Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, November 13, 2024
- Colombian Foreign Minister Luis Gilberto Murillo’s visit to Russia
- G20 Leaders’ Summit in Rio de Janeiro
- The 3rd Meeting of the Interdepartmental Commission on Caspian Cooperation
- The upcoming joint meeting of the Collegiums of Russian and Belarusian Foreign Ministries
- Ukraine crisis update
- Desecration of war memorial in Kazachya Loknya, Kursk Region, by a Lithuanian neo-Nazi
- Moldova update
- Countering attempts to isolate Russia in the Baltic
- Marking the anniversary of the White Helmets in Syria
- Anatoly Dobrynin’s 105th birthday anniversary
- Geographical Dictation 2024 international educational event
- Dialogue on Fakes 2.0 second international forum
- 20th Russia-Kazakhstan Forum of Interregional Cooperation
- Russia is With You project
- Launch of the Foreign Ministry’s Telegram channel in French
- Highlights of the UNESCO Director-General’s Report on the Safety of Journalists and the Danger of Impunity for 2022-2023
- Remarks by the head of Poland’s National Security Bureau
- Results of the European Political Community Summit
- Media insinuations regarding the situation on the Russian-Finnish border
- The fourth anniversary of the trilateral Statement on Settling the Conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh
- The upcoming meeting of APEC leaders
- Russia’s participation in Airshow China 2024
- Russia’s involvement in the Lebanese ceasefire
- Signing of the Strategic Partnership Agreement with Iran
- The OSCE Minsk Group
- The case of Azerbaijani political scientist Nazaket Mamedova
- Expectations in connection with the Trump presidency
- The need to take the oath of the Russian Federation citizen
- UNIDO projects in Ukraine
- The COP29 climate conference in Baku
- Yelena Chesakova update
- The BRICS Kazan Declaration
- BRICS membership
Colombian Foreign Minister Luis Gilberto Murillo’s visit to Russia
The Foreign Minister of the Republic of Colombia Luis Gilberto Murillo will visit Moscow on November 12-15. Talks with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov are scheduled.
The parties will discuss the current state and development prospects of Russia-Colombia cooperation in politics, trade and the economy, as well as culture and humanitarian affairs.
The ministers will also exchange opinions on key topics on the international and regional agendas, on cooperation within the UN, where Russia, as a permanent member of the Security Council, consistently supports an intra-Colombian peace settlement, as well as within other international platforms.
G20 Leaders’ Summit in Rio de Janeiro
The G20 Leaders’ Summit will take place on November 18-19 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. At the instruction of President Vladimir Putin, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will head the Russian delegation.
The Leaders’ Summit will open with the launch of the Global Alliance against Hunger and Poverty, which is Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva’s flagship initiative. This temporary coordination mechanism aims to find solutions to the problematic aspects of international cooperation on food security.
During the summit, Russia intends to announce that it is joining the alliance. The G20 established this year that although there is enough food in the world, access to it remains restricted, which is the primary issue. This problem is largely a result of the geo-economic fragmentation created by the West, as well as its unlawful sanctions on Russian agricultural exports, and the West’s attempts to block global logistics and financial flows.
The Russian Foreign Minister will address the summit on November 18 during the plenary sessions on alleviating inequality, hunger and poverty, as well as on reforms of global institutions. Bilateral talks and contacts involving the Foreign Minister are scheduled on the sidelines of the Leaders’ Summit.
We commend the Brazilian Chairmanship’s approach to finding common ground, a reasonable compromise and a fair balance of interests. Following their predecessors from the Global Majority countries – India (2023) and Indonesia (2022) – our partners are confidently adapting the G20 agenda to the new configuration of a multi-polar world.
We also commend the growing efficiency of coordination between countries with emerging economies, primarily comprising BRICS members and dialogue partners. The New Development Bank and the League of Arab States have been invited to the summit for the first time. The African Union, accepted in 2023, has successfully found its place on the platform.
Our intention is to promote the ideas of unity during the summit, focusing on the concept of sustainable development based on different national economic models and strategies. We support rational energy shifts, maintaining open and non-discriminatory international trade, and creating market mechanisms that are not governed by the mercenary interests of certain countries – mechanisms in the spirit of the decisions made during the BRICS summit in Kazan, such as an independent grain exchange, and financial interaction mechanisms.
We will continue making efforts to de-politicise the G20, and to condemn the Western double standards (or to dismantle Western standards altogether) and the understatement of the humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip by the United States and its allies, the use of economic tools as weapons in confrontation, suppressing dissent, and neo-colonial exploitation. We welcome the fact that this year, the G20 is back to issuing ministerial declarations without the geopolitical interpretations imposed by the West.
We will pay particular attention to documenting the agreements, reached by the G20 foreign ministers during their meeting on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly on September 25, 2024, in the leaders' declaration. The agreements clearly mapped the trajectory of transformation, specifically, by strengthening the voice of the Global Majority countries in the global decision-making bodies, from the UN Security Council to the IMF and the World Bank, and restoring the normal operation of the WTO that had been obstructed by the Americans.
We will confirm Russia’s readiness to be a reliable supplier of food and energy to friendly countries in the Global South and East. We will stress the additional opportunities available through President of Russia Vladimir Putin’s initiative to create the Greater Eurasian Partnership, to build supply chains, logistics routes and payment frameworks that are free from the Western dictate.
We remain in close cooperation with the Chairmanship and the other G20 delegations. Our intention is to make a substantial contribution to the success of the upcoming G20 summit. We wish our Brazilian friends success in this endeavour.
The 3rd Meeting of the Interdepartmental Commission on Caspian Cooperation
On November 21, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will chair the 3rd Meeting of the Interdepartmental Commission on Caspian Cooperation at the Foreign Ministry. The meeting will involve the heads of specialised Russian ministries and agencies, three Russian coastal territories - the Astrakhan Region, the Republic of Dagestan and the Republic of Kalmykia - as well as representatives of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation.
The event participants will discuss a wide range of issues related to the implementation of Russian national interests in the Caspian Sea region, as well as prospects for expanding and deepening cooperation between littoral states.
The upcoming joint meeting of the Collegiums of Russian and Belarusian Foreign Ministries
On November 21-22, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will pay a working visit to Brest in the Republic of Belarus and will take part in a joint meeting of the Collegiums of Russian and Belarusian Foreign Ministries.
Held since 2000, these annual meetings serve as an effective mechanism for synchronising the efforts of both countries on the international stage.
During the upcoming event, the officials will continue to coordinate their approaches towards cooperation with countries of the Global Majority (the Global South and East) in multilateral formats, with an emphasis on the SCO and BRICS, as well as joint efforts to counter the judicial-legal and sanctions aggression of the collective West.
Following the meeting, the parties will adopt the relevant resolution and approve a plan of consultations between foreign ministries for 2025. The ministers are expected to sign a joint statement on their shared perception of the Eurasian Charter of Diversity and Multipolarity in the 21st Century, as well as the bilateral Declaration on enhancing the role of international law and on guiding principles for interpreting unilateral coercive measures as illegal methods and using countermeasures to mitigate and compensate for the negative consequences of such measures.
During his visit, Sergey Lavrov will meet with Foreign Minister of the Republic of Belarus Maxim Ryzhenkov to exchange opinions on key issues of Russian-Belarusian cooperation and the international agenda, as well as on foreign policy coordination at international platforms. They will focus on diplomatic support for integration processes within the framework of the Union State, including preparations for a meeting of the Supreme State Council of the Union State in early December 2024, which will mark the 25th anniversary of signing the Treaty on the Establishment of the Union State in 1999.
During his visit, Sergey Lavrov will visit the Brest Hero Fortress memorial complex and lay flowers at a monument to its defenders who were the first to bear the brunt of the Nazi onslaught and exemplified courage, fortitude and self-sacrifice in the name of defending our common Fatherland for several generations of our citizens.
Ten years ago, on November 14, 2014, Ukrainian President Petr Poroshenko issued Executive Order No. 875/2014, which put into effect the November 4, 2014 resolution of the National Security and Defence Council entitled On Urgent Measures to Stabilise the Socioeconomic Situation in the Donetsk and Lugansk Regions. This ushered in the Kiev regime’s financial, economic and transport blockade of Donbass, with its people finding themselves virtually under lock and key. Why did the Kiev regime take these measures against Donbass? Because the local population refused to recognise the radical nationalist dictatorship brought to power in an unconstitutional armed coup in Kiev in February 2014, a coup orchestrated by the US, the UK, France, and Germany, with NATO’s Baltic helpers and Poland squealing and yapping in assent. Donetsk and Lugansk refused to accept this. The people of Donbass rose to defend their lawful rights and freedoms, keeping the former legitimate institutions of power.
Failing to defeat the courageous people of Donbass with the help of their regular army and Bandera nationalists from the punitive “voluntary” battalions, the neo-Nazi rulers of Ukraine decided to starve the region into surrender by depriving the local inhabitants of all means of livelihood, causing them to suffer and starve. President Poroshenko told the people of Donbass that they and their children would live in basements, while children in other parts of Ukraine would have all the necessary supplies and live in comfort. All of this was being done with the tacit consent of the West, which never called Kiev to order. On the contrary, it was encouraging these actions and rhetoric.
Today, the Kiev regime continues to terrorise civilians in Russia by shelling civilian infrastructure on a daily basis and sending its attack drones to target individuals.
On November 10 of this year, from midnight to 8 am MSK, the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) carried out a massive attack with a total of 84 drones, including 34 in the Moscow Region, 22 in the Bryansk Region, 7 each in the Orel, Kursk, and Kaluga regions, 3 in the Rostov Region, and 2 each in the Tula and Belgorod regions.
November 8 was a tragic day for the residents of Gorlovka, where an AFU kamikaze drone attacked an electric grid service vehicle, killing two workers and heavily wounding the driver. I want to stress that I am referring to civilians.
A cluster bomb container exploded in the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR), killing a woman. Two men were wounded in a drone attack. A total of 10 persons were injured in the DPR from November 8 to 11.
On November 9, the Ukrainian Nazis shelled an emergency shelter in Novaya Kakhovka, the Kherson Region, killing one person and wounding two.
From November 8 to 12, AFU militants fired 231 munitions and used 110 drones in attacks on civilian infrastructure and residential houses in the Belgorod Region. Two persons were killed and 11 wounded as a result.
On November 9, a civilian was killed and his wife sustained numerous fragment wounds when their car drove over a mine at the entrance to the village of Stary Khutor. On November 10, AFU drones attacked a block of flats in Shebekino on two occasions, killing one person. On November 11, a person stepped on a mine and was wounded in the village of Dronovka. On the same day, drones attacked an oil depot in the Starooskolsky urban district. A fire resulting from an explosion at one of the tanks was promptly extinguished. There were no victims.
A resident of the liberated town of Gornyak in the Donetsk People's Republic recounted to the media the terrifying ordeal she endured. She witnessed a Ukrainian tank targeting residential buildings and was subsequently attacked while in her vehicle. As a result of the gunfire, she sustained a concussion but miraculously survived.
Hollywood has produced numerous horror films and thrillers depicting the abuse of civilians by deranged individuals who invade homes, shoot residents, imprison them, and set properties ablaze. Perhaps the US Department of State or the White House could simply switch on their televisions, watch the channels which they are attempting to suppress and ban, and witness this very thriller unfolding in reality, with ordinary civilians as the protagonists. This "series" has been ongoing for many years, funded by American taxpayers. It is entirely facilitated by the supply of American weaponry and the White House's "efforts," along with its allies, to increase these provisions. It seems to have become routine to award Film Academy accolades to the Kiev regime. However, this harrowing, real-life "series" does not aspire to win awards. People yearn for survival, peace, and the triumph of justice, truth, and righteousness. And that is precisely what shall transpire.
Russian servicemen conducting operations in the Kursk Region against Ukrainian Nazis have once more documented the practice of militants using civilians as human shields near their military equipment in the vicinity of Plyokhovo village.
All individuals involved in these and other atrocities committed by the Kiev regime will undoubtedly be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law.
Russian courts continue to pass sentences to Ukrainian neo-Nazis and foreign mercenaries for war crimes, based on evidence compiled by the Investigative Committee.
The Supreme Court of the DPR sentenced eight members of the Ukrainian armed forces' mortar platoon – Denis Sivets, Yury Galatsky, Leonid Bulava, Igor Zharenko, Semyon Belyak, Yaroslav Bozhkov, Pavel Bey, and Vitaly Kirilenko – to prison terms ranging from 15 to 17 years for shelling civilian infrastructure in Mariupol between March 2 and April 2, 2022.
Bogdan Titsky, the orchestrator and mastermind behind the 2018 assault on the Russian Centre of Science and Culture in Kiev, and leader of the Black Committee, a radical Ukrainian nationalist organisation (designated as a terrorist entity in the Russian Federation), was sentenced in absentia to 14 years' imprisonment. His culpability in offences outlined in several articles of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (public incitement to terrorism; organising and leading an attack on the premises of internationally protected persons) was unequivocally proven. It was established that on February 18, 2018, under Bogdan Titsky's direction, at least 300 extremists hurled stones and dyes at the building of the Russian Centre of Science and Culture in Kiev, shattered windows, and daubed anti-Russia graffiti on the facade, inflicting material damage.
Bodan Titsky has been placed on an international wanted list. Investigations are ongoing to bring to justice all those implicated in the assaults on Russian diplomatic missions in Ukraine.
A criminal case has been initiated against Alexi Bibichadze, a mercenary from Georgia with a long history of training mercenaries, who has actively participated in the armed conflict as a mercenary on Russian soil. It has been determined that, along with other foreign mercenaries and militants from the Ukrainian armed forces, he infiltrated the Kursk Region in August this year. There, with the intent of intimidating the population, causing significant property damage, and destabilising the authorities’ operations, he committed criminal acts aimed at the murder and attempted murder of civilians. Investigators are undertaking efforts to locate Alexi Bibichadze and his accomplices.
The investigation into the criminal case against seven militants from Battalion 202 of the 103rd Territorial Defence Brigade of the Ukrainian armed forces − Anatoly Voloshin, Vladimir Arshulik, Sergey Karayev, Alexander Doychuk, Zinovy Sigerich, Andrian Kulbaba and Oleg Vovk has been completed. The militants have been charged with carrying out terrorist attacks in the Kursk Region. It was established that in early August 2024, these individuals repeatedly opened lethal fire on Russian troops and civilians in the villages of Krasnooktyabrskoye, Snagost, and Komarovka in the Korenevsky District. As a result of planned search and investigative procedures, the militants were detained and taken into custody. The defendants reviewed the case materials, and the case itself was handed over to the prosecutor for the approval of indictments and for forwarding to court.
Russian investigative bodies continue to work on holding the Ukrainian Nazis accountable for war crimes and other offences.
Now, a few words on how these actions are perceived by the West. They are in charge of it. They may tell us about peace conferences, peace plans and initiatives. Given that NATO and certain national leaders (mainly Anglo-Saxons) are the curators of the Kiev regime, it seems appropriate to quote NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte’s comment from November 12, 2024: “We must reaffirm our commitment to maintaining the course of war.”
You may ask how the same leaders can advocate for pseudo-peace conferences and promote alleged peace initiatives while also making a direct declaration of a course of war. The answer is simple: one of these things is a lie. What the Westerners and their underlings on Bankovaya present as “peace initiatives” is a lie. It seems to me that every state, journalist, or public figure dealing with this issue should read and reflect on Mark Rutte’s statements carefully and note them down. This way, the next time Vladimir Zelensky or anyone from Bankovaya, along with their curators in the US Department of State, the White House, Downing Street, the Foreign Office, Brussels, Paris or Berlin starts telling the global community about any peace initiatives, everyone can recall that NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte said on November 12 that NATO members “must do more than just keep Ukraine in the fight.” They must raise the “price” for Vladimir Putin and his “authoritarian” friends. This official statement was not a call for de-escalation, peace talks or a political and diplomatic settlement; it was a call for continuing the bloodshed and hostilities.
Statements from other NATO countries corroborate this view. Let’s listen to what we hear from Washington, from those who are still in the White House and those who are just entering it. They all assert that they must adhere to the same trajectory.
For example, consider the statement made by High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell during his farewell visit to Kiev on November 9. Just a step away from being a retired European official, he advocated for extensive aid to the Ukrainian armed forces and the removal of restrictions on strikes deeper into Russia.
It appears that when he was appointed an EU diplomat, a mix-up occurred; he was supposed to be NATO’s weapon supply coordinator. On the other hand, it is probably the same role.
Josep Borrell stated that he had always called for helping “more and faster.” Apparently, this has been his call all along and remains relevant: more military aid and training, supplies, money, and permission to strike the enemy on its own territory.
All this confirms that the West does not plan to achieve peace. They intend to continue the hybrid war against Russia through the hands of the Kiev regime and “until the last Ukrainian.”
On November 7, 2024, Budapest hosted the 5th European Political Community Summit. Vladimir Zelensky also participated and attempted to use this platform to promote ideas that seem as rotten as he is himself, similar to his dead-end “peace formula.” He said that a ceasefire and concessions to Russia were unacceptable. This is a statement made by a person like Zelensky, who has already slaughtered his entire population and will soon begin mobilising teenagers.
In his view, a ceasefire without security guarantees would lead to the complete occupation of Ukraine. At the same time, he was desperately pleading for Russian assets worth $300 billion, which allegedly belong to Kiev and are frozen in Europe, so that the Bandera regime could decide independently how to spend them. It would be better if Zelensky bequeathed all of his property and real estate to Ukraine; in that case, Ukraine would need no other assets. As we can see, Zelensky’s European allies are grappling with serious political and economic problems while continuing to finance his junta and arm it with weapons. EU budgets have been straining for a long time, and party coalitions are disintegrating, not to mention the plummeting ratings of authorities. The Europeans even hesitated to broadcast Zelensky’s statement live, recognising that the travelling salesman from Kiev is primarily interested in money. European authorities are aware that their citizens understand this as well. It is evident that Zelensky cares little for his own country and nation. There is only one question: when will they realise that Zelensky has never cared about the fate of the Ukrainian nation or the country itself? He only cares about his own political ambitions, having naively believed in the West, which began to use him for its own purposes.
We have noted that the British press is reporting on the intentions of British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron to persuade the incumbent US President Joe Biden to allow Kiev to launch Storm Shadow cruise missiles deep inside Russia before Donald Trump’s inauguration. According to the media, London hopes that the White House will finally approve this step.
On the same day, in an interview with the French media, France’s Defence Minister Sébastien Lecornu mentioned that he had signed a directive to provide the Armed Forces of Ukraine with ten Scalp long-range missiles. Paris hopes that Kiev will be able to strike targets behind the front line using these missiles.
I would like to remind Sébastien Lecornu that when the Kiev regime launches strikes behind the front line, the most important consideration is that they should not hit the French Embassy.
These publications coincided with information circulated on Ukrainian social media that the Zelensky regime intends to present Western-supplied missiles as Ukrainian equivalents by changing their markings for use in strikes against Russia. This is a brutal deception characteristic of Zelensky and his entire circle. It is clear to us that such actions would be impossible without the approval of his backers.
We would like to remind Washington, London, Paris and Brussels that they continue to play with fire. President of Russia Vladimir Putin has clearly outlined our response: if Ukraine receives permission to launch such strikes, it would indicate that NATO countries have effectively entered into a direct armed conflict with Russia. This would fundamentally alter the nature and essence of the conflict, with all the ensuing consequences. If they use long-range Western systems against the territory of our country, they will face an inevitable and devastating response.
All of these facts once again underscore the relevance of the special military operation aimed at denazification and demilitarisation of Ukraine, as well as the elimination of threats emanating from its territory. As stated by the Russian leadership, all objectives of the operation will be fully achieved.
Desecration of war memorial in Kazachya Loknya, Kursk Region, by a Lithuanian neo-Nazi
The West regularly expresses outrage when Russian law enforcement authorities, acting in accordance with the Russian legislation, initiate criminal proceedings over Western journalists illegally crossing into our territory without a visa or other relevant documents, as if they are immune to the legislation of the country they enter. It is our duty to read such items, watch such videos and monitor their social media items aimed at justifying the Ukrainian army’s aggression. They never write about or show the acts of atrocity committed by neo-Nazis against civilians and prisoners of war. And they will never tell you about the desecration of memorials and mass graves of the Red Army soldiers who fell liberating that region during the Great Patriotic War.
They won’t tell you about what Valdas Bartkevicius, an active member of the Lithuanian International Ukraine Friends Foundation (VšĮ Tarptautinis Ukrainos draugų fondas) has done. Bartkevicius calls for the complete prohibition of the Russian language and culture in Lithuania and other European countries. In December 2023, he vandalised a monument to Alexander Pushkin in Vilnius, which has been attacked especially often over the past few years. In March 2024, Bartkevicius publicly justified the terrorist attack in Crocus City Hall and brought a pail of faecal matter to the makeshift memorial for the victims of that atrocious crime organised at the Russian Embassy in Vilnius by those who shared our pain and suffering. Bartkevicius, who should be described as a far-right extremist, now desecrated a monument to the fallen Soviet soldiers in the village of Kazachya Loknya in the Kursk Region. He peed on the graves of those who had liberated Europe from Nazism.
Are there people who refuse to believe that there are serious grounds behind the denazification and demilitarisation of Ukraine, the goals of the special military operation? It is spearheaded at these non-humans. The Western mainstream pretends that there are no neo-Nazis in Ukraine, neither those who were born there or those who have been sent there by Western countries. They pretend that there is nobody our country must fight against there, which we regard our sacred duty, including in memory of those who died fighting for the world during the Great Patriotic War. Regrettably, there are neo-Nazis there, and they have come to our land to vandalise the graves of our heroes.
Are they only our heroes? We looked up the Memorial Book of the Sudzha District for the names of those buried there. There are 68 names in it. Apart from those who had lived in Russian regions – the Moscow Region, Khabarovsk, the Sverdlovsk, Yaroslavl and Kursk regions, the Krasnoyarsk, Stavropol and Krasnodar territories, the Gorky, Tambov, Belgorod, Kirov, Irkutsk and Ryazan regions, the Tatar and Chuvash autonomous republics, and the Lugansk Region – there are soldiers from Uzbekistan (Hamankul Asanov and Tursun Tadzhiyev), Kazakhstan (Dzhizkhak Baimakhatov), Kyrgyzstan (Pyotr Borisenko), Azerbaijan (Second Lieutenant Dzhamil Zeinalov), and Ukraine (partisan Mikhail Kulesh, Vasily Nezdoimishenko, and Vasily Nembai).
Valdas Bartkevicius is the creature of the Kiev regime and the West, which is funding it. Has any organisation in the world (in the NATO states, including the US and Canada, and other European countries) which protect the memory of WWII heroes and Holocaust victims said anything about that criminal act? It is one of the hundreds of thousands of acts of vandalism aimed at demonstrating disrespect for the heroes of that period. You have heard me right – hundreds of thousands. We spoke about thousands of such acts at our briefings. We have accumulated information about a vast number of such acts of vandalism over the past few years. Gravestones have been broken, paint has been splashed at monuments, monuments have been removed under far-fetched pretexts, plaques with the names of heroes have been torn off walls, and graves have been eliminated. And nobody has as much as raised their voice. How can you divide the memory of WWII and Holocaust victims from the memory of those who helped liberate the survivors, those who had not been killed? Regrettably, exactly this is happening.
We have no doubt that Valdas Bartkevicius and all the others who vandalise monuments to the defeaters of fascism will be rightly punished. We expect the international community react accordingly and the culprit to be persecuted. We will speak about this at international platforms.
The results of voting on the UN resolution on combating the glorification of Nazism show that the neo-Nazis’ space is shrinking. The boundaries of their reservation coincide now with the boundaries of Josep Borrell’s “garden,” which will soon have only brown plants.
As for voting on the resolution against the glorification of Nazism, I would like to say that a detailed report has been posted on the Foreign Ministry’s website in this connection. I invite you to read it.
We continue to monitor developments in Moldova. It is necessary to highlight that, as independent experts have observed, the inconclusive outcomes of the recent presidential election and the referendum on European Union membership – marked by credible evidence of falsifications, forgeries, and irregularities – have not prompted the Moldovan authorities to reconsider their detrimental trajectory. Instead, these results have served as a pretext for the more vigorous propagation of the notion of an unfounded Russian threat.
On November 12 this year, during a pre-arranged visit to the Moldovan Foreign Ministry at our request, Russian Ambassador Oleg Ozerov received a protest note regarding Russia's alleged interference in Moldova's electoral process with the intent to distort its results.
The note further alleges that Russia launched two unmanned aerial vehicles, reportedly detected on November 10 this year in the Causeni and Riscani districts of Moldova. We addressed this claim on November 11 this year. The regime of Maia Sandu has presented no evidence, nor is it likely to, as none exists. Such tactics align entirely with the modus operandi of the Western supervisors of the Moldovan authorities. The West often presents accusations in the "highly likely" style, citing "closed intelligence sources," which later prove to be falsehoods. These methods are characteristic of their approach.
We categorically reject the baseless allegations from official Chisinau. Their true motive is transparent: to rationalise the coerced transition of Moldova to European standards, effectively placing it on "euro rails" leading towards a precipice. The actual intent is to suppress democracy and freedom of speech, militarise the country, and intensify the persecution of political opponents.
Repression against the opposition is also escalating. On November 6, criminal proceedings against Maia Sandu's principal electoral adversary, former Moldovan Prosecutor General Alexandr Stoianoglo, were resumed. On November 10, the leadership of the Moldovan police disclosed to the pro-government media that thousands of individuals were under special surveillance, including wiretapping, prior to the presidential election.
I should remind you that similar scenarios unfolding before and during electoral processes, such as in the United States, have led to significant repercussions. For instance, the Watergate scandal was once recognised in Western democracies as a breach of democratic procedures, leading to appropriate conclusions. Today, such practices are deemed normal and are overlooked. The idea that Maia Sandu's regime wiretapped thousands of political opponents is trivialised in Washington, London, and the EU.
The effort to draw Moldova into NATO persists. On October 24, 2024, agreements were reached for Lithuania to provide military and technical assistance to Chisinau, including the supply of military products and the allocation of up to 2 million euros annually from 2026 to 2028.
On October 31, 2024, the defence ministers of Moldova and Norway signed an agreement of intent to strengthen their defence partnership, which includes assistance to Chisinau in training and military education, as well as developing programmes to enhance Moldova's defence capabilities. A similar agreement was signed with Sweden in August this year.
On November 6, the Moldovan government approved the initiation of negotiations on draft cooperation agreements with the defence agencies of Germany and Denmark.
What ideological basis supports these actions? Allow me to elaborate. This is precisely how historical revisionism takes root. On November 11, 2024, Moldova once again appeared among the countries voting against the UN General Assembly resolution initiated by Russia to combat the glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to contemporary racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance. This underpins all other actions. The stance of Maia Sandu's regime is no longer surprising. It is with the authorities' endorsement in Chisinau that efforts to rehabilitate collaborators of the Third Reich in Moldova are in full swing.
On October 24, in the village of Sarateni, Leova District, a memorial cross was erected with military honours, and 12 graves were maintained at the site where, in June and July 1941, not defenders who aimed to protect their country, region, and homes from fascism and Nazism perished, but Romanian soldiers who invaded the USSR in the ranks of Hitler's ally, Ion Antonescu. Memorials with honours are now being erected in Moldova for them.
On November 11, another cemetery for "Romanian heroes who perished for the liberation of Bessarabia in July 1941" was inaugurated in the village of Ciuciulea, Glodeni District. These are also the so-called European values.
It is evident that the harmful course imposed by the West on Moldova aims to create a profound division within Moldovan society, to fragment and weaken it for subsequent exploitation in its geopolitical interests. All this unfolds before our eyes.
Fortunately, these actions have the opposite effect. The West's pressure and the derision of the people and historical memory by their own authorities evoke rejection among Moldovans, who are uniting to defend their country's sovereignty and associate its preservation with enhancing cooperation with Russia – a proven friend and partner. We have always been and will continue to be such for the Moldovan people.
Countering attempts to isolate Russia in the Baltic
Guided by a system-wide approach, the Foreign Ministry has continued working in the Baltic against the backdrop of an unprecedented escalation in military and political tension in Europe, the sanctions pressure against Russia and the effort to dismantle the traditional multilateral cooperation mechanisms as initiated by the West.
We believe that the irresponsible and unhinged policy by Western countries to cut all cooperation links with Russia in economics, politics, humanitarian affairs and environmental protection would lead all the coastal Baltic states into an impasse and bring nothing but harm.
Finland’s and Sweden’s accession to NATO does not turn the Baltic Sea into the alliance’s internal waters, however hard certain would-be experts may try to make this case. It will always remain a shared space for all regional countries without exception.
Russia reaffirms its commitment to asserting its national interests in the Baltic and working closer with its reasonable partners, including extra-regional countries. In particular, we have been promoting this kind of cooperation as part of the Baltic Platform, an international research and discussion forum. Created at Russia’s initiative, it is designed to discuss topical regional development matters.
Marking the anniversary of the White Helmets in Syria
It has been quite a while since we raised this topic. The West refers to the White Helmets as a humanitarian organisation, while it is essentially part and parcel of the US intelligence agencies serving them as a vehicle for their overseas operations, including criminal activity. They are marking their anniversary. This is something we find hard to believe.
On October 25, 2024, the UK’s Foreign Office marked the tenth anniversary of the White Helmets NGO by issuing a lengthy statement commending this entity, which is still viewed as a humanitarian organisation in the West. Apart from London, several other sponsors signed this paper: Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Qatar and the United States.
And this is happening after everything the White Helmets did in Syria. They used the suffering of the people of Syria as a cheap, albeit bloody, publicity stunt and made working with terrorists their hallmark. London is not even trying to conceal its support for these undercover fighters and has commended the “tremendous efforts and courage” of this “humanitarian organisation.”
We have discussed many times their numerous crimes. Every time there was a staged provocation involving chemical weapons in Syria, including the tragic incident in Douma, the White Helmets coordinated them in advance and in a proactive manner with the British intelligence agencies. In their efforts, they target their domestic audience, as well as the international information space.
Tragic incidents happen whenever the White Helmets are around, while UK television networks get exclusive footage from this would-be NGO. These videos serve a singular purpose, which consists of denigrating the government of the Syrian Arab Republic, a member of the United Nations in its own right. By the way, this is also something the West has been denying for many years now by saying, to use former President Barack Obama’s words, that “Assad must go.” But it was Barack Obama who had “to go,” while Bashar al-Assad stayed. And he has been doing everything to breathe new life into Syria after all the mess the West left in his country. It has long been proven that the White Helmets, together with the UK, actually poisoned Syrian children just for producing their heartbreaking videos. I suggest that you read the detailed report titled The White Helmets: Terrorist Accomplices and a Source of Disinformation. Compiled by the Foundation for the Study of Democracy, it is based on facts and interviews with witnesses and former members of this entity, who openly talk about their sympathy for radical Islamists and terrorists.
We have not been hearing all that much about them lately. Unfortunately, the White Helmets still engage in subversive activity in Syria while benefiting from their sponsors, primarily the British and American taxpayers. The UK has not stopped sponsoring this organisation even after its curators decided to get rid of its leader, Lieutenant-Colonel in the Royal Army James Gustaf Edward Le Mesurier. He became an inconvenience for them and died under mysterious circumstances. According to official records alone, in 2022−2023, London allocated almost 3 million pounds sterling to the White Helmets, and it is anybody’s guess how much they received in unreported cash or through informal channels. This funding could be one of the reasons behind Le Mesurier’s death. There is no way of telling today how much money the would-be volunteers from the White Helmets received using unreported funding schemes and various shady intermediaries. Maybe archives would surface somewhere down the road to shed some light on these practices.
The White Helmets remain a major destabilising factor in Syria. Their removal from the territory of the Syrian Arab Republic, termination of their activities and exposure of their past crimes are essential for achieving stability in Syria, a country which has suffered so much, and across the region.
Anatoly Dobrynin’s 105th birthday anniversary
November 16 marks the 105th birthday anniversary of Anatoly Dobrynin, a distinguished diplomat, statesman and scholar.
He had an outstanding diplomatic career, serving as the USSR Ambassador to the United States for almost a quarter of a century. We will be publishing detailed materials on the Russian Foreign Ministry’s social media accounts. We approached his centenary with great enthusiasm, and we will certainly highlight this date in our media outreach efforts, too.
Geographical Dictation 2024 international educational event
On November 16-17, the Russian Geographical Society, in collaboration with the Russian Foreign Ministry and Rossotrudnichestvo, is organising the 10th annual Geographical Dictation 2024 international educational campaign.
The anniversary event will be held both in Russia and abroad, in offline and online formats. It aims to popularise knowledge of geography while promoting science and national heritage.
Over 10,000 sites around the world have already joined this significant educational event. This year, in addition to traditional venues such as schools, universities, and libraries, religious organisations of various faiths are participating, too. This diversity demonstrates that interest in the geography and history of one’s homeland unites people, regardless of their religion or occupation. The 10,000th site was the SupSever project, which invites participants to take the quiz right on the ice floe of the White Sea, combining an intellectual geographical journey with an unforgettable experience.
Everyone is invited to participate (I am not referring to the ice floe now), particularly the academic community, graduates of Russian universities, representatives of compatriots’ associations and societies for friendship with Russia.
All information about the event and the procedure for registering a site is available on the campaign’s official website.
Dialogue on Fakes 2.0 second international forum
On November 20, Moscow will host the 2nd Dialogue on Fakes 2.0 international forum, organised by the Dialogue Regions autonomous non-profit organisation. The forum will be attended by federal officials, business leaders, and international experts on combating internet fakes.
We are in for an interesting event, and the Foreign Ministry will take an active part in it. We have much to discuss. For many years, the Foreign Ministry website has featured a section called Published Materials That Contain False Information About Russia, where rebuttals are provided. We have maintained this section for a long time, but the problem of fakes has never reached such a scale as it has recently. This issue came to light about 15 years ago. Disinformation and information wars have always existed, but it has only recently become a distinct genre.
This is why we maintain this section. It is updated every week. In the past, we published individual materials, articles, and pieces of information; today, we compile reviews. Together with our missions abroad, we gather them into relevant publications and create digests of fakes.
I would like to take this opportunity to invite all media representatives to participate in the forum. If representatives of specialised media can hear and see us today, please know that the organisers are looking forward to welcoming everyone. We would be interested in engaging with experts in this field.
The link to the forum website and information about accreditation will be included in the text version of the briefing.
20th Russia-Kazakhstan Forum of Interregional Cooperation
On November 26-27, Ufa, Republic of Bashkortostan, will host the 20th Russia-Kazakhstan Forum of Interregional Cooperation.
The event is organised by the Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian Federation, the Government of the Republic of Bashkortostan, and the Ministry of Trade and Integration of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
The Forum of interregional cooperation between Russia and Kazakhstan is held annually to maintain and develop economic, cultural and humanitarian ties between the two countries. Traditionally, it is attended by representatives of business, academic and public circles, heads of ministries, as well as heads of Russian and Kazakhstani regions.
Following the 2023 forum, held in Kostanay, Kazakhstan, five interregional cooperation documents were signed, as well as commercial agreements on the production of lifting equipment and food products worth about 7.7 billion roubles in total.
Ufa will welcome the guests of the 20th forum with a busy business and cultural programme. Over the course of two days, discussions will be held on how to realise the potential of trade and economic cooperation between the regions of Russia and Kazakhstan, and how to expand interregional ties and opportunities for industrial cooperation between the two countries. Ufa knows how to receive guests, and I am sure that this time, too, there will be a warm welcome.
There will also be an exhibition of large-scale engineering equipment from the regions of Russia and Kazakhstan. Regions and enterprises will have the opportunity to present their stands showcasing the achieveents of the two national economies.
To participate, please register on the forum’s official website. Participants will have the chance to meet with potential business partners and learn about the investment potential of Bashkortostan and the conditions for starting a business in the Republic of Bashkortostan.
The Youth Entrepreneurship in Russia and Kazakhstan: Exchange of Experience and Partnership Prospects forum will bring together about 300 participants for joint initiatives and the exchange of experience.
A fashion show will be one of the main cultural events. The best Russian and Kazakhstani designers will present their works: clothing lines with ethnic and modern motifs, thereby demonstrating the achievements of the light industryAt the gastronomic festival, forum guests will be able to try traditional and signature dishes of the peoples of Russia, Kazakhstan, and Bashkortostan.
Music fans will be have the opportunity to attend the Voice of Friendship of the Nations festival, which will feature performers from the Russian and Kazakhstani regions.
We would like to invite the media to take part in covering the work of the forum, and all those interested to actively join in.
Details about the 20th Forum of Interregional Cooperation between Russia and Kazakhstan, as well as information on registration, can be found on the official website of the Forum.
As part of the comprehensive state programme of the Russian Federation to contribute to international development, the Russia is With You project tells Russians and foreign nationals about Russia’s activities that help advance international development.
The Federal Agency for the CIS Affairs, Compatriots Living Abroad, and International Humanitarian Cooperation (Rossotrudnichestvo) promotes the project’s brand identity among partners and uses the project’s logo when labelling humanitarian cargo to promote the project abroad and increase the recognition of Russian aid.
There is also a website on assisting international development, with a map of humanitarian projects and open access to the Russia is With You brand book.
Commercial companies, public orgaisations, authorities and even individuals can use the project’s branding.
In 2023-2024, as part of the Russia is With You project, the House of Friendship organisation located in Volgograd, supported by Rossotrudnichestvo, the Russian Emergencies Ministry, the Russian Defence Ministry, the Federal Agency for Ethnic Affairs, and Russian Railways, arranged humanitarian aid shipments to crisis zones (more than 100 tonnes have been delivered since October 2023). Following Volgograd’s example, over 55 Russian regions have joined international humanitarian projects.
Humanitarian cargos supplied through the Russian Emergencies Ministry, are also labeled with the Russia is With You logo, as part of the efforts to promote Russian assistance abroad. Branded merchandise is also distributed among partner organisations – for example, the Major African Research Expedition initiated by the Federal Agency for Fishery. The expedition involves two research vessels of the agency, Atlantniro and Atlantida, with groups of scientists from the Russian Research Institute of Fishery and Oceanography.
I believe this information may be interesting and useful to you.
Launch of the Foreign Ministry’s Telegram channel in French
Our digital diplomatic family continues to grow.
Ahead of the 1st Ministerial Conference of the Russia-Africa Partnership Forum, the Foreign Ministry launched a Telegram channel in French.
Our friends in Africa, supporters around the world, and everybody who is sincerely interested in Russia’s stance on key issues on the global agenda, can now receive trustworthy and objective information about Russia’s foreign policy, read the transcripts of remarks and watch videos of the top officials of our country and the Foreign Ministry, without any distortions or interpretations, bypassing biased mainstream French media, the Western censorship and artificial barriers. In addition to the foreign policy agenda, the channel will cover the culture, achievements and beautiful places of our wonderful country.
Do subscribe. You will enjoy it. Bienvenue!
The UNESCO Secretariat and Director-General Audrey Azoulay continue to openly disregard the Kiev regime’s crimes committed against Russian journalists, including premeditated murders, terrorist attacks and assassination attempts. We are outraged by the draft report of the UNESCO Director-General, which will be submitted to the Intergovernmental Council of the International Programme for the Development of Communication (IPDC), which will convene in Paris on November 21-22.
The report is based on “information” provided by politically biased pro-Western NGOs and does not mention the murder of Russian journalists. It does not reflect the real situation with the safety of journalists and the danger of impunity for crimes committed against media professionals. There are serious questions about the Secretariat’s methodology based on biased “criteria,” which allegedly allow the UNESCO Director-General to decide which of the deceased professionals deserves to be mentioned in the “mourning list.” It turns out that if a journalist was killed in a blast west of Paris, he or she deserves to be mentioned by Ms Azoulay on the social media, while those killed east of Paris are not worthy of mention.
A glaring example of this assumption is the statistics cited in the report, according to which not a single Russian journalist was killed in 2022-2023. This is not even the lack of conscience but a case of a low IQ. How dare they submit this report to the international community? I will use this occasion to remind Ms Azoulay that five Russian journalists have been assassinated or killed in deliberate attacks by the Ukrainian army in the period under review, namely Darya Dugina (Platonova), Vladlen Tatarsky (Maxim Fomin), Oleg Klokov, Rostislav Zhuravlev and Boris Maksudov. Moreover, Rostislav Zhuravlev, whose brutal murder Ms Azoulay “deplored” but not condemned, has been listed in the report as a Ukrainian journalist. The UNESCO Secretariat has openly disregarded the reliable data about the murder of Russian journalists which we have officially submitted to it.
The geographical and political bias against journalists from Russia and other countries shows that these distortions and fact-twisting were clearly deliberate. I will speak now in defence of not only Russian journalists but also media professionals from other countries whom Ms Azoulay regarded as unworthy of her attention. For example, she underreported the number of Arab journalists killed in the indiscriminate Israeli attacks on Palestine in 2023, mentioning 24, whereas a total of 97 have been reported killed as of late 2023.
The report is based on unreliable facts (read: fake information), which makes it a source and an instrument of disinformation. The person who is fully responsible for this is Director-General Audrey Azoulay, to whom we have sent numerous appeals and notices of the Kiev regime’s crimes against journalists over the past few years. We can therefore conclude that it was not a coincidence or mistake that she has not included that information in the report.
Such actions, or rather such inaction, is having a direct negative effect on the situation at UNESCO, promoting its politicisation, the polarisation of views, and departure from its mandate. This is more than just a gross violation of the principles of non-partisanship and equidistance as formulated in Clause 5 of Article VI of the UNESCO Constitution. This amounts to the sabotage of the clear instructions the member states issued in the resolution of the 29th session of the General Conference titled Condemnation of Violence against Journalists, and the decision on the safety of journalists adopted at the 216th session of the Executive Board. In fact, the leaders of the Organisation are eroding the very foundations of its operation. Ms Azoulay is ready to sacrifice the decades of interstate teamwork and cooperation to the opportunistic interests of the bloody Kiev regime supported by its Western patrons.
I remember that in the past the journalists who died as the result of domestic accidents or criminal attacks were included in such reports, press releases and statements. It was not said that a journalist was killed in a brawl, because this would not be death in the line of duty. But we were told that even if a journalist quarrelled with somebody upon leaving a cafe, he or she had the right to protection anyway.
Over the past year alone, dozens of people have died holding a camera, a microphone or a voice recorder. In that moment, they were not just professionals doing their job. They went to the frontline even though they knew they could be risking their lives. It means that everything necessary Ms Azoulay, UNESCO and its Secretariat had at their disposal to formulate their reaction has been thrown into the dustbin. Our conclusion is that they acted on the ground of national origin. The connection is clear to us. This is not just contrary to the mandate but also raises questions about the ethical aspects of her professional misconduct.
We categorically reject the extremely biased approach of the Director-General to her professional duties. We are not going to tolerate this. To begin with, we will make a harsh statement about this sphere of the Secretariat’s operations at the upcoming meeting of the IPDC and at other relevant UNESCO events.
Question: Last week, the head of Poland’s National Security Bureau, Jacek Siewiera, told Polsat television channel that any initiatives for ending the conflict in Ukraine should proceed from current realities. He said that any talks that could lead to peace should reflect the current reality. This is how he responded to proposals by US President-elect Donald Trump’s team for resolving the Ukraine crisis. How could you comment on this statement?
Maria Zakharova: The head of Poland’s National Security Bureau whom you have just quoted has, in turn, quoted us. This is exactly what the Russian Federation is talking about, and our country has repeatedly done this for a long time. It is impossible to resolve the Ukraine crisis without eliminating its root causes and without taking into account the interests of Russia, primarily in the sphere of security, and the situation on the ground. President of Russia Vladimir Putin and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov regularly say this. We are talking about the recognition of territorial realities based on the right of nations to self-determination.
It is impossible to talk about attaining a stable and lasting peace without formalising the neutral and non-aligned status of Ukraine, without eradicating Nazism in this country (by the way, Poland also suffered from Nazism in its time), chauvinism, without abolishing all discriminatory laws that run counter to all norms, crafted in the European space.
President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin highlighted exactly this in his remarks at the Russian Foreign Ministry on June 14, 2024 and clearly outlined specific terms for completely ending the conflict.
One can tentatively say that it is beginning to dawn on them, while analysing this process. It is hard to say, but, maybe, this official Polish representative realised this before.
Everything has coincided here, including realities on the ground and budgetary holes in EU countries, against the backdrop of processes taking place there. They always record Russian arguments but pretend not to understand what we are talking about. It looks like they are gradually coming to comprehend this entire combination.
Question: How would you comment on the outcome of the European Political Community summit and the informal meeting of the European Council held in Budapest on November 7-8 this year?
Maria Zakharova: As you have astutely noted, I have previously touched upon this subject. To summarise, this event once again underscored the anti-Russian, confrontational character inherent in the format itself.
Once more, we are inundated with rhetoric and discussions about peace and European security. Yet, these are juxtaposed with the calls from the very nations partaking in the forum to prevent a ceasefire in Donbass, continue armament supplies to Ukraine, and resolve the conflict militarily. How do these stances align? I reiterate, they fit together seamlessly because the initial part, involving the lofty talk of peace from Western officials, is mere deception. It will only become genuine once they abandon their aggressive rhetoric and unlawful actions, notably the supply of arms to the Kiev regime.
Furthermore, we noted the presence of colonial and neo-colonial attitudes (which “crept” into the speeches). They endeavour to impose these approaches and anti-Russian policies on sovereign states, labouring under the delusion that they retain the right to do so. They attempt to utilise the European Political Community as an instrument to simulate the rapprochement of candidates to EU membership and integrate them into Brussels’ aggressive policies.
We observe the opposite – multilateral frameworks devoid of Russian participation being subjugated and dismantled. What can be accomplished without considering our viewpoint on European security matters? I find it inconceivable. Only those without a map could deliberate on these topics from such a standpoint.
It appears these states have not yet relinquished the notion of equal and indivisible security. Or have they already embraced a direct colonial mentality and its application? If they still operate with concepts like indivisible security, they must cease undermining stability and security, establishing dividing lines, and waging hybrid wars. As they persist, we draw our own conclusions.
Regarding the informal meeting of the European Council, its principal outcome is the absence of any substantive results. Like a ritual, they recite the memorised script about the intention to inflict a “strategic defeat” on Russia. Everything else is decided by inertia and the residual principle. The political resolve is sufficient only to acknowledge the systemic deterioration of the EU’s economic situation, the gradual erosion of its competitive advantage, and the exodus of businesses. These issues are so evident that it is nearly impossible to ignore or “sweep them under the carpet.”
The report by former Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi, discussed in Budapest, clearly illuminated the weaknesses and vulnerabilities of the EU’s economic framework, including the detrimental consequences of the politically motivated severance of constructive cooperation with our country. We have already provided detailed commentary on this matter.
Evidently, the EU struggles to find means to extricate itself from the deadlock. This stems from an inability to acknowledge the truth and the erroneous course. The starting point for rectifying the EU’s economic predicament must inevitably be recognising that the anti-Russian policy imposed on Brussels by Washington is fundamentally at odds with the European Union’s own interests. It is intrinsically anti-EU due to geopolitical considerations, historical factors, and resource distribution. It is high time for EU members to realise that the magnitude of their economic challenges is directly proportional to their sycophancy and subservience in dealings with the United States. Yet, they cannot and do not wish to acknowledge this, as it would necessitate admitting a loss of sovereignty. This is a painful realisation.
The situation with Nord Streams exemplifies this. They are unable to acknowledge that it was an inside job within NATO. Let alone catching and identifying those in Washington who declared their intention to sabotage the Nord Stream pipelines, namely, US President Joe Biden and Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland. They cannot articulate that it was executed within the NATO community. Investigations are closed, journalists are denied access to the truth and facts, and no conferences or briefings are held on this issue. This is a tangible example.
The EU continues to “please” its transatlantic partners. Once again, during the European Council meeting, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen pledged – this time to the new White House administration – to further increase imports of American LNG, which costs Europeans significantly more than Russian gas and diminishes the EU economy’s competitiveness. This commitment to purchase at higher prices, contrary to the interests of EU nations, is the theatre of the absurd. We are witnessing it on all fronts.
Unsurprisingly, considerable attention at the European Council meeting was devoted to Mr Trump’s victory in the US presidential election and its implications for transatlantic relations. The extent of EU members’ introspection over this matter reaffirms their complete dependence on Washington. They struggle to accept this sovereign decision by another country outside the European Union. For them, it is akin to a change of “chair” or the sovereign on the “chair” that governs their lives. It is a fateful event, highlighting their dependency and lack of initiative, which prevents them from acting with dignity.
Question: This week, the media reported that the Finnish border with Russia could be opened in 2025. Could you confirm or deny this information? Is Russia ready to take this step, given Helsinki’s openly Russophobic policy, participation in NATO exercises, and financial assistance to Ukraine?
Maria Zakharova: What is the point of discussing what may or may not happen? This is some kind of subjunctive mood, which media should avoid. The responsibility for this lies entirely with the Finnish authorities. If this is a media source from Finland, they could have phoned or written a request and received an answer as to whether the border would be opened on the Finnish side or not.
Helsinki used a made-up pretext of “instrumentalised migration” from Russia to adopt a decision to completely close the checkpoints on the Russian-Finnish border (in violation of their obligations to protect human rights), and have stuck to this position to this day.
You should avoid empty speculations and get a specific answer from the Finnish officials. This question should be addressed to Helsinki: do they intend to do this or not?
We have said many times that this decision was clearly politically biased and Helsinki made it without consulting the Russian side, which has always been open to dialogue with Finnish representatives on all issues of ensuring the functioning of the common border.
Let me note that your question also contains a key to the answer: in order to open the border and make the lives of people in our countries more comfortable, the Finnish authorities must stop their Russophobic frenzy and make a sober assessment: does closing the border meet the interests of Finnish citizens? Does this approach help develop the country’s economy and maintain humanitarian and human contacts? This question does not need to be asked. The answer is obvious: no.
However, it would be nice to get an answer from Helsinki, so as not to write such materials in the subjunctive mood.
Question: It’s been four years since the leaders of Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia signed the statement on a complete ceasefire stopping all military actions in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict zone on November 9, 2020. How do you assess the significance of this document?
Maria Zakharova: It is difficult to overestimate the significance of this trilateral statement. Russia, including its President Vladimir Putin personally, had made significant efforts to reach agreements that stopped the bloody war.
Just two months later, in January 2021, a summit with Ilham Aliyev and Nikol Pashinyan was held in Moscow at Vladimir Putin’s initiative, where the peace process was launched. A Trilateral Working Group was created, co-chaired by the deputy prime ministers of Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia, to unblock all economic and transport links in the South Caucasus.
Next, based on the Statement of November 9, 2020, the entire complex of trilateral agreements was developed and the main areas of Armenian-Azerbaijani normalisation were outlined, such as the drafting of a peace treaty, the lifting of the mutual transport blockade, delimitation and demarcation of the border, and development of contacts through civil society.
When active work was underway based on trilateral efforts, considerable progress was achieved on a wide range of issues. For example, in June 2023, the Trilateral Working Group was close to the practical restoration of transportation routes in the region. However, Yerevan, under pressure from the West, suspended its participation in the group, and then in all trilateral formats.
Let’s be honest. The United States and the EU, who tried the role of mediators, could not come up with anything but just copied our ideas, distorting their essence, in order to usurp the peace process. Meanwhile, their true goal is to control the region, interfere, force Russia out of it (as well as Iran and Turkiye), and create another hotbed of tension. They do not care a bit about the fate of the South Caucasus and its people. They have their own ambitions.
Unlike the West, we are interested in a safe, stable and prosperous South Caucasus. We are present there. Our interests are natural, historical, economic, humanitarian, and financial. We are ready to take part in the development of this region: it is in our interests, and this is a guarantee of stability and security in this part of our planet.
Russia is ready to continue providing its Azerbaijani and Armenian partners with comprehensive support in order to achieve long-lasting peace and prosperity based on the highest-level trilateral agreements.
Question: The 31st informal APEC Economic Leaders Meeting is to take place soon. The conference participants are to focus on expanded rights and opportunities, inclusivity and growth, as well as trade and investment, energy, digital transformation, etc. In this context, what do you think about the main challenges facing the Asia Pacific region during efforts to facilitate an economic stability and long-term growth? What key measures should Russia and China prioritise, while facing these challenges?
Maria Zakharova: Quite recently, we listed the pandemic, international terrorism, industrial accidents, emergencies, measures to overcome poverty or the inequality of states among these challenges. Now the situation has changed. Earlier, we faced natural challenges in the context of historical development due to wars, colonisation, a discriminatory attitude by the “blooming garden” towards the rest of the world. They have been replaced with completely “man-made” challenges linked with trade wars, the policy of sanctions as a form of conducting trade wars, and the destruction of the nascent security system – in effect, the entire lawlessness being perpetrated by the West that does not shy away from anything, and that does not find it necessary to somehow “restrain” itself by international law.
We find it highly important to promote a well-balanced, mutually beneficial, equitable and all-inclusive dialogue in the Asia-Pacific region. The irresponsible policy of Western powers, their attempts to stage neo-colonial revenge and a desire to retain their old-time dominance serve as a serious obstacle at this stage.
This implies various measures, including protectionism, unilateral sanctions, trade barriers and unfair competition that run counter to their own obligations. These measures have disrupted global supply chains, whipped up inflation and prices and quashed the perceptions of people and companies regarding long-term development. At the same time, we can see stubborn attempts by the “collective West” to implement its geopolitical ambitions by artificially fragmenting regional space in accordance with the divide-and-rule principle. They impose NATO ideology, trample upon or substitute economic benefits for the sake of politically motivated approaches.
We see concerted efforts of the Global Majority’s countries to increase their contribution to facilitating sustained economic growth in the Asia Pacific region as the only effective method for coping with these challenges.
We believe that the APEC forum plays a central role in establishing practical regional cooperation. We see it as an essential tool for fine-tuning common approaches towards issues of trade liberalisation, support for small and medium-sized businesses, boosting labour productivity, ensuring digitalisation, transportation, food and energy security.
I would like to note separately the effectiveness of the Russian-Chinese “tandem,” mentioned by you, at the APEC platform. We are able to facilitate the forum’s efforts to overcome challenges in the global economy and to prevent the erosion of its socio-economic mandate. We can see good prospects for expanding our constructive collaboration in the interests of forging an open, dynamic, viable and peaceful Asia Pacific community in accordance with the APEC Putrajaya Vision 2040.
Current APEC development prospects largely depend on whether this region moves along the road of cooperation and connectivity, pursuance of its own national interests that blend well with international law or deviates from its trajectory of correct, respectful and equitable cooperation and collaboration aiming to implement national interests not to the detriment of all others and steers towards Western “narratives,” turning into an “Indo-Pacific project” aiming to create and maintain a US-centred system of bloc mechanisms and partnerships. In effect, this amounts to neo-colonialism.
Their founders are staking on the fragmentation of the region’s political and economic infrastructure, the destruction of existing trade, investment, production and supply chains and reformatting economic ties that took decades to evolve. How are they trying to achieve this? They are using various methods, and I have listed them today. These include unfair competition, a deviation from law, legality and agreements, and all kinds of options for conducting trade wars.
These Western actions hurl back regional states from their stated goal of attaining sustained and positive growth trends, they distract them from the correct road and prevent them from implementing directives that were agreed upon as common regional goals and objectives. How can this be explained? Unfair competition is the answer. Western counties are experiencing an economic slump, lagging behind in the field of technologies or have already fallen behind, and they will find it hard to catch up with Asian countries. This is why they are using an entire range of measures to try and hamper development in this part of the world in order to expand their own capabilities missed out through their own fault and to even out their own development somehow.
Most importantly, we should expect trouble wherever NATO shows up in any form.
Question: China’s Guangdong Province is hosting the 15th Airshow China with over 1,000 companies from 47 countries and regions participating. Russia’s Su-57 fighter jet has made its debut there, performing the first demo flight of a Russian stealth fighter abroad. Could you comment on the Su-57 being showcased at this aerospace show? What do you believe are the benefits of participating in it?
Maria Zakharova: This is up to experts to comment. I have seen a few expert assessments. They believe that the Su-57 flights there have demonstrated its unrivalled qualities.
We always welcome international cooperation that takes place on an equal footing and allows us to share each other’s achievements.
Airshow China, a major international aerospace trade show held in Zhuhai since 1996, has achieved high prestige in the industry. It is a successful platform giving everyone an opportunity to demonstrate their achievements.
Importantly, the show features not only the achievements of the Chinese aerospace industry, but also the latest advanced developments of the world’s leading manufacturers, among which our companies occupy leading positions.
It is a tradition for Russia to participate in China Airshow. This helps strengthen industry-based cooperation and promote Russian products in the PRC and third country markets.
The international debut of the Su-57 in China was a striking one and spoke volumes of Russia being serious about its plans for the industry.
Question: Our sources say that Russian, US and Iranian diplomats are working on security proposals that would facilitate a ceasefire in Lebanon. Specifically, they say Russia will allegedly give guarantees to Israel that Iran will discontinue arms supplies to Hezbollah, and that Syria will not use its territory or armed forces to facilitate these supplies. Are such talks really underway? Is Russia involved in them? If so, can you give us any details?
Maria Zakharova: I can only say that we are paying special attention to the escalating confrontation in the Arab-Israeli conflict zone. This issue is a focus of Russia’s efforts on international platforms, primarily the UN Security Council.
We are making energetic efforts to help stabilise the region. I am referring to our international legal approaches and our initiatives to provide assistance for the release of hostages. We are using every mechanism available to us to this end. All our efforts are aimed at ending the bloodshed as soon as possible.
I do not know what sources you are talking about. You have not named them. It is difficult for me to comment on them. I have told you everything I can say on the matter. If there is any further information, I will definitely get back to you.
Question: The Western media have been claiming recently that the strategic partnership agreement between Russia and Iran will not be signed. We do not believe the Western media and would like to know from a reliable source whether it will be signed and when we can expect it.
Maria Zakharova: This kind of stories are self-exposing for the Western media. We should probably consider making copies of these articles – newspaper clippings, or screenshots in case of online sources – or saving the videos.
Certain sources in the West are propagating such speculations with the purpose of sowing doubts in the public mind and creating an illusion of discord, including in our bilateral relations. The effective cooperation between Moscow and Tehran for the benefit of both nations is running its normal course and making active progress. We will continue this work. I suggest that those who spread rumours to the contrary doubt us not.
As is known, the new interstate treaty on comprehensive strategic partnership between Russia and Iran is ready. It will be signed. As Russian President Vladimir Putin said at a meeting with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, who attended the BRICS summit in Kazan, the document will be signed in a ceremony during a bilateral visit. The timeframe for this visit is being discussed.
Question: President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev, speaking on November 8, 2024, said that all the co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group had been supporting Armenia for 30 years. He further stated that although the great powers within the OSCE Minsk Group (including Russia) claimed there was no military solution to the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict, he was purposefully preparing for such a resolution and succeeded in achieving it. He also noted that the 44-day war in 2020 and the subsequent assault on Artsakh, which led to the displacement of the Armenian population, constituted not only a defeat for Armenia but also a “bitter and humiliating defeat” for those backing it. Let me remind you that, according to Mr Aliyev, Russia is among these countries as co-chair of the Minsk Group. How would you respond to these statements and the attitude towards Russia and its years-long mediation efforts? In fact, Mr Aliyev explicitly acknowledges that he never intended to agree to a compromise peace treaty. Even after the 44-day war and the trilateral statement, he was preparing for an attack on Artsakh, which he executed last September.
Maria Zakharova: On numerous occasions, both countries – official Baku and official Yerevan at all levels – have expressed high regard for Russia’s mediating role throughout various stages of the conflict resolution process.
Regarding the OSCE Minsk Group, we ourselves were dissatisfied with its work. Our criticism was more pronounced, particularly when the West began obstructing its operations. We openly articulated this position. The positive aspects within the Minsk Group largely stemmed from Russia’s initiatives, including those reflected in the trilateral agreements between Russia, Azerbaijan, and Armenia. In fact, both capitals praised them too.
This was when the Western “twists and turns” started. Let me remind you that it was the representatives of Western countries who effectively “buried” this group in February 2022. It became apparent that they were resolutely focused (I am unsure about the specific posture they took or rationale) not on resolution, but on an entirely different agenda – to politicise and pursue their own interests. This has nothing to do with Russia.
We addressed the Minsk Group with due rigor. We contributed to the group’s work and to the overall resolution of the situation. This contribution was repeatedly acknowledged at the highest levels in both countries.
Question: Ilham Aliyev was referring to the Minsk Group prior to 2022.
Maria Zakharova: It is possible to dissect my words and argue that we initially criticised the Minsk Group while previously acknowledging its efforts. Whenever there was something positive about it, we highlighted it; when negativity began to dominate, we pointed out that the group was no longer operational, its activities were artificially obstructed, and eventually blocked by Western powers. There are various historical moments, situations, and contexts. It is evident that Russia’s mediating role (as recorded in public statements from Baku and Yerevan at various historical junctures) was highly valued by them.
Question: On November 6, 2024, a Baku court found political observer Nazakat Mammadova guilty of high treason and collaboration with Russian intelligence services, sentencing her to 13 years in prison. According to the prosecution, she allegedly engaged in intelligence activities under the guise of a political researcher and journalist, published “pro-Russian materials,” frequently travelled to Moscow, participated in clandestine meetings, received money for these activities, and facilitated connections between various individuals and Russian intelligence service personnel. How would you comment on this verdict and the charges levelled against Ms Mammadova, particularly regarding her alleged publication of “explicitly pro-Russian materials?”
Maria Zakharova: On one hand, I would like to emphasise that she is a citizen of Azerbaijan. On the other hand, I would like to state that our competent agencies are looking into the circumstances of this case.
Question: The Western media has reported that the UK government wants to persuade Joe Biden before his term expires to authorise using Western long-range missiles for carrying out strikes deep inside Russia. Jake Sullivan said that Joe Biden would ask Donald Trump to keep assisting Ukraine. Meanwhile, a spokesperson for the Donald Trump campaign said that the president-elect wants to organise Russia-Ukraine talks on day one of his presidency. What is Moscow’s reaction to what seem to be contradictory expectations regarding Donald Trump’s presidency?
Maria Zakharova: Your question essentially comes down to the way we assess the contradictory nature of what the future holds for us. But there is no need to make any assessments. We must analyse steps – I mean specific actions, deeds or, if we are talking about intentions, they must at least come from officials – this is the only way we can discuss this matter. We do not know what to expect, but some are already denying even these premature projections. I think that this is how the US political landscape works. We will leave it up to their commentators. This is their country, and their debates.
Russia is a self-reliant, independent country that respects international law, and is ready and open to building mutually beneficial and respectful relations with the entire world as long as we proceed from international law. We have demonstrated this commitment and acted accordingly throughout our history. We have the capability to respond and strike back when defending our national interests under the international law, and we have faced instances in our past where we trusted words and promises. But we have learned this lesson. Today, only specific steps and deeds matter to us – nothing else. Only they can guide us and enable us to make any conclusions.
Question: What do you think about Donald Trump’s statements on launching an effort to organise talks on day one of his presidency?
Maria Zakharova: I have just devoted an entire oration to this topic. At the plenary session of the Valdai International Discussion Club’s 21st Annual Meeting President Vladimir Putin said that these words could be viewed as a stated intention. He said that these words deserve our attention. But we need to see something tangible in order to be able to comment on this topic.
Question: What would be your comment regarding media reports saying that the term for administering the oath of a citizen of the Russian Federation for people who became citizens of Russia expires in November as per Presidential Executive Order dated November 22, 2023?
Maria Zakharova: November 21, 2024, marks one year since the Executive Order of the President of the Russian Federation No 889 of November 22, 2023, Matters of Citizenship of the Russian Federation, came into force. In accordance with Federal Law No 62-FZ of May 31, 2002, Citizenship of the Russian Federation, people who receive Russian citizenship must have their oath of a citizen of the Russian Federation administered during this year.
The Russian law requires this oath since September 1, 2017, and it applies to all applicants above 18 years old.
In this context, let me explain that since that time the decision to grant Russian citizenship no longer made a person a citizen of the Russian Federation. People become citizens once they take an oath, not on the date their application is approved.
Let me stress that people who were granted citizenship before September 1, 2017, do not have to take the oath. For them, the date they become citizens is the date when the authorised body approves their application, be it the President of the Russian Federation, bodies within the Interior Ministry or Russia’s diplomatic or consular missions.
In this context, we call on our compatriots who had their citizenship applications approved abroad between September 1, 2017, and November 22, 2023, and who have yet to take the oath, to contact the Russian foreign mission which handled their citizenship application immediately.
Let me emphasise that if these people fail to take the oath on time, i.e., by November 21, 2024, they will not be viewed as having obtained the citizenship of the Russian Federation, while the decision to approve their citizenship application would become null and void.
Let me also note that this procedure applies to children, as long as their citizenship application was approved after they turned 18.
Question: What could you say about UN projects on the industrial development in Ukraine? What does Russia think about them?
Maria Zakharova: The total worth of the projects run by the United Nations Industrial Development Organisation (UNIDO) in Ukraine is $36.7 million. The projects are aimed at assisting with the sustainable industrial development, economic growth, strengthening of the agricultural industry, and they are aligned with UNIDO’s mandate.
The projects’ main donors include the Global Environment Fund, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, the EU, Austria and Bulgaria. In Ukraine, there is a network of 39 national experts to coordinate the work with UNIDO.
Russia recognises that there are development needs in Ukraine. In this context, our country does not put obstacles to any activities to satisfy these needs by organisations in the UN development system, as long as respective projects are not politicised and align with the mandates of the UN bodies.
On a different note, the money I mentioned is nothing compared to the hundreds of billions of dollars that the Kiev regime receives to destroy the industrial facilities, the economy, and to kill Ukrainian citizens.
Question: What does Russia say about COP29 in Baku and the significance of Azerbaijan’s climate change initiatives?
Maria Zakharova: We welcome the 29th session of the Conference of the Parties of the UNFCCC in Baku (November 11-12, 2024). We highly praise Azerbaijan’s efforts as the conference chair.
It is important that, for the first time in history, the UN’s largest climate event took place in the CIS and the South Caucasus. These territories have their unique climate specifics; however, they rarely receive attention from the UN compared to other regions. We traditionally support holding significant international events in the CIS. As you noticed, we know how to host this sort of events. Our colleagues in Azerbaijan proved this once again.
As concerns Azerbaijan’s initiatives as the chair on the sidelines of COP29, Russia joined most of them. We consider Baku’s proposals reasonable and timely.
Question: At one of your previous briefings, you mentioned Yelena Chesakova, who performed a heroic act by displaying the Russian flag. After that, national liberation movements became more active in Odessa as well as cities in Russia. Do you know anything about it? What is their mission? How could Russia help Ukraine to free itself from the occupation by the United States?
Maria Zakharova: Ukraine is not the only country that is under Western occupation or colonial oppression. There are others, which claim to be established democracies – such as Germany. As many as 30,000 US troops are stationed in that country now. There are countries in Europe where American nuclear weapons are deployed, with those nations having no access to or understanding of those US bases on their territory. Consider how many American bases there are around the world. Nobody ever asked the population of the respective countries whether they wanted those bases there or not. US occupation has become is a typical fixture in various regions.
We have commented on Yelena Chesakova’s situation, as have other representatives of Russian government, civil society and the media. She is currently under house arrest in accordance with the relevant Ukrainian laws. She faces a prison term of up to three years under charges of “justifying Russia’s armed aggression against Ukraine.” This is the formula she is charged with anyway. It is difficult to give her any support in the current circumstances, other than what we are already doing – informational and political support on international platforms. You are well aware that there is no Russian diplomatic or consular presence in Ukraine.
We have seen media reports quoting her mother who said her daughter’s lawyer had advised her to apologise publicly and declare that she changed her political stance. However, even facing incarceration, the woman refused to renounce her beliefs. I do not know how this will end. I know what the Kiev regime and its Western handlers are capable of doing to people. We have seen them doing that to Russian citizens – we have read it in their memoirs. Viktor Bout, Maria Butina and many others have shared how Western-style democracy works.
There can be no other assessment of her actions. The stance she took deserves more than just respect. I think it is a genuine and remarkable display of civic courage, not only for the sake of one country and one nation – although it certainly is. It is being done for the sake of the people who have lived in Ukraine for generations, but it is also her way of defending historical and modern truth on a global scale.
I earlier said that, by conducting the special military operation and defending these principles, Russia is acting not only in the interests of its own security. We are defending all things that have crystallised throughout the history of our civilisation as its values and moral benchmarks.
We are well aware of the millions of Ukrainians who share Chesakova’s views. You are absolutely right. She found this strength in her. Some have followed her; others are still undecided or trying to find this kind of strength in them to rely on. She reminded the world that Odessa is a Hero City. Odessans performed acts of true heroism for their city to earn that title, valiantly fighting the Nazis while realising that they might not come back from that battle. It wasn’t about comfort zones or broken lives; it was about life and death. That city is one of the gems of UNESCO world heritage, not only of our history. It is a city where many different things overlap. Its multiculturalism is an asset of the Russian world, and has always been, historically. It is famous for its glorious defenders who fought for the sake of truth and integrity. We realise that Yelena Chesakova has found that strength in herself, and people followed her.
I think we are seeing a growing realisation that truth, freedom and true values are something one has to fight for. Many people around the world are coming to realise this now. Ten years ago, when we warned how dangerous all this gender nonsense was, we faced smirks, sneers and attempts to change the subject. Now many people are waking up. Everyone realises that this evil can penetrate their homes under the plausible guise of tolerance, non-aggression and progress. We regularly spoke about manifestations of neo-Nazism in the world, in Europe and in the United States, and published reports on the issue. Many people refused to believe us or tried to dismiss the information. Now this problem has sprouted in various parts of the world in the form of extremism. We warned that the unchecked urge to interfere in other countries’ internal agenda, change regimes and cancel legitimate governments was fraught with the growing terrorist threat, with the Arab Spring and the situation in Ukraine as eloquent examples. We were not believed at first. Now everyone has realised that they have to protect their states and people before it’s too late. I think that her act became a motivator for many people.
Question: What is the future trajectory of the Kazan Declaration? What initiatives are currently being pursued in this regard? How might the United Nations respond, and what global impact is anticipated? Are there avenues for organisations or individuals who align with the goals of BRICS to contribute to the implementation of these objectives? To whom should they direct their enquiries, and from where should they commence?
Maria Zakharova: The Declaration has already been disseminated as an official document within the United Nations. Secretary-General António Guterres participated in the BRICS Plus/Outreach session in Kazan, acknowledging the group’s significant contribution to strengthening multilateralism, crucial for global development and security.
The Kazan Declaration, adopted at the conclusion of the 16th BRICS summit, is, without a hint of hyperbole, a momentous document. It articulates, for the first time, the unified stance of BRICS nations following its expansion earlier this year. With the endorsement of our partners, we have succeeded in consolidating the principal outcomes of collaborative efforts under the Russian chairmanship across all major sectors – political and security affairs, economy and finance, as well as cultural and humanitarian cooperation. Objectives for the immediate future have been delineated, and pertinent agencies responsible for sectoral collaboration have already commenced formulating specific steps for their implementation. Our Brazilian colleagues, poised to assume the BRICS chairmanship in 2025, will be tasked with advancing this shared achievement.
BRICS is a distinctive platform that is always open to all who espouse its ideals and principles. The unique character of this format, deliberately devoid of the typical trappings of international organisations such as a charter or a secretariat, affords opportunities for extensive participation through official bodies, business, and civil society.
This inclusivity is encapsulated within the Kazan Declaration.
Question: Should citizens or organisations wish to engage with these objectives, how might they become involved in the process?
Maria Zakharova: Is this a general enquiry? There is a corresponding website. What specifically piques your interest? Identify an area, peruse the relevant sections and headings. Should you harbour a specific query to which you have found no answer, direct it to us. We shall assuredly respond and elucidate the mechanism through which your desire to participate can be actualised.
This initiative is still in its formative stage. It is not a structure that has been operational for decades, with a finely honed interaction mechanism, expanding every five years by one or two members. By historical standards, it is relatively nascent. Suddenly, it has nearly doubled in size. This expansion was illustrative of the capacity to function even under such circumstances, notwithstanding the machinations the West has contrived and continues to contrive against this group and its countries.
What does this indicate? We must still refine some formats, including through the active engagement of civil society. At a recent briefing, we discussed BRICS television. This was not a “top-down” proposal; it emerged as an initiative from civil society. It received the approval of the group’s countries and has been evolving over several years.
So, do send your query. I am confident we will be of assistance.
Additional materials
-
Photos
