Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova’s briefing, Moscow, January 31, 2024

It goes without saying that EU countries might well fire up more conflicts around the world and have even more migrants heading their way. But the human rights norms do exist, after all, and they need to offer what can be described as a social benefits package, no matter how the European Union treats migrants or discriminates against them. These migrants still need food and water, and they have to be looked after. This was the case with the Ukrainian refugees, though Vladimir Zelensky is now calling on Brussels, Berlin and other capitals to stop paying them benefits. What drivers could help the European Union revive its economy? What can it lean upon? Where is the crystal ball to show the EU’s future and the path to economic prosperity? No one in the United States would answer these questions. It seems that they have decided to keep this secret to themselves for now.

Meanwhile, the EU’s anti-Russian lobby, or its pro-American lobby to be more precise, continues coming up with measures which could be suicidal for the EU economy. The proposal by Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia to ban Russian food imports in the EU is the latest example. Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia have hardly achieved any miracles in their development over the past decades. And these countries have virtually lost their statehood. All they have left are bureaucrats. They have scarcely any research or manufacturing capabilities left. So they can hardly pose as EU powerhouses, but they still believe that they can lecture Old Europe. But how can they go as far as to tell the EU to stop buying food? I am not talking about our interests here, but about what this would mean for Western Europe. It seems that they will be lobbying for these imports to be offset by an increase in the consumption of American GMO products and LNG. Then what? How will they get out of this situation? Or maybe they have placed their stakes on Ukrainian agricultural goods and other products growing in the fields or made at factories already owned by US corporations? Will the Ukrainian food industry save the European Union?

Let me remind you that using depleted uranium bombs in Ukraine was also part of the Western logic. And this depleted uranium will stay in the soil for a long time. We are not speaking about a year or two here. It would take a lot of money to clean up the soil, as well as a tremendous amount of work and vast financial resources. Will it be ok if the products grown in the fields targeted with depleted uranium bombs are sent to France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal or Nordic countries? People who care about their future should be putting these questions to the EU.

The European Union is about to lose its competitive edge and forfeit the chance of emerging as a stable centre in a multipolar world, enjoying strategic autonomy, as they like saying in Brussels, due to the ill-conceived policies of its leaders regarding Russia, as well as in other spheres.

The EU undermined its stability by its own actions to the extent that its economy has come to directly depend on momentary foreign economic and geopolitical considerations. Moreover, it may sound like a paradox, but we keep hearing serious statements that the European Union is proceeding in its economic policy from the assumption that extreme weather events would spare it, so that winter would not be too cold, the summer, not too hot, and the crop yields would be good, all while aspiring to playing a leading role in the global economy.

This has become grotesque. But if something goes wrong, the European bureaucrats will deploy their anti-Russia and Russophobic arsenals to mask their own missteps. Brussels is calling on ordinary Europeans to tighten their belts, arguing that the Kiev regime needs the funds and a future more than the EU itself, and that a bright future is around the corner for the EU, even if they now aspire to a future that is green and digital, rather than “bright.” They continue telling fairy tales and misleading their own people.

EU farmers have now woken up, having been fed reports about the alleged threats to global food security for a year now. But the farmers understood that the only threat to food security in their countries was that their governments were receiving their orders from Washington and killing the agricultural sector by flooding the EU countries with substandard products from Ukraine. However, the European countries, European corporations and producers do not benefit in any way from these imports since all the proceeds go overseas.

back to top

 

Russia’s humanitarian grain shipments to African countries

 

Despite the anti-Russia sanctions policy of the “collective West”, we continue to fulfil international contracts in a responsible and conscientious manner and to export agricultural produce, fertilisers, energy and other vitally important products. We realise the significance of their deliveries, primarily food deliveries, for the socio-economic development of African states, for attaining food self-sufficiency parameters and achieving Sustainable Development Goals. This is from the UN agenda.  

Additionally, as part of its principled policy of providing food assistance to the neediest countries, President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin said in July 2023 at the Second Russia-Africa Summit that Russia was ready to deliver grain to a number of African countries as gratis food aid.

I remember him making this statement. Everyone applauded when President Vladimir Putin announced this decision of Russia. People realised that this was an unprecedented move in the face of the hybrid war unleashed and led by the West against Russia. Moreover, this move strengthens food security, which the West has been so busy discussing, while Russia has been taking action.

In execution of this decision, ships carried 200,000 tonnes of grain to Burkina Faso, Zimbabwe, Mali, Somalia, the Central African Republic and Eritrea.

Somalia received the first shipment in November 2023. In January 2024, a humanitarian shipment reached Burkina Faso, Mali, Somalia, Eritrea and Cameroon. Once there, the grain will be ground into flour and delivered to the Central African Republic.

They are currently delivering grain, unloaded in Beira seaport, Mozambique, to Zimbabwe.  

Summing up, one can say that Russia fulfilled its obligations without delay, and that it made a substantial contribution to the food security of the African continent once again.

Not a single mainstream Western media outlet will show initiative and report these developments. For 12 months (in 2022-2023), they made accusations and invented far-fetched stories about how Russia does not facilitate and even jeopardises global food security. They will hardly mention these facts. I hope that, apart from these outlets, there are many other ways of spreading this information.

back to top

 

100th anniversary of Russia-Italy diplomatic relations  

 

On February 7, 2024, we will mark 100 years of diplomatic relations between the Russian Federation (USSR) and the Italian Republic.

I would like to remind you that relations between Russia and Italy were – unfortunately, I have to use the past time – traditionally based on a centuries-long history, an extremely rich common cultural and spiritual heritage, a positive experience of cooperation in various spheres and solid mutual trust that developed over decades. These relations used to be based on the fundamental values set out in the Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation between the Russian Federation and the Italian Republic of October 14, 1994, and the Action Plan for relations between the Russian Federation and the Italian Republic of February 10, 1998.

Until recently, Italy was one of Russia’s main partners in Europe. Its policy on Russia was based on a traditionally balanced and non-confrontational approach. Our leaders maintained a close political dialogue at the top and high levels. In times of trouble, Russia and Italy tried to help each other, like in 2020 when Russia was one of the first countries to dispatch massive assistance to help Italy’s fight against covid, which was virtually strangling the country. Its NATO partners ridiculed Italy, while Italian journalists and public figures made videos urging them to understand the suffering and tragedy of their country. Their partners laughed, while we sent assistance because it was fully in keeping with the fundamental interests of our nations.

It is all the more regrettable that when the special military operation began on February 24, 2022, Italy, obediently following the EU and NATO line, actually acting on Washington’s orders, opted for a tough confrontational line with Russia. Rome has unconditionally joined the EU and US sanctions against Russia and provides systematic assistance to the neo-Nazi Kiev regime. In particular, it is sending heavy and lethal weapons and substantial military technical and financial assistance to Kiev and has wholeheartedly supported the insane idea (the way it has been formulated) of a “strategic defeat” and the economic exhausting of Russia. This has recently been changed to “Russia must not be allowed to win.”

It is strange that they are proud of what they are doing, and they are saying it publicly. Italian Defence Minister Guido Crosetto said in a recent interview that Italy is not just among the top five but is almost the second largest supplier to Ukraine in terms of the level and volume of assistance. Did he really say this? What has he done this for? It is strange if we look at the NATO figures that are available to the general public. According to them, Italy is not a leading supplier, but it probably wants to show Washington (and maybe others) that it has a lot to be proud of in the matter of killing European citizens. They have gone so far as to publicly make these horrible statements. They probably don’t understand how this sounds.

It is basically Italy’s fault that bilateral cooperation has been suspended in nearly all spheres and that smoothly running institutional mechanisms have been suspended.

Nevertheless, we believe that nobody can annihilate, cancel or rewire the solid foundation of Russian-Italian relations, which rests on our nations’ mutual interests and sympathy.

We see that the Italian authorities, yielding to pressure by the collective West, are telling civil society how to develop ties with Russian citizens and our compatriots and how to implement cultural and humanitarian projects. They are actually twisting arms to force Italians to refuse to hold exhibitions, presentations and receptions. I don’t know which article of the Italian constitution they are using, but they are doing it.

We strongly believe that abandoning this anti-Russia policy and gradually returning to the path of pragmatic cooperation based on mutual respect would be in both nations’ interests. We have no doubt that the Italian people, given their wisdom, foresight and good sense, will eventually see that Italy’s current anti-Russia stance is destructive and counterproductive because it is not aimed at creation but at destruction.

back to top

 

Diplomatic Worker’s Day

 

Our professional holiday, Diplomatic Worker’s Day, is coming up, on February 10.

We will certainly share with you the event programme organised by the Foreign Ministry, our subordinate organisations, public bodies, embassies, consulates general and representative offices with international organisation. We will give you more details later.

back to top

 

Answers to media questions:

Question: Yerevan proposed to Baku to sign a non-aggression pact in case signing a peace treaty between these two countries takes longer than expected. What does Moscow think about this proposal coming from Armenia? In your opinion, could this suggestion to sign a non-aggression pact be equivalent to a peace treaty? Can the pact guarantee that there will be no open conflict between the parties in the future?

Maria Zakharova: You phrased your question very clearly. As we have heard, Yerevan made this proposal directly to Baku. The proposal was addressed to Azerbaijan. So, you should ask Azerbaijan about it.

If this question is about our principled stance and if you are interested in our approach, then we believe that resuming implementation of the trilateral agreements reached at the highest level in 2020-2022 (1,2,3,4) as soon as possible would be the best guarantee of a stable and lasting peace in the South Caucasus. The agreements contain a road map for reconciling Baku and Yerevan that provides for developing a peace treaty, among other measures, and has no alternative.

back to top

 

Question: What could be our commensurate response to the situation around figure skater Kamila Valiyeva?

Maria Zakharova: Today, we spoke at length about the current events in world sports and how they are being destroyed by the United States.

The incident you mentioned is yet another outrageous example of sports becoming politicised and destroyed. It is yet another case of unscrupulous competition, to neutralise one of the strongest figure skaters in the world. 

As concerns the trial itself, we never expected it to be impartial or reasonable. We doubt that the jury that consisted of US, French, British and Australian representatives, was objective. They simply ignored multiple vital pieces of evidence presented by the Russian side in this case.

The senior officials of the Russian Olympic Committee and Russian Minister of Sport Oleg Matytsin fully explained our stance in the context of a potential commensurate response, in their statements. They called the Court of Arbitration for Sport’s ruling in Kamila Valiyeva’s case a declaration of war against Russian sports. 

The Russian side will continue to defend our athlete’s rights before international bodies and will appeal this unfair and, in fact, preposterous ruling.

back to top

 

Question: A recent report released by the US State Department shows that the country’s foreign military sales increased by nearly 56 percent in fiscal year 2023, including military aid to Ukraine, reaching a record $80.9 billion. At the same time, the NATO Secretary General, who travelled to the United States to push for Ukraine aid, said that without it, all the gains made would come to naught. Does this mean that even though the Russia-Ukraine conflict has been going on for almost two years now, the US and NATO still have no intention of promoting a solution to the crisis through political means such as negotiation, but are determined to continue to support Ukraine in a war of attrition?

Maria Zakharova: A unique position has appeared in the Euro-Atlantic space – the High Representative of the White House for European Union Foreign Policy. Josep Borrell holds this unique position. He actually created it through his personal efforts, charisma, and intellect, of course.

I believe the high representative has phrased the views of Euro-Atlantic Russophobic elite very accurately. Josep Borrell said it would be totally wrong if Russia and Ukraine reconcile. This is the answer to all questions. This is not even about the war that “will be won on the battlefield.” It is about a deeper and more essential view, about their ideology. Whatever happens, whatever historical stage we’re in, whatever the circumstances, whoever is right or wrong, whatever the consequences – it would be totally wrong if Russia and Ukraine reconciled, as Josep Borrell put it. This is what we need to take into account above all else. It is also essential to realise that this is not the opinion of the people, nations or EU countries – it is the policy of the White House and Downing Street, enshrined in NATO documents and imposed on the EU countries as dogma.

The crisis in Ukraine was entirely inspired by Washington and its satellites. And that did not happen in 2022, when they gave the Kiev regime the go-ahead to escalate the shelling of civilians. That triggered a predictable reaction from the people in the areas that were shelled. The Anglo-Saxons had been provoking this situation for a long time, carefully building it, and creating a new quasi-state.

What is happening in Ukraine now is another attempt to preserve the geopolitical dominance of the collective West. This is their project aimed at demonstrating what they are capable of. In construction, there are quick-mounting prefabricated structures; the West is showing off a project to build a quick-mounting state. But the structure collapsed.

Now they are making parallels between the confrontation with Russia and China’s growing clout. We hear many statements aimed at deploying this narrative. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg during his visit to Washington insisted on continuing to provide support to the Kiev regime, because, as he said, “today it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it could be Taiwan.” Why? Why is he making this connection? What is the purpose of provoking the Chinese population now? And the people of Taiwan into the bargain? What is the US doing, wedging itself between the two parts of one China? Three is obviously a crowd there. China is a single country.

As of today, the collective West, waging a hybrid war against Russia, shows no sign of being ready for a political settlement, spurring Ukraine on to fight to the last man – to the last Ukrainian. In the confrontation with Russia, the Kiev regime has been given the role of a weapon for inflicting “a strategic defeat” on our country – that’s the phrase they used before. But this concept has apparently lost relevance. Now they prefer to say that Russia “cannot be allowed to win.”

According to Jens Stoltenberg’s perverted logic, the way to peace in Ukraine is to continue sending arms to Vladimir Zelensky’s regime. This is the US’s idea of a good investment allowing Washington and its allies to wage a hybrid war against our country without risking their own soldiers’ lives.

In addition, he believes this is a “good deal” for the United States (everything’s a “good deal” for them). In the last two years alone, their European partners have signed contracts worth $120 billion with US defence companies. In the last two years alone, as you just heard, the peaceful economy (cooperative economy) has failed on the western part of the European continent. You heard their own statistics agency’s EU data. So this actually is a good deal – for the Americans, using this perverted logic. It will enable them to move businesses from the EU countries at a profit, to strengthen their own defence industry, and to destroy the peaceful economy created within the EU, which, among other things, relied on Eurasian cooperation formats for energy and logistics – a lot of things.

Unfortunately, this is not a good deal for ordinary Ukrainians who are being sent to slaughter by Washington’s puppets in Kiev.

For our part, we have repeatedly urged our opponents (we refer to them as unfriendly countries now) to do business (I am not even talking about a dialogue now, it’s strictly business) while respecting the principle of equal and indivisible security and considering the interests and concerns of not only our country, but other countries as well.

back to top

 

Question: Russia and Belarus plan to create a Union State media holding. What, in your opinion, are the key objectives of this agency in terms of the Foreign Ministry’s interests and capacities?

Maria Zakharova: It is a very important move. We consider it crucial to create a common information space for the Union State. As you know, the common space is even more than that. The media holding should become a concrete and efficient tool to carry out this ambitious task.

Within the scope of its competence, the Foreign Ministry provides assistance to the active work of the relevant agencies in Russia and Belarus, first of all, the Russian Ministry of Digital Development, Communications and Mass Media and the Belarusian Ministry of Information, to improve the efficiency of union media, including by creating a media holding.

On January 29, 2024, the Supreme State Council of the Union State adopted a resolution on creating a media company of the Union State at a meeting in St Petersburg. According to this document, signed by the presidents of Russia and Belarus, the Union State Council of Ministers will become the founder of this autonomous non-profit organisation with a headquarters in Moscow and a representative office in Minsk. The activity of the company will be funded from the union’s budget. The media company will comprise a television channel, print media and a media centre engaged in creating, adapting and distributing content in the digital space.

The media company will absorb the current Television and Radio Broadcasting Organisation of the Union State. A relevant bilateral agreement will be signed before the end of 2025.

The new media company’s objective is to bring the activity of the union’s media to a whole new level. It will help increase the Russian and Belarusian people’s awareness of events in both countries, and thus contribute to the further strengthening of the centuries-long ties of the two fraternal peoples. Enhancing the coverage of Union State activity will help bolster its image among the people in both countries and on the global stage.

The Foreign Ministry will provide active assistance to the implementation of these plans and documents to launch a new union media holding, and will provide diplomatic support to the talks between relevant agencies.

back to top

 

Question: Alexey Polishchuk recently talked about a readiness to help improve the deteriorating dialogue between Tiraspol and Chisinau. Do you think that the 5+2 format remains viable? If Chisinau holds EU membership talks with Brussels without taking into account Transnistria as part of Moldova, would this serve Russia’s interests?

Maria Zakharova: We believe that the 5+2 format does have a chance to resume its functions even if it takes some time. This is what we have been hearing from those involved in the conflict. Their opinion matters.

Just the other day, Moldova’s Deputy Prime Minister for Reintegration Oleg Serebrian emphasised that this was a frozen rather than a cancelled format. A little earlier, we  also heard high-ranking officials in Tiraspol calling for reviving the 5+2 format. This is what defines our position on this matter.

Moldova’s EU accession talks are something Chisinau and Brussels will have to do on their own. At the same time, we believe that it would be premature and ineffective to hold these talks without considering the Transnistria issue.

back to top

 

Question: While Russia and the free world are marking 80 years since the lifting of the siege of Leningrad and Holocaust Remembrance Day, Israel hosted a conference held by Nahala, a right-wing movement calling for expanding Jewish settlements in the Gaza Strip. The conference guests included 11 government ministers and 15 MPs from Israel’s ruling party. What does the Foreign Ministry think about these actions?

Maria Zakharova: As far as we know, some radical members of the Israeli cabinet were not just present at this conference but called for deporting Palestinians from the Gaza Strip and returning Jewish settlers who were forced to leave in 2005 as part of the unilateral disengagement initiative.

We have been saying all along that discussing the issue of deporting Palestinians would be unacceptable, and we believe that provocative statements like this by Israeli officials are also unacceptable. They are at odds with the universally recognised international legal framework for the Middle East Peace Process which provides for the creation of an independent Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, including the Gaza Strip. These statements do nothing but promote anti-Arab sentiment in Israeli society and violate the rights of the Palestinians who have always inhabited this enclave. This feeds anti-Israel sentiment among ordinary Arabs too.

It is our hope that Israeli leadership will properly respond to this dangerous rhetoric. It is extremely provocative.

back to top

 

Question: Prime Minister of Japan Fumio Kishida said that his country would like to sign a peace treaty with Russia, but that it would continue the policy of sanctions. What does Moscow think of the prospects for signing a peace treaty with Tokyo?

Maria Zakharova: I would like to draw your attention to the fact that, on March 21, 2022, the Foreign Ministry issued a statement on retaliatory measures in response to the Japanese government’s decision. At that time, Russia stated that it did not intend to continue peace treaty talks with Japan because it was impossible to discuss this fundamental document on bilateral relations with a state that takes openly unfriendly positions and strives to damage the interests of Russia. We proceed from precisely this basis.

I would like to reiterate that, since the beginning of the special military operation in February 2022, the government of Japan has been pursuing an openly unfriendly line with regard to Russia. They are introducing numerous packages of illegal sanctions, and Russophobic sentiments are deliberately incited in Japanese society. This is Russophobia, not criticism or alternative viewpoints. They are expanding military activity near Russia’s Far Eastern borders together with the United States and other NATO member states. For example, they are practicing the use of strike weapons and providing direct material and technical assistance to the Kiev regime.

In these conditions, we see no opportunities for continuing the previous dialogue with Tokyo on signing a fundamental document intended to lay the foundation of long-term neighbourly relations.

The Russian Federation will continue to respond to any new hostile acts of the Japanese authorities and to implement tough counter measures that Japan would feel keenly. We will use all available resources and tools, and we will be guided by our own national interests alone.

back to top

 

Question: Javier Colomina, Special Representative of the NATO Secretary General for the Caucasus and Central Asia, said that the alliance is greatly inspired by Yerevan’s foreign and defence policy drift towards NATO, and that they would like to establish even more proximity. Can you comment on this statement?

Maria Zakharova: If anyone wants more proximity, they should realise how unsafe this is, and what consequences this would entail. Many countries have already seen the consequences of NATO’s proximity, including involvement in conflicts, the loss of sovereignty and independence, the subordination to foreign will and planning in all meanings of this word and in all spheres, and, most importantly, the inability to pursue one’s own national interests.

We should proceed from fundamental concepts here. What are the national interests of each country, including those of Armenia, mentioned by you? It probably would make sense to analyse this, unfold a map and see where, in what region and between what neighbours this country is located. Reading history textbooks would be a good idea for those seeking to sever relations with regional countries or advocating a partial split with them, to say the least, rather than “close relations” with anyone (sovereign countries can decide for themselves). Analyse all this and consider the essence of Armenia’s national interests, as well as factors providing short-term, mid-term and long-term benefits. That should inform your thinking, not promises. The West makes promises to everyone.  

It is interesting to analyse their actions in various regions. They had enough money for bribing officials in Ukraine, Moldova and multiple other states. However, for some reason, they never keep their promises when it becomes necessary to set up real platforms and a foundation for facilitating the economic development of the relevant countries with which NATO and the United States, at the helm of it, would like to maintain close relations. I have never seen any examples over the past 30-40 years.

back to top

 

Question: What is your comment on EU ambassadors’ preliminary coordination with regard to using earnings from reinvested Russian assets that have been frozen?

Maria Zakharova: Please be more accurate: that’s “stolen” not “frozen,”  “pilfered” not “arrested.” So, let’s be more realistic. I understand that this might be painful, but it must be said sooner or later. We should call things as they are.

Our vision on the possibility of the seizure of Russian assets, which have been illegally blocked and stolen in a number of Western jurisdictions, remains unchanged. We regard these actions not only as common theft but also as a trade war and an escalation of the West’s economic aggression against Russia. Any attempt to confiscate assets belonging to Russia, whose legality is not and cannot be called into question, is a gross violation of international law, the internal laws of those countries, and many bilateral documents and business obligations, both bilateral and private.   Indicatively, even the EU agreed with this in an earlier time.

But the current EU elites are unable to resist Washington’s pressure and its demands to confiscate Russia’s assets. In addition, no one in the EU is still willing to invest in the hopeless “Ukrainian project” as much as before, especially against the background of the ongoing social explosion. This is what we are seeing now.

Neither do they want to pay the Americans who need this as much as air to breathe. Project Ukraine must be kept moving in a situation where the Americans are not sponsoring it. But then, who would bankroll it? So, they want to harness the EU. But the EU’s budget is coming apart at the seams (we discussed this at length today), while the EU countries’ public debt is shooting out of sight (I cited the figures today). Closing the gap with Russia’s assets is a tempting idea. They are simply obsessed with it. The only thing that keeps them from making this last step is fear of the consequences. They see us retaliating, something that is discouraging them, to put it mildly. The Europeans realise that the response would be harsh to the extreme.

Brussels decided to hide behind a plan to confiscate revenues on assets rather than the assets themselves. In plain language, the core of the matter remains the same whatever fraudulent scheme may be invented by the European Union. A case in point is the attempt to legitimise this theft. It is not by chance that the European Central Bank indicated some time ago that any actions like this were likely to lead to long-term negative consequences for the EU’s economy and the international status of the euro.  

It is another matter that no one reports to EU citizens that Washington does not care about the euro's status or its future role. The Americans are staking on their own currency and see the rest as rivals. We are well aware of what they do with their rivals.  

The EU’s behaviour is clear evidence that any country seeking to conduct a sovereign policy risks falling victim to the West’s economic brigandage. Today, the reason could be the “wrong” foreign policy; tomorrow, election results that do not suit the West; the day after tomorrow, what Brussels defines as excessive industrial atmospheric emissions. There are many likely pretexts: human rights, the environment, the “wrong” view on the culture cancel problem, and so on.

Therefore, it is no surprise that many states belonging to the Global South have been reducing the percentage of the dollar, the euro and other Western currencies in their foreign transactions and creating an alternative to SWIFT payment and settlement system. They do whatever they can to make themselves safe. There are many examples showing what fate might befall those who neglect to do this. Their scale is also quite convincing. This is how the financial and economic basis of the multipolar world is taking shape, a world without diktat or sanctions that the Western minority can impose on undesirables.

back to top

 

Question: How does the Foreign Ministry react to claims in the Western media that Russia is using weapons from Iran and the DPRK in the course of the special military operation? If this is true, does it violate any legislative acts?

Maria Zakharova: This is not the first time that we have heard these questions. They have been answered by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, including in New York during an interview with the Western media. We regularly comment on them through the Department of Information and Press, at briefings and on social media. Once again, you can formulate this question however you like and come up with different approaches to this topic, but the global answer is as follows.

The Russian Federation does not violate anything in its interaction with Iran and North Korea. We develop our relations on a bilateral basis, on the basis of mutual respect, and we do so in a mutually beneficial manner. No international obligations are violated by our country. What are we doing, how, why? This is a strictly personal matter in our relations with other countries.

back to top

 

Question: Is the Foreign Ministry looking into the case of Gonzalo Lira Lopez, who was murdered in a Kharkov prison? His father says that Gonzalo Lopez was tortured for eight months in that prison. Does Russia handle the case of this American and Chilean journalist at the international level?

Maria Zakharova: I want to emphasise that he was a citizen of the United States and Chile. He did not have Russian citizenship. He was not our compatriot or a representative of Russian or Russian-language media. In this regard, we do not have the legal capacity to deal with this issue, as we would if he was a citizen of our country or our compatriot, or an employee of the Russian media.

However, since the safety of journalists is an international topic and is on the agenda of international organisations, we are certainly raising this issue there.

Given that we are talking about the situation around Ukraine and the Kiev regime's violation of its obligations and endless threats to the lives and safety of Russian journalists by the Kiev regime, we are mourning yet another journalist. They have blown them up, killed them, harassed them, threatened them, kidnapped them, whatever.

Therefore, as a country whose journalists are suffering from terrorist acts and extremist activities by the Kiev regime, we will draw the attention of the international community to this terrible event.

back to top

 

Question: On February 2, the UN International Court of Justice will pass a ruling on a lawsuit filed by Ukraine against the Russian Federation regarding the Genocide Convention and will announce whether this case falls within its jurisdiction. What ruling does the Foreign Ministry expect The Hague to pass?

Maria Zakharova: Indeed, the court's ruling on the jurisdictional objections submitted by the Russian Federation in the case under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948 is expected to be passed on February 2.

The Russian delegation will be present at the pronouncement of the ruling. We expect the court to show impartiality and independence as the UN’s principal judicial body. We will provide substantive comments once the ruling is announced.

It is important to note that this is an intermediate ruling to determine whether the court has jurisdiction to hear the case.

back to top

 

Question: In response to the recent drone attack near the Syrian-Jordanian border, US President Biden said Washington must respond. Does the Foreign Ministry believe that this situation may provoke a large-scale US military intervention in the Middle East?

Maria Zakharova: I think President Biden started a sentence, but didn’t finish it. Washington must be held accountable for its crimes. For reasons unknown, it has not been brought to justice for the terrible criminal and illegal actions it had committed against many countries and peoples. It’s an excellent, beautiful, and wonderful phrase, but it needs to be translated and looked at in a different context.

It is time for Washington to answer for its crimes. They only know how to respond with force, an approach that does not resolve situations, but only makes them worse.

back to top

 

Question: Mali and Burkina Faso have notified ECOWAS of their withdrawal from the community. What can you say about this decision?

Maria Zakharova: On January 28, a joint communiqué the heads of Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger issued a joint communiqué on their withdrawal from ECOWAS.

The leaders of the three countries substantiated their decision by the fact that “ECOWAS, under the influence of foreign powers, betraying its founding principles, has become a threat to its member states and its populations whose happiness it is supposed to ensure.” In addition, they believe that the community has failed to assist Ouagadougou, Bamako and Niamey in the fight against terrorism and in strengthening security, and has imposed illegal and illegitimate sanctions in violation of its own rules resulting in the exacerbation of the situation for the people.

The ECOWAS Commission issued its own communiqué on January 28, noting that it has not received any official notification from the countries in question regarding their withdrawal from the community. The commission considers these countries to be important ECOWAS members, and their leadership remains committed to finding a solution to the current situation.

Moscow continues to closely monitor the developments surrounding Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger’s ECOWAS membership. We look forward to resolving the issues that have arisen in relations between the members of this important integration association for the Sahara-Sahel region and all of West Africa through equitable and mutually respectful dialogue.

back to top

 

Question: Presidential Special Envoy for Syria Alexander Lavrentiev said the US troops will finally leave Syria and more changes will take place in the region. The Kurds have played an important part in fighting terrorism. How will Russia help ensure the rights of Kurds in Syria?

Maria Zakharova: As far as we know, the information about the United States withdrawing its troops from Syria has been refuted.

Following up on your question, please note that we are making consistent efforts to achieve a comprehensive settlement in Syria based on our commitment to the principles of respect for the sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity of that country. We are ready to assist the legitimate governments of friendly states, including Syria.

We will do everything in our power to make Syria truly free of foreign presence and to help establish peace and security in that country.

back to top

 

Question: The new Foreign Minister of Moldova Mihai Popsoi said he would like to know whether a ban on his entry into Russia would be now lifted. He has been blacklisted since summer when he was a deputy of Moldovan Parliament. What do you expect from the new Foreign Minister? What are the prospects for developing bilateral ties?

Maria Zakharova: The first part of your question is funny. I remember how Mr Popsoi declared in the summer of 2023 when he was Deputy Speaker of Parliament that he “feels honoured to be in the same club with many good people who cannot go there (to Russia).” He wrote this on social media. So now, he would like to know whether he is dishonoured? 

Now let’s turn to serious matters.  I’d say that we have more than enough problems in our relations. Of course, it is possible to ignore them or engage in verbal exercises like Mr Popsoi did a year ago and is doing now.

Chisinau has curtailed interactions of our intergovernmental commissions and discontinued consultations between our foreign ministries. Diplomatic contacts are sporadic and the resolution of practical issues is put on pause. Chisinau has restricted the entry to Moldova for our employees that we send to work in the Embassy and declared some Russian diplomats persona non grata.  In July 2023, Chisinau reduced by two thirds the personnel of our foreign offices in Moldova. Do you think this is a way of looking for dialogue? I seriously doubt it.

These problems concern not only some narrow groups or elite communities. People in our countries, primarily Moldova, face them every day. We are ready to resolve bilateral problems. We hope that at some point (I don’t know whether under the Maia Sandu regime or in the more remote future), Chisinau will realise the need to resolve problems rather than create them.

Indeed, many problems have been created. I enumerated them, noting that many of them were initiated by the current authorities. If there is a will to resolve them, it is necessary to start doing this. Again, this question should not be addressed to us. In fact, we have never done anything to complicate our relations.

back to top

 

Question: How should we restructure the domestic information agenda considering our turn to the East? We know much about Joseph Biden’s problems, Donald Trump’s successes and Emmanuel Macron’s sorrows, as well as the details of European policy but the national media have very little information about the positions of the leaders of Asian states on key global issues. Do you think we need to change something in this area?

Maria Zakharova: You first ask how to change it and then whether such a change is necessary. Please, be clearer if you can.

I don’t agree that now we are witnessing some “turn to the East” whether in foreign policy or any other way.   

We have always spoken about the multi-vector character of our foreign policy.  We have not just spoken about this at some forums but have enshrined it in our Foreign Policy Concept as the dominant course of the country. We did this long ago, proceeding from our history, geography, goals and tasks. We are using opportunities that can bring us real benefits or produce results. If Western Europe or other parts of the world have sided with Washington’s Russophobic policy and isolated themselves from us, we don’t see any sense in trying to push through this closed door (or maybe even a wall). As Mr Lavrov says, let them come through or let them go through something else. We will be using other options and available opportunities and building them up.

Russia is one sixth of the world’s surface, a civilisation state with such vast resources and plans for the future that we are not prone to doing somersaults. We do not endlessly change course and make U-turns. We do not contradict ourselves in our policy. We have a set course and we are following it. It has been announced and it is clear. If changes occur in the world, we certainly consider them but we are following the course that we have set as doctrine.

As for information coverage, realities are bound to influence and are already affecting information work. We are opening bureaus in new countries and closing them in the countries that blocked them or where their work is no longer safe but we are doing it not through our will. We are also creating country hubs of our media corporations and mass media in those places where we had no information presence before. We are signing cooperation agreements with mass media of other states. I am referring to states where such cooperation did not develop or did not exist at all. We are making programmes jointly or buying them and implementing joint documentary projects. Today, all this is more than enough not just for citing single examples but also for doing systemic work.

You formulated one part of your question in an offensive manner and I was not prepared to accept it. But if you are asking whether we should develop this further, I will agree with you – we must certainly do that.

Spectators, the audience should understand that we have the longest border with Kazakhstan. It is our neighbour. Recently we were part of the same country with its people.

We have the second longest border with China. It is also our neighbour. We have much in common historically. We have had good periods and different times. Now, we have reached an unprecedentedly high level of relations in all areas and are still building on this.

Our people and our audience should understand and know these facts. This is of fundamental importance. They should not just be going by the experiences of those places that have separated themselves from us on their own initiative by drawing some new dividing lines.

back to top