negative scenarios, they can inform Russia about them. There is no need to invent absurd things in the sence of aliens landing on their territory.
Maria Zakharova: I have a question too. Will they blow the project up or do something else? Will they smother or otherwise destroy it? What are their options?
I can only describe this as the United States’ admission that they have no scruples about destroying civilian energy infrastructure.
I regard this as proof that the Western countries, primarily the United States, are behind the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipeline bombings in one way or another. That attack began with similar statements by the US president and State Department officials about bringing an end to these facilities. Six months later, that infrastructure was blown up. They are now threatening other energy facilities.
Other proof concerns the competitive advantages of Arctic LNG 2 compared to the US, just like with Nord Stream. Unable to attain competitive advantages and seeing that they are losing the competition, they destroy everything that prevents them from surging forward. This is what happened to Nord Stream 1 and 2. Unable to undermine the EU countries’ energy cooperation with Russia in Europe, which developed over decades and was beneficial, the Americans opted for threats and for implementing them. It is the only possible assessment of the situation. This is Washington’s systematic approach to destroying civilian energy infrastructure.
We understand that these are not isolated emotional statements by individual American officials but the systematic approach of the United States as a country.
Maria Zakharova: I think you should ask Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban about that. I can only say that the idea is being actively discussed in the West. I understand the essence of this problem. I am interested not so much in the names as in the trends.
Over the decades of prosperity in Europe, the EU elite have become intolerant of critical assessments. Free thought and self-criticism, which were considered hallmarks of the European character, have been suppressed. Anyone who disagrees with the political guidelines is immediately labeled either an agent of the Kremlin or a conspiracy theorist.
In their actions, the current leaders in Europe are primarily guided by their own image considerations. They want their media images to correspond to the Western standards imposed on society, something they call “global values.” They have invented these “values” and imposed them on everyone, and actually believed that they are universal, that everyone must swear allegiance to the same identical and unique “values.” This just means inadequate self-evaluation and reluctance to listen to objective evaluation from others. The most eloquent example of this is the “beautiful garden” vs. “jungle” metaphor they use for a certain Western community on the one hand, and the rest of the world on the other. We remember EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell expounding on the issue.
First of all, this attitude is destructive for the Western elite themselves. It is not about them, but about the people who have, in one way or another, delegated to them the authority and the right to speak on behalf of countries. The EU leadership is moving towards the complete subordination of the European Union to the United States, or rather to American defence companies. Meanwhile, the people in Europe are being vigorously indoctrinated to prevent them from seeing the emerging socioeconomic problems that were discussed today and the endless incitement against Russia, China, or other countries. The Europeans are made to bring up the rear in this Western march and are prevented from ever reaching the forefront of the NATO community by endlessly being thrown back, economically and financially, sent to play third, fourth, and fifth roles, without a chance to compensate for their lag by interacting with other players or centres of power.
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban is not the only one talking about this. Many people in the EU are saying the same thing, but in whispers. He is one of the few who is highlighting this out loud. They speak in whispers, condemning, polemicising, careful to avoid trouble. This is a false approach. The growing problems and accumulated discontent, with no way to express it despite the alleged respect for the freedom of speech, will lead to a global crisis. Their society will eventually “implode.” This is obviously already happening in a number of EU cities and countries.
This is not a matter of changing the political paradigm or the ruling parties. It is a matter of the explosive potential accumulating inside. One day it will go out of control.
The ideological dichotomy is growing, as are the financial problems, the economic stagnation, the migration problems, the inability to respond to modern challenges from terrorism to pandemics, exacerbated by the escalation between Palestine and Israel. At some point, it's all going to detonate.
Maria Zakharova: I cannot tell. You should ask those who come up with these ideas. I do not even want to guess the answer.
I was amazed to hear in Tony Blair’s statement in the new office that he sees that the United Kingdom is facing many challenges and issues on the global stage. I think this phrase lacks an important thought that the challenges and issues were to a large extent created by or are the direct cause of the United Kingdom itself.
I see a disconnect from reality or simply a sense of superiority towards the audience, which allegedly does not know or understand. Anyone can find information on the United Kingdom’s position under Tony Blair with regard to the Middle East and the role it played in the destabilisation of the region, and can reach their own conclusions.
Maria Zakharova: I believe you have not seen statements made by official Israel over the past month that nothing would stop them from implementing their goals. So, your question practically fits into these statements, which are the answer to your question.
We are not going to comment on it. We have expressed our position, including today, based on the facts, international law and humane values.
Maria Zakharova: Unfortunately, we must speak not about Ukraine, but the Kiev regime and those people who occupy Ukraine, including those with citizenship in the country you named. Such things happen. They are not promoting their people’s interests. They are selling everything, including land. Land not as territory but as soil.
Ukraine’s fertile soil, which has always been a pride of the people who lived there, has been sold for next to nothing. It is either those who are polluting it with GMOs or those who are simply removing the fertile layer thus stealing from their own citizens. What can we talk about here? This country has no future as long as it is controlled by this regime.
I think everybody understands that. I do not even want to imagine what will remain of the country and the state.
Maria Zakharova: We actually mention this, referring to this puppet regime under the United States. Ukraine is a tool in Washington’s hands. Ukraine and Ukrainians are used against Russia, for the purposes of the deep state and other structures within the US. We do talk about the United States and NATO building an anti-Russia. We talk about all of this.
And yet, I would not take away the agency of the people who are there now. It must serve as a cautionary tale for future generations. They must be able to recognise people who, despite having the passport and citizenship of their country, act against its best interests. If we start calling everybody non-citizens and non-representatives of Ukraine and start putting the blame entirely on the United States and NATO, we will not be able to convey an important idea to future generations – that only because of betrayal within, because of betraying one’s own national interests, something like this can happen to a country.
You correctly gave an example from World War II, or the Great Patriotic War for us. Ukrainians and we were one nation of the Soviet Union that was not divided by ethnicities or religion, and together, we forced an enemy out that had brought death and was stronger than us in many respects. We did it.
This time, the West did not attack Ukraine. The attack was organised from within using people who hate both Ukraine and Russia. They were collaborationists with the forces that wanted to ruin the countries in our region. If we do not talk about it but instead depersonalise and call it “American” or “NATO,” we will not achieve an important task. We will not communicate this to future generations – the adults who will stand at the steering wheels in our countries – that it is solely and entirely because of betrayal inside the country and collaborationism that a country can end up like Ukraine. If resistance against external influence in that country had been strong and genuine, if people had not hoped that it would somehow just go away and all would become okay, that this misfortune would somehow pass them by, they would have brought the proper fight. They would have pushed back since the first Maidan. They would not have allowed the second Maidan to happen. They would not have waited it out at home, hoping that somehow somebody would come to the rescue.
Today, similar experiments are being conducted in Moldova. There have been attempts to achieve the same thing in Armenia. People must resist the destructive logic of those who do not live in their countries or regions but try to impose a foreign agenda.
What a suffering Georgia has come through when Mikheil Saakashvili and people like him imposed a self-destructing philosophy on Georgia, trying, as Saakashvili said, “to mentally correct” it. By living through that suffering and a horrendous period in the history of modern Georgia, people pulled through, including thanks to their own resistance to the destructive outer influence. Without the feeling of citizen responsibility, without active opposition to the destructive external forces, one cannot expect that a scenario similar to Ukraine will not repeat itself elsewhere in the world.
Maria Zakharova: Didn’t you attend the forum as well? Why would I tell you about it if we both were there? There are references available for anybody wishing to delve into that atmosphere. We will also publish more materials, including in an MFA-supported magazine, The International Affairs. Content will be available in all formats, online and in print.
Additional materials
-
Photos
