Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, St Petersburg, June 19, 2025
- On events in St. Petersburg within the framework of SPIEF
- International and interregional relations of St Petersburg and Leningrad Region
- Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s upcoming participation in the 11th Primakov Readings International Expert Forum
- Sergey Lavrov’s visit to Turkmenistan
- Visit to Russia by Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic Thongsavanh Phomvihane
- Iran-Israel escalation
- Evacuation of Russian citizens from Iran-Israel conflict zone
- Ukraine update
- Kiev regime’s collaborations with terrorist networks in Mali
- Foreign Ministry’s latest report on human rights in Ukraine
- Western efforts to block the draft statement of the UNSC president on children in the context of Ukraine
- Obstruction by the West of UN Security Council resolutions on terrorist attacks in Russian territory
- Developments in Moldova
- EU plans to abandon Russian energy imports
- Britain’s anti-Russian criminal spy delusions
- Establishing a centre for geopolitics, peace and security at the Arctic University of Norway
- Anti-Russia statements by Prime Minister of Denmark Mette Frederiksen
- Russia-Kazakhstan cooperation in nuclear energy
- Launch of a gold refinery construction in Mali with the participation of Yadran Group, Russia
- The 50th anniversary of independence of the Republic of Mozambique and 50th anniversary of Russian-Mozambican diplomatic relations
- The Second S.V. Rachmaninoff International Competition for Pianists, Composers and Conductors
- The 100th anniversary of the Artek International Children’s Centre
- The prosecution of Alexey Roslikov in Latvia
- The Kosovo Project of the West
- The situation around Armenia’s EU membership
- The 10th EU-Ukraine Human Rights Dialogue
- Statements by Italian politicians
- BRICS’ role in forging a multipolar world order
- Global Majority countries interested in establishing ties with Russia
- Statements by Vladimir Zelensky
- The automotive industry at the SPIEF
- The situation around the Iran’s nuclear programme
- Establishing the China – Central Asia media alliance
- Russian-Armenian relations
- Russia’s mediation in Azerbaijani-Armenian relations
- Russian athletes’ participation in international competitions
- Russia’s efforts to facilitate a peace settlement in the Middle East
- The evacuation of cancer patients from Israel
- The situation around Samvel Karapetyan
- Developments around the Syunik Region
- The evacuation of Russian citizens from Iran
- Pension arrears in Latvia
- The Ukraine conflict’s coverage by media outlets in Baltic States
- Russia’s participation in the G8
On events in St. Petersburg within the framework of SPIEF
Let me first welcome you here in Russia, in St Petersburg, on the sidelines of the St Petersburg International Economic Forum, which provides an excellent opportunity for offsite briefings. It has already become a good tradition. I would like to thank the organisers for their constant support.
At the previous briefing, I gave a detailed description of the forum. Now I will be brief. You can see everything yourselves: amazingly interesting presentations and exhibitions, informative and busy agenda, and topical discussion themes. The scope of participation is also impressive: there is no need to repeat the figures, as you are well aware of them. This is evident both in the number of participants and in the diversity of countries represented. Delegations have arrived from the CIS, BRICS, SCO, ASEAN, Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America. The individual representation alone is extraordinary. The business programme includes 150 events.
We are in St Petersburg, a unique city that has many symbolic names and is often referred to as an open-air museum. This city has inspired a vast number of poets, writers, artists, architects, composers, and other creative people. And not just them – many scientists have earned international acclaim here, and numerous achievements of universal importance have been made, including those promoting humanistic ideals.
In the year that marks the 80th anniversary of Victory, I would like to mention the heroism of Leningrad, as it was known during the Great Patriotic War. The city withstood a brutal siege, now officially recognised as an act of genocide. It lasted 872 days and took the lives of over a million people. This figure, tragically, is not final, as researchers continue to uncover new data, which is published and openly accessible. In 1965, the city was awarded the honorary title of Hero City. The defence of Leningrad became a global symbol of endurance, courage, and the triumph of good over evil. The Leningraders’ bravery is etched not only in the memory of our nation but in the hearts of people around the world.
I would like to invite you to a session at 17:00, immediately after the briefing with a short break, which will feature a truly exceptional guest – Irina Bulina, a survivor of the Leningrad siege. This is a unique chance to see her and talk to her. At the session, her reissued book dedicated to her memory and the memory of her family, containing her diaries and notes, will be presented. This edition was made possible through the support of the Foreign Ministry and generous sponsors.
I urge you to attend and listen to the history of this city and the country from someone who lived through it.
International and interregional relations of St Petersburg and Leningrad Region
We note the consistent efforts undertaken by the leadership of St Petersburg and the Leningrad Region to expand diverse interregional and foreign economic ties with friendly countries amid current geopolitical realities. Based on the outcomes of the St Petersburg International Economic Forum, the city is expected to reach a record high number of agreements with investors aimed at strengthening Russia’s technological sovereignty.
Efforts are being made to boost the foreign trade of St Petersburg and the Leningrad Region, to stabilise the trade balance compared to the 2022-2023 levels, and to further diversify the foreign trade structure.
China remains the main trading partner. Trade with Kazakhstan is expanding. Against the backdrop of stronger economic cooperation among the CIS countries, expanding trade ties with Belarus holds significant promise. Cooperation with Iran and Türkiye is expanding as well. The above countries account for 77.4 percent of overall trade, with China accounting for 43.2 percent in exports and 43.1 percent in imports. Major deals have been signed with Myanmar, the Republic of Korea, Brazil, Germany, and Egypt. Ties with Serbia in healthcare, education, the manufacturing industry, high technology, tourism, and urban infrastructure have expanded.
The volume of St Petersburg trade increased by 9 percent to $56.7 billion in 2024 compared to 2023. Export value rose by 8.6 percent to $29 billion. Imports continued to grow to $27 billion, a 9.4 percent increase.
The Leningrad Region is expanding cooperation with its partners in Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and South Ossetia. Agreements will be signed with the Republic of Abkhazia, as well as with regions of Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Syria, and the Republic of South Africa. The region’s foreign trade in 2024 saw a deceleration in decline to 5.1 percent, totaling $10.7 billion. Its major trading partners include China, Türkiye, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Brazil, India, and Vietnam. Aggregate trade with these countries accounts for 75.6 percent of the total. The Leningrad Region also holds a leading position in terms of trade growth with Belarus. Joint projects are underway in construction and the production of agricultural and public utility machinery.
Overall, the Leningrad Region and St Petersburg lead the way in building up the legal and regulatory framework for interregional cooperation. More agreements are being concluded with the countries that are friendly or constructively-minded with regard to Russia. Relevant roadmaps for implementing them are being drafted.
In addition, St Petersburg and the Leningrad Region maintain close contacts with our compatriots residing in the Baltic states who are facing persecution from Russophobic regimes for refusing to adopt an anti-Russia stance. What I’m saying is these people are unwilling to forgo things that they hold dear and things that underlie their philosophy and their way of life. They endure suffering over this.
Events related to celebrating the 80th anniversary of the Great Victory and military memorial activities had a special place on the Russian regions’ business calendar. Delegations from Abkhazia, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan came to St Petersburg to participate in the festivities. Siege survivors and veterans living abroad have also made a valuable contribution to preserving the sacred memory of the victorious generation. They participated in the Victory Parade, the Immortal Regiment march, and festive concerts and processions. I believe you followed these events as well.
On June 23, Sergey Lavrov will participate in the 11th annual Primakov Readings International Expert Forum. The event is organised by the Yevgeny Primakov National Research Institute of World Economy and International Relations of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
For many years, this forum has convened prominent politicians, economists, scholars of international relations, and public figures from across the globe in Moscow. This has cemented its distinctive position among comparable events. It bears recalling that as early as the 1990s, Yevgeny Primakov foresaw multipolarity emerging as a defining trend in global development. At the time, this was nothing less than a revolutionary proposition, one he advanced resolutely during his tenure as Russia’s Foreign Minister from 1996 to 1998. The current international landscape has fully validated Yevgeny Primakov’s political acumen.
In his remarks at the forum, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will evaluate contemporary international developments and articulate the priorities of Russia’s foreign policy. A discussion will obviously ensue, during which the Minister will also field questions.
Sergey Lavrov’s visit to Turkmenistan
On June 24–25, Sergey Lavrov will undertake an official visit to Turkmenistan. During the visit, he will hold talks with President of Turkmenistan Serdar Berdimuhamedov and Deputy Chairman of the Cabinet of Ministers and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Turkmenistan Rashid Meredov.
The parties will deliberate on forthcoming highest and high level political engagements, the advancement of bilateral relations – including cooperation in trade, economic, cultural, and humanitarian spheres – and will exchange perspectives on regional dynamics, the global situation, and mutual collaboration between our two countries within multilateral frameworks.
On June 24–29, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic Thongsavanh Phomvihane will make an official visit to Russia. Talks and meetings will be held in Moscow, with a scheduled meeting with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on June 26.
The parties will review the current state and future trajectory of bilateral partnership in the Asia-Pacific region, emphasising the implementation of agreements reached during highest level talks in 2024 – notably those conducted in Moscow on May 9 and in Kazan on October 24, 2024. They will conduct a thorough examination of avenues to strengthen political dialogue, trade and economic collaboration, and cooperation in defence and security, alongside an assessment of existing cultural ties. Special focus will be accorded to intensifying coordination on international and regional matters.
Regrettably, the most perilous escalation of tensions in the Middle East continues, instigated by Israel’s unprovoked aggression against Iran – a sovereign member of the United Nations – in violation of the UN Charter and international law. You are, of course, familiar with the two statements issued by the Russian Foreign Ministry (1, 2), which resolutely condemn this criminal venture, fraught with catastrophic consequences for both regional and global security.
Attempts to justify these actions by invoking fictitious non-proliferation concerns are a flagrant display of cynicism.
Allow me to remind you that as of June 13 – a date that, in itself, substantiates the aforementioned argument – when the first strikes were launched against Iranian territory, intensive yet challenging negotiations were underway in the form of indirect Iran-US contacts facilitated by Oman. A further round of substantive dialogue had been scheduled for June 15, for which Tehran had prepared a series of proposals aimed at advancing a desired resolution. Concurrently, a session of the IAEA Board of Governors was in progress, addressing matters related to the Iranian nuclear deal.
Israel’s actions have undermined and set back painstaking multilateral efforts to de-escalate confrontation and forge reliable solutions that dispel unfounded suspicions and prejudices regarding Iran’s peaceful nuclear energy. Was this not precisely the objective pursued by Western Jerusalem, deliberately opting for heightened tensions and the sabotage of peace initiatives? This is a question many are now asking.
Equally staggering is the hypocrisy of certain West European leaders. Having zealously stoked anti-Iran hysteria ahead of the IAEA Board of Governors meeting, they effectively incited Israel to aggression. And now, astonishingly and perversely, they demand that Iran “return to the negotiating table.”
We are gravely concerned by the ongoing military hostilities, which have resulted in numerous civilian casualties. We categorically condemn Israel’s attacks on peaceful nuclear facilities in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Such actions are unlawful under international law, pose unacceptable threats to global security, and push the world to a nuclear catastrophe – the consequences of which (God forbid) would reverberate worldwide, including within Israel itself. Russia urges Israeli leadership to immediately cease its raids on nuclear installations and sites that are under IAEA safeguards and are subject to IAEA verification. Particular alarm surrounds the safety of the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant, where Russian specialists are engaged.
The firm and unequivocal response of the Global Majority to Israel’s strikes on Iranian territory – including its nuclear energy infrastructure – coupled with the outcomes of the UN Security Council’s emergency session on June 13 and the IAEA Board of Governors’ special session on June 16, demonstrates widespread rejection of Israel’s confrontational and destructive course. This approach finds sympathy and support solely among states complicit in its actions.
The immediate priority now is to halt the spiral of violence, secure a ceasefire, and restore peace – thereby creating conditions for a return to negotiations. We stand ready to contribute fully to this effort and are actively pursuing political and diplomatic measures to that end.
As is well-known, on the very first day of the conflict’s hot phase, President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin held telephone conversations with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President of the Islamic Republic of Iran Masoud Pezeshkian. The following day, as you are aware, Vladimir Putin spoke with US President Donald Trump. Subsequent contacts were made with President of Türkiye Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and President of the UAE Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov conducted telephone discussions with his counterparts – Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan, Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty, and Omani Foreign Minister Badr bin Hamad Al Busaidi. The current Middle East crisis was also addressed during the Russian Foreign Minister’s telephone conversation with Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Jeyhun Bayramov and with Indonesian Foreign Minister Sugiono.
As you are aware, highest level negotiations, foreign ministers engagements, and telephone contacts continue even at this hour.
We remain hopeful that recognition of the imperative to seek mutually acceptable negotiated solutions to the present challenges will prevail. Russia will persist in supporting efforts to resolve issues surrounding Iran’s nuclear programme, grounded firmly in international law, the principle of equal and indivisible security, and a balanced consideration of mutual interests. We want particularly caution Washington against military intervention, which would constitute an exceedingly dangerous step with truly unpredictable repercussions.
Russia acknowledges Iran’s clear statements reaffirming its unwavering commitment to obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and its readiness to resume contacts with the United States to explore potential solutions that would dispel any unfounded suspicions and prejudices regarding Tehran’s nuclear programme – provided Israeli attacks cease. Moscow supports this stance and firmly maintains that a sustainable resolution can only be reliably achieved through diplomacy and negotiations. The objectives of nuclear non-proliferation, the cornerstone of which remains the NPT, must not be pursued through aggression or at the cost of innocent lives.
Evacuation of Russian citizens from Iran-Israel conflict zone
In light of the dramatic escalation between Iran and Israel, exchange of strikes and closure of the air space, the Foreign Ministry and the Russian embassies in Iran, Israel, Iraq, Kuwait, Türkiye and other countries have been working to organise the speedy evacuation of Russian delegations, the staff of Russian agencies, organisations and economic operators working temporarily in the said countries, as well as the families of the staff of Russian offices abroad.
Since June 14, 2025, about 550 people have moved out of Iran to Azerbaijan and Armenia for departure from Baku and Yerevan, including the film crew of Fyodor Bondarchuk, the Tchaikovsky Orchestra, members of the Gorchakov Fund, oilfield workers, travel groups, and Russian citizens. Over 120 people have moved out of Israel, including music groups, pilgrims and tourists, for departure from the airports of Egypt and Jordan. Support has also been provided to the citizens of Belarus, Serbia, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.
As per the recommendation of the Economic Development Ministry, travel agents have halted the sale of vouchers to Iran and Israel, where no more than a dozen members of package tours are left.
The available exit routes from Iran are via the Astara checkpoint on the border with Azerbaijan and the Agarak checkpoint on the border with Armenia (the choice should take into account current location, travel risks, logistics, travel time to the nearest international airport and other factors). We have published and will continue to publish our practical recommendations and notifications on the Telegram channels of the Foreign Ministry and Russian embassies in Tehran and Yerevan. The links will be provided in the print version of this briefing.
Three are also three checkpoints for crossing into Türkiye, which work round the clock – Gurbulak-Bazargan, Kapıköy-Raziye and Esendere-Sero.
Exit from Israel to Egypt is open through the Menachem Begin-Taba checkpoint round the clock, and there are three border crossings into Jordan – the Jordan River/Sheikh Hussein Crossing (open from 9 am to 4 pm), the King Hussein Bridge (Allenby) Terminal (8 am to2 pm), and the Yitzhak Rabin Terminal/Wadi Araba Crossing (8 am to 8 pm).
There are 20 direct flights from Baku to Russia every day by Aeroflot, Rossiya, Red Wings, S7, IrAeo and Azerbaijan Airlines, about 20 flights from Yerevan every day by Aeroflot, UTair, Ural Airlines, FlyOne, Armenia, Azimuth, and Shirak Avia, and five Cairo-Moscow flights every week by Aeroflot and Egypt Air.
In light of rapid changes in the situation, we recommend our citizens to monitor the regularly updated messages and notifications on the Foreign Ministry’s internet resources, namely the official Ministry account on Telegram and the Ministry’s website, as well as the resources, sites and Telegram accounts of our embassies in the region, which I have mentioned.
If necessary, call our emergency numbers at the Russian embassies in Iran (+98-21-6670-1161/63,+98-993-814-7226;rusembiran@mid.ru; and t.me/russianembassytehran, Azerbaijan (+994-12-597-0870, +994-50-270-2659, embazerbaijan@mid.ru; and t.me/s/embrusaz), Israel (+972-53-600-3847, +972-54-962-2341; cons.israel@mid.ru; and t.me/RussiaInIsrael), Armenia (+374-94-00-47-95, +374-91-21-71-13; consarmenia@mid.ru; and t.me/rusembassyarm), Egypt (+20-128-009-50-99; rusembegypt@mid.ru; and t.me/rusembeg),and Jordan (+962-7-75-52-81-25, +962-7-77-42-66-18; rusembjo@mid.ru; and t.me/rusembjo).
Three is also a 24/4 hotline of Ministry’s Crisis Management Centre (Department) +7-495-695-4545; dskc@mid.ru; t.me/DSKC_MID, and the Foreign Assistant mobile app.
We would like to express gratitude to the authorities of Iran, Azerbaijan, Armenia and Iraq for their assistance in organising evacuation procedures.
We are also wholeheartedly grateful to our Azerbaijani partners for helping Russians returning home from Iran amid the dramatic escalation in the Middle East, especially in the first days of the crisis, when we had to act at short notice. We are promptly addressing all the organisational and logistics issues with Baku. To date, over 500 Russian citizens have crossed from Iran into Azerbaijan via the Astara checkpoint. They have expressed gratitude for a warm welcome, hospitality, assistance and support they were given in Azerbaijan. As you know, the Tchaikovsky Orchestra gave a charity concert in Baku on June 17 to express its gratitude to the people of Azerbaijan.
It sometimes happens that people can’t find common language and show empathy in an ordinary situation that is not darkened by conflicts, escalations, threats or emergencies. And it also happens that they do so when everything is on fire and people don’t know if they will survive or not and can’t phone their loved ones, let alone leave the dangerous zone. That is exactly what has happened when people, who had to hide in bomb and other shelters, as well as basements, saw the manifestations of true humanism and all the other best features of human society. We have seen this on all sides, including the recipients of assistance. They have expressed sincere personal gratitude and also spoke on behalf of all the others who have been given and will be given help and assistance.
The escalation in the Middle East has led to the closure of the air space in most regional countries and put the crews of Russian passenger aircraft in the air in a challenging situation, to put it mildly. Did those who have created this havoc think about that? For example, on June 13, a Siberia flight from Novosibirsk to Dubai had to change its route and request an emergency landing at Ashgabat International Airport. We are deeply grateful to the Turkmen partners for their prompt reaction in that difficult situation and the assistance they provided to the passengers and crew of the Russian plane.
We once again urge Russian citizens to refrain from traveling to Iran and Israel until the situation normalises and those who are currently in the region to leave the dangerous areas. If the latter is impossible, they should take maximum personal safety measures, namely, avoid military facilities, critical infrastructure sites, refrain from taking photos or videos, avoid crowded areas, follow the instructions of the authorities, and head towards shelters without delay. As I have said, we promptly update relevant information on our resources.
Russia has come close to completing the humanitarian package contained in the agreements with Ukraine as concluded during the second round of direct talks in Istanbul on June 2, 2025. As you know, Russia repatriated 6,060 bodies of Ukrainian Armed Forces personnel to demonstrate its good will. In return, we received 78 dead bodies of our fighters, while Russia’s Ministry of Defence confirmed that it was ready to hand over another 2,239 bodies of Ukrainian troops to Kiev.
There is an ongoing effort to hold reciprocal exchanges of prisoners who suffer from severe health conditions or are wounded, as well as young soldiers below the age of 25 years – let me remind you that Russia suggested all these initiatives. These exchanges include several stages, and we expect at least 1,000 people to come home on each side. We are working hard on the list of 339 Ukrainian children we have received. Let me remind you that they were not kidnapped in any way or stolen or forcefully displaced or taken out of the country by force, no matter what anyone says. These children cannot get back together with their parents. Some of them have to be located since there is no information about them.
This is a tragic situation. But unfortunate as it is, various countries and cities, even quite prosperous ones, face this tragedy, let alone a territory which has been suffering from the shelling by the Kiev regime for so many years, since 2014.
After June 22, the Russian delegation – I am referring to the delegation of the Russian Federation as approved by President Vladimir Putin – will be ready to travel to Istanbul for continuing the talks. The exact timeframe will be determined soon – we have been receiving a lot of questions on this topic. The representatives and leaders of the delegation will share these details. During the third round of talks, we intend to discuss the memorandums which were submitted on May 28, 2025, and June 2, 2025. They set forth proposals on ways of settling the Ukraine crisis.
You may have noticed that Kiev has been furious, or should I say went crazy, when it saw that Russia was carrying out the Istanbul agreements in good faith. It started making extremely cynical comments. Everyone pitched in, including Ukrainian government officials and journalists, unfortunately. A female presenter for Ukraine’s Kanal 24 tried to persuade her audience that Russia never handed over these 6,000 dead bodies and that this myth came from Moscow. She said that Russia cut these corpses into pieces and split them into different plastic bags in order to pretend that there were more bodies – I have to summon my courage to say this every time, but this is my duty because this is an accurate quote of what this anchor has been saying. Moreover, this Ukrainian journalist claimed that there was a massive effort to dig out the graves of local residents in the territories of the regions which have reunited with Russia. She said that these people died and were buried before the start of the special military operation. She went as far in her sickly insinuations as claim that these were planned initiatives for demonstrating the scale of this issue, inciting protests and achieving regime change.
Does this mean that she ignored the scale of this issue in Ukraine if not for these 6,000 dead bodies? They pretend to keep their people informed about this scale, while blaming Russia. But all of a sudden, they start denying that this is a major issue.
Ukraine’s Interior Minister Klimenko has adopted a similarly outrageous logic by blaming Russia for intentionally making it harder to identify the corpses it hands over to Ukraine. Therefore, they started by refusing to take these bodies, and then argued that we were the ones who made things so complicated. What kind of gibberish and devilish muttering do we keep hearing from them? What did he want to say? Let me remind you that he is Ukraine’s Interior Minister. He claimed that the dead bodies they receive are extremely mutilated and split into several plastic bags. How can a grown-up man and especially someone who heads a law enforcement agency say this about people who died during military action?
But it gets worse. The next statement he made is a nightmare for me. Here it is. Interior Minister of Ukraine Igor Klimenko said that the bodies of Ukrainians and Russians were all mixed up. But when journalists asked him to explain how it was possible, he failed to offer an explanation. I think that he needs to see a doctor. I am serious about it.
Could it get any worse? In can. Vladimir Zelensky went even further. While in Austria on some kind of a business trip, he said on June 16, 2025, that Russia suggested returning Ukrainian children in exchange for Russian troops. We can see him on the screen every now and then in quite a strange state. That said, I do not know what kind of drugs he has been taking to lie this way. This amounts to outright cynical and horrible lies. Once again, they are probably designed to derail the Istanbul process and the mediating efforts by the countries seeking to facilitate it.
But there must be at least some logic in what they do. If they handed over a list with just 339 names on it, why do they try pretending that someone had additional requests and suggested changing something? He should have explained how the figure of 20,000 children shrank to 339 in a matter of months.
Once again, I would like to stress that Russia does not kidnap, deport or forcefully displace children, let alone trade them against prisoners of war or anyone else. Our fighters risk their lives to save children and they do this without asking where these children come from, where they belong, what passport they have or what country issued their birth certificates, what kind of blood runs in their veins, and what is their ethnic background or religion. Saving every child is what matters the most. All we do is take them out of combat zones.
With the mediation of Qatar, Belarus, and several other countries, as well as the International Committee of the Red Cross, Presidential Commissioner for Children’s Rights Maria Lvova-Belova engages in complex efforts to have Ukrainian and Russian children reunite with their respective families. As you may be aware, as of today, 101 Ukrainian children from 81 families have reunited with their relatives in Ukraine and other countries; and 22 children have returned from Ukraine to their 15 families in Russia.
I would also like to note that Ukrainian citizens, whose children are being taken away by the social services in the Western European countries, have repeatedly contacted Russian diplomatic missions in utter state of despair. They reach out to Russia, because Ukrainian embassies flatly refuse to even discuss this issue, citing “political circumstances.”
Let me explain what these “political circumstances” are all about. If the Ukrainian embassies stationed in the EU countries send a diplomatic note or raise the issue of them searching for Ukrainian children within the borders of the EU countries, the myth that all Ukrainian children allegedly disappear because of Russia, in Russia, or with Russia having a hand in it, will be refuted. It will vanish. This is what stands behind “political circumstances.” But in reality, it’s infamy of the highest order. This is how they take care of their own children.
The above could be dismissed as another Russian propaganda stunt, but, in an interview with the national media in April 2024, Ukrainian Commissioner for Human Rights Dmitry Lubinets disclosed statistics showing that 255 children had been taken away from Ukrainian families in European countries. This is their official statistical data. The information released on April 17, 2024 by the Ukrainian National Police deserves special attention. It shows that over 160 Ukrainian children, who Bankovaya Street alleged had been shipped to Russia or by Russia, suddenly turned up in Germany. Everything will come to light. Truth will prevail. And everyone will be horrified by the lies and hypocrisy spread by the people on Bankovaya Street.
Clearly, we are dealing with another staged campaign to discredit Russia. Similar ploys were used to fabricate other cases, such as Bucha with catchy headlines in Western media but no facts or evidence to back it up, just sloganeering.
Throughout its history (not just these days and years, but always), our country has shown humanism in the truest sense of the word. Think of the monument in Treptower Park. It’s not just a Soviet soldier holding a German girl. It’s a historical fact: these soldiers and these children had names.
The terrorist nature of the Kiev regime is widely known, but I will continue to cite facts, figures, and data to corroborate our description of this regime.
They did their utmost to mar festive events on Russia Day, June 12. Bandera terrorists targeted civilians and civilian infrastructure in the Russian regions.
Over the past week, their shelling resulted in 104 casualties, including eight fatalities, among them one minor person; 96 people were injured, including 14 children and teenagers.
On June 9, in the village of Prigorodnyaya Slobodka, Kursk Region, a civilian was killed and five other people were injured.
On June 10, in the village of Sheptukhovka, two combine-harvester operators got thermal burns after hitting a Ukrainian landmine.
Three children aged 7, 9 and 13 were injured in enemy UAV attacks on the village of Maryino. The glazing of two rural health posts was damaged. The bleeding-heart Westerners that provide money and weapons to the Kiev regime and Western NGOs that keep saying they care about children are nowhere to be seen. They don’t care about anything. Cultural centres and health resorts were hit as well. Windows in the local primary school were shattered.
On June 11, in Rylsky District, a Ukrainian drone pursuing a civilian car maimed the driver.
On June 10, in Belgorod, a UAV attack on a petrol station killed one person and wounded five more.
In Shebekino, Belgorod Region, an FPV-drone attack on a local enterprise on June 11 wounded six civilians.
On June 12, in the village of Borisovka, a two-year-old child was killed in a UAV attack by Ukrainian forces; the child’s grandmother was taken to the hospital in grave condition.
In the Bryansk Region, Ukrainian drones attacked the village of Brakhlov on June 11, wounding two people. On June 15, a local resident was injured when a Ukrainian drone hit a civilian car in the village of Podlesnye Novosyolki.
In the DPR, on June 9-15, at least 14 people were wounded, including six teenagers and one Russian Emergencies Ministry employee. On June 12, in Makeyevka, a woman, born in 1957, sustained severe injuries after stepping on a Lepestok antipersonnel mine in a horticultural non-commercial partnership. On June 13, the same population centre was hit by shrapnel rounds from a HIMARS MLRS killing a married couple: a man born in 1977 and a woman born in 1980. On the morning of June 17, Ukrainian Nazis targeted a residential block of flats in Donetsk’s Leninsky District with MZ-1 fragmentation missiles from a HIMARS MLRS, wounding 14 people.
In the LPR, a 17-year-old was injured in a drone attack in the town of Kremennaya on June 14.
In the Kherson Region, on June 11, a resident of Proletarka was wounded during Ukrainian shelling. Wildfires broke out on an area of 43 ha; a 150 kV power line was damaged, leaving 392 population centres and over 250,000 residents without power. On June 12, in the village of Rovnoye, two people, including a 79-year-old woman, were injured in Ukrainian strikes; in Alyoshki, the enemy targeted an ambulance. On June 14, in Novaya Kakhovka, one person was injured by Ukrainian fire.
In Tatarstan, on June 15, Ukrainian drones hit an automobile plant in Yelabuga District injuring 18 people; two more died beneath drone debris that fell onto a car park near a checkpoint. Three children were wounded.
Please note that at 11 am on June 26, the Press Centre of MIA Rossiya Segodnya will host a presentation of a report by the International Public Tribunal, Atrocities and War Crimes Committed by the Kiev Regime in the City of Dzerzhinsk.
Russian and foreign media members are welcome to attend.
Russian courts continue passing sentences on Ukrainian neo-Nazis and foreign mercenaries for their war and other crimes.
AFU militants Alexander Kozhemyak, Oleg Shved, and Sergey Voitsekhovsky have been sentenced to 15 years imprisonment each for maintaining an armed blockade of the village of Olgovka in the Kursk Region. Ivan Golynsky, Maxim Yemelyanov, Vitaly Nazarenko, Vadim Rozhkov, and Alexander Tsviliy have been sentenced to 16 years each for the same crime.
Vasily Nagorny, Nikolai Gorpynchenko, and Vasily Mashiko of the 47th Detached Mechanised Brigade have been sentenced to 16.5 years imprisonment each for war crimes they committed in the Glushkovsky District, Kursk Region, including for keeping the village of Novy Put under unlawful armed control. Alexander Rafalyuk, Anatoly Chepela, and Vladimir Yatskovsky of the same unit have been sentenced to 16 years each for the same crimes.
Stepan Rustamov and Ivan Sova of the 95th Detached Air Assault Brigade have been sentenced to 16 and 15 years, respectively, for maintaining a blockade of the village of Pogrebki in the Kursk Region.
A Danish mercenary, Annabelle Jorgensen, has been sentenced in absentia to 26 years at a prison camp. A Colombian mercenary, Pablo Puentes Borges, who was taken prisoner in the Kursk Region, has been sentenced to 28 years.
On June 12, German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius paid an “unannounced visit” to Kiev to “compare notes” on current German and European assistance to the Ukrainian regime, with a focus on military industrial cooperation. Mr Pistorius announced that his country was likely to provide another 1.9 billion euros in aid to Ukraine (adding up to a total of 48 billion euros since the start of the special military operation). He allowed for a possibility that this money could be used, among other things, for manufacturing long-range missiles in Ukrainian territory. It is certainly what is needed to finish off the people of Ukraine in every sense of the word. Berlin’s militarist frenzy is meeting with growing disapproval in Germany itself. Opinion polls indicate that 63 percent of Germans are dead set against supplying Taurus missiles to Ukraine, with another 55 percent of respondents rejecting plans for joint production of long-range systems.
On June 12, Rome hosted a Weimar+ ministerial meeting (UK, Germany, Spain, Italy, Poland, and France) – it’s fantastic how many formats they have made – a get-together attended by the NATO Secretary General, the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the Ukrainian foreign minister. This meeting came out in favour of strengthening the Armed Forces of Ukraine and expanding military-industrial cooperation with Kiev so as to increase Europe’s defence capability in the face of the alleged Russian threat. President Putin discussed this myth in detail with foreign media representatives on the sidelines of the St Petersburg International Economic Forum. To be sure, participants in the Rome meeting also urged more sanctions against Russia. In general, they said, it is necessary to rally and strengthen positions, even though all their efforts were totally ineffective, as Vladimir Putin stated yesterday. But they seem to like it.
The most recent data from the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, dated June 16, 2025, constitute a revealing stroke in the militaristic portrait of contemporary Europe. According to the Institute’s calculations, the cumulative volume of military aid from the European Union to the Kiev regime has reached 72 billion euros, while the United States has provided 65 billion euros. A record surge in funding was recorded during March and April of this year.
Now, let us juxtapose these sums with the losses incurred by the EU and NATO member states themselves, who have sacrificed normal trade opportunities with our country and others. They are now subject to indirect sanctions. Just imagine the scale of this! For decades, they could not muster even a few million to assist the needy on other continents – those they professed to care for so deeply. They never found the resolve to address, for instance, the shortages of clean water in African countries or the medical crises across Asia. They constantly spoke of fundraising and Western countries attempted something on UN platforms – yet nothing materialised.
Observe now the colossal sums mobilised in mere moments over the past few years for precisely the opposite purposes. Not to heal, but to harm; not to promote health and increase birth rates, but to kill; not to educate, but to ensure that future generations cannot stand tall. So many problems they have created. It is surreal!
The G7 summit in Canada did not conclude as Vladimir Zelensky had anticipated. Not only did he fail to meet with Donald Trump, as he had expected, but he also failed to secure the consent of his allies for the allocation of further billions in annual budgetary support to ensure Ukraine’s resilience.
As you are aware, no final joint G7 statement on Ukraine was adopted. In short, Zelensky returned empty-handed.
A surprisingly balanced article emerged – an unusual occurrence, given the range of publications. This time, objectivity prevailed. In Politico, an analyst from Germany’s Alexander von Humboldt Foundation published a piece underscoring that the West cannot help Ukraine to win this conflict, and that victory on the battlefield is no longer a realistic goal for the Kiev regime, regardless of the number of additional billions the West may allocate.
President of Russia Vladimir Putin presented these facts yesterday. No matter the supplies, they will never achieve their mythical objective of inflicting a “strategic defeat” on Russia or securing a victory for neo-Nazism in Ukraine. The author remarks that “this isn’t a popular outlook in Washington or Brussels, but… that outcome is looking increasingly unlikely.”
In the author’s view, the best way to support Kiev is not by prolonging hostilities but by ending them, without sacrificing the future of the country. In the current situation, the preservation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and the stabilisation of Europe’s political landscape depend less on weapons and more on diplomacy. One might add – on common sense, though this is surely self-evident. Continuing the conflict risks exhausting Ukraine, fracturing Western unity, and strengthening Russia. Again, this is the assessment of an expert from Germany’s Alexander von Humboldt Foundation.
Amid this, the Kiev regime persists in its obsessive campaign to erase historical memory – a topic we have addressed on numerous occasions – but its latest frenzy targets the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Alongside coercive measures, they now threaten clergy with forced mobilisation.
Ukraine’s State Service for Ethnopolitics and Freedom of Conscience has approved a list of religious organisations deemed “critical to the economy and population’s livelihood during special periods,” whose clergy are thus exempt from conscription. Have you ever witnessed anything like this? What country, what regime, has ever conceived of such a thing? Were we to encounter this in a film or a novel, we would dismiss it as pure science fiction – utterly implausible. Yet this is now our reality. Over 7,000 organisations have made the list. Predictably, it includes the Orthodox Church of Ukraine, Uniates, Protestants, Evangelicals, Adventists, neo-pagans, and other communities. Not a single structure affiliated with the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church appears. To avoid mobilisation, priests are pressured to “voluntarily” transfer their parishes to the Orthodox Church of Ukraine. How else to describe this? Change your jurisdiction, and you will gain exemption.
Military enlistment offices have long been circling Ukrainian Orthodox Church clergy. Now, their hands are untied, and cases of forced clergy mobilisation will multiply. Examples already exist. On June 11, 2025, in Rovno, Protopriest Andrey Zhuk, a rural parish rector, was detained and hastily dispatched to a unit following a perfunctory medical examination. On the same day, in the Ternopol Region, enlistment officers seized Archimandrite Paphnutius, abbot of the Pochaev Holy Spirit Skete Monastery. There are more such cases.
These facts underscore the urgency of the special military operation to denazify and demilitarise Ukraine and to eliminate threats emanating from its territory. The Russian leadership has repeatedly affirmed that these objectives will be fulfilled.
Kiev regime’s collaborations with terrorist networks in Mali
We have taken note of media reports from the Sahel states highlighting the alleged direct involvement of the Kiev regime and Ukrainian special services in training terrorist elements operating in the Sahara-Sahel region. Last week, news outlets in Mali and Burkina Faso, citing official sources, reported the participation of Ukrainian intelligence in supporting the terrorist group known as the Group for the Support of Islam and Muslims. This group was responsible for the May 30 attack on Malian armed forces positions in the Koulikoro region. According to these reports, the Kiev regime has been supplying the terrorists with unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) via a neighbouring country, providing intelligence data, and organising training activities.
According to available information, during a counter-terrorism operation, Malian defence and security forces discovered documents implicating the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Ukrainian Ministry of Defence. Additionally, an unmanned aerial vehicle bearing identifying markings in Ukrainian was seized.
The Kiev regime continues to unveil its terrorist nature far beyond its borders. Connections with African terrorists were previously confirmed by Andrey Yusov, press secretary of Ukraine’s Main Intelligence Directorate of the Defence Ministry, and Ukraine’s Ambassador to Senegal Yury Pivovarov, who both admitted assisting terrorists responsible for the late‑July 2024 attack on a Malian military convoy in northern Mali. Mali and Niger’s governments subsequently corroborated these statements and, in August 2024, moved to “immediately” sever diplomatic relations with Ukraine. Shortly thereafter, Mali, Niger and Burkina Faso appealed to the UN Security Council, urging measures in response to Kiev’s support for terrorism on the African continent.
Within our territory, Zelensky’s gang continues to employ terrorist tactics, including repeated attacks on civilian infrastructure. As they retreat under pressure from the Russian Armed Forces, it appears they have chosen to open a second front in Africa by encouraging terrorist activities in African states that maintain friendly relations with us.
It is impossible to overlook the tacit approval demonstrated by the British-EU alliance toward the crimes committed by the Kiev regime. Over the year since the tragic events in Mali, not a single Western country has condemned Kiev’s support for terrorist groups, even when such concerns were raised directly by African nations. The Western bloc’s silence in response to terrorist attacks carried out by Ukrainian neo-Nazis on Russian territory is consistent with a broader pattern of shielding their protégés from accountability.
The responsibility for the escalating terrorist threat rests squarely with the neo-Bandera regime and its Western backers, who must be recognised as complicit in these crimes.
Foreign Ministry’s latest report on human rights in Ukraine
The Foreign Ministry regularly releases human rights reports. The situation surrounding Ukraine needs a significant amount of data and evidence to describe it in a specialised report. A new report titled “On the Human Rights Situation in Ukraine” has been put together most recently.
Numerous documented violations of human rights confirm the fact that the situation in this sphere in Ukraine has deteriorated significantly. It has become increasingly clear that the Kiev regime, which has usurped power, is increasingly revealing its openly Nazi nature as it continues to commit countless and egregious human rights violations across all areas of public life. In effect, a police dictatorship has been established in the country, where lawlessness and legal arbitrariness reign.
In addition, various manifestations of neo-Nazism have intensified in Ukraine, including the aggressive promotion of this ideology, distortion of the history of the Great Patriotic War and World War II with the aim of glorifying Nazis and their collaborationists, and the cultivation of nationalist sentiment among the population. The report contains extensive evidence of the above, such as glorification of the Nazi war criminal Stepan Bandera and the SS Galicia Division (banned in the Russian Federation), and the honouring of a few surviving former Nazis.
The Nazi-inspired policies of the Kiev regime are being fully implemented with regard to the Russian-speaking population of Ukraine. At this point, everything Russian, including language, culture, education, print media, and mass media, has been banned in that country. There is also an ongoing effort to eliminate the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church. What does this mean? It’s not about destroying the form, but the essence. A campaign of unprecedented scale is underway to forcibly seize churches - with the backing of local authorities - by militants, followed by the legalisation of such seizures and a distortion of the churches’ original purpose. These premises are being used for all sorts of things such as cooking shows, dancing parties, gatherings, rallies, and so on.
Surprisingly, before that, monuments to heroes of the Great Patriotic War and everything related to the Great Victory have been torn down with Zelensky’s permission under the pretext of “decommunisation.” The real reason was simply to erase and rewrite, under Western direction, the history of the Great Patriotic War. Even more incomprehensible is the fact that, on the one hand, they claim to be doing the decommunisation, yet, on the other hand, they are using reprisals in the religious sphere that resemble - at their worst - the excesses of communism used against clergy, churches, and representatives of the world religions and denominations. How is that even possible? How can these contradicting views coexist in one person? On the one hand, they are talking about decommunisation; on the other hand, they are using methods from that very era that have since been deemed criminal or unacceptable in the former Soviet republics by people and civil society organisations.
This is not just a contradiction, but a pathological inconsistency, a dichotomy playing out in the minds of the people on Bankovaya Street. It’s open season on the clergy of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church who are subjected to baseless criminal prosecution and forcible conscription into the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
Moreover, the Kiev regime is morphing into a terrorist organisation. It is committing numerous crimes against Russian civilians in the Belgorod, Bryansk, Zaporozhye, Kursk, and Kherson regions, as well as the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics. Other regions, cities, and localities of Russia are also being targeted by the Kiev regime’s terrorist ambitions.
It comes as no surprise that Bankovaya Street sees the use of a broad range of reprisals against a significant portion of the population as the only and the most effective way to hold on to power. For them, continuing the war, maintaining high escalation levels in society, and redirecting public focus towards external conflict are essential. Ending all of that and establishing peace would have them come up with clarifications about their legitimacy and crimes to their own people. It appears that preserving power is more important to them than peace or human lives, if they even treat people as humans judging by the way they treat both the living and now even the dead.
Numerous accounts of terrorist and war crimes committed by the Kiev regime against civilians in Donbass and Ukraine have not been included in this report. In Russia, these crimes committed by the Kiev military-political leadership, nationalists, and members of Ukrainian security forces since 2014, including against Russian citizens are being documented and investigated by the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation. Several thousand criminal cases have been opened and are under investigation. So don’t be surprised to see that these data have not been included here, since they fall under a different jurisdiction. Around 500 individuals, members of Ukrainian armed formations, have been sentenced to long prison terms, including life imprisonment.
Russian civil society organisations are also making significant efforts to document these crimes. They expose the Nazi nature of the Kiev regime and present evidence of its crimes. Information about these crimes is included in separate analytical materials.
It has been repeatedly emphasised that Zelensky’s obsequious willingness to push his country towards self-destruction by making it a Russophobic anti-Russia project at the expense of the best interests of his own people is the very reason foreign handlers are turning a blind eye to the neo-Nazi nature of the Kiev regime and its numerous crimes, and helping it avoid accountability under international human rights monitoring mechanisms. History offers a multitude of similar examples where the West condoned overtly racist and Nazi regimes. World War II stands as one of the most compelling examples, but there have been many others since as well. This is just the latest among them.
Following the second round of Russia-Ukraine talks in Istanbul, a draft presidential statement on children in the context of Ukraine has been submitted to the UN Security Council at Russia’s initiative.
The proposed draft text welcomed Russia’s readiness to examine the list provided by Kiev and containing the names of 339 Ukrainian children who have lost contact with their relatives and legitimate representative for various reasons, and if necessary to take necessary measures to restore family links. The document noted Russia’s intention to do this in a maximally transparent manner and to submit all the information obtained following the examination of the list to the UN Security Council. It also included an appeal to Kiev to honestly cooperate with Russia on this issue. We believed that this draft document contained all the necessary elements.
Contrary to common sense and the clearly humanitarian essence of the initiative, the Western UNSC members – Britain, Greece, Denmark, Slovakia and France, as well as South Korea – decided to block the adoption of the document by amending it with biased and politicised formulas and calls for an immediate ceasefire. They have turned a humanitarian initiative that was truly devoted to the fate of children into a politicised campaign. In light of this destructive approach, which shows that the Western “human rights defenders” do not care about children, the Russian delegation had no choice other than to discontinue work on the document.
This is yet another example of unacceptable double standards or the absence of any standards at all, and the hypocrisy of the Kiev regime and its masters, who continue to circulate the tale of thousands of abducted and forcibly transferred Ukrainian children even when the documents they themselves have provided testify to the opposite. We have seen once again, and the world has at long last seen this too, that a humanitarian issue has been turned into an element of Russophobia and anti-Russia propaganda. An extremely delicate matter has cynically been turned into yet another element of malicious anti-Russia propaganda. The West prefers not to remember that the Kiev regime has deliberately been endangering the lives of children in Donbass since 2014.
There is no doubt whatsoever that they don’t care about children at all, that children are a political instrument for them.
The Russian Federation has never prevented and will never prevent contacts and communication between children and their families and loved ones. You won’t find a single example of the opposite case. We wholeheartedly strive to help children reunite with their parents or legal representatives, and we will continue to do our utmost to provide assistance and social support to children who have found themselves in dramatic life situations because of the criminal actions of the Kiev regime and its Western guardians.
Here is a relevant example. During the pandemic and lockdowns five years ago, the Russian Foreign Ministry and Russia as a whole were working to help bring Russians home from foreign countries. Ukrainian citizens asked us to allow them to board our aircraft so that they could return home via Russia. They told us that they had appealed to Ukrainian embassies and diplomats to help them go home by making use of the assistance Russia openly offered. The Ukrainian diplomatic missions rejected the appeals of their citizens, including from socially disadvantaged groups, because they did not want to communicate with Russia even at the embassy level. This is the whole truth. This is what this story is about.
Obstruction by the West of UN Security Council resolutions on terrorist attacks in Russian territory
The Russian Federation proposed the adoption of a United Nations Security Council resolution in response to the terrorist attacks committed by the Kiev regime in late May – early June this year in the Bryansk, Kursk, and Voronezh Regions.
The draft circulated among UN Security Council members employed well-established formulations for such documents. It unequivocally condemned the terrorist attacks, sabotage, and other acts of international terrorism that pose a threat to global peace and security. The text expressed profound sympathy for the victims and condolences to the families of the deceased. Member states were urged to collaborate in holding the perpetrators, organisers, and sponsors of these crimes accountable.
What could possibly go wrong? Once again, matters took a turn for the worse, as Western members of the Security Council refused to engage with the document under contrived pretexts. I will not elaborate on how – I presume you have followed the discussions surrounding this issue. Demonstrating flexibility, the Russian Federation proposed replacing the resolution with a press statement of analogous substance to prevent a deadlock. Yet this initiative encountered the same obstructive approach, with Western members uniformly opposing it.
They have discredited themselves yet again, publicly revealing their entrenched bias. For decades, they have claimed to stand against international terrorism and the very phenomenon of terrorism – now, they feign ignorance, turning a blind eye and pretending incomprehension.
The underlying motive is transparent. There is no doubt that the trail of these inhuman, barbaric terrorist attacks on Russian soil leads directly to Bankovaya Street. European sponsors of the Ukrainian Nazi and Bandera supporters, who have turned a blind eye to the Kiev junta’s most brutal atrocities since 2014, were directly complicit in numerous attacks. The British, for instance, today exploit the Kiev regime as their instrument, unabashedly embracing its terrorist nature – without disavowal and without even distancing from the terrorist attacks. Not a single word of reproach.
Terrorism can never be justified. We emphatically call upon all responsible members of the international community to duly assess these events and reject any indulgence of the Kiev regime, which has bet on terror.
We are closely monitoring the situation in Moldova, where the ruling elites persist in dismantling bilateral relations with Russia – contrary to the aspirations of the Moldovan people, who seek constructive engagement with their neighbours and the development of cooperation. These authorities are undermining the spiritual and moral fabric of Moldovan society by imposing neoliberal values and revisionist narratives. At times, it seems the situation could not deteriorate further. Yet new measures continue to emerge, such as attempts to redefine the Moldovan language as Romanian and to reclassify Moldovan citizens as Romanians, pushing the boundaries of what once seemed unthinkable. Each time, a new low is reached.
On June 15, a peaceful rally in support of traditional values and the family was held in Chisinau. What could have gone wrong? The event brought together large families, young people, the elderly, and clergy, approximately 10,000 participants united in defence of these values.
Despite the peaceful nature of the demonstration, security forces assaulted an Orthodox priest, and a man carrying a child was forcibly detained. Pro-government Moldovan media distorted the events, portraying the situation as if clergy, holding icons, were attempting to breach police lines. The Moldovan Ministry of Internal Affairs issued an official statement suggesting – somewhat disingenuously – that the clashes were allegedly orchestrated from abroad to provoke domestic political destabilisation.
In response to numerous videos documenting the incidents, viewers and eyewitnesses have commented that the police’s excessive use of force reflects the moral decline of the authorities in Chisinau. Many view this as a consequence of the growing politicisation of law enforcement, which now appears to prioritise serving the interests of a corrupt ruling elite over addressing actual crime.
Opposition forces have characterised the incident as a deliberate attempt by the authorities to intimidate the Moldovan population ahead of the upcoming parliamentary elections. They have announced plans to launch a parliamentary inquiry into the conduct of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and have stated their intention to appeal to international human rights organisations.
What prompted the actions of the police? The answer appears straightforward: on the same day, an LGBT parade was held in the capital of Moldova, with participants receiving careful protection from citizens who hold traditional views. Despite a ban imposed by municipal authorities, the event proceeded under the apparent patronage of President Maia Sandu, the ruling Action and Solidarity Party, and several Western embassies. This allowed a small group of local activists to march openly through central Chisinau. The events underscored the current government’s priorities – placing symbolic displays of alignment with so-called European values above the sentiments of the vast majority of Moldovan citizens, the majority of whom (approximately 95 percent) identify as Orthodox Christians and hold traditional beliefs.
Reflecting broader trends currently observed in Europe, official Chisinau continues to endorse initiatives that effectively whitewash Nazism, transforming the republic into a place that honours allies of Adolf Hitler. On June 4, a ceremony was held in the village of Stoianovca, Cantemir district, commemorating soldiers of Nazi Romania who perished during the 1941 invasion of the Soviet Union. The event featured full military honours, including participation by the Ministry of Defence’s military orchestra, district officials, and representatives of the Bessarabian Metropolitanate.
Additionally, in the village of Dusmani, Glodeni district, local authorities are supporting the establishment of another memorial dedicated to the “Romanian heroes” – members of the Antonescu army – who likewise met their defeat on Soviet territory.
A direct consequence of efforts to revive Nazism in contemporary Moldova is the growing presence of ethnically charged rhetoric on local television channels. On June 12, political scientist, former MP, and former Moldovan Ambassador to Russia Anatol Taranu referred to Russian-speaking Moldovans as “a low-quality ethnic segment of the population.” Such statements reflect Nazism, neo-Nazism, and the segregation of people based on their nationality, embodying a derogatory and discriminatory attitude toward individuals of different ethnic backgrounds.
Where is the response from the Moldovan authorities, who claim to uphold the so-called European values? Neither the country’s law enforcement agencies nor its ruling politicians have provided any legal assessment of the situation. It seems unlikely that any meaningful reaction will be forthcoming.
In light of these developments, the ongoing catastrophic depopulation of Moldova comes as no surprise. Under the leadership of Maia Sandu, the country’s population has declined by approximately 10 percent. This decline has occurred without any natural disasters, such as hurricanes, typhoons, or volcanic eruptions, and without armed conflict or emergency situations – nothing of the sort.
Fortunately, the majority of Moldovans have developed a strong resistance to aggressive political indoctrination. They recognise the dangerous path their country risks if it continues to follow the Western-oriented policies promoted by the Maia Sandu regime. It is my belief that this regime’s efforts will ultimately fail.
EU plans to abandon Russian energy imports
On June 17, the European Commission presented a draft EU regulation outlining a roadmap to put a phased-in and final end to Russian gas and oil imports. What an accomplishment, if you can call it that. In the past, they took pride in finding cheaper resources and in signing contracts that offered more stability and predictability. The situation has completely reversed. The document primarily aims to provide a legal basis for the EU’s termination of gas imports from Russia: for new contracts starting January 1, 2026; for current short-term contracts starting June 17, 2026; and for long-term contracts starting January 1, 2028.
One might say: if you don’t want to buy, don’t. Why all the fuss? Let me refresh your memory. For instance, Ukraine was banned from engaging in peace talks, and this was even codified into law. The same applies here. A “normal” society, government, or company that doesn’t want to purchase something simply won’t. If the market situation changes, or if a company, a country, or society finds itself in a tight spot, they will have the option to reconsider. So, why legislate it? It’s not just strange, it’s irrational.
By doing so, Brussels continues down the path of fully dismantling energy cooperation with our country. In their push to make confrontation and a break with Russia irreversible, Brussels completely lost touch with reality. They’re not asking whether this serves the interests of their populations. They’re imposing their will on people, businesses, and industries regardless of how practical it is to such an extent that they can’t even justify these proposed measures without blatant distortion of facts or substitution of concepts.
Consider this. Director-General for Energy at the European Commission Ditte Juul Jorgensen claims that Russian gas imports pose a threat to European security and vows that no EU member state will be left without energy. Truth be told, stable and economically viable energy supplies from our country have never - over more than fifty years - posed a threat under various political systems, throughout the Soviet era, during the Cold War, amid the West-East divide, NATO, and the Warsaw Pact. No one ever rejected Russian energy or made up stories about it being a threat. On the contrary, it was always a cornerstone of Western Europe’s long-term economic prosperity. Meanwhile, there’s a deliberate silence around the budget holes that will be created by the need to buy replacement energy from alternative sources. Sure, energy resources might be available on the global market, but at what cost?
Another example of such verbal gymnastics is the claim that the less money is spent on Russian energy, the more the EU will have to invest in green energy projects. They are saying this while re-opening coal mines. In reality, by stopping purchases of Russian gas, the EU won’t be saving anything. Instead, they’ll be spending vast amounts of money on alternative supplies. Everyone - researchers, economists, and energy experts - is aware of this. As a result, freeing up additional resources for investing in renewable sources of energy or any other vital sectors will become more difficult.
The European Commission also alleges that ending imports of Russian gas will not lead to any significant economic repercussions or supply disruptions. Apparently, the inevitable downturn in the EU’s economy and industrial output, the deindustrialisation, and the worsening of energy poverty are seen by Eurocrats as a minor price to pay in their crusade against the “Russian threat.” In the same vein, they argue that completely abandoning Russian oil in late 2027 will hardly impact oil prices or global markets. In other words, when they want to argue it’s a beneficial solution, they boast about how much money they’ll save. Yet, they claim it will have virtually no consequences. That’s not just an inconsistency, but an outright case of bipolar disorder.
Amid the European bureaucracy’s utterly detached-from-reality faith in reliability of their chosen strategy, it’s quite telling that the regulation nevertheless includes an option for temporarily suspending the ban on Russian gas imports if sudden and serious circumstances jeopardise uninterrupted supplies to one or more EU member states. But wait, did you just say that Russia was the only source of threat? So, what problems are you talking about now that you’ve put such a secure shield to protect yourselves from us?
Remember, under pressure from the UK and the US, Zelensky banned peace talks and even codified that ban into law? Three years later, when people told him that this ban was at odds with his representatives flying to Istanbul to resume talks with the Russian side, what did Zelensky say? Remember that line, straight out of a comedy show? He said he had never banned himself from anything. Will they say the same?
This incredible logic seems to imply that the EU believes it can always just “turn the valve back on” if things go sideways. It underscores how unreliable the EU has become as a consumer and is completely incapable of offering stability or predictability of its legal framework for energy cooperation with third countries. Judging by its plans to tighten control over contract terms, it also shows little regard for commercial confidentiality. It’s a good example for other countries of how to - or how not to - do business with Brussels.
What’s especially striking is the cynicism behind the European Commission’s strategy to push through its destructive energy agenda. In an effort to sidestep vetoes from national capitals, many of which fully understand the suicidal nature of the policy forced upon them by Brussels bureaucrats, the Commission decided to pursue a type of legal act that can be passed by a qualified majority vote. So, what happened to European unity and solidarity? Is that over now? And yet it’s the national capitals that will be tasked with actually implementing the provisions of this regulation. They are expected to develop their own concrete action plans. They’ll be the ones cleaning up the mess whether they supported this policy or not.
Should the policy fail, the European Commission will simply wash its hands of it, leaving the member states - and more specifically, their citizens and businesses - to deal with the fallout. In the end, it’s not the political elites who will bear the brunt of the damage. It’s the ordinary people of Western Europe, whose opinions Ursula von der Leyen and her team love to invoke as a shield, but just as readily ignore when it suits them.
Britain’s anti-Russian criminal spy delusions
For the past few months, the British leaders have been fanning an anti-Russia hysteria with a persistence worthy of a better cause. Their goal is, apparently, to present Russia as a toxic state and to use the enemy image they have created to achieve their own mercenary goals, namely, to shift the blame for their domestic problems and the consequences of their own mistakes onto Russia. This time they are using a crime and spy drama.
I am referring to the arson attacks on two properties and a car linked to Prime Minister Keir Starmer, which took place in London between May 8 and May 12, 2025. The case is being investigated by the Counter Terrorism Command (CTC) of the Metropolitan Police Service. Three suspects – two Ukrainians and one Romanian citizen – have been detained. The possible motives for the crimes include personal grudge, terrorism, Islamic extremism and “involvement by a hostile state.” The latter possibility has been taken up by the majority of British media and used in their headlines as an almost proven fact. According to The Financial Times, British law enforcers are investigating the possibility that the perpetrators had been “recruited by Russian intelligence services.”
These anti-Russia attacks are not surprising, considering London’s fixation on the “Russian threat,” which has been confirmed in the Strategic Defence Review Keir Starmer made public on June 2, 2025. Any reasonable person will see London’s deliberate refusal to accept rational explanations, evidence and other elements related to facts.
The British media has used the arson attacks as part of the anti-Russia campaign.
On May 12, 2025, the Central Criminal Court of England and Wales convicted a group of Bulgarian citizens “for espionage in the interests of the Russian state.”
On June 4, 2025, the court started hearing the case of the March 2024 blaze at the StarLink warehouse in London with equipment supplies for Kiev, which was allegedly organised “for Russian interests.” In his speech in parliament, Keir Starmer denounced it as “an attack on all of us, on democracy and the values that we stand for.” However, there is a detail that has killed the intrigue of this media spectacle: the British authorities officially accused Russia of involvement in the StarLink warehouse blaze a month after it happened, in late April 2024. The allegation was taken up and circulated in the central British media, and London did not wait for the trial to end to initiate a confrontation aimed at undermining dialogue channels between our countries. It also expelled the Russian defence attaché, which was an unprecedented act in the history of our bilateral relations.
Of course, we responded to that and the subsequent unfriendly acts based on the principle of reciprocity. But the escalation London launched a year ago continues to affect both countries’ diplomatic missions to this day. Our embassy in London stated that London had forestalled court decisions by demanding explanations over the suspects’ connection with the Russian state allegedly established by the British law enforcers. It appears that the British authorities reached a decision, brought the charges and drew the conclusions back in April 2024. They have proven the crime, appointed the perpetrators and formalised the decision without a jury but by taking actions, which have both specific international political and legal dimensions and consequences.
Do they need a trial? They have made the decision a year ago, took necessary measures, appointed the perpetrators, and made this public. What do they need a trial for now? This has eliminated the last atoms of trust in the much-touted system of British justice. London has opted for the anti-Russian version of the warehouse arson attack, essentially predetermining the outcome of the trial, even though the British authorities ritualistically warn against commenting on trials before they begin so that the suspects have a chance to a fair trial. They have spent a year circulating a story, which they themselves invented and enhanced, and expelling diplomats.
There is no doubt that they won’t let the events take their own course because this might reveal major inconsistencies, in particular, regarding allegations of involvement by Russian intelligence services. No, the British authorities will do their utmost to convince the jury to accept their version, and will use their inventions, their experts and their fabricated evidence to link the crimes to the Kremlin’s “malicious influence.”
Establishing a centre for geopolitics, peace and security at the Arctic University of Norway
Plans have been announced to establish a centre for geopolitics, peace and security at the Arctic University of Norway, one of the largest national universities, in Tromsø. Among other things, the new centre’s experts will analyse domestic political developments in Russia’s border regions, as well as our country’s Arctic policy, including its collaboration with BRICS and China. The new specialised centre is to cooperate with the Barents Institute in Kirkenes – this scientific research organisation also focuses on Russia and the adjacent regions.
As neighbouring countries and Arctic states, Russia and Norway have always paid attention to researching North-related issues, as well as bilateral and interregional cooperation in this sphere. There is nothing surprising in the fact that the Arctic University of Norway is establishing a centre for Russian studies. This organisation has cooperated closely with Russia since the early 1990s, seeing this as a high-priority aspect of its work. This university partnered with dozens of Russian universities and organised courses, advanced training projects and student exchanges under academic mobility programmes. It collaborated actively with the agencies of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
All bilateral contacts in the sphere of science and education, including those within the framework of the Arctic University, have now been suspended on the initiative of the Norwegian side. The academic community of Norway is now promoting foreign-imposed confrontationist concepts, and most experts on Russia have turned into vehement Russophobes whose interest in Russia-related issues boils down to a striving to slander our country, no matter what. Experts voicing an alternative viewpoint are blocked, marginalised and ostracised.
The following question arises: What will the centre engage in if all real academic contacts have been blocked? It appears that the emerging centre is unable to justify its name and to effectively promote peace and security (as has been stated), as well as a more adequate and objective perception of the geopolitical situation by Norway. Nor can it promote mutual understanding between our nations, rather than mutual disunity and the creation of new demarcation lines.
They would have never severed real academic ties if they wanted to study, develop and collaborate.
Anti-Russia statements by Prime Minister of Denmark Mette Frederiksen
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen made some new hostile statements.
On June 12, she delivered a barrage of hackneyed propaganda clichés, which traditionally demonise Russia, by accusing it of an aggressive war against Ukraine, subversions and attacks against critical infrastructure, misinformation in social networks, attempts to influence democratic principles, of imperialist aspirations and creating threats for the Western world order.
We cannot see similar straightforward attitude from such personas when missiles are flying toward civil nuclear facilities. They pretend that they do not notice, cannot see, turn away and find vague and general wording. Although when real pretexts to find fault with anything are absent (except that June 12 is Russia Day), then straightforwardness is more than enough.
Naturally, the head of the Danish Government did not bother with any evidence of our country's “evil intrigues” or much less any attempts to analyse what has led to the current deep crisis of international security. There were just accusations without facts. They sounded especially blasphemous for us at the site of the event: it was the Red Army soldiers who liberated the Danish island of Bornholm from Nazi invaders in May 1945.
Judging by the foreign policy steps by Danmark and its allies, there is no doubt about who is really guilty of destabilising the international situation. It is revealing that just a day earlier, on June 11, the Danish parliament ratified an agreement on defence cooperation with the United States for the first time ever giving it the right to permanently station its armed forces in Denmark. The new agreement multiplies the risks of bringing nuclear weapons into the country which runs counter to the voluntary obligations not to admit it in its territory adopted by the Danish side, and increases tensions in the Baltic region and Northern Europe, which allegedly, in word, worries the prime minister.
We will also remind you that Denmark has demonstrated an absolute absence of interest in conducting a comprehensive investigation into the terrorist acts against the Nord Streams, establishing real masterminds and perpetrators of that crime. By providing massive assistance to Ukrainian Nazis and being a major weapons donor to the Ukrainian Armed Forces, Copenhagen provokes the conflict escalation in Ukraine, more victims and destruction, and encourages Kiev to commit more war crimes against civilians. It is taking care of a terrorist nest in the middle of the continent.
All this undoubtedly testifies to Denmark’s lack of desire to promote international stability the Prime Minister has been so much concerned about. Instead, Copenhagen prefers megaphone accusatory rhetoric and consolidation of new dividing lines on the European continent.
Russia-Kazakhstan cooperation in nuclear energy
On June 14, the Atomic Energy Agency of the Republic of Kazakhstan officially announced that it had selected the Rosatom State Corporation as the leader of the international consortium for the construction of the first nuclear power plant in this Central Asian country. Our company’s proposal was recognised as the best and most advantageous.
The Russian side would like to thank its Kazakhstani partners for high praise. We regard this event as further confirmation of the steady and dynamic evolution of the strong allied relationship between Russia and Kazakhstan. We are fully prepared to honour our commitments under this strategic project, which is aimed at enhancing the energy security of our closest neighbour.
The two countries’ experts have already got down to intensive consultations on technical and financial parameters of the nuclear power plant’s construction. The project will feature a high degree of localisation. Provision has also been made for the training of highly qualified national personnel. In fact, an entirely new industrial sector will be created in Kazakhstan – one that will enhance the republic’s economic development.
It is noteworthy that today Rosatom is the only company in the global market that is simultaneously constructing 22 power units abroad and possesses proven experience in integrating equipment from international suppliers into its projects. The Russian state corporation has all the required expertise to carry out every stage of this undertaking, from design to commissioning, in full compliance with contemporary technological standards and the highest requirements for environmental and operational safety.
Launch of a gold refinery construction in Mali with the participation of Yadran Group, Russia
On June 16, a ceremony was held to lay the foundation stone at the construction site of a gold processing plant near the airport of Bamako, the capital of Mali. Following its commissioning, the facility will be operated by a joint venture involving the Government of Mali and the Russian Yadran Group. Its projected annual capacity will reach up to 200 tonnes of precious metals.
The project will be among the first large industrial facilities built by the Russian side in the region, significantly boosting the profitability of Mali’s mining sector. In the future, Mali, which is already among the top three gold producers in Africa, has the potential to become a key hub for gold refining.
The event was attended by interim President Assimi Goita, who emphasised that cooperation with Russia was entering a qualitatively new phase. Thanks to the plant, Bamako will soon have the capacity to process gold ore domestically. Until now, the Republic has been reliant on refining services in Switzerland or South Africa.
Russia intends to undertake further consistent steps to enhance mutually beneficial cooperation with Mali in trade, the economy, and investment, while also providing the assistance necessary to strengthen its industrial potential.
On June 25, the Republic of Mozambique celebrates the 50th anniversary of its independence. On the same day, we mark the 50th anniversary of diplomatic relations between our countries.
We appreciate the long-standing relationship of friendship and cooperation with Mozambique, one that has roots in the period of its national liberation struggle for independence. Mozambique is Russia’s reliable and time-tested partner in Africa. Our bilateral political dialogue at the top and high levels develops dynamically. The two countries collaborate on the international scene and expand their ties in trade, the economy, education, culture, and the humanitarian area.
We congratulate our friends in Maputo on these significant events and wish the people of Mozambique prosperity and wellbeing.
The Second S.V. Rachmaninoff International Competition for Pianists, Composers and Conductors
On June 14 of this year, the Grand Hall of the Moscow Conservatory hosted the opening ceremony of the Second S.V. Rachmaninoff International Competition for Pianists, Composers and Conductors.
The ceremony was attended by People’s Artist of the Russian Federation Denis Matsuyev, who is the artistic director of the competition, and Merited Artist of the Russian Federation Ildar Abdrazakov. The accompaniment at the ceremony was provided by the Russian National Youth Symphonic Orchestra conducted by People’s Artist of the Russian Federation Valery Gergiev, President of the Jury in the Conducting category.
The international competition involves 65 musicians from Russia, China, former USSR republics of Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, European countries, such as the UK, Germany, Spain, Italy, Romania and Slovenia, as well as the Republic of Korea, the United States, Ecuador, and Japan.
The jury includes outstanding cultural figures from Russia and 15 foreign countries. Greetings to everyone from the “epicentre of isolation!”
Competitive auditions will be held in Moscow until June 26. The events can be accessed live. We invite everyone to watch the performances.
The 100th anniversary of the Artek International Children’s Centre
On June 16, the Artek International Children’s Centre celebrated its 100th anniversary. Profiting by this occasion, we would like to join the huge number of congratulatory messages coming from all over the world. This is a special date for many thousand Artek members (as, for example, my mother). It is a holiday and a pretext to recall the happy moments on the Black Sea coast of Russia.
Artek celebrated its holiday on a grand scale (we all saw that), holding a number of festivals with the participation of numerous guests from abroad. The Children’s Summit on the theme “Artek: Dialogue for Peace and Development” took place ahead of the celebrations, involving over 300 active members of children’s organisations from 30 countries. This and much else can be accessed on Artek’s digital resources as well as on the Foreign Ministry’s online resources.
We once again congratulate Artek and Artek members across the world. Events dedicated to this anniversary also take place on the sidelines of the St Petersburg International Economic Forum-2025.
Question: In Latvia, Saeima deputy Alexey Roslikov was detained for speaking out in defence of the Russian language. He was later released from custody on condition not to leave town. However, even before that, Roslikov was investigated for suspected aiding and abetting Russia’s supposed actions against Latvia as well as for “inciting ethnic hatred.” How would you comment on this situation?
Maria Zakharova: The situation is unspeakable. I have commented on it before.
Just a brief reminder. We are dealing with yet another attempt by the Latvian punitive authorities to prosecute MP Alexey Roslikov for the sole crime of publicly speaking in favour of preserving the Russian language, which is spoken by more than a third of that Baltic country’s population because it is their native tongue. This is a gross violation of basic human rights statutes, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
I would say we have lived to see Racism 2.0. I am aware of various manifestations of racism, Nazism, and fascism. But I have never heard of people being forbidden to speak their native language, with system-wide programmes forcibly implemented to enforce this policy – never until this day.
This outrageous case of persecution of a defender of civil and linguistic rights warrants urgent intervention by the relevant international organisations. They have no right to remain silent or avert their gaze – if they still value their reputation, let alone their conscience. They can no longer wait in the wings, practicing what they call “strategic silence.” This is the time they have to speak out.
Russia strongly condemns the criminal prosecution of the Russian-speaking diaspora in the Baltic states on trumped-up politically-motivated charges, above all reprisals against our compatriots who speak out in defence of their native language.
One’s native tongue is not a far-fetched construct that is being artificially implanted the way a thousand “genders” are being imposed on children. This is a language that was spoken by families who have lived in that country for generations, contributing to the nation’s prosperity.
Question: The leader of the unrecognised Kosovo, Albin Kurti, has urged US President Donald Trump to exert pressure on Serbia to normalise relations with Kosovo. How does the Russian Foreign Ministry view this appeal, and what potential consequences might arise from American intervention in this matter?
Maria Zakharova: Let me remind you that the so-called “Republic of Kosovo,” with its limited and contested independence, is a creation of the West, a direct result of NATO’s aggressive intervention in 1999, with the United States playing a central role throughout. While different leaders and administrations have come and gone, the underlying dynamics remain unchanged.
To this day, the sponsors of the so-called “Kosovo project,” represented by Washington and Brussels, continue to pursue the legalisation of the separation of this historic Serbian territory from Serbia. They tolerate Albin Kurti’s provocations and turn a blind eye to the blatant sabotage by Kosovo’s authorities of their own commitments – most notably regarding the establishment of the Community of Serbian Municipalities in Kosovo, a provision secured and recognised at the international level. Meanwhile, they exert shameless pressure on Belgrade through threats and blackmail. Despite this, Belgrade has consistently demonstrated a willingness to negotiate and sincerity in its intentions, all while maintaining a principled stance: non-recognition of Kosovo’s independence and refusal to grant Pristina a seat at the United Nations. This position remains unacceptable to the Western camp.
Putting pressure on Belgrade is pointless. Those behind such efforts likely believe they can change Serbia’s political stance by influencing its leadership and politicians. However, they fail to understand that for Serbia, this issue is not merely political, it is existential. It represents the core identity, the cultural code that has historically shaped the Serbian people. The focus should instead be on influencing the West’s protégés – the Kosovars.
The international community’s role in Kosovo’s affairs should be to support Belgrade and Pristina in reaching mutually acceptable agreements, as outlined in UN Security Council Resolution 1244. This resolution remains the legal foundation for resolving the conflict and must be the guiding framework.
Question: How do you respond to statements from Yerevan about the impossibility of simultaneous membership in both the EU and the EAEU?
Maria Zakharova: There is an undeniable element of realism in that assessment. Indeed, it is a challenging situation.
Armenia’s potential accession to the European Union is indeed incompatible with its membership in the Eurasian Economic Union. This position has been repeatedly emphasised by the Russian side at various levels, supported by concrete arguments. It is clear that the tangible and substantial benefits of Eurasian integration for Yerevan – and more importantly, for the people of Armenia – far outweigh the empty promises from Brussels. The advantages of Eurasian integration are supported by verifiable data and facts, while the misleading tactics employed by Brussels are well known. Furthermore, at this stage, Armenia has not even been granted candidate status, and the accession process could potentially extend over many decades.
A key question remains: does the European Union genuinely welcome Armenia, or is it seen merely as a convenient geopolitical tool at this stage? This approach mirrors how the EU has played with several other countries – once interest wanes due to changing circumstances, any responsibility for unfulfilled promises is quickly discarded.
The long and arduous path of Europeanisation pursued by Moldova and Ukraine has resulted only in political and economic dependence on the West. They have lost their independence, squandering their own strengths and resources. Should Armenia move closer to the European Union, it risks losing access to the Eurasian Economic Union’s common market, leading to a significant increase in customs duties. This would cause higher prices for Armenian consumers and reduce the competitiveness of domestic products. Additionally, Armenia would forfeit its Eurasian advantages in labour migration, technical regulation, sanitary and phytosanitary standards, and many other areas governed by the EAEU’s supranational framework.
Therefore, this reality must be clearly explained in detail now, so that it is not too late further up on the road and the people of Armenia do not ask why they were not forewarned.
Question: How would you comment on the 10th edition of the EU-Ukraine Human Rights Dialogue recently held in Kiev?
Maria Zakharova: It seems like a joke. Can you even imagine a dialogue on human rights between the EU and Ukraine? Is there anyone who respects human rights? In Ukraine? You must be joking. They have trampled on and nullified all human rights. Why don’t they hold a “dialogue on a travesty of human rights” instead? That would be the ideal format.
This human rights dialogue is the cornerstone of the Association Agreement between Ukraine and the EU, which clearly lists Ukraine’s obligations regarding the rule of law and the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including ethnic minorities’ rights. In reality, this format has gradually degenerated to an instrument of the EU’s unconditional political support for the Kiev regime. Over time, Brussels has become increasingly less concerned with discussing the human rights situation in Ukraine, the format gradually transforming into another mechanism for coordinating their joint anti-Russia policies.
If they had forged an actual human rights dialogue with the European Union, would it be possible for the Kiev regime to refuse to take back the bodies of their own soldiers? Is there another country that is capable of such mockery of the rights of their fallen soldiers as well as their families who have been waiting for them to return, trying to find them when they went missing, and hoping to at least get back their bodies to bury?
In this iteration, all that European officials were interested in was measures to protect sexual minorities from discrimination, and Ukrainian freedom of religion laws’ formal compliance with Kiev’s international obligations. If it’s a joke, it’s not funny. This kind of humour is downright appalling. How can they even consider discussing freedom of religion, when I just pointed out that they discriminate between Christian clergy – some priests are exempt from conscription because their organisation’s name formally matches the list of critical entities, while others are subject to mobilisation because their organisation has a different name?
The European representatives expressed no disapproval of the increasing worsening of the human rights situation in Ukraine. Not a word was said about the Kiev regime’s brutal crimes against humanity, blatant disregard for international humanitarian law, discrimination of ethnic minorities, and persecution of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Once again, Brussels pretended not to notice the lawless treatment of ethnic Russians and Russian-speaking citizens as part of the state policy of forced Ukrainisation and de-Russification. Infringement on the rights of other ethnic groups, including those directly within the competence of the EU, also went unnoticed. The growth of neo-Nazism, manifestations of racism and anti-Semitism, widespread restrictions on freedom of speech, and repression of any opposition and dissent were completely ignored.
Didn’t all Western rights activists make a point of also mentioning freedom of speech in the past?
We regularly publicise the effects of the Zelensky regime’s “democratic” efforts to enforce human rights and fundamental freedoms, through the Russian Foreign Ministry’s annual report (since 2024, joint reports by the Russian and Belarusian Foreign Ministries), Human Rights Situation in Certain Countries, as well as a dedicated report on Ukraine.
Everything that makes up the EU’s usual tired litany of human rights concerns in dialogues with third countries has been left out of the equation this time. No tantrums, no photos or memes with distraught or destitute children, nothing. So, the latest round of that human rights dialogue between Ukraine and the EU was just another show of double standards and hypocrisy on the part of Brussels and the Kiev regime, a vivid example of EU officials “objectively” assessing the human rights situation in third countries. The European Union’s overwhelming hypocrisy and selective interpretation of the norms of humanitarian law have long been the hallmark of the EU’s foreign policy.
Humanitarian law was not written by them. It is a civilisational achievement. However, the West continues to twist that law as they please. Why? Because they have long ceased to comply with it anyway. They treat human rights simply as a tool. This is no aberration – it’s tradition. As a reminder, these are the same powers that profited from the slave trade, ran the Inquisition, built concentration camps, wiped out nations, and pursued all kinds of discriminatory practices. Just 70 years ago, European capitals still hosted human zoos, or human theme parks – crowds of Europeans paid to gape at caged children and adults, all because they had a different skin colour. The proof isn’t buried; it’s all in archive documents and photographs. This isn’t ancient history – it’s the 20th century.
Question: The Director for Institutional Relations at Radiotelevisione Italiana (Rai) recently wrote on the X social media network that one pinpoint strike on the Kremlin was enough to eliminate President of Russia Vladimir Putin. Rai is working in Russia as an accredited foreign media outlet but has yet to comment on this statement. What do you make of this?
Maria Zakharova: My first desire was to recheck this information to see whether this was a mistake or a hacking job. This turned out to be true. However, the post was deleted several hours later because it triggered numerous critical remarks and an active rejection of this monstrous logic. The author of this post probably felt ashamed and scared or experienced some other unpleasant reactions.
Nevertheless, we do not think that the incident has been resolved because it can be interpreted as a criminal offence, specifically, public calls for terrorist activity, public justification of terrorism or propaganda of terrorism. The very fact that a representative of Italy’s state-owned television and radio broadcasting company Rai has made these statements shows that the situation with freedom of speech has assumed frightening proportions in Italy. Some representatives of the country’s official establishment and media outlets are out of touch with reality and no longer understand and assess the consequences of their words and actions; they have stopped respecting the law. A person can like or dislike someone and voice different political views. We know and like the film The Law Is the Law; and this phrase from the film also reflects real life.
We are therefore expecting official apologies from the Rai top management, to say the least. Italian officials should also make a statement to say that such unhinged conduct and permissiveness can hardly be called typical in the country. But the problem is that Italian public servants and officials themselves may be encouraging this absolute irresponsibility.
Prime Minister of Italy Giorgia Meloni said yesterday that there should be a change of power in Iran. She stated that she had “always believed that the best scenario would be the overthrow of the regime by the oppressed Iranian people, who would succeed in doing so.” What right does the head of the Italian state have to talk about a change of government in another sovereign state? Was she elected by the Iranian people, or did Iranian politicians, public figures or MPs delegate their powers to her? Does she have any relation to Iran, its history and culture? On what grounds is she making these statements? There are no grounds at all. Moreover, she has demonstrated absolute political irresponsibility and illiteracy.
In 1965, the UN General Assembly – I hope Ms Meloni has heard about it – adopted a resolution that approved the Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the Protection of Their Independence and Sovereignty. That UNGA resolution is not a binding document, but it was approved by the overwhelming majority of states – 109, and the only country that abstained, for understandable reasons, was Great Britain, which has an inherent liking for intervening in the domestic affairs of other states. Why should it approve a resolution that condemns it? How did Italy vote? I am sure that its current prime minister does not know about this resolution or how her country voted. I will tell her: Italy voted for that declaration. If Italy has changed its stance, its prime minister should formulate it, stating that her country is no longer committed to or bound by any obligations. If this is not so, who has authorised Ms Meloni to make such statements? She should respect her predecessors, who had specialised education and honestly served their country, creating benefits for the people and foundations for Italy’s achievements. She should either have the authority to make statements that overturn the official Italian stance or the courage to admit that she doesn’t know that Italy approved such documents.
I recommend everyone to read this declaration, because certain Western countries have started saying that it is acceptable to decide which governments should be overthrown, by who, how and when. This declaration is very explicit. It includes a definition of “intervention in the domestic affairs” and provides specific forms and examples to explain the inadmissibility of such interventions. The issue was raised on many occasions in 1965 and was eventually formalised in that comprehensive document.
When I hear people who have no achievements of their own talk about how other peoples must live and who they must elect, and especially who they must overthrow, I want to recommend them to start small, that is, with self-educating and studying the experience of their predecessors.
Question: I have worked in Russia for many years. I was the sole Italian journalist present at the BRICS summit in Kazan in November 2024. I would like to present you with my book.
I would also like to ask about the future of BRICS, given the escalation in Iran and the Middle East.
Maria Zakharova: It seems to me that, had the world – the Global Majority – not already demonstrated its collective will to unite, and consequently, its determination to resist the imposition of the minority’s will, there would be a far greater number of such escalations. These would, without fail, culminate in tragedy.
Today, the international community – the Global Majority – is doing everything in its power to de-escalate the situation. We see that BRICS states, in a manner akin to Russia, albeit through differing rhetoric and formats, are acting along the same lines. Therefore, the question should not be what future awaits BRICS, but rather how this group is already responding to such challenges.
I have no doubt that BRICS – alongside other associations embodying multipolarity – will continue to exist and evolve. BRICS began as RIC, then became BRIC, and later BRICS, and now encompasses a significantly larger number of countries. It is alive; it is evolving. The group will take on different forms and make different decisions. It is a truly dynamic structure – not rigid, not artificial, not lifeless – but living. Its goals and objectives are “alive.”
I am confident that, through various trials, it will only grow stronger in its positions. Why? Because its goals are noble – they are neither destructive nor aggressive.
Question: At this forum in St Petersburg, we see broad representation from the Global East and Global South, particularly from Latin America and the Caribbean. How would you explain the interest of these regions – the Global Majority, the Global South, Latin America, and the Caribbean specifically – in business ties with Russia?
Maria Zakharova: Beyond traditional ties and long-standing friendly relations, I believe these regions see not only emerging but already realised opportunities. They recognise the tremendous potential that has opened up. While some EU businesses have withdrawn – though others have remained, defending their interests – American companies, for example, have been barred from normal engagement with Russian partners for years. Consider the opportunities that have arisen. They see commercial benefits, prospects, and a resource base capable of supporting these opportunities. Why should they forgo such advantages?
There is another factor. These countries fully comprehend that reliance on cooperation with a single centre of power – a single pole – cannot guarantee sufficient stability. Moreover, they understand the meaning of dependence. Many have experienced decolonisation, occupation, or resistance to external intervention, and they are acutely aware of the consequences of dependency. They do not wish to be dependent – they seek genuine independence. Building independent relations is one such opportunity. It is about diversifying partnerships by fostering cooperation with like-minded nations that do not exploit these regions as tools, but instead, develop equitable, substantive relations. I could elaborate at length, but these are the key points.
Question: Vladimir Zelensky has made public his plan to discuss, during an in-person meeting with Donald Trump, the purchase of a package of armaments for the Armed Forces of Ukraine. How does Moscow view such statements in the context of the memorandum on conflict resolution that was handed over to Kiev, particularly the provision regarding stopping arms supplies to Ukraine?
Maria Zakharova: Well, Mr Zelensky is a wealthy man and can afford to discuss the purchase of a weapons package for the Armed Forces of Ukraine with US President Donald Trump. He is going to buy it with his own money, correct? He may have sold a couple of his or his family’s villas. Maybe, he pawned an organ of his, or plans to. I’m not sure, though, if he has anything still properly functioning in his body after the doses he’d taken.
On the one hand, we’re already used to him discussing “purchases” and the like. On the other hand, I have a question to ask: from all that wealth accumulated not by backbreaking labour, but through corruption, shady dealings, and manipulation, has he ever actually contributed anything to these arms purchases? This statement is, frankly, of out-of-this-world proportions. Who’s going to pay for all that? Is it the Ukrainian people crippled by its own regime? Or, is it future generations that are already deep in debt even before they are born? Who’s footing the bill? The people who no longer have a proper country to live in, because the economy, the industry, science, and education are in shambles and are subordinated to some kind of outlandish neo-Nazi ideology? This is a road to nowhere. It may create a short-lived effect, but we understand full well that nationalism leads to a dead end. So, I keep asking the same question: whose money is Bankovaya using to pay for that lavish extravaganza? All of that will need to be paid for later. Nothing is free.
We know well what Western support is all about. We paid Lend-Lease off in full not long ago. Estimates varied … but I will not go deep into that. We’ve always been grateful for help, but we also know that nothing comes free. We paid for everything.
However, that doesn’t compare to what we’re seeing now in Ukraine. It can’t even be referred to as loan amounts. It’s nothing short of a burden that Kiev’s regime has taken on in the context of Ukraine’s future. These aren’t just loans or IOUs. This is a burden laid on the nation. That’s the first point.
Second, regarding his statements, I think they should be viewed not in terms of memoranda, but from a more fundamental perspective. They confirm that he has no interest in peace. He wants to hold on to power, to prolong this agony at any cost, and to keep the money flowing for himself, his inner circle, those who put him there, all the concerns, and so on. Peace has no place in this equation. Peace would get in the way. He’s not interested in it. There’s one more confirmation. These statements prove one more time that he’s not concerned about the fate of his own people. There’s no need to point out that all of that is being done at the behest of his British and European sponsors.
I don’t think this has to be correlated with the memorandums. We stick to a principled position. We rely exclusively on official channels and substantive contacts. We agreed on a range of things during the Istanbul contacts. As you can see, we are strictly complying with these agreements and encouraging the other side to keep up their end of the deal as well. After June 22, 2025, a date will be set and a new round of talks will be announced. We focus on those contacts. Not on Zelensky’s hysterical rhetoric which was paid for by the West and is simply a part of the corrupt money laundering schemes.
Question: Chinese-made vehicles were used to serve guests at the 28th St Petersburg International Economic Forum. What is your assessment of the Chinese automobile industry as it applies to the Russian market?
Maria Zakharova: I can say that we highly value the success of China’s auto industry and the Chinese manufacturers. Notably, we have joint projects with China and clearly see their success on the Russian market. Since you asked - even though this isn’t my area of expertise - I’ve been following the news and walking around the Forum for the second straight day now. I’d like to draw your attention to the fact that many achievements of Russia’s auto industry, a wide variety of new models, were on display as well.
Several presentations by AvtoVAZ have been held. Lada Azimut, a vehicle created entirely by AvtoVAZ designers, engineers, and process engineers for the first time in the modern history of our country, took centre stage. Another attraction was the upgraded Lada Niva Travel compact SUV. I just saw one on my way to the press centre. The Lada Aura business sedan made its debut. There are even race models like Lada Niva Sport T2, Lada Iskra, and Lada Iskra Sport.
The Russian company Sollers, with one of its plants located in Tatarstan, showcased the SF1 compact business van and a luxury-class pickup truck.
Aurus presented new models as well, such as bulletproof Komendant SUV and an eight-seat premium minivan Aurus Arsenal.
I apologise in advance for providing what may be not entirely accurate information. I’m talking about civilian passenger vehicles. Beyond that, there were also exhibits of agricultural machinery and military vehicles, which you would have seen if you attended the forum. So, feel free to be happy for us just as we’re happy for you. Let’s offer our condolences to the Western manufacturers who have lost this market. Without any sarcasm - just a cold hard fact - they’ve lost more than just a sales or a production market. The most important thing they’ve lost is the opportunity for conducting joint scientific research, which enjoys high demand these days. And what does “joint production” mean? It’s about joint research, joint personnel training, operation, and testing. They’ve lost all of that because of their own foolishness, their mistakes, and stupidity. Feel free to pick the word you prefer.
Question: Apart from readiness to receive Iranian nuclear materials and to act as mediator between the parties, what other measures does Russia suggest for resolving the conflict around the Iranian nuclear programme and facilitating a peace settlement?
Maria Zakharova: Isn’t this enough? It is as if everyone has suggested this. I would like to ask whether many parties have suggested at least something. What have Western countries (that have been listing the Iranian nuclear programme among top-priority issues for many years) suggested, except changing the regime in Iran? We know from the experience of other countries and from Western experiments involving other states the West is not just interested in a one-time change of the regime or installing a regime of their own. They see regime changes as a non-stop process, like election results. This is a permanent process. This is not because they do not like the incumbent regime in any particular state; this is how they normally perceive other countries. In fact, they never think about other countries as sovereign states. In my opinion, what you have listed highlights the real-life situation, and this is a lot in itself.
Moscow remains steadfast in its efforts to help de-escalate the conflict between Iran and Israel. On the very first day of the escalation, President Vladimir Putin held telephone talks with several of his counterparts. These discussions have since been followed up by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in ongoing engagements with his colleagues. Every time, Russia has reiterated its longstanding support for a peaceful resolution to the issues surrounding Iran’s nuclear programme. Moscow has consistently proposed concrete initiatives aimed at reaching mutually acceptable agreements and has reaffirmed its readiness to facilitate the de-escalation process. I will not list all the contacts we had; I expect you heard about them. We believe our main task at this stage is to consolidate the international effort in the light of a genuine nuclear catastrophe – a risk being exacerbated by those who chose to provoke this crisis in the first place.
I have said many times: it is shocking how little attention – or, better, no attention at all – Western media pay to the topic of the nuclear threat. For the past three years, President Putin, the Defence Ministry, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, and members of the Russian Security Council have all reiterated our country’s commitment to nuclear safety, Russia’s nuclear doctrine and its core tenets, as well as the seriousness with which we approach our responsibilities in this area. Yet even the most carefully worded statements were taken out of context. A couple of phrases was enough to twist into news stories and newspaper articles claiming that Russia is threatening the use of nuclear weapons. A non-existent narrative has been inflated into a near-constant media cycle.
Right now, the entire world is watching live missile strikes on peaceful nuclear infrastructure. It seems that the entire Western press and political establishment have forgotten terms like “nuclear security,” “radiation threat,” and “the need of deconfliction” when speaking about the conflict’s possible escalation to something entirely different due to the use of nuclear resources. Not a single one has been mentioned.
They are discussing the escalation. They are discussing the attacks, looking into which side hit the target and how many casualties it caused. While focusing on a variety of minor points, Western countries seem to be overlooking the central issue, which is not on their international agenda. This might be the result of having problems with education, but from what we read and see, there is no real understanding of the level of nuclear threat. We have seen missiles deviate from the target or trajectory, or even hit those who fired them. How negligible is the probability of a missile going off-track and hitting a nuclear storage facility? Again, I don’t pretend to be an expert, but you understand what I mean. Any normal person familiar with the basics of physics and chemistry, with some rudimentary idea of nuclear reactions, would see this as a major concern. In our country, we are taught at schools about radiation, nuclear weapons, and nuclear technology. Teachers talk to their students about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, where the Americans used nuclear weapons, as well as disasters at civilian facilities such as the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. All Russian children, students, and young people without exception know about these things. They also know that a nuclear disaster is something to be dreaded and avoided by all means.
Unlike this, the Western community seems to keep this subject mothballed, only bringing it up when it serves some opportunistic purpose. A nuclear disaster has to be dreaded when they stand to gain something from it – and dismissed as a joke when they don’t. To be honest, I feel a chill of horror every time I see those missile flashes on the news, or read reports of exchanged strikes. Any one of them could bring nuclear contamination – not just to the region, but to the entire world. Don’t they realise that nuclear contamination is not a local issue? You can’t tell radiation where to go. It won’t pause for paperwork at some border checkpoint. It drifts where the winds take it, flows with the currents, indifferent to political orders from Brussels, Washington, London, or anywhere else.
Apparently, this issue has been toned down on purpose – they are back to “strategic silence” again, if we use USAID’s terminology. I’m stunned. Absolutely stunned. Where are all the Western environmental champions now? Where are the political scientists, the activists, the nuclear safety professionals, the unwavering advocates of disarmament? Where are any of them? It’s as if they’ve been suddenly silenced – deplatformed, scrubbed from print and pulled off air. Vanished without a trace.
Can you imagine this in any other country? Would any state attack another while choosing nuclear facilities as targets? In fact, I know one – the Kiev regime. Ukraine, too, shelled the Zaporozhskaya and Kurskaya nuclear power plants. We told the world that the attacks were targeted and deliberate, verging on nuclear terrorism, because they knew where they were aiming their strikes. Back then, the international community, I mean the Western part of it, went instantly blind as well. But this new unprecedented situation is even more appalling. I’m appalled.
The outcomes of the June 13 emergency meeting of the UN Security Council and the June 16 special session of the IAEA Board of Governors clearly demonstrated that the Global Majority countries firmly reject Israel’s confrontational stance. They refuse to accept its far-fetched justifications for aggression against a sovereign state and demand an immediate halt to strikes on Iran – including targeting its nuclear energy infrastructure. Yet Western media appears to neatly erase these references from coverage.
Question: China’s President Xi Jinping completed his visit to Astana the other day. As part of the visit, China Media Group signed a memorandum on establishing the China – Central Asia Media Alliance. The establishment of the alliance aims to create a single cooperation platform for media outlets of Kazakhstan, China, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. Esteemed Ms Zakharova, you are not only a recognised Sinologist but also a great expert on the global Asian agenda. In what way do you think the newly established China – Central Asia Media Alliance will impact the information agenda of the Global South? Does it also mean that China is launching an active expansion in Central Asian media?
Maria Zakharova: Both Russia and China are deeply interested in the prosperity of Central Asia. Let me say this with full sincerity: Central Asia is a vital geopolitical, trade, economic, and cultural hub of Eurasia. On different platforms, we are closely coordinating our policies with Beijing on the regions’ issues and are pursuing fruitful bilateral cooperation with the five Central Asian nations. We feel such interaction formats are much needed and meet the fundamental interests of all the parties engaged.
I do not share your alarmist assessments of the launched project. We have similar projects with Central Asian countries, hold consultations, while our media ink contracts with media outlets both in China and in Central Asia.
I think the problem is different, it lies in the fact that for decades, nations have been fed information from the only source – Western media - by concluding commercially neglectable agreements that nevertheless imply a ‘single-track’ approach to information sharing. Even money was not needed, the only thing that mattered was that countries should only take information from the Anglo-Saxon media. It embraced all the continents. This is where alarms should have been turned on long ago. I perceive no alarmism in the fact that other counties want to interact in media matters, as they advance their media outlets and possess their authentic content while pursuing a peaceful cooperation policy.
The Central Asian nations and China are our strategic partners with which we maintain regular and trustful dialogue on a broadest range of issues, including interaction in the media sector. We proceed from the premise that the parties’ activities on this track are to facilitate dissemination of objective information about our countries’ cooperation, including for foreign audiences.
Question: Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan on the occasion of Russia Day expressed his confidence in strengthening relations with Moscow. The next day Nikol Pashinyan made it understood that his Government would like to keep Russian troops in the Republic. Can we say that the relationship is now on a positive track?
Maria Zakharova: We have a wide range of interaction with Armenia. Of course, we do have problem issues like in relations with any country, like any countries have. However, it is definitely impossible to formulate it as we are only “on a positive track,” as you say, toward improving or warming. I want to note that we do have certain problems, certain story. However, I would not treat it as you have said.
What is the crux of the question? What quote precisely you wanted me to comment on?
Question: I did not ask to comment on a quoteе...
Maria Zakharova: You spoke about a statement.
Question: No. Pashinyan expressed confidence in strengthening relations with Moscow and made it understood that Russian troops will continue to stay in the Republic because this question is permanently raised this way or another.
Maria Zakharova: We maintain a regular dialogue with Yerevan in all areas, through all agencies identified for discussing these issues. This question has never been raised in the practical vein. It is possible that it was discussed in communities or publics of the Armenian expert circles. That's another question. It has never been raised in our interaction with Yerevan.
Question: In the context of the latest developments in Iran and the region it is evident that there is a threat of hostilities on the part of Azerbaijan with the purpose long-cherished by President Ilham Aliyev to get hold of the so called Zangezur corridor. How will Russia respond in this case and what will it do?
Maria Zakharova: I liked very much the model answer by President of Russia Vladimir Putin during our yesterday’s conversation with heads of international information agencies. I will allow myself to fall into plagiarism: “I don't even want to discuss such a possibility. I don't want to.”
Our efforts are aimed at stabilization, at least, now at de-escalating the situation in the region, everything related to Iran, to Israel’s aggressive actions against that country. We are working with Yerevan and Azerbaijan to normalize the situation in the region. We do have the mechanisms and working groups, and specialists are resolving all these issues at the relevant level. So (not my phrase, not my finding) I don't even want to discuss it. That's what our leader said, so I can use this wording.
We hold dear both Azerbaijan and Armenia as countries and peoples with whom we have established relations for centuries and with whom we have such close ties. Iran for us is a country with which we are developing relations and have so many plans for it. This is a region that passed through so many trials (broadly speaking). Now, our actions and policy are focused – and this is one of the priorities – on bringing there stability. On reinforcing it economically, showing the advantages and priority of progressive development and interaction rather than conflict potential. Of course, it's not for me to tell you how many forces, crossroads and knots are involved there. I think you guess and know it. You asked about Russia’s position – here it is.
Question: How has international sport reorganised itself without the Russian Federation, and what must be done to prevent the politicisation of sport from hindering Russian athletes from representing our country with dignity on the global stage?
Maria Zakharova: The absence of Russian athletes has left world sport stranded. Deprived of the remarkable achievements of Russian competitors, it has become impoverished. Over the past decades, sport has been subjected to such numerous and destructive influences that one might even suggest it has regressed.
Now, the global conversation revolves around how to dismantle the monstrous, self-destructive engine – or mechanism – that has been forcibly integrated into the Olympic Movement, among other things, through the imposition of gender agendas and the creation of perverse new forms of competition. We have all observed it: the most recent Olympic Games showcased exactly where this path leads. Therefore, I believe that officials within the global Olympic Movement and international sport must recognize – as many already have – that this is a road to nowhere. Some, upon retirement, allow themselves the liberty of speaking more candidly; others, summoning their courage while representing a particular federation or sport, openly admit the same.
Although the initial blow may have been aimed at Russia, it has ultimately struck the entire global movement. Now, those with clear-sightedness must concentrate on analysing how to extricate from this situation. There can be no world sport – let alone an Olympic Movement – constructed upon the segregation of athletes by nationality, political expediency, double standards, or the outright destruction of rules to serve political agendas. Such a scenario would no longer be sport, but rather something entirely different: a spectacle, a commercial venture, politics – anything but sport.
Sport is about something different. It is about the physical capabilities of the human body, the convergence of science and the dedication of athletes, educational processes, competition, fortitude, willpower, and its intersection with other spheres of life – science, technology, economics, and beyond. This is what modern sport embodies – not a regression to the Neolithic era, where victory went to the one who struck hardest with a club, tripped their opponent, or threw the heaviest stone. Sport is about strength, achievement, the synergy of scientific advancement, resilience of spirit – not merely physical power – and the accumulation of civilisational progress, within which lies an array of magnificent triumphs. It is not about dehumanisation, least of all on the playing field.
Question: We have just quoted you in our live broadcast regarding your remarks on the inadmissibility of Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. A colleague from Reuters also inquired about what Russia could do for Iran under the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Treaty between our countries. A brief follow-up: does Russia possess any leverage over Israel? What could Russia do – perhaps impose sanctions or take other measures – to help resolve this conflict?
Maria Zakharova: It seems to me that we should not speak of leveraging pressure, but rather of opportunities, persuasion, and proposals. This is our lexicon.
We maintain contact. You are well aware of the telephone conversations – negotiations that have taken place, including with Israeli leadership. These discussions occur behind closed doors, though detailed reports on them are available (1, 2). The negotiation process concerning Iran’s peaceful nuclear programme must and can continue. The Russian leadership has consistently affirmed this at all levels. We – the world – possess experience in this regard.
The second point is to listen and understand what Iran truly desires. It is important not to invent on its behalf, but to truly hear and comprehend the intentions of that state and its people: to develop a peaceful nuclear programme under the supervision of established international institutions such as the IAEA, hosting their personnel and experts, submitting reports accordingly, and participating in all necessary formats as outlined by such cooperation. Existing issues must be resolved in a manner that respects all parties. We advocate for this, providing encouragement and using our capabilities within these negotiation tracks.
It is difficult to add more than what President of Russia Vladimir Putin expressed yesterday when responding to several similar questions. I would urge you to pay attention to his meeting with the heads of international news agencies. In my view, he comprehensively addressed the matter.
We have discussed this today. The negotiation process was underway, with prospects already in place – concrete plans for future tracks. All of this was disrupted by unprovoked aggression. Now, all efforts must be directed towards restoring peace. Admittedly, this is a difficult task, but it is how we perceive the situation.
Question: How and when is the evacuation of cancer patients from Israel planned?
Maria Zakharova: Are you referring to something specific?
Question: Yes. Primarily, when is the evacuation of patients scheduled?
Maria Zakharova: All of them?
Question: Yes, all.
Maria Zakharova: I must apologise, but if you raise a question on such a sensitive matter – and knowing you are live on air – some preparation is necessary. Do you realise how many people, whether afflicted by such illnesses themselves or having relatives who are, have just been startled by your question? Do you understand the professional responsibility that comes with addressing such topics?
Allow me to assist you in navigating this awkward situation by clarifying: are you referring to the case of a specific family covered by the media – a young girl receiving treatment? If so, this matter is under the direct supervision of our Ambassador to Israel; Russian diplomats are overseeing it, and the family has been appropriately informed. This process has been ongoing for several days. If you are referring to other instances, please provide further details. We will certainly respond.
Question: I can’t help but ask about the arrest of a renowned Russian-Armenian businessman Samvel Karapetyan. He was arrested for two months. An announced process of nationalising his property in Armenia has begun. What does Russia think about this and the fact that, quite often, the justification for his criminal prosecution in Armenia cited by pro-government media is that he is supposedly a man of Russia? That is how he is portrayed and that is how actions against him are being justified.
Maria Zakharova: Let’s take any other situation involving any other person. Actions cannot be justified if the issue is about criminal proceedings based on citizenship or ethnicity. Criminal prosecution should be based on facts, data, and evidence indicating a violation of the law. We need to operate with concrete, comprehensible facts. I’d rather not respond to the flood of statements that have been made in this regard.
We have made it clear that a citizen who holds Russian citizenship, a Russian entrepreneur, like any other Russian citizen or entrepreneur, will always receive assistance and support if they reach out to our embassy, the Russian side. It may be that particular person, their solicitor, or relatives. You are well aware that these representations have already been made publicly.
To continue this discussion, we need to understand exactly what is going on. We need to have access to specific statements, charges, or other concrete actions. A large number of very specific statements have been made; so first, let’s figure out what exactly this is all about.
To reiterate, as a Russian citizen and a Russian businessman, he will receive the necessary aid.
Question: In late May, Russia’s Defence Minister Andrei Belousov described the situation around Armenia’s Syunik Region as tense. At about the same time, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio also told Congress that escalation was possible. How does Russia currently assess the situation in and around the Syunik Region, especially in light of recent developments in neighbouring Iran?
Maria Zakharova: As you are aware, the process of unblocking transport routes in the South Caucasus, as we have repeatedly emphasised, must proceed exclusively through peaceful means. The most effective way to lift the regional transport blockade is to swiftly resume cooperation within the framework of the Trilateral Working Group chaired jointly by deputy prime ministers of Russia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan. At the group’s last meeting in Moscow in June 2023, the parties were close to resolving most practical issues.
Question: The Foreign Ministry issued an advisory for the Russian citizens currently staying in Iran which only mentions the possibility of leaving Iran through a checkpoint on the border with Azerbaijan. Why is there no mention of the evacuation route via the Armenia-Iran border, which is also in northern Iran and, unlike the Azerbaijani checkpoint, has not had any quarantine restrictions for several years now? Are there any technical or political reasons preventing Russian citizens evacuating via the checkpoint on the Iran-Armenia border?
Maria Zakharova: There are no political reasons whatsoever. And there were no fact-based reasons not to use that route, either. It’s just that this particular crossing point has not been used before. Meanwhile, the Azerbaijan route had been used previously, and it was chosen, because there was prior experience of using it.
As soon as the initial urgency subsided, we began to also use the route across Armenia, as I mentioned today. Accordingly, this information was made public today. I checked it this morning, and spoke with my colleagues.
Thank you for your concern, because we know that our Armenian friends and colleagues have never refused access to this crossing point when it was needed for humanitarian reasons. There was never any doubt that everything would go smoothly.
Logistically, we simply had more experience with the Azerbaijani route at the time. But now, we are also using the Armenian route, for which we are also grateful to our Armenian friends and colleagues.
Question: Recently, I asked a sensitive question about payments to the military. Thanks to your personal involvement and that of the Foreign Ministry of Russia…
Maria Zakharova: No, I have nothing to do with this, that’s for certain. I can tell you the whole story, but it’s not me. I only comment on this matter.
Russia honours its obligations under the bilateral Agreement with Latvia on Social Insurance Cooperation of 2007 in good faith and to the full extent.
It is the Western community and its financial institutions that are fully to blame for deliberately creating a crisis over pension payments due to Russian compatriots living in Latvia in the first six months of 2025. Ostensibly, they are concerned with the wellbeing of socially vulnerable groups, but actually, judging by all appearances, would cater to the needs of sexual minorities alone. They neglect other people, who need money, because they have earned it by honest work. The money is withheld, regardless of demand for it. Moreover, this is not some huge amount, just pensions that sustain the livelihood of many people. The Western human-rights addicts do not care about these groups. They have actually blocked money remittances from an authorised Russian Federation bank, because it has come under their illegal sanctions.
The Russian Federation in the person of the Ministry of Labour and the Social Fund of Russia is taking active efforts to diffuse the crisis.
Question: Can it be approximately assumed, when this problem will be solved?
Maria Zakharova: I will check with my colleagues.
Question: Latvian, Estonian and Lithuanian media are presenting Russia as an aggressor and Ukraine as its victim. At the same time, they are keeping silent about crimes committed by the Kiev regime. What kind of information support should Russia provide in response to hostile insinuations? Is Russia successful in counteracting the Baltic propaganda? Is this propaganda overwhelming or effective?
Maria Zakharova: This is their role and they are playing it. My piece of advice to them is this. They should focus on their own countries’ vital problems rather than be more objective about on Ukraine. They can promote science, develop technologies, address a huge number of social issues, and, in general, think of where their development is directed. But they have the role. A small niche has been carved out for them, a pool to stand knee-deep in water, not even to swim in. Their EU and NATO function is to be aggressive and endlessly belabour the mike to express their aggressiveness. This is their main mission.
To please their masters or obeying their diktat, they have destroyed all of their pragmatic ties with Russian businesses, Russian science, and Russian culture, things that used to yield concrete results to their own citizens and helped to feed and develop their countries. They were consistently destroying all that. Something has been spared, of course but in a larger scheme of things, they have dealt an immense blow to themselves. They would do well somehow to restore all this, not even with us helping. Why not try to create educational clusters, or sectors for applying scientific achievements? To try to be of use in this world. To understand what they are. There is a division of labour in the global economy. Every country is doing and contributing something specific: a processing industry, energy, education, science, sports, culture, etc. What is it that these countries are contributing? They should somehow find their identity and discover their unique role in the world. I am referring to the regimes, not people. Their domestic and foreign policies must not be reduced to aggressive and often stupid Russophobic statements. This is what I would advise them.
Question: Will the Foreign Ministry comment on US President Donald Trump’s statement that expelling Russia from the G8 was a mistake? He said this ahead of the recent G7 summit. According to Mr Trump, this erroneous decision was taken by the then US and Canadian leaders Barak Obama and Justin Trudeau. The current US leader is confident that Russia’s G8 membership could have prevented the Ukrainian conflict.
Maria Zakharova: You have several questions here instead of one. First, this is not the only mistake committed by the West, the G7, or NATO-centric countries. Among other things, US President Donald Trump was speaking about losses sustained by Western countries by reason of failing to cooperate with Russia, imposing sanctions on Russia, or waging a trade war against Russia. A case in point is the same G7 in Canada. They would do well to make an inventory of those mistakes. Not for us, for their own information.
Second, let’s put the record straight. We were in the G8 but not as a full-fledged member. We could only participate in political discussions; the G8 economic segment was off-limits for us, while the G8 agenda was mostly focused on the economy.
At some stage, it became clear that this arrangement had outlived its usefulness. There are facts to prove this. First, the group did not include the leading economies that had proven their mettle. Second, following the 2008 crisis caused by the collapse of the US real estate market, this “bubble” that entailed some monstrous consequences for the entire global economy, stock exchanges, and the financial sector, the G8 failed to advise the world on any remedy so as to correct its latest mistakes. Therefore, the G20 was created to do that.
I mean, the G8 soiled the nest and asked the G20 to clear the mess. This is what happened in reality. The G20 came into being for reasons other than the command of the times or requirements of the historical moment. It was necessary to save the global economy from the aftermath of speculation on the US real estate market, whose collapse brought about these consequences. This was yet another proof of the fact that you can style yourself to your heart’s content as leading, great, exceptional, the king of all kings of the mountain, etc., and yet lack the potential to do even what you must.
I would offer this comment. To tell the truth, we did not intend to comment at the outset. But your question calls for a focus. Russia has made its choice in favour of real global mechanisms of governance. I am referring to BRICS, the SCO, and the G20. They are an umbrella for the leading centres of economic growth and political influence set against the backdrop of an emerging multipolar world. We have no interest in G7 or whatever combination – 6+1, 1+6, 8-1, etc. – they want to invent. It is a spent force.
***
Have a good time at the forum in St Petersburg and in Russia, in the case of foreign guests.
Additional materials
-
Photos
