Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, November 27, 2024
- Sergey Lavrov’s participation in the upcoming Diplomatic Academy’s Roundtable Discussion “Ukraine crisis: Global information space”
- Presentation of the Rostov Region
- Response to withdrawal of Russian journalists’ accreditation in Germany
- 34th session of the Intergovernmental Council of the International Programme for the Development of Communication
- Ukraine crisis update
- POW exchanges with Ukraine
- Hostile public statements by the leadership of Denmark, Iceland, Sweden, Norway and Finland with regard to Russia
- Finland’s exit from Barents Euro-Arctic Council
- The results of the G7 Foreign Ministers’ Meeting
- Exhibition of the Moscow Kremlin Museums and the Festival of Russian Culture during the Russia- China Years of Culture in Beijing
- The 2024 International Business Week and the 6th Yalta International Economic Forum
- The Long Echo of 1999 monograph
- US-Japan joint missile plans
- The first round of the presidential election in Romania
- Statement by the Head of the NATO Military Committee
- Meeting of the Ukraine-NATO Council
- Potential changes in US foreign policy
- Security situation in the Red Sea region
- Russia's reaction to the deployment of US INF missiles in third countries
- Russia's latest unfounded accusations
- Increasing the number of direct flights from Iran to Russia
- Activities of the Goethe Institute in Russia and the Russian House in Berlin
- Nuclear rhetoric of the Kiev regime
- Armenia's participation in the CSTO
- Greece's plans to provide Russian-made weapons to a third country
- Protocol demarches by Western countries on international platforms
- Exclusion of the Taliban movement from the list of terrorist organisations
- Notifying Russian citizens in unfriendly countries
- Opening of the Consulate General of Russia in Armenia
- Results of the 29th session of the Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change
- Activities of the ICC and Russia's stance
- The developments in the Middle East
- The Anglo-Saxons
- German customs’ anti-Russia hysteria
On November 29, the Foreign Ministry’s Diplomatic Academy will host the seventh ambassadorial roundtable discussion titled “Ukraine crisis: Global information space.” Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will address heads of diplomatic missions from about 75 countries that are accredited in Moscow. He will discuss changes in the global information environment amid the Ukraine crisis and share Russia’s perspectives on the developments unfolding in Ukraine.
Previous discussions held in this format were used to discuss in detail various aspects of the ongoing conflict from mediation and humanitarian initiatives to the terrorist methods employed by the Kiev regime.
We look forward to the upcoming meeting in the established format once again providing a venue for foreign diplomats working in Russia to exchange candid opinions about the true causes of the hybrid war unleashed against our country.
We encourage the media and everyone who has interest in the Ukraine crisis agenda and the announced topic to follow Foreign Minister Lavrov’s remarks as they are streamed live. Links to the event will be posted on the Foreign Ministry’s social media. Simultaneous translation into foreign languages will be provided.
Presentation of the Rostov Region
On December 4, a presentation of the economic, investment and tourist potential of the Rostov Region will take place at the Cultural Centre of the Foreign Ministry’s Main Administration for Service to the Diplomatic Corps. The socioeconomic achievements will be on display revealing the natural beauty and unique culture of this region. The exhibits will help the visitors get thoroughly acquainted with the promising areas of international and foreign economic relations offered by this region.
Representatives of federal and regional authorities, the diplomatic corps, business circles and mass media are encouraged to attend.
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Acting Governor of the Rostov Region Yury Slyusar will address the audiences.
Response to withdrawal of Russian journalists’ accreditation in Germany
I would like to begin with the news that has literally come like a thunderclap (this is not to say that it came amid clear skies). Have you seen the information about yet another unfriendly action by official Berlin with regard to the Russian media? They have already done everything they were capable of, such as blocking the Russia Today television channel in German, throwing wrenches in the works of Russian journalists, harassing and obstructing them and what not. This is yet another move of that kind.
The Channel One correspondents Ivan Blagoy and cameraman Dmitry Volkov saw their professional activities in Germany blocked by the authorities. In response to the German authorities’ ban on Channel One correspondents’ stay and work in Germany, we are forced to take measures that mirror the above measure with regard to the journalists of the German media group ARD/WDR Moscow bureau Frank Aischmann and Sven Feller.
The heads of the bureau of this German media outlet have been summoned to the Foreign Ministry to be informed of this decision. As a response to the unfriendly move of official Berlin, the German correspondents have been requested to surrender their accreditation certificates and leave the Russian Federation within the prescribed time limits.
As a reminder, we took concrete practical steps to prevent this from happening. We made every possible option available to official Berlin. On May 30, amid the unfriendly steps by the German authorities towards representatives of the Russian media, the Minister Counsellor of the Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany was summoned to the Foreign Ministry. During the ensuing meeting, it was emphasised that Berlin’s groundless hostile steps would not go unanswered.
We were focused on constructive work to provide journalists the opportunity to do their job, to fulfil their functional duties, to “be in the profession” and to cover the international developments and what remains of bilateral relations. However, official Berlin chose to escalate. They decided to take a different path. Apparently, they knew it would lead them to just another dead end.
In accordance with the principles of freedom of the media and on the basis of reciprocity, we are prepared to consider the possibility of accrediting new ARD/WDR staff in Russia once the German government has created proper conditions for the Russian journalists’ work and the full-scale resumption of the Channel One bureau’s activities in Berlin.
All the issues of protecting journalists’ rights and freedom of speech and preventing “hot heads” (primarily in the West) from taking aggressive actions should be the task of international and intergovernmental organisations, as well as public organisations that are operating on the international scale. Regrettably, the work of specialised intergovernmental structures is being blocked even in the sphere of freedom of speech and journalists’ rights. Why? It is an extremely politicised issue. It is important to understand this, because the collective West cannot allow journalists in the Global Majority countries to make public the truth and the facts available to them. The mainstream or tame (even though large) Western media, which are an integral part of the political establishment and are acting in strict compliance with its rules, have no access to these facts.
During the previous briefing, we spoke about the situation in UNESCO. We started speaking about problems at the OSCE a year ago. There is no longer any use to speak about it now, because that institute has not only discredited itself but has been paralysed. I am referring to the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media.
However, there is a large organisation with a long history, UNESCO, which marks its anniversary this year. It has a large department dedicated to the freedom of speech, the rights of journalists and security. We said that the 34th session of the Intergovernmental Council of the International Programme for the Development of Communication has started its work. It would listen to a report by UNESCO Director-General Audrey Azoulay on the safety of journalists.
As it is, we are witnessing a loud scandal because it has turned out that Ms Azoulay’s report is a huge fake. It is not simply unreliable; it is a collection of concoctions and pseudo-facts, which are the fake news UNESCO should combat.
We often raise the issue of the concerned international organisations’ (in this instance, UNESCO and its Director-General Azoulay) deliberate disregard for the crimes committed by the Kiev regime against journalists. We warned them that we would speak about the suppression of facts about terrorist attacks and the cruel murders and attempted murders of Russian media professionals (not only Russian citizens but also the nationals of other countries) at absolutely all concerned UNESCO venues. However, the UNESCO Secretariat arrogantly disregarded our requests for years. We regularly supplied materials with the statistics, names and facts through official channels. But they turned a blind eye to information about the atrocities which the Ukrainian Nazis committed against media professionals from Russia and other countries. This brazen disregard for the principles of non-partisanship, and systematic violations of the mandate she received from the member states, have led to a dramatic loss of Ms Azoulay’s reputation during the 34th session of the Intergovernmental Council of the International Programme for the Development of Communication (IPDC) held in Paris on November 21-22.
As we have said, it was planned to adopt the UNESCO Director-General’s Report on the Safety of Journalists and the Danger of Impunity for 2022-2023. However, shortly before the event, the Foreign Ministry of Russia as well as the journalistic and media communities, and their trade unions sent a wave of messages to the UNESCO head expressing their outrage over the absence of the names of Russian journalists and military correspondents killed by the Kiev regime, even though that information was mentioned on numerous occasions in public space. Despite a loud public outcry over the UNESCO Secretariat’s open disregard for its duties and unacceptable attitude to preparing such significant documents, which bordered on swindling, the UNESCO headquarters in Paris decided to submit the initial variant of the report to the IPDC. Did they have no time to revise it or think that it would do as it is? After all, they did the same for years, and nobody said as much as a word. They probably hoped that nobody would raise any arguments during the debates, and the report would be adopted thanks to the majority of Western delegates in the Intergovernmental Council and the UNESCO Secretariat. But it didn’t work.
Members of the Russian delegation firmly rejected the idea of approving a document filled with politically motivated falsehoods, without a thorough revision. They demanded explanations regarding the “methodology” used to draft this document, which had not been endorsed by anyone and relied on contributions from politically biased NGOs rather than data from member states. They condemned the unscrupulous actions of Director-General Audrey Azoulay and her ostentatious failure to fulfil her official duties. The Russian delegation made it clear that they would not agree to the “document” in any form, as it essentially served as a source of misinformation about the global situation concerning journalists’ safety and security. They expressed their readiness to vote against the document, even if it came to that. Yes, in this case, one soldier does make a battle.
At the same time, just as we expected, we did not have to single-handedly challenge this odious “opus.” Many who had long wished to voice their frustrations but had felt unable to do so rallied to our side. It became evident that several countries from the Global South had similar grievances against the Secretariat and the Director-General for neglecting their responsibilities over the years and for manipulating statistics. Our remarks sparked a powerful wave of critical comments directed at the executive body and its “product.” This sparked heated debates surrounding the draft document and a decision by the Intergovernmental Council of the International Programme for the Development of Communication (IPDC) that initiated it. This effectively derailed the event's schedule, which was intended to proceed smoothly without delving into the complexities of global developments. The debates continued until the end of the session, leaving about a dozen items on the agenda unaddressed. Why did this happen? Because the work should have been done honestly and conscientiously. The mandate required delivering a report that provided countries with an opportunity to see accurate, reliable figures, not some fake.
As a result, the parties did not approve the draft version of Audrey Azoulay’s controversial report, resulting in an unprecedented outcome: the failure to adopt a decision on this document. Moving forward, the Secretariat will have to not only work to restore trust but also prepare for a resumed session of the IPDC. Although Audrey Azoulay did not deign to attend the meeting of the Intergovernmental Council, there is no doubt that she will fully feel the repercussions for her reputation. This situation is indeed a disgrace, highlighting the UNESCO Director-General’s failed performance.
Our principled position during the event enabled an open discussion of numerous issues that have accumulated over the years. This underscores the need for accountability among executive agencies and their neutral status amid the overt patronage and oversight from Western countries. These countries have grown accustomed to providing funding and dictating terms, and now they are reluctant to pay for their membership in the Organisation while insisting on the “tune” that suits only them.
The disgraceful incidents of withholding visas for members of the Russian delegation, unjustly prohibiting Russian journalists from entering the meeting rooms, and the West's negotiating tactics surrounding draft documents, aimed at diverting the discussion and altering its focus, are clear attempts to “not wash dirty linen in public.” Remarkably, journalists were barred from attending an open meeting of a UNESCO body that deals with journalism. Have you ever witnessed this elsewhere? Indeed, this is the “style” of UNESCO 2024.
These actions reflect the corrosion of universal international structures under the influence of a “rules-based world order.” The session unmistakably demonstrated that the united and cohesive voice of nations unwilling to accept such an order can indeed bring about positive changes. Every instance of arbitrary action by international officials who align themselves with the collective West will receive an appropriate response.
This is not merely about standing on principle. It is about upholding the memory of those who perished in the line of duty, who were shot in the back, who were blown up, whose names are being obscured, even on international platforms, merely under the guise of discussing journalists’ safety. Yet, paradoxically, their names are forgotten, omitted from statistics, and most crucially, the source of the attack, who fired at them, and who ordered a hit on them, is left unmentioned.
Undoubtedly, the broad spectrum of issues concerning not only the UNESCO communications sector but also the overall safety of journalists, their protection from the arbitrary conduct of “advanced democracies” and from the criminal acts of their creatures in Ukraine, remains unresolved. We are fully aware of this and will persist in our efforts. This remains one of our priorities, including in cooperation with UNESCO.
We shall exert every effort to prevent such reputable international bodies from being exploited to address opportunistic political agendas that serve a narrow coalition of aggressively inclined countries at the expense of others. We will not allow any report to be adopted without comprehensive revision, whether at the reconvened session of the IPDC, should it be scheduled, or in any other format. Alongside our allies, we will steadfastly endeavour to ensure that the Director-General fully executes her mandate and upholds the genuine (and not spurious) ideals and principles of the Organisation.
The Ukrainian armed forces continue their acts of terror that target Russian civilians as well as their own population. Over the past week, Russian air defence and electronic warfare forces shot down or suppressed more than 220 enemy drones over Russian regions. From November 21 to 26, the enemy fired 248 rounds and conducted 112 UAV attacks on populated areas in the Belgorod Region, killing one civilian and wounding eight. On November 21, a 15-year-old girl was wounded as a result of a drone attack in the village of Striguny. On the same day, 12 civilians were wounded in a shelling of Gorlovka in the DPR, including head of the Nikitovsky District Irina Dzhelomanova. On November 25, those heirs of Bandera actually hunted an ambulance using a Baba Yaga hexacopter in the Golopristansky District of the Kherson Region. The ambulance crew miraculously managed to survive by jumping out of the vehicle before it was hit by one of the dropped munitions. The vehicle was destroyed, but the doctors helped the wounded man who received shrapnel injuries. The perpetrators will be punished for all this.
Russian courts continue to sentence Ukrainian neo-Nazis and mercenaries for their war crimes on the basis of the evidence collected by the Investigative Committee.
Two Ukrainian marines, Anton Sayun and Valentin Kharlamov, were sentenced to 24.5 years in prison for shooting a non-combatant in Mariupol with a machine gun and a submachine gun in March 2022, following criminal orders issued by their commander.
The DPR prosecution authority approved indictments against Georgian citizens Georgy Akhalaya and Gela Kakhabrishvili and Latvian citizen Alexander Sverchkov on charges of participation in hostilities as mercenaries in the Ukrainian armed forces. All of them have been put on an international wanted list.
The Russian Investigative Committee has opened criminal investigation against Lithuanian citizen Sharunas Jasiukevichus on charges of fighting for the Kiev regime as a mercenary and terrorism. He has been put on the wanted list as well.
The International Public Tribunal on the Crimes of Ukrainian Neo-Nazis has uncovered and documented horrifying evidence of brutal mass killings of civilians perpetrated by Ukrainian soldiers in Selidovo before retreating from the village as it was liberated. At least 100 people are known to have died at the hands of the enraged militants. The investigation received eyewitness testimonies about entire families being murdered. The neo-Nazis broke into people’s homes and mercilessly shot the residents.
Another criminal case has been opened against Ukrainian militants who damaged and partially destroyed a cultural heritage site, the Church of the Nativity of Christ in Ulanok ensemble, Kursk Region, with artillery fire in November.
Once again, every servant of the Kiev regime involved in these and other atrocities will be identified, and will certainly be held accountable to the full extent of the law.
The Kiev regime is not only fighting civilians; it is waging war on history. On November 23, Ukraine once again celebrated what they call the “day of remembrance of the Holodomor victims,” as part of Kiev’s long-standing policy of deliberately distorting historical events. The torch rituals organised by extremists from the Azov terrorist regiment, which have become common practice for local neo-Nazis, did not go unnoticed. Genuine, fact-based history has long been of no interest to Ukrainian propagandists and pseudo-historians.
In this context, it is pertinent to recall that during 1932−1933, the issues of crop failure and famine impacted not only the territory of the Ukrainian SSR, but also the Volga Region, the North Caucasus, the Kuban, Kazakhstan, the South Urals, and Western Siberia. It was an immense national tragedy. People of diverse nationalities perished. At the same time, a substantial role in precipitating the food crisis within the USSR was played by the same Western entities whom the Kiev regime now venerates as a “golden calf.” Back in the 1930s, amidst years of crop failures and famine in the USSR, Western nations, anticipating that the USSR would relinquish its industrialisation agenda, accepted nothing but grain from Soviet Russia as remuneration for machinery and equipment. Yet, have those who have been propagating this matter for years any conscience? Or is such conscience also traded in Ukraine?
This country continues to witness linguistic genocide. Concurrently with the revision of historical narratives, the Kiev regime persists in its relentless campaign against the Russian language, the mother tongue of millions of Ukrainian citizens. As one of the six official languages of the United Nations, and the native language of a vast number, if not the majority, of Ukrainians, it has already been prohibited in education, science, culture, media, advertising, services, printing, and similar domains. Presently, the neo-Nazis aspire to strip Russian speakers of the opportunity to use their native tongue even in personal interactions.
Remember, it all commenced with “quotas.” What responses were given to us when we addressed this issue, even on international platforms such as UNESCO? They said, “Don't bother, don't pay attention. Let us not interfere with amicable relations and ties. Let us not overshadow such a marvellous, beautiful, complacent activity of international organisations with some minor issues.” Observe the consequences of this policy of international organisations acquiescing to neo-Nazi manifestations in Ukraine.
In October this year, a bill was tabled in the Verkhovna Rada, proposing to prohibit communication in Russian (even during recess) in all schools across the country, including private institutions. Simultaneously, this prohibition does not extend to English and other official languages of the European Union. It is noteworthy that this bill received backing from the Ministry of Education of Ukraine. Hence, this is not the initiative of a marginal deputy or an unhinged individual. This is the regime's policy.
The proponent of this discriminatory bill, deputy Natalya Pipa, narrating “frightening” accounts of the Russian language's predominance to justify the enactment of draconian measures, stated that on playgrounds and in schools, children converse in Russian with one another, and after lessons, both students and teachers also revert to Russian.
What does this indicate? Generally, for any reasonable person, this would signify that this language is the mother tongue, that children converse and think in it, that families communicate in it. It is spoken by educators, adults who have used Russian as their mother tongue throughout their lives. But no. Rada deputy Natalya Pipa, in this context, mandates that parents converse exclusively in Ukrainian with their children at home to foster a “Ukrainian-speaking environment.”
She, incidentally, was a central figure in the Ukrainian language scandal in June 2023 in the heart of Lvov. Ms Pipa engaged in a dispute with a teenager who was singing a song by Viktor Tsoi in Russian. This “monstrosity” (Natalya Pipa) then contacted the police. An administrative offence report was filed against the young man, and he was taken to a shelter for minors, where he remained for several days until his relatives submitted the requisite documents. What is this? This constitutes genocide perpetrated by individuals who are already mentally unstable but now hold official authority in Ukraine.
This story is exceedingly illustrative. It transpires that despite all the endeavours of the Kiev regime, the implementation of bans, fines, the development and deployment of “language” patrols, and the persecution of Russian speakers, the Russian language in Ukraine could not be eradicated. Rest assured (there, on Bankovaya Street) you will not obliterate the Russian language anywhere in the world, including Ukraine. Why? Not because it is a political directive from Moscow, but because it serves as the mother tongue for millions of Ukrainian citizens.
I would like to address separately the complete failure of the Kiev regime's policy in supporting internally displaced persons.
We keep hearing growing complaints coming from Ukraine to the effect that the Kiev regime’s policy to provide support to internally displaced persons is not just failing to work, but has collapsed. Former deputy minister for “occupied territories” and internally displaced persons Georgy Tuka admitted in the media that almost 99 percent of the people who earlier fled the territories that had reunited with Russia had returned home. A deputy of the Servant of the People Party, Maxim Tkachenko, said in an interview with the Ukrinform agency on November 25 that 150,000 residents had returned to the earlier abandoned population centres, of whom 67,000 to 70,000 people returned to Mariupol.
This means a collapse for the Kiev regime. They did not expect to see this happen. They made every arrangement there was to make, lied to everyone, spread disinformation, and teamed up with the British and Americans to promote hype about Bucha and other “heinous crimes.” They were endlessly begging for money and telling tall tales about Russia only to see people move from the territory controlled by the Kiev regime to the Russian Federation. Free people who were provided with a choice of passports, visas, residence permits in Western countries, benefits, and humanitarian aid made their choice in favour of the country and the people they believe they are one with.
Let’s take stock of these statistics which the Kiev regime finds terrible. Every third person has returned home. They left the territories controlled by the Kiev regime and came back to the Russian Federation. They call these figures “terrible,” but they represent true facts. And facts are exactly what the Kiev regime and its handlers find unacceptable.
They are now searching for justifications. All these “commissioners” and “servants of the people” in Ukraine are coming up with a variety of theories to substantiate what happened. Some are saying these people did not receive proper help in the Kiev-controlled territory. The state did not provide them with housing, social support, decent jobs, or compensations, to name a few. Really? People on Bankovaya Street and in Verkhovnaya Rada just found it out? They are just beginning to understand what the problem is all about? For many years now, for decades on end, the Kiev authorities of any hue, under any flags and mottos, simply did not “see” their own Ukrainian people and did everything they could to mobilise nationalists inside the country, who they could rely on to fortify their power using Western money. They didn’t care about the majority of Ukrainians. Or, did anyone have any doubt that those who lived in Donbass would not, from the point of view of the Kiev regime, be paid pensions and social benefits, while those who lived elsewhere in Ukraine would be guaranteed to receive proper care and be looked after? Nothing of the kind. We have been talking about it all along. We pointed out that this nationalist monster, which it took many years to nurture in Ukraine, will devour its creators and those who clapped their hands when it was destroying other people who spoke the allegedly wrong language. This monster has become unstoppable now.
On top of it all, it is corrupt. What compensations, social support, help and housing are you talking about, when all they need is beachside villas? How much property, villas and everything else do Zelensky and his relatives own around the world? Did you run the numbers? You need money to buy that and, most importantly, to keep it in good order. They are doing all this at the expense of ordinary Ukrainians.
We said a week ago that both the Kiev regime and Ukraine as a whole had no use for many Ukrainian refugees, who had fled from the war. Moreover, the “native Ukrainians” from western Ukraine do not regard them as humans and call them, both behind their back and to their face, “traitors” and “Russian spies.” Why so? Because they are Russian speakers, who failed to become dehumanised all the way through and are not ready to tie people to posts, spray them with chemicals, or torture them. This is the main reason, I guess.
But it is clear that their patience is running thin. Besides, many people in Ukraine see Russia making great efforts to rebuild the liberated cities and villages that are native places of many refugees. People are consciously choosing peaceful life. I am not sure that in this case they are choosing just more comfortable conditions of life. No, they are in favour of a different and more global option. They are choosing peace and goodness and true human values, not something material. They are opting for compassion, mutual aid, help, respect for one’s ancestors and national history, and appreciation of family and human relations, versus artificial and imposed values, gender-related deviations, gay parades, and more. In Russia, they are finding what they were deprived of in Ukraine under the Kiev regime and the West’s oppression.
We have mentioned corruption. On November 20, the Verkhovna Rada amended the Criminal Code of Ukraine by striking confiscation of property off the list of punishments for corruption crimes. (This was done surreptitiously under the cover of proceedings surrounding the approval of Zelensky-initiated bill on the withdrawal of state awards for “popularising or making propaganda for the aggressor state.” A trifle, albeit an important one. Somewhat earlier, an identical rule was passed in response to one of the EU conditions for issuing a €4-billion loan.
Now that the funds, judging by all appearances, have been wired or allocated, the 4 billion has been stolen and the amendment can be dropped as no longer needed. God forbid, someone comes and confiscates a thing or two. True enough, they started making excuses right away, claiming that the amendment was abrogated by accident. By accident! Just imagine Rada deputies walking along a corridor and dropping, by accident, into the House, introducing, by accident, a legislative initiative, pushing, by accident, the button on the voting console, glancing, by accident, at the vote counting panel, and leaving – also by accident. No laughs. This is what actually happens under the aegis of the Kiev regime.
But the West is also having its a-ha moment with regard to the Kiev realities. Former Polish Labour Minister Piotr Kulpa leaked to the media his conclusions to the effect that Ukraine had stolen from 30 to 50 percent of funds provided by its sponsors, conclusions based on an analysis of the amounts of financial aid delivered to the junta versus its actual spending. He believes that the sum stolen by the Ukrainian corrupt officials could well amount to an annual Ukraine support budget.
Of course it could! And this was happening year in, year out. They followed the collective West’s policy of inflicting a “strategic defeat” on Russia because they had no other way out. In Ukraine, they used to steal the entire amount of Western aid from year to year, while carrying out only those West-stipulated reforms that could fetch them more money. Once received, the funds were immediately pilfered by Ukrainian officials. Accordingly, the West continued to call this Russophobic tune. Everything’s clear.
Currently Austria-based former Chairman of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine Alexander Tupitsky made a good point by saying that the expired President of Ukraine had customised the entire judicial system in Ukraine, with his regime virtually “raping the law.” It’s a good quote about the tragic pages of Ukrainian history.
The above facts once again confirm the relevance of the special military operation, whose aims and goals will certainly be achieved.
I would like to follow up on the discussion we started during the November 2 briefing dedicated to POW exchanges with Ukraine. Once again, we are compelled to state the absence of a constructive position on these issues on the part of the Kiev regime.
At that briefing, we provided the facts showing that the Russian Defence Ministry sent, this year, proposals to Ukraine concerning the transfer of 935 Ukrainian POWs to Ukraine as part of the exchange. For reasons unknown, the Kiev regime refused to take back more than 600 Ukrainian military.
The Ukrainian people were up in arms about that and demanded clarifications. To convince everyone that everything will come to pass and in order to pretend they are truly interested in continuing the exchange process, which is a case of hand-waving the Kiev style, Ukrainian Commissioner for Human Rights Dmitry Lubinets publicly sent a request for the list in question, and the Russian side made it available to him immediately. The list was also made available to Deputy Head of the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Ukrainian Defence Ministry Dmitry Usov, a senior official at the Coordination Headquarters for the Treatment of Prisoners of War.
The up-do-date list includes 630 Ukrainian POWs, whom Russia is prepared to immediately transfer to Kiev on a parity basis.
Please note that the Russian Federation is leaving it up to Ukraine to decide which Russian servicemen to include in the exchange which is due to the fact that we value every single one of the captives and want them all to come home. Unlike the Kiev regime, we do not draw any lines along religion, ethnicity or any particular military unit membership.
I will not go over the details this time again about which particular categories the Kiev regime is asking for, and which categories it removes from the exchange lists. We mentioned that during the previous briefing. I will briefly remind you that they need foreigners (because Westerners are exerting pressure on them), and nationalists, primarily Azov Battalion members and other thugs. Why? You can guess it yourself. They don’t need the ones who have been mobilised. You can also guess why.
However, as it turned out, the Kiev regime does not aim to conduct a constructive dialogue in principle. Once again, it ignored the proposals coming from the Russian side, and sent a list of 350 Ukrainian POWs who we are allegedly holding captive to the Russian Defence Ministry, indicating that agreeing on this list by the Russian side was a prerequisite for resuming prisoner swaps.
The Russian side studied the list and concluded that the actions of the Kiev regime lacked common sense, and the stance it adopted is destructive overall. Truth be told, it is no longer just the professionalism of those involved in this endeavour on the part of Ukraine that raises doubts, but the cognitive abilities of the Kiev regime officials who are in charge of the exchange process. See for yourselves.
It appears that the Kiev regime has lost touch with reality when it was drafting this list. Here’s who they are requesting Russia to include in the POW exchange:
- servicemen who have already been handed over to the Ukrainian side as part of the exchanges held in August, September and October (i.e. the list they sent to the Russian side includes those who have already been handed over to the Ukrainian side);
- persons that are unknown to the Russian side. At the same time (this is important), it was repeatedly brought to the attention of the people on Bankovaya Street that there is no data about these people having been taken prisoners. Even though the Ukrainian side has been informed about this, these names are still included in the lists;
- prisoners of war killed by the Kiev regime as a result of the Ukrainian forces shelling Correctional Facility No. 120 (Yelenovka, Donetsk People’s Republic) in 2022, as well as the Ukrainian side attacking the IL-76 aircraft of the Russian Aerospace Forces which transported Ukrainian POWs to the exchange spot in 2024.
The dead bodies were officially transferred to the Ukrainian side. The Kiev officials involved in the exchange process know this perfectly well. Not only can they not know this, they cannot even pretend that they are unaware of it.
Alongside this further confirmation of the widespread corruption and bias of the Ukrainian authorities, even in dealing with purely humanitarian issues, we can observe the insistence of the Kiev regime on including the following people in the exchange:
- members of armed nationalist formations. As always, the issue is primarily about the outlawed Azov and Aidar battalions, which are recognised as terrorist groups in Russia;
- civilians convicted in the Russian Federation for committing grave crimes (Organisation of and Participation in a Terrorist Group, and Espionage) before and since the beginning of the special military operation..
Having analysed what the Kiev regime has done in this area, it is safe to say that Kiev continues to be guided by media and corrupt interests, faking care about its servicemen and accusing Moscow of its unwillingness to continue the exchange process. They do not give a hoot about their own people, or the families of their own citizens. They are addressing their fleeting, self-serving, corrupt, political and perhaps some other issues.
We are interested in pursuing a constructive dialogue aimed at bringing prisoners back home as soon as possible.
We are prepared at this point already to exchange 630 servicemen and to begin making arrangements for more exchanges.
We are witnessing confrontationist and essentially hostile rhetoric on the part of Copenhagen, Reykjavik, Oslo, Helsinki and Stockholm with regard to our country.
The authorities of Nordic countries without any objections have joined the West’s rules-based order concept and preferred to disregard the basic interests of their countries’ peoples by demolishing the entire system of mutually beneficial bilateral relations with Russia that have been evolving for years. This approach is downright faulty.
Despite the growing number of sober-minded representatives of these states who are doubting the need for saturating Ukraine with weapons, Copenhagen, Reykjavik, Oslo, Helsinki and Stockholm continue to expand militarist rhetoric, calling for allowing Ukraine to hit targets deep inside Russia with NATO-supplied weapons. They do not seem to realise the consequences of this scenario, including for themselves. By escalating their anti-Russia statements, the capitals of once neutral Sweden and Finland strive to convince their NATO patrons of their “added value” for this military bloc. It appears that they do not want to inquire what kind of “added value” they will derive by joining this organisation. Nothing, except outright Russophobia, has been added.
This is a classic example when the Scandinavians really mean business and not just empty talk. The Nordic countries, including Iceland that has no armed forces, are energetically sponsoring the Ukrainian defence industry and are involved in sending mercenaries to Ukraine. Since February 2022, the total volume of assistance provided by these states to the Kiev regime has exceeded 20 billion euros. Denmark that leads the way in this Scandinavian anti-rating survey has furnished Kiev with 21 military assistance packages worth over $7.5 billion since February 2022. Norway intends to set aside at least $12.7 billion by 2030 under the long-term Nansen Support Programme for Ukraine. At the same time, Oslo is profiting from arms manufacturing and sales. It continues to expand and develop the national defence industry, and it is launching licensed production of Norwegian artillery shells in Ukraine. Since the beginning of the special military operation, Finland has allocated 25 military assistance packages for Ukraine worth $2.5 billion. Sweden has contributed 17 packages worth over $5 billion. Being completely intoxicated, they do not care about national living standards and economic problems and do not realise the consequences of such actions. They do not understand that they are sponsoring their own impoverishment by stealing money from their own population and by expediting and escalating negative trends on the continent.
Stating their determination to assist the Kiev regime as long as it is necessary, the authorities of these countries are ready to sacrifice the socioeconomic well-being of their citizens for the sake realising others’ ridiculous political ambitions of inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia.
These are not their own concepts and not the aspirations of Nordic nations. This is what others are constantly imposing on these countries as an ideologeme. Who is doing this? The Anglo-Saxons, of course. Why are they doing this? By maintaining neighbourly relations with Russia or located in direct proximity to Russia, by being Russia’s neighbours in the World Ocean and maintaining close interregional ties, these countries can obtain bonuses, develop, become an active part of the European continent and become competitive on the global market. Do London and Washington need this? Of course, not.
However, no one should have any doubts that the goals and objectives of the special military operation will be accomplished. And these countries will regret their destructive activities with regard to our country and themselves.
Finland’s exit from Barents Euro-Arctic Council
On November 22, 2024, Finland announced its decision to leave the Barents Euro-Arctic Council (BEAC). In effect, this decision admits that any cooperation within this council is pointless without Russia. The Finns have admitted their own short-sightedness. A year earlier, it was Helsinki that refused to cede chairmanship of the organisation to Russia, thus provoking our country’s exit from the Council in September 2023. Why did not they stay in the Council? The answer is clear: They have nothing to do there.
For 30 years, the Council served as a useful and effective format of trans-border collaboration in the interests of Arctic residents. However, it was recklessly sacrificed to timeserving political considerations. Its remaining participants tried to search for “new existential meanings” and to turn it into yet another anti-Russia tool. However, all this proved unsuccessful because the Council had been established for the people, for realising their aspirations, so that the nations of these regions (with their traditions, culture, economic needs, a desire to combine their ancestors’ traditions with the requirements of contemporary life) could have a platform for such communication at interstate level and at the level of NGOs, the public at large, civil society and its representatives. Everything was established for the sake of this alone. As soon as they decided to oust us from there (I do not know how to put it), to pretend that we are not there, this entire structure fell apart. As I have already said, all this functioned for 30 years. Obviously, all this will not be restored by artificial manoeuvring.
I believe that this example should serve as a good sobering-up reminder of the counter-productive nature of attempts to ensure our country’s international isolation and to exclude it from multilateral collaboration mechanisms.
The results of the G7 Foreign Ministers’ Meeting
The media has reported on the November 25-26, 2024 G7 Foreign Ministers’ Meeting in Fiuggi, Italy. The participants discussed issues directly concerning our foreign policy interests. Predictably, representatives of what used to be the most industrialised association, failed to make any entirely new statements with regard to Russia.
The concluding document merely contains baseless accusations and claims that are setting our teeth on edge. On the whole, it is everything as usual. By the way, they also criticised our partners, including China, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Belarus, Iran, Afghanistan, Myanmar and Venezuela, to some extent.
We have repeatedly described the political image of the G7 that has turned into a body overseeing the actions of the US-led collective West to achieve the illusory goal of preserving their global domination.
In reality, professional analysts and observers who are not detached from real life have come to understand long ago that the future does not belong to the G7. Just look at their economic indicators, how they are deceiving, framing and robbing each other. The future belongs to other formats of international communication that reflect the diversity of the emerging multipolar world.
Here is one more aspect: Current statements by G7 foreign ministers are not worth the paper on which they are printed. Their duration is limited by the tenure of the outgoing US administration. Obviously, the Fiuggi statement is a swan song of the Biden-Blinken team and should be treated as such.
On November 20, the Festival of Russian Culture in China kicked off in Beijing. This is one of the key events in Russia-China cross years of culture. They are held by decision of the President of Russia Vladimir Putin and President of China Xi Jinping in 2024-2025.
The festival was launched by a performance by the State Academic Dance Ensemble of Dagestan Lezginka. I envy those who saw it and appreciated it. The concert was warmly received by the Chinese audience. The ceremony was attended by State Secretary - Deputy Minister of Culture of the Russian Federation Zhanna Alekseyeva and Vice Minister of Culture and Tourism of the People's Republic of China Lu Yingchuan.
The festival’s programme is intense, with a geographical reach spanning Beijing and Shanghai. The festival also includes participation of the Lyudmila Zykina State Academic Russian Folk Ensemble Russia.
In November, our famous bands also performed in Chengdu as part of the Made in Russia festival-fair and captivated the local audience with their unique talent and virtuoso performance.
On November 20, the National Museum of China opened the exhibition Russian Feast - Traditional Food, Drinks and Art of Serving. From the collection of the Moscow Kremlin Museums. It is timed to the celebration of the 75th anniversary of diplomatic relations between our countries this year. The display covers an extensive period from the Middle Ages to the 20th century and introduces visitors to our country's rich gastronomic and table traditions. We have a lot to show and tell about it. It presents unique exhibits from the Armoury Chamber: crockery, cutlery and kitchen utensils, items of table decoration, costumes and works of painting. The pearl of the exposition is a collection of personal belongings of Russian rulers and prominent statesmen, as well as diplomatic gifts they received. A number of art monuments and items are exhibited for the first time. The exhibition will run through March 16, 2025.
I am sure that this cultural event will be another opportunity for the Chinese citizens to learn more about Russia's versatile culture, our traditions and customs. I am convinced that this will contribute to strengthening friendship and mutual understanding between our countries and peoples.
I would like to note the great interest in the project of the Russia and China’s Years of Culture on the part of both the participants – leading national organisations – and the audience of the two countries. The programme is diverse, covering a variety of areas – from performing arts to exhibition projects, from cinema to folk art. A lot of interesting and exciting events are awaiting us in the future. We invite everyone to join and take an active part in the festival.
The 2024 International Business Week and the 6th Yalta International Economic Forum
On December 3-6, two important events will take place in Ufa, the 2024 International Business Week and the 6th Yalta International Economic Forum.
The 2024 International Business Week is an annual professional platform for discussing and developing dialogue between the state and businesses, in Bashkortostan.
Participants will discuss intellectual property, tourism (including medical and health tourism), artificial intelligence, digitalisation, robotisation, marketplaces, and the prospects of the halal industry.
I would like to remind you that in 2023, over 6,300 people attended the International Business Week, including representatives from all Russian regions and some 500 foreign guests from 23 countries: India, Kazakhstan, Turkiye, Iran, Tajikistan, Belarus, China, Armenia, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Mongolia, Turkmenistan, Abkhazia, Brazil, Egypt, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Pakistan, Bulgaria, Indonesia and Cuba. The three-day forum programme offered more than 50 business events, with more than 400 speakers.
This year’s participants are welcome to register at the International Business Week official website.
The 6th Yalta International Economic Forum will be held during the same days. It is an important event among the major Russian economic platforms similar to forums in St Petersburg, Vladivostok and Sochi. Representatives of over 90 countries are expected to attend, including via videoconference.
The forum’s expert discussions will focus on overcoming sanctions-induced barriers and the development of global trade, as well as the construction of new trade routes, and building a system of Eurasian security through the lens of prospects and challenges.
Among the topics to be discussed at the Yalta International Economic Forum are Russia’s tourist potential, and improving the wellness and resort industry, with special focus on new points of growth for industrial production and supporting the region’s companies.
The programme will also include a plenary session, The Multipolar World: The New Economic Reality.
The Long Echo of 1999 monograph
I would like to tell you about The Long Echo of 1999 monograph, which has recently been published with support from Rossotrudnichestvo and the Alexander Gorchakov Public Diplomacy Fund. This sad date is marked in 2024, and the monograph is dedicated to the Serbs’ perception of the 25th anniversary of the NATO bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
Prepared by a group of researchers and lecturers from the Institute of Slavic Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, HSE University and MGIMO University of the Foreign Ministry of Russia, this work includes unique facts that reflect the influence of those horrible events on the perception of the West in Serbian society. It is a sign of respect for the Serbian people who have not been broken by the bombings or the subsequent 25 years during which the West worked systemically to make Serbs forget. They have survived their collective trauma, keeping their identity and a viable state. The tragic experience of the Serbian people shows that it is possible to uphold one’s national dignity and that attempts to make people forget their history by blotting out, rewriting or cancelling their memories invariably has an opposite effect and works against those who try to do this.
We see that today the Serbian leaders refuse to toe the Western line and turn over the page with the history of the NATO aggression against Yugoslavia. They are resolved to never forget the military crimes NATO committed in 1999. This stance is worthy of respect. It makes us proud that the Serbs are resisting the West’s destructive trends.
We invite foreign affairs columnists, experts on the Balkans and everyone else to read this serious monograph about the global and regional consequences of the NATO bombing and its influence on social and cultural life in Serbia.
So, 25 years ago, NATO aircraft showed the world what “humanitarian intervention” is. The US and NATO leaders used this term for their missile and bomb strikes on military and civilian targets in Yugoslavia, whose leadership opted for fighting back to preserve the country’s unity and their values.
Over 11 weeks since March 24, 1999, NATO launched 3,000 cruise missiles and dropped 80,000 tonnes of munitions, including cluster and depleted uranium bombs, on the sovereign European republic. According to the Serbian authorities, about 2,500 people, including 89 children, were killed, 12,500 people were wounded, and 1,500 towns were destroyed. Material damage has been estimated at between $30 billion and $100 billion.
Question: The Japanese newspaper Tokyo Shimbun has reported the other day that the first US-Japanese joint military plan for a possible Taiwan emergency will include the deployment of US missile detachments on the Nansei Islands in southern Japan and in the Philippines. Would you comment on this information?
Maria Zakharova: It is openly hypocritical that the United States and its satellites are fuelling tensions in the Taiwan Strait and hindering a peaceful reunification of the country, while claiming commitment to the “one China” principle. They are doing this in full view of the international community, sending weapons to Taiwan, strengthening political contacts with it with the aim of increasing its conflict potential rather than to develop relations with the official capital, and encouraging separatist sentiments among the locals and the evolution of “Taiwan’s identity.” They are using the same instruments they have used and are using in other parts of the world, including Ukraine.
It is obvious that the actions orchestrated by Washington allegedly to maintain the status quo run contrary to their own obligations to China regarding Taiwan, amount to open pressure on Beijing, and are undermining regional stability and security in Asia Pacific.
Such statements are nothing new to us. Washington has long been taking open and concrete steps towards this.
In particular, during the joint military exercises with the Philippines in the spring of 2024, the United States deployed its medium-range missile systems there, allegedly on a temporary basis. That’s what they said, but there is no public information about the removal of these systems from the archipelago.
We don’t question the right of nations, including the Philippines, to build up their security. However, other states are deeply concerned about ill-considered decisions that include the involvement of hegemony-seeking United States in reckless military schemes. There are solid grounds for this concern. The deployment of US ground-launched intermediate- and shorter-range missiles in the Asia-Pacific region is not strengthening stability but is accelerating the arms race and increasing the conflict potential and strategic risks there.
As for Japan, we see that Tokyo is deliberately aggravating tensions around Taiwan, in particular, in the information space, thereby trying to justify its policy of accelerated militarisation and the build-up of its military-technical cooperation with Washington.
We have warned Japan on many occasions that if such “cooperation” leads to the deployment of US intermediate-range missiles in its territory as well, we will see this as a concrete threat to our security. And we will have to take appropriate steps to strengthen our defences. Tokyo can get an idea of what actions these could be by reading the updated provisions of the Basic Principles of State Policy of the Russian Federation on Nuclear Deterrence.
Question: Calin Georgescu, who is distrustful of aid to Kiev and the West's anti-Russia policy, won the first round of the Romanian presidential election. Do you think that if he wins the second round, relations between Moscow and Bucharest will get warmer?
Maria Zakharova: It is premature to make any forecasts in this regard. We need to get an idea of that candidate’s programme, and what is most important of his subsequent real steps.
In any case, much will depend on the genuine willingness of Romania's next president to give up the anti-Russia course, which is damaging and counterproductive for the country's national interests. It is obvious that the Romanian people are disappointed with the policies of the current authorities. The outcome of the first round of the presidential election has shown this.
Question: Chair of the NATO Military Committee Rob Bauer stated that NATO was discussing preventive precision strikes at the Russian territory in the event of a conflict. Does it mean that NATO has ceased to be a defensive bloc?
Maria Zakharova: Defensive? Who said that NATO is a defensive bloc? I do not know how anyone can seriously comment on this particular concept.
We have seen an aggressive alliance’s offensive in all areas: that was an actual expansion of the bloc, expansion into various regions (not only Europe or the Euro-Atlantic). Their interests extend much further, including to other continents where they have never been before.
We have seen real, aggressive campaigns to destroy states, as it happened in Libya. We have seen the use of noble pretexts (this was the case of Afghanistan), UN Security Council mandates and absolute dysfunction, which resulted in the emergence of even worse problems in Afghanistan than it faced before NATO's stated desire to restore “order.”
I do not know, where those “defensive” features and “achievements” of the North Atlantic Alliance are. I would never characterise it as a “defensive bloc.” It looks like aggression is inbuilt in it both by its doctrine documents and at the level of its real activities.
As for the statement by Chair of the NATO Military Committee Rob Bauer, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov already gave his assessment in this regard during the yesterday’s Meeting of the Heads of Security Agencies and Intelligence Services of the CIS Member States. The Minister said that the alliance had thrown away all decorum, and the true intentions of the alliance were already being publicly announced. Sergey Lavrov meant specifically NATO’s aggressive actions. And there is nothing more to add.
Question: Participants in yesterday’s emergency meeting of the Ukraine-NATO Council came up with ideas about launching a preventive strike against Russian launchers, shipping high-precision medium-range missiles, openly sending European military personnel to the Ukraine front, and even making nuclear weapons available to Ukraine. Clearly, on the one hand, it’s just rhetoric. But if they move from words to action, will there be a new spiral of escalation? How does the Russian side assess the outcomes of yesterday’s meeting?
Maria Zakharova: This meeting was just another formal occasion for the Kiev regime to try to beg for a new batch of weapons from its Western sponsors in order to continue their war to the last Ukrainian. Begging has become routine behaviour for the Kiev regime. It is hard to understand what is going on there amid outrageous corruption. However, with each batch of weapons, the West further complicates the Ukraine crisis, killing even more Ukrainians who have no way of defending themselves in the face of the Kiev regime, which no longer uses them as cannon fodder (they are not even looked at that way anymore), but are instead pushed off the cliff right away. All of that makes prospects of a peaceful settlement uncertain.
To reiterate, we have always preferred and are prepared now to resolve all contentious issues by peaceful means. However, the West continues to unwind the spiral of escalation, wages a hybrid war against Russia and is pushing the world towards a global catastrophe. The EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell and Chair of the NATO Military Committee Robert Bauer are adding oil to the fire with their irresponsible statements. They are doing so either to mark the end of their careers, or just because they stopped taking their pills in time. They are saying outrageous and stupidest, but at the same time dangerous things.
If anyone, especially NATO members, still has questions about our response to threats to Russia’s security, we encourage them to once again carefully study the statement by the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin of November 21 and the Basic Principles of State Policy of the Russian Federation on Nuclear Deterrence.
Question: Are there any expectations to see the US foreign policy change now that Donald Trump was elected president?
Maria Zakharova: We have provided several comments on this. There is nothing to anticipate or to assess ahead of time. We will analyse his specific initiatives, as well as specific moves and statements by Washington official, be mindful of that, and draw our own conclusions.
Question: After the United States said it would send advanced weapons to Ukraine to be used against Russia, President Putin said Russia would help those who are in opposition to the United States. There is a genuine battle against the United States going on in the Red Sea. How will that be done?
Maria Zakharova: We have repeatedly commented on the security situation in the Red Sea. Once again, we would like to emphasise that Russia and its partners in the region continue their energetic efforts aimed at preventing further escalation in this strategically important part of the world.
Question: President Vladimir Putin and Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov have stated that Russia may retaliate by deploying its intermediate- and shorter-range missiles in Asia. Which Asian countries and regions could be meant?
Maria Zakharova: You are embarrassing me. I feel uncomfortable on your account. Let me remind you that Russia is located in a region called Eurasia. You can say: “On two continents” and “on the Eurasian continent,” whichever you prefer. The terminology is changing, but it is clear what is meant. Half of this country (let us not measure it in “grammes” or “percentages”) lies in the Asian region.
Therefore, even a potential arms deployment beyond the Urals would mean that Russian weapons of this class would appear in the Asian subregion of national territory. This is obvious.
At this stage, there is no need to go into detail about where and how Russia might deploy its ground-based intermediate- and shorter-range missiles. This is a question of strategy and tactics. These matters were addressed in statements by President Vladimir Putin and Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov.
But this is not the main point. The key issue is that Russia has sent a clear military and political signal to the United States and its satellites, which are taking practical steps to prepare for the deployment of their ground-based intermediate- and shorter-range missiles in various parts of the world. The essence of our warning is simple: There will be a most resolute response to these deployments, which create additional missile threats to Russia, regardless of their geography. The Russian countermeasures can be either tit-for-tat or asymmetrical.
We hope that the battleground testing of Oreshnik, the latest Russian hypersonic missile system, has left the West in no doubt regarding Russia’s capabilities. Reuters should convey this message to the West: the signal has been sent, and you need to pay attention to it.
Question: The US media have accused Russia of being involved in secret attempts to carry explosives on DHL flights. What can you say on that score?
Maria Zakharova: This looks like another propaganda campaign orchestrated by the same source and based on the same instructions or proceedings. They are writing what you have asked me about. Why aren’t they equally actively looking for truth with regard to the Nord Stream explosions?
There were only rare attempts in the Western media, in particular, German ones, to do this. The British, German, French and other North European media are not trying to keep the public focus on that issue, demanding some action or voicing suspicions. No, they are keeping silent.
I’m not going to compare the scale or horror of these disasters, but there is an obvious bias in favour of one side in the former instance and vice versa in the other instance.
We have seen numerous publications in the US and other NATO countries’ media regarding Russia’s alleged plans to commit crimes and subversive actions against Western countries. They wrote about the methods of sending explosive and flammable substances by mail. They seem to be competing for the most fantastic script. I wonder if the instructions are the same in all cases. If explosives, explosions, sabotage, explosive devices and flammable substances are all bad, why do Western countries encourage their use?
It appears that they don’t understand what is going on. Over the past two and a half years, they have legitimised terrorist and extremist actions and sabotage by writing positively about such activities of the Kiev regime. Not a single time have they done what they should have done, that is, condemned and denounced the Kiev regime’s terrorist actions and claims. They have not written in earnest about the unacceptability of such actions against civilians and infrastructure.
There’s no use trying to backtrack now, saying that all of the above actions are deplorable and would be committed, according to them, by Russia. Instead, they should write about what happened in the 1990s and 2000s, and say that we should speak with one voice. Terrorism is bad in all its manifestations, regardless of the banners and slogans under which the criminals carry out acts of terrorism. And all other forms of extremism and sabotage are bad as well, regardless of the circumstances.
The West itself has taken a divided stance, saying that finding the culprit is what matters most, and the act itself is of secondary importance. They will assess it later, if at all, if it suits them. The main thing is to find the culprit. If it is the Kiev regime, then all is well and acceptable. If it is someone else, the next step is to determine whether it is friend or foe. But this is not how it should be done.
People see and understand this. In the past, there were only traditional media, with some people reading one newspaper and others a different one. Today, they have access to all media outlets and compare stances. They can see what the West says about the terrorist attacks committed by the Kiev regime, which has been trying for years to destroy the Crimean Bridge. They see that the West is almost applauding and sending more money to the Kiev regime. Why is the West surprised then that the public no longer condemns and rallies against sabotage and terrorism, like it did before?
As for the information you mentioned, it is clear that it has been coordinated from a single centre, possibly in Brussels, Washington or London.
This is clearly an information scheme devised by the West to justify the continued supply of modern weapons to the Kiev regime and to explain to the public why Russia is bad.
It has become more difficult to keep the subject of Ukraine alive, but they invent new methods every time. There have been the Skripal poisoning, submarines surfacing in the centre of North European cities (practically in fountains) and later proved to be Russian, floating buoys, and the debris of boats. There have been all of that. We have seen it. But the thing is that there can only be the same standards for all or the world will sink into chaos.
Question: Deputy Foreign Minister Andrey Rudenko said that the Mir cards will be accepted in Asian countries. Could you clarify in which countries, and when will that happen? Can we also expect direct flights to Iran from other cities of the Russian Federation, except Moscow?
Maria Zakharova: Air service with Iran is not limited to Moscow. During the summer tourist season, direct flights from Tehran to St Petersburg were operated by both Russian and Iranian airlines. Regular flights to Grozny are also available. With the increase in the mutual tourist flows to our countries, the geography of flights will also expand.
As for the Mir cards, we are working on this now. I do not yet have any details for you, for a number of reasons, many of which you can guess.
Question: What is your assessment of the Goethe-Institut’s activity to promote the German language in Russia? Are there any Russian projects in Germany that are comparable to it in scale or geographical span? How is the Russian House working under pressure from sanctions as well as growing suspicion from German politicians and the police?
Maria Zakharova: The German Goethe-Institut network in Moscow and St Petersburg, as well as the Russian House of Science and Culture in Berlin, are operating in accordance with the February 4, 2011 Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany. The Russian side is committed to that agreement, and the German side declares a respective commitment as well. The document authorises the Russia House and the Goethe-Institut to promote the Russian language in Germany and the German language in Russia, respectively.
At the same time, the Russian authorities are closely monitoring the Goethe-Institut’s operation and projects in various Russian cities. Why did they decide to keep an eye on this activity now? The truth is that in late 2022, President of the Goethe-Institut Carola Lentz openly admitted to the media that the organisation considers the German language courses it offers abroad, among other things, as a tool for political and propaganda activity in the interests of Germany. I do not have to remind you what interests official Berlin has in relation to our country. A signal has been conveyed to Germany through diplomatic channels making it clear that if this kind of activity was exposed in Russia, it would be severely suppressed in accordance with the national laws and the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. We would like the German side and all Russian citizens who cooperate with the Goethe-Institut to keep this in mind.
We emphasise that the Russian House of Science and Culture in Berlin is not engaged in any political activity. The cultural centre operates Russian language programmes for interested participants of all ages, a college for bilingual children, conversation groups for lovers of the Russian language and literature, and a library. Further expansion of these activities would definitely meet the interests of our country and culture. I repeat, this is not politics.
At the same time, we note that the German authorities, and the German media spurred on by them, have been exerting administrative and information pressure on the Russian House for a long time, creating artificial obstacles to its work. In response, the Russian side is forced to take proportionate measures against the Goethe-Institut branches in Moscow and St Petersburg. Our stance is simple and fair – the conditions of their work in Russia directly depend on the conditions created for the Russian House. If our cultural centre is struggling with negative attitude, the Goethe-Institut will be struggling, too.
Question: Vladimir Zelensky has been talking about nuclear weapons in Kiev on many occasions, and some Western media have written on this subject, namely, The New York Times. What is your opinion of this discourse, especially now that the White House has officially admitted lifting restrictions on the use of ATACMS missiles for strikes inside Russia?
Maria Zakharova: We regard this as madness which the West is imposing on certain political circles (I can’t describe it as establishment) in Ukraine. They are inciting, paying and using them as a factor and even an incentivised element. I don’t understand what they are incentivising them for. Are they incentivising suicidal behaviour? Anyway, we take note of that. It is a stimulating Western propaganda idea which they are throwing to the Kiev regime.
On the other hand, the Kiev regime is using “the West will help us” idea, and is showing how it will do this, to stimulate its military, the mobilised soldiers and part of the population.
We are aware of this information propaganda scheme and its political component, which is completely suicidal.
I remember how after 2013-2014 Ukrainian citizens beat up their compatriots, burned tires on Maidan, threw Molotov cocktails at each other, dislodged their legitimate government, shot at each other, plundered and pillaged. At that time, many public figures, politicians and officials said with relief, including in public, that they were glad that Ukraine did not have nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are a huge responsibility and not a grenade in the hands of madmen. All these deliberations about having nuclear weapons are suicidal talk. I would also like to remind everyone that it was one of the reasons and threats that have led to the start of our special military operation.
On February 19, 2022, Zelensky said at the Munich Security Conference that Ukraine might revise its decision to renounce nuclear weapons. Today, he is using this topic for blackmailing his Western sponsors. Moreover, when the issue of funding is raised, he says what he said at a news conference following the European Council meeting on October 17, 2024, that Ukraine’s survival can only be ensured by joining NATO or giving Kiev nuclear weapons. It is evidence of a detachment from reality and extremist mentality of Zelensky and those behind him.
There is no doubt that the collective West can give Ukraine nuclear weapons. Our opponents have demonstrated on numerous occasions that they have no respect for international treaties and obligations. However, there are no facts we would be ready to share with you at this moment.
We believe that it is in the interests of truly responsible states to prevent these developments. The irresponsible actions of the Kiev regime and its Western tutors can push the world towards a global catastrophe.
I believe that the Global Majority is fully aware of this. We should see where this crazy ideology stems from. It is engendered by a part of the Western community that is using Zelensky’s regime and Ukraine in general as an instrument for aggravating the situation in the region and the world as a whole. They are regularly using the subject of nuclear weapons and playing on the possibility of giving them to Ukraine or its possession of nuclear weapons.
Question: Armenia has declined to take part in the CSTO summit scheduled for November 28. At the same time, Russia’s Permanent Representative to the Organisation indicated that Yerevan had agreed to approve certain documents in the so-called limited format. What is Moscow’s perspective on Armenia’s position? Are there any plans to engage with Armenia regarding summit issues outside the CSTO framework?
Maria Zakharova: We acknowledge the sovereign right of every state to independently determine its own foreign policy, including participation in CSTO events or subsequent work within the Organisation.
Legally, Armenia remains a full member of the CSTO, a vital mechanism for ensuring peace and stability in the South Caucasus. Armenia retains all the relevant rights and obligations.
We hope that our comprehensive partnership with Armenia will resume within the CSTO framework, as it is in the interest of the future security of our friendly nation. We reaffirm the fact that the doors are open for Yerevan’s return to full-scale cooperation within the CSTO. We hope our Armenian partners will overcome their doubts and return to joint work.
Question: On February 28, 2024, you said at a briefing that Moscow intended to demand that Greece honour agreements regarding the prohibition of transferring Russian weapons to third countries. However, on Tuesday, November 26, 2024, the Greek website enikos.gr reported that Greece was planning to provide Armenia with an S-300 surface-to-air missile system and two other Russian-made systems. What actions could Moscow take if these media reports are confirmed?
Maria Zakharova: We have noted these reports.
In this connection, we would like to emphasise the importance of strictly adhering to the provisions of bilateral intergovernmental agreements on military-technical cooperation of October 30, 1995 and on the supply of military products of December 3, 2013. These agreements explicitly prohibit Greece from re-exporting Russian-supplied military equipment without Russia’s consent.
To date, we have not received any requests from the Greek side.
Question: On November 19, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov commented on his handshake with President of France Emmanuel Macron at the G20 Summit in Rio de Janeiro, saying that “it is abnormal that European leaders shy away from Russian representatives when they see them in corridors or lobbies.” Which European leaders did he mean? Were there situations, where European politicians “got scared” and avoided Russian representatives at multilateral events?
Maria Zakharova: We spoke about this a year ago. Do you remember the US intrigue ahead of the OSCE ministerial meeting in Skopje? They wanted the collective photograph of delegation heads to be taken during the informal contacts in the evening, when delegations were just assembling and the Russian delegation had yet to arrive, rather than, as usual, the next day before the start of official events. Their aim was to make everyone believe that Russia was missing. The next day, however, Russian representatives attended the opening of the OSCE ministerial meeting, and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, who led the Russian delegation, delivered his remarks. After that, he spent an hour communicating with the media.
These endless petty and cheap manipulations are part of US foreign policy. We have already told you how they sent messages to their embassies in various countries with instructions to minimise appearances in joint photographs with Russian representatives, avoid attending events, exchanging handshakes with Russians, participating in joint activities, posing for photographs with Russians, and so on and so forth.
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that it is normal for people who know each other to say hello. This is normal practice. If someone is reluctant to do that, they also have a right to this. However, it is not normal to engage in this “puny perversion” (and not even behind the scenes). This has nothing to do with recording historical facts. It is part of manipulation and the West’s fake agenda. We say this regularly.
Why are they doing this? All of this looks like a poorly managed performance. But there are practical implications too. After all, they claim that they have “isolated” and “cancelled” us and “left Russia in tatters.” We should no longer exist in their political paradigm, yet we, for some unknown reason, do exist and are even actively involved in international life, leading others and setting the tone in many areas. What should they do about this? They can influence their public (or at least part of it) into believing that “we are no longer there” by presenting fake photographs, blocking information and resorting to endless manipulations. Given that the US controls the lion’s share of the media and communications outlets across the globe, this is done to pre-empt questions from their population. But where their plans misfire, they just try to make the best of a bad business.
Question: On November 25, 2024, Alemarah, an Afghan website, reported that during his visit to Kabul Secretary of Russia’s Security Council, Sergey Shoigu, said that Moscow was ready to remove the Taliban movement from the terrorist blacklist. Where does this process stand at this point in time and what steps is the ministry making towards this end?
Maria Zakharova: On November 25, 2024, the draft Federal Law Amending Certain Legislative Acts has been submitted to the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation (this package of documents is available on the State Duma’s official website). If Russia’s legislative branch approves these amendments, they would provide for temporarily suspending bans imposed on organisations which are designated on the national list of terrorist entities. After that, this mechanism can be applied to the Taliban movement.
We have already said that Russia, just like other leading global powers, intends to promote hands-on cooperation with Kabul on matters of mutual interest, including countering the threats of terrorism and drug trafficking coming from the territory of Afghanistan. It is quite obvious that this would be impossible unless we remove the designation of the Taliban movement as a terrorist organisation.
Question: Does the Foreign Ministry intend to inform Russian citizens in unfriendly countries about the use by the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation of weapons to target military facilities in countries which have authorised the use of their weapons against Russian territory?
Maria Zakharova: This question falls within the Defence Ministry’s purview.
Question: Do you have a date for opening Russia’s Consulate General in Syunik? Why is it being delayed?
Maria Zakharova: Both the Foreign Ministry and Russia’s Embassy in Armenia have commented on this matter many times. Nothing has changed since that time.
Armenia signalled its agreement in principle to opening a Russian Consulate General in Kapan, Syunik Province. Russia requested the exequatur for its Consul General, which amounts to recognising his status. We are waiting for a reply. The question on why Armenia has yet to respond to these requests must be referred to Yerevan.
Question: As we know, the СОР29 conference has adopted an important decision on providing financial assistance to developing countries, including small island states and African countries, whose ecology has been damaged by the Western neo-colonialist policies. That initiative has drawn a controversial response from German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock, who made a number of provocative statements on the sidelines of COP29. She suggested that the EU’s responsibility for climate funding should be shared by other parties. What can you say on this score?
Maria Zakharova: Our Azerbaijani colleagues were lucky that she had not called for a 360-degree turn on that issue. That would be fun. Everyone would have started thinking about ways to do it. Thankfully, she has not made another silly statement.
Indeed, during the 29th UN Climate Change conference, COP29, held in Baku on November 11-24, 2024, industrialised countries did their best to avoid the formalisation of any responsibility for financing the developing countries’ climate efforts. This is the neo-colonialism which we don’t accept and will fight.
One of the Western methods was an attempt to expand the group of donors by including large Global South countries. This “responsibility sharing” would shift a large part of the former colonial states’ obligations to countries that are most vulnerable to climate change onto other victims of neo-colonialism.
Besides that, although COP29 was focused on financial topics, Western countries, including Germany, tried to replace any agreements with the recipient countries’ pledge to strive for more ambitious climate outcomes when it comes to reducing greenhouse emissions, contrary to the agreements reached in Dubai in 2023.
In the context of the above, we can well understand Baerbock’s outrage over the justified demands of the developing countries, which lack funds for disaster relief while being pressured by the Western ultimatum to carry out decarbonisation measures at any cost.
There is another important element. The Western countries are playing a lying game. On the one hand, they are promoting decarbonisation strategies, the climate agenda and the green transition, but on the other hand, they call for digital transformation and the introduction of novel technologies everywhere, adding themselves to development ranking lists and refusing to include other countries in them. They refuse to admit publicly that these two processes are largely incompatible. Digital transformation requires a lot of energy, which is incompatible with decarbonisation and green transition and is therefore endangering the green agenda and making it unpredictable.
It is unbelievable but they manage to include these two diametrically opposite trends as the declared goals in the same documents. The West needs this game to maintain its “leading positions” (read: pseudo-domination). They want to strengthen their foothold everywhere in order to prevent the countries that are technically backward because of the Western policies from catching up with them and reducing the financial, economic and educational divide. I would like to remind you that these countries are not to blame for their backwardness, which is not the result of racial distinction (the notorious “white supremacy”). The truth is that they were used as slaves who were deprived of their natural resources, and they never could at any historical period make full use of their mineral wealth. This Western lying game has one and only goal – to strengthen the foothold at the new stage of neo-colonialism while keeping the Global Majority away from the sources of economic, educational and scientific development, using this faulty agenda to declare their “domination” and derive more and more benefits from it. They won’t succeed, but that is what they want. That is what they go by.
Question: Last week, the ICC issued an arrest warrant against Israel’s Prime Minister Banjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant. What is your assessment of this decision? Could this contribute to bringing the situation in the Middle East back to normal?
Maria Zakharova: It goes without saying that considering what has been happening in Palestine there are reasonable grounds for asking who can be held accountable for crimes against civilians. Those who perpetrated these crimes must be held to account. Therefore, we understand why so many members of the international community have spoken out in favour of engaging international judicial institutions in the interests of the Palestinians. These institutions include the International Court of Justice, a UN body, which has recently issued an advisory opinion containing strong wording and saying that the Israeli occupation was illegal. The International Court of Justice is now reviewing a lawsuit filed by South Africa against Israel under the Genocide Convention. These initiatives resonate with the overall vision of international law we have as far as foreign policy is concerned. International law must play a dominating role here and must be honoured. We have invariably followed these tenets, and have been treating this topic accordingly.
As for the so-called International Criminal Court, you know our position regarding this institution quite well. It has nothing to do with international law. In fact, it represents an assault against international law, and the very existence of this entity confirms this point. This is a totally corrupt and unprofessional entity which has been committing one violation of international law after another, while operating under the West’s constant pressure in terms of political matters and other momentary considerations. In fact, the West has been using the ICC as its tool. If what happened over the past two decades is any guide, ICC’s attempts to interfere in the most challenging conflicts do nothing to facilitate their settlement. On the contrary, they make it harder. We hardly expect anything else to happen in this situation, just as in any other case.
Russia has not changed its position regarding the ICC. Against this backdrop, those who are friends with Israel in the West while also opposing Russia have adopted what amounts to an ambivalent position. Only yesterday, these people applauded the ICC for issuing arrest warrants against senior Russian government officials. Today, they are bedevilling this institution and threatening it with all kinds of punishments, counter measures and sanctions. Today, they went as far as talking about staging an intervention against the Netherlands to settle their scores with the ICC. That said, these two situations are quite similar from a legal perspective: neither Russia, nor Israel are parties to the ICC and have no obligations or commitments in its regard. This is yet another telling example of double standards which demonstrates what all the Western speculation about an independent judiciary and commitment to international law is worth.
And this exposes yet again the very nature of their rules-based order. These are unwritten rules since nobody framed them. In fact, these rules do not exist. The only principle they have consists of claiming the right to all-permissiveness. Everyone else must abide by this principle and renounce all their rights, or enjoy the rights as defined by the West.
Question: The Israeli army continues to bomb Gaza and Lebanon, killing civilians. Do you think there are prerequisites for a ceasefire?
Maria Zakharova: First of all, I would like to say that Sputnik correspondent in Lebanon, Abdel Qader al-Bai, received light splinter wounds on Wednesday during an Israeli attack, when a group of Lebanese reporters were filming the withdrawal of Israeli troops from the southern regions of the country. He was taken to hospital for treatment. He is now travelling to Saida to continue taking a video of the Lebanese who are returning to their homes after a ceasefire agreement was reached.
Regrettably, the situation in the zone of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and other affected regions of the Middle East continues to deteriorate despite the international efforts. The number of the dead, wounded and missing people as the result of the escalation in Gaza has exceeded 150,000, which is horrible. The majority of the victims are civilians, and many of them are children, women, the elderly and disabled.
A large share of responsibility for the catastrophic situation in the enclave lies with the United States. The Americans have been hindering work at the UN Security Council for over a year, blocking the efforts of Russia and other countries to adopt a resolution demanding a lasting ceasefire and the creation of conditions for providing assistance to all those who need it.
On November 20, 2024, the Americans once again used their right of veto to prevent the adoption of a draft resolution demanding an immediate ceasefire in the Gaza Strip prepared by the elected members of the Security Council. We presented our position regarding this in a press release on November 21. I won’t repeat it here. The situation is clear as it is.
One of the sides is actually sabotaging the operation of a vital international body by preventing it from exercising its duty to maintain global peace and security. This irresponsible policy of the current US administration amounts to giving Israel the green light to continue destroying the enclave and killing its residents.
The drawn-out Gaza crisis has catalysed confrontation between Israel and Hezbollah. We have a positive stance on any potential agreements that would put an end to violence and bloodshed in Lebanon and prevent the further scaling up of hostilities. But these must be truly effective agreements. At the same time, we believe that the military-political situation in that country and the entire region can only be stabilised on the basis of a fair and comprehensive solution involving a balance of interests and equal security for all the conflicting sides. We pointed out on numerous occasions that this solution must rest on international law and take into account the previous decisions of the relevant organisations, primarily UN bodies.
Question: Who poses a greater threat to Russia – the US or the UK? Who is causing us more harm?
Maria Zakharova: This is precisely why we employ the term “Anglo-Saxons.” It refers not so much to a division between countries as to an adherence to the destructive ideology of the regimes – both British and American – that espouse Russophobia and engage in anti-Russian actions.
Question: New Year and Christmas are approaching. Such festivities seem to transcend politics. Children eagerly anticipate these occasions, writing letters to Ded Moroz [Grandfather Frost]. However, there is information suggesting that German customs officials have warned they might confiscate Christmas gifts arriving from Russia, such as toys or books. How do you assess this move? Could there be a reciprocal action, whereby Russia might refuse entry to gifts from unfriendly countries, stating they are “inappropriate” gifts?
Maria Zakharova: I have examined this news story thoroughly. It sheds light on why the American-German film How the Grinch Stole Christmas was produced in 2000. Apparently, they were quite familiar with the subject matter they were portraying – it seems reflective of their own mindset.
German customs officials have long been infamous for their arbitrary, Russophobic antics and legal willfulness. In recent years, there have been incidents where personal vehicles, belongings, and money were confiscated from Russian citizens within the Federal Republic of Germany under the guise of EU sanctions. These were subsequently returned through legal proceedings. They orchestrated this as well. This lawlessness must cease at some juncture. It provides yet another reason for the Germans to reflect on the direction in which the ideologues of modern Germany have steered them.
I am confident that the holiday cannot be “stolen.” In one way or another, children who have behaved well will receive their gifts. Perhaps they will arrive a bit late, perhaps with a delayed impact, but as we know, miracles do occur in this life. Let us hope that, even if a gift does not arrive in time for the New Year, the power of the Most High will compensate for this in life. I firmly believe in that.
Additional materials
-
Photos
