Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, July 18, 2024
- Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s participation in ASEAN, EAS and ARF meetings
- Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s participation in opening an exhibition on the 80th anniversary of diplomatic relations between Russa and Syria
- Ukraine crisis update
- Developments in Moldova
- Switzerland-NATO agreement on opening NATO’s liaison office in Geneva
- German Government’s plans to reimburse Polish victims of Nazi occupation during WWII
- UK special forces’ war crimes in Afghanistan
- Publication of Japan’s annual defence white paper
- Cancelling the rehabilitation of Japanese war criminals
- Situation involving Zlatomir Dyovlenski, member of the Russophiles Bulgarian National Movement
- Czech Republic’s new discriminatory requirements for Russian foreign travel passports
- Politicising the activities of the Bretton Woods organisations
- The 80th anniversary of the liberation of Vilnius from Nazi troops
- Confiscation of Russian assets
- Russia’s “participation” in the second peace summit
- Germany bans Compact magazine
- UN cooperation with the CSTO, the CIS and the SCO
- Number of casualties in Gaza
- China’s economic growth
- Sergey Lavrov’s visit to New York
- Pre-election statements by the US vice presidential candidate
- US activity in the South Caucasus
- Russian-Syrian relations
- US-Armenian ties
- First Congress of Independence Movements from French-colonised territories
- Palestinian-Israeli settlement efforts
- US-Armenian military exercises
- Development of a common information space across the BRICS member states
- Russian-Portuguese relations
- European countries’ foreign policy
- Internal situation in Pakistan
- Judicial system crisis in the United States
- Russia-ASEAN cooperation
- Pre-election statements by the US vice presidential candidate
- Various aspects of the Ukraine crisis
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s participation in ASEAN, EAS and ARF meetings
On July 26-27, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will be in Vientiane for the regular ministerial meetings of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) held in different formats, including Russia-ASEAN, the East Asia Summit (EAS) and the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF). Once again, the events will be held in Vientiane, Laos. I hope there will be no confusion about the site. The events will be held in Laos.
ASEAN is a core element of multilateral interstate processes in the vast Asia Pacific region. We regard it as a key partner in the context of implementing the initiative of President Putin on creating a new architecture of Eurasian security. The task is to align the cooperation resources of individual countries and multilateral instruments to find an algorithm of joined peaceful development on the continent that will be comfortable to all participants.
During these meetings, we will present our views on the regional situation, in particular, the growth of the conflict potential in Asia Pacific due to the Western policy of militarising the region, NATO’ military potential buildup, and the expansion of the network of bloc mechanisms. We will continue to advocate the idea of creating a just and equal world order where ASEAN is a natural partner for the SCO and the EAEU. These three organisations are working in a common system of coordinates for positive cooperation and stronger interaction in various spheres.
This year, we will mark the 20th anniversary of Russia’s accession to the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia (TAC), also known as the Bali Treaty (1976). In this context, it is panned to reaffirm its principles of peace and regional stability in Vientiane.
We hope to use the Russia-ASEAN ministerial meetings for holding a substantive dialogue on the entire range of cooperation with ASEAN in politics, security, trade, the economy, social and cultural spheres. We plan to discuss the implementation of the 2021-2025 Comprehensive Plan of Action to Implement the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and the Russian Federation Strategic Partnership and launch preparations of a new document of this kind for the medium term. The focus will be on the development of high-tech and science-intensive sectors, smart cities, and cooperation in digitalisation and power generation.
The EAS agenda will highlight preparations for a summit meeting in Vientiane in October 2024 and a review of the organisation’s roadmap adopted last year for 2024-2028. We will speak about stimulating the implementation of the projects added to the EAS format at Russia’s initiative to create a regional pandemic response mechanism, promote cooperation in tourism, and develop ties between volunteer organisations in the Asia-Pacific region.
We hope to approve a programme for next year at the ARF forum and to adopt a themed statement on ferry safety and several working plans, including on emergency response.
We will use ASEAN support to promote practical initiatives on international information security, which is among Russia’s priorities on this platform.
On July 19, an exhibition on Russian-Syrian relations will open in the ministry’s building on Smolenskaya Square. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will unveil the exhibition and is expected to deliver remarks.
We invite everyone to this ceremony, which will be streamed in the Foreign Ministry’s social media accounts.
The Kiev regime, now in functional obsolescence, has focused on terrorist attacks on peaceful Russian cities and villages, taking out the impotent anger over its own battlefield failures on the civilian population. The weapons supplied by the collective West are being widely used against innocent people, which makes Western countries complicit in these monstrous atrocities – the terrorist attacks committed by Vladimir Zelensky’s gang. Unfortunately, children are often the ultimate victims of these attacks.
On July 11, those followers of Bandera dropped an explosive device from a drone in Shebekino, Belgorod Region, right where five children were playing outside; all of them were injured with varying severity. There is no doubt that it was a deliberate and premeditated terrorist attack. On the same day, Shebekino and several nearby communities were also shelled by the Armed Forces of Ukraine: 22 people were injured, and a lot of damage was done to residential buildings and civilian infrastructure.
On July 13, eight residents were injured in another attack on Shebekino. On the same day, Ukrainian Nazis dropped an explosive object from a drone in Gorlovka, injuring three civilians, including a 12-year-old child.
On July 14, militants of the Armed Forces of Ukraine used a multiple launch rocket system to attack Oktyabrsky, a village in the Belgorod Region. Four people were injured, including a 9-month-old child.
On July 15, another strike on the village of Nikolskoye (DPR) resulted in one civilian death.
Yesterday, on July 17, a Ukrainian FPV drone attacked a car near the village of Tserkovny, Belgorod Region, driven by a young couple. Both spouses died at the scene.
All these crimes are the work of the Kiev regime gang, junta, clique – call it what you want. It is the terrorist rabble that has dug in on Bankovaya, and is being sustained primarily with the US and British money, let alone huge financial injections from the European Union. Russian law enforcement agencies record every crime. All those involved will definitely be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law.
Courts in Russia continue to convict Ukrainian neo-Nazis for serious crimes, for terrorist attacks against civilians, relying on the evidence provided by the Investigative Committee of Russia.
The Investigative Committee has brought charges in absentia against ex-commander of the Ukraine Air Force Sergey Drozdov, former commander of special operations forces Igor Lunyov and ex-commander of the missile forces and artillery, deputy commander of the ground troops of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Vyacheslav Gorbylev. At various times between 2015 and 2021, these individuals led the “combined forces operation” in southeastern Ukraine. As a result of their criminal actions, at least 177 people, including eight children, were killed and injured, and more than 190 infrastructure facilities in the DPR and the LPR were damaged. Measures are being taken to track them down and take them in custody.
Foreign mercenaries fighting on the side of the Kiev regime also get what they deserve. According to the Investigative Committee of Russia, 714 foreigners have been indicted on these counts. Of this number, 422 are on the international wanted list.
Arsen Dmytryk, a militant from the Azov nationalist battalion, was sentenced to life in absentia. In March 2022, he ordered his subordinates to shell residential buildings and civilian infrastructure facilities in the Vostochny residential area of Mariupol. Two people were killed as a result. An international arrest warrant has been issued for him.
Ukrainian neo-Nazi Viktor Pyatka was sentenced to 25 years in absentia. In March 2022, he ordered a sniper from the Armed Forces of Ukraine to kill a civilian in Mariupol. Viktor Pyatka is also on the international wanted list. The case of the perpetrator of this criminal order is considered in court.
I repeat, these are just some examples of multiple proceedings by investigative authorities, law enforcement agencies and courts with regard to crimes of the Kiev regime. This work will continue.
We have noted revelations by Kirill Budanov, Head of the Main Intelligence Directorate at the Ukrainian Defence Ministry. On July 13, 2024, he admitted in an interview with Ukraine’s NV media outlet that futile attempts had been made to assassinate President of Russia Vladimir Putin. Doubtless, the Kiev regime’s Anglo-Saxon masters were directly involved in planning and financing these crimes. Tremendous funding is coming in. During this period, Western countries have never condemned any single evil deed, any terrorist attack against the civilian population and representatives of various state-power branches. They have never done this at the national level, collectively or publicly or within the framework of any active work at international platforms. US, British, French and German representatives never voiced any critical remarks. The collective West is financing the Kiev regime on a grand scale and endlessly supplying it with weapons. Consequently, they are becoming accomplices to the Kiev regime’s criminal activities.
Although this horrendous and never-ending “rain” of money and weapons is coming to Bankovaya Street, Vladimir Zelensky’s junta is unable to achieve the desired result. According to Kirill Budanov, the Armed Forces of Ukraine are facing problems that tend to become aggravated. This will continue to happen in the future. Speaking frankly and without symbolism , the Armed Forces of Ukraine are suffering one setback after another, and they are heading towards inevitable defeat. The West that is trying hard to prevent the Russian victory is worried about this. They resort to terror when there are no other options left. We are talking about this regularly. As we understand, the Kiev regime is accustomed to terrorist methods. It has already accumulated tremendous experience of perpetrating terrorist attacks.
On July 16, 2024, the deadline for mandatory updates to military data for those liable for service in Ukraine, as mandated by the controversial mobilisation law, expired. According to the Ukrainian Ministry of Defence, around 4.7 million people complied with this requirement. Of those, 75,000 were abroad, representing roughly one in ten Ukrainians of mobilisation age. The leading countries with Ukrainian refugees participating in this update were Germany, Poland, the Czech Republic, and Canada. As of April, over 800,000 Ukrainian citizens were registered in EU countries.
Plans to mobilise around 300,000 people have fallen significantly short of targets. Many Ukrainian citizens prefer to go into hiding or even serve prison terms rather than be sent to the frontlines. This is a notable trend. The number of draft dodgers in Ukraine has nearly tripled compared to 2022, now reaching 417,000. Most of them are in Western Ukraine, with the Lvov Region leading significantly. In 2023 and the first half of 2024, 85,800 men from the Lvov Region were put on the wanted list for evading military conscription. In Lvov, there is an extensive network of Telegram channels with around 150,000 subscribers, roughly one-fifth of the city’s population, that inform residents in advance about upcoming mobilisation raids. Is this what Ukrainian democracy looks like? Is this the “young Ukrainian state” that the West praised for being on the right track – sovereign, independent, and nationally oriented?
The number of criminal cases related to desertion and unauthorised abandonment of military units is also on the rise. In the first half of 2024 alone, nearly 30,000 such cases were opened in Ukraine. Since 2022, Ukrainian law enforcement agencies have opened a total of 63,200 such criminal proceedings. According to German media, including Deutsche Welle, the actual numbers could be three to four times higher.
Reports on Ukrainian social networks indicate that men aged 20-25 are being mobilised, though this was not being specified in the stringent mobilisation law adopted in April. There is increasing talk about lowering the mobilisation age to 18 in 2025. Whenever such plans are discussed, officials on Bankovaya Street deny them, offering reassurances and promises. Yet, contrary to their assurances, the opposite tends to happen. There is no doubt that the mobilisation age will be lowered this time as well, to 18 years. And I think this is not the limit. The situation was further aggravated by the former US permanent representative to NATO, Ivo Daalder, who, on July 14, stated in an interview with Euronews that Kiev should utilise its existing human resources by recruiting citizens aged 18-20 into the troops. It’s important to note who made this statement – the US representative to NATO, an organisation involved in developing aggressive anti-Russia strategies and using the Kiev regime for these purposes. Who else but the American permanent representative would understand, know, and clearly foresee that Washington will pressure the Kiev regime to implement its plans?
Neither are we surprised at the plans of Zelensky’s regime to strengthen control of the location and movement of people aged 16 to 60 years. Overall, the money people spend to leave Ukraine have long exceeded the 6 billion euros stipulated in the West for the extra-budgetary project on preventing and responding to trafficking in human beings amid the humanitarian crisis in Ukraine.
According to Ukrainian law enforcement agencies, at least 200 people try to illegally cross the border (it is impossible to do this legally) every day, which adds up to 6,000 a month. Unofficial estimates put the figure at about 20,000. This is evidence of total chaos in Ukraine, the absence of any legality and legitimacy in the Ukrainian authorities’ activities, and the Ukrainian citizens’ lack of faith in “a bright future” Zelensky and the West promised, which can only be paid for with the lives of Ukrainians. This is the current situation in Ukraine. I believe the West should abandon scruples and admit that what is happening in Ukraine is “liberal democracy,” so that those who will be offered, promised or forced to adopt it know what lies in store for them.
Returning to the subject of mobilisation in Ukraine, I would like to tell you about an interesting trend for recruiting Ukrainians with dual citizenship. The Ukrainian army is so badly short of personnel that the government is thinking of mobilising Ukrainians with foreign passports or residence permits. I am not going to find any logic in the actions of the Ukrainian authorities who did not allow their citizens to hold Russian passports despite family relations and a common history. They were forced to make a choice: either a Ukrainian passport or a Russian citizenship. But there is no logical or legal explanation for what is happening now, considering that there are Ukrainians with foreign, including Western, passports. This doesn’t seem to embarrass anyone in Ukraine. It is legal mayhem. Kiev is in talks, so far unsuccessfully, with several European countries, namely Poland, the Baltics and Scandinavian countries, on luring Ukrainians out of these countries.
The EU is talking more and more often that they should not only send weapons to Ukraine but also help it with military personnel. It has not yet come to the mass deportation of Ukrainians from Western Europe, but refugees are being insistently invited to join various “volunteer” units that will be sent to Ukraine. Moreover, EU countries have started talking about the shortage of funds for giving aid, allowances and other benefits to Ukrainian “refugees.” This is being done to force them to go back to Ukraine and into the hands of military recruitment offices, who will send them to their deaths via the battlefield.
On July11, Minister-President of Bavaria Markus Söder shared in an interview with Munchner Merkur that the regional authorities may send Ukrainian men of call-up age back home, if Ukraine so requests. Those unwilling to face reality are the only ones who cannot understand or hear this. This is reality.
It is not a secret that German special services have long been encouraging refugees to join the German Volunteer Corps as part of the International Legion of Territorial Defence of Ukraine. They are enticed to do so by the prospect of fast-tracking their German citizenship, but only after the hostilities end. Whoever will survive may be granted German citizenship. I can say right away that Westerners issued millions and tens of millions of such promises. If you want to know how it ends, look at what happened in Afghanistan. They did not let even their own citizens, recruited helpers, people who had faith in the United States and worked for Washington in Afghanistan, board outbound flights. The people clung to the landing gear and fell to their death when planes were up in the air. It happens every time. On the other hand, you need to know history in order not to repeat mistakes. When history is cancelled, mistakes tend to be repeated.
The agreement on security cooperation signed by Zelensky on July 8 with Warsaw should be viewed from the same angle. Among other things, it says that citizens of Ukraine temporarily residing in Poland and other countries can take part in the training of the Ukrainian security and defence forces personnel to be conducted in Lublin, Poland, where the Lithuanian-Polish-Ukrainian brigade established in 2014 is stationed. The Ukrainian legion will be formed on the basis of this brigade. On July 11, Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski said several thousand applications to join the legion had allegedly been submitted.
Warsaw makes no secret of the fact that it plans to “encourage” Ukrainian citizens to return home to serve in the Ukrainian Armed Forces. In fact, they encourage them to part with their lives of their own accord rather than serve in the Ukrainian forces. Notably, in early July, the Polish authorities cut benefits to Ukrainian refugees and tightened the procedure for entering the country. This “liberal democracy” has an iron fist in a velvet glove.
The Baltic States are similarly inclined. On July 15, the Lithuanian authorities announced that they plan to stop providing tuition-free education for Ukrainian students at their universities at the request of Ukraine. How do you like these vicissitudes of liberalism?
There is every reason to believe that soon enough the West’s plan to fight to the last Ukrainian will include deportations of Ukrainian refugees to the front.
July 11 marks 81st anniversary of Bloody Sunday, the peak of the tragic events known as the Volyn Massacre. On that day in 1943, OUN-UPA thugs attacked about 100 Polish villages, brutally killing about 8,000 civilians, mostly women, children and the elderly. The archives declassified by the Russian Federal Security Service two years ago show that in 1943-1945 Ukrainian Nazi minions killed several tens of thousands of Poles, Jews, Ukrainians, Russians, Belarusians and people of other ethnicities who lived in Volyn, Polesie, Galicia and other regions of western Ukraine, Belarus and Eastern Poland.
Poles refer to the Volyn massacre as genocide. However, intoxicated by the fumes of Russophobia, they are nonetheless helping the neo-Nazi regime in Kiev, which openly glorifies Stepan Bandera and other Hitler’s henchmen. What is the logic behind that? Or, is it that anything that is directed against Russia is good for the West? The notorious double standards and cynical calculus blatantly underlie this approach.
This is corroborated by the above July 8 Polish-Ukrainian agreement on security cooperation. Its fifth section stipulates the importance of achieving reconciliation on disputed issues, which stem from the historical complexities of both countries. Among other things, the issue is about developing joint historical research tools, as well as curricula instructions for school textbooks covering the history of relations between the two countries and peoples, in particular the Ukrainian-Polish brotherhood in the war of 1920 against Bolshevik Russia meaning that there were no Bolsheviks, communists or the communist party in Ukraine back then. There were no Ukrainians in the central Bolshevik bodies, or educational party bodies. There was nothing. On the other hand, they’ve written quite a lot recently on the subject of history.
It is unlikely that Poland would agree to turn a blind eye to the Volyn tragedy, or Kiev would come to terms with Warsaw and recognise the atrocities committed by the Banderites as genocide of Poles. At some point, Russia and Poland set up a commission like that. The difference is that from our perspective reconciliation of parties, countries, nations, states, or peoples does not imply rewriting history. We believe it means being knowledgeable about history in order to avoid repeating mistakes. What we are witnessing now as we look at what the Polish-Ukrainian Historical Commission is doing speaks to the contrary. It says that the focus is on rewriting and distorting history which will lead (as I mentioned earlier) to a repetition of bloody mistakes. Ukraine is counting (this is laid out in the above agreement) on Poland helping it boost its economy, especially the defence industry, in order to achieve the notorious goal of retaking control over the country’s territory within the 1991 borders. In return, Poles will be accorded free access to the Ukrainian market, trade privileges, and other preferences. Warsaw is unabashedly taking advantage of the Kiev regime’s situation and making plans to use the first available opportunity to take back its historical lands, which, from the point of view of many people in Warsaw, ended up as part of Ukraine purely by accident.
It is also clear that, signing such agreements with Western countries, the Zelensky regime is chasing fleeting advantages in order to save itself and stay in power. Clearly, Bankovaya will stop at nothing to achieve this goal. Zelensky does not care about Ukraine or the future of the Ukrainian people. I have a question: what does Zelensky hate Ukrainians so much for?
The above facts once again confirm the urgency of the goals of the special military operation to denazify and demilitarise Ukraine and to eliminate the threats emanating from its territory. All of them, as the Russian leadership has repeatedly stated, will be fulfilled no matter what.
As the presidential elections in October 2024 approach, President Maia Sandu’s regime is increasingly relying on anti-Russia rhetoric as its main, and essentially only, campaign slogan.
On July 10, President Sandu claimed that “the Kremlin’s desire to return thieves to power” poses a threat to Moldova. Simply put, she fabricated another unfounded accusation. She targets the opposition and the citizens of her own country who, despite facing threats and repression from Sandu’s regime, call things as they are and strive to preserve Moldova’s history, culture, and ethnic identity. These people are now being openly disparaged.
Meanwhile, official Chisinau continues its policy of erasing all connections to Russia from the public consciousness, particularly targeting the Russian language. They have already eradicated the Moldovan language, asserting that only Romanian exists. This ongoing struggle, marked by a clear nationalist bias, now also targets the Russian language.
In June, it was announced that three gymnasiums and two primary schools offering Russian language instruction would be closed in the Singerei District, citing a low number of students and teachers as the reason. According to open sources, there are currently 1,218 schools operating in the country, with only 202 providing instruction in Russian. This is despite the fact that about 80 percent of Moldova’s residents speak and regularly use Russian.
Last week, Moldovan media reported that the activities of the Slavic University would be suspended starting July 22 due to the Moldovan Ministry of Education’s refusal to grant accreditation for its bachelor’s and master’s programmes.
This development is not surprising, as it reflects the systemic policy of Maia Sandu. It is worth noting that Sandu grew up in the prosperous Soviet Moldavia, but now she identifies herself as a Romanian and is actively working to transform Moldova into Romania. For instance, every assertion requires evidence, and we certainly have it. During Maia Sandu’s tenure as Minister of Education from 2012 to 2015, 119 schools were closed in Moldova, and the total number of educational institutions decreased by 221. To achieve the goal of erasing the Moldovan language, culture, and identity, and turning the country into a part of Romania, the educational level of the population needs to be lowered. This is precisely what she is doing.
Pro-government activists are calling to rename key parts of the Moldovan capital’s urban infrastructure, including Moscow Avenue and St Petersburg Square. This is not surprising, as any reminders of Russia’s significant historical role in preserving Moldova’s national identity pose a challenge to Maia Sandu and are a thorn in the side of those advocating the “demoldovisation” of the country.
Under the guise of combatting the fabricated “Russian threat,” Maia Sandu’s repressions against those advocating constructive relations with Russia are intensifying. Opposition presidential candidates are branded as “Kremlin agents” and “promoters of Russian interests.” Additionally, Anca Dragu, the Romanian ex-official appointed by Sandu as head of the Central Bank, has declared the use of Russian Mir cards in Moldova illegal, claiming that transactions made through these cards pose a “threat to national security.” From the perspective of the Maia Sandu regime, diminishing both the educational standards and financial well-being of Moldova’s citizens is a key objective.
At the same time, under the guise of European integration, Maia Sandu’s regime is intensifying the militarisation of the country. On July 15, the Moldovan Ministry of Defence announced the imminent arrival of a new shipment of military equipment from the United States. It’s only logical since it has nothing to do with the opening of schools or enhancing the well-being of Moldovan citizens. Instead, it signals a push towards adopting a Ukrainian scenario. The shipment includes 20 Humvee armoured vehicles. The updated draft National Defence Strategy of Moldova for 2024-2034 outlines plans to integrate the country into the European Union’s security and defence framework by 70 percent by 2029 and fully by 2034. Russia’s actions are characterised as posing a direct threat to Moldova’s security and constitutional order. Independent Moldovan experts predict that it won’t be long before the authorities, acting against the wish of the Moldovan people and under pressure from Washington and Brussels, officially abandon the country’s constitutional neutrality. Yet, ordinary Moldovans are unwilling to accept being mere pawns in the West’s geopolitical manoeuvres. Recent public opinion polls reveal that 53 percent of respondents lack trust in Maia Sandu, and 57 percent disapprove of the pro-Western government’s actions over the past three years. For more than half of those surveyed, Russia remains one of Moldova’s key political and economic partners. These numbers are from Moldovan sources.
For us, Moldova and its people are friends, and we are committed to maintaining and enhancing an equal, mutually beneficial and time-tested dialogue with them. Attempts to erase Russia from Moldova’s past, present, and future are bound to fail.
Switzerland-NATO agreement on opening NATO’s liaison office in Geneva
On July 15, Switzerland and NATO signed an agreement that governs such matters as the legal status of the alliance’s new “liaison office” in Geneva. It will open before the year is out. According to a press release by the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, “NATO is opening a multilateral liaison office in Geneva to engage with the international and non-governmental organisations based there.” Do you know how far Brussels is from Geneva? Even assuming that most Western politicians were clearly not top of their geography class – well, German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock said countries were hundreds of thousands of kilometres apart. But Brussels and Geneva are a little closer than that, I would say; in fact, the distance between them is quite short. It’s a pleasant car ride. What is it that NATO plans to do in Geneva for establishing contacts with Geneva-based organisations (as a reminder, Brussels is home to the North Atlantic Alliance headquarters) that requires an international agreement on this matter? What are they really doing?
Without a doubt, this step is further evidence of Switzerland’s widening departure from its neutral status, which previously enabled the country to provide a platform for impartial dialogue and discussions on the most pressing international issues without any external interference or pressure.
We have repeatedly commented on Bern’s moves that run counter to neutrality, which have become systematic lately. I suggest we review those acts and highlight the most egregious ones now. Switzerland joined all the EU’s anti-Russia sanctions packages and the group advocating for an international tribunal against Russia’s top officials; Switzerland supported the freezing of Russian assets; its approved foreign policy strategy for 2024-2027 excluded Russia from the European security system. The country is increasingly engaging with NATO, and finally, has granted a Geneva platform to the alliance, which is in fact an aggressive military-political organisation with a bloc-based confrontation philosophy. Switzerland’s unfriendly policy towards our country culminated in hosting the “peace conference” on Ukraine on June 15-16, 2024, granting the Kiev regime’s requests. Although a failed initiative, it was still important as a manifestation of Bern’s true approach. Its policies actually amount to renouncing its neutral status.
All these hostile acts by the Swiss side perfectly align with the anti-Russia solidarity of the collective West. I would like to note that we are not going to look the other way, and will continue to take these moves into account while planning cooperation with Switzerland, both on a bilateral basis and in multilateral formats. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov mentioned this at the July 16 meeting with Ignazio Cassis, held at the request of the Swiss Foreign Minister.
We strongly believe that Switzerland has by now provided sufficient evidence and proof of its inadequacy as an honest broker in conflict resolution, a role it is trying to play with exaggerated zeal in the international arena.
German Government’s plans to reimburse Polish victims of Nazi occupation during WWII
On July 2, 2024, during his visit to Poland, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said that the German Government plans to reimburse Polish victims of Nazi occupation during World War II in recognition of Berlin’s historical responsibility. They seem to be doing the right thing, and they remember history. There are plans to allocate about 200 million euros on individual payments. There are about 40,000 potential benefit-seekers, including slave labourers, concentration camp inmates, representatives of the Jewish and Roma people. Wait a minute. Is this all? Only Poland and Jewish and Roma people? What about the rest?
We perceive this step by the German side as yet another manifestation of criminal hypocrisy and double standards regarding historical responsibility. The leadership of Germany continues to divide victims of Nazi crimes into various categories, cynically singling out less worthy and more worthy nationals.
We would like to recall that Berlin stubbornly refuses to recognise the siege of Leningrad and other Nazi crimes on the territory of the Soviet Union as genocide of Soviet nations. For a long time, Berlin has been making humanitarian payments only to Jewish nationals who had survived the siege of Leningrad, while ignoring our demands that such payments cover all siege survivors. What is this? Just imagine that people lived in a shared flat in besieged Leningrad. A Russian family occupied one room, and the second room belonged to a Jewish family. Members of another nationality, part of the multi-ethnic Soviet Union, lived in the third room. They could have been ethnic Germans, Poles, representatives of other fraternal republics, including Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Moldavia and Ukraine. How should they divide this shared flat? Should it be divided along ethnic lines? One should read diaries, memoirs and documents based on the testimony of besieged Leningrad’s residents only once in order to understand that starvation did not discern between nationalities at that time. People survived while helping each other. They died from starvation, as a result of Nazi Germany’s actions, rather than along ethnic lines.
For decades, Berlin has been hypocritically remitting payments for individuals who had served with Waffen SS units during World War II, including those directly involved in the siege of Leningrad. Is this normal? It appears that, in Berlin’s opinion, Russian, Belarusian, Ukrainian and other nationals who had survived the siege of Leningrad are not eligible for such payments. At the same time, German citizens who had besieged the city receive social benefits. However, ethnic Germans who lived in besieged Leningrad cannot count on these benefits either. This is a crime in the direct sense of the word and a repetition of the Third Reich’s monstrous mistakes, rather than mere absurdity, foolishness or deranged logic.
We resolutely condemn this immoral position of German authorities. We are urging Berlin to stop this inhuman discrimination of persons impacted by the Nazi regime.
On the other hand, Berlin is not alone in this approach towards segregating people.
UK special forces’ war crimes in Afghanistan
We have taken note of another journalistic investigation into the UK special forces’ war crimes in Afghanistan published in The Times. It is based on witness accounts by people in the Helmand Province about developments in the British zone of responsibility during the NATO occupation.
The Afghans these journalists talked with spoke about numerous cases of summary executions of civilians by members of the British Special Air Service (SAS). They often did it for fun and even held “killing contests” to see who would kill more.
When conducting anti-rebel operations, the British military often manufactured false evidence by placing weapons on the dead bodies. Torture, including electric shocks, was used to make civilians suspected of ties with the Afghan armed resistance. If you don’t remember, British and American troops were deployed in the sovereign state of Afghanistan as part of the NATO force or individually in accordance with a UN Security Council resolution. Great Britain and the United States have not a single time accounted for their activities to the Security Council over the past decades. They used their mandate on many occasions but have not accounted for their activities. Moreover, the Afghan victims’ cases were dealt with by the UK military who have not transferred them to the Afghan prosecution or courts.
It is thanks to reporters that the issue of British war crimes in Afghanistan remains in the focus of public attention. We believe that Keir Starmer, the current head of the Labour government who often expressed his commitment to the human rights issue, including war crimes carried out abroad, has a chance to show, or more precisely prove that he practises what he preaches.
We again call on London and its NATO allies to stop protecting war criminals and to conduct an honest investigation, if they are up to the task. We call for an immediate resumption of an impartial investigation that should be crowned with the punishment of all those who are guilty of crimes in Afghanistan.
Publication of Japan’s annual defence white paper
We have taken note of the publication of the annual Defence of Japan white paper. Regrettably, it repeats allegations regarding Russia in the context of the Ukrainian crisis and the development of Russa’s relations with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, as well as unsubstantiated accusations, in particular, of violating UN Security Council decisions. Not surprisingly, Japan castigated Russia for its actions in Ukraine and somehow managed to link them to the deteriorating situation in Asia.
We believe that it is necessary to say the following. If anything, it is Prime Minister Fumio Kishida’s policy of remilitarising Japan that is having a negative effect on security in Asia Pacific. Japan should know that continued disregard for the peace provisions of its own Constitution can not only increase tensions in the region but also contradicts the precepts of the UN Charter, in particular, Article 107 on the legitimacy of the Allied Powers’ actions towards Japan taken as a result of WWII. One such action was the approval of Japan’s Constitution by the Allied Council for Japan. We again call on Tokyo to recognise the results of the post-war settlement in their entirety and to offer sincere apologies to the neighbouring nations that suffered from the Japanese aggression in 1930-1940.
Cancelling the rehabilitation of Japanese war criminals
We wish to update you on recent developments regarding Japanese militarism crimes during World War II, which, as we have consistently stated, remain subject to prosecution without a statute of limitations. Efforts are ongoing to ensure accountability for all those responsible.
The Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation has officially announced that in its May-June, 2024 resolutions, it has rescinded earlier decisions exonerating Japanese citizens S. Kikuchi, F. Kikuchi, I. Marafuji, K. Sato, and T. Soga. These individuals were involved in sabotage and espionage activities against the Soviet Union during the war.
Following a review of the matter by cassation and supervisory courts, it has been established that these persons are not subject to exoneration, and that their guilt has been proved completely.
Situation involving Zlatomir Dyovlenski, member of the Russophiles Bulgarian National Movement
On July 8, Zlatomir Dyovlenski, chairman of the Plovdiv branch of the Russophiles National Movement, was arrested in Bulgaria. We have received numerous requests for information about this case and have compiled the main questions into a comprehensive response. Dyovlenski was detained on suspicion of inciting the disclosure of state secrets. Later, he has been released on bail and recognisance not to leave. If the court finds him guilty, he will face a lengthy prison sentence.
It is unclear what Bulgarian secrets Zlatomir Dyovlenski, who holds a relatively minor position in municipal government, could have possibly revealed. This situation appears more like an attempt to stifle dissent and silence those who oppose Sofia’s Russophobic stance and support friendly relations with Russia. The Bulgarian authorities have a history of targeting individuals who openly express their love for Russia and its people. There have already been unfounded espionage charges levelled against activists of the Russophiles National Movement.
Such actions by the Bulgarian authorities, who profess to uphold democratic values, represent a serious disregard for fundamental human rights and freedoms, including freedom of expression.
We are deeply concerned about the growing pressure on the Russophile movement in Bulgaria. Representatives of this movement are speaking out and defending their rights against these injustices. We urge the Bulgarian authorities to adhere to the rule of law and to cease persecuting their citizens based on false and unfounded accusations.
Czech Republic’s new discriminatory requirements for Russian foreign travel passports
We view the Czech authorities’ unilateral decision to reject Russian passports for traveling abroad without biometric chips as a further unfriendly action intended to damage bilateral relations and complicate the stay of Russian citizens, including those working in our diplomatic mission, in the country.
At the same time, Prague is well aware that the earlier imposition of a numerical cap on the Russian Embassy and the closure of two consulates general have severely limited our capacity to provide consular services, including the processing of new generation passports, for Russians in the Czech Republic. The public justifications for this decision – allegedly to prevent passport falsification and ensure Czech security – are frankly absurd and lack any substantive basis.
Prague has once again shown its commitment to leading the Russophobic agenda of the collective West. The Czech authorities bear full responsibility for the further deterioration of relations and the difficulties faced by Russians as a result.
Currently, the sole exception to the restrictive measures imposed by the Czech authorities – of which they have explicitly informed the Russian Embassy in Prague – is for holders of non-biometric passports who are under fifteen years old.
Politicising the activities of the Bretton Woods organisations
This July marks the 80th anniversary of the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference widely known as the Bretton Woods Conference which laid the groundwork for international regulation of the financial sphere and determined its post-war development.
The Conference led to the creation of the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. According to the statutory documents, the fund was supposed to help stabilise the global financial sphere and the balanced growth of trade, as well as the exchange rates and the balance of payments equilibrium. The bank was allegedly established to facilitate the economic recovery of the countries impacted by WWII.
Let’s look at where things stand in reality. In fact, the Bretton Woods system served the political and economic interests of the West, primarily the United States, and ensured domination of the US dollar which served as the basis of currency parities and exchange rates, the predominant international legal tender and reserve currency. That would be just fine had the United States not weaponised the dollar to use it for destructive rather than creative purposes.
There have always been complaints about the Bretton Woods institutions. As a rule, the fund and the bank put forward unacceptable, including politicised, terms and conditions for the borrowers. The “assistance” provided by these organisations has never been altruistic or impartial, and was clearly politicised.
The most recent developments can only be described as follows: the Bretton Woods system has become exclusively a conduit for the political and economic interests of key Western shareholders who use it to consolidate the neo-colonial practices and to maintain their hegemony in international affairs and global markets. Above all, the Bretton Woods institutions are literally being used by the collective West as tools and instruments to oppose Russia. We regularly witness decisions by the Fund or the Bank to block or to refuse to allocate funds to the countries in need of support “for technical reasons” (due to outstanding debt or arrears) or under explicitly articulated political pretexts, such as “unstable political situation,” “lack of legitimate authority,” etc. I wonder if, according to the Bretton Woods institutions, the situation in the United States is politically stable. How do the Bretton Woods institutions assess the legitimacy of the authorities in Ukraine? Belarus, Venezuela, Iran, and Syria have faced such instances. They failed to receive even emergency funding during the coronavirus pandemic even though they asked for it and backed up their requests with facts, figures and the actual state of affairs. In the case of Damascus, the Syrians were denied help even after the devastating earthquake in 2023. Since October 2022, contrary to the IMF statutes, Washington has been blocking the provision of US dollars to Russia and Belarus in exchange for the Fund’s Special Drawing Rights. After all, what these institutions do must be in line with the statutory documents of these organisations. But they aren’t. The politicised approaches of the Western participants, including the attempts to include anti-Russia language in official documents, take the Bretton Woods institutions far beyond financial and economic mandates and paralyse their work.
Key shareholders are increasingly aggressively pushing their fiscal, energy and climate policy agenda through the Fund and the Bank. Taking advantage of their position as donors, they impose priorities that the Global Majority countries find irrelevant. Discussions about the causes of the ongoing crises provoked by the irresponsible financial and economic policy of the West are diverted to a politicised realm in order to distort the reality and to hold Russia responsible for global economic upheavals, financial crises, etc.
Moreover, at the behest of Western shareholders, the main flow of IMF and World Bank resources has been redirected since 2022 to support the Kiev regime, while the genuinely needy countries of the Global South are unable to receive the financial assistance they need.
The Fund and the Bank are impassively watching these neo-colonial atrocities unfold. Their senior executives are, in fact, adjusting their activities to the US domestic political situation.
Without a doubt, these circumstances make a full-fledged reform of the international financial architecture and its key institutions unavoidable. The IMF and the Bank’s agendas should fully correspond to their financial and economic profile and the interests of global development. The governing bodies of the Bretton Woods organisations must be brought in line with the actual balance of power and interests in the global economy. The situation where the G7, which accounted for 30 percent of global GDP in 2023, is trying to dictate its financial and economic rules to the Global Majority is unacceptable. Even if they had 50 or 70 percent of global GDP, the terms of their own policy require respect for the will of the minority. In reality, things are the other way round. The West has literally torn up and destroyed democratic principles in international affairs. They mean nothing to it, mere words. The West is imposing its agenda, which is neither progressive nor effective, nor is it producing concrete results. In particular, the share of BRICS economies alone in global GDP now stands at 36 percent. There are more Global Majority countries out there. Why are the G7 countries behaving in such a rude manner in the Bretton Woods institutions?
We operate on the premise that the international monetary system must be non-discriminatory, ensure equal access for everyone, and be fair. Those words must re-enter its lexicon. Above all, it is imperative to fully implement the agreements achieved by the G20 leaders in 2010 about redistributing votes in the IMF in favour of the developing countries. It is important to approve a procedure for re-calculating quotas in the Fund, no matter how hard the United States may try to obstruct it. The reason for them doing so is clear: they strive to maintain a controlling interest in the Bretton Woods institutions.
Issues of improving the capabilities of international financial institutions in matters of promoting development should be highlighted as well. Expanding financial and lending activities should be in line with their core mission and ensure long-term stability and sustainability. For many years now, the Bretton Woods institutions have been touting the benefits of the US dollar only to see the dollar destabilise the global financial architecture, including the dollar-based US economic policies. Key areas of spending should be regulated by all shareholders of these institutions. This should be laid down as the core rule.
We consider it indispensable to consolidate the efforts of the Global Majority in the context of reforming the financial architecture and establishing a multipolar world based on international law and the principles of transparency, non-discrimination and consideration of each other’s interests rather than the “rules” (which are constantly changing) dictated by Westerners. We are promoting them in conjunction with our partners from BRICS, the SCO, the EAEU and other formats. We look forward to the Bretton Woods institutions, in their anniversary year, also remembering them and making them the centerpiece of their activities, considering that all of that is stipulated in the statutory documents.
The 80th anniversary of the liberation of Vilnius from Nazi troops
On July 13, 1944, the capital of the Lithuanian SSR, Vilnius, was liberated from the Nazi invaders during the Vilnius offensive operation.
The city had great strategic importance as an element of German defence in the Baltics and a fortified transport hub, which was guarded by a Nazi garrison of about 15,000 soldiers and officers with firepower of up to 270 guns and 40 tanks.
According to the July 4, 1944 directive of the Headquarters of the Supreme High Command On the Development of the Offensive on Vilna (Vilnius), the task was set to deliver the main blow in the direction of Vilnius and capture the city no later than July 10-12.
Ivan Chernyakhovsky, commander of the 3rd Byelorussian Front, one of the youngest Red Army generals at the age of 37, decided to attack the Lithuanian capital without an operational rest and ordered Lieutenant General Nikolai Krylov’s 5th army, Marshal of Armoured Forces Pavel Rotmistrov’s 5th Guards Tank Army, and Lieutenant General Viktor Obukhov’s 3rd Guards Mechanised Corps to strike. Units of Soviet Lithuanian partisans, united in the Vilnius and Trakai brigades, as well as separate units of the Home Army, also took part in the operation.
On July 13, 1944, after fierce fighting and the suppression of hotbeds of Nazi resistance, the liberation of the Lithuanian capital was completed. Over 7,000 German soldiers and officers were killed, and over 5,000 prisoners, 156 guns, 28 tanks, 1,100 vehicles, and 153 warehouses with military equipment were captured in the battles for Vilnius.
In order to prevent victims among civilians and preserve the historic buildings of Vilnius, the Soviet command decided to refrain from using aviation and heavy artillery on a large scale.
At the request of the Lithuanian government, General Ivan Chernyakhovsky, who was killed in February 1945, was buried in the city that he liberated. In 1950, a monument showing the general full height and featuring an inscription “To Army General Ivan Chernyakhovsky from the Lithuanian people” in Lithuanian on the foundation was unveiled to honour him. However, in 1991, the authorities of the “free” Lithuania, pressured by the nationalists who declared war on Soviet monuments, decided to liquidate the memorial as “a piece of communist propaganda.” The hero’s ashes were taken to Moscow and reburied at the Novodevichye Cemetery. The monument to Ivan Chernyakhovsky was also carefully transported to Russia and installed in Voronezh, on a square named after him, to commemorate what the famous Soviet commander did during the liberation of this Russian city in 1943.
Recently, another memorial to Ivan Chernyakhovsky has been unveiled at the Aeroport metro station in Moscow with active assistance of Russian Minister of Culture Vladimir Medinsky (by the way, we wish him a happy birthday). I recommend everyone to visit it.
Question: This week, the European Parliament encouraged the EU authorities to seize Russia’s sovereign assets. How would you comment on this most recent call for an actual theft of Russian money?
Maria Zakharova: We have repeatedly commented on such actions by Western countries. The United States and its satellites have long had thieving intentions with regard to Russian gold and foreign exchange reserves, which they blocked in 2022. Ever since, the West has been inventing ways to appropriate the Bank of Russia assets in order to subsequently channel them to help the Kiev regime – primarily to pay for military supplies, therefore, for the murder of Ukrainian citizens.
We would like to emphasise once again that the move to freeze Russian assets in Western jurisdictions, as well as the attempts to seize them are illegal actions that grossly violate the fundamental principles and norms of international law (including the principle of sovereign equality of states and the UN Charter). We regard any encroachment on Russia’s property rights and interests as little short of theft, undisguised and cynical, and aimed at lining the perpetrators’ own pockets. Such actions are fraught with escalation of economic aggression and are definitely part of hybrid warfare against Russia.
If the Russian Central Bank assets are eventually sized – stolen – we will be guided by the principle of reciprocity. In this case, a tit-for-tat – symmetrical – retaliatory action will be in order. This principle applies in international relations and provides for an inalienable right to retaliate.
The European Parliament has probably forgotten that there is a significant amount of Western funds and property under Russian jurisdiction that can be accessed. Why doesn’t the European Parliament hold a referendum, or find another way of asking the citizens of the member countries what they think of it? They can hold an opinion poll or a referendum, or also invite business representatives who have various types of assets in our country for consultation. But they aren’t doing this because they know what citizens will tell them.
We will not try to be polite or smooth things over if they attempt to use the immobilised Russian assets to finance the Kiev regime. Any individuals or funds that agree to purchase such financial instruments will be the first targets for counter-sanctions with far-reaching consequences for their further international activities.
It is obvious to the entire international community that the West, which is incapable of producing even some pseudo-legal grounds for its aggressive actions, has never even intended to comply with international law or their national legal norms, for that matter. Their advanced planning and premeditation only give more legitimacy to our potential response. The United States and its satellites, actually being in a pre-bankruptcy state (which can be concluded from their own economic indicators) and trying to sustain their financial and economic systems by increasing debt and appropriating other countries’ resources, have the audacity to dictate to the states of the global majority.
Any country that is more or less dependent on Western markets, technology or financial “assistance,” or that has any assets in Western jurisdictions, runs the risk of losing them if the Anglo-Saxons suddenly need them for another “foreign policy project” or just to patch up the gaps in their chronically deficit-ridden budgets. It is obvious that building stable trade and financial cooperation with Western players, with their obvious volatility, political bias and double standards, is a high-risk strategy.
Question: Zelensky has said that Russia should attend the second peace summit on Ukraine. What is Moscow’s attitude to such statements made in Kiev?
Maria Zakharova: First, it is not for Zelensky to decide who should do what, let alone dictate his will to Russia. Overall, I believe that it will be best to disregard that monster’s dictates to Russia.
Second, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov answered this question at his news conference at the UN headquarters in New York on July 17, 2024. He spoke in detail about the history of the machinations that are presented by the West as “peace initiatives,” conferences and forums, which are called Swiss summits now and were called Copenhagen summits before.
Third, the Russian authorities have stated many times that Russia does not accept any ultimatums or the “Zelensky formula,” which is being forced on us. You should keep this in mind when such statements or calls are made in connection with our country.
Question: Zelensky said the other day that Russia should attend the second peace summit on Ukraine. Has Russia received an invitation to it? How would you respond? Will Russia agree to attend it, and if so, what will be the level of its representation?
Maria Zakharova: I have answered this question just now. Similar questions were asked at Sergey Lavrov’s news conference at the UN on July 17. As I said, no ultimatums based on the “Zelensky formula” are acceptable to us. It is our fundamental position.
Question: The German magazine Compact was prohibited after it published its interview with you in its online version on July 13, 2024. What is your attitude to this? Is it possible to speak about democracy and freedom of the media in Europe after that?
Maria Zakharova: I would like to point out that when the US political establishment talks about democracy it invariably means American democracy. All such statements always mention “our democracy” or “American democracy.” There is a good reason for. The system which they call democracy has nothing in common with classical democracy or the current democratic foundations. It is an American hybrid system that would be better described as the dictatorship of liberalism. At the beginning of its development, it was probably based on something that was democratic, but it has since turned into liberal dictate, the dictatorship of one ideologeme. On the one hand, it proclaims freedom as an absolute priority, but on the other hand, it is suppressing the freedom to hold alternative views.
This hybrid system does not tolerate legality that ensures law and order. Liberal dictatorship is largely based on chaos that offers conditions for controlling people and the media. They are using a combination of methods for this purpose, acting through financial institutions, manipulating technological opportunities, and the merging of business and political elites, among others. The Western special services, primarily the Anglo-Saxon ones, have an enormous influence on the media sphere.
I started speaking about the American system in answer to your question, because Germany is a victim of the American liberal dictatorship’s pressure on its domestic policies, and has largely merged with it.
Regarding Compact, we are aware of the statements made after German law enforcers raided the magazine’s offices. They said that Compact was a right-wing extremist magazine. But it has been right-wing and extremist for a long time, but a decision to ban it was only made within a day of it publishing an interview with an official representative of the Russian Foreign Ministry. Isn’t it a strange coincidence?
Another important fact is that the German interior ministry’s actions against that media outlet were not based on a court ruling or decisions by other German authorities adopted in accordance with laws on the freedom of the media and complying with legal procedures. Taken by a law enforcement body and coordinated with the ruling regime of Chancellor Olaf Scholz, that decision confirmed the fall of the ideals, goals and objectives proclaimed by the German political “machine.” And they have the gall to lecture us and other countries on the development of democracy.
I don’t have precise information about the decision-making mechanism. I believe that the German political system was probably considering the decision for a long time, and that it was only looking for a pretext. Well, the warning light went on when they heard the views expressed in that interview.
One of the main questions of interest to German journalists concerned gas supplies, Nord Streams and the terrorist attack against an exclusively civilian infrastructure project, interaction in energy and the possibility of resuming gas supplies. When asked about Russia stopping the supplies we replied that it was a lie: neither Russia, nor the USSR ever stopped supplying energy resources to their partners, in particular to Germany. They asked about the possibility of resuming the supplies and how much time it will take. We stated that one of the Nord Stream pipelines has preserved its technical functions and the supplies may be resumed within several weeks.
The key topic was that Russia allegedly prevents the resumption of supplies. This is not true. It is the German Government that is preventing them, either of its own free will or at the “US gunpoint.” Let the German government report to its own citizens. However, this is the information that the Olaf Scholz government is concealing from Germans. The thing is that it was the German Chancellor who said some time ago that Russia had stopped the supplies. Our country supplied gas up to the adoption of the relevant decision by the German side. This is the truth that the FRG Government cannot cope with.
This lie was supported by the recent statement by former UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, who lied that Russia allegedly stopped supplies of its energy resources to the European Union countries. This is a lie. To date, we do have examples of our interaction in energy with EU countries. The EU countries do not receive Russian gas solely because they stopped their energy cooperation themselves, in addition to the entire lawlessness with sanctions against our country: blocking of accounts and denial of payments via the available financial institutions, sanctions lists, etc. The totality of all this is the answer to your question.
This is only the beginning for Germany. Truth be told, it started long before the closure of the Compact magazine. Please, recall the decision to block Russia Today Deutsch, which was adopted with active involvement of the German government officials, to expel Russian journalists, to hinder their work, endless harassment by the same German journalists at the instigation of law enforcement and political agencies. Such antidemocratic manifestations marked that horrible beginning. The proof is that the decisions with respect of the Compact were not based on any court rulings or legal procedure. These are the questions that German journalists, German public should ask their own government.
I find it hard to believe that in a normally functioning democratic society, an executive agency would unilaterally ban a media outlet and conduct searches and raids on its offices without a court approval or concrete evidence. The only historical parallel in Germany would be the Third Reich under Joseph Goebbels, with its harsh system of suppressing dissent. Many German public figures refer to it exactly like that. What is happening in Germany today is nonsense from a legal point of view. This has nothing to do with democracy.
What we witness in the West today is a dramatic erosion of the culture of interaction between the state, society, and the media. Aggressive ultra-liberalism now reigns supreme in these countries, with the United States leading the way in its approach to journalists and the media. American journalists cannot secure open and fullfledged communication with administration officials. Look at the briefings in the White House – any inconvenient questions are immediately cut off. Moreover, dialogue is conducted only with select journalists with their planted questions. President Joe Biden’s interaction with the media has become a source of mockery. Journalists wonder if he could answer any question in case he ever holds a news conference with independent journalists and genuine media representatives, who are likely to pose difficult questions on current issues.
Such events are routine in our country. President Vladimir Putin holds extensive news conferences every year, where he answers all questions for several hours. Every day he speaks publicly, commenting on current issues and gives interviews to both Russian and international journalists. The same applies to members of the Russian Government.
What is occurring within Germany’s political establishment is the erosion of its own independence and sovereignty, yielding to the diktat of the United States.
Question: A month ago Permanent Representative of Russia to the United Nations Vasily Nebenzya said that debates on cooperation between the UN and the CSTO, CIS, and SCO were very important. According to Mr Nebenzya, these regional organisations “do not always receive proper coverage at the UN.” Why?
Maria Zakharova: On July 19, New York will host open debates on UN cooperation with the CIS, CSTO, and SCO. This is a central even of Russia’s presidency at the UN Security Council. It will be chaired by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Vershinin. We want to stress that consistent work is done at these organisations to boost their potential in various areas and practical events are held regularly. In particular, we can see good prospects for strengthening cooperation between the UN and its agencies and the CSTO on regional issues, with an emphasis on Afghanistan, as well as for the CSTO to join the UN’s peacekeeping activities.
Every two years, the General Assembly adopts a resolution on cooperation between the CIS and the UN. It highlights the importance of strengthening mutual coordination and encourages the development of ties between the specialised agencies of the UN and the CIS. This year, the draft resolution will be submitted by Russia as a country presiding at the CIS.
The SCO’s activities are highly praised by the leadership of the UN Secretariat. At the SCO summit held in Astana on July 3-4, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres noted the Organisation’s potential in ensuring peace and stability and advocated further promotion of its ties with the UN.
However, there are problems, too, though they should not have arisen due to the fact that the CSTO, CIS, and SCO are key organisations in the Eurasian space responsible for maintaining regional peace and security. In this situation, representatives of the collective West are not ready to recognise their contribution and are doing everything to avoid mentioning them in any connection with the UN. I will give you an example. We have been unable to agree on a Security Council press statement on the activities of the UN Regional Centre for Preventive Diplomacy for Central Asia (UNRCCA) since 2018. Why? Westerners do not need this. They do everything to block the statement of an obvious fact.
The draft statements presented by the Russian side note all possible areas for the activities of the UN Regional Centre for Preventive Diplomacy for Central Asia, including cooperation with the CIS, CSTO, and SCO. However, Western members of the Council are opposed to mentioning this cooperation, despite its constructive role in preventing conflicts and combating terrorism and drug trafficking, though maintaining contacts with organisations in the region is a key task of the UN Regional Centre for Preventive Diplomacy for Central Asia. It is clear that such a biased position is dictated by nothing more than a reluctance to recognise the realities on the ground.
Question: Does the Foreign Ministry or other Russian agencies track and process alternative estimates of casualties in the Gaza Strip, including among civilians and employees of international organisation, such as those affiliated with the UN? What figures of the dead and wounded in Gaza does the Foreign Ministry currently stick to?
Maria Zakharova: We rely on the casualty data provided by specialised UN agencies regarding the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Additionally, we consider reports from relevant Israeli and Palestinian authorities, which document the number of dead, wounded, and missing amid the ongoing violence in the Gaza Strip. We take into account these figures in our work, as we have no reason to question the reliability of the UN agencies’ data.
Question: The 3rd Plenary Session of the 20th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China took place in Beijing from July 15 to 18, marking a significant event for both China and the global community. The IMF’s latest World Economic Outlook report forecasts a 5 percent growth in China’s economy for 2024, a revision up by 0.4 percent from the April estimate. IMF Chief Economist Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas highlighted that emerging Asian economies, particularly China, remain key drivers of global economic growth. In light of this, what opportunities might China offer to other countries by further advancing its unique approach to reform and modernisation? Given the current global economic uncertainty and the risk of recession, what potential role could China’s economy play in this context?
Maria Zakharova: Representatives from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China and other relevant institutions are best positioned to discuss the potential of the Chinese economy.
We extend our congratulations to our Chinese friends on the successful completion of the 3rd Plenary Session and the positive outcomes it has produced. We believe the decisions made will further the development and prosperity of friendly China and enhance the well-being of its citizens. From our perspective, we see promising opportunities for continued cooperation.
The People’s Republic of China stands as a major driver of global economic growth. China’s tangible achievements contribute to expanded global trade, heightened cross-border investment, and reinforced international production chains. It is not surprising that analysts worldwide closely monitor China’s economic trends and the political decisions made during significant political events in the country.
The Russian Federation considers China a close friend and strategic partner, particularly in what regards economic development. We are committed to deepening and broadening our comprehensive practical cooperation with China, which plays an important role in advancing the socio-economic progress of both nations and maintaining stability in the regional and global economy.
Question: Addressing the UN Security Council, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov noted that Russia was ready to search for a balance of interests, while coordinating agreements to resolve the conflict in Ukraine and to build a new security system in Europe. Did the Minister conduct the relevant discussions with the concerned parties on the UN sidelines? Did US representatives ask for a meeting with him?
Maria Zakharova: While staying in New York during Russia’s July presidency of the UN Security Council, Sergey Lavrov held a number of bilateral meetings with foreign partners. US representatives did not request such meetings, and therefore no contacts took place.
Speaking of Western Europe, he met with Hungary’s Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade Péter Szijjártó and Head of Switzerland’s Federal Department of Foreign Affairs Ignazio Cassis. The relevant press releases (1, 2) dealing with the results of the meetings provide the details.
Regarding a balance of interests, Sergey Lavrov discussed this in great detail in his remarks. While speaking about the resolution of the conflict in Ukraine, he referred to remarks by President of Russia Vladimir Putin at a meeting with the Foreign Ministry’s leadership on July 14, 2024.
A balance of interests suggested by Russia is a wonderful alternative to ultimatums. Not a single ultimatum, that the “collective West” uses to build its international policy, has achieved its goal. Many of them became counter-productive for the West itself. The policy of sanctions is an ultimatum that has no legal foundations, and that impacts international law. Although directed against our country, it spelled problems for those who imposed anti-Russia sanctions.
There are various kinds of ultimatums. It is necessary to search for an alternative to this policy. Sanctions expand the philosophy of inter-bloc confrontation. A balance of interests is an alternative, and Russia is ready to present this alternative to everyone who is tired of the aggressive policy of the “collective West.” This is a wonderful option.
Sergey Lavrov discussed the issue of resolving the Ukraine crisis during all his contacts with foreign partners at the UN platform. This happens virtually always, except brief meetings focusing on narrow specialised issues. We have been discussing the situation around Ukraine in its entirety during all talks over the past few years, specifically, in the context of the Minsk agreements, historical facts, the causes of current developments and specific options for resolving the crisis. The Minister provides in-depth and expanded assessments in this respect.
Question: US presidential candidate Donald Trump offered the position of vice president to J.D. Vance, who is known for his opposition to support for Ukraine. How would you assess the chances of a peaceful settlement if the Trump-Vance combination wins? How would you comment on Vance’s latest statement that “China is a bigger problem for the United States than the conflict between Russia and Ukraine”?
Maria Zakharova: Donald Trump once said that he would settle this issue within 24 hours. And J.D. Vance said that China was a bigger problem for the United States than the conflict between Russia and Ukraine.
First, it is necessary to separate election rhetoric from statements made by government officials who are endowed with appropriate powers.
Second, when speaking about ways to settle the conflict, we must be realistic. I remember that during the previous race to the White House the current candidate Donald Trump’s team made ambitious statements about settling the situation in the Middle East. It was called the deal of the century. They prepared it for a long time. How did it end? In nothing. A few years later, during Joe Biden’s term, a colossal historical tragedy occurred. We have already had “experience” like this.
So, we can apply both points I have mentioned to find the answer to the question regarding the statements of this team aiming at the White House. We must regard both the statements and capabilities realistically.
I heard a statement that China was a bigger problem for the United States than everything else. This team has made them repeatedly. It would be right for the US to reach an internal consensus that the dictatorship of liberalism is their biggest problem. This is a fact. If their political parties and movements agree with this, it would be easier for them and for the entire world. Right now, this is the United States’ biggest problem.
The system that replaced the democratically oriented domestic political machine of the United States has degenerated into a liberal dictatorship. This is the root cause of all ills, both within the United States and abroad. Why? The liberal dictatorship kills democratic principles and destroys the American and international legal foundations that do not suit it either. It also affects US bilateral relations.
Although we traditionally do not comment on election campaigns in third countries, there are indeed many questions in this respect.
Question: Could you comment on the US’s increasing activities in the South Caucasus, in the republics bordering on Azerbaijan? For example, the preparation of a coup in Georgia, which the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service warned about, the attempt to open a second front against Russia, according to Prime Minister of Georgia Irakli Kobakhidze, or USAID Administrator Samantha Power’s visit to Yerevan.
Maria Zakharova: We have commented on this topic repeatedly. The US regards the South Caucasus only as a platform to stage various actions aimed against Russia and the peaceful coexistence of the countries and nations in the region. It is not satisfied with Russia and its capabilities. Why? Because Russia pursues a peaceful policy. The United States is never satisfied with the peaceful policy in general.
Achieving peace and stability in the region, which is only possible through a comprehensive normalisation of relations between South Caucasian countries with the involvement of their closest neighbours – Russia, Iran, and Türkiye – is not among Washington’s goals and priorities. Rather, Washington’s goal is quite the opposite – to make sure than no cooperation, rapprochement, or mutual understanding is reached in the region.
Pressuring Tbilisi during the adoption of the law, On the Transparency of Foreign Influence, is a clear example of the US and European Union’s policy of hypocrisy, double standards and open aggression. Let me remind you that similar laws are already in effect in the US and EU countries. In June, a similar law was adopted in Canada, but neither the US nor the EU had any complaints against Canada, while Georgia and its people were humiliated by the United States and “collective Brussels” every day during a month. Let me repeat that the United States and a number of other Western countries have far more stringent legal regulations in this regard. We also see Washington’s attempts to heat up the situation in Georgia in the run-up to the parliamentary election in October.
All of this can be applied to Azerbaijan and Armenia, too. We can see how American officials are now travelling to Yerevan nonstop. They are trying to create an illusion that they care about the welfare of post-Soviet countries. In fact, these countries are being drawn into the implementation of US’s anti-Russia plans that are detrimental not so much to Russia but to the countries in the region.
We hope that our partners in the South Caucasus understand the worth of friendship with the West. The West cannot make friends; it can only make use of friends. It cannot care less for its partner’s feelings.
Question: On July 21-22, we will mark the 80th anniversary of establishing diplomatic relations between Russia and Syria. What do you think about prospects for developing relations between our countries in the next decade?
Maria Zakharova: Diplomatic relations with Syria were established on July 21, 1944, and the countries exchanged embassies in 1946.
Russia and Syria traditionally maintain friendly ties. Moscow played an important role in completely decolonising the Syrian Arab Republic. In February 1946, the Soviet side used its veto right in support of Damascus for the first time in the work of the UN Security Council and made it impossible to unjustifiably delay the process of withdrawing British and French troops from Syria.
Our country’s economic and technical assistance made it possible to build over 80 major facilities in Syria, to lay about 2,000 kilometres of railway tracks and 3,700 kilometres of power transmission lines. Efforts to boost the defence capability of Syria became a highly important aspect of bilateral collaboration. Tens of thousands of Syrian citizens graduated from our country’s universities.
Russian-Syrian relations became particularly dynamic over the last 40 to 50 years. During that period, they developed consistently and grew stronger based on mutual respect and consideration for each other’s interests.
Our country resolutely supported the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic amid attempts by the “collective West” to drag it into a destructive geopolitical project (contrary to the will of the legitimate government and the people), and it assisted Syria in the existential clash with international terrorism. Due to the support of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation in 2015-2017, Damascus managed to regain control over most of its territory. Today, Russia plays an important role in facilitating a comprehensive settlement in this country, including within the framework of the Astana format.
Moscow and Damascus share the need for building a new and equitable world order based on the principle of sovereign equality of states. They are committed to forging a new security system on the Eurasian continent. The Syrian leadership firmly supports Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine and solidarises with us at the UN and other multilateral platforms.
We are satisfied with the advanced nature of Russian-Syrian political dialogue and our productive collaboration on all issues of mutual interest. We are convinced that multifaceted cooperation between Russia and Syria will continue to develop consistently, including trade and economic cooperation, contacts in the cultural, humanitarian, scientific and educational areas.
Allow me to use this opportunity and to congratulate our Syrian friends and colleagues on our common holiday. I would like to wish them well-being, prosperity, peace and security, considering the extremely difficult road that the people of Syria have travelled, especially in recent years. They have coped with this and overcome all the hardships. They deserve all the best and a divine blessing.
Question: Why, do you think, is the United States focused so intensely on Armenia? Top US diplomats, including Under Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights Uzra Zeya, Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs James O’Brien, and Administrator of USAID Samantha Power, visited Yerevan in recent weeks.
Maria Zakharova: I shared my comment on that particular subject on an earlier occasion. Obviously, the United States and the EU are seeking to gain a foothold in the region at the cost of the interests of Russia, Iran and Türkiye which are traditional partners and neighbours of the South Caucasus countries. It appears they are successful in doing so in Armenia.
Yerevan chose to build up cooperation with NATO. It participated in the NATO summit in Washington. They hold joint military exercises, such as the US-Armenia Eagle Partner exercise currently underway in Armenia. This is regretful and causes concern for Armenia’s future. As economic departments of NATO, the US and the EU have repeatedly pulled similar tricks in many other countries. Everyone is aware of how these “eagle partnerships” end: they will use them and throw away.
By deepening cooperation with the actors whose goal is to inflict a “strategic defeat” on Russia, Yerevan is running a risk of seriously destabilising the situation in the South Caucasus to the detriment of its own security.
Question: Baku is hosting the First Congress of movements for independence of the territories colonised by France, including New Caledonia. A number of experts expressed hope that Moscow will stand with the participants of the forum. Is there a chance Russia will ever hold events to promote combatting modern-day neo-colonialism?
Maria Zakharova: We are quite active in this department. Our parliament is engaged in this matter. Parliamentary diplomacy has recently held a large number of diverse events on this track. Our diplomats have put forward initiatives and made statements at the United Nations.
This issue is among our priorities not only because it is part of historical realities, but also because it is important to preserve knowledge of the past. Colonialism is gaining momentum and has established a foothold at the modern technological level in the form of neo-colonialism. Modern capabilities in various spheres make it possible for it to use a multitude of modified covers to pursue same old colonial policies.
This topic is of the utmost urgency for Russia’s foreign policy and its activities in the international arena.
Question: Hamas made it clear it was receptive of the latest proposal for a ceasefire and exchange of prisoners in the Gaza Strip. However, the Israeli side put forward new terms and conditions which broke the deal, and ceasefire was not agreed upon. Why do you think a ceasefire in Gaza fell through despite the mediation efforts of the US-led West? Does US support for Israel have anything to do with that?
Maria Zakharova: The Russian Federation is not involved in the efforts of international mediators (Egypt, Qatar and the United States) that are promoting an agreement between Israel and Hamas. The regional players are reportedly committed to acting as an honest broker and are doing their best to act as such.
With regard to the reasons that are in the way of achieving mutually acceptable agreements that should eventually lead to a long-awaited ceasefire, this question is better directed at representatives of the opposing parties. Let them share their insights.
The Security Council met yesterday to review this issue. We have been deploying considerable efforts since the day the crisis started escalating. We provided our assessments regarding not only the causes of this historic drama, but also the avenues that could lead to normalisation overall, or at least to break the deadlock. I would like to once again draw your attention to yesterday’s statement by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov during an open meeting of the United Nations Security Council on the situation in the Middle East, including the Palestinian question.
Question: US-Armenian military exercises kicked off in Yerevan this week against the backdrop of anti-Russia rhetoric by Armenian officials. Where does Moscow stand on the US military activity in the South Caucasus? Do these actions pose a threat to the stability and security of the region?
Maria Zakharova: I just commented on it.
This is the second time these exercises are conducted which fact causes nothing but regret and concern, especially with Yerevan actually freezing its participation in the CSTO and engaging in public attacks on the Organisation. None of the pseudo-peaceful and peacemaking efforts declared by the Westerners are truly that. Clearly, their main goal is to create a springboard for implementing their own geopolitical projects. To get there, they need to reverse all existing peaceful developments that have been gaining momentum in that part of the world, to pit the countries of the region against each other, and to thwart the political plans declared by Baku and Yerevan which enjoy the support of the countries of the region. They also need to head off economic consolidation of the infrastructure projects that were started to support this political will. The Americans and other NATO members went there in order to disrupt the fragile, truly fragile, balance. I was tempted to say “peace” after “fragile,” but what the Westerners are doing will result in peace turning into a fragile truce, which will subsequently fall apart.
The fact that the Americans made an appearance in the South Caucasus - we had the chance to see similar developments on many occasions in various parts of the world - will fuel the conflict potential in the region and create new dividing lines and hotbeds of shooting conflicts.
Westerners are obsessed about dragging Armenia into various formats of interaction in and around the South Caucasus that are primarily directed against Russia, Iran and Türkiye. By embroiling Armenia in military exercises and training programmes that they sponsor, they impose NATO standards on the republic’s armed forces which will ultimately lead to reformatting Armenia’s entire security system and, as a consequence, the Westerners acquiring more levers of influence on its domestic and foreign policy.
Russia remains committed to its allied obligations, including ensuring Armenia’s security, and strives to come up with mutually acceptable solutions.
Actually, the question is whether Armenia is committed to its allied obligations. Such steps by Yerevan have become systematic and undermine prospects for the proper functioning of existing interaction mechanisms in this sphere. This is diplomatic language, but I’m sure we got our message across.
Question: In the run-up to the BRICS summit in Kazan, scheduled for this autumn, more and more is being said about the need to create a common information space for the BRICS member states. In particular, following the BRICS Parliamentary Forum held in St Petersburg a week ago, there has been increasing advocacy for expanding practical interaction between the media in the BRICS Plus format. Does the Russian Foreign Ministry plan to promote the integration of this issue into the autumn summit agenda, or to initiate relevant talks at the high and highest levels in Kazan?
Maria Zakharova: In the context of the aggressive hybrid war and information attacks on Russia and other countries on the part of the collective West, which have become a system-wide phenomenon, expanding media cooperation among the global majority, including through the national media, is becoming more relevant than ever. In fact, such interaction is in place now, including bilateral projects as well as various collective formats, such as BRICS, the SCO and other international platforms.
It is clear to everyone that such threats are best addressed together. Combining individual capabilities is always more effective. The relevant possibilities are being discussed at various levels and in various formats, including during the events held as part of Russia’s BRICS Chairmanship, themed “Strengthening multilateralism for equitable global development and security.” The key highlights include creating the BRICS information space, which would provide the audiences in our countries with access to unbiased high-quality information and protect them from misinformation. It should be noted that this is not an artificial attempt to juxtapose us and them, but an objective process that stems from the new realities and reflects the ongoing profound transformation of the global politics and economy.
Incidentally, the common BRICS information space issue was among the subjects of an extensive discussion during the consultations between heads of information agencies of the BRICS countries’ foreign policy departments, which took place in Moscow on July 12. The ten partners are extremely interested in closer coordination to create a secure BRICS media landscape. This will definitely facilitate the development of reliable collective mechanisms to counter Western attempts to discredit the activities of BRICS and its members in the eyes of the world.
Question: Do you think that Russia-Portugal relations have remained unchanged over the past six months, with no chance of improvement yet?
Maria Zakharova: I already answered a similar question from your agency at a briefing on May 15. Unfortunately, we have seen no change since May 15, or over the past months and even years.
Russia-Portugal relations have been on a downslide ever since the start of the special military operation, due to the hostile approach taken by the Portuguese authorities. However, we continue to believe that at some stage (better sooner than later), a realistic assessment of events will prevail in Portugal and some rational conclusions will be drawn after giving some thought to hard facts. They will definitely come to realise that mutually beneficial and respectful ties between our countries need to be cherished and fostered.
They will, once they start reading and perceiving actual facts, not just the handbooks that come from Brussels or Washington, or falsehoods distributed at NATO summits as mainstream narratives. It is of the essence to be familiar with the facts, with the real state of affairs, the historical background, and the processes taking place in reality, rather than be guided by some perverse solidarity idea that Washington is imposing on NATO member countries.
Question: How do you think the results of the latest European elections might influence
Maria Zakharova: I believe that
If the foreign policies of EU countries begin to reflect a more realistic and sensible perception of reality, we will assess these changes and adjust our approaches accordingly. However, if the demonisation of our country persists, accompanied by Russophobic attitudes, sanctions, ultimatums, intimidation, and the escalation of current or future conflicts, we will have no reason to revise our foreign policy in these areas. This is, after all, the behaviour we are currently witnessing from the West.
The most crucial step for Western European countries is to confront reality directly, which would mean looking beyond the rhetoric of EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell and the repetitive statements by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, as well as stepping away from campaign materials produced by the US Department of State and the White House. EU leaders should look out the windows of their own offices and observe the daily lives of their citizens. They should visit local stores, engage with the population, and consult public organisations to understand the real issues people are facing. This could be a valuable starting point for the EU countries.
They are eager to address issues in
Question: The Government of Pakistan is considering banning Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, the political party of former and now imprisoned prime minister Imran Khan. How do you assess this development?
Maria Zakharova: We saw the news that appeared on July 15 that the Government of Pakistan was going to ban the activities of Tehreek-e-Insaf, or Movement for Justice, the former prime minister’s popular political party.
We believe this is a purely internal matter of Pakistan. Russia does not interfere in the internal political life of sovereign states. Relations between our countries are developing dynamically; we reaffirm our readiness to continue building diverse cooperation with Islamabad in the spirit of mutual respect and in accordance with the norms of international law. Our interaction experience is the best proof of this.
Question: The federal district court in Florida dismissed the case against former US President Donald Trump for improper handling of classified documents. What is the reaction of the Russian Foreign Ministry?
Maria Zakharova: This is yet another sign that the American system is in a deep crisis. During many years and even decades, the American administration – both Democrats and Republicans – has been claiming that it is impossible to exert administrative influence on the work of law enforcement and judicial bodies. This was a reason for Washington not only to criticise independent countries and sovereign states, but also impose sanctions against them.
We can see the sheer legal incapacity of the American system, when one thing is declared while something entirely different is taking place. Over the past few years, many Americans themselves have said that something chaotic and absurd is happening. On the one hand, they declare democracy and democratic principles as the major achievement in the American history, and on the other hand, there is an increasing deviation from democratic principles.
I am not even going to comment on this particular case; there are plenty of similar ones. The situation you have mentioned is very prominent because we can see a range of absurd and contradictory statements and actions. But this happens all the time.
As an example, at a meeting of the UN Security Council yesterday we heard representatives of the US, Great Britain and France say that international law must not be violated by occupying and attacking sovereign states. This is said by the states that have occupied and attacked a considerable number of countries over the past two decades, such as Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, and Serbia. At the Security Council, they declare things that they themselves fail to do or do exactly the opposite. Such examples are plentiful. This indicates a crisis of the system in the United States as well as in the West as a whole, a crisis of liberal democracy and the onset of a period of liberal dictatorship, which manifests itself in such an atrocious way.
Question: What does Russia expect from the Russia-ASEAN meeting next week?
Maria Zakharova: I spoke about this at the beginning of the briefing.
During the upcoming ASEAN events, Russia intends to present its assessments of the regional situation, including the escalation of the conflict potential in the Asia-Pacific Region due to the course towards the militarisation of the region pursued by the West, NATO power potential’s influence, and expansion of the bloc mechanism network. Russia will continue to promote the creation of a just and equal world order model, where ASEAN will be a natural partner of the SCO and the EAEU. All the three organisations are operating in the same coordinate system of positive cooperation while promoting mutual ties in various spheres.
This year, we mark the 20th anniversary of Russia joining the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia (Bali Treaty of 1976). In this regard, it is planned to reaffirm the principles enshrined in it for ensuring peace and stability in the region in Vientiane.
During the Russian-ASEAN ministerial meeting, we hope to have a substantive dialogue on the entire range of issues of interaction with the Association in the field of politics and security, as well as on trade, economic and socio-cultural tracks. We expect to discuss the progress of implementation of the Comprehensive Action Plan for the Implementation of the Russia-ASEAN Strategic Partnership for 2021−2025 and launch the development of a new similar document for the medium term. We plan to place the main emphasis on the development of high-tech and knowledge-intensive sectors, smart cities, cooperation in the areas of digitalisation and energy among other things.
The agenda of the ASEAN Foreign Ministers meeting will be focused on preparing for the summit in Vientiane in October as well as on reviewing the roadmap of the Association’s activities for 2024-2028 that was adopted in 2023. We will focus on the tasks of stepping up work on projects integrated into the ASEAN vision at Russia’s proposal to create a regional anti-epidemic response mechanism, strengthen tourism cooperation, and establish connections between volunteer organisations in the Asia-Pacific region.
At the upcoming ARF session, we expect to approve the forum programme for next year, adopt a thematic statement on ferry safety and a number of work plans, including on emergency response. We will continue to promote practical initiatives in the field of ensuring international information security with the support of ASEAN, which is a priority of Russia on this platform.
In general, we expect the forum to have constructive and productive work based on the traditional principles of ASEAN, which we deeply respect and share.
Questions: US vice presidential candidate J.D. Vance said, “if you are going to punch the Iranians, you punch them hard.” He added that “Israel should partner Sunni states against Iran.” How can you comment on this?
Maria Zakharova: We must distinguish between election campaigning and statements by incumbent officials. In this case, it is an election campaign statement. We cannot now say with certainty whether it will remain as an attempt to aggressively attract attention in order to raise ratings, or whether it is really a substantive programme that will be implemented if they win the elections. We have seen many times how political statements, including in the US, do not subsequently translate into practical policy. This is a common occurrence. It is hard to say whether it is aggressive election rhetoric or a concrete programme.
In any case, whether we are talking about election pledges and slogans or about a proposed programme that will be implemented, statements of this kind are certainly not conducive to stabilising the situation in the Middle East, where the situation has already reached a breaking point. This is a tragedy not only on a global scale, but also a historic one. We are forced to qualify what is happening in this way because of the number of victims and the lack of prospects for normalising the situation. When we speak of a tragedy on a historic scale, it is necessary to be aware of its impact on the future. In this region, a monstrous landmine is now being laid under the foundation of people’s lives for generations to come.
The fact that this is coming from the people who may occupy high positions (at least they see themselves there) aggravates the situation even more. Such rhetoric from anyone, especially someone who calls himself a politician, can only qualify as irresponsible. We hear such things not only with regard to Iran. We have already spoken today about similar aggressive statements that this person made about China. I am not even talking about Russia − we hear such things every day.
It is unacceptable that one country endlessly gives its political figures the right to use aggressive, hateful rhetoric against independent states and peoples. Could it be that American politicians − whether Republicans or Democrats − are ignorant of history? They are not aware that they are talking not just about independent sovereign countries but about countries-civilisations with centuries-long history and rich culture. These countries and nations have given today’s world a huge number of scientific achievements, which are used both by the countries of the West and the Global South − by all humankind. Who gave any politician the right to use such a tone? Such rhetoric is perilous.
Many will say that these are just words. But they aren’t. Let us recall the cynical assassination of the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, General K. Suleimani, by the US military.
This was a multi-level crime − an assassination by one state of a politician and statesman of another state on the territory of a third country. Mr Suleimani was on an official visit to Iraq at the time. He enjoyed, among other things, appropriate immunity as far as the legal side of the matter is concerned. We pay tribute to Tehran for the restraint it demonstrates against the backdrop of Washington’s long-standing defiant and aggressive behaviour.
Question: Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov mentioned China’s initiative to settle the conflict in Ukraine at a news conference following his visit to the US as part of Russia’s presidency of the UN Security Council. This initiative suggests considering the root cause. He referred to 2014, when the ban on the Russian language was imposed and oppression on ethnic grounds began among other consequences after the coup d’etat. We agree with this formulation, but we propose to look for the root cause in 1991. It was after that coup d’etat that the bans on the Russian language, conflicts in the country and chaos in general began in the world.
Maria Zakharova: Wasn’t it there before?
Question: Before, everything was more stable. At least, in the Soviet Union it was quiet.
Maria Zakharova: Before you continue asking your question on these grounds, I would like to specify something. Did 1941 happen when there was the Soviet Union? Does this mean your point has no foundation?
Question: It has. After 1945, the world order we live in today was formed. In 1962, the Cuban Missile Crisis broke out. This was the basis the United States and the Soviet Union agreed on. After this, according to Russian President Vladimir Putin, a geopolitical catastrophe occurred in 1991. Any disaster (even accidental) is investigated. For some reason, the biggest tragedy of the 20th century went unnoticed. This disrupted the world order. It might be worth investigating the events that took place back then. More than 500,000 Russian citizens have already signed up for the class action lawsuit. Can the Russian Foreign Ministry act as a plaintiff in the case on the 1991 events in court?
Maria Zakharova: I think you only ask this question to provoke. On the one hand, you say that this is the biggest tragedy (which I agree with), but on the other it looks like you are trying to say that we do not reflect on it. I have a feeling there is a provocation in your question. You are constantly asking it in one form or another. Why?
I repeat, I agree that dividing a nation is truly a great tragedy. If you, as a non-governmental association, a civil force, have a powerful motivation, then you can file a claim on your own, especially since, according to you, thousands of citizens have already signed up for it. I see no obstacles to accomplishing your plans.
Our work is defined by doctrinal documents, such as the Russian Foreign Policy Concept. As a prominent representative of civil society, you have the opportunity and right to implement this civil initiative. In this sense, our foreign policy activities, including protecting history and upholding international law, will help. Look at the number of materials we provide every day and steps we are taking to ensure that the collective principles formed in the post-war period, based on international law, are not buried by the Anglo-Saxons now. This is our job. We do it.
Have you addressed these questions to other departments?
Question: Yes. We filed this application to the Supreme Court and courts in all regions, at various instances. They do not accept this claim. The judicial system refuses to execute its functions. In all other matters − you are welcome, but in this case they first said that they would not investigate it because they have no rights. However, after the 2020, Russia is the successor of the Soviet Union, so now it has the right to investigate this event. But they still refuse to accept it. Probably, the American influence is still too powerful there.
Maria Zakharova: Please allow me to remind you that judicial power is independent. Posing the same question to our Ministry regularly can be regarded as provocation. I would like to once again refer to the Foreign Ministry’s functions, missions, and tasks. This is what we do. You cannot reproach Russian diplomacy for not working to defend the rights of our compatriots who fell victims of this tragedy and new blows due to the fact that they were in many ways considered persons without any rights, for example, in the Baltic states.
The Foreign Ministry, foreign service and our diplomats were among the first to not just record this problem but to start working on it, focusing on our compatriots from the point of view of international law, protecting their rights on international platforms, and providing them with daily assistance. I am not even talking about the information sphere. This is just one of the main areas. Our Ministry has become one of the few outposts for upholding international law.
Please recall when the Foreign Ministry began saying that the “rule-based world order” (this expression came up in the vocabulary of the Western countries) is not just an attempt to react but to destroy international law. This has not happened just now, not even two or three years ago. There is a reason we have been talking about this for many years: we are doing everything to preserve international law. How many attacks have prominent Western politicians undertaken against the United Nations? They tried very hard to destroy the UN or place it at their service. We defend the UN in order to preserve all the best that was put into it.
We share your assessment of how tragic and disastrous the events of that period were. We have to work with their consequences. We are doing everything to ensure that the West’s goals and objectives are not implemented: not just the goal to inflict a strategic defeat on us, but the overall goal to remake the world on the basis of their hegemony and dominance.
Let everyone do their job. We are always happy to hear constructive criticism or suggestions that will align with our tasks.
Additional materials
-
Photos
