Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, February 6, 2025
Table of Contents
- Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s upcoming meeting with parliamentarians from CSTO member states
- Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at a ceremony for opening an exhibition dedicated to the 75th anniversary of Russia-Vietnam diplomatic relations
- Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with CICA Secretary General Kairat Sarybay
- Upcoming official visit of Foreign Minister of the Republic of Tajikistan Sirojiddin Muhriddin to the Russian Federation
- Diplomatic Worker’s Day
- Vladimir Titov passing away
- Ukrainian crisis update
- Finnish Foreign Ministry’s information for volunteer fighters in Ukraine
- The IIHF’s decision to bar the Russian national team from the 2026 IIHF World Championship
- German authorities’ insinuations about Russia’s interference in the German Bundestag elections
- Initiatives to impose restrictions on Russian diplomats in EU countries
- Russian journalists in France
- Activities of the United States Agency for International Development
- Developments around TikTok ban in the United States
- Russian Seasons in Bahrain and Oman
- Russian team competes in the 17th international regatta in Karachi
- Patrice Lumumba People’s Friendship University marks 65th anniversary
- Council of Young Diplomats to hold a reception for Moscow Diplomatic Club marking Diplomatic Worker’s Day
- Grenada Independence Day
- Russian Science Day
- The Russian Foreign Ministry’s mobile app
- Washington’s pressure on Tehran
- Gas supplies to Transnistria
- Closure of the Russian House in Baku
- Withdrawal of French troops from Senegal
- Armenia-US relations
- Prospects for resolving the Ukrainian crisis
- Reorientation of Russian diplomats towards Africa
- Statements by the Ukrainian Ambassador to the United States
- Increase in US trade tariffs
- US schemes in the Gaza Strip
- Settlement of the Ukrainian crisis
- Persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church in the Baltics
- Liquidation of USAID
- Russia-Myanmar relations
- Poland’s participation in negotiations on Ukraine
- Critical statements from the US establishment
- Remarks by the EU Press Secretary on Foreign Affairs
- The Yalta 2.0 scenario for the Ukraine conflict
- Russian delegation’s visit to Damascus
- Russia’s approach to Syria
- The North-South Transport Corridor
- Situation in the Gaza Strip
- Developments around the Zangezur Corridor
- US-EU trade war
- Challenges faced by Russian military pensioners in Latvia
- Russia’s relations with NATO and the US
- Invitation to a roundtable discussion on historical topics
- Russia’s expanding ties with the Islamic world
- Statements by the Armenian leadership
- Media responsibility for public statements
- Diplomatic Worker’s Day greetings
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s upcoming meeting with parliamentarians from CSTO member states
On February 7, the Foreign Minister will hold a meeting with chairs of the CSTO member state parliament committees (commissions) in charge of international relations, defence and security issues.
They will discuss inter-parliamentary cooperation within the CSTO and ways to improve the CSTO Parliamentary Assembly’s activities, as well as the status of implementation of the decisions adopted during the Collective Security Council session held in Astana on November 28, 2024. The participants will exchange views on pressing international and regional issues.
On January 30, the Russian Federation and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam marked the 75th anniversary of diplomatic relations.
We discussed this in detail during the January 23 briefing two weeks ago. In this regard, I would like to inform you that an exhibition dedicated to this memorable date will open in the Foreign Ministry building on February 11. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will speak at the opening.
We encourage journalists to attend. The event will be livestreamed on the ministry’s social media accounts.
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with CICA Secretary General Kairat Sarybay
On February 11, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will host Secretary General of the Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia (CICA) Kairat Sarybay as part of his working visit to Moscow.
CICA is a multilateral dialogue platform designed to promote practical cooperation on a wide range of joint development issues. Today, the association includes 28 countries from a wide geographical zone ranging from North Africa and the Middle East to Central and Southeast Asia. Azerbaijan has been chairing CICA since December 2024.
The participants in the upcoming talks will address key aspects of the Conference’s activities focusing on its future as a building block of the emerging cooperative architecture of Greater Eurasia.
On February 13, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Tajikistan Sirojiddin Mukhriddin will pay an official visit to the Russian Federation. He will have talks with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.
The foreign ministers will review the implementation of the agreements on strengthening the alliance and strategic partnership between Russia and Tajikistan reached by the presidents of the two states.
In the context of further joint work to promote the whole range of Russian-Tajikistani ties, they will consider the schedule of interstate dialog in the current year.
They will have an in-depth and trust-based exchange of views on key issues on the bilateral agenda. Particular attention will be paid to enhancing cooperation in security and defence, as well as in the humanitarian and migration areas.
The sides will discuss topical issues of regional and global politics in the context of strengthening foreign policy coordination between Moscow and Dushanbe, including at such multilateral platforms as the UN, the CIS, the SCO and the CSTO.
During the visit, the parties will sign a number of bilateral documents, including a programme of cooperation between the Foreign Ministries of Russia and Tajikistan for 2025-2026.
February 10 marks Diplomatic Worker’s Day, established by Executive Order No. 1318 of the President of the Russian Federation on October 31, 2002. We will exchange congratulations on this occasion – though without premature festivities, as it remains a working day for all of us at the Central Office and overseas missions. Numerous commemorative events are scheduled.
A historical note: February 10, 1549 saw the first documented reference to the Posolsky Prikaz (Ambassadorial Office) – Russia’s earliest state body overseeing foreign affairs.
Colloquially termed “Diplomat’s Day”, this occasion honours all Foreign Ministry personnel – whether stationed at Smolenskaya Square, regional offices, or diplomatic missions abroad. It is connected with the continuity in our service’s traditions and symbolises our professional cohesion, while providing an apt moment to recount Russian diplomacy’s historic achievements.
In the context of the prevailing tense international situation, diplomats bear a special responsibility for upholding the interests of Russia, as it is commonly said, “on the external perimeter,” or more frequently heard – in international affairs. The diplomatic service is an integral part of the state apparatus. Tied to this responsibility are the aspirations of the people, who place their hopes and trust in diplomats, believing that the current crises will be surmounted. Above all, these expectations are linked to the work of diplomats.
We consistently exert every effort within our power and capability to ensure the security of our country, to expand constructive cooperation with the majority of states in Eurasia, Africa, and Latin America. We endeavour to ensure that the planet as a whole withstands the onslaught of periodic madness that occasionally engulfs certain regimes and political spheres.
By tradition, a series of ceremonial events involving Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will take place at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. On the morning of February 10, a wreath-laying ceremony will be held at the ministry building at memorial plaques bearing the names of diplomats who perished while carrying out their official duties and on the fronts of the Great Patriotic War. Flowers will also be laid at the monument to Yevgeny Primakov, which stands in the square opposite the ministry building, as well as at the graves of other prominent Soviet and Russian diplomats at Novodevichy Cemetery.
In the foyer of the Central Building of the Ministry, an exhibition dedicated to the 80th anniversary of the opening of the Yalta Conference of 1945 will be displayed. The historical significance of the decisions adopted during that conference was discussed in detail during the previous briefing. This topic has also been addressed in numerous materials, publications, articles, and interviews by Russian diplomats. Special attention should be given to the article by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov published literally on the eve of this historic event.
In the afternoon, during a ceremonial gathering, the Foreign Minister will address the staff of the ministry with his welcoming remarks.
Our website hosts a dedicated section for Diplomatic Worker’s Day, featuring pre-holiday interviews and articles by ambassadors, permanent representatives, and consuls general.
In honour of Diplomatic Worker’s day, digital platforms of the Ministry and overseas missions will publish extensive materials on the legacy of the national diplomatic service, its contemporary goals and objectives, and their implementation.
As part of the #InMemoryOfDiplomats campaign, we traditionally pay tribute to our late colleagues, carefully preserving their memory, recalling the glorious pages of Russian diplomacy and its outstanding figures. All these materials are available on our social media accounts under the hashtags #DiplomatDay and #DWD2025. Follow our feeds!
Today news came in that Vladimir Titov, a prominent Russian diplomat, former First Deputy Foreign Minister of Russia (2013-2024) passed away at the age of 66.
The Foreign Ministry’s website has posted an obituary.
Vladimir Titov will forever remain in the hearts of his colleagues and friends. We convey our sincere condolences to his family and friends.
Ukrainian militants continue terrorising civilians and attacking civil infrastructure in Russian regions.
On January 29-30, the Ukrainian Armed Forces fired more than 30 shells, including cluster munitions, at a residential area in Kremennaya, the Lugansk People’s Republic. Two people were injured. Residential buildings and social facilities were destroyed.
On January 31 – February 3, Gorlovka, the Donetsk People’s Republic, was massively shelled and attacked by UAVs, with 30 people injured, and two hospitals, an oncology clinic, and a maternal and child health centre damaged.
The Banderites do not stop “hunting” civilians in the Kursk Region, including using UAVs. On January 30, two civilians were wounded in an attack targeting a house in Voronok, Rylsky District. On January 31, an enemy UAV hit a civilian vehicle in Snagost, Korenevsky District, killing two and wounding one. On the same day, an UAV injured three locals in the liberated village of Nikolayevo-Daryino, Sudzha District, when Russian soldiers were escorting them out of the basement where they were hiding from Ukrainian Nazis.
On January 29, a woman and her two-year-old child were killed after an UAV hit a residential building in Razumnoye, Belgorod Region. On January 31 – February 3, two civilians were killed and 12 were wounded after Ukrainian UAVs attacked civilian cars and villages in the region.
On January 31, a Ukrainian drone attacked a civilian car on the Vasilyevka-Tokmak motorway in the Zaporozhye Region; a local died from his injuries.
On February 4, Banderites used an UAV to attack a school bus carrying 20 minors and a steward in Vasilyevsky municipal district, Zaporozhye Region. Five children and the driver were injured. Is this the first time that Ukrainian militants have deliberately targeted children? No, far from the first time. Such cases are plenty. This is the tactics and strategy the Kiev regime uses: to do everything it can to just erase those who did not sworn allegiance to the neo-Nazis, Banderites, and those who have been destroying their homeland, Ukraine, in order to intimidate them, to hit where it hurts the most: children. These are the methods the Kiev regime has chosen. The Kiev regime and its bloody butchers have nothing human (I don’t even day say sacred). Just a few days ago, Vladimir Zelensky confessed that all of this was only possible thanks to the Western support, the investments and arms supplies that they receive almost every day.
Crime inevitably begets punishment. Russian courts continue sentencing Ukrainian neo-Nazis and mercenaries for war crimes.
The Investigative Committee of Russia has imposed restraining measures for the militants of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, Yevgeny Fabrisenko and Vladimir Parafilo, who committed atrocities against civilian residents in the village of Russkoye Porechnoye in the Kursk Region. This is not merely a crime; it is the official classification – a crime, an offence. This is what legal scholars and lawyers say. Why? They must strictly adhere to the letter and spirit of the law. They do not have the right to deviate from these formulations even by a single step. If we employ words that describe not only the legal aspect of these crimes but their essence, it is an atrocity. The accused have pleaded guilty.
Lithuanian mercenary Rimas Armaitis was sentenced in absentia to 12.5 years in prison, and Georgian “legionary” Georgy Gelashvili to 14 years. All those convicted have been placed on the international wanted list.
The criminal cases of the British mercenary James Scott, who was taken prisoner, and the wanted Georgian mercenaries Mikhail Gognadze, Gela Khozrevanidze, and Kukuri Baramidze have been referred to court.
Ukrainian citizen Irma Krat was sentenced in absentia to seven years in prison for the attack on the Russian Embassy in Kiev on March 10, 2016. Let me recall that she, together with two unidentified individuals, threw six Molotov cocktails onto the territory of our diplomatic mission.
The Russian law enforcement agencies will persist in their efforts to bring Ukrainian Nazis and foreign mercenaries to justice for war crimes and other offences.
Now, regarding Western assistance, which serves as the lifeblood for the terrorist regime in Kiev.
Western nations are striving to ensure that hostilities in Ukraine do not abate under any circumstances. In essence, they are doing everything possible to perpetuate the killing of civilians.
On February 1, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte lamented in an interview with Bild that “the front is moving in the wrong direction.” The NATO Secretary-General has indeed become somewhat proverbial. He urged Europeans to increase defence spending and to do everything possible to prevent Russia from achieving its objectives.
On February 3, French President Emmanuel Macron pledged to double the country’s defence budget.
On January 31, Ukrainian Prime Minister Denis Shmygal announced that, under the 100-year partnership agreement with Britain, Kiev anticipates receiving £2.5 billion from London to procure air defence systems and establish repair bases in the country for Western military equipment. I have two corrections to make regarding this statement.
Firstly, why did they enter into this 100-year partnership agreement with Britain? I listened to the statement from the Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom and learned that, according to the British side, “the British-Ukrainian partnership dates back thousands of years.” They would be better off counting the future in millennia. Why such modesty? This is not merely a mistake or an incorrectly expressed thought. It is an egregious notion rooted in complete ignorance of Ukraine’s history. It is now evident that the British Foreign Secretary does not even know the history of his own country if he claims that Britain has been building relations with Ukraine for thousands of years.
Secondly, regarding the matter at hand, London intends to hand over £2.5 billion to the Kiev regime. Based on what we observed in 2020, the healthcare system in Britain, if not entirely non-functional, is accessible only to the very affluent. The majority of people in Britain must provide healthcare for themselves, as it is either unaffordable or non-existent as a class. This is the state of the healthcare system.
Recall when Britons received COVID-19 treatment over the phone? When individuals called, reporting a fever above 40 degrees, difficulty breathing, a lack of medications, and that going out was either impossible or forbidden due to COVID restrictions, they were instructed over the phone.
Would it not be more prudent for London to invest this £2.5 billion in developing its own healthcare system?
Not long ago, the entire world watched, horrified, as Los Angeles, California, burned. It burns every year. This year, it just burned to the ground. The fires did not spare anyone be they rich or poor. This shows (to the entire world, no less) that an entire state in the United States was absolutely unprepared for firefighting or preventing measures. It turned out that the money intended for firefighting was not transferred to the states in need but to the Kiev regime, including for firefighting and via various official American associations. As a result, an entire US state burned down.
I have a question for Great Britain. Why are you not giving this money to treat your own citizens, but instead you give it to Ukraine?
Several days ago, Sweden announced a record high money tranche of $1.2 billion in aid to the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
Meanwhile, pumping weapons to Ukraine uncontrollably promotes arms trafficking. It is noteworthy that Ukrainian media have also reported many instances of their citizens and foreign moneymakers profiting from arms supplies to the Ukrainian Armed Forces. In 2024, over 6,000 weapons, mostly small arms and anti-tank missile systems, were found and seized. Apart from Ukrainians, two citizens of Norway are accused of attempted smuggling of special equipment. They are not the only ones, there is an entire gang operating there. Last year, over 2.2 million units of ammunition were confiscated from Ukrainian citizens. Just think about these numbers. It is time to stop denying the obvious – all of this is sold on the black markets and then travels back to Europe.
Illegal trafficking in explosives is booming. In 2024, more than 7.2 tonnes of explosives were seized, mainly in the form of the contents of anti-tank mines, gunpowder charges for artillery rounds, and propelling charges for mortar rounds. It is no secret that militants from the Ukrainian Armed Forces are the main suppliers on the black market of weapons. Who are they? And how do they do this? They are those who are in the rear for some reason: most often, deserters or soldiers who ran AWOL. They do this for various reasons: some of them do this just to survive, some to make money, and some are a link in this chain of corruption. They are the ones doing this.
As for the financing of Ukraine, US State Secretary Marco Rubio said in an interview to American journalist Megyn Kelly on January 31: “The dishonesty that has existed is that we somehow led people to believe that Ukraine would be able not just to defeat Russia but destroy them, push them all the way back to what the world looked like in 2012 or 2014. <…> And then the result, what they’ve been asking for the last year and a half, is to fund a stalemate. <…> Ukraine is being set back 100 years. <…> The President’s point of view is this is a protracted conflict and it needs to end.”
I will allow myself one remark. The current US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said this not about some aliens or abstract political figures; he was talking about his predecessors – those who for several years (and many more years before that) not only controlled the situation around Ukraine, but also provoked it and created preconditions for setting everything “on fire” at some point.
In turn, guided by the opportune moment, Zelensky began to discuss the format of potential negotiations with Russia, which he legally banned himself from conducting in September 2022. Now he insists on the following option: Ukraine's accession to NATO as “the cheapest security guarantee for Ukraine.”
He said that otherwise he should be given nuclear weapons. This is morbid, absurd and just over the top; it has been mentioned by American journalists.
In his interview with the Associated Press on February 1, Zelensky openly confirmed his reputation and status as a swindler and a corrupt official. He stated publicly that “Ukraine received only $75 billion out of $177 billion promised by the United States. It is completely false when they claim that Ukraine received $200 billion to support the Ukrainian Armed Forces. I have no idea where all this money is.”
Questions arise as to how much money Biden’s regime send to support the Kiev regime, how much reached Bankovaya Street, and how much and where it went from there. Someone should have the courage to count all this money.
I remember that about a year ago, under the Biden regime, many clutched their heads, realising that they had been drawn into hideous corruption schemes. An audit was announced through the legislature and several agencies of the executive branch in the United States – an inquiry on the verge of an audit, which was supposed to clarify how much and what kind of aid (material, lethal, non-lethal, financial, humanitarian) had been sent to Ukraine in total. It appears that it ended up with nothing. I remember American envoys flying to Kiev about a year ago to either find out where it all was or to arrange for their testimony to be identical or coincide. It all suggested otherwise, with no audits or checks; this was simply a massive global corruption scheme developed and then implemented by American ultra-liberals.
In the given context, we have paid attention to recent social network revelations by Samantha Power, Administrator of the USAID dissolved by Trump – the one who, as US Ambassador to the United Nations, led the punk band that had staged an act of hooliganism in the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour through the corridors of the United Nations. She also organised its tours around the United States. Then, Samantha Power became head of the US Agency for International Development. What we have learned about it now suggests that it was an agency for interfering in the internal affairs of other states and changing the regimes in many countries.
Samantha Power publicly boasted in 2023 about sending $15 billion to the Kiev regime. What was she boasting about? The sheer amount, the volume of funds? Not only. She specifically highlighted (for those unaware) that she and her agency, USAID, delivered this sum in cash.
This was stated by a representative of the United States – a nation where, in recent years, the mere act of taking a 100-dollar bill from one’s wallet would attract the attention of shop managers. Moreover, in some stores, senior managers or even security personnel were summoned to question why such a large denomination was being used in cash when card payments (credit or debit) are the norm.
A senior US official loudly proclaimed that they had dispatched $15 billion in cash to the Kiev regime. What does this signify? It is a “one-way ticket.” This money cannot be accounted for or traced, and no one knows where and how these funds were expended.
I recall that even under the administration of Joseph Biden, one of the rare demands made of Vladimir Zelensky’s regime by the United States, which otherwise allowed them to do practically everything, was to make at least some effort (which they had to “squeeze out” from those on Bankova Street) to combat rampant corruption. It appears that it was for this fight that $15 billion in cash was sent.
One might say that “one hand washes the other.” However, these hands are stained with blood. It has long been evident into which “black hole” and into whose pockets the substantial streams of Western financial aid flow.
Now, turning to what currently preoccupies the minds of those who still possess them and comprehend the situation in Ukraine. I am referring to those who were indoctrinated by the Kiev regime and who refused to think, depriving themselves of reason. They have now suddenly begun to see the light.
The condition of the Ukrainian armed forces is becoming genuinely critical and distressing for them. Negative trends continue to escalate. Morale is declining, and desertion is on the rise. The head of the Pirogov First Volunteer Mobile Hospital, Gennady Druzenko, remarked on the Topic with Moseichuk programme: “Every sixth or seventh person picked up their trench coat and went home.” By the end of 2024, more than 114,000 cases of absence without leave had been recorded in Ukraine. The Guardian in Britain also reports on the critical shortage of soldiers.
The approach of the Ukrainian command towards soldiers is aptly illustrated by the remarks of an American mercenary with the call sign Redneck on CNN: “…bad officer… It was meat for the grinder, and he just sent whoever he could get.” A very sobering comment for the soldiers of fortune sympathetic to the Ukrainian regime.
CNN further reports escalating losses among US and foreign mercenaries in general. According to the channel, twenty Americans involved in combat are missing, with the bodies of at least five American soldiers unrecovered from battlefields in time.
Experts believe that the growing number of killed or missing in action “wild geese” (foreign mercenaries) is due to the fact that foreign-recruited and seasoned combatants are deployed at the most challenging and dangerous sections of the front, considering, on top of that, that we are aware of how much Ukrainian citizens are willing to go to the front. Before now, the elite foreign units were deployed in reserve and were used in select combat operations. Now they are “holding the Ukrainian front” in the Kursk Region, and their concentration in the Kursk border regions is the highest among the Ukrainian forces.
According to the White House press service, on February 3, President Trump said that some “significant” progress has been made on the Russia-Ukraine track, but did not provide details. “We’re looking to do a deal with Ukraine where they’re going to secure what we’re giving them with their rare earth,” he said on an earlier occasion. “I want to have security of rare earth.” Clearly, Trump took note of Kiev’s willingness to “auction off Ukraine” for the sake of preserving US military and financial aid and decided to treat this conflict as business. Zelensky expressed this idea in a veiled form in his “victory plan” in October 2024, suggesting that his partners conclude an agreement with Ukraine on “joint protection of the country’s critical resources, joint investment and use of Ukraine’s economic potential.” In particular, the issue was about rare-earth metals, such as uranium, titanium, lithium, and the like. On February 4, Zelensky assured Washington of his willingness to jointly develop these minerals and expressed gratitude to the United States for its efforts to defend Ukraine. What Trump told Zelensky looks like a “fetch” command rather than a deal. This command has been practiced by the Kiev regime to perfection.
The Americans have long had their eyes on Ukraine’s natural riches. They took advantage of the corrupt Kiev regime to effortlessly take over agriculture and Ukraine’s fertile land. Now that the soil is a done deal, the Kiev regime sponsors are looking to see what else is left. Now, the turn of the subsoil has come. Has anything like that ever happened before? Of course, it has. During World War II, Nazis occupied the Soviet Ukraine and began to plunder the republic’s economy, stealing cattle and black earth. We have covered this repeatedly. Now, all of that is happening willingly, because the Kiev regime is giving it all away. Vladimir Zelensky put all of that up for “joint development” in 2024. However, it is clear that being tied up in debt, Ukraine, with everything from its statehood to industry lying in waste, cannot do anything in conjunction with anyone. The offer was to take it all and let the people on Bankovaya Street remain in power.
However, this verbiage sounds more like white noise. They should be asked a question about which part of that belongs to Ukraine, what in particular is controlled by the Kiev regime, and what is no longer part of their territory. Why do that? For a simple reason, so that those who, including the people in Washington approach this matter as a business deal (they crunch numbers and count money) realise that Zelensky doesn’t possess anything of what he offers them as part of the deal.
The outrageous “massacre” of monuments to Soviet soldiers continues unabated. Ukrainian neo-Nazis are going to pieces at the sight of the still standing monuments in Ukraine, which they associate with our country. They are right about that, no question about that. Who stands guard of the historical memory? Who stands tall to uphold the memory of the heroes of the Great Patriotic War and World War II? It’s Russia and the Russian people. Most recently, the Ukrainian neo-Nazis desecrated the memorial in Odessa honouring Russian figures of culture and science. Poet Alexander Pushkin, painter Mikhail Vrubel, mathematician Alexander Lyapunov, and physiologist Ivan Sechenov suddenly stood in their way, and they were unable to live on with these monuments still in place.
On January 27, the monument to outstanding Russian and Soviet physiologist and Nobel Prize winner Ivan Pavlov was dismantled in Kiev. Since they had to come up with something to rationalise this move, people from the Kiev city council had the following to say, “Although this scientist made significant contributions to scientific research, his image remains linked to the imperial narrative.” Demolishing monuments, and destroying history, culture and science will lead to total illiteracy. Let me remind these ignoramuses who gullibly nod as they are being told that British-Ukrainian partnership dates back “thousands” of years, that Ivan Pavlov is an internationally renowned scientist who was recognised during his lifetime as the elder of world physiologists. No one from among the “scientific circles” of Ukraine today can compare to him. The demolition of the monument to Pavlov shows that those who are at the helm in Kiev completely lack conditioned reflexes and is a sign of how deep society in which this is happening has fallen. They don’t have a soul or even reflexes.
Why is this situation absurd? They tore down the monument to Ivan Pavlov. Still, his scientific breakthroughs didn’t go anywhere and have remained in the world science, and will be used in Ukraine, among other countries. His scientific work enjoys demand now, and will continue to be in demand in the future. What are they going to do? Will they give Pavlov a different name? Will they just call him “the one who spoke about reflexes?” There’s a name for it. It’s called “sharikovshchina,” if we think back to classic literature, a Neanderthal mindset, which has literally become the Kiev regime’s watchword and underlies its philosophy.
The above facts and much of what we are going to discuss today once again confirm the urgency of the special military operation to denazify and demilitarise Ukraine and to remove threats emanating from its territory. As the Russian leadership has stated, all these objectives will definitely be accomplished.
Finnish Foreign Ministry’s information for volunteer fighters in Ukraine
We have taken notice of the information published on the Finnish Foreign Ministry’s website for those who are planning or considering travelling to Ukraine to serve as volunteer fighters and for their family and friends.
There is no optimism in that publication, but it has been published anyway. It won’t come as a surprise if a few ministry personnel quit their jobs after that publication. Can they live with it? That publication is evidence of a complete lack of consideration for the Finnish citizens. The worst part is that the Finnish ministry writes that it “does not recommend or promote volunteering as a fighter,” while at the same time it invites the Finnish public to read instructions on how to do it right.
It is like publishing instructions on taking one’s own life, with an asterisk pointing to a footnote, which says that suicide is bad but if you choose to do it anyway, here are the instructions on doing it right. How can they live with that?
That document, which is nothing other than stinking propaganda, includes detailed practical recommendations for the Finnish “soldiers of fortune,” such as which information sources to use, and what the Finnish legislation says about such “trips.” It reminds potential “volunteers” that there are certain rules in a war, lest they think that everyone is cute and cuddly and the process can be controlled with a PC game joystick. The ministry’s instructions cover the specifics of signing contracts with the Ukrainian armed forces, the purchase of equipment, medical assistance the “voluntary fighters” would get in case of wounds, and the like.
It is a detailed guideline on how Finnish citizens can buy a ticket to death. The political order has likely come from the top. I am absolutely certain, and I think that we will see information about this, that some people at the Finnish Foreign Ministry refused to do that. I am sure that there are people who still have some scraps of decency left.
Considering that President of Finland Alexander Stubb stated many times that they would help Ukraine as long as it takes, and that he appreciated those who go to Ukraine as “volunteer fighters,” it is clear who has ordered the Foreign Ministry to publish those “instructions.”
The utter cynicism of these statements and publications casts a bright light on the Russophobia of the Finnish authorities, including the diplomatic service. By publishing these detailed instructions, the ministry is actually inciting Finnish citizens to embark on a dangerous and criminal venture.
You probably remember that George W. Bush said in a prank, believing that he spoke with a representative of the Kiev regime – there is a video to prove it – that the US political elite pinned special hopes on the Kiev regime and that the task for Kiev and Zelensky was to kill as many Russians as possible. Finland has made a step further.
We understand that when members of the US elites talk about Kiev’s task of killing as many Russians as possible, they also imply that this includes killing as many Ukrainians as possible, because this war “to the last Ukrainian” is being financed by the West. But the Finnish Foreign Ministry has done better than that. They have set the task of killing as many Finnish citizens as possible and published the instructions on how to do it right.
In this context, we would like to note that we know about the involvement of Finnish mercenaries in the hostilities in Ukraine on the side of the neo-Nazi Kiev regime. They face an unenviable fate. We would like to recommend those who plan to take up arms to harm our country in the course of the special military operation to carefully read the item on the Finnish Foreign Ministry’s instructions that recommends the volunteer fighters to get their affairs at home in order in the event of potential delay or inability to return home. This is something worth not just reading but also remembering.
The IIHF’s decision to bar the Russian national team from the 2026 IIHF World Championship
The International Ice Hockey Federation (IIHF) has made yet another political and discriminatory decision to bar the Russian national team from the 2026 IIHF World Championship. This time, they justify their decision by citing the organisers’ alleged inability to ensure the team’s safety at the upcoming tournament in the context of the continuing special military operation.
In effect, non-admission of the Russian team to the World Championship is nothing more than an attempt to eliminate honest competition and deprive spectators of the opportunity to enjoy the fine play of one of the world’s best teams (this is an objective fact).
What do they mean by saying that they are unable to ensure the Russian team’s safety? If you can’t guarantee safety, do not hold the championship at all. It is not an option; it is mandatory. You are not offering a choice. If a country is unable to cope, it must step down as a championship host. There are countries that cannot, for example, provide adequate logistics or a comfortable playing environment, or they cannot guarantee the accommodation of fans. They honestly admit as much and withdraw. Or, say, boards of international sports officials may draw the relevant conclusion and hold a discussion on whether to offer financial or logistical aid, or to transfer a certain sports event to another part of the world, another city, etc.
We are well aware that this is just subterfuge. Russian spokesmen at various levels have repeatedly stated that Russia has independent means of ensuring its own security and that of its citizens. This is what it is doing right now in the zone of the special military operation. As for the IIHF World Championship, Russian athletes are ready and have no fear of participating in international tournaments, since, as the saying goes, “Hockey is no coward’s game.” The decision to ostracise the Russian national team reflects hypocrisy, the politicisation of sports, faint-heartedness, and violation of all principles of international sport and the world sports movement. We wish that the International Ice Hockey Federation would finally find the courage to admit that attempts to “cancel” Russian sports are untenable and self-damaging.
We will persevere in our commitment to international cooperation in sports based on the principles of equality, non-discrimination and equal access for all without exception to sporting competitions.
Do you know what this looks like? It reminds me of the period of segregation in Western countries, when people of different skin colour, representatives of different races, were banned, for instance, from universities. This also took place under the pretext of the authorities being unable to ensure their safety. In this case, they must simply admit that they are being inhumane and acknowledge that all those supported by the West are in danger, since it cannot keep them safe.
German authorities’ insinuations about Russia’s interference in the German Bundestag elections
On February 23, Germany will hold early Bundestag elections. (Considering the date, I just want to say that any coincidences are purely accidental here, so don’t start blaming us for this as well). The country had to reschedule the next federal election due to the collapse of Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s governing coalition in early November 2024, when the parties were unable to agree on fundamental aspects of Germany’s domestic and foreign policy, including on funding sources to back Berlin’s extravagant spending to support the Kiev regime.
It is noteworthy that immediately after the collapse of the German cabinet, Federal Minister of the Interior and Community Nancy Faeser hastened to make a loud statement about Russia’s “inevitable” interference in the German parliamentary elections. She clearly thinks we have no better business to attend to.
It is also clear why she did it. Her announcement literally kick-started a new campaign to spook the electorate with an imaginary Russian threat, and the German authorities are increasingly promoting these sentiments as the voting day draws closer. The German special services briskly report on the creation of interdepartmental task forces and commissions, preparing an all-round defence against “Russian hackers, internet trolls, bots and agents of influence.” Naturally, funds are being allocated for this purpose.
The best part is that their outcomes cannot be confirmed or verified. They can report anything: they have neutralised 15 quadrillion bots, and shut down 2.5 trillion of whatever-term-they-come-up-with. Use just any word to fill the gap, trolls or anything. This can’t be checked. You know what they say: it’s hard to find a black cat in a pitch-black room, especially with no cat in it. But when a handsome sum of money has been allocated for this, why not give it a try? Germany has no other problems, as we can see. Everything has been settled. The largest German companies have left Germany. The only problem left is to look for Russian hackers.
The irony of the situation is that while spreading anti-Russia myths, the German authorities are turning a blind eye to very real attempts to influence the election campaign. Look at the United States interfering without even hiding it, “moderating” the elections in Germany, I would say.
It is popular fun in Germany – not to see the obvious. Olaf Scholz said Germany was liberated from the Nazis by the Americans. What next? What will be the next myth they invent? Probably, Germany was initially invaded by the Nazis, who came from nowhere. They will probably say that they came from the East. And then the Americans arrived from the West to liberate them. This is the kind of logic we hear from the German officialdom.
Initiatives to impose restrictions on Russian diplomats in EU countries
The Foreign Ministry has taken note of what Western media have been presenting as leaks on the intentions by several countries of the European Union to restrict the freedom of movement and the duration of stay for Russian diplomats as part of the next sanctions package targeting Russia. The EU is currently working on this package. We have no reason to question the accuracy of the information contained in these publications and have taken it seriously.
Everyone can rest assured that should these destructive measures be taken, there will be an immediate response – diplomats from EU countries in the Russian Federation will face similar restrictions. Let me emphasise that it will happen if the European Union enacts restrictions against Russian diplomats.
Today, Russia’s alleged move to expel a Moscow-based correspondent for Le Monde, a French newspaper, became the talk of the town in French blogs, online space and among the traditional media outlets. No, this was not an expulsion, and there was a reason for things to go down this road. This is how it all happened.
Alexander Kudelya, a Russian correspondent for the Komsomolskaya Pravda newspaper specialising in international relations was planning to work in France and filed the required documents. France rejected his application by officially denying him the opportunity to work as a correspondent there and refusing to issue a visa.
We responded to these developments by saying that if Russian journalists face discrimination, we will respond by targeting French journalists who feel great in our country and can work here – there are quite a few of them in fact, not just a single French journalist. They obtain their visas, accreditation, and can attend events. This is to say that they do not face any discriminatory measures.
We have contacted the French Embassy in Moscow several times and suggested refraining from making journalists hostage to their Russia-hating policy. We also got in touch with the French Foreign Ministry through our Embassy in Paris and held meetings with French diplomats. We sent the corresponding notes and offered to come up with mutually acceptable solutions.
We also said that we will retaliate by targeting the next French correspondent who applies for a Russian visa. There was no politics involved as far as Russia was concerned. This was a purely technical, formal procedure. France, or the French regime, the country’s authorities opted for escalating the situation. Despite our repeated attempts to raise this issue, they decided not to issue a visa to the Komsomolskaya Pravda reporter. Therefore, after all that happened and all the talks we had on this matter, which lasted for months, not weeks, as well as after Russia’s persistent attempts to settle this situation, and after it became clear that this would be impossible considering France’s refusal, we retaliated against a Le Monde journalist who happened to be the next in line for obtaining a journalist visa for working in Russia.
This is to say that should Russian diplomats face any restrictions, EU diplomats working in Russia will be treated accordingly.
Activities of the United States Agency for International Development
We have received a considerable number of questions concerning the alarming revelations that have recently emerged about the activities of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). I am not sure about the name it will obtain henceforth. For many years, it has been recognised as USAID. However, given its undertakings, it ought to have been designated as the Agency for Interference in the Internal Affairs of States or the Agency for Regime Change in Other Countries, or perhaps a name that encapsulates both aspects.
Let me remind you that in 2012, we requested their departure from our country. We provided comprehensive commentary on this issue. The declared activities of the Agency did not align with the actual actions and measures carried out here. Even so, our commentaries did not fully capture the magnitude of the situation now being exposed to the world. What precisely has transpired there?
This state authority has, over the past two decades, positioned itself as a symbol of American soft power. It now transpires that the Americans themselves wish to apply not only soft power but something considerably more stringent towards this Agency.
The catalyst was the suspension of US foreign financial assistance, of which USAID was a principal operator, along with issues unveiled during an audit of the Agency’s activities.
As it has emerged, substantial sums from American taxpayers (amounting to tens and hundreds of millions) were not channelled towards humanitarian aid projects, as officially declared by Washington at all levels, but were instead allocated to initiatives of not only questionable value – such as tens of thousands of dollars for staging a transgender opera in Colombia or organ transplants in people (specifically, genital organs) in other countries – but also, quite literally, towards destabilising the socio-political landscape in target states. This is precisely the formulation used.
It has been unveiled, and has become known to the global community, prompting discussion in numerous circles both within the United States and internationally, that the Agency directly sponsored velvet revolutions (essentially, the overthrow of legitimate authorities) in post-Soviet states, including mass protests in Georgia and Kyrgyzstan, and the state coup in Ukraine. Its “tentacles” – through a network of funds, grants, and NGOs – deeply infiltrated and wielded significant influence over the governance and economies of many countries worldwide.
We have been addressing this matter for many years. In response, we were inundated with assertions that it was all false, allegedly mere Russian propaganda. It transpires that Russian propaganda propagates the truth. Everything has been verified as true. American taxpayers, from their own resources, funded the dismantling of Ukrainian statehood and facilitated the rise to power of the neo-Nazi Bandera followers, initially led by Alexander Turchinov, followed by Petr Poroshenko, and now Vladimir Zelensky.
Moreover, even if officials of the United States Agency for International Development, deceiving everyone including the US Congress, claimed that the Maidan Bandera adherents and blatant Nazis from the Right Sector were democrats (recall — “young democratic forces”), it is utterly inexplicable how USAID could have supported Al-Qaeda terrorists merely a few years after the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States, and concurrently when American soldiers were being killed by Al-Qaeda jihadists in Afghanistan. This is a fact. Frankly speaking, this part came as a revelation to me.
At present, the investigation into the Agency’s activities is ongoing, with its entire administrative and financial-economic apparatus placed under external oversight. Effectively, there is a process underway involving at least a significant transformation of this corrupt entity enmeshed in anti-values and false (as they themselves admit) narratives. In reality, this constitutes a critical component in the framework of American interference in the internal affairs of other countries.
We operate on the premise that such a structure should never have been established, neither from the standpoint of the principles and norms of international relations, nor from the perspective of universal notions of morality and ethics. We will continue to observe and document this ongoing process of debunking – essentially, the mere publication of the truth – about what the Agency has been engaged in.
Certainly, the revelation that USAID, through grants, sponsored media outlets, demanding from them a policy of strategic silence on issues unfavourable to the administration in the White House, was shocking to all. This is precisely why certain topics were relentlessly propagated, forcing belief in something, blared from every loudspeaker to the audience, while other topics, far more significant, important, and relevant – including for American society and taxpayers – were entirely omitted from the media in the United States or other countries.
One example is the situation in Bucha, which is unequivocally a complete fabrication. It seems to me that even within international organisations, this has been acknowledged, yet they remain silent. This narrative dominated the media for months. It did not leave the pages of newspapers and magazines, nor the screens of television, radio, or the internet. Mainstream American, Anglo-Saxon, EU, and NATO media outlets raged. Consequently, in other countries, this topic echoed in only one direction – accusing Russia of actions it did not commit.
Russkoye Porechnoye – photographs, video footage, ultimately, corpses, conclusions of medical experts. Direct, honest interviews with forensic experts, not citing sources but through tears, who (credit must be given to their courage) found the strength to come forward and speak about what they witnessed when examining the victims of the Kiev regime. You see how the mainstream, global press – the very same that was nourished by USAID among others – activated the strategic silence button.
Developments around TikTok ban in the United States
We talked at a recent briefing about Washington’s use of US IT giants to control the global information space, their global censorship system and efforts to preserve their diminishing technological advantages. This is taking place against the backdrop of a secret collusion between the Big Tech and US intelligence services.
The US authorities and monopolies are trying to suppress their rivals, contrary to their bombastic statements about the free market. Unable to survive in a competitive environment, they are using various pretexts to eliminate their rivals, adopt unilateral sanctions against them, bankrupt them through restrictions, prosecution and legal action, or buy into them very cheaply.
We have also seen them take hostages for that purpose, like it happened to the daughter of the Huawei founder, who was kept on house arrest for months without good reason, simply because she is the daughter of the head of a major Chinese tech corporation.
They are now doing this to TikTok, a service of short customer videos and the most rapidly developing digital platform in the US market with over 170 million users. In this case, Washington’s desire to get rid of a rival has been complemented with the growing anti-China hysterics and several other reasons.
Let’s look at the history of the problem. In April 2024, the US adopted the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (it can be used to explain everything in the US), which provided for banning TikTok if its China-based parent company ByteDance refused to sell it to a US company. The deadline was set at January 19, 2025. Nothing changed by that day, and TikTok has been blocked, but only for a day. After assuming office, Donald Trump postponed the enforcement of the bill by 90 days, posing as the platform’s saver and the defender of the freedom of speech and users’ rights.
However, there is a catch here. TikTok will be allowed to resume operation in the US if its owner sold at least 50 percent to American investors. Frankly, I am short for words to describe this situation. Should I talk about investment climate or cry blue murder?
Whatever Washington states publicly, it is obvious that it is working towards establishing US monopoly in the digital information space. To be able to do this, it must assume control of the leading global online platforms. So, approaches to this issue and their presentation may vary, but the goal of all of them is to preserve leverage on public opinion through control of the digital environment.
As for how this relates to the freedom of speech guaranteed in the First Amendment to the US Constitution, I really don’t know.
Russian Seasons in Bahrain and Oman
On January 27, the National Theatre of Bahrain in Manama hosted the grand opening of the Russian Seasons cultural and humanitarian project. The Mariinsky Orchestra conducted by People’s Artist of Russia Maestro Valery Gergiev performed the Golden Classics programme featuring the Mariinsky opera soloists.
On February 1, Russian Seasons opened in the Sultanate of Oman. The exhibition at the National Museum, Gifts of Khiva and Bukhara to the Russian Imperial House, from the State Hermitage Museum collection, demonstrates the long-standing ties between Russia and the peoples of the East. Other events included a concert of the Valentin Berlinsky Chamber Quartet, and an RT Arabic documentary, Dagger, was shown at the National Museum of Oman.
Minister of Culture Olga Lyubimova represented Russia at the opening ceremonies. The participating officials from the host countries were Head of Bahrain Authority for Culture and Antiquities Khalifa bin Ahmed Al Khalifa, Sayyida Mona bint Fahd al Said, Assistant Vice-Chancellor at Oman’s Sultan Qaboos University, and Secretary-General of Oman’s National Museum Jamal Al Moosawi.
The events were attended by representatives of broad public and political circles in Bahrain and Oman as well as by prominent figures of culture and art, who praised Russian musicians’ virtuoso performance and unique museum exhibits, and spoke about culture the way it should be discussed.
Holding Russian Seasons during the year when we mark the 35th anniversary of diplomatic relations with Bahrain and the 40th anniversary of diplomatic relations with Oman is of particular importance for promoting bilateral cultural and humanitarian cooperation and popularising Russian culture in the Middle East.
Russian team competes in the 17th international regatta in Karachi
From January 26 to February 2, athletes from different countries competed in the 17th International Regatta in the Pakistani city of Karachi. We are grateful to our Pakistani friends for the excellent organisation of this celebration of sport.
This year, the Russian team took part in regular and indoor rowing events. Russian rowers showed excellent performance and won eight gold and silver medals in all classes. Congratulations to our athletes on their excellent performance at the international regatta.
I would like to remind you that in the summer of 2024, Pakistani athletes took part in the Grand Moscow Regatta, where a team of four Pakistani women rowers made their debut and won second prize.
We are confident that mutual participation in sporting events not only provides useful competition experience, but also contributes to the rapprochement between our nations.
Patrice Lumumba People’s Friendship University marks 65th anniversary
Patrice Lumumba People’s Friendship University has been the Foreign Ministry’s reliable partner on matters dealing with expanding cooperation with other countries in research and education, promoting Russian technology and language, as well as shaping an unbiased perspective towards Russia abroad.
Since its founding, the university has trained over 200,000 high-skilled foreign specialists. Today, over 11,000 students from across the world are enrolled there. Foreigners graduating from the People’s Friendship University possess fundamental knowledge and the skills they need to succeed in various occupations while helping their countries achieve their manufacturing and economics objectives.
In addition, the People’s Friendship University trains specialists for our Foreign Ministry. These graduates have effectively filled various positions at the Foreign Ministry headquarters, as well as in our missions abroad.
This university is also a leading Russian higher education institution in terms of working with its alumni in a system-wide and uninterrupted manner. The International Coordination Council of Graduates has been based at the People’s Friendship University for many decades. Its mission consists of facilitating the operations of 70 foreign associations or groups of foreign graduates from Russian and Soviet higher education institutions.
The Foreign Ministry welcomes and will continue to support the Ambassadors of Russian Education and Science programme. Launched in 2023 by a consortium of Russian universities, with the People’s Friendship University at the helm, this initiative is designed to promote Russian education and science through public diplomacy and by working with major specialised international platforms.
We wish the People’s Friendship University success and prosperity!
And I have a personal bond with this university since it is there that I defended by thesis.
Today, February 6, the Cultural Centre of the Foreign Ministry’s Main Administration for Service to the Diplomatic Corps (GlavUpDK) is hosting a reception. Organised by civil society activists from the Moscow Diplomatic Club, it marks the Diplomatic Worker’s Day, with the 80th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War as the main topic.
The way I presented the organisers may sound strange, but I mentioned civil society activists for a reason, since it is the Foreign Ministry’s Council of Young Diplomats which holds this reception for the young members of the Moscow diplomatic corps. About 100 diplomats from 43 countries are expected to attend the event, along with senior ministry officials, top executives from the Diplomatic Academy, researchers and experts, sports and cultural figures.
The programme includes a concert by popular performers, and a presentation of the Council of Young Diplomats’ performance report for the past ten years and its plans for 2025, including international events. There will also be a ceremony for new members of the International Young Diplomats’ Association. All these matters are part of the programme for tonight.
There will also be an exhibition dedicated to the Great Patriotic War, and an exhibition titled Diplomacy for Peace, prepared by the Rostov Regional Patriotic Society, or should I say the Roads of Glory – Our History civil society group. We regularly support them in their undertakings.
February 7 marks Independence Day, which is a national holiday in Grenada. On this day in 1974, the country threw off its colonial shackles and gained sovereignty from Britain. Over the past 51 years, this small Caribbean nation has travelled a challenging path of development and lived through dramatic events, including the US military intervention in October 1983.
We value our relations with Grenada, which are steeped in mutual respect, trust, and consideration of each other’s interests. We are open to continuing cooperation both bilaterally and on international platforms in the interest of forming a fair multipolar international order.
We send our best wishes of peace, prosperity, and success to the people of Grenada.
February 8 is a day that everyone should be celebrating. It’s a special day, Russian Science Day. This holiday marks the founding of the St Petersburg Academy of Sciences by a Senate decree at the behest of Emperor Peter the Great issued on February 8 (January 28 Old Style), 1724.
As we approach this date, I would like to note that, despite the attempts by certain regimes to create artificial barriers to cooperation in this field, science knows no borders. As Anton Chekhov once famously said, “There is no national science, just as there is no national multiplication table.”
The Foreign Ministry consistently supports the Russian scientific community as needed. We welcome the creation of new and the expansion of existing formats for international scientific cooperation. The year 2024 saw a large number of major international scientific events held in our country, such as the Kant Congress, the 1st Eurasian Congress of Linguists, the 22nd Mendeleev Congress on General and Applied Chemistry dedicated to the 190th anniversary of the great Russian chemist Dmitri Mendeleev, the Creating the Future symposium, the BRICS Young Scientists Forum, and the annual Congress of Young Scientists, which is bringing together growing numbers of international participants.
In 2024, as part of the Challenge national award for advanced technologies, the Discovery international category was established. It was won by outstanding neuroscientist Nikos Logothetis, Director of the International Centre for Primate Brain Research in Shanghai, China.
The Science 0+ international festivals - major international platforms for popularising scientific knowledge among children and young adults - have now become a tradition. These events are held by Russian initiators across the globe. We look forward to seeing their geographic reach expand this year.
A number of international events have been scheduled for 2025 to mark the anniversaries of leading Russian universities, namely, the 270th anniversary of Moscow State University and the 65th anniversary of the Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia.
We take this opportunity to extend our best wishes to the Russian scientific community on the occasion of this holiday. Indeed, science knows no borders. It is a province of all humanity, and should be celebrated more than just once a year. We must treat our scientists with respect and warmth, as they safeguard our health, assist us in all areas of life, make discoveries, and preserve much of what we call civilisation and humanity.
It is never too early or too late to say a heartfelt thank-you to our researchers, who are world-class scientists. We will continue to support the scientific community in building the foundation for sustainable and equitable international scientific and educational cooperation for the benefit of all humanity.
The Russian Foreign Ministry’s mobile app
On February 10 which marks Diplomatic Worker’s Day, we plan to update the Foreign Ministry’s official mobile app, which first became available in Russian and English in 2021. You won’t need to download it again. All current users will receive a standard update notification. The app is available for download in App Store, Google Play, and NashStore.
Our technical services streamlined the app functionality, improved its stability, and fixed several technical errors and bugs. The update also addressed new requirements, including information security requirements, from the platforms which host it.
We encourage everyone who has not yet done so to install the updated app which will help you stay updated about the latest news from the Ministry. All you need to do is turn on push notifications. You will also have access to live streams and have up-to-date contact information at your fingertips. The app’s interface will look almost identical to the Foreign Ministry’s website with convenient and user-friendly navigation menu.
An app download banner is available on the home page of the Ministry’s official website.
Question: President of the United States Donald Trump signed a National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM) restoring maximum pressure on Iran. As part of this effort, the Donald Trump administration will implement a campaign “aimed at driving Iran’s oil exports to zero.” What would be your comment regarding this decision?
Maria Zakharova: We were not surprised by the statements and proclamations coming from Washington. I am certain that they failed to surprise Iran in any meaningful way too. The US government used this maximum pressure policy during Donald Trump’s first term as President by even targeting humanitarian affairs with their all-our effort to impose restrictions on Tehran.
To put this in perspective for you, during the Covid pandemic, the US restrictions made it harder for Iran to source Covid-19 vaccines from abroad, which substantially increased the number of victims. The Americans created obstacles to prevent Iranians from buying medicines and treatments for fighting complex diseases, including in children.
We have said many times that any restrictive measures which fail to comply with international law are insane and have a detrimental effect, especially when dealing with socially vulnerable groups, pandemics and epidemics, emergencies, or man-made disasters, when more assistance is required and this assistance must be as extensive as possible. That said, we were not alone. UN experts who visited Iran also said many times that these illegal restrictions have a negative bearing on the lives and health of ordinary people in Iran.
Against this backdrop, the American threats dealing with economic matters do not seem all that excessive. I am not even mentioning the political assassinations they have been supporting. They even publicly recognised it. January marked the fifth anniversary of Qasem Soleimani’s unscrupulous assassination by the Americans. He commanded the Islamic Revolutionary Guard’s Quds Force. The United States proudly announced the killing for the whole world to hear, and did not feel any qualms despite the fact that the Iranian military commander was on an official visit to a neighbouring country. We have seen all this before. Been there, done that, as the saying goes. And the same goes for our Iranian friends.
Our position is quite obvious. Unilateral coercive measures bypassing international law and the relevant UN structures run counter to the generally recognised international principles and norms because they were enacted without a mandate from the UN Security Council. Signed in Moscow on January 17, 2025, following the talks at the highest level between Russia and Iran, the Strategic Comprehensive Partnership Treaty expressly sets forth this understanding. In particular, it stipulates the rejection by the parties of any measures which run counter to international law and can be viewed as unfriendly acts. In the treaty, the parties commit themselves to ridding the international relations from these vicious practices, while guaranteeing that they will never use any means of this kind when dealing with one another.
We will continue to work with our Iranian friends along these lines by consistently seeking to reinforce our mutually beneficial cooperation in all its aspects and in the interests of our two nations. External pressure and sanctions will not stop us as we go down this road. Moreover, in some instances they can even bring us closer in our bilateral contacts. Sanctions have simply accelerated the emerging processes which have been taking shape for quite a while now.
Question: On February 1, 2025, Transnistria started to get gas, funded by allocations from the European Union. This has prompted statements from certain Moldovan officials claiming that “Russia does not care about Transnistria.” How would you comment on this?
Maria Zakharova: We regularly issue comments and publish anti-fakes debunking such statements. Who would believe Transnistria was left without energy resources due to Russia’s position? Only those who insist the British-Ukrainian partnership dates back thousands of years. Roughly from that same category. To accuse Russia of halting gas supplies to the left bank of the Dniester in January of this year is either a complete failure to grasp the root causes of the current crisis or a deliberate distortion of reality.
This situation arose from Kiev’s decision to stop the transit of Russian gas through Ukrainian territory as of January 1, 2025, compounded by Chisinau’s refusal to acknowledge its debt for delivered gas.
Russia cannot “not care” about Transnistria. Approximately 220,000 of our citizens live there. Russia has repeatedly proposed various options to resume humanitarian gas supplies to the region, but Moldova blocked all of them. Let me clarify: This is not about Moldovans, but about the regime in Chisinau. They frame this as “liberation from energy blackmail by Russia.” Everyone understands the so-called European gas originates from Russian deposits. Blackmail? No? It is merely delivered to Transnistria through European intermediaries. After all, you cannot label gas as belonging to anyone – it is simply gas.
We can only welcome the resumption of gas supplies to the left bank of the Dniester as of February 1, 2025. This has temporarily eased the severity of a situation teetering on the brink of humanitarian catastrophe due to the policies of those aligning themselves with the collective West. Yet how long this respite will last remains an open question.
Russia advocates for a long-term, sustainable resolution to the region’s gas supply issue and stands ready to continue facilitating this in every possible manner.
Question: Azerbaijan has stated that the country’s authorities have notified Russia about closing the Russian House in Baku. Yevgeny Primakov, Head of Federal Agency for the CIS Affairs, Compatriots Living Abroad and International Humanitarian Cooperation (Rossotrudnichestvo), said that they received the relevant note. How would you comment on this decision?
Maria Zakharova: We received many inquiries from Russian and international media regarding this matter. At the previous briefing, we already addressed the absurd allegations against the Russian House in Baku. We underscored our expectation for a rebuttal of the fakes from the media outlets that disseminated them. Rossotrudnichestvo’s senior executives have also weighed in with their comments.
I consistently reiterate the same point. When discussions and some form of spy mania arise, we must ask the same question: Do you really want to have a serious discussion on the way intelligence services do their job, or do you want to exploit this topic for superficial fakes? In all seriousness, those who bring up this issue must start by telling us where and how their intelligence services operate. This is what I always say. We recognise that this topic has been planted and blown out of proportion. None of this aligns with the level of our relations or the potential we consistently highlight. Our position on this remains unequivocal.
Regarding the information about Azerbaijan sending a notification to close the Russian House – yes, we received it through diplomatic channels. I can confirm this.
In response, Russia has expressed its readiness to undertake the necessary steps to complete the registration of the Russian House in accordance with the laws of the Republic of Azerbaijan and based on the bilateral intergovernmental Agreement on the Establishment and Terms of Operation of Information and Cultural Centres dated July 3, 1997. We have repeatedly (this is documented in our records, and I am confident in those of our Azerbaijani colleagues as well) proposed discussing this matter through diplomatic channels within the framework of appropriate consultations. These proposals were forwarded in writing to the Azerbaijani side.
We expect this issue to be resolved. As for the media outlets amplifying this spy mania narrative – do not succumb to provocations. You are adults, after all. What are you talking about?
Question: It has been reported that France is withdrawing its forces from Senegal. The military must leave the country before September. What is Moscow’s view on this subject?
Maria Zakharova: In recent years, we have witnessed a considerable reduction in the French presence, primarily military presence, in Africa. It was announced the other day that Paris has started withdrawing its contingent from Senegal. It is also transferring its military bases to the Senegalese armed forces.
Unlike the West, we do not comment on the bilateral relations of foreign countries. It is up to them how they organise their interaction. We never discuss these matters unless they directly or indirectly concern our country. But it cannot be denied that a number of African countries have increasingly tended to seek true sovereignty and diversify their foreign policy and economic ties in recent years. This is both understandable and logical. Such a trend aligns well with the emergence of a multipolar world order, which should certainly be based on equitable and mutually respectful relations between states. Yet, it remains a significant challenge for the former colonisers and other powers that regarded African countries not only as a zone of their interests but also as their colonies to recognise this new reality.
All political observers and experts state that colonialism, along with the former colonial powers’ attitudes towards their colonies, their philosophy, ideology and practices, has not changed, with few exceptions, in the first decade of the 21st century, even if the decolonisation process formally came to an end in the second half of the 20th century. They continue to seek to exploit these countries and their mineral resources as they did in the past, but now with the help of big business, financial flows, unfair and inequitable lending, and “soft power” that in fact turns out to be a “poisonous gas.” After all, they are interested in mineral resources and opportunities, not in states as communities of human beings.
To be sure, we can hardly say that France is leaving Senegal for good, given their close historical and cultural ties and long-standing economic cooperation. Paris is sure to seek to preserve its positions in that country. The question is what tone France will adopt and what agenda it will be able to propose. The era of neocolonial mentoring, diktat, superiority, and predatory exploitation of African resources is receding into the past. This ideology is fading along with the practice of troop deployments. Those troops were more like occupation forces, rather than contingents assisting host countries in ensuring their security.
Instead of constantly blaming its setbacks in Africa on Russia and other external players, Paris would be better served by analysing the causes behind the current state of affairs and admitting its own responsibility for pursuing a short-sighted policy, which has led to an increasing number of African countries becoming reluctant to base their relations with France on the outdated colonial scheme.
Question: Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan is currently on a visit to the United States. At one of the meetings he attended there, he said Armenia was at a crossroads, a very important period for our country. According to him, the most effective way to support Armenia from the US perspective would be to include the agenda for achieving peace in the South Caucasus in the list of priorities of the US political establishment. As we know, a few days before Donald Trump’s inauguration, Yerevan and Washington signed the Charter on Strategic Partnership. Can you comment on the situation?
Maria Zakharova: We commented on this at our previous briefings.
As far as I remember, your publication is almost ten years old. As far as I understand, you do not plan to rebrand it as ‘Moscow-Yerevan’, do you? There is nothing wrong with that – you never planned anything like that, as far as I know.
Just stick to the agenda that you cover now – bilateral relations between Russia and Azerbaijan. We have much to comment on in this respect. We have many plans; there are questions to be answered, and problems to be addressed. This is what we want to do. We are grateful to you and your news website for covering bilateral relations between our countries year after year, with dedication, sincerity, and excellent professionalism.
I wish you a long life, inspiration and success.
Question: You mentioned some outrageous statements by the Trump administration voiced by Marco Rubio, which correlates with the subject of my question. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov wrote in his article for Russia in Global Affairs that the “America first” concept, brought to the fore with President Donald Trump’s taking office, “is alarmingly similar to the Hitlerite slogan ‘Germany above all’.” According to the minister, “a wager on “peace through strength” may be the final blow to diplomacy,” and such statements “show not even the slightest bit of respect for Washington’s international legal obligations under the UN Charter.”
Does this mean that Donald Trump and his policies have disappointed Moscow and so far, we do not see any prospects for resolving the Ukrainian crisis through negotiations with the United States?
Maria Zakharova: To be disappointed by something, we have to have set our hopes or expectations for it too high in the first place. We never had high hopes or expectations [for the new US administration] for a number of reasons, including our experience. We’ve done our analytics and calculations, but we also have experience, which prevents us from setting expectations too high for anything or anyone.
We are ready for substantive work with anyone who takes an approach of mutual respect guided by international law, bilateral agreements, universal norms of civilised communication as well as relevant experience in doing things, with an understanding that words should not diverge from deeds and one must be accountable for their words. We are ready for this.
In the past, we faced numerous complicated situations, which we successfully overcame. The results we achieved added to our experience. We treat this situation in exactly the same way.
As for the potential US role in resolving the Ukraine crisis, everything will depend on the concrete actions and plans of the new administration. So far, we have heard plenty of words and statements, but there is no clarity when it comes to taking actual steps. Therefore, it would be premature to speculate on the prospects for talks or anything else in this context, except for one point.
We have made our stance clear. Every day, all our representatives, starting with the President of Russia, the Foreign Minister, government representatives and other authorised speakers respond to questions and talk, in unison, at all levels, laying out Russia’s view of the crisis, its root causes, and its settlement prospects. We have it all covered.
As for Washington, again, they need to formulate a policy. Then we will consider the specific steps and actions they take. Excuse me for the pun, I haven’t discovered America now. We repeat this every day.
Question: Just the other day, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov presented a new unit called the Department for Partnership with Africa. We all know that Russia has been expanding its ties with this continent, while scaling down its relations with European countries. Does the Foreign Ministry plan to gradually reassign most of its diplomats who are currently working in Europe to diplomatic missions in African countries?
Maria Zakharova: You have been a regular at these briefings, and you have witnessed and heard our statements and comments, as well as seen what we do. We have already discussed our response to the policies of those whom we call unfriendly regimes. They closed consulates general, made it impossible for Russian diplomatic and consular missions to do their job, expelled diplomats and made their work extremely challenging, as well as extremely dangerous in their countries.
You may remember the time when dozens, and then hundreds of Russian diplomats had to return home. It was not Moscow which asked them to come back. They were denied the right to do their job in these countries for reasons I have just mentioned. In fact, there was only one reason behind this push – unfriendly regimes in certain countries made it impossible for them to work there.
There has been an all-out effort to block everything as part of the declared policy to inflict what they call a strategic defeat on Russia, as preceded by the policy to contain, deter our country and target it with its sanctions war, covering logistics, transport, trade, educational and cultural exchanges, and people-to-people ties. The corresponding decisions were taken, including in terms of ensuring that our foreign policy agencies focus on undertakings which yield tangible results, and where we need to double or triple our efforts. This was an imperative for us in the existing international landscape which transcended diplomacy and affected all sectors, including economics, trade, humanitarian affairs, etc.
Sergey Lavrov has been mentioning this all the time since 2022. He discussed this matter in public and met with the teams, including the diplomats expelled by unfriendly regimes and who had to leave countries where they used to work. We took care of giving them new jobs. In fact, this effort has been going on for quite a while now.
Do we have any plans to redeploy them to other missions? We did embark on this effort, but not because we wanted to scale down our presence elsewhere. In fact, this resulted from the seamy side of Western regimes, and the drama they created when they decided to start expelling Russian diplomats.
In fact, as part of the updated Foreign Policy Concept, we have been reassigning substantial resources, including human resources, but not only, from Western countries to diplomatic missions elsewhere where they can serve a better purpose, that is, the Global South and East.
This is an adequate way to assess and respond to a situation created by the collective West. That said, there has been upward momentum in our cooperation with the African continent and these ties are becoming increasingly multifaceted and diverse.
The initiative to establish the Department for Partnership with Africa illustrates this point. Russia opened its embassies in Burkina Faso and in Equatorial Guinea. Embassies in Niger and Sierra Leone are expected to reopen soon. Russia will also open its first embassy to South Sudan. There are also plans to open diplomatic missions to The Gambia, Liberia, Union of the Comoros, and Togo. Staff members for these new foreign missions were recruited among diplomats specialising on African affairs, as well as among those who used to work on other foreign policy matters, including in Europe.
Let me reiterate that some of our Consulates General where our consular staff and diplomats used to work were closed. Yes, they were reassigned to work elsewhere. Some moved to other countries immediately, while others got positions at the Foreign Ministry headquarters, while still others stayed in European countries. There were also those who changed their specialisation based on their knowledge of other regions, languages or just by turbocharging and fast-tracking their transition in order to be redeployed to other continents. We do offer these opportunities.
Question: The Ambassador of Ukraine to the United States stated that Kiev is prepared to discuss holding presidential elections by the end of 2025 if the issue is initiated by the new US administration. How would you assess the level of sovereignty of modern Ukraine in this context?
Maria Zakharova: What type of free and democratic elections are these if they depend on the will, decision, and mood of another state? The Ambassador of Ukraine in Washington has merely exposed her country with such a statement. Is she perhaps sending distress signals in this manner? Could it be that she has winked at us all, hinting that she has, in fact, uttered the first words of truth in many months? She has unveiled the essence of what we have been asserting for years – there is neither democracy in Ukraine nor even a legal system or integrity in electoral procedures.
Remember, during both Petr Poroshenko’s and Vladimir Zelensky’s presidencies, we always made the caveat that there could be no talk of democracy or legal sophistication here. Yet, for the sake of a chance at peaceful coexistence among Ukrainian citizens and resolving long-overdue (even overripe) issues, this process was accepted with all conceivable and inconceivable nuances and caveats.
The Kiev regime has consistently denied this and claimed that they are the most democratic, the freest, and that such freedom as exists in Ukraine is unmatched anywhere else. All of this was encouraged by the West, which portrayed it as a young democracy that was on the verge of becoming a leader in all aspects.
Now, the Ukrainian Ambassador in Washington is saying that as soon as – and if– they receive a signal (presumably, two green rockets) from the White House, they will be ready to proceed with elections. This is confirmation of what experts in our country and beyond have long been asserting. They have noted the complete illegitimacy of Zelensky’s current status. This is a confirmation from a serving Ukrainian official that, as of now, Ukraine has lost sovereignty in all spheres and does not have a legitimate president.
Ukraine is entirely dependent on the will of its Western masters. The Kiev regime cannot make its own decisions, even on the issue of elections, which fundamentally characterise statehood.
When elections are held in Venezuela or Georgia, the West does not concern itself with what international organisations say about them. The West only cares about what it has predetermined for itself in these elections and begins to nitpick over minor details. Now, another flow of dirt has been poured on Belarus: everything is wrong and everything is not as it should be.
How can this be? Yet the West treats this as normal. A certain decision is formed there – whether elections can be held or not. Dozens of elections have taken place in other countries, with many criticisms (wrong candidates, poor media organisation, etc.), even though the will of the citizens confirmed the legitimacy of the process and its results. Here, however, there is a direct link to the will of another country, which must be dictated to the citizens of Ukraine.
Question: Less than 48 hours after signing a bill to charge Canada and Mexico new steep tariffs, President Trump put them on hold for 30 days, which can be seen as erratic behaviour. At the same time, he has kept tariffs on Chinese products in place. However, the increase was much lower than earlier announced. Do you believe these trade-related moves were undertaken by the US government deliberately? Will Washington be able to achieve its goal?
Maria Zakharova: Everyone has by this time agreed (including the US President and his administration) that such declarations are both a tactic and a strategy. That is why we always insist on waiting to see actual actions.
Threats to impose steep import duties on its foreign trade partners are not anything new in the Trump administration’s trade policy. He issued ultimatums like that during his first term as well. Illegal restrictions and tariff restrictions are being imposed that run counter to the WTO regulations, which, as we know, were invented in their own time by the Americans themselves. They are acting contrary to the rules that they imposed on everyone else as a mandatory course of action. Now that they are losing in economic competition to Beijing (and not only), the United States is rewriting its own “rules” on the fly and trying to rob the Chinese economy blind in a manner reminiscent of a Wild West stagecoach heist.
Clearly, unilateral protectionist measures of that kind run counter to the multilateral trading system rules and negatively affect the world trade and contribute to its fragmentation. Supposedly, the US president is using tariff threats to force his trading partners into complying with Washington’s demands. Using the examples of Mexico and Canada, which promised to take certain measures, such as ramping up migration controls at their borders with the United States, we can see that the United States’ trading partners, whose economies are highly dependent on the US market, are often willing to make certain concessions in order to avoid trade war escalation.
According to our Chinese colleagues, there can be no winners in a trade war between two major economies, and the negative outcomes will have a global ripple effect. I couldn’t have said it better myself.
Question: US President Donald Trump, speaking at a joint news conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, stated that the United States is prepared to “take over” the Gaza Strip and carry out a clean-up operation in the area. He further mentioned plans to level damaged buildings and “create an economic development that will supply unlimited numbers of jobs and housing for the people of the area.” How would you comment on this statement?
Maria Zakharova: Regarding the statements of US President Donald Trump, we should wait for specific actions to follow.
The Gaza Strip has endured decades of tragedy and has now reached the level of a full-scale catastrophe. Regarding prospects for normalising the situation, our priority remains the full implementation of the agreement between Israel and Hamas on ceasing hostilities and exchanging detainees. We expect all parties to strictly adhere to these commitments in order to finally overcome the unprecedented humanitarian crisis that has claimed tens of thousands of lives. The immediate focus must be on delivering urgent humanitarian aid to those in need and ensuring that the ceasefire becomes stable and long-lasting.
We believe that all efforts by those committed to peace in Gaza should be directed towards addressing this core issue and creating the necessary conditions for a comprehensive resolution of the Palestinian question. Any populist rhetoric or proposals for temporary, superficial measures at this stage are counterproductive, as they do not contribute to a real solution but only further escalate tensions in the region.
Russia, as we have repeatedly emphasised, stands ready to actively contribute – alongside other responsible members of the international community – to addressing the aftermath of the conflict in Gaza and working towards a comprehensive and lasting resolution of the Palestinian issue. However, I must reiterate that the first and essential step in this process must be the full implementation of the agreements between Israel and Hamas.
Question: The Russian leadership, including Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, has repeatedly emphasised that any potential negotiations on resolving the conflict in Ukraine must focus on establishing reliable, legally binding agreements. These agreements should address the root causes of the conflict and include mechanisms to prevent future violations. What specific form could such agreements take? Which parties, beyond Russia and Ukraine, should be signatories? And who should serve as guarantors to ensure their implementation?
Maria Zakharova: If we were to formulate answers to these questions right now, we could each be awarded five Nobel Prizes.
Russia has repeatedly stated its readiness for negotiations – this remains a priority for us – regarding the political and diplomatic resolution of crises, including the Ukrainian conflict. We stand for a genuinely lasting, fair, and sustainable solution that addresses the full range of root causes. This position has been consistently emphasised by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.
Here are two key root causes. First, the breach of commitments to refrain from NATO expansion eastward has led to the alliance’s aggressive absorption of the entire geopolitical space up to Russia’s borders. Second, the Kiev regime’s racially motivated and legally enshrined policies following the 2014 coup aimed at systematically eradicating all things Russian – language, media, culture, history, traditions, and the canonical Orthodox Church. This ultimately escalated into the physical destruction of people.
A temporary ceasefire or a frozen conflict is unacceptable, as it would only be exploited by the collective West to bolster the Kiev regime’s military capabilities and pave the way for attempts at armed retaliation.
What is needed are reliable, legally binding agreements and mechanisms that ensure the crisis does not repeat itself. As Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated on January 14 during his news conference on the foreign policy outcomes of 2024, such agreements must define all conditions for guaranteeing Russia’s security and the legitimate security interests of our neighbours, while ensuring, in a legally binding manner, that these agreements cannot be violated.
There is a foundation for this in the agreements reached during several rounds of Russian-Ukrainian negotiations in Belarus and Türkiye in the spring of 2022. These agreements outlined key provisions, including Ukraine’s neutral, non-aligned, and non-nuclear status, its demilitarisation and denazification, as well as a ban on the deployment of foreign troops and military bases on Ukrainian soil. Naturally, the implementation of these measures must take into account the evolving situation on the ground and the positions expressed by President Vladimir Putin in his speech at the Foreign Ministry in June 2024.
During the 2022 negotiations, it was proposed that the permanent members of the UN Security Council, along with Germany, Israel, Italy, Canada, Poland, and Türkiye, would serve as guarantors of the agreement. However, this list was subject to change.
How any future agreements will be formalised and who will serve as their guarantors will depend on the outcomes of new negotiations, if and when they occur. At this point, nothing definitive can be stated.
Question: Estonia is making legislative attempts to take the Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate under the wing of Constantinople and to tear it away from Russia. In Latvia, elderly nuns, Russian citizens, are forced to take a Latvian language proficiency test and are threatened with deportation in case of non-compliance. The Baltic countries are maliciously restricting religious freedom passing it off as security concerns, migration reforms, and the like. Is the Russian Federation in a position to secure the UN support to condemn the Baltic authorities for the persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church?
Maria Zakharova: Official Tallinn is ratcheting up pressure on the Estonian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate in order to undermine its canonical unity with the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) and to completely eliminate this entity by transferring all parishes under control of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. In an effort to preserve its existence, the Estonian Orthodox Church was forced into changing its name twice and to rewrite its charter. There are a growing number of complaints from Orthodox clergy and parishioners about arbitrariness and violence on the part of local authorities at various levels.
I would like to remind you of the open letter sent by Abbess Filareta (Kalachova) of the Pyukhtitsa Dormition Stavropegial Convent to the Riigikogu (Estonian legislature) and Estonian ministers. She assessed the upcoming enactment of amendments to the law On Churches and Congregations of the Republic of Estonia as a threat that may lead to closing the monastery. According to her, the goal of the draft law is to force the Estonian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate to change its jurisdiction and come under the protection of Constantinople. The nun said that in the 1990s, the monastery completely renounced all its property and, uncompromisingly and without any claims, handed everything over to the state in order to maintain its spiritual connection with the mother church. Here is a quote that illustrates the injustice and godlessness of those who attack the Estonian Orthodox Church, “You are outlawing the monastery and offering just two options: change jurisdiction or face forced liquidation,” the Abbess wrote in her letter.
We strongly condemn such approaches and call on the Estonian authorities to respect the rights of believers, regardless of their religious affiliation.
We are also outraged by the situation involving language tests for nuns, Russian citizens, each of them over 70, from the Riga Holy Trinity-St Sergius Convent. They are being required to take a Latvian language proficiency test in accordance with the amendments to the Latvian Immigration Law of 2023. We have read books about Nazism, the Third Reich, and watched films about it. The same thing is now happening in Latvia. This senseless and disgraceful practice by the authorities is portrayed as fighting threats to Latvia’s security.
This is not about fighting. Do these nuns, women in monastic attire, all over 70, pose a threat to Latvia? They have renounced worldly life and joined the monastery. Riga must be in a really bad way if it believes that nuns pose a threat to them. Through their service, faith, and devotion to true values, they only threaten lies and fake news, essentially, the distortion of reality. They preserve the truth and will remain faithful to it. They have made their choice in life and will bear their cross to the end.
We regularly bring to the attention of the UN Secretary-General, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, and special procedures of the UN Human Rights Council, as well as relevant OSCE monitoring mechanisms, the policies and practices of certain countries aimed a persecuting the ROC, and harassing and going after its clergy and parishioners, among them Russian citizens and compatriots. We classify all of the above as gross violation of the right to freedom of religion, as provided for in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as the provisions of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.
We will come back to this issue during the statements by Russian representatives at the 58th session of the Human Rights Council, which will open in Geneva on February 24.
We would also like to note that thematic and country reports prepared by the Foreign Ministry’s Commissioner for Human Rights, Democracy, and the Rule of Law contain extensive factual material on the persecution of the ROC and the violation of the legitimate interests of believers.
Foreign Ministry’s Ambassador-at-Large and Foreign Minister’s Special Representative for Cooperation in Protecting the Right to Freedom of Religion Gennady Askaldovich has presented his second report On Illegal Actions of the Kiev Regime against the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, its Clergy, and Parishioners. It looks like such reports may cover more than just the situation in Ukraine. Enough material has been gathered to release similar reports about many countries from the collective West.
In particular, the persecution of canonical Orthodoxy in the Baltic states found its way to the latest Foreign Ministry’s report about violations of the rights of Russian citizens and compatriots residing abroad, which was posted on the ministerial website in December 2024. Other than that, information about egregious acts of persecution of the ROC is included in relevant sections of the annual report on manifestations of neo-Nazism and racism around the world and the first joint report by the foreign ministries of Russia and Belarus on the human rights situation in certain countries.
The above reports were posted on the ministerial website. We regularly submit such reports to the relevant UN and OSCE bodies.
Remember, USAID formulated the task for global media outlets as keeping “strategic silence” and paid them for doing so. International entities are contaminated with it as well. They have been brought to heel and remain under sweeping Anglo-Saxon influence.
We intend to continue discussing these issues with the senior officials from international organisations regardless of whether they are suppressed or oppressed. We will “awaken” them and encourage them to take strong action by providing them with factual materials and pushing them to come up with appropriate responses.
Question: Isn't it too early to celebrate the closure of USAID? Perhaps something else will replace it.
Maria Zakharova: No one is celebrating. What is there to celebrate? Its shutdown? So much damage has been done. If they had rectified their mistakes, repented for the crimes they engaged in, and provided a guarantee to the international community that this would not happen again, then that would be a reason to celebrate. The international community is following new developments and is in shock.
We feel a certain satisfaction knowing that everything we talked about has turned out to be true. I have always said that the truth will definitely come to light; it is only a matter of time. The media are working actively, time is passing, and we can see what was hidden for decades now coming to light. This satisfaction comes from knowing that everything we spoke about, supported by facts, has been fully confirmed following the disclosure of this organisation’s activities.
We also take satisfaction in the fact that we have withstood a horrendous storm of criticism, accusations, insults, and threats, culminating in the closure of USAID in Russia. We said that it was not an agency for aid, assistance, or development, but rather a machine used to interfere in internal affairs and a mechanism for regime change, altering political systems, and dismantling state structures. They are terminators, not assistants. They operated beyond the bounds of Russian legislation and international law.
It is tragic and sad that a leading world power spends money to pay for destructive activities that result in catastrophes and tragedies around the globe. Colossal amounts were spent to promote pseudoscientific concepts related to LGBT issues, transgenderism, non-binarism, and quadroberism. Huge sums were allocated to stir public sentiment and the media, which undermined freedom of speech and turned into instruments of propaganda, a practice prohibited in the United States.
Let me remind you that we characterised the nature of the agency’s activities in Russia as inconsistent with the goals they stated. I think this was put mildly.
As for the agency’s future, I believe it will be difficult for the United States and countries of the collective West in general to abandon their mentality of interference in internal affairs, to one degree or another. In this case, they would need to relinquish the concept of their dominance, exclusivity, colonisation of other countries, exploitation of their resources, and the metropole-colony relationship with the entire world. This is where we need to start. All these agencies are merely following the line of this ideology and its practical implementation.
Question: I was recently on a visit to the LPDR and Myanmar in Southeast Asia. I would like to learn more about Russia-Myanmar relations. What are the prospects for cooperation with the current military government? What is the official Russian position on attitudes to the opposition in that country?
Maria Zakharova: Over the last 75 years, Russia and Myanmar are linked by relations of friendship and cooperation based on the principles of mutual trust and respect.
We have close or identical approaches to the majority of current international and regional issues and a shared vision of a multipolar international order, based on cultural and civilisational diversity and the right of each state to determine its path of development on its own. We see good prospects for promoting bilateral political dialogue and practical interaction in a broad range of areas, which meets the long-term interests of both nations.
As for the internal political situation in Myanmar, we have consistently advocated the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of each other. We are convinced that the situation in that country can be settled through the efforts of the people of Myanmar themselves, while any international assistance, primarily from ASEAN, is due to play an auxiliary role. It is counterproductive to build up the sanctions pressure on Naypyidaw and try to isolate it, while rendering financial and military-technical support to the radical opposition in Myanmar. These measures are not conducive to the restoration of peace in the country.
Question: Polish President Andrzej Duda went on record as saying that Warsaw should be invited to take part in Ukraine talks. According to him, if some other countries are invited to participate in the talks, Poland’s presence would be in Ukraine’s interests. How does Moscow assess the possibility of inviting other countries to negotiate and is it acceptable for Russia to invite Warsaw?
Maria Zakharova: I partly answered your question while talking to the colleague from the Chinese media outlet.
It is surprising that you quote President of Poland Andrzej Duda as saying that Warsaw should be invited to Ukraine talks. Is it the same Warsaw and the same Duda who said that any talks were out of the question and everything should be “decided by force?” Do I get you right? Do we hear this from Warsaw and President Duda that supplied weapons to the Kiev regime and did everything in their power to escalate the crisis? And now they are talking about the “negotiating table.”
It seems to me they must understand that the “negotiating table” is about diplomacy, not methods leading to an escalation. This is clear. I want to note that both NATO and the EU kept saying every day since 2022 that they would accept no talks, no negotiating table, and no peace settlement. Everything should be decided “on the battlefield.”
If they are now ready for a different turn of events, let them say directly that they have evolved a different concept. Let their actions contribute to the peace process. What peace process or talks can there be, if they continue supplying arms and doing all they can to enable the Kiev regime to fight to the last Ukrainian? There are obvious inconsistencies in their logic.
As for the opportunities and prospects, I already answered a similar question from my Chinese colleague.
Question: US President Donald Trump’s entourage (Elon Musk, Marco Rubio, Tulsi Gabbard, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and others) have been making loud, critical and sometimes revealing statements about the United States. Which of them stood out to you, and what should our approach be?
Maria Zakharova: I would not like to give assessments of these statements. Most importantly, they cite facts. Facts are of interest to me, far more than their assessments or conclusions. I am keenly interested in the facts they can provide. I want to read and see what really happened. Where did the money go? What was the strategy? What kind of accountability did it entail? This is what is truly interesting – historical materials, factual information, real data, for anyone to draw their own conclusions. This is what stands out to me.
We have heard many loud statements; we are used to them. We’ve been there before. I would like to concentrate on the facts now. When one of the politicians you mentioned, or a reliable source provides facts, screenshots, links to documents, the documents themselves, statistics or direct quotes, it is extremely interesting.
I was shocked by the “strategic silence” policy that the media were apparently offered to adopt in exchange for grants. To be honest, I thought they’d use more subtle tactics. I didn’t expect the phrasing to be this blunt. But this is what they did.
Another thing that shocked me was the totally indecent gender agenda, which went as far as producing transgender operas and allocating government funds for “re-stitching” genitals across countries. I did know that they were helping, promoting or imposing those anti-science ideas, but I thought they would be more restrained in really indecent activities. Apparently, they were engaged in something that is even embarrassing to pronounce. Not because I don’t know the words, but because people don’t usually say such things out loud.
And there were programmes for regime changes, also with government funding. These are the three things I was most shocked by.
Question: EU spokesperson for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Anouar El Anouni said that “Russia terrorises Ukrainians every day, intentionally targeting civilians. Russia will pay the price and perpetrators will be held to account.” EU’s mission in Moscow posted this message on its Telegram channel. Five years ago, the first Donald Trump administration lowered the EU mission’s status in Washington by designating it as an international organisation instead of a diplomatic mission. What would be your comment in this regard?
Maria Zakharova: Do I even need to comment on this? These people are simply incompetent, or their political bias is so strong that all they can do is follow these prompts and this narrative. Who are these terrorised Ukrainians? The Kiev regime has been the one perpetrating acts of terror. Does this EU spokesperson for Foreign Affairs, this Anouar El Anouni, know that Vladimir Zelensky and his entourage confessed to plotting and carrying out assassination attempts targeting not just the Russian military, but also civilians by bombing people? Does this Anouar El Anouni even know that the Myrotvorets (Peacemaker) website has been around for decades now? Russia has designated it as an extremist website and banned it, while the West has been supporting it in every possible way. It lists and pinpoints public figures and journalists who must be exterminated according to the Kiev regime. Does Anouar El Anouni know this? Are they even aware of it? These EU officials know how many terrorist attacks representatives of the Kiev regime, the Ukrainian Armed Forces and Banderites perpetrate and officially claim every day by boasting about what they did and how they kill Russians. Do these European Union representatives hear or see anything?
We have been regularly reporting on the terrorist attacks perpetrated by the Kiev regime, which is essentially a Nazi regime, targeting civilians in Russia. Take Russkoye Porechnoye. Has Anouar El Anouni seen these images? During my briefing last week, I saw horror in the faces of journalists while they listened. I saw tears in their eyes. I saw forensic experts who could barely speak about what they saw, despite the fact that forensics is what they do, including identifying, examining and dissecting dead bodies. They have seen it all, but still, they struggled to keep their calm and composure when they had to talk about what they found in Russkoye Porechnoye. Starting with the Alley of Angels and to this day with the most recent crimes, there were strikes targeting buses, the killings of children. Will the European Union even share its take on these materials?
We will keep sharing the facts we discover. The Kiev regime has been open about them. After all, its policy consists of perpetrating these atrocities. This is why we call them Vladimir Zelensky’s criminal gang, or clique.
As for President Donald Trump’s administration lowering the status of the EU mission by designating it as an international organisation, I believe that this reflects Washington’s deeply rooted and long-held attitude towards Western Europe and the European Union. This reflects the emotional backdrop for Washington when dealing with those who lost their sovereignty. After all, Western Europe has gone so far in licking the boots of the United States that this hardly deserves any comment on our behalf. I think that President Vladimir Putin aptly framed this matter. He has been saying all along and warning Western Europeans that they are losing not only their sovereignty, but also a sense of dignity. Western Europeans have gone beyond obediently lining up to hear what the US orders them and are now on the brink of an abyss in their boot-licking descent in their relations with their big brother overseas. But does this big brother label fit Washington? After all, it does not view Western Europeans as its kin anymore and treats them as inhuman or subhuman.
Question: The Yalta Conference took place in Crimea from February 4 to 11, 1945. In December 2024, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov suggested that a Yalta 2.0 scenario could be considered as part of a peaceful resolution to the conflict in Ukraine. What do you think the prospects for such a scenario are today?
Maria Zakharova: An in-depth commentary on this topic was provided by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in an article published in the journal Russia in Global Affairs on February 4. I recommend reading it for further details.
Question: Last month, a delegation from Russia visited Syria. There are news reports that Damascus officials asked Russia to hand over Bashar al-Assad, the former President of Syria. Is it true that they asked for it?
Maria Zakharova: Details about the general content of the negotiations held on January 28 this year in Damascus by the official Russian interdepartmental delegation, led by Deputy Foreign Minister and Special Presidential Representative for the Middle East and Africa Mikhail Bogdanov, can be found in our press release from January 29. We believe it is not appropriate to comment on specific aspects of these discussions.
Question: Are you supporting a decentralised government in Syria so that the Kurds and Druze have their own administrations?
Maria Zakharova: Russia’s stance on this matter is well known and has been expressed multiple times. We believe that this issue is tied to Syria’s domestic political agenda.
We are firm in our conviction that the future of Syria should be decided by the Syrians themselves through an inclusive national dialogue. Additionally, we emphasise the importance of taking into account the legitimate interests of all ethnic and religious groups within Syrian society, including the Kurds and Druze, while upholding the core principles of unity, sovereignty, and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic.
Question: Ambassador of Iran to Russia Kazem Jalali has announced that a Russian-Iranian agreement will be signed by the beginning of March for the construction of the Rasht-Astara railway. Additionally, a trilateral meeting involving Azerbaijan will be held to finalise the implementation of the North-South project. How does Russia evaluate the prospects for launching the western branch of the North-South transport corridor, and what issues regarding the completion of the project will be addressed at the trilateral meeting?
Maria Zakharova: The comprehensive development of the International North-South Transport Corridor was a central topic during the negotiations between the presidents of Russia and Iran in Moscow on January 17 of this year. You have surely had the opportunity to familiarise yourself with the wording of the Treaty on Comprehensive Strategic Partnership between the Russian Federation and the Islamic Republic of Iran, signed at the top level, where this matter is given particular attention.
Together with our Iranian counterparts, we are prioritising the establishment of seamless railway logistics on the western section of the corridor, which will become feasible following the implementation of the project to construct the 162-kilometre section between the cities of Rasht and Astara. The corresponding intergovernmental agreement, which provides for the allocation of a Russian export credit for these purposes, was signed in Tehran on May 17, 2023.
We note with satisfaction the consistent commitment of all three participant states of the 2000 Intergovernmental Agreement on the International North-South Transport Corridor – namely Russia, Azerbaijan, and Iran, through whose territories the western branch of the corridor passes – to the steady expansion of its potential.
Incidentally, the automotive route here has long been operational and is functioning successfully. The volume of cargo flow is growing at a steady pace year after year. Therefore, in addition to discussing the full-scale installation of the railway segment of this route along its entire length from the Baltic to the Persian Gulf, a permanent item on the agenda is the creation of favourable working conditions for domestic freight carriers.
Question: Israeli Minister of Sports and Culture Miki Zohar said that Israel will not allow Hamas to retain control over the Gaza Strip, even if the prisoner exchange agreement is violated. Could you comment on this statement in the context of the negotiations that have begun on the second stage of the ceasefire in Gaza?
Maria Zakharova: I have just spoken about this in detail when answering an earlier question. I have nothing to add.
Every country has a government with many representatives. Every government is formed according to the country’s context: it may be coalitional, one-party, and so on. It has ministers responsible for various areas, each with different views on domestic and foreign political processes.
Our focus is on statements made by a country’s leadership and foreign minister. Then, there is merit in analysing these statements as they reflect a country’s official stance on a topic. This does not mean that other government officials in other countries are forbidden from having their own points of view. However, for us, it is the statements made by the representatives I have mentioned that are significant and indicative.
Question: The foreign, transport, and energy ministers, as well as the heads of customs services of Russia, Iran, and Azerbaijan are to meet soon to discuss the construction of the Rasht-Astara railway line of the international North-South transport corridor. This indicates that a preliminary agreement on this route has been reached. Just a few months ago, the Russian and Iranian foreign ministries discussed the Zangezur Corridor. Is there any progress on this matter?
Maria Zakharova: When I have any information on this issue that I can share, I will do so. For now, I have nothing to add.
Question: The US trade war against the EU will inevitably lead to the disintegration of the European community. What risks could this pose to Moscow’s interests?
I would also like to return to the question I asked at the previous briefing. If you remember, I asked you about the European doubletalk, when they replaced the word “corruption” with alternative terms. Have you done your homework?
Maria Zakharova: I have, and I also analysed the statistics, the figures and the quotations.
It looks like the White House is creating conditions for settling the problem of large trade imbalance, which is currently in favour of the EU. It amounts to over 180 billion euros for the first 11 months of 2024, or approximately 25 percent more than in the same period in 2023. The Americans view this as proof that the EU is not trading fairly. However, Washington has not mentioned the fact that trade in services is in favour of the United States, with the imbalance standing at 104 billion euros in 2023.
It is clear that the US’s decision to introduce additional tariffs on the EU’s exports will affect the ailing EU economy. Its GDP growth was less than moderate at 0.9 percent in 2024, according to Eurostat, and its industrial production is decreasing since 2023. Time will show what effect the US’s decision on tariffs will have on the EU’s future, but it looks like Washington doesn’t care about the EU’s future or welfare. Washington has a pragmatic view of the world and is only concerned about its own interests.
The US-EU relations, including in the economy, have long been stripped of any sign of equality. You have mentioned doubletalk, but I think that Washington is no longer bothering about terms. The United States is talking down to the EU without worrying about offending anyone. It’s another matter that the EU pretends not to hear. Some may still have a reasonable approach there, but the majority have been told to shut their eyes and ears. It’s clear to everyone that the EU’s interests will not be taken into account in Washington. It is Russia that has been talking about equality, respect for each other’s interests and mutual benefit. They have always acted differently, and will continue to do so. In the past, they tried to disguise it, but that time is over. On the other hand, the EU has taught Washington to believe that this is exactly how it should deal with Europe. Some may remember that back in the past Western Europe could say “no” to Washington or put forth its interests, but not now. I believe that Europeans have become used to receiving payment orders and instructions how much they must pay and how much they must collect for future projects.
On the one hand, Brussels is still chanting about its “strategic autonomy,” and at the same time repeats that they are united and consolidated, and have absolute mutual understanding with the US. But it turns out that there is none of that. It is not just a competition but a battle for the United States’ strategic interests and for making its European partners accept its conditions. The EU thinks that Washington needs it, but it’s not the case.
The United States has blocked everything that benefited the EU in relations with Russia, primarily resources, energy and other competitive goods. We see that the Americans are doing the same to China, putting spokes in their wheels in Europe. God forbid that China has normal interaction with the EU. We can see them mount a powerful offensive. There are many things to say in this regard. We see that Brussels’ dependence on the US is growing, even though they keep silent about it.
Transatlantic trade wars are unlikely to be a direct threat to Russia, considering a serious decline in our trade with the EU and the rerouting of our exports to friendly countries. At the same time, a compulsive introduction of tariffs and the use of economic leverage for achieving geopolitical goals, regardless of the WTO standards of international trade, are dangerous for the global economy as a whole, which we have pointed out on numerous occasions. They could provoke turbulence on the global markets, problems for global production chains, and fragmentation. The poorest countries will be the first to suffer. However, Washington and Brussels only care about them in word but never in deed.
We are worried that this irresponsible Western policy is damaging the world as a whole. If Washington raises tariffs on EU goods just as it plans, this may help the EU see the faults of the anti-Russia policy it adopted in a suicidal move under Washington’s pressure and orders. In this case, we could review the expediency of returning to the European markets in terms of our national interests and with due regard for the controversial experience of our trade and economic interaction with the EU.
Question: I would like to draw your attention to the alarming signals coming from Riga. For some reason, Russian military pensioners have stopped receiving their pensions. Unfortunately, the Russian Embassy in Riga has set up an answering machine. Elderly people do not know where to turn. What is the reason? Maybe there is an opportunity to keep people informed, to comfort them.
Maria Zakharova: Thank you for bringing this up. We’ll be sure to bring it to the attention of our colleagues. Thank you for the warning.
As for the question that was related to terminology, corruption, because I spoke to a greater extent about the economic state of interaction between the United States and the EU, I will definitely revisit this topic in greater detail. I do have something to say.
Question: There is an Ambassador-at-Large working at the Foreign Ministry to deal with the crimes of the Kiev regime. Is there such an Ambassador who deals with NATO and US crimes? Maybe it is time to address this issue?
Maria Zakharova: There are relevant departments in the Foreign Ministry that are dealing with this issue. We have a NATO department. And also departments attending to the policy of the United States of America. They used to deal with relations between our countries. Over recent years, because of the policy pursued by Washington, these relations have decreased, “shrunk.” Or they are being annihilated by Washington.
The topic of the Kiev regime’s crimes was additionally highlighted through the relevant functionality of Ambassador-at-Large Rodion Miroshnik. Because what we are confronted with is terrorism, murders, and violence.
Question: Director of the Foreign Intelligence Service Sergey Naryshkin suggested discussing the legality of Ukrainian territories. What do you think about this? Has the time come?
Maria Zakharova: If the question is put at such a level, we need to discuss it.
Question: Are you ready to take part in the discussion of the topic “Is Russia Interested in Restoring the Fatherland to its 1945 Borders” at the roundtable we are gathering? Last time you agreed to dwell on the subject.
Maria Zakharova: Send an invitation. Then we will see who can participate and in what format.
Question: Minister of Culture Olga Lyubimova has talked about the importance for Russia to expand its cultural ties with the Islamic world. In May, Kazan will be hosting the 16th Russia – Islamic World: KazanForum International Economic Forum. It will serve as a venue for Russia’s first ever meeting of OIC ministers of culture. The Russian minister invited OIC’s Assistant Secretary-General for Humanitarian, Cultural and Social Affairs Tarig Ali Bakheet to attend the St Petersburg International United Cultures Forum in September. OIC Secretary General responded by offering to hold a major exhibition in Russia on the history of the Islamic world and its culture. Olga Lyubimova also said that Kazan was interested in taking on the role of the Islamic world’s cultural capital. Can we interpret the fact that OIC ministers of culture will hold this meeting, considering that OIC has 57 members, as Russia’s political success?
Maria Zakharova: We can only welcome efforts to expand ties and forge stronger bonds within the Global Majority, its countries and nations.
The Foreign Ministry has always been there to support initiatives designed to promote international cultural and humanitarian cooperation. They help build mutually beneficial dialogue, enable people and our communities to better understand one another, exchange views on the key global cultural matters and the global agenda in general.
As for the projects you have mentioned, and the ideas for working together, I would prefer referring your questions to those who organise these events. They can also reach out to us should they need any assistance from the Foreign Ministry.
Question: Armenia’s Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan made the following statement regarding the 44-day war at a meeting with the Armenian diaspora in Washington: “I can say that having suffered defeat, we gained the opportunity to have an independent and sovereign state.” What would be your comment regarding this statement?
Many experts and media outlets in Armenia believe that judging by Nikol Pashinyan’s earlier statements, as well as by what members of parliament from his party and affiliated experts have been saying and doing, he was talking about independence from Russia.
Maria Zakharova: If you need any clarification on what Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan meant, refer your question to his office, administration, or ask him personally. I don’t really know what he had in mind. I don’t know.
As for the second part of your question on genocide, I never expected this to be anything but a historical position for the Armenian state, its people and Armenians as an ethnic group backed by a consensus. I could never imagine that the consolidated position the Armenian society has developed with so much pain could be changed from within.
Just look at the recent statements. I am referring to what we heard in Davos. But we are not the ones to be asked these questions. Russia has set forth its position in the corresponding statement by the State Duma. We have regularly referred to this document.
Question: A report was aired on iTV, an Azerbaijani state-funded TV channel, in which the presenter accused Russia of having “invaded the territory of Azerbaijan in 1920” and “handed over the Zangezur region to Armenia.” It was stated that “Azerbaijanis have not forgotten not only Zangezur but also the so-called historical lands of Azerbaijan allegedly given to Russia.” During the report, it was also claimed that Russia was responsible for the events in Nagorno-Karabakh in the 1990s – allegedly, Russia “was behind the Armenian invasion of these territories.” Furthermore, it was declared that Azerbaijan “sooner or later will restore historical justice.” At the end of January this year, President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev stated: “We have not forgotten and will not forget Zangezur.” How would you comment on such statements by Azerbaijani authorities and media under their control, which express territorial claims to the historical Armenian region of Syunik and essentially serve as informational preparation for a new aggression against it?
Maria Zakharova: We have consistently maintained, and continue to maintain, as explicitly stated in all our documents, and declared verbally during public events and interactions with our partners, friends, and colleagues – both in Baku and Yerevan – the following position. This position asserts that the media, despite the freedom of speech, action and the absence of censorship, which are norms upheld in our capitals, must, considering the pain and suffering already endured by the peoples of this region, act responsibly, work towards peaceful resolution, and contribute to the stabilisation of the situation rather than its destabilisation.
I fully comprehend this (we ourselves are occasionally criticised for what Russian media broadcasts, or for presenting their views or the views of experts that are not shared by a particular country or society). Each time, we urge our media to adopt a responsible approach, especially on sensitive issues fraught with conflict potential. This is not merely a political science dimension. These are people’s lives. In this situation, I once again reaffirm our position and our call.
***
All the best to you, and I wish you well-being. I extend my congratulations to my colleagues on the upcoming holiday!
Although I am aware that our colleagues are currently actively preparing for it both informationally and logistically, we will still have the opportunity to congratulate each other.
