Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, March 20, 2025

Table of Contents

Upcoming meeting of Alexander Gorchakov Public Diplomacy Fund’s Board of Trustees
Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with President of the National Assembly of People’s Power and Cuban Council of State Esteban Lazo Hernandez
Attack by the Kiev regime on Russian energy infrastructure
Ukraine update
The neo-Nazi Kiev regime’s continued war on the Russian language
Presentation of a report by International Public Tribunal on the Crimes of Ukrainian neo-Nazis
Western special services’ involvement in anti-Russia activities
Militarisation of the Federal Republic of Germany
11th anniversary of the signing of the political chapters of the EU-Ukraine association agreement
International Research and Diplomatic Congress to mark the 80th anniversary of the Yalta Conference
Yemen situation update
The 35th anniversary of diplomatic relations with the Republic of Namibia
The 90th anniversary of the sale of Chinese Eastern Railway
Anniversary of NATO aggression against Yugoslavia
Vyzov National Prize for Future Technologies

Protests in Serbia
Recruiting foreign mercenaries into the Ukrainian army
White Paper for European Defence – Readiness 2030
Establishment of Russian and US expert groups on the Ukrainian crisis
French president’s militarist statements
Desecration of Soviet military graves in Tallinn
Reasons for Iceland’s decision to close its embassy in Moscow
Poland and Baltic states’ decision to withdraw from the Ottawa convention banning anti-personnel mines
The US resumes intelligence sharing and military aid to Ukraine
The coordination of military aid package for Ukraine
Russian-Chinese relations
Telephone conversation between the Russian and US leaders
The subject of upcoming Russian-US contacts
The mutual interest of Russia and the US to normalise bilateral relations
Developments in Syria
The ceasefire regime in Gaza
Valentina Matviyenko’s visit to Baku
Anti-Russia statements by the Lithuanian prosecutor’s office
Russian-Abkhazian relations
Russia’s relations with Global South countries
The outcome of Valentina Matviyenko’s visit to Baku
The US intention to send weapons to Armenia
Striving for peace in Ukraine
The Azerbaijani and Armenian leaders’ presence at the Victory Parade in Moscow
The coordination of the Armenia-Azerbaijan peace treaty
Growing tensions on the Armenian-Azerbaijani border
US calls on Azerbaijan to release all Armenian prisoners of war
Possible resumption of the OSCE Minsk Group
Iran’s nuclear programme
Russian-North Korean consultations
Election of the UN General Assembly President
Contacts with the new Syrian government
The severing of diplomatic relations with Belgium

Upcoming meeting of Alexander Gorchakov Public Diplomacy Fund’s Board of Trustees

The Board of Trustees of the Alexander Gorchakov Public Diplomacy Fund will meet on March 24. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will chair the meeting. The participants will outline the key accomplishments and outcomes of the ministry’s activities in 2024 and approve areas of focus for 2026.

As a reminder, the Fund was established in 2010 in accordance with the Presidential Executive Order in order to promote public diplomacy and to advance domestic non-public institutions’ involvement in international cooperation and foreign policy processes.

Fund-sponsored educational and research programmes for young international experts from Russia, the CIS and other countries are held annually. The Fund also helps organise conferences, round table discussions and expert meetings in order to, among other things, get our international partners familiar with Russia’s approaches to addressing key issues of international politics.

Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with President of the National Assembly of People’s Power and Cuban Council of State Esteban Lazo Hernandez

On March 26, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will meet with President of the National Assembly of People’s Power and President of the Council of State of the Republic of Cuba Esteban Lazo Hernandez, one of Cuba’s top officials. He will be in Russia at the invitation of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation.

In the spirit of close strategic partnership and regular trust-based dialogue and friendly contacts, Sergey Lavrov and Esteban Lazo Hernandez will discuss the current state of and prospects for promoting bilateral cooperation, trade and economic, scientific and technical, and cultural and humanitarian cooperation, as well as implementation of top-priority joint physical projects.

The parties will review key items on the international agenda emphasising unacceptability of interfering in the domestic affairs of sovereign countries and non-recognition of unlawful pressure using illegal sanctions to punish “undesirable” governments, as well as matters related to advancing interaction on multilateral platforms.

Attack by the Kiev regime on Russian energy infrastructure

In the early hours of March 19, 2025, the Kiev regime executed yet another premeditated assault using UAVs against an energy infrastructure facility situated in the Cossack village of Kavkazskaya, Krasnodar Territory. (I will shortly elucidate why I specifically underscore that this pertains to energy infrastructure). The attack resulted in the depressurisation of an oil storage tank, causing a fire spanning 1,700 square metres. As widely acknowledged, this facility plays a crucial role in the transhipment of oil from railway tankers into the pipeline system of the Caspian Pipeline Consortium, an international oil transportation entity. I must reiterate: this is an international project.

It is worth recalling that mere hours before this incident, a telephone conversation concluded between the presidents of Russia and the United States, during which – as confirmed by both parties – US President Donald Trump proposed, and Russian President Vladimir Putin accepted, a mutual cessation of strikes targeting energy infrastructure for a period of 30 days. The Russian President promptly issued orders to the Russian military to halt such strikes.

What about Vladimir Zelensky and the Kiev regime? He publicly declared his acceptance of the initiative to refrain from strikes on energy infrastructure and expressed support for the White House’s proposal. Yet in practice, as we now witness, Vladimir Zelensky issued the contrary order: not to cease strikes, but rather to initiate new ones.

This represents another deliberately orchestrated provocation by the Kiev regime, aimed at subverting peace initiatives, including those proposed by the US President. Vladimir Zelensky and the Kiev regime have once again breached established understandings, thereby confirming their absolute incapacity to adhere to agreements.

We have repeatedly emphasised Vladimir Zelensky’s habit of operating with complete impunity during the Biden administration, even exceeding permissible boundaries. At that time, he evaded accountability, not least due to the physical incapacity of the then-US President to monitor developments, verify reports, or ensure the implementation of agreed measures. One wonders what Vladimir Zelensky now anticipates. Does he expect that his modus operandi of manipulating the Biden team will persist under the current US administration? This is a question that demands an answer. I suspect we will soon learn it.

In reality, the terrorist regime on Bankova Street – entirely divorced from reality – has demonstrated a total absence of political will for peace or conflict resolution through diplomatic means. They continue to prove this year after year. As before, they remain obsessed with the delusional ambition to inflict, as they fantasise, “defeat” upon Russia, actively employing terrorist tactics against civilian infrastructure, sparing no civilians – including those residing in the new Russian regions. They show no mercy even to their own citizens. We have repeatedly drawn the international community’s attention to these acts of terror and called for the unequivocal condemnation of the Kiev regime’s crimes.

It is evident that responsibility for this and other terrorist attacks lies with all states that persist in recklessly and irresponsibly supplying the Ukrainian ruling junta with lethal weaponry, thereby abetting its bloodthirsty conduct. It bears reminding that terrorists worldwide are now sustained by Western arms leaking from Ukrainian territory. Through this, the corrupt Kiev neo-Nazi regime expands the geographic reach of its criminal activities.

This matter could not go unaddressed. Ostensibly, following his debacle in the Oval Office, Vladimir Zelensky apologised to the US President, expressed remorse, and “sprinkled ashes upon his head” – though I suspect the ashes were those of his own citizens. He will nevertheless be held to account.

The entire team on Bankova Street vociferously proclaimed their readiness to obey instructions from the White House, pledging reformed conduct and a desire to collaborate with their “senior American patron-brothers.” And how does this collaboration manifest? No sooner had the US President announced – under his own initiative, supported by Russia – that the Kiev regime must cease strikes on energy infrastructure, than Vladimir Zelensky and his regime proceeded to do precisely the opposite.

In adopting Western parlance, one might pose the question: Is this Vladimir Zelensky’s deliberate distortion and defiance of the US President’s directive? Or has he simply lost control over those he purportedly leads? Let them attempt an answer.

Ukraine update

Militants directed from Bankova Street persist in terror against civilian population and infrastructure of our country.

On March 14, the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) launched a targeted strike, allegedly utilising HIMARS multiple-launch rocket systems, against the local history museum in Sudzha, Kursk Region – a town recently liberated by our forces. A female employee was killed, and two others were injured. Having disgracefully fled this district centre, Bandera adherents then shelled it from the territory of the Sumy Region, attempting to inflict maximum destruction on urban infrastructure. The Russian Armed Forces are taking all necessary measures to secure the Kursk border area from enemy fire.

On March 15, in the Belgorod Region, a woman was injured in the village of Dolgoye when an explosive device was dropped from a UAV onto a private residence. In the town of Gubkin, two children aged 7 and 10, along with their mother, sustained serious injuries from drone attacks. On March 17, a civilian in the village of Yasnye Zori suffered severe trauma, losing part of his foot, after detonating a Bell (DPICM submunition) mine. In Belgorod itself, an 18-year-old youth lost his arm due to falling debris from a downed drone. On March 18, a service bus struck an explosive device in Krasnoyaruzhsky District, injuring two women and a man.

Between March 14 and 18, a civilian was killed and 24 others – including two teenagers and two Emergencies Ministry workers – were wounded in Gorlovka, Donetsk, following attacks by Ukrainian drones.

Residents of liberated settlements in the Kursk Region continue to testify to the horrors of the occupation by Ukrainian nationalists since August 2024. In the village of Kazachya Loknya, people were forced under threat of death to bury and hold funeral rites in their gardens for relatives and neighbours who had been executed. A local resident reported the brutal torture and murder of three captured Russian servicemen by Ukrainian Nazis.

In the village of Malaya Loknya, our military discovered the remains of a young woman and her child.

War correspondents revealed that the body of 27-year-old Nina Kuznetsova, who was two months pregnant at the time of the AFU’s assault on Kursk border areas, was found in Sudzha hospital. On August 7, 2024, she attempted to evacuate by car with her young son and mother. Her husband, travelling separately, witnessed Ukrainian Nazis firing on her vehicle. His wife and child were wounded. After Nina Kuznetsova lost consciousness, her husband transported her to the aforementioned hospital but could not return.

A Sudzha resident reported cases of an underage girl and a 73-year-old female pensioner being raped by mercenaries. During the AFU occupation, people in this district centre succumbed to starvation, cold, and disease. Another resident described the burial of at least 34 local civilians near his home.

Regrettably, this represents only a partial account of the victims of the Kiev regime’s terror on our soil. Russian law enforcement agencies are meticulously documenting testimonies from civilians regarding crimes perpetrated by AFU militants and mercenaries – murders, torture, and looting. Criminal cases have been initiated, with investigations underway to identify those complicit in these and other Ukrainian Nazi atrocities in the Kursk Region.

Russian courts continue to deliver verdicts against Ukrainian neo-Nazis and mercenaries for war crimes.

A sentence has been handed down to Ukrainian militants Nikolay Tyazhkorob, Alexander Plaksivy, Sergey Pogromsky, and Vladimir Odnoochko, detained by Russian forces in the Kursk Region. Established facts confirm that after their illegal incursion in August 2024, they committed acts of terrorism in Sudzha. Threatening civilians with weapons, they occupied private homes, repeatedly opened fire on Russian servicemen and civilians, and obstructed evacuations. Tyazhkorob, Pogromsky and Odnoochko received 16-year sentences, while Plaksivy was sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment.

Criminal cases have been forwarded to court concerning foreign mercenaries Owen Good, Arthur Tremoulet, Mikhail Demetrashvili, Gia Sagliani, and Perez Valentin Alexander Gonzalez, who fought alongside the AFU. These individuals, from Britain, France, Georgia, and Uruguay, are now subject to international arrest warrants.

Investigative authorities in our country will continue gathering evidence to hold Ukrainian Nazis and foreign mercenaries accountable for war crimes and other atrocities.

A few words about the behaviour of those who still call themselves “civilised.” In fact, they sponsor these crimes. London is trying to expedite the creation of some kind of “peacekeeping” contingent. For this purpose, on March 15, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer convened a second summit of the “coalition of the willing” via videoconference. A powerful name, indeed. They come up with memes easily. Although the list of participants has been expanded to now include 25 countries, the main issue – the recruitment of a multinational contingent for possible deployment in Ukraine – has not become any clearer. Nobody else is willing to join. The question of Washington’s support for this mission also remains open.

The Brits quickly hushed up the fact that the “peacekeeping intervention” is stalling, shifting the focus to what they can do better: blowing smoke about the increasing unity of the West in putting pressure to bear on Russia and further military assistance to Kiev. However, it is clear to everyone that they are failing here as well. Not all EU and NATO member countries are ready to follow the proposed course of tightening sanctions against Russian assets, which means openly embarking on the path of banal theft. They understand that otherwise they will end up on the list of bandits, not indirectly, but openly declaring that they are thieves.

They also have some problems with weapons supplies. Europe is openly admitting the depletion of its own arsenals.

Steps are being taken to further increase military assistance to Ukraine as part of the immediate rearmament programme that the European Union has recently announced. The tone is set by head of European diplomacy Kaja Kallas. At the meeting of the EU Foreign Affairs Council held on March 17, she proposed discussing the possibility of allocating at least 20 billion euros for the needs of the Ukrainian Armed Forces in 2025, or better still, 40 billion euros, depending on Kiev’s needs. I can tell you right away, Ms Kallas, that you can write 100 billion or even 500 billion euros. This is what Kiev needs now, and tomorrow the needs will grow. You are shattering the Kiev regime’s psyche, feeding this terrorist scum. Each time, they will need more.

Ms Kallas also insisted that the EU member countries must contribute according to their “economic weight”. It’s laughable. If every country had to contribute to the European Union according to its “economic weight,” then Kaja Kallas would probably never held such a high office.

As a priority step, she suggested providing 2 million large-calibre artillery shells to Ukraine this year to the tune of 5 billion euros. Ms Kallas also said that 2 billion euros of the sum should be taken from the profits from frozen Russian assets. However, for some reason, the participants in the meeting did not agree on these steps. Do you know what is most surprising? We are now quoting and presenting facts about the statements and actions made by the EU’s chief diplomat. Can you see or hear anything diplomatic about this? Nothing. This kind of rhetoric would sound good if it came from military commanders, heads of general staffs, or representatives of security services, because it is all about weapons, armaments, and lethal assistance. Why are those responsible for diplomacy in the EU engage in anything but diplomacy?

Brussels seems to be still unable to comprehend which specific functions are required of the EU in the context of new dynamics regarding the Ukraine crisis. Nor is it able to explain how its demonstrative support for a possible ceasefire agreement reconciles with its narrow-minded, aggressive, pro-war stance and its own course for militarisation. Are there no people in the EU who can speak knowledgeably on the subject of militarisation? Why do we see those who have never been military experts speaking at the microphone on the topic of the European Union militarisation? This is a question that the people of Western Europe should ask themselves: Who is entrusted to speak out on the subject of militarisation of the European Union from high rostrums in Brussels? And most importantly, why are these people entrusted to do it?

On March15, French President Emmanuel Macron made another anti-Russia statement. Deliberating on the issue of sending “peacekeeping troops” to Ukraine, he stressed that if Ukraine, which is supposedly a sovereign state, chooses to invite allied forces to its territory, then it will not be up to Russia to decide if this is acceptable or not. He interpreted the Russian leadership’s warnings about the unacceptability of Western contingents in Ukraine as evidence of Moscow’s alleged insincerity in achieving peace. He even went so far as to call Russia an “existential strategic threat”. Then it must be revealed what state of mind Emmanuel Macron himself and those he represents are in.

Concurrently, Macron did not forget to inform about Paris’s plans to continue military assistance to the Kiev regime, primarily by meeting its requests for the supply of air defence systems, ammunition and drones as soon as possible. The possibility of sending additional Mirage fighter jets has not been ruled out.

It looks like the French leader has long lost touch with reality in his painful pipe dreams of either “victory” or “strategic defeat” inflicted on Russia, using Ukrainians’ hands. Trying to manipulate the Kiev regime into achieving completely unrealistic goals that are out of touch with reality, he reveals that he does not comprehend not only the aspects and details of the situation, but generally what is happening in the world.

We have said on many occasions that introduction of the aforementioned “peacekeepers” into Ukraine will practically mean a foreign military intervention with a view to further conflict escalation. This may substantially raise the risk of a direct military engagement between the North Atlantic Alliance and Russia.

As for his statements to the effect that allegedly “it is not up to Russia to decide.” We are a sovereign state. We have been repeatedly attacked from outside, both by France and by the West in general. As a sovereign country and as a country that has repeatedly suffered from Western barbarism, we have the right and will decide for ourselves how to ensure our own security. All the more so as the issue of collective security has not only been unresolved on the European continent, but it is precisely due to the likes of Emmanuel Macron and his predecessors, as well as the unfriendly regimes currently in place, that it has been sent into an absolute tailspin.

There were also statements by Vladimir Zelensky concerning the militarisation of Europe. Who else but him knows how to ensure security? He took up the old story again and demanded militarisation of Europe, including the accelerated production of ammunition, replenishing weapons arsenals and strengthening air defences. It is clear that he is thinking first of all about Ukraine, while covering it up with the alleged interests of the European continent.

Let me remind you who Vladimir Zelensky is. He is an unhealthy neo-Nazi dangerous to the world, who has brought his country to a catastrophe, and who has driven the Ukrainian people to their grave in the literal sense of the word. Now he is trying to push the Europeans to a similar destructive scenario. The collapse of Ukraine alone is not enough for Zelensky and those who brought him to power. Now they are pushing the entire Europe towards the same “pit.”

A mastermind and a participant in the heinous massacre of dozens of innocent Odessa residents in the House of Trade Unions on May 2, 2014, Right Sector neo-Nazi Demyan Ganul, was fatally shot in Odessa on March 14. I’m not going to waste time describing this scumbag. You can find information about him on your own, if you want to. One thing stands out. Look at the Kiev regime’s zeal, speed, and defiant enthusiasm as it set out to apprehend Ganul’s murderer. It appears that they have put on hold all matters at hand and focused on the manhunt. Without a doubt, the crime, the punishment, investigation, and fact finding are indispensable. There’s just one small nuance. It’s not even the fact that he is a hardcore thug. The fact is that the crime itself, which was unheard of in prosperous Europe back then - setting ablaze living people in the House of Trade Unions and killing them on May 2, 2014 - remained without proper investigation. Moreover, the investigation, its progress and the attempts to get to the truth were not just hindered by the Kiev regime, but the official Ukrainian authorities did everything possible to hush even the information about it.

As a reminder, actual perpetrators of the tragedy in Odessa on May 2, 2014, have never been held accountable. These murderers and thugs have on their conscience the lives of dozens of people burned alive in the Trade Union House, and at least 250 injured and maimed. The investigation launched by Kiev under pressure from international organisations was a travesty where attempts were made to assign blame to the victims, not neo-Nazis.

More than 10 years later, the European Court of Human Rights, which is known for its biased approaches, finally became aware of the Ukrainian authorities’ egregious connivance and opened the case of Vyacheslavova and Others v. Ukraine. Despite the attempts to castigate Russia as a culprit (what does Russia have to do with any of that?), the court ruled on March 13 that the Odessa police did practically nothing in 2014 to prevent the attack on rally attendees and turned a blind eye to multiple tips about preparations for a riot. Notably, fire trucks were sent to the scene with delay, and police did not help evacuate people from the Trade Union House which makes a case for passive complicity. These assessments were not made by us. To reiterate, they were provided by the European Court of Human Rights known for its biased attitude to our country and every piece of evidence we provided, as we tried to clarify what was going on in Ukraine. And even this court eventually acknowledged that the events around the Trade Union House were an act of absolute lawlessness and mayhem on the part of the Kiev authorities.

The court concluded that Ukraine had done nothing to save the people, or to conduct an effective investigation later. We understand that even these shreds of common sense shown by the European court can still be challenged. This charade of a court may well continue.

Speaking of the murder of Demyan Ganul, a Nazi who had a hand in the Odessa crime, take a look at the Kiev regime fussing and launching a major investigation in an attempt to find his killer. They are leaving no stone unturned. One of their goals is to let everyone know what will become of those who take a run on - not the law, there’s no law in present-day Ukraine - but on those who swore allegiance to the neo-Nazi Kiev regime. This is the way the punishers acted.

We operate on the premise that everyone involved in the events in Odessa on May 2, 2014 in one way or another must be brought before a truly unbiased and unprejudiced court. I know how it was historically, and I understand that it will take time, but I believe that none of these criminals will get away with it.

The above facts once again confirm the relevance of the special military operation to denazify and demilitarise Ukraine and to eliminate threats emanating from its territory. All the objectives of the special military operation will definitely be fulfilled, as the Russian leadership has repeatedly stated.

The neo-Nazi Kiev regime’s continued war on the Russian language

The ban on the Russian language is the neo-Nazi’s trademark. Look at the developments in Ukraine and its unprecedented campaign to deprive people of their legitimate humanitarian rights.

The Kiev regime is acting consistently to erase the Russian people’s identity and force them to forget their language, culture, history and religion.

It is from this perspective that we regard the draft law on amendments to certain laws on the use of language in education submitted to the Verkhovna Rada on March 11, 2025. Aimed at promoting the use of the Ukrainian language, the bill stipulates that students and teachers must only use Ukrainian in educational establishments, both during school hours and after school. Have you heard about anything of the kind? I only recall this in relation to the Third Reich, but even Nazi Germany did not go that far legislatively. But their followers in the 21st century have gone further than anybody did before them. They are trying to legitimise the neo-Nazi essence through laws.

The only concession in that bill is for those who receive education at schools that have classes or groups with tuition in the official EU minority languages. These people will have a right to use their national languages on a par with Ukrainian during lessons and breaks. Frankly, I don’t know which national minorities they have in mind, but this provision looks absurd to me.

As for the Russian language, the bill specifically points out that private schools, which have a right to choose the language of tuition, may not choose the language of the state that has been designated by the Verkhovna Rada as an aggressor or occupier country. It is a classic example of segregation.

I would like to remind you that the Rada deputies proposed this idea in October 2024. It was not accepted, but this has not stopped the fighters against everything Russian in the Verkhovna Rada. I’d like to name these deputies, so that at the end of the day they won’t be able to do an about-turn, as is a tradition in the Ukrainian political zoo, and to claim that they protected the rights of Russian speakers or even slept with books by Pushkin or Akhmatova under their pillows. The bill was prepared by 26 deputies, including Alexander Korniyenko, Natalya Pipa, Roman Lozinsky, Vladimir Vyatrovich, Tamila Tasheva, Nikita Poturayev, Maryana Bezuglaya, and Sofia Fedyna.

According to their explanatory note to the bill, its authors are concerned that students mostly use “Russian, the language of the aggressor country,” during non-school hours at educational establishments. They have run out of instruments for suppressing the Russian language and Russian speakers. Threats, including death threats, have not helped. Demyan Ganul, a neo-Nazi from the Right Sector we have mentioned before, was known for persecuting Russian speakers in Odessa. They have been harassed.

Nevertheless, people continue to teach Russian to their children. They continue to speak Russian and refuse to abandon their roots, history and their true values.

The Verkhovna Rada has decided to give it a go, because the bill’s authors claim that the Russian language is a threat to the “security of the state of Ukraine.” It is not Zelensky, who has invented the horrible forced mobilisation in Ukraine, but the Russian language that threatens them. What kind of a state is this if it fears the children who speak their native language? I would say that if they don’t like certain monuments, the names of certain cities and streets, or the language people around them speak, they must be building their state in a foreign territory. This fully refers to the Kiev regime. The authorities that are fully financed by foreign grants, are destroying its citizens and prohibiting them from speaking their native language, praying in their churches and honouring their ancestors can only be described as occupation authorities.

Presentation of a report by International Public Tribunal on the Crimes of Ukrainian neo-Nazis

Tomorrow, March 21, Rossiya Segodnya’s Media Centre will host a news conference to present a report by the International Public Tribunal on the crimes committed by Ukrainian neo-Nazis from the Ukrainian Armed Forces and the Security Service of Ukraine against Russian servicemen.

The news conference participants include President of the International Public Tribunal on the Crimes of Ukrainian neo-Nazis, member of the Civic Chamber of the Russian Federation, and author of the report Maxim Grigoryev; Human Rights Commissioner in the Russian Federation Tatyana Moskalkova; Chair of the State Duma Committee on Defence Andrey Kartapolov, and Foreign Ministry’s Ambassador-at-large on Crimes Committed by the Kiev Regime Rodion Miroshnik.

The report relies on personal testimonies provided by 80 Russian servicemen who returned from captivity that confirmed the facts of gross violations by the Kiev regime of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, widespread torture, violent beatings and abuse, which qualify as war crimes and have no statute of limitations. The International Public Tribunal on the Crimes of Ukrainian Neo-Nazis demands that all perpetrators of those crimes be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law.

Information, including on accreditation of media members, is available on the organisers’ website.

Western special services’ involvement in anti-Russia activities

We have used our briefings to cover - and we will continue to cover - the instances of the Western intelligence services’ involvement in the hybrid war against Russia.

It is no secret that the doctrinal documents of the United States and its allies regard our country as a main threat in the media space. The “strategic deterrence” of Russia was openly announced as their objective. We can assert with confidence that a full-scale anti-Russia campaign using ICT for military and political purposes has been on since the beginning of the special military operation.

Ukraine has become a bridgehead for carrying out a wide range of cyberspace operations against Russia. Entire units of special services and military departments from NATO countries are permanently stationed in Kiev and Lvov to coordinate the Zelensky regime’s actions in the digital environment. Since the 2010s, the alliance has been actively reforming Ukraine’s cyber forces through NATO Trust Fund Ukraine. In 2022, the Biden Administration sent to Ukraine a number of Pentagon officials in charge of cyber command, digital data management and artificial intelligence, as well as their “colleagues” from the NSA in charge of managing computer network operations. Their objectives include interaction with the Ukrainian forces to perpetrate computer attacks on Russian resources.

Operations of that kind are disguised as actions by the IT Army of Ukraine, which is allegedly a volunteer formation but is, in fact, run by the Ukrainian Defence Ministry. It is known to include about 130 hacker groups employing anywhere from 100,000 to 400,000 people. This criminal conglomerate includes staff from the Ukrainian army’s Main Intelligence Directorate and SBU’s Computer and Information Security Department.

Over 200,000 attacks were committed by the hacker community against Russian infrastructure facilities in 2023. The fact that the West does not denounce, and even encourages such malicious actions is quite telling. The IT Army and Ukrainian Deputy Prime Minister Mikhail Fyodorov received several awards at the Cybersec-2022 Forum in Katowice, Poland. As you may be aware, he has repeatedly come clean about Kiev’s involvement in digital operations. Do you have any idea of what these awards were for? They were for “resistance to Russian aggression.” You know well that it’s about cybercrimes.

To achieve its anti-Russia goals, Zelensky’s regime is using over 1,000 scam call centres across Ukraine, half of which are located in Dnepr, not the Dnieper River, unfortunately, but the city of Dnepr, but I have a hunch things will change soon. In all, more than 100,000 people are involved in these criminal activities. The network infrastructure of these centres is located in the Netherlands and Germany, with 92 percent of scam calls targeting Russian citizens, government bodies, and financial institutions coming from Ukraine. I think everyone in our country has received a call from them at least once.

At the behest of the Biden Administration, transnational IT corporations have provided the Zelensky regime with digital resources to conduct combat operations against Russia. In particular, US infrastructure tools are used to conduct geospatial and technical reconnaissance in Russia and the special military operation zone, to monitor the domestic information space and providers’ communication channels, and to provide the Ukrainian side with cloud technologies which it uses to carry out cyberattacks. A number of Israeli IT firms are also closely cooperating with the IT Army of Ukraine. Western companies that provide Ukrainians with access to their tools, such as Cloudflare and Digital Ocean from the United States, Hacken OU from Estonia, and Hetzner from Germany turn a blind eye to the fact that these tools are used to carry out malicious, literally extremist activities.

Russia’s Interior Ministry has initiated a series of criminal cases on scams involving billions of roubles pulled by Ukrainians against Russian citizens. The IP addresses of the call centres incorporated in Ukraine, as well as the identities of the scammers, have been established.

Western officials and “independent” media, as well as the “expert community of the information security” are using “highly likely” data to make vociferous claims about a “large-scale Russian aggression,” and “unleashing of cyber warfare by Russia,” but at the same time, as if on command from Washington, they defiantly ignore public statements by Ukrainian officials about plotting and carrying out computer attacks against Russia.

This is how the rules-based order promoted by the United States and, more generally, the West operates. This approach makes it possible for Westerners to carry out any actions in the global information space that they deem necessary, to arbitrarily identify - literally designate - the “guilty” parties and to take remedial actions with regard to them, and to turn a blind eye to the truly guilty parties.

At the same time, crimes against geopolitical opponents of the United States, even in the presence of public statements by officials from the countries that are acting in the US interests, are ignored or even encouraged.

Militarisation of the Federal Republic of Germany

March 18, 2025 marks a significant date. The Bundestag of the Federal Republic of Germany has resolved to abolish existing restrictions on state borrowing and has approved multibillion-euro expenditures for Bundeswehr armaments. To put it plainly, this decision signifies the country's transition onto a path of accelerated militarisation.

Does this not evoke a sense of déjà vu? I believe it does. The haste and unprincipled manner in which this decision was adopted serve as a vivid testament to the reckless anti-Russian course pursued by the ruling circles in the Federal Republic of Germany.

There is another reason – economic collapse. Germany’s policy regarding the implementation of long-term objectives in the economy, finance, industry, trade, and production has been an absolute failure. Why? Because the absence of resources – the resource base that existed until Berlin ceased using Russian energy resources under US orders – denies Germans the capacity to develop at the pace they anticipated and upon which their economy was structured. The internal economic collapse in Germany leaves them no alternative but to revert to a historically tested approach: militarisation. They appear, however, to have forgotten the consequences: the absolute collapse of the nation. This has occurred repeatedly. Yet, evidently, their rewriting of history is taking its toll. They have forgotten it.

Friedrich Merz, chairman of the CDU/CSU and aspirant to the chancellorship, indulged in unfounded assertions during Bundestag debates about an allegedly Russian-initiated war against Europe. One might ask him: in which part of Western Europe is our country engaged in combat? Could he not specify? At least we would be informed. He speculated on mythical Russian attacks on the industrial and energy facilities of European states. Have you in Berlin concluded your investigation into who sabotaged civilian infrastructure (Nord Stream 1 and 2)? No? Then stop fabricating or opining on matters about which you don’t have the slightest factual understanding. Friedrich Merz went even further, urging preparation for confrontation with our country “in the coming years and decades.”

I want to state that Russia has no intention of attacking Germany. If Germany asserts otherwise, such plans must lie with Germany itself. In that case, Berlin ought to call a spade a spade.

How can one not recall the well-known thesis regarding the ingrained desire for historical revanchism within the genetic makeup of German political elites? Alas, such tendencies, once every century, override common sense and even the instinct of self-preservation – is this not so?

Hotheads in Berlin and other European capitals must recognise that the Russian Federation will respond promptly and decisively to any militaristic ambitions to pre-empt threats to its own security. In essence, German citizens still have an opportunity to question their own authorities: what have they conceived, and into what adventurism are they attempting to drag the European continent?

They were provoked 100 years ago, and they stumbled into that provocation. The consequences, I believe, are known to Germans in one way or another. Must this be repeated? Perhaps they will yet come to their senses?

11th anniversary of the signing of the political chapters of the EU-Ukraine association agreement

March 21 marks 11 years – a pertinent reminder that unheeded errors risk repetition – since the signing of the political chapters of Ukraine’s EU association agreement in Brussels. The document ostensibly enshrined commendable postulates on respect for human rights, fundamental freedoms, the rule of law, political dialogue and reforms, justice, liberty, and security. Adherence to these principles was purported to usher Ukraine into the “democratic European family” or, as former EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs Josep Borrell phrased it, “garden.”

Yet today, the European Union may be labelled many things, but “garden” it is not. According to numerous European politicians, it increasingly resembles a realm of lawlessness, disenfranchisement, and constraint. Thus, any pontifications about Ukraine’s convergence with the EU through shared neoliberal quasi-values – which reject genuinely independent perspectives – or attempts to assess bilateral collaboration on this basis are inherently cynical. Nevertheless, they starkly reflect the true disposition of the EU and the Kiev regime toward the very institution of human rights.

Recall that under the EU-Ukraine association agreement, respect for human rights, democratic principles, and fundamental freedoms was intended to “form the basis for the domestic and external policies” of both parties.

On which side does compliance lie? The side where Ukraine begins, or where the EU commences?

Among the accord’s stated objectives for political dialogue was “to strengthen respect for democratic principles, the rule of law and good governance, human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the rights of persons belonging to national minorities.” This was embedded in the agreement signed on March 21, 2014. Has any of this been upheld by those in Ukraine? We have just discussed their systematic suppression of a national minority’s language – though let me reiterate: to label Russians in Ukraine as a “national minority” is nothing short of sacrilegious. Even accepting this framing, they are eradicating the language through various means, now enshrining in law the prohibition of children speaking in Russian during school breaks. All this occurs despite their pledge of eternal fealty to the rights of national minorities before the EU 11 years ago.

What can a state in political, social, humanitarian and economic agony learn from a union of European nations grappling with an acute identity crisis? Precisely what the European Union exhibits to the world today. First and foremost, this entails corruption within the highest echelons of power. Recall the cases of the former European Commissioner for Justice and his “lottery tickets” amounting to hundreds of thousands of euros in cash, the suitcases stuffed with money belonging to certain MEPs and their private Mediterranean islands, the dominance of lobbyists in EU institutions dictating unpopular political decisions to Brussels, or the procurement of anti-COVID vaccines at astronomical sums under terms unfavourable to Europeans themselves, arranged without consultation – merely via SMS correspondence. This is how Ursula von der Leyen operated. Such practices have long become the hallmark of the EU.

The impotence and subservience of the judiciary is another issue. A case in point is the ongoing investigation into multimillion-euro vaccine supply deals to EU member states.

Then there is the lawlessness in safeguarding the rights of national minorities within the EU. One need only cite the treatment of Russian-speaking communities in the Baltic states, who face unprecedented discrimination and, by the admission of international experts, “have no right to their rights.”

The EU’s own specialised institutions acknowledge a surge in Islamophobia and anti-Semitism across member states – unprecedented in scale. These are the lessons Ukraine is poised to learn from the EU.

All this unfolds against a backdrop of overt suppression of dissent within the Union through pervasive censorship, media bans, control over journalists and information flows, annulments of election results, and the outright selection – rather than democratic electoral processes – of candidates permitted to advance to subsequent voting rounds, simply at political whim. The arrest of “incorrect” victors, as witnessed in Romania, exemplifies this trend.

The wanton approach to historical memory in EU states lies at the root of these issues. They erase references to the Red Army’s pivotal role in liberating prisoners from Nazi concentration camps, while voting against UN resolutions condemning Nazism – a telling illustration of their quasi-values.

Ukraine meticulously follows the course charted by the EU. In this regard, claims of converging approaches between the parties could not be more apt. The EU openly applauds the “achievements” of the Kiev regime in human rights, even as it wilfully ignores the bestial brutality displayed through crimes against humanity, flouting international humanitarian law, enforcing ethnic and religious discrimination, and eradicating freedom of expression.

Detailed evidence on these matters is provided in annual reports by the Russian Foreign Ministry and joint reports with the Foreign Ministry of Belarus published since 2024, including Human Rights Situation in Certain Countries, the Russian Foreign Ministry’s dedicated report on Ukraine, Illegal Actions by the Kiev Regime Targeting the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, Violations of the Rights of Russian Citizens and Fellow Citizens in Foreign Countries, and others.

These documents are freely accessible on the digital platforms of the Foreign Ministry, including English-language versions. We strongly advise reviewing them.

International Research and Diplomatic Congress to mark the 80th anniversary of the Yalta Conference

On March 27-28, the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Crimea will hold an International Research and Diplomatic Congress to mark the 80th anniversary of the Yalta Conference of the heads of government of three Allied powers. You may remember that it was held on February 4-11, 1945.

Like in 1945, the event will be held at the Livadia Palace. It will be attended by over 100 prominent government officials, politicians, historians, heads of leading academic research institutions, as well as numerous representatives of international expert communities and the public. We expect to see delegates from Britain, China, the United States and France, in particular, Pierre de Gaulle, the grandson of the first president of the Fifth Republic General Charles de Gaulle, Jeffrey Sachs, an American economist, former director of The Earth Institute at Columbia University and former SDG Advocate for the UN Secretary-General (2002-2018), as well as many other prominent public figures.

The participants will discuss current geopolitical challenges amid the global change, when it is vitally important to develop dialogue and cooperation between the leading world powers, the elaboration of new fair principles of international coexistence, as well as Russia’s role in creating a new international order during transition from a unipolar to a polycentric world.

The events of the spring of 2014 and Crimea’s return to Russia have given a powerful impetus to a revision of the old global governance system and strengthened the nascent civilisational centres that stand for equality and the sovereignty of states and nations.

In the current geopolitical situation, this congress is a unique opportunity to analyse the 1945 Yalta Conference as the basis for discussing the outlook for and the mechanisms of creating a new international order.

We invite Russian and international media to cover the congress.

Yemen situation update

On March 15, 2025, US President Donald Trump ordered the US military to begin operations against the Yemeni Islamist group Ansar Allah, allegedly to make them stop their attacks that are infringing on the freedom of international navigation in the Red Sea.

Over the past few days, the Americans have delivered missile and bomb attacks on the provinces of Sanaa, Sadah, Marib, Al Bayda, Dhamar and Hajjah, targeting not only military facilities but also civilian infrastructure. According to medical information as of March 18, over 50 people have been killed and over 100 wounded in these attacks. In response, the Houthis are attacking the warships of a US carrier-led group.

We presented our views on the situation in Yemen in a statement following the March 15 telephone conversation between Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio. The minister stressed the need for all parties to immediately cease the use of force and the importance for all sides to engage in political dialogue so as to find a solution that would prevent further bloodshed.

We again call on parties to stop using force to resolve the conflict. We believe that only political and diplomatic methods can help find a durable stabilisation solution in Yemen and around it.

In our opinion, all responsible members of the international community should join efforts to help Yemen launch a comprehensive political settlement under the UN auspices based on the agreements mediated by Saudi Arabia and Oman and set out in the relevant roadmap.

The 35th anniversary of diplomatic relations with the Republic of Namibia

Tomorrow, March 21, marks an important date, the 35th anniversary of diplomatic relations between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Namibia. It is symbolic that the date that is important for both countries falls on the 35th anniversary of Namibia’s independence. We see this as a compelling evidence of the strength and durability of the time-tested bonds of friendship, solidarity and mutual support between our countries.

March 21, 1990 came as the pinnacle of the Namibian people’s heroic struggle for self-determination. The Namibians rose against the oppressive colonialism and apartheid. The Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1960 on the initiative of the Soviet Union came as a powerful incentive for the Namibians to create their own state. Moscow was among the first countries to extend a helping hand to Namibians led by the South West African People’s Organisation (SWAPO) on the path to national liberation.

In the 1960s-1980s, the Soviet Union provided SWAPO with military, financial, media and institutional support. In 1987, a SWAPO mission opened in Moscow. The SWAPO has led Namibia through the hardest parts of its quest for independence, and the development and strengthening of its statehood. To this day, this party has retained with confidence the status of the country’s leading political force, as became demonstrably clear during November 2024 national elections, with President of the SWAPO Party and its presidential nominee Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah winning a landslide victory.

Since 1990, our relations with sovereign Namibia have been strengthening and continued to become increasingly multifaceted. A constructive and trust-based political and diplomatic dialogue has established itself firmly. A high level of interaction has been achieved at the UN and other international platforms, and considerable experience of mutually beneficial business partnership has been accumulated across a variety of areas which was largely facilitated by the mechanism provided by the Intergovernmental Russian-Namibian Commission on Trade and Economic Cooperation, which has for many years been co-chaired by Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah assuming office tomorrow.

We reiterate our unwavering commitment to working as a team in order to build up bilateral cooperation across the board for the benefit of the peoples of Russia and Namibia. We are interested in continuing an in-depth exchange of views on international priorities and close coordination of our countries’ foreign policy efforts at multilateral venues.

We remain confident that Moscow and Windhoek’s coordinated steps in the international arena will contribute to establishing and strengthening a democratic and secure world order as we go forward, and ensure sustainable development and unblocking crisis situations in Africa.

The 90th anniversary of the sale of Chinese Eastern Railway

I would like to spend a moment discussing a historical date that sends us back to an event that, at first glance, may look like a strictly business transaction between two parties. In reality, it had a serious geopolitical dimension and affected the circumstances that influenced the course and outcome of WWII.

The issue is about the 90th anniversary of the sale of Chinese Eastern Railway (CER) to the Manchukuo State by the Soviet Union on March 23, 1935. To get a proper understanding of what was behind this decision of the Soviet government, we should first focus on the military-political aspect of that transaction.

As is known, in 1931 militaristic Japan launched an open aggression against China and actually created a puppet state - Manchukuo - in northeastern China, which it ruled as its own territory. What were their plans?

The Japanese military had far-reaching plans. They wanted to seize Siberia and the Soviet Far East. As it engaged in preparation for the attack, Tokyo began to implement a strategy aimed at economic “strangulation” of our country’s Far Eastern border territories. The Chinese Eastern Railway built by the Russian Empire in 1903 and owned by the Soviet Union was their core military and logistical lifeline, which also provided transport connectivity with neighbouring regions in China. Acts of sabotage and provocations with the direct involvement of the Japanese were a frequent occurrence on the railroad. The recently released Russian-Chinese feature film Red Silk shows how it all happened. Memoirs of foreign intelligence officers, who closely cooperated with the Japanese in Harbin during that period, also cover these events.

The situation surrounding CER became critically tense by mid-1930s to the point where further actions by our country to defend it could spark a full-on armed conflict with Japan, which the Soviet troops in the Far East were not ready to handle.

Tokyo’s push to provoke a clash is corroborated by the documents from Foreign Policy Archives of the Russian Federation. They also testify to high skills of our diplomats, who saw perfectly well the true motives of the Japanese “partners” who stood behind “independent” Manchurian representatives during the talks. Our country showed tremendous amounts of endurance, persistence and - in modern parlance - extraordinary creativity in addressing the issue at hand.

Intense talks have led to the signing of the final document on selling the CER, which gave the Soviet Union a necessary respite and allowed it to ready itself for the defence of its eastern borders. This timely move helped scuttle Japan’s 1938-1939 military aggression against our country on Lake Khasan and the Khalkhin-Gol River, and the Soviet troops (I can’t help mentioning the fact that my grandfather was among them) gave the enemy a devastating rebuff. I digress, but the 80th anniversary of Victory in the 1941-1945 Great Patriotic War is fast approaching.

One more important aspect should be highlighted as well. The archives clearly show unacceptable - not to say savage and barbaric - conduct of Japanese emissaries in Manchuria. On the direct orders of these “subhumans,” Soviet citizens, primarily the CER employees and emigrants who sympathised with our country, came under violent attacks, including torture and murders.

We have put together a select set of declassified materials on this subject and will post them on our website. Among other things, you will see a document that clearly draws parallels with the present day. There will be information about Japan’s attempts to, in conjunction with the Polish government, fund the nationalist Ukrainian movement and support it in other ways in order to stage an uprising in western Soviet Union and to destabilise the domestic political situation in case Moscow announced military mobilisation.

In the lead-up to the 80th anniversary of Great Victory and the defeat of militaristic Japan, we will continue to uncover the historical truth and to counter certain countries’ efforts to falsify key events of the past and to distort the background causes, the course and the outcome of WWII.

Anniversary of NATO aggression against Yugoslavia

On March 24, the global community – at least that part that did not forget what justice and humanity are – recalls the 26th anniversary of the day when NATO launched its aggression on Yugoslavia. By attacking a sovereign country, the United States and its satellites violated international law, undermined the foundations of security in Europe, and provoked a crisis in interstate relations that has not been overcome to this day.

A lot has been said about the horrible events of 1999 (we also talked about them a lot). The timeline of the Western coalition’s invasion has been analysed minute by minute, and its consequences have been carefully documented. However, this does not mean that the Yugoslavian massacre fades in memory or loses its menacing symbolism as time passes. No matter how much NATO allies call for forgetting the past or “turning the page” (as they like to say), the memory of that bloody spring lives on in the Serbian people.

NATO’s “humanitarian intervention” can serve as an example of modern barbarity and the rule-based world order and its backbone value: unfounded belief in its own superiority. Even before the strikes on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Western propaganda was turned on at full power to make the Serbs feel guilty and make in them regard the bombings as a well-deserved lesson.

The North Atlantic Alliance presented the matter at an angle that they were bringing the values of freedom and democracy to the Balkans, together with the ammunition filled with depleted uranium (which, as we have repeatedly stressed, caused a surge in cancer cases in the region). Even Italian military (who served in NATO back then) who were in the affected area as a result of the depleted uranium bombings, have not found justice (and have not had their medical expenses compensated). This is what Western democracy and freedoms look like. This view is still dominating in the West, where thousands of killed Yugoslavian civilians, including 89 children, are cynically called collateral damage. This is democracy with freedom of speech.

It would be correct to refer to last year’s survey on how the NATO aggression is regarded in today’s Serbia, cited in The Long Echo of 1999 monograph. Over 75 percent of respondents believe that Washington and Brussels have not atoned for their guilt before the Serbs (they have never intended to and will never atone for it; they are just waiting for the moment to do what they failed to do back then and crush Serbia).

We believe that this will not happen and we are doing everything to ensure that it does not happen again. We can see that people in Serbia stand united explaining the motivation of the North Atlantic Alliance: to consolidate its position in the Balkans using a military campaign, seize Kosovo and turn it into an American colony. In order to achieve this goal, the West put the terrorists of the Kosovo Liberation Army at its service arming and equipping them, granted the region a pseudo-state status, and now secretly encourages ethnic cleansing against the indigenous Serbian population.

The alliance will never atone for the shame of war crimes, including the destruction of residential areas, hospitals, schools, bridges, passenger transport, and refugee columns (how appropriate for today).

We will always stand with the Serbs in preserving the memory of the victims of the 1999 tragedy and preventing any attempts to revise the history of the Yugoslavian crisis in the Western way. We will always protect historical memory.

Vyzov National Prize for Future Technologies

The new season of the Vyzov National Prize for Future Technologies has kicked off. Applications will be accepted until May 21, 2025. The prize in the Discovery category will be awarded for a second time to foreign scientists and/or Russian citizens living and working abroad for a significant discovery that influenced the progress of international science and technology.

The prize is awarded to scientists in the field of exact and natural sciences, including mathematics, physics, chemistry, biomedicine, astronomy and engineering. The prize fund this year is 60 million roubles, or 12 million roubles for the winner in each of the five categories.

Last year, about 100 scientists from 34 countries competed for the prize in the Discovery category.

The mission of the prize is well known – to encourage the young people’s commitment to dedicate their lives to science. We welcome the efforts of the Vyzov Foundation for the Development of Scientific and Cultural Relations, which has proposed this initiative for the development of scientific diplomacy for the benefit of global progress.

Russia has always called for strengthening an equal and mutually beneficial international dialogue in science, which is the main instrument of responding to global challenges and the basis of humanity’s progress.

We invite talented and ambitious scientists across the world to take part in the contest. We hope that the prize will be awarded to the best of them. For more details, go to vyzovprize.com.

Answers to media questions:

Question: Protest rallies and civil disturbances have been reported in Serbia since last autumn. Does the ministry think that they are being encouraged by Western institutions?

Maria Zakharova: We are closely monitoring the developments in Serbia. We have pointed out on numerous occasions that the best course of action would be develop a national dialogue as soon as possible so as to find points of contact that would help normalise the functioning of the state. It includes the resumption of studies at schools and universities, compliance with law and order, the resumption of officials’ work in parliament and other institutions for the benefit of Serbia. A solution to delicate and complex problems connected with the fundamental national interests can be found through dialogue and constructive interaction between the people and the authorities.

We hope for an early normalisation of the situation in that friendly country.

Question: Western countries have been reported to have started recruiting migrants, mostly from Afghanistan and Syria, into the Ukrainian army. Is it a deliberate effort to settle the migration crisis in France, Germany and Britain, considering that these mercenaries will face sure death in Ukraine?

Maria Zakharova: To begin with, this information should be carefully verified.

It is a different matter that there are quite a few “soldiers of fortune” from the EU fighting in the Ukrainian army. Many of the mercenaries or “volunteers” fighting in Ukraine are career officers or members of Western intelligence services. The Russian Foreign Ministry has several times made public information about the arrival of mercenaries in Ukraine and, logically, their systematic elimination.

Most of them have either been killed or fled when they saw that this is not a computer game or what the Ukrainian propaganda had promised but a slaughterhouse into which the Kiev authorities are sending them as cannon fodder.

We have repeatedly pointed out that Ukrainian diplomatic offices around the world are recruiting mercenaries with the connivance and even active assistance of Western governments.

The West either turns a blind eye to or is involved in this, contrary to the relevant international documents, such as the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Moreover, it is doing this contrary to their own legislation, which directly prohibits mercenary activities or qualifies recruitment of mercenaries and their participation in combat activities abroad as a crime.

I would like to remind you what President Vladimir Putin said during a recent visit to a command post of the Kursk group of forces: “Foreign mercenaries do not come within the purview of the 1949 Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War.”

Question: The European Commission has recently published a White Paper for European Defence – Readiness 2030. How could you comment on its contents?

Maria Zakharova: Today, I have already said that the high-sounding Rearm Europe Plan is nothing else than the European Union’s forced militarisation, and the document is pushing European nations towards an absolute collapse.

No matter how the situation unfolds, be it militarisation without any subsequent aggressive applications, it will destroy the economy of these countries because their crisis-ridden economy is now living through a difficult period. If they are intensively saturating themselves with weapons (in order to use these weapons), then this will “finish them off.” The document says nothing about the objectives of this militarisation, specifically, whether these weapons will be manufactured and subsequently sold to other countries. They are doing this to arm themselves.

One would like to ask: How is the “green” economy doing? Or did they mean green camouflage, and did they hide their true intentions while discussing the “green line” in the EU economy for so many years? Earlier, all this was declared as the main route for the development of the European industry and economy. In the past, they substantiated the need for adopting or blocking any specific decisions. Has this become irrelevant nowadays? Has this been relegated to the background? Is this no longer fashionable and trendy? This, too, calls for answering a question about the “green” economy’s status.

The situation was considerably exacerbated by snowballing socio-economic problems, a slump in production and the impaired competitiveness of EU manufacturers, provoked by the EU’s refusal to purchase Russian fuel and a backlash from Brussels’ large-scale anti-Russia sanctions. Right now, they are advocating uncontrolled infusion of assets (primarily loans) into the European defence industry and the related infrastructure, as well as the establishment of a common EU defence market, and they are portraying all this as the main driving forces of economic growth, innovation development and the creation of jobs.

Have they reached consensus on this issue? No. Did anyone ask the people? No one did. How does this correlate with economic development doctrines endorsed during all these years? There is absolutely no correlation. What is all this leading to? This is leading towards a collapse. How can Europe deal with a collapse? We remember from our history lessons that it can only do this by waging aggressive wars.

The document’s detailed Ukrainian section regarding weapons deliveries to the Kiev regime and the integration of the Ukrainian defence industry into the European defence-oriented technological and industrial framework highlight the invariable line of the EU leadership and most EU member countries to undermine Russian-US efforts to conduct dialogue aimed at finding ways of peacefully resolving the Ukraine conflict.

Certainly, this also amounts to a provocation for generating an aggressive hubbub that should mislead people, and that should not provide a clear answer to questions facing NATO: Do you support a peaceful settlement, or do you advocate continued war?

While Russia is falsely designated as “a fundamental threat to Europe’s security for the foreseeable future,” China is said to be “expanding its military capabilities,” which is “significantly altering the strategic balance in the Indo-Pacific.” These points are used as justifications for the need for a militaristic shift of the EU. In reality though, they are displeased with China due to its economic growth and booming industrial production, and its achievements in science and technology. The White Paper also mentions conflicts and instability in Africa and the Middle East.

The writers do not seem to have any compunctions about interlacing this with bolder objectives such as ensuring the EU’s superiority in the global technological race and its “fundamental” interests in obtaining secure access to critical raw materials. That is, Europe is viewing the Global Majority countries through its “defensive sight.” That is colonial power logic. Only the former colonial powers now think of themselves rather as the “golden billion” or the beautiful garden of Eden, but in any case, the ideologists of this approach living in this region are again coveting access to someone else’s resource base, through robbing or subordinating others.

All this reaffirms that we have correctly diagnosed the European Union with degeneration from a once successful and pragmatic economic integration project designed to prevent a new war in Europe into an aggressive association no longer guided by such values as freedom, free market, equality and, especially, democracy, shifting instead to an authoritarian rule, dictatorship, with power concentrated within a few supranational institutions, and the use of force to achieve their geopolitical ambitions.

The bloc’s economy has been thrown into the furnace of its aggressive geopolitical ambitions. The European economy has stopped working for one simple reason – because politics began to undermine its foundations such as competition, real performance indicators, supply and demand. As it is, they only see one way out of this situation – through aggression and an expansionist philosophy.

Question: On March 18, President of Russia Vladimir Putin and his US counterpart Donald Trump agreed during a phone call to create Russian and American expert groups to settle the Ukraine crisis. At this stage, are there any details available as to the format of those groups, their scope of competence or lineup, on the Russian side?

Maria Zakharova: I have received many questions on this subject, and read multiple speculations on this matter.

I believe it would be more correct to refer to this as a meeting of experts, not as some formal expert groups. This might not even make any difference for some, I guess. Maybe the subtler points are lost in translation. But in our terminology, a ‘group’ is an institutional entity that has regular meetings.

In this case, we are talking about a meeting of experts. A meeting of experts on Ukrainian agenda is in full preparation mode now, with the dates and lineup of participants being coordinated. As soon as we can share the information with you, we will do it. I guess this is all I can say on this score at the moment.

Question: On March 18, President of France Emmanuel Macron, immediately after Putin's telephone conversation with Donald Trump, called on Europe to “continue arming itself to avoid war.” Why do you think European politicians continue such militaristic rhetoric against the background of Russia-US negotiations?

Maria Zakharova: I think there might be many answers to this. I don't know what to call them now: the liberal dictatorships of the European Union or Western Europe are literally obsessed with maintaining tension on the continent to divert attention from their failed policies in all areas related to Ukraine. They have to somehow explain to their people why they have acted as they have. A new US president came in and said that everything they had done before was a mistake. He characterises it in different ways: suggesting that it could and should have been avoided, blaming it all on the previous administration, which he claims did everything wrong.

But Europeans cannot say it like this. They have to continue singing their prolonged song somehow. They need to come up with new narratives to provide their population to justify budgets and motivation programmes. That's the purpose of this aggressive rhetoric.

The second aspect is that they are distracting attention from terrible socio-economic problems. This is definitely true. If it were just a distraction in the form of aggressive rhetoric, that would be one thing. All these names, fakes, and insults directed at us – we are not only accustomed to them, but we also respond accordingly. Now it is not just us who are responding; a number of global media outlets and public figures have also begun debunking the fakes and writing anti-fake stories.

It would be worse if such distractions in the form of aggressive rhetoric led to militarisation and the use of weapons on the European continent later on. Western Europe has witnessed historical examples of this on many occasions. They have always found a way out of their own economic troubles through aggression. The European public is literally moaning under the burden of Russophobia. They are now being presented with a new and surprising thesis: that allegedly resolving the Ukrainian conflict will mean (I have even read this) a geopolitical defeat for Western Europe and “Russia's inevitable attack” against the North Atlantic bloc in the coming years.

It should probably be clarified how the Ukrainian crisis was unfolding and remind people in Western Europe that for seven years, Russia was calling for the world to contribute to the implementation of the Minsk Agreement as the only working political and diplomatic solution to the situation that could help prevent the escalation of the conflict and its spilling outside Ukraine. Did they not hear us?

Perhaps the people should be reminded who provoked Vladimir Zelensky by promising him a blitzkrieg and an instant victory over Russia, as well as the return of Crimea. I believe that is what he was told: just start provoking. Please, recall that in January and February 2022, the Kiev regime (pumped up with weapons by EU regimes) increased by several times shelling of its own territories, which were theirs then, but now are not, as well as strikes against civilians and killings of civilians. These were all provocations.

Now that they realised everything and when people of Ukraine can hear Washington telling them it was all a mistake, and they also realise that their country has paid for it with its people and their statehood, the European Union has to come up with something else. Therefore, they have begun inventing a pseudo-threat of Russia, now against Western Europe, and using it to declare the need to pump up themselves with weapons. They continue the path to militarisation. The inertia of the European political elites, who are stubbornly ignoring the tectonic changes underway, including the developments around Ukraine, is also having an effect.

Do you remember how our favourite song goes? “They should just go and cancel” the very policy that they imposed. Apparently, they do not have a political calendar for this, so they are suffering. I believe this comes from the lack of a positive agenda and positive thinking, or overall a philosophy they could present to their countries and association. They have no other agenda but Russophobia. Nothing else can bring them closer together or unite them. Perhaps you can think of something. Human rights? They are already punishing each other for this in the European Union. They observe human rights in some places, and don’t do that much in others. Freedom of speech, maybe? They accuse each other of not having enough freedom of speech here or there. Maybe economics? Of course, not. There are enormous economic problems, when one country of the European Union steals businesses, steals companies, poaches them, and blocks investments from another EU country. What else? Rule of law? It is ridiculous to speak about it. Which of these items are on the unifying agenda? There was the green economy. What did it lead to? Militarisation. What is their unifying agenda? Nothing but Russophobia, that is why they are milking it.

Question: According to media reports, 40 gravestones of Soviet servicemen have once again been desecrated at a military cemetery in Tallinn. This is not an isolated incident. Meanwhile, the Russian embassy is restoring the vandalised memorial at its own expense. How does Moscow perceive these events?

Maria Zakharova: The Foreign Ministry summoned Estonia’s chargé d’affaires in Russia, Jana Vanamölder, and stated that the continued desecration of the memory of Soviet soldiers who freed Europe from Hitler’s rule is met with the strongest condemnation from Moscow. These barbaric acts, along with the authorities' inaction, appear particularly cynical and appalling on the eve of the 80th anniversary of the Great Victory.

In civilised countries, where people remember history and genuinely honour heroes, graves are cared for, restored, and adorned with flowers. They ensure the Eternal Flame burns, that everything is in order, and they prepare for ceremonies at tombstones, monuments, and memorial sites. While such preparations are taking place, as is customary for respectful societies, at that very moment in Estonia, 40 gravestones are being desecrated.

These are the gravestones of Soviet soldiers at the Tallinn Military Cemetery. This is not the first incident – they have been repeatedly vandalised in recent years. You are absolutely right in noting that the Russian Embassy in Tallinn has restored them at its own expense.

We examined whose graves were desecrated; among them are those of Soviet sailors who perished after the war. These were not only Russians but also individuals from other Soviet republics. They were tasked with clearing German minefields in both Soviet and international waters. For two minesweepers, the war effectively continued for nearly 20 years after Germany’s surrender. In the post-war years, 22,635 mines were cleared in the Gulf of Finland, with Soviet sailors eliminating 15,000 of them. Perhaps Estonia, at the very least from a pragmatic standpoint, should recognise that these were the people who helped ensure their safety. The scale of their work is staggering: in the Baltic Sea, including Polish ports, Soviet minesweepers cleared 15,000 square miles of mines, destroying 6,850 in the process.

The international operation to eliminate the mine threat in European waters officially concluded in 1951. However, combat minesweeping continued until 1957, and Estonian waters were only opened for navigation and fishing in 1963. Yet, modern Estonia remains silent about the origins of these mines and who was responsible for laying them – it was Nazi Germany. The safety of those who are now Estonian citizens came at a tremendous cost.

After May 9, 1945, during combat minesweeping operations, dozens of Soviet minesweepers were destroyed, and thousands of sailors were killed, injured, or shell-shocked. Our people understand this sacrifice. But does the ruthless neo-Nazi pack in the West acknowledge it?

The graves of heroes who gave their lives to secure the very peace that Estonia’s citizens, particularly its fishermen and those involved in civilian shipping and navigation, now enjoy (judging by their lingering militarisation) are being desecrated. These fallen sailors once saved thousands of lives. I will say it again: among those lives saved may well be the ancestors of those who are now fuelling Russophobia.

Of course, some will argue that this has nothing to do with the policies of the official authorities, claiming that every country has its scum or that every family has its black sheep. However, in such cases, responsible nations take decisive action. First, they condemn these acts. Second, they conduct thorough investigations. Third, they implement measures to prevent recurrence. Fourth, they ensure punishment for those responsible. And most importantly, they foster an environment where such incidents are seen as truly unacceptable and extraordinary.

In reality, the longstanding state policy of Estonia’s ruling elite – glorifying Nazism and justifying the crimes of the Hitler regime – has fostered such acts of barbarism. This has resulted in the dismantling of nearly 100 memorials across the country and the disgraceful exhumation of soldiers’ remains from numerous mass graves.

It is particularly provocative that Tallinn has cynically disregarded the international community’s stance, as expressed in the annual UN General Assembly resolution on combating the glorification of Nazism. This resolution raises serious concerns about the ongoing attacks on monuments dedicated to anti-Nazi fighters and liberator soldiers, which have become a part of state policy in some countries.

Russia demands that the Estonian authorities, who take such pride in their country’s affiliation with the Western “civilisational community,” thoroughly investigate the crime at the Tallinn military cemetery and immediately take steps to hold the perpetrators accountable. Only then can they even begin to claim to be civilised. Only claim.

Question: Ms Þorgerður Katrín Gunnarsdóttir, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iceland, asserts that Russia failed to ensure the security of the Icelandic Embassy in Moscow, allegedly leading to its closure.

Maria Zakharova: I beg your pardon, who made this statement?

Question: The Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iceland.

Maria Zakharova: Is her name, perchance, not Baerbock-2?

Question: Her name is Þorgerður Katrín Gunnarsdóttir.

Maria Zakharova: Yes, I understood that. What astounds me is the phrasing. This cannot be. We will revisit this matter later.

Question: This is not “tabloid press” – this is the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Iceland. She alleged that FSB operatives terrorised the diplomatic mission, with covert agents infiltrating staff apartments, leaving cigarette butts, keeping windows open in winter, and placing meat in a refrigerator despite her being vegetarian. Notably, the former Foreign Minister, Ms Thórdís Kolbrún Reykfjord Gylfadóttir, concealed these allegations from the public for two full years, claiming the embassy’s closure was for economic reasons. Notes were delivered by Iceland to Russian authorities, the Main Administration for Service to the Diplomatic Corps, police, and other agencies. Did Russia receive any formal notifications or complaints from the Icelandic Foreign Ministry regarding these alleged threats to the mission?

Maria Zakharova: Is that all? Or do you have further quotes? Allow me to recount the truth. They have lied through their teeth there.

The decision announced in June 2023 by Icelandic authorities to close the Embassy of Iceland in Moscow effective August 1, 2023, downgrade bilateral diplomatic relations to the level of chargés d’affaires ad interim, and drastically reduce the staff of the Russian Embassy in Reykjavík was adopted by Iceland’s government as part of its hostile, confrontational policy towards the Russian Federation, pursued since the start of the special military operation. This aligned with the unified anti-Russian line of the collective West. The move aimed to demonstrate Iceland’s unequivocal loyalty to its NATO allies. It is evident that Reykjavík gave no consideration at the time to the severe damage inflicted on bilateral cooperation during this period of their Russophobic fervour. Historically, our relations with Iceland were founded on mutual respect and multifaceted collaboration.

You may verify these remarks. We commented on this in 2023. We will supplement today’s briefing with references to our prior statements.

Claims that security threats against Icelandic embassy staff prompted the mission’s closure are designed to divert attention from the genuine reasons behind Reykjavík’s unfriendly act.

Perhaps Iceland’s public began asking questions. They were thus fed this distorted, fabricated narrative to avoid disclosing the truth.

No appeals concerning security threats or risks to the Icelandic Embassy were ever submitted to Russia. On the contrary, acts of vandalism occurred against the Russian Embassy in Iceland. In 2022, our diplomatic mission faced dismissive responses from the Icelandic Foreign Ministry to its legitimate requests, violating Iceland’s obligations under the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations to ensure the unimpeded security and functioning of diplomatic missions.

Everything you have cited – this informational garbage leak, surfacing a year and a half after the embassy’s closure – seeks to justify both the Icelandic government’s persisting anti-Russian course and Reykjavík’s escalating comprehensive support for the neo-Nazi Kiev regime.

Demand that Iceland’s government or Foreign Ministry produce any document purportedly sent to Russia regarding alleged threats to their embassy or requests for enhanced security measures. Should they present anything, we will assuredly comment. They have nothing to show.

Question: Is there a commonly accepted protocol for such situations? Is this the first occasion on which Russia has confronted allegations of such gravity?

Maria Zakharova: We have been accused of every conceivable transgression. This is assuredly not the most monstrous instance. Any and all accusations have arisen.

What is material is that we do in fact maintain established protocols. Diverse scenarios occur – provocations, acts of hooliganism targeting Russian embassies and consulates.

These involve vandals indifferent to whether they confront an embassy or not. Terrorist assaults on diplomatic premises also transpire. As you are aware, particularly in recent years, diplomatic missions worldwide have endured every imaginable incident.

A practice exists whereby the state, through diplomatic notes, the summoning of ambassadors, or direct engagement with the host nation’s foreign ministry, requires enhanced security provisions. Certain states may fortify embassy security using their own resources, deploy supplementary protective personnel from private security enterprises in coordination with host nations, or locally contract security firms. Other embassies, lacking such capacity, formally request host states to bolster protective measures. Some, it bears noting, even demand investigations into specific incidents – such is the variability of circumstances. We have received no such requests from Reykjavík.

Question: The defence ministers of Poland and the Baltic States have announced their intention to withdraw from the Ottawa Convention, which bans anti-personnel mines, and recommended their heads of state to make a corresponding decision. What threats does the Russian Foreign Ministry see in this regard? Do you intend to respond?

Maria Zakharova: Yes, we took notice of the Polish and Baltic defence ministers’ statements regarding the intention to withdraw from the Ottawa Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction, with a recommendation that their heads of state make a corresponding decision.

These states have been discussing the withdrawal from the convention for a long time. We have repeatedly commented on this. It is puzzling that Poland and the Baltic countries justify the revision of their obligations under this international treaty by imaginary (there is no other tune) military threats from Russia and Belarus (which, apparently, also threatens Poland). They cynically hide behind these threats to justify their own destructive decisions and avoid responsibility.

The Polish and Baltic defence ministers’ statements and the upcoming steps to withdraw from the Convention are a clear example of these countries playing fast and loose with their international commitment and of a rule-based world order: I want to comply with this, but not with that; you’ll find out what rules we play by tomorrow, when the game is over. This statement is made basically following the same patterns.

We can see that the Western countries are ready to drop international legal obligations almost any moment when they feel like it or when they benefit from it. They do not bother at all to find well-grounded and adequate arguments to justify such actions. They made a statement and withdrew. All of this fits into the general course of the collective West to revise and undermine the international legal system of arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation.

Russia also took steps to withdraw from some agreements, but these were reciprocal steps that followed other parties’ termination of these agreements or their withdrawal from them. If we took steps like these, we always backed them up by holding special conferences, briefings, or posting full-length text explanations with figures, dates, facts, etc. In either case, we always did our utmost to prevent such a turn of events. We worked preventively to preserve the agreements. We announced our decisions only when they were destroyed, not by us but by other participants.

The aforementioned statement also reaffirms our assessments of the Convention regime being weak and unreliable. It does not have a leverage over countries that evade its provisions.

Another example is Ukraine’s disregard for its obligations under this international treaty. According to its provisions, Kiev should have destroyed all stockpiles of anti-personnel mines back in 2010, with the exception of the minimum amount required to develop mine detection methods and train specialists. However, it never did so.

Cases of the Kiev regime using anti-personnel mines against civilians and civilian facilities are regularly recorded by Russian law enforcement agencies and demonstrated by Russian diplomats at international venues. However, these violations were never properly assessed by the parties to the Convention, including during its fifth Review Conference (Siem Reap, Cambodia, November 25-29, 2024).

Poland and the Baltic states’ active efforts to withdraw from the Convention will inevitably result in a further escalation of tensions in Europe and the deterioration of regional and international security. We will take retaliatory steps to ensure national defence and security, including military-technical ones.

Question: The United States has resumed the provision of military aid and intelligence to Ukraine. How does this step correlate with Washington’s rhetoric about its desire to resolve the conflict? What is Russia’s take on this decision?

Maria Zakharova: Russia’s assessment was provided in the Kremlin’s commentary on the results of the recent telephone conversation between President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump.

It contains a special paragraph stating that demilitarisation and an end to the flow of arms into the Kiev regime should be essential conditions for moving towards peace and negotiations: “Concerning the US President’s proposal to declare a 30-day ceasefire, the Russian side outlined a number of significant points regarding ensuring effective control over a possible ceasefire along the entire frontline, as well as the need to stop the forced mobilisation in Ukraine and rearming the Armed Forces of Ukraine. It was noted that some serious risks exist pertaining to the intractability of the Kiev regime, which had repeatedly sabotaged and violated negotiated agreements. An emphasis was made on barbaric acts of terrorism committed by Ukrainian militants against civilians residing in the Kursk Region.”

This is why the supplies of arms to the Kiev regime contradict the declared intentions to achieve peace and to advance the process towards a political and diplomatic settlement. Those who seek peace will advocate for stopping the militarisation of the terrorist gang.

Question: EU countries are attempting to agree on a package of aid for Ukraine worth 40 billion euros; however, the process is not going smoothly. Hungary is openly opposed to it, and France and Italy, as Bloomberg reports, are asking for more time to make a decision. What could these doubts be related to? Is there a chance that the project will not be adopted?

Maria Zakharova: We understand that this process has been ongoing for several years now. Sometimes they agree on certain amounts, and other times they fail to come to an agreement. It often devolves into discussions of aid in different forms or along other tracks. Nonetheless, the EU continues to move towards its own collapse within the European space.

Of course, we closely monitor the discussions in this regard. We can see the attempts of the current EU leadership and individual member countries to impose an aggressive and exclusively militaristic solution to the Ukraine conflict on others, disregarding geopolitical realities and the national interests of their own states and citizens.

We are surprised that Brussels prefers not to notice that the number of EU citizens rejecting the continuation of the conflict, let alone a war with Russia (be it the current of hybrid conflict), continues to grow. Some EU representatives have already made statements advocating an open confrontation with our country. For some reason, their regimes disregard the striving of the EU countries’ citizens to live in peace, tranquillity and prosperity. Moreover, Western European and EU diplomacy has started catering to NATO militarism. It appears that the Europeans have discarded diplomatic tools because they apparently do not need them and are engaged in aggressive rhetoric. In that case, they should rename all agencies and institutions in Brussels (that should deal with international relations and diplomacy) into headquarters or paramilitary units.

Brussels’ diplomacy displays the EU’s absolute inability to suggest a reasonable strategy for ending the conflict around Ukraine. Not a single sensible proposal has been made over the past years. Just look at their mood swings. Quite recently, several months ago, they accused our country of allegedly voicing aggressive rhetoric. Now listen to what President Emmanuel Macron and these people in Berlin are saying. In their own words, this amounts to outrageous sabre rattling, including nuclear sabre rattling. A year ago, they asked how Russia dared note, while answering questions and confirming that the use of nuclear weapons and all related issues were stipulated by our documents and were not subject to any frivolous discussion on this issue.

Western European politicians are now discussing these issues. They want to open some “nuclear umbrellas” or establish some other “nuclear system.” None of these people reproach or call themselves out on that. They do not refer to this as “aggressive nuclear rhetoric.” Nor do they say that, in the past, they called this “nuclear intimidation.” This amounts to actual mood swings and shows their instability, or stability in deception and manipulations. They should therefore address their snowballing problems on their own.

We will analyse, watch, and take relevant steps and implement various measures and actions. In reality, as far as European taxpayers are concerned, this situation around yet another multi-billion aid package for Bankovaya Street will highlight the EU’s readiness to renounce the policy of escalation and to search for ways of resolving the conflict diplomatically. They experienced numerous “mood swings.” First, they said that everything should be decided on the battlefield. Then, all of a sudden, they demanded that negotiations should take place and also requested VIP status at the negotiating table. Right now, they are talking about militarisation, nuclear projects, etc. once again. European taxpayers should ask themselves whether they should finance all of that or not. What happens next? What thesis or concept will prevail in the future?

Question: According to the recently released Report on the Work of the Government, expanding high-level openness to the outside world is among the Chinese government’s objectives for 2025. What’s your take on China’s policy for sustainable deepening of high-level openness to the outside world? What kind of development opportunities, do you think, China’s continuous expansion of its openness to the outside world can offer to the countries around the world, including Russia?

Maria Zakharova: Let me start by thanking you for the excellent command of the Russian language. This is the first time I hear someone whose native language is not Russian pronounce the word “vysokourovnevy” (high-level) as impeccably as you just did. I think native Russian speakers couldn’t have pronounced it better themselves. Thank you very much. Your Russian is undeniably excellent.

Russia welcomes the impressive progress that friendly China has made over recent decades. The Chinese government continues to pursue the effective economic course. Higher standards of living and well-being of the Chinese citizens, the increasingly high international standing of your country, and the deepening of its openness to the outside world prove the effectiveness of the policy pursued by Beijing.

We find truly important the fact that Russian-Chinese relations of comprehensive partnership and strategic interaction continue to expand and have gone beyond being a key factor in ensuring global stability - which is especially important considering ongoing transformations amid unrelenting external sanctions pressure -to become a significant instrument to promote socioeconomic advancement of our respective countries and to improve the lives of our peoples. We approach all of that as a package.

Despite more challenges coming our way, mutually beneficial bilateral cooperation in trade and the economy, energy, research and technology, transport and other practical areas is steadily expanding. China is our leading trade partner. For the second straight year, the task set by the heads of state of Russia and China to reach the 200-billion mark in mutual trade has been seriously overfulfilled.

Russia and China have established genuine partner-like interaction across the entire range of international and regional priorities which reached an unprecedentedly high level and became a factor that plays an important role in ensuring the national interests of our respective countries, as well as global peace and stability. In every global and regional organisation and forum, including the UN, the G20, BRICS and the SCO, we advance shoulder to shoulder and act based on such cooperation and common approaches. Our languages may have different words for it, but, most importantly, we are consistently achieving our goals.

This solid foundation offers every opportunity - the Russian leadership has repeatedly said so - to take Russia-China relations to new historical heights. As the heads of our states have noted, we are now at an all-time high point of bilateral relations. This does not mean, though, that it cannot be even higher. This is what we will strive to achieve.

Along with the efforts to ensure sustainable growth of trade, we have achieved qualitative shifts in trade and economic ties by ramping up investment cooperation and improving the trade structure, primarily through cooperation in high-tech areas.

We remain firmly focused on expanding close cooperation with China in various bilateral areas and internationally for the benefit of our two countries, and in order to ensure global and regional security, to democratise international relations, and to create a fairer economic order.

Your question has a global dimension to it. President Vladimir Putin and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov provided answers to it on many occasions. I just recapped the key points.

Question: Following the telephone call between the leaders of Russia and the United States on March 18, both sides released statements, and inconsistencies in describing the outcomes were spotted. How do you assess these inconsistencies?

Maria Zakharova: To save you the trouble of going through all of them, I will tell you this.

First, you will never find identical comments on the outcomes of telephone conversations or talks from two sovereign parties. There is always something that carries more importance or less importance for either side.

Second, the accents may slightly differ, but there are no differences. That’s what matters. An issue may arise if parties provide opposite comments on a contact outcome. There are no differences in this particular case.

Third, compared to what we had in recent years, I think the outcome is not too bad. I think you appreciated it as well. We will keep working.

Question: As I see it, there’s no point in looking for hidden meaning, is there?

Maria Zakharova: You can study the issue at your leisure or even make it a scientific project, trying to find identical comments.

Identical comments in the case of such statements can only be called a joint statement. This happens when the sides issue a joint statement following their communication, talks or a meeting, for example.

But when the sides publish individual comments in accordance with their national status, there can never be a 100 percent coincidence. The main thing is to avoid contradictions.

Question: What issues will be discussed at the Russia-US talks, which will reportedly be held on Monday?

Maria Zakharova: The main subject is Ukraine, the situation with the Ukraine crisis. We will provide more details later.

Question: The Kremlin’s statement on the telephone conversation with the US president mentioned mutual interest in normalising bilateral ties in light of the special responsibility of Russia and the United States for ensuring global security and stability. The statement reads that within that context, they addressed a wide range of areas where the two countries could establish cooperation, discussing several ideas aimed at fostering potential ties of mutual interest in the economy and energy.

In which areas could the first breakthrough be made in the context of the West’s anti-Russia sanctions? What are the main obstacles the presidents’ initiative of mutually beneficial cooperation can come up against?

Maria Zakharova: I wouldn’t use such resounding words as “breakthrough,” but three are concrete examples of such cooperation. You have asked about the areas where we can expect a breakthrough, but I will cite a concrete example of where it has already been made. It is the joint work of the Russian and US delegations on UN General Assembly and Security Council resolutions.

Question: President Putin has sent a message to the current Syrian authorities offering support and assistance. Do you see a risk of Syria becoming another Iraq or Libya, where rival groups control different parts of the country?

Maria Zakharova: I would like to remind you that our assessment of the latest dramatic developments in Syria was provided by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov at a news conference following his talks with OSCE Secretary General Feridun Sinirlioglu on March 11, 2025. I also provided detailed comments at the March 13 briefing.

Violence against civilians is absolutely unacceptable. Such actions are unjustifiable and must be condemned.

In light of the dramatic aggravation in western Syria, the United States and Russia initiated emergency consultations with the UN Security Council on Syria, which were held on March 10, 2025. A presidential statement was adopted following the consultations condemning the widespread violence in Syria, including the mass killings of civilians. The statement also called for an independent investigation and for ensuring the protection of all Syrians, regardless of ethnicity or religion.

The future of the country largely depends on the how successfully the Syrian authorities address these challenges. We hope that the measures they are taking, such as the establishment of an independent fact-finding committee to investigate the tragedy in the coastal regions, will help restore law and order and maintain public peace in Syria. This is the key priority in the context of a difficult transition period in that country.

Question: Syria’s Alawites have called on Russia for the military protection of the Alawite areas, namely Latakia and Tartus. Could and would Russia consider doing this?

Maria Zakharova: You should address this question to the Russian Defence Ministry.

Question: Israel violated the ceasefire in the Gaza Strip, killing 404 people, including children, in its latest attacks. The Israeli Defence Minister said that they would continue their brutal attacks until they achieve their objectives. Do you think Israel, which continues the attacks, can resume negotiations with Hamas?

Maria Zakharova: Our principled position on Israel’s renewed airstrikes on the Gaza Strip was set out in a March 18 Foreign Ministry press release.

We are confident that the way to normalise the situation in the Palestinian enclave goes through the parties’ strict abidance by the terms of the agreement between Israel and Hamas on the cessation of hostilities and the exchange of prisoners concluded on January 15 through mediation by Egypt, Qatar and the United States. Returning to the agreements reached will create the right conditions for a ceasefire and resumption of the much-needed humanitarian aid deliveries to the residents of Gaza who are in dire need of external assistance, as well as for the start of work to rebuild Gaza.

We expect that the mediator countries will make additional efforts to try and return the Israelis and Palestinians to the negotiating table. At the same time, we reaffirm our commitment to further constructive cooperation with all interested parties to stabilise the situation in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict zone and in the Middle East in general as soon as possible.

Question: After Valentina Matviyenko’s recent visit to Baku, can we expect the Russian House cultural centre to reopen in Azerbaijan? Are there any signals from our Azerbaijani partners on this score?

Maria Zakharova: I believe many people view the Russian cultural centre in Baku not as an organisation, but rather as a nice place and stimulating environment for exploring creative ideas and projects.

The Russian House in Baku plays a major role in cultural and humanitarian rapprochement and the preservation of Russia-Azerbaijan ties in the field of culture and art.

Our proposals for resolving the problem have been conveyed to our partners. This issue was also predictably brought up during Federation Council Speaker Valentina Matviyenko’s visit to Baku on March 16-17.

Question: Is Russia intending to respond in any way to the Lithuanian prosecution office’s statement alleging Russia’s involvement in the fire in an IKEA store in Vilnius?

Maria Zakharova: I think they need to see a doctor. Because Russophobia is a condition; it is a disease that is contagious and can be transmitted. The good news is that you do not need to buy medicines for it. You need to study history, stop distorting and perverting it, and separate the truth from lies. This is a good preventive cure against Russophobia.

It is also a good idea to reread the works of world literature, to study culture, and revisit the works by greatest artists, who have been using visual imagery to consolidate the important values passed down through generations. They need to promote culture and, most importantly, to study it instead of cancelling it. This should be enough to get rid of Russophobia or other nationalist phobias, which seem to be affecting those who invent these myths in Vilnius. If they have no access to this cure, again, they definitely need to consult a doctor.

A similar incident occurred in Russia a few years ago, when a major fire broke out in a shopping mall with similar stores. Who should we blame for that – Vilnius?

This is totally absurd. If they have any evidence, or facts, well, at least something, they should let us know. The case needs to be investigated. We sometimes hear accusations and complaints about taking too much time to draw conclusions or make decisions. In fact, we would also prefer doing it faster. However, it was not for nothing that humanity has been honing jurisprudence systems, writing laws and promoting legality for centuries, even for millennia, to avoid making snap judgements, to find out the truth through investigation, after considering all the facts. If they have any facts, they need to be presented. But there are none. There is just Russophobia, a condition that prompts such statements and quasi-findings.

However, we aren’t the only ones hurt by this. Actually, we do not take this so seriously anymore because we know it is a condition. They are the ones who are hurting. Will they tell us next that rains, thunderstorms, or winds are the workings of Dazhbog, Perun and others, rather than natural phenomena that can be predicted using modern science and technology capabilities? If that is the case, they will soon degrade to the stage of idol worship, because this is where this road leads.

If they want to comment on every event and explain it in terms of a phobia associated with one country and one nation, this is not only a violation of human rights. This is not just illegal under national and international laws. It means going back to some “proto-time,” a period humanity seems to have lived through, entering a new stage of development. But they get carried back there.

Question: The Russian Foreign Ministry has rescinded its recommendation for Russians to avoid traveling to Abkhazia. In 2025, Russia’s financial aid to Abkhazia will total 5.3 billion roubles, which includes infrastructure projects, potentially related to accommodating tourists and vacationers. How will additional Russian investments in Abkhazia’s tourism infrastructure be encouraged and regulated?

Maria Zakharova: Russia and Abkhazia maintain friendly relations. The republic is one of our closest allies due to the deep historical, political, economic, and socio-cultural ties.

Our country provides comprehensive support to Abkhazia, where the majority of residents hold Russian citizenship, on a mutually beneficial basis. Financial and material resources are allocated through investment programmes aimed at supporting the republic’s overall development. The primary focus is on restoring and expanding socio-economic infrastructure, leading to tangible improvements in the people’s lives. These efforts also enhance the country’s tourism potential, which has become a popular destination for Russian citizens. According to official statistics, around 1.5 million Russians visited Abkhaz resorts last year.

To ensure a comfortable stay for tourists, essential conditions have already been established and are continually being improved through the joint efforts of Moscow and Sukhum. Recently, a major reconstruction of the Sukhum airport was completed, successfully handling its first test flight from Russia and preparing for its official opening at the start of the season. Additionally, the capacity of the customs and border checkpoint at the border of our states in Adler is being expanded, the capabilities of local medical facilities have been significantly enhanced, and more.

The law enforcement agencies of Russia and Abkhazia maintain ongoing communication regarding the maintenance of law and order as well as the safety of tourists. As you are aware, there have been significant challenges in this area. Consequently, efforts are currently underway.

We will continue to implement a full range of measures and maintain this work, further advancing our cooperation.

Question: If relations with the US improve, will Russia still be able to maintain its focus on the countries of the Global South, as it has over the past three years?

Maria Zakharova: I don’t mean to offend you, but how could you even think that about us? This is not a temporary matter. It is a profound transformation in international relations that has long been overdue. It developed on its own, as a natural continuation of the decolonisation process and the positive aspects of globalisation, and has become an integral part of reality. It would be fundamentally wrong to suggest that if Russia’s relations with those who broke ties with us – without our initiative – improve, our focus will suddenly shift. That is not going to happen.

We always emphasise that this is not opportunistic cooperation. It is mutually beneficial and aligns with the interests of our countries and peoples. It is rooted in development, reflecting the new global realities. This is multipolarity, not just a theoretical concept invented by someone on paper to survive a difficult moment. It’s an analysis and description of the current reality, as well as a forecast for future development.

The Russian Foreign Policy Concept outlines the goal of focusing efforts on geographic regions with clear prospects for expanding mutually beneficial international cooperation. These include, primarily, Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

Today, we discussed the economic, political, spiritual and moral crisis in the EU countries. Even if, hypothetically, they were to admit their mistakes tomorrow and attempt to reprogramme themselves, the crisis would not simply disappear. You can see that many EU companies and business structures have left these countries, some relocating overseas to other continents, while others are coming to us, seizing every opportunity to re-enter our market.

There is another important point to consider: friends are not betrayed, they are tested through hardships. Those who stood by us during these challenging years and did not turn away can count on our friendship, as it has been truly strengthened and solidified. These are trials that will never be forgotten.

Question: We just wanted to confirm that our intentions are serious and unwavering.

Maria Zakharova: Allow me to remind you that the Foreign Ministry is adjusting its approach not just in terms of words and concepts, but also through the functional distribution of responsibilities.

We have established new departments focused on the countries of the Global Majority. We are also adjusting the operations of the departments, divisions, and areas related to the collective West, where interaction has become impossible due to complete blockage. What could be more significant than such an adjustment, which involves structural changes?

Question: May God grant us success in this area.

Maria Zakharova: This is our shared wish. Don’t separate yourself from us.

Question: Will the Russian Foreign Ministry comment on the outcome of the Russian parliamentary delegation’s visit to Baku led by Valentina Matvienko? To what extent does this visit contribute to improving Azerbaijan-Russia relations?

Maria Zakharova: The visit of Federation Council Speaker Valentina Matvienko to Baku on March 16–17 of this year has been comprehensively covered by Russian, Azerbaijani, and international media. Her programme was highly substantive. Valentina Matvienko was received by President of the Republic of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev, held meetings with First Vice President Mehriban Aliyeva and Milli Majlis Speaker Sahiba Gafarova, and participated in the opening of the 22nd session of the bilateral interparliamentary cooperation commission. The outcome has been assessed positively by both the Russian and Azerbaijani sides.

Question: According to documentation reviewed by RT, the United States intends to redeploy hundreds of military equipment and transport units from its bases in Germany to training grounds in Armenia. The transfer is planned for July 16 via Georgia’s Port of Poti. Does the deployment of US hardware threaten the secrecy regime at Russian military bases in Armenia?

Maria Zakharova: We have seen these media reports. We promptly requested clarifications from our Armenian partners. Preliminary feedback indicates no official request of this nature has been received from Washington.

Should the information be confirmed, this would constitute a destabilising factor for security and stability in the Southern Caucasus – an attempt to transplant confrontational frameworks, honed by the collective West in the Euro-Atlantic sphere, into the region.

For our part, we maintain that pressing issues affecting Southern Caucasus states should be resolved by regional actors themselves.

For further details, we direct you to the Russian Ministry of Defence.

We will continue monitoring developments closely.

Question: It is well-known that the United States is an empire of lies. Once again, their words contradict their actions. Donald Trump claims to desire peace in Ukraine, yet pursues the exact opposite. On March 11 this year, the unipolar world launched its largest drone attack on Russia to date. On March 18, Ambassador-at-Large Rodion Miroshnik substantiated with evidence that the past week saw the highest civilian casualties since the start of the year! It is evident that without Elon Musk’s Starlink, the Ukrainian armed forces would be powerless. How does the Russian Foreign Ministry respond to Donald Trump’s blatant falsehoods regarding US intentions to end the war with Russia?

Maria Zakharova: Of course, genuine aspirations for peace must first be reflected in rhetorical shifts. Secondly, such rhetoric must be matched by policy changes. Those professing peace must recognise that supplying arms – not to a legitimate state, but to a terrorist regime – only prolongs conflict (not merely regionally) and risks proliferating these weapons (as seen repeatedly in recent years) to other global flashpoints, including terrorist groups and extremists. We have consistently emphasised this reality.

A clear distinction must be drawn between realism and conclusions of this nature. We assess developments through the prism of demonstrable actions. This applies foremost to the American approach. Where overt falsehoods exist, we do not mince words (as you well know). Where diplomatic avenues remain viable, we afford them every opportunity to succeed.

Question: How does Russia regard the decisions by Ilham Aliyev and Nikol Pashinyan to participate in the celebration on May 9 in Moscow in honour of the 80th anniversary of the Great Victory?

Maria Zakharova: We welcome it and are looking forward to the leadership of both Azerbaijan and Armenia joining us. We are always pleased to see the leaders of the countries that have received an invitation and confirmed their attendance. We are carrying out large-scale preparatory work across all areas, with our entire state involved in honouring this significant and unifying date.

We remember the contribution of all the peoples of the multinational Soviet Union and their vital roles in our shared victory over German Nazism and Japanese militarism. In particular, hundreds of thousands of Armenians and Azerbaijanis participated in the major operations of the Great Patriotic War, with approximately half not returning from the front. More than 100 individuals from each republic were awarded the title of Hero of the Soviet Union. Azerbaijani oil workers played a crucial role, providing the majority of oil and oil products to the front, while Armenia produced over 300 types of essential goods for the war effort.

It is important that they preserve the memory of those events and honour the veterans with the same sincerity and care as we do. They do not rewrite history; rather, they strive to preserve it and pass it on to future generations. They educate the younger generation to respect the heroic deeds of the warriors. We observe how these countries hold annual commemorative events. In this context, we are collaborating on international platforms.

I want to express our deep gratitude to these countries for their dedication to maintaining memorials, complexes, and graves where soldiers of all nationalities, including those associated with our multiethnic country, are laid to rest.

Question: How can you comment on the fact that after the peace treaty with Armenia was agreed, Azerbaijan is now refusing to sign it and is introducing new preconditions that were not part of the original agreement?

Maria Zakharova: We welcome the progress in the peace process between Baku and Yerevan. Finalising the talks on the peace treaty and establishing interstate relations between Azerbaijan and Armenia is a significant step towards the long-awaited security and prosperity in the South Caucasus. We have posted a comment on this matter on our website. However, there remain several important issues on the peace agenda that still need resolution, including the unblocking of transport and economic links in the region, delimitation and humanitarian matters.

We reaffirm our readiness to support both our Azerbaijani and Armenian partners across all tracks, in whatever form and scope is required by both sides. Igor Khovayev, the Special Representative of the Minister for Assistance to the Normalisation of Relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan, is prepared to visit the region to conduct the necessary consultations.

Question: The Azerbaijani side in recent days has been actively spreading disinformation about alleged shelling of its positions by Armenia. Many experts interpret these actions by Baku as an information campaign to prepare for a new escalation. How would you comment on these actions? And do Russia’s commitments to ensure Armenia’s security under the CSTO and bilateral agreements remain valid in light of Yerevan freezing its CSTO membership?

Maria Zakharova: We cannot but express concern that amidst positive news regarding the finalization of the draft peace treaty between Azerbaijan and Armenia, reports of increasing tensions along the border of the two countries have become more frequent.

We strongly urge our partners to exercise restraint and avoid any actions that could escalate the situation. All arising issues must be resolved exclusively through peaceful, political, and diplomatic means. We advocate for the prompt return of Baku and Yerevan to the implementation of the comprehensive range of trilateral agreements at the highest level in 2020–2022 (1,2,3,4).

Regarding Russia’s obligations to Armenia within the CSTO and in a bilateral format, we have reiterated multiple times that all of them remain in force. At the same time, Yerevan’s freezing of its CSTO membership does not contribute to strengthening Armenia’s security.

Question: US National Security Adviser Michael Waltz has called on Azerbaijan to release all Armenian prisoners currently on trial in Baku under gross human rights violations. Considering the dialogue and cooperation between Moscow and Washington on various international issues (Ukraine, Syria), can Russia and the US together achieve the release of Armenian prisoners from Azerbaijan? Especially since the former leadership of Artsakh has always held a positive stance towards Russia.

Maria Zakharova: We have noted Baku’s negative reaction to the statements made by official US representatives. Our position on this matter is well known. We have repeatedly stated the necessity of addressing all humanitarian issues accumulated during the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict within the framework of the normalisation process between the two countries, as provided for by the trilateral agreements among the leaders of Russia, Azerbaijan, and Armenia in 2020–2022 (1,2,3,4).

We, for our part, confirm our commitment to these agreements and are ready to provide the necessary assistance to our Armenian and Azerbaijani partners.

Question: Continuing the topic of Russia-US cooperation, particularly in the UN Security Council regarding the massacre of Alawites and Christians in Syria, and UNSC and General Assembly resolutions on Ukraine. Is it possible to resume cooperation between Moscow and Washington within the framework of the OSCE Minsk Group? Especially since on March 4–5 this year, the 63rd round of International Discussions on Security and Stability in the South Caucasus took place in Geneva with the participation of official representatives from Russia, the US, and the EU. If Russia is already discussing issues related to Georgia, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia with the US and the EU, is it possible to resume discussions on Armenian-Azerbaijani relations and the rights of Armenians in Artsakh within the framework of the OSCE Minsk Group?

Maria Zakharova: The resumption of the OSCE Minsk Group’s operations is not feasible. We perceive no correlation between the renewed dialogue between Russia and the United States and the OSCE Minsk Group.

As for the latter, our stance remains steadfast. With the cessation of communication by the American and French co-chairs with their Russian counterpart in February 2022, coupled with Armenia’s recognition of Karabakh as an integral part of Azerbaijan following the Armenia-Azerbaijan-EU-France summit in Prague on October 6, 2022, and the significant alteration of circumstances on the ground in September 2023, the OSCE mandate for the Minsk Conference co-chairs regarding the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement has lost its relevance.

One could imagine that this could be discussed if the co-chairs somehow maintained contact to implement new agreements. However, given that two co-chairs have ceased their involvement in this group, in addition to the aforementioned factors, what role can the OSCE Minsk Group play?

Therefore, all structures of the Minsk Conference (Minsk Group, High-Level Planning Group, and the post of the OSCE Chairperson-in-Office’s Personal Representative for the Nagorno-Karabakh Settlement) shall be dissolved. We believe the most effective approach for reaching a suitable decision on this matter is a joint proposal from Baku and Yerevan to dismantle these institutions.

Question: On March 15, 2025, a trilateral meeting was held in Beijing between the deputy foreign ministers of Russia, China and Iran to discuss the resolution of issues surrounding the Iranian nuclear programme. Can this meeting be considered the foundation of a new format or negotiation platform for the Iranian nuclear programme? And does it indicate that the previous mechanisms of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action regarding the Iranian nuclear programme, involving the United Kingdom, France, Germany and the United States, have become deadlocked?

Maria Zakharova: The trilateral consultations held on March 14 in Beijing at the level of deputy foreign ministers of Russia, China and Iran focused on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action regarding Iran’s nuclear programme, and key issues of trilateral collaboration in various international frameworks. These talks marked an important step in enhancing coordination between our countries, which share long-standing and close ties built on a solid foundation of strategic partnership. This dialogue is ongoing, making it possible to quickly align our positions on key issues of mutual interest. We intend to further expand this cooperation.

As for the JCPOA, our countries share a common assessment of the current situation and the root causes that have hindered the implementation of these highly important agreements. The escalation of tensions around the Iranian nuclear programme is a direct consequence of the opportunistic and discriminatory policies not only of the United States but also of European nations, which have openly violated UN Security Council Resolution 2231.

We believe that an intensive search for sustainable negotiated solutions, ones that can ease tensions, dispel unwarranted suspicions and accusations against Tehran, holds promise. At the same time, such efforts must respect Iran’s legitimate right to develop the civilian nuclear power industry in full compliance with its obligations under an agreement with the IAEA on comprehensive guarantees, bolstered by Iran’s national policy, which explicitly states that the possession of nuclear weapons is prohibited under Islamic law.

We firmly believe that the future of the JCPOA and the broader efforts to resolve issues surrounding the Iranian nuclear programme cannot be determined without the participation of Russia and China, nor should they be dictated by outside actors.

We are committed to constructive collaboration with all concerned parties, as reflected in the Joint Statement adopted at the trilateral meeting in Beijing.

Question: A few days ago, Deputy Foreign Minister Andrey Rudenko held consultations with his counterparts from the Foreign Ministry of the DPRK. As we understand, they placed significant focus on strategic security matters. Could you share whether other areas of cooperation between the two countries were addressed? For instance, are joint scientific, cultural, and sports events planned, as outlined in the Treaty on Comprehensive Strategic Partnership signed between Russia and the DPRK in June of last year?

Maria Zakharova: You are correct that this Treaty encompasses nearly all aspects of bilateral cooperation.

Matters related to practical areas such as the economy, trade, science, culture, sports, and education are addressed through the Intergovernmental Commission on Trade, Economic, Scientific, and Technical Cooperation.

Currently, a Korean interdepartmental government delegation, led by Yun Jong Ho, the Minister of External Economic Relations of the DPRK and Chairman of the Korean side of the Intergovernmental Commission, is visiting Moscow to mark the 76th anniversary of the Agreement on Economic and Cultural Cooperation between our two governments. During negotiations with Alexander Kozlov, the Chairman of the Russian side of the Intergovernmental Commission and Minister of Natural Resources and Environment of the Russian Federation, the parties are expected to discuss in detail further development of bilateral cooperation in all the areas outlined in the Agreement, including those you mentioned.

Question: The Federal Republic of Germany nominated Annalena Baerbock for the position of President of the UN General Assembly. You commented on this earlier and called it a paradox. Who would the Russian Foreign Ministry like to see to preside over the UN General Assembly, and does Russia plan to come up with a nominee of its own?

Maria Zakharova: In accordance with paragraph 30 of the Rules of Procedure of the UN General Assembly, the members of this body elect the President of the General Assembly no later than three months before the next session starts, which is September. As is customary, the election of the President of the General Assembly takes place in early June, most often on a non-alternative basis. This year, they will be held on June 2.

Let me give you some background. Back in the late 1960s, UN Member States reached an agreement that each year the right to preside over the General Assembly would pass from one regional group to another. This agreement was later enshrined in GA resolution 33/138 of 1978. Within their own groups, the regional groups must determine their candidate by consensus. Imagine how many years have passed since 1978.

The Group of Western European and other States will have its turn at the next 80th session of the General Assembly. According to available information, the Westerners have decided to present the candidacy of Annalena Baerbock, the outgoing head of the German Foreign Ministry. It is quite clear that she is known for (let me find a diplomatic way to put it) non-fundamental knowledge and perverted ideas about international relations. She is also known for her Russophobia. Undoubtedly, Ms Baerbock will pursue the same policy across all areas, because, as we found out, it was not related to her functional duties, but rather to the history of her family. Her grandfather, as she herself said, was not just a rank-and-file Nazi sporting a party badge, but actively fought against those who fought against fascism and Nazism. Anything can happen in life. We cannot fix the past of our families, but we can give it an appropriate assessment. We can either repent, as millions of Germans did for the crimes committed by their forefathers, or start rewriting history, perverting facts, cancelling the Nuremberg Tribunal rulings, and claiming to be “proud” of what they did. So, the kind of policy she will pursue when she finds herself in any international position is quite clear.

Can anything be done in terms of procedural approach? It’s hard to tell. I don’t know whether our colleagues and specialists can influence the relevant decision.

With regard to Russia’s candidate, according to traditions and agreements that have remained unshaken for 80 years now, representatives of the five permanent members of the Security Council cannot claim the post of President of the General Assembly. This tradition exists.

Our country sticks to a principled position on the President’s conduct and what the President of one of the main bodies of the UN, the General Assembly, should be like. There must be expertise, knowledge and experience. He must act impartially, i.e. be guided not by the agenda of one’s own country or regional group, but the interests of the entire UN family, not just of the Secretariat or a group, but by the entire body of values formulated in the UN Charter. Despite the fact that the President of the General Assembly is not a representative of the UN Secretariat, we assume that this position is also de facto subject to Article 100 of the Charter of the Organisation, which prescribes to maintain an equidistant position and not to receive instructions from any particular governments.

Can you imagine what drives Westerners in the year of the 80th anniversary of Victory? A quote and words of Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov come to mind. He said about Western European countries and their regimes that no one knows what they believe in, Satan maybe. One gets the impression that this is what this decision was dictated by. It is like a mockery of the memory of those who founded the UN. Bringing, as President, the granddaughter of a Nazi, who, in her own words, is proud of her grandfather and does so publicly, into the UN General Assembly is to mock the memory of those whose blood was shed in this place, and whose bones and lives lie at the foundation of this Organisation. This is nothing short of mockery, distortion of common sense, and rewriting of history. It is the disgrace of the collective West.

Question: Spring has arrived. At any rate, it is certainly the most reliable barometer. We had a question on Syria, but you addressed our colleague’s inquiry comprehensively. Are relations being normalised with Syria’s new government? What are the prospects for such cooperation?

Maria Zakharova: We comment on this matter regularly. Contacts are maintained through various channels. Work is underway. At present, we characterise progress accordingly.

Question: Media reports indicate Rwanda has severed diplomatic relations with Belgium. How would you comment on this démarche? What is transpiring?

Maria Zakharova: This is a sovereign decision by Rwanda, as with any independent state. We refrain from commenting on such steps.

That said, one cannot disregard that the current crisis – both in bilateral relations and across the Great Lakes nations – is rooted in history: Belgium’s colonial past and its role as an instigator of interethnic strife in this part of the African continent. The 1994 genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda, the apotheosis of post-colonial tensions, continues to reverberate. Its consequences underpin today’s dramatic regional developments.

Documentos adicionales

Fotografías

Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, March 20, 2025

Documentos adicionales

Fotografías

Поделиться ссылкой на выделенное