Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, June 3, 2022

On June 6-7, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will make a working visit to the Republic of Serbia. He will meet with President of Serbia Aleksandar Vucic, and hold talks with Foreign Minister Nikola Selakovic, Speaker of the National Assembly Ivica Dacic and Patriarch Porfirje.

There are plans to conduct in-depth discussion of issues regarding bilateral political and economic interaction, to exchange opinions on the situation in the Balkan region and on topical international issues.

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s working visit to the Republic of Turkey

On June 8, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will make a working visit to Ankara, where he will meet with Foreign Minister of Turkey Mevlut Cavusoglu.

It is planned to discuss the status and the prospects for deepening bilateral interaction on a wide range of trade and economic cooperation issues in conditions of illegitimate anti-Russia sanctions that have been imposed by the West.

The ministers will also exchange opinions on topical issues of the regional and international agenda, primarily the current situation in Ukraine, the peace settlement in Syria, Libya and Nagorno Karabakh, the situation in the Balkan region, Afghanistan and Central Asia.

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s upcoming participation in a meeting of the Council of CSTO Foreign Ministers

On June 10, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will take part in a regular meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation in Yerevan. This year, the Republic of Armenia presides in the CSTO.

The participants will sum up the results of multilateral intra-CSTO cooperation and to discuss prospects for future interaction. During the meeting, there are plans to conduct an in-depth exchange of opinions concerning the international and regional situation and its influence on the security of the CSTO member states, as well as ways to improve the CSTO’s crisis response mechanism.

The parties will sign a plan of consultations between representatives of CSTO member states on foreign policy, defence and security issues in 2022-2024 based on the results of the meeting.

Sergey Lavrov will hold a number of bilateral meetings on the sidelines of the event.

25th St Petersburg International Economic Forum

The 25th St Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF) will be held on June 15-18.

This year's 25th anniversary edition, with the theme "New Opportunities in a New World," will feature a rich and diverse agenda. The Forum will offer sessions on topical issues of global politics and economics, including challenges and prospects for cooperation in leading industry sectors. In addition, there will be a series of sessions on the development of bilateral contacts, including those with Egypt, China, African and Latin American countries, as well as cooperation within ASEAN, BRICS, the EAEU and the SCO.

As in previous years, the Forum will attract a large number of foreign guests. To date, we have received participation confirmation from foreign officials, businesspersons, experts and media representatives from over 120 countries, as well as from about 20 international organisations (these are just preliminary figures).

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will take part in the Forum events. A number of bilateral meetings with foreign partners will be held on the sidelines of the Forum.

There will also be an off-site briefing. We will put out an announcement. Media representatives are welcome. Later on, we will announce the sections and panel discussions in which the Ministry will participate.

Ukraine update

On June 1, the world marked International Children’s Day. The Armed Forces of Ukraine celebrated the day in a peculiar way, by yet again carrying out massive artillery strikes against populated areas in the Donetsk People’s Republic. As a result, a nine-year-old boy and his mother were injured by a Grad MLRS missile in Gorlovka. On May 31, a woman and a five-year-old girl were killed in Makeyevka. On May 30, the Ukrainian forces fired 14 shells and two cluster bombs from a Smerch MLRS at the centre of Donetsk and the Voroshilovsky and Budyonnovsky districts of the city, damaging three schools.

By June 1, the Kiev regime approached fully armed, in the direct meaning of the word. Five civilians were killed, including a teenager born in 2008, while 18 civilians, including two children, were wounded. Did the Western media report this? Were protest flash mobs held around the world? Did NGOs take notice of this? Are furious EU residents picketing at the Ukrainian embassies in their countries? Or is it all right to kill Donetsk and Lugansk residents and everyone else who has not taken the oath of allegiance to the Nazi and neo-Nazi regime? It looks like it.

There are grounds to assume that the Ukrainian forces used large-calibre long-distance guns. Shell fragments with US markings were found at the site. The West recently started to supply such weapons to Kiev, saying cynically that the Ukrainian Armed Forces need them for defence. I hope the Pentagon and the US Department of State will be able to comment on this today. We won’t accept the explanation that they didn’t know the weapons they were supplying would be used against civilians and children. We expect to hear the truth. The Ukrainian neo-Nazis, prodded on by Washington, are using the weapons supplied by the United States against civilians, regardless of casualties among civilians and, worst of all, children and teenagers. Moreover, they are deliberately targeting the Donetsk districts that have not been attacked since 2014. This is not fake news like what we saw from Bucha and Kramatorsk but facts, which Washington must take into account because this is happening with its information and military support.

In this context, we would like to comment on the decision taken by President Joe Biden to provide Ukraine with missile systems with a range of about 50 miles (80 km). This will increase the number of civilian casualties. The United States, which claims to be concerned about civilians, must answer for its actions. Responsibility for the death of innocent people will lie with Washington, which is providing such weapons.

The Ukrainian nationalists have at their disposal all kinds of foreign artillery guns, including long-range ones, such as the French Ceasar howitzers, Polish Krabs and US M109s.

Germany has promised to provide the PzH-2000 and Slovakia, Zuzana howitzers. The Western war concerns are getting rich off the death of peaceful civilians in that long-suffering country. But we have long known that they don’t care about Ukraine. US President George W. Bush recently said Ukraine’s mission is “to destroy as many Russian troops as you can.” He forgot to add that its mission is also to destroy as many Ukrainians as possible. Maybe he will say that next time. I would like to make special mention of the achievements of German companies. By promising to supply newer weapons to the Central and East European countries which are sending weapons to Ukraine, Berlin is making them dependent on the German military industry.

But the largest number of weapons are coming from the United States. US military assistance supplied to Ukraine since late February has reached more than $3.8 billion. Washington has approved the allocation of nearly $40 billion to Kiev, including over $23 billion for military needs.

I would like to remind you that these Western actions, which have turned Ukraine into a military bridgehead against Russia, are one of the reasons for the special military operation launched by the Russian Armed Forces. As we said on numerous occasions, it will continue until all its goals, namely the demilitarisation and denazification of Ukraine, are achieved. We have done a great deal towards this end. The fighters of the Azov nationalist battalion have surrendered in Mariupol, and the liberation of Donbass is proceeding according to plan, as the Defence Ministry of Russia regularly says in its reports.

Trying to divert global public attention from its own war crimes, the Kiev regime is waging a disinformation campaign and spreading fake news about Russia, with generous support from NATO’s media structure. This is taking place in the best traditions of information wars, this time in the context of a global Western war declared against Russia. The Ukrainian propagandists have accused our military of infringements on the life and health of children, which they themselves are killing. A real monster of this information war is the Verkhovna Rada’s former human rights commissioner, Lyudmila Denisova, who produced non-stop fake news about paedophilia and claimed that teenagers and children were brutally raped by Russian troops. Is this one of her sick fantasies, or did she have Ukrainian troops in mind? Even the Kiev authorities could no longer tolerate her blatant lies. On May 31, the Verkhovna Rada dismissed ombudswoman Denisova, citing her focus on the numerous details of “unnatural sexual offences” which were unsupported by evidence.

It is a historical achievement for modern Ukraine (read: Western protectorate) to admit that a senior official, the human rights commissioner, was guilty of disinforming the public amid the hostilities. This could no longer be tolerated. But the trouble is that the same is also going on with regard to food security and other issues.

Another example of Ukrainian and Western disinformation is the groundless claim that Russia is preventing grain exports from Ukraine by sea, which could cause global hunger. Everyone knows that the mines laid by the Ukrainian Armed Forces are impeding grain exports. The absurdity of the situation is beyond ludicrous. They will say next that grain doesn’t want to be exported from Ukraine. This is unreasonable and inexplicable. Mines are being laid everywhere, in the fields, sea ports and water areas. Russian troops are working to clear these mines and have cleared 1,900 hectares. The ports of Mariupol and Berdyansk have resumed operation after the Russian and Donetsk militaries cleared the port territories and waters from mines and other dangerous items. On May 31, the first dry cargo ship left Mariupol and headed to Rostov-on-Don. This is the real picture. It cannot be disproved because it is backed by facts, including photographs.

Russia is ready to create conditions for grain exports from Odessa and other ports on the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov. As we have pointed out on numerous occasions and at all levels, Russian troops open humanitarian corridors for the free movement of sea vessels every day. As we said, if the seaport waters are cleared of mines, we will ensure the safe export of grain and accompany grain vessels to the international waters of the Black Sea.

Russia is also ready to export its own grain to the countries that need it, but it cannot do so because the West has adopted restrictions, for political and commercial reasons, on foreign vessels calling at Russian ports and on Russian vessels calling at foreign ports for taking on supplies, as well as created insurmountable obstacles in insurance and bank transactions. If the United States and EU countries really want to prevent a global famine, they should lift these restrictions, and every country that needs grain will be able to get it.

Termination of Russia-US memorandum on cultural and humanitarian cooperation

In relation to the Russian Government’s directive to terminate the Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the United States of America on the Principles of Cooperation in the Fields of Culture, Humanitarian and Social Sciences, Education, and the Mass Media, signed on September 2, 1998, in Moscow, I would like to say the following.

The US authorities have launched a large-scale campaign to discredit Russian culture. I am not even sure this phrase can exist, but that is what they are trying to do. The US intelligence and law enforcement agencies’ aggressive moves against the leaders and activists of the Coordinating Council of Russian Compatriots Living Abroad, which has been traditionally engaged in promoting the Russian language, history and traditions, have undermined the activity of this organisation.

Overall, what the US and its satellites are doing now to persecute the Russian cultural and historical heritage across the globe is aimed at cancelling everything that is related to Russia. It is an absurd phrasing and absurd logic. That is the era we live in now. They probably don’t fully comprehend what they are doing. Western countries don’t make a secret of the fact that the relevant decisions are taken on political and momentary grounds. The legacy of Russian writers, poets, composers, artists, engineers and even toponyms are on the line. The problem is that this blow is not aimed at us, but at the global civilisation.

It is obvious to all reasonable, educated people with an intellect that this campaign is absurd and doomed to fail. Due to the Americans’ actions, the memorandum has lost all meaning. We sent a relevant note to the US Embassy in Moscow on June 1.

We again reiterate that we will respond to any unfriendly steps Washington takes. The situation when the US Administration, while persecuting the Russian culture and its bearers, continues to promote their “values” in Russia under the auspices of the said memorandum can no longer be tolerated.

Suspending the work of the Russia-Norway Joint Commission on Nuclear and Radiation Safety

In view of the Kingdom of Norway’s unfriendly position towards the Russian Federation since the beginning of the special military operation in Ukraine, Oslo’s joining European Union’s anti-Russian sanctions, and its attempts to put economic and political pressure on our country, we decided to suspend cooperation with Norway in nuclear and radiation safety.

During a meeting of the commission on May 31, 2022, Norway was informed about the suspension of further work and joint projects within bilateral agreements.

Statement by EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell and representatives of the European Commission on World Day for Cultural Diversity for Dialogue and Development

The Russian Foreign Ministry’s Diplomatic Academy has developed a diplomatic dictionary. I think it needs to include a separate entry explaining the “EU diplomacy of the Josep Borrell era.” It could be expanded to include the prerequisites that led to this phenomenon. One way or another, his name should be included in historical dictionaries in appropriate contexts.

We have noted the recent Joint Statement by EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell and other representatives of the European Commission on World Day for Cultural Diversity for Dialogue and Development. One would think this day’s purpose is to contribute to the rapprochement of peoples of different cultures. However, the EU has been using it as just another occasion to incite conflictual rhetoric against Russia.

We fully agree that cultural diversity is a fragile concept. Apparently, that is why the European Union has failed to preserve its true meaning. Its commitment to global cultural dialogue has been replaced by overt calls from a number of EU capitals to ignore certain languages, national cultures, art, and literary and musical masterpieces. Russian literature, works by Russian composers and Russian art masterpieces are being outlawed, as are our exhibitions, our films, television channels, news resources and even restaurants with Russian cuisine. A centralised campaign has been unleashed to falsify history, including with regard to our people’s role in World War II; and the number of cases of vandalism and destruction of Soviet monuments has grown significantly. We talk about this tirelessly and take actions and steps to protect them. Moreover, Brussels has been totally ignoring the wide-scale “cleansing” of everything Russian from Ukraine and the Baltic countries, which started long before Russia began its special military operation. They are now using it to justify their unsightly actions. We have repeatedly mentioned this during the negotiations. We provided a lot of material substantiating reports of the kind of treatment the Russian-speaking population had been suffering there for decades. Brussels and the European Commission should have been taking this into consideration, but they never did. We tried to help and handed over large amounts of information. They “took note” and at some point even “expressed concern.” But they never took any action. Was there nothing they could do? Unlikely. We see now that sanctions can be imposed, public and private property can be stolen under political pretexts, media outlets can be shut down, accounts can be blocked, and sanctions lists can be drawn up. None of this has ever been done to discourage those who have been harassing ethnic minorities in their countries for decades. It looks like this is only being done to destroy everything related to our common culture.

It is obvious that the European Commissioners’ commitment to support and protect the variety of cultures as expressed in their joint statement is far from the EU’s actual intentions. I would put it differently. Maybe they want to protect and develop the cancel culture – but that’s a different story.

Furthermore, we are completely perplexed by the accusations of purposefully destroying Ukraine’s culture, its institutions and heritage. Do people who make such statements even know anything about the history of our common space, in today’s realities? The endless number of monuments, many geographical and cultural landmarks are associated with our shared history or with Ukraine as a republic that was part of the Soviet Union. Who and when has anyone ever tried to “purposely” destroy the Ukrainian culture? Unlike our neighbours, we never stoop to this kind of behaviour – we are not conducting a campaign to demolish monuments commemorating Ukrainian figures or to rename streets named after them. We never did. But how is the Kiev regime being pumped with weapons – which are later used for destructive actions, including in residential areas –consistent with the EU’s declared goal of protecting and restoring Ukrainian culture? This question remains to be answered.

In general, this is just another manifestation of Brussels’ destructive logic, where the EU is ready to sacrifice the basic principles of international humanitarian cooperation, politicise culture, sports, scientific and technical cooperation, and youth policy in order to achieve its goals (or the goals others have formulated for it). They have always done this, but kept it within some civilised framework. That’s life. A lot of things have been politically influenced. Now, it is no longer about double standards; it is about the violation of everything that humanity has been moving towards for centuries. As always, the EU is trying to hide its true intentions behind beautiful slogans. But it is increasingly failing. Obviously, the consequences of trying to isolate the EU from Russian culture are already making themselves felt.

US restrictions on the Russian media and our response

US authorities continue their targeted repression against the Russian media and journalists, tirelessly cleansing their information space of any news source that is not to Washington’s liking. This has been going on for many years. It has now reached a terminal stage for Washington itself. It has completely shattered all illusions of the true attitude to basic concepts of democracy – freedom of speech, independent journalism, pluralism, etc.

An entire arsenal of crackdowns on dissent is being used. In addition to direct bans, they are blocking the bank accounts of our correspondents and the Russian media representative offices as well as the bank accounts of the reporters and videographers who co-operate with them. They have also cut off the possibility of salary transfers and of paying office leases. Visas and accreditation for our correspondents are not being renewed, and new ones are being denied. When we retaliate, they become hysterical. They forget that the measures are retaliatory and spread stories about some US or Anglo-Saxon journalist being “hurt” by the “Russian power machine.”

For many years, we only retaliated months after we had used every opportunity to convince our Western “partners” of the harmfulness of such destructive logic and actions against our journalists. We tried to use diplomacy, co-operation and engagement to prevent such a development. Washington continued to deliberately destroy any Russian media presence in the United States. Apparently, the plan was long-term. Everything is being done to make any Russian media production or economic activity in the US impossible, to ban it, to restrict it, etc.

We have received some factual information from journalists and media outlets, a long list of what is being used against them. To give one example, by June 7, all legal entities and individuals in the United States are ordered to cease all relations with the three major Russian TV channels (Channel One, Russia 1 and NTV) on the sole grounds that they are “associated with or acting in favour of the Russian government.” They do not hesitate to threaten companies outside their national jurisdiction with secondary sanctions for cooperating with Russian media operators. In case of rebroadcasting a signal through a satellite operating in another part of the world, not affiliated with the United States or a US company, it will also be subject to Washington’s measures. Which ones? We know perfectly well. This is more than George Orwell’s 1984, it is something “heavier.” The United States is actively engaging major IT companies like Google, Apple, Facebook, Instagram, Meta, Twitter and others in its Russophobic line to block all digital resources connected to our media. A global sweep is underway. Dissent, alternative viewpoints, other data feeds, other material provided on current issues should not be leaked from any source.

The United States’ open censorship of the Russian media will not go without a response. This is not just censorship of the media, but of an entire media space. They can make no specific claims against the activities of Russian journalists or news offices. They would like to find something to complain about, but no. They have not found any flaws either in the information they transmit as it is based on facts, or in terms of their stay on US territory. If the work of the Russian media is not brought back to normal in the United States, the harshest retaliatory measures will inevitably follow.

On Monday June 6, the heads of all US news offices in Moscow will be invited to the Russian Foreign Ministry Press Centre and will be informed about the consequences of their government’s hostile policy towards the Russian media.

The UK’s propaganda traditions

What we are seeing is a British reality show on London’s “concern for media freedom.” In actual reality, concern for developing the media serves as a smokescreen for interfering in the domestic affairs of Russia and other countries. This is an inexhaustible subject. Earlier, we said that these neo-colonial traditions have deep roots in the bloody history of the British Empire. In fact, revanchist sentiment still runs high in the United Kingdom. At a certain point, the European Union became an obstacle to fulfilling this agenda. This was also one of the reasons behind Brexit.

We are now approaching a stage where isolated pieces of evidence, including those uncovered by hackers, found in the public domain or by investigative journalists, come together like a puzzle to form a single image. There emerges a horrible picture. Importantly, reports on the Foreign Office’s subversive activities around the world have been cross-validated by a wide range of sources. Of course, the UK Foreign Office would have never been able to pull this off by itself. It relied on its diplomatic network, as well as British Councils, the media and trusted contractors. When needed, the British state created organisations to blend its diplomatic, intelligence, military and propaganda assets. Their American curators were also involved. Could it be otherwise? After all, one Anglo-Saxon power won’t peck at the eyes of another Anglo-Saxon power, as the saying goes, and even if it did, it wouldn’t peck them out.

I would like to make a side note here to emphasise the continuity in London’s worst interagency practices. The Daily News Egypt recently published a review of a book called ‘How to Stage a Coup’ by Rory Cormac, a specialist in the history of subversion and intelligence. Let me share a quote with you: “During the Cold War, the UK executed media protocols targeting the Middle East, Africa, and parts of Asia with the intention of fostering instability, manipulating sentiment, inciting crime, and aggravating ethnic strains with news by promoting and backing anti-communist ideas from the mid-1950s to the late 1970s through a Foreign Office Unit located in London.”

This refers to the Information Research Department (IRD). Created by the Labour government after World War II, it was designed to oppose Soviet propaganda in Britain. In the mid-1960s, it employed 360 agents, and it mainly served as a highly secret Special Editorial Unit that released news items. It should be clear what kind of news this was. It was misinformation, the culture of fake news, which the UK had been brewing for decades.

The British agenda consisted of fabricating statements by official Soviet organisations and representatives. Between 1965 and 1972, the department fabricated at least 11 false reports from Novosti Press Agency, a Soviet state-run news agency. You can imagine the scope. This may not seem like much at first sight, but all of these reports were released at crucial moments in the history of certain regions and sought to influence the course of events.

British agents used a variety of tricks to counter Soviet influence. In 1963, they forged a statement from the International Federation of Democratic Youth — a fake Soviet organisation — which denounced Africans as “uncivilised, primitive, and morally weak.” The forgery received press coverage across the continent, with many newspapers reacting intemperately.

Doesn’t this remind you of anything? They keep playing by the same rulebook, using lies and fraud, as their covert operations alone are not enough to undermine Russia’s influence.

In the new historical period, the so-called Russia Unit set up in 2017 has taken the baton from the IRD. It was created to implement the UK strategy for Russia, primarily coordinating information and propaganda efforts on the Russian track. This is evidenced by the data from the government information disclosure portal. It says that until 2021, the Conflict, Stability and Security Fund (CSSF) of the British Foreign Office was implementing an ambitious Counter Disinformation and Media Development Programme, including in Russian.

According to the programme summary, the UK interacts with a range of partners to enhance the quality of public service and independent media so that it is able to “support social cohesion, uphold universal values and provide communities in countries across Eastern Europe with access to reliable information.” For all that is good, against all that is bad, for the benefit of the United Kingdom. The information on a British programme to weaken Russian influence, obtained in the information space in 2021, has thus been confirmed by open-source data.

So it was all true – the amount of funding, the methods used in the Baltic States, Ukraine, and Russia (instruction by the BBC and Thomson Reuters, advice on broadcast schedules, the financing of joint projects and support for media projects in Russian).

Interestingly, for the first time, the Russia Unit officially stood tall in 2019, when British investigative journalist Till Bruckner requested data from the British Foreign Office on the activities of the Integrity Initiative (a project to spread anti-Russian fraudulent information and wage a propaganda war against Moscow). He asked the Foreign Office, but the answer came from the Russia Unit. It said the project had cost almost 2.3 million pounds in 2017-2019. As we know, their appetites – and budgets – have grown many times over since then. Elizabeth Truss openly speaks about its goals as she fumes with aggression and declares her will to destroy our country in any possible way.

One cannot disagree with experts, historians and journalists that the reckless ventures undertaken by the London elite around the world are not even part of some strategy (each new government churns out a new one) – but part of their way of life, of their survival. The stakes increase every time the situation escalates somewhere, including through Britain’s efforts. Their peacetime projects (recruiting supporters, arranging them as an influence network) are being used for new goals. Their propaganda is being elevated to the next level – war propaganda. This is the current trend in the Western coverage of what is happening in the Donbass region and Ukraine. A false agenda is being created with media discourse strictly regulated at all levels, and military censorship introduced in the leading media even though the UK is not officially a warring party.

This time, the global neo-imperial ambitions of the British elites are paid for by the Ukrainians with their blood.

The anti-Russian sanctions impact the Japanese economy

The Prime Minister Fumio Kishida-led government, having imposed 10 packages of sanctions on Russia, continues with persistence worthy of a better cause to deploy full-scale efforts to dismantle the entire complex of relations with our country. This creates the strong impression that this area of “activities” has swept aside obviously significant goals of any political leadership, such as economic growth or the promotion of the social sphere. Moreover, thoughtlessly severing supply and production chains with sector-specific restrictions and disrupting international transport links, the ruling class of Japan, with surprising ease, is creating new problems for their country’s individuals and corporations, which have not yet recovered from COVID-related complications.

As reported by the Japanese media, three of Japan’s leading banks – Mitsubishi UFJ, Sumitomo Mitsui, and Mizuho – which have enjoyed great success in our country, have already lost over $2.7 billion due to their Russian clients lacking technical capabilities to repay their loans in the wake of the restrictions that were imposed on Russia’s financial sector. Due to the direct and indirect impact of anti-Russian sanctions, seven major trading and investment corporations, including such powerhouses as Mitsui, Mitsubishi, Itochu, Sumitomo, and Marubeni have lost over $2 billion as of late March. And that’s March alone. April and May are history, and it’s already June now.

Losses and lost opportunities for Japanese firms as a result of their leaving the Russian market have yet to be assessed. We are aware that many of them were subjected to unprecedented political and psychological pressure by official Tokyo, which, in turn, was subjected to pressure coming from the United States. Otherwise, it is difficult to account for the actions of the Fast Retailing Co management, which owns the Uniqlo chain in Russia, which first said it would stay in Russia and then suddenly changed its mind. If a business operator has a strategy, its interest is unlikely to go through peaks and troughs. This means that they are under a formidable – not even influence or pressure – but blackmail.

The sanctions campaign unleashed by Tokyo in cahoots with the West adversely impacts Japan’s macroeconomic benchmarks. The Japanese Finance Ministry reported that as of late March public debt has increased again to a whopping $9.5 trillion, almost 200 percent of the country's GDP, which is the poorest result among the OECD countries. Several decades ago we perceived Japan as a thriving economy. What kind of economists are they if they cannot even secure their own debt? Everyone is living on credit. The grandeur turns out to be a bubble.

Fumio Kishida and his ministers’ statements about raising duties and refusing to buy Russian energy and other goods do nothing but speed up the rise in prices for commodities, metals, and food. It’s their country, so let them do as they please. However, they themselves never stop talking about food security and rising energy prices, and then drive up prices for the resources in question. According to the Bank of Japan, in April the wholesale price index was up by 10 percent, which is the highest increase recorded in the past 40 years. Who are they trying to punish? Us or themselves? Most likely, consumers and small businesses may need to brace for even higher prices. Disruptions in supplies from Russia have led to higher prices even for traditional Japanese dishes such as sushi, noodles, etc., which is to be expected. Tokyo is imposing restrictions on our country, and their country is hit by higher prices. Go ahead and let your people know why you are doing this. In the United States, the concept that has been written on every wall claiming that higher gas prices were caused by Russia has failed miserably. Even people without deep knowledge in economics understand that Washington’s imposition of sanctions and its blocking of normal economic activities has broken down existing economic models and driven up prices. It is impossible to zombify people to such a degree that the West and Tokyo, under the West’s pressure, have.

Most importantly, the Kishida government’s self-serving political actions are clearly evidenced by their cynical behavioural logic whereby it is much easier for it to blame its socioeconomic troubles on a situation in faraway Europe than to honestly acknowledge to Japanese voters the ineffectiveness of its own policies.

Foreign Ministry’s regular report on the violation of the rights of Russian citizens and compatriots in foreign countries

The Foreign Ministry published a regular report on the violations of the rights of Russian citizens and compatriots in foreign countries on its official website.

This topic, which has always been the focus of the Ministry’s close attention, acquired special urgency in 2022. After the Russian Federation was forced to launch a special military operation in Ukraine, the systemic problems that had been accumulating for decades were joined by blatant Russophobia, which is no longer concealed. It was hidden, smouldering and corroding, but now everything has been revealed. We can see what is really going on there.

As a result, Russians and our compatriots living abroad are facing a wide range of violations and harassment. Since late-February, there have been many different incidents that go beyond the legal framework in Western countries, from coercion to public repentance and condemnation of the Russian authorities’ actions (by force, blackmail and threats) to everyday discrimination, which took the form of real bullying and persecution (dismissal from work, refusal to provide banking services and medical care, eviction from homes contrary to rental agreements, and refusal to serve Russians in shops, cafes and restaurants, etc.) In a number of countries, physical aggression against Russian speakers became commonplace. Indiscriminate and encouraged by official propaganda, it affected not only ethnic Russians, but also representatives of other ethnic backgrounds, including Ukrainians. The most defenceless part of our compatriots – children – were also subjected to persecution and bullying. These people faced dehumanisation and public insults. Children were subjected to “flogging” in schools not by their classmates, but by teachers and the leadership of “educational institutions.”

We are closely monitoring the situation around these unprecedented manifestations of Western “civilisation.” The Russophobic campaign is striking in its scale. Russian missions abroad launched special channels of communication with our compatriots in order to promptly respond to their problems in connection with numerous discriminatory incidents. A number of our diplomatic missions systematise and post on their official websites information about specific cases of violation of the rights of Russian speakers received through the hotline. Hotlines operate in various applications and messengers, including those created by Rossotrudnichestvo, as well as by the Association of Lawyers of Russia.

The most aggressive representatives of “civilised Europe” did not shun physical attacks on diplomats, as was the case in Vilnius in March 2022. Two months later, in Warsaw, during a flower-laying ceremony at a memorial cemetery of Soviet soldiers, Russian Ambassador Sergey Andreyev was doused with red liquid. On the same day, attempts to disrupt a commemorative event were made as Consul General of Russia in Gdansk Sergey Semyonov was laying a wreath on the Soviet memorial. There are scores of acts of vandalism against Russian foreign missions and hundreds of threats against their employees.

The Russophobic campaign gave a strong boost to Poland, Ukraine, and the Baltic states’ efforts to combat monuments and memorials of the Soviet soldiers who died liberating Europe from Nazism. The mask fell off. Everyone saw the terrible mug of Western “civilisation.” In 2022, the things the authorities of these countries were doing with regard to Soviet memorials started looking like flat-out mayhem of violence. The efforts to rewrite history and erase Russian communities’ national memory residing in these countries intensified, including at the legislative level. Local authorities started pumping out legislative and administrative measures that created prerequisites for establishing artificial restrictions for Russian-speaking residents in various spheres of public life, including their criminal prosecution for their efforts to preserve their culture and to support Russia. It didn’t start today, it just got stronger. Our journalists have already been arrested in the Baltic countries on manufactured non-existent criminal charges. They were detained and placed under house arrest. Their bank accounts were blocked and their professional work was rendered impossible as they were subjected to outlandish bullying.

The Latvian government’s actions are particularly cynical. It is speeding up the demolition of the monument to the Liberators of Riga in violation of the Russian-Latvian agreement on the preservation, care of, and tending to memorial grounds, which bring together tens of thousands of people annually on May 9 to commemorate Victory Day. On May 9 and 10 this year, the Latvian authorities used special equipment to destroy vast numbers of flowers that the residents of Riga brought to this monument thus showing what they really think about Russian-speaking residents and their country. The people were terrified by what their own government did.

Major efforts are being made to hide the Nazi nature of the Kiev regime from the international community. They have gone as far as openly whitewashing the supporters of neo-Nazism represented by the radical nationalist battalion Azov and other similar extremist formations in Ukraine. Any mention of the numerous brutal crimes committed by them in Donbass is carefully removed from the media. They are hiding this information because it will be commented upon and they won’t be able to get away with what they did. There is evidence, photographs, footage, as well as names of the people who testified and tried to make public as many things as possible. Their goal is not to let this information go to the public space.

Meanwhile, the problems that existed before the special military operation in Ukraine started still remain relevant. In 2021, politically-driven persecution and detention of Russians in foreign countries continued unabated. Our concern about our citizens’ conditions of detention is related to these motives. The return home of Konstantin Yaroshenko, who was convicted on a fabricated charge and spent over 10 years in American prison for nothing ̶ just because they wished to do so, is a landmark event for our country. They intimidated our citizens and let them know what they could do to them. They showed disregard for their own laws in order to assert themselves as some kind of a global policeman who can do as he pleases.

The obstruction of the Russian journalists or representatives of the Russian media’s professional activities was put on record multiple times. In a number of countries promoting an “alternative” history, Russian compatriots, representatives of the Russian and Russian-speaking communities were persecuted and bullied because of their desire to maintain ties with their historical Motherland, to preserve the truth about important historical events of the 20th century, especially World War II and the Great Patriotic War, and to celebrate the dates and national holidays that are important and memorable for their history and families, primarily, Victory Day. Civil society activists, human rights activists and journalists who promote viewpoints that are different from official views on domestic and foreign policy, as well as the history of these countries, came under pressure.

We will continue to monitor the developments related to Russians and Russian-speaking people and record acts of discrimination in order to let the leaders of these foreign countries know about these offences and to demand that they fulfill their international legal obligations with regard to our compatriots. However, we have no illusions about the true intentions of a number of countries from the collective West with regard to individuals who have even minimal connections to Russia. Despite this, we plan to make every effort to protect their rights anywhere in the world.

We also believe that manifestations of intolerance in the Euro-Atlantic space need to be studied seriously and impartially. Countries that have declared themselves models of democracy are holding collective gatherings and drawing lines between “superdemocracies”, just democracies, and “underdemocracies” while formally declaring their commitment to the rule of law. In fact, they are going downhill in this regard. However, the aggressive persecution of Russians convincingly shows that, in reality, Western societies not only failed to get rid of this discriminatory and racist sentiment, but also continue to encourage it.

Ceasefire in Yemen

We welcome the decision by the internationally-recognised Government of the Republic of Yemen and the Ansar Allah Houthi movement taken on June 2, 2022 to extend the ceasefire in the country for another two months until August 2 on the same terms. We note that both parties to the conflict managed to demonstrate the necessary political will and flexibility while considering existing disagreements.

We note with satisfaction that during the period of the ceasefire the humanitarian situation has significantly improved. Oil tankers were allowed port calls at the ports of the Al Hudaydah Province. For the first time since 2016, the airport in Sanaa has resumed its operations.

In this connection, we would like to note efforts by UN Secretary-General Special Envoy for Yemen Hans Grundberg, as well as those by Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Oman, which played a decisive role in reaching these agreements.

We believe that the extended ceasefire will help the parties consolidate the positive shifts in the intra-Yemen conflict and move towards launching a UN-led full-scale and comprehensive peace settlement process in Yemen.

Opening an exhibition to mark the 30th anniversary of diplomatic relations between Russia and El Salvador

Today, the Russian Federation and the Republic of El Salvador mark the 30th anniversary of diplomatic relations.

Over these years, a solid foundation was laid through joint efforts for Russian-Salvadorian friendship, mutual understanding, and fruitful cooperation.

To mark the event, the Russian Foreign Ministry used its website to post an exhibition of unique documents and photographs that captured the most remarkable pages in the history of our bilateral relations. This exhibition is based on materials from the Russian Foreign Policy Archive. Materials are available in Russian and Spanish.

We invite everyone to visit the exhibition.

The 20th anniversary of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation Charter

At their summit in St Petersburg on June 7, 2002, the leaders of China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan approved the Charter of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. This fundamental document sets forth the goals, objectives, and key areas for activities of an international organisation of a new type, which was established on the principles of mutual respect, equality, consensus-based decision-making, non-intimidation in respect of other countries and international organisations, and which seeks to promote positive development of diversified cooperation that will help maintain and strengthen peace, security and stability in the region.

The strict fulfillment of obligations under the Charter serves as a basis for effective and diversified cooperation between the member countries in political affairs, security, the economy, education, and culture. As a result, the SCO today is a dynamically developing intergovernmental association, as well as an influential and predictable participant in international relations.

All this has helped the organisation look increasingly more attractive in the eyes of the world community. India and Pakistan joined the SCO in 2017. There is good progress on the accession process for Iran as an SCO full-fledged member. As soon as Egypt, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia are granted dialogue partner status, the SCO will acquire a Middle East dimension. The SCO portfolio has a large package of applications allowing different forms of cooperation with it.

The legal basis for a relationship between the SCO and the UN and its agencies continues to expand, as well as with multilateral institutions promoting similar principles of creative development.

Forthcoming 30th anniversary of the Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance with the Republic of Kyrgyzstan

One of the fundamental documents of the Russian-Kyrgyz interaction, the Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance, was signed on June 10, 1992. The Treaty stated the principles of building bilateral relations based on respect for each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Peaceful settlement of disagreements and non-use of force, equality and non-interference in internal affairs, respect for and observance of human rights, fulfillment in good faith of obligations as well as other generally recognised norms of international law. Thirty years later, the legal-contractual base between our countries has over 170 interstate and intergovernmental agreements and a significant number of inter-agency and inter-regional legal documents.

Kyrgyzstan is Russia’s privileged strategic partner with whom we maintain substantive political dialogue. Investment, trade and economic cooperation is expanding including via promising projects, growing industrial cooperation and establishing joint ventures. Interaction is on the rise in education, science, culture, tourism, sport, youth and language policy.

Russia and Kyrgyzstan are active partners within key international and regional organisations, mainly at the Eurasian Economic Union, as well as at the UN, CSTO, CIS and SCO. Moscow and Bishkek have similar approaches to current issues of the international agenda, ensuring security and stability in Central Asia, and combating international terrorism, organised crime and other contemporary challenges and threats.

The Treaty’s 30th anniversary presents a good opportunity to review past experience and to lay out plans for further developing the entire range of multifaceted ties between Russia and Kyrgyzstan.

The 7th International Youth Forum Eurasia Global

On June 8-14, Orenburg will host the 7th International Youth Forum Eurasia Global, an annual event held by the Federal Agency for Youth Affairs and the Government of the Orenburg Region with support from the Foreign Ministry of Russia.

This year, the forum will bring together 900 young people from the Russian Federation and other countries, including around 70 young compatriots from 30 countries from around the world.

The business part of the programme is divided into four tracks (The Good, Media, Career, and Compatriots) offers the delegates an excellent opportunity to fulfil their intellectual and creative potential, including by devising sustainable development projects in the areas of Decent Employment and Economic Growth, and Partnership for Sustainable Development.

Answers to media questions:

Question: Chancellor Olaf Scholz said Germany intends to have the largest army in Europe among NATO countries. How might such a prospect affect European security?

Maria Zakharova: We take Chancellor Scholz’s statement as further confirmation of the fact that official Berlin has taken a course of forced re-militarisation in Germany. How this might end is well known to anybody who knows history. We will keep a close eye on the announced rearmament and the possible increase in German armed troops in the context of its international legal obligations of military restraint, especially based on the 2+4 Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany, dated September 12, 1990.

For European security, this means a further imbalance and increased risk. At a time when it is necessary to look for opportunities to reduce common threats, Germany, on the contrary, is on the way to escalating the political and military situation on the European continent, applying tens of billions of euros to increase the critical mass of weapons instead of addressing socioeconomic problems.

This raises the question: is this not the reason Berlin took an inactive, not even an inhibiting, role in the Normandy format, not contributing to a solution to the internal situation around the Ukraine conflict in a diplomatic way, through a negotiation process? Maybe the truth of their objectives and what they wanted from the situation on the European continent is now clear? If so, this is strange logic. Europe has already had enough wars by now, enough to draw global conclusions for itself.

Question: European Union foreign diplomacy chief Josep Borrell is basically saying that the Ukraine crisis has showed the EU that “soft power” is not enough and he is talking about increasing military spending. Can you comment on that?

Maria Zakharova: I think the phrase “European foreign diplomacy chief Josep Borrell” has become a meme. When you hear it, you instantly know that it will be followed by “winning the battle on the battlefield,” that there is no peaceful settlement in this crisis and that it is best to do more fighting. It is true, I see these absurd statements every day and believe they have become a meme.

Do you know what the problem is? The EU’s “soft power” has been directed at creating a series of colour revolutions in various parts of Europe, including Ukraine, as well as organising anti-constitutional coups, supporting political forces that work towards the interests of the Western bloc, not the interests of the local people. Then the soft power is not enough because it is used by the European Union and NATO in the wrong direction. If “soft power” in its original sense was used by the EU and NATO to, for example, develop bilateral and multilateral relations, support educational processes where needed and when it corresponds to the national interests of a state, to ease visa requirements with countries and people and to overcome crises, then it would be enough to do everything the EU and NATO wrote in their doctrines. But soft power has been used in twisted ways like supporting non-governmental organisations that affect the domestic political agenda, public figures who promote ideas, the mentality and philosophy of the countries that they have nothing to do with rather than their national course and the interests of their people. This money is spent to support, promote and ultimately patronise the media to distribute EU and NATO propaganda in an effort to influence the domestic situation (not to develop relations) in various other countries. In countries where they failed to do this, they used soft power to change regimes in order to change a country’s course in favour of themselves and their companies. We have repeatedly seen this in Ukraine, and it has now resulted in replacing soft power with hard power.

I would like to add that we have published an expanded statement on the EU’s latest confrontational pursuits following the European Council meeting on May 30-31, 2022.

They continue Josep Borrell’s belligerent rhetoric of late. In this statement we see the West’s lack of interest in looking for diplomatic ways to resolve the crisis, and to resolve the chronic problems in European security that have led to the current “hot crisis” in Europe. Instead, Brussels will rely on the militarisation of the EU, to supplement the reserves of military equipment and weapons supplied to the Kiev regime in violation of their own European and international export control regulations. Everything they insisted on has been forsaken and forgotten so that the war can continue. They do this while taking no notice of what is happening in their own countries where the wellbeing of common Europeans has plunged. That is not our problem, it’s theirs. They are constantly concerned about human rights but do not see what is going on in their own countries because of their own policy.

This drastic degradation of the “peaceful and uniting agenda” of the European integration project is startling. Only yesterday they promoted peace and built a peaceful future, and then they began to tear it down. Now they are talking about militarisation. Do the successors of the founders of a “united Europe” understand the seriousness of the consequences of their actions? I would like that question to be more than just rhetorical.

I want to believe that pragmatism and common sense will prevail. We have repeatedly said that. Unfortunately, the situation has not changed for the better. I hope that the EU’s weapons will not be used to kill the children and old people of Donbass who are protecting their homes. I would also like to hope that those who protect civilians from Russia, the DPR and the LPR will not be killed by EU weapons. But what is happening is the opposite. I hope the European Union will come to its senses and stop being a spineless appendage of NATO. But again, my hopes are probably in vain.

This question should be addressed to them. We understand the trends. Our ongoing analysis through the years has confirmed our thoughts. Yet again we see their true goals and policies.

Question: You said today that the Memorandum on cooperation in culture, science, education and the media with the United States has been terminated. Does this mean that all cultural and scientific programmes are frozen, including those between the Russian Academy of Sciences and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences? How might the end of the memorandum affect Russian students studying in the United States?

Maria Zakharova: It is interesting that you link the memorandum to students and wonder how the end of it might affect them. Didn’t you notice what was happening to our students in the United States before that? It has been impossible to get a visa for years. Many were simply refused the chance to return and continue their studies even though they had a visa or other documents which allowed them to stay or return and study there. This situation has long ceased to have anything to do with what’s written in the memorandum. That’s the problem. There is no way to get through to the Americans to show them how their policy towards students and other humanitarian programmes differs from what is written in this memorandum.

I am amazed that you phrased the question like that, as if everything was good until yesterday. Was this a document that has been fully implemented from your point of view? It was the opposite. We have documented what has long ceased to work. The point is that the document should not be at odds with the practice being carried out by the United States.

I know that even during the pandemic, when there were many problems in the world in logistics, travel, free movement, COVID-linked restrictions, vaccine certification etc., that our country did everything it could to ensure that the education processes and foreign student access were not affected or at least that the costs were minimal. However, even in normal times, the United States did things that were beyond comprehension with regard to foreign students, those who studied there. A person took an exam and received confirmation from a university there. Still, he or she could not obtain a visa in our country. That student was instructed to travel to a third country where the visa could be issued, but it was not possible to cross the border to that country because of COVID restrictions. This is a mockery.

As far as specific universities are concerned, I think you'd better contact them. They will tell you what programmes are current, and how they are being run and whether they will continue, whether they are operating at all.

Question: The trial of former President of Moldova Igor Dodon continues in the republic. In May, the Chisinau court placed him under house arrest for 30 days. The anti-corruption prosecutor's office is seeking – so far unsuccessfully – to transfer him to a pre-trial detention centre. The court session was non-transparent. Representatives of the Moldovan public, human rights activists and media were not allowed into the courtroom. Doesn’t this remind you of the reprisals practiced against political opponents during the time when the oligarch Vladimir Plahotniuc was in power in Moldova?

Maria Zakharova: We commented on this story at the last briefing. As we noted, this is Moldova’s internal affair. Here in Russia, the trial of Igor Dodon, who was charged with high treason in favour of Russia among other things, arouses natural interest.

I read updates on his charge of treason in favour of our country. I wonder who will be declared guilty of treason in favor of the United States in Moldova in a couple of years. Were such options contemplated?

This is quite an illustrative story and an example of political hypocrisy. Let me remind you of the facts. What is now imputed to Igor Dodon was made public by Vladimir Plahotniuc via Moldovan television on June 7, 2019. Let’s think about it. It was in 2019 (almost three years ago) when the information came out that is the basis of the prosecution. Interesting. Back then, it did not prevent Maia Sandu from striking a political alliance with Igor Dodon and the Socialist Party he headed on the next day, June 8, 2019, to create a parliamentary coalition, “topple” Vladimir Plahotniuc and take office as the prime minister of Moldova. Can you see how everything has changed?

What is also cynical about this situation is that Igor Dodon is accused of links with the fugitive oligarch put on the international wanted list by Russia and Moldova, solely on the basis of Vladimir Plahotniuc’s materials and statements. At the same time, the odd thing is how the tools used are similar to the methods Vladimir Plahotniuc used against his political opponents. So it seems that now Maia Sandu has decided to play the card of Vladimir Plahotniuc. This logic is absurd.

This is Moldova’s internal affair. I would like to believe and hope that I am wrong (though I gave you concrete facts) and that under the guise of an anti-corruption fight Moldova will not cleanse the political field of forces and alliances favouring friendly and mutually beneficial relations with Russia.

Think about it. We know the history of Russia and Moldova; we know geography and what’s going on in the world. Who in Moldova could be hindered by the development of economic, financial, and trade ties with our country and how? Why might this be happening? For what reasons? It is logical to assume that this is not about the domestic agenda but one planted from the outside. So, who is betraying the homeland? Who is committing high treason, if something that benefits the people of Moldova is being blocked at all levels? A vendetta has been declared against the people who worked to promote bilateral cooperation, which naturally stems from history and modern realities.

We hope that the Moldovan leadership will have enough wisdom not to follow this path. Hopefully, they will ensure the administration of justice with the observance of all the lawful rights and freedoms of the former president and will comply with Moldova’s international human rights obligations.

Question: The Czech Foreign Ministry reported that Russian Ambassador Alexander Zmeyevsky was summoned on Tuesday in connection with the “doubts arising in connection with the use of property owned by Russia in the Czech Republic.” What can you say about these actions by the Czech side? How does Russia plan to respond to these steps by Prague? Will they affect the Czech embassy’s operation in Russia?

Maria Zakharova: The topic is not new. Indeed, Russian Ambassador Alexander Zmeyevsky was invited to the Czech Foreign Ministry on May 31 and was handed a note containing a number of questions concerning Russia’s diplomatic property in that country.

Even from the media, you can clearly see that Prague never stops playing this card. We understand that a portion of their political establishment is always in need of an incentive to carry out its anti-Russian policy.

We understand that there is a political order for this issue, and not only in the Czech Republic. At the same time, the diplomatic property issue in bilateral relations with Prague is of a complex and reciprocal nature, and has been the subject matter of a dialogue in the format of specialised consultations between experts for several years now. In January, we invited the Czech side to hold another round of talks, which the Ambassador also mentioned during the said conversation at the Czech Foreign Ministry.

We call on Prague and our colleagues from the media to refrain from politicising practical matters that require a professional and law-based approach and the same kind of coverage in the public space. We believe that any unilateral steps that infringe on anyone's interests in relation to real estate and property rights can come at a cost for their initiators. We believe that a pragmatic dialogue on this subject meets the interests of both sides.

Question: The situation around Taiwan has got a lot worse in the past weeks. The other day, 30 Chinese military aircraft entered the island's air defence identification zone. The Chinese authorities let the United States know that its support for the proponents of Taiwan’s independence is putting the island in jeopardy. What does Moscow think about these developments? Is this issue raised in contacts with your Chinese colleagues? What can you say about the increasingly frequent comparison between the purported Chinese invasion of Taiwan and Russia’s military operation in Ukraine?

Maria Zakharova: I'll start with the basics. Russia's principled position on the Taiwan issue remains unchanged: we operate on the premise that there is only one China, the PRC government is the only legitimate government representing all of China, and Taiwan is an inalienable part of China. Russia does not support the island’s independence.

We discuss Taiwan with our Chinese partners on an as-needed basis at various levels, including the top level. We maintain a trust-based dialogue on all items on the bilateral, multilateral and international agenda. We openly interact with our Chinese partners. The issues of mutual interest or issues that matter for one party are discussed in a trust-based and mutually respectful manner.

In particular, in the Joint Statement of the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China on the International Relations Entering a New Era and the Global Sustainable Development adopted following talks between the leaders of our countries in Beijing on February 4, Russia reaffirmed its commitment to the One China principle and spoke against the island’s independence in any form.

I’d like to close by saying that US-staged provocations around the world are not anything new. This is their political creed.

Question: The Ministry of Agriculture said that grain and fertilisers will be sold in roubles from now on. Does this mean that Russia will continue to expand payments in roubles in its foreign trade transactions?

Maria Zakharova: The unprecedented unilateral restrictive measures imposed on the Russian Federation by the collective West dealt a serious blow to the global economy (we often talk about this). Global economic life has barely begun to recover from the pandemic-related crisis. The sanctions severed the existing supply and production chains and broke down our economic operators’ financial settlement system. All economic operators suffered from this, including Russian exporters of energy, food products, and mineral fertilisers (speaking of our country). The West has dealt a tremendous blow to the entire global economic process. Disrupted supplies and settlements lead to a global shortage of products, drive up prices, and pose a threat to global food security primarily due to the US and the EU countries’ actions, which, as always, follow in the wake of Western thought.

The introduction of a mechanism for paying for Russian-made products in roubles is a forced but absolutely natural decision given the impossibility of making transactions in a number of foreign currencies and barred access to the financial infrastructure. I’m surprised to learn that they thought this step was impossible or unexpected. We need to protect ourselves from the resulting damage. We will continue to increase the share of national currencies in trade and investment relations with our core partners. We mentioned this regularly even before 2022, given the West’s instability as a partner, its lack of respect for international legal institutions, its failure to honour its obligations under key agreements, and the unpredictability of these countries’ administrations that tend to go back on decisions, including legally binding ones, that were adopted by previous administrations. We said that the currencies of the countries in question have become less reliable as well. Now, the situation has taken on a practical dimension, that is, we graduated from theoretical forecasts which, as everyone can see now, are coming true, to the situation on the ground. As settlements for Russian gas show, most of our counterparties have agreed to a new format of interaction.

Options are being explored to broaden the scope of rouble payments for certain Russian products. We have no doubt that the West will continue to abuse its position (to put it mildly) in the international financial system and continue its machinations in this area based on blackmail and threats, as well as to block the Russian economic operators’ settlements. This is what they always do to anyone they find objectionable or in the heat of the moment.

We advise all our partners claiming independent domestic or foreign policy learn from this situation which, I think, they already did. Judging by the movement of the capital, everyone has long understood everything about US currency, US banks and irresponsibility when it comes to their own commitments.

At the same time, I would like to note that despite the objective transport and supply-related difficulties, Russia remains an honest global market participant. We will continue to fulfill our obligations under international contracts in terms of export deliveries of agricultural produce, fertilisers, energy and other critical products. We are concerned about a possible food crisis and are well aware of the importance of Russian supplies of socially important goods, including food, to ensure socioeconomic development in Asian, African, Latin America and the Middle Eastern countries, achieve food security benchmarks and meet the UN Sustainable Development Goals.

We stand ready to act on our commitments as we remain fully aware of the sizable amount of opposition to our efforts to do so that the West is mounting, and we let the international community know about this. Some segments of the international community fail to understand this because they are unwilling to accept reality. In fact, most countries understand this.

We responsibly honour our obligations regardless of political or economic circumstances. We are looking for ways to overcome these barriers that are being deliberately created by the collective West in the interests of not only Russia, but our partners around the world as well.

Question: How realistic does a meeting between the presidents of Russia and Ukraine seem after the new round of Turkish efforts to promote a diplomatic settlement? What prerequisites does the Russian side see for it if it is possible?

Maria Zakharova: I can see no reason to discuss this even theoretically. We thank everyone who offers their mediating assistance in any sphere. It has always been that way. But I would not engage in discussion without having any facts under it.

Question: In his article for The New York Times, Joe Biden wrote that the US was not seeking regime change in Russia and did not want to go to war with Russia over Ukraine. This is a definite shift in focus compared to the recent past. Can this be regarded as a hint of a compromise, or is it another attempt to deceive us?

Maria Zakharova: I would not examine, compare, or make any long-term conclusions based on daily statements from the White House and other American government agencies. Every day it releases a stream of contradictory statements, whether because of their political system, when representatives of different political parties say opposite things in the heat of the struggle against each other; or due to discord in the current Administration, which is not just understaffed but reducing right in front of our eyes, with people fleeing; or due to a lack of understanding of which course to take, some behind the scenes intrigues within the Administration or other things. Leave that to the political analysts and journalists. I would not draw sweeping conclusions about a paradigm shift based on two new words or three new prepositions included in some phrasing.

Speaking about what the US (you mentioned the leadership of this country) is not going to do, I would instead ask what they are going to do. This is far more interesting. It would be better if they talk about strategy in this regard. The second important aspect is that all that they are saying has a certain shade of destruction, chaos, and destabilisation. We would like to hear something positive from them. Where and what are they going to do in order to improve and not deteriorate the situation? I hope the US President writes an article on this subject. Though it would be difficult for them to write it.

Question: How would Russia respond if Poland really begins to practically occupy Ukraine?

Maria Zakharova: I’m not sure what you mean by “practically”. What does it mean to you?

Question: Invasion.

Maria Zakharova: If we are talking about the true goals of several Polish politicians regarding the entire range of Ukrainian regions, then no one is hiding them. At last week’s briefing (like many times over the last two years) we gave examples of how Polish politicians (including those in power) regard the territory of Ukraine as their historical domain, as temporarily lost lands, or as their indigenous protectorate. We talked about documents and banknotes printed on the territory of modern Poland showing the territory of today’s Ukraine in their geographical symbols. Speaking from this point of view, the process began a long time ago. If we are talking about military and strategic plans, you should ask our military bloc.

Of course, first of all this question should be addressed to the leadership of Ukraine. But regardless of what answer they give, I can say that, alas, the Kiev regime put Ukraine up for auction long ago.

Question: Chair of the Federation Council Committee on Foreign Affairs Grigory Karasin has promised to “remember” that the Japanese did not invite the Russian Ambassador to the ceremonies in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and called it boorish. Why are the anniversaries of the American nuclear bombings of Japan so important to us?

Maria Zakharova: The point at issue is not only the annual commemorative events dedicated to the memory of the victims of the US nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but rather that it is yet another step taken by official Tokyo to unwind the anti-Russian policy. We see the current Japanese administration’s blind desire to follow the Western example and attempts to “cancel” Russia to please Washington. We have repeatedly warned Fumio Kishida’s administration that they are fully responsible for the aggressive dismantling of bilateral relations, including cooperation on current international issues. There will be consequences for Japan for such actions.

This is my comment on it from the point of view of the current international political context. But there is also a historical aspect. We see the trends of the history of those events being rewritten: all references to the US in this context and that it was the US who used nuclear bombs are being eliminated. In this way, historical memory is undermined. It seems that the dropping of the bombs was not committed by the US, but it happened some other way and it does not matter how. Why does it concern us? Because the Russophobia that is gaining steam at the bidding of Washington and Tokyo will fill in these historical lacunas. Instead of aiding understanding of who committed this horrible act of aggression against the people of Japan, they will suggest another enemy that the Japanese people never had. I am not talking about the Japanese militarism we fought against, but the Japanese people. We have never been aggressively disposed towards them and always spoke for cooperation. But now the historical facts are being changed. This is the first thing. Secondly, why it is boorish, and why it is important to remember it and know about it. The employees of the Soviet embassy were among the first foreign diplomats who visited the site of the tragedy. Two weeks after the events, they documented what had happened. In 2015, the Foreign Ministry handed over unique photos to the Russian Historical Society during a roundtable dedicated to the 70th anniversary of the nuclear bombings. Please note the report by the USSR Ambassador to Japan about the condition of Hiroshima and Nagasaki a month after the attacks. The Soviet Union’s significant contribution was that due to our efforts, Hiroshima and Nagasaki became a world symbol of the unacceptability of the use of nuclear weapons. Thousands of events in the USSR were devoted to that. We made educational films that explained the essence of the tragedy and the tragic aftermath Japan had to deal with. Our people have traditionally commemorated the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Maybe the Japanese authorities do not know how carefully our country preserves the historical memory and what love and sympathy our people feel towards the Japanese people who became the victims of the US’s bombings. But they should know. I think as a journalist you know that too. Numerous books have been published on the tragedy (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 – to name but a few). There are countries that do not know this issue at all and have never been on the national agenda. Experts care about this issue only so much. In our country, it is a symbolic issue. To a large extent, this sincere sympathy of our people for the Japanese people contributed to our friendly ties and cultural cooperation. We will provide references to books and monographs dedicated to this issue, what landmark events were held in our country to commemorate the tragedy, and what monuments were built. We want the Japanese people to know that and not fall victim to their government’s propaganda.

Question: Former Prime Minister of Japan Shinzo Abe has recently given an interview to The Economist. He proposed ways to “rouse” the Japanese, to encourage them to discuss nuclear deterrence and the policy of “extended deterrence.” He referred to the experience of Germany and NATO countries in Europe. What could Russia’s position be on this issue?

Maria Zakharova: Over the past years, when we still had a normal dialogue with Japan, an entire set of Russia’s concerns regarding Tokyo’s actions in the military and political sphere was the subject of in-depth discussions between the two countries’ security councils. We made it clear that Japan's rejection of the three non-nuclear principles it had adhered to, among other things, was unacceptable. Our position on this remains unchanged.

Question: State Duma Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin suggested that the Accounts Chamber should think about the future of Sakhalin II. He spoke quite sharply, and not in favour of Japan. Tokyo believes that its oil and gas ties with Russia should be preserved. Sakhalin Energy LNG project investors don’t want to follow Shell’s lead and leave. How are relations between Russia and Tokyo in the oil and gas sector developing under sanctions? Is it necessary to maintain these ties, given that there are more than enough parties interested in buying LNG in the Asia-Pacific region?

Maria Zakharova: Despite the West’s destructive anti-Russian actions that have hit the financial and economic sectors, our country remains a key supplier of energy resources to global markets. It is regrettable that Japan, which is extremely vulnerable in terms of meeting its energy requirements, did the bidding of those who have initiated sanctions against Russia. I have just talked about this.

As a result, many promising plans in the sphere of LNG supply, production of new kinds of energy, including hydrogen, and introduction of clean energy technologies to protect the climate are under threat. Let me stress once again that this is Japan’s choice. It is the responsibility of the Japanese government. We are still ready for constructive energy cooperation with Japan, as we are well aware of our responsibility in this area. At the same time, we have to consider Tokyo’s unfriendly position, including in the process of decision-making on the fate of energy projects.

We would also like to state that the energy demand in the Asia-Pacific Region will grow at an accelerated pace. In this regard, many countries are interested in establishing a stable base for reliable energy supplies through mutually beneficial cooperation with Russia and thereby strengthening their own energy security. We proceed from the premise that Tokyo will draw the right conclusions from the point just made.

Question: Ambassador of Russia to Peru Igor Romanchenko said the anti-Russia sanctions and blockades were detrimental to third-party countries, including Peru. What is Russia planning to do, so this conflict does not seriously impact Latin America?

Maria Zakharova: In what way do our actions affect Latin America? Russia itself is suffering from the actions of the “collective West,” and we are saying that anti-Russia sanctions, restrictions and actions hit other regions hard. However, this is caused by the policy of the “collective West,” rather than by our actions. We need to clearly understand this. We have repeatedly said that the illegal US sanctions, and those by pro-US supporters, serve to disrupt global financial ties and transport logistic chains. They also lead to price hikes, as regards energy resources, food, services, etc. Countries on all continents, including Latin America, are suffering from this. The United States, rather than Russia, imposed these restrictions.

The US and European sanctions alone are the root cause of the damage to third-party countries’ energy sectors and agriculture, which are seen as key sectors in the Latin American economies.

We see that the region’s business circles are interested in overcoming this situation, including through mutually beneficial cooperation despite these abnormal and artificially created conditions. In turn, we try to promote a realistic perception of the situation. We will work with our partners to address specific problems.

I mentioned grain today. We are ready to supply grain, but the West needs to stop hampering this process. This is the main issue here.

The Latin American segment of the upcoming 25th St Petersburg International Economic Forum will focus on discussions regarding expanded future interaction. It is important that Latin American and Caribbean states that did not join the anti-Russia sanctions are our longtime friends and reliable economic partners. Expanded cooperation meets the mutual interests of our countries and peoples. We maintain pragmatic cooperation, without resorting to ideological dogmas.

Unlike certain “international players,” we are not presenting Latin Americans with an either/or choice, and we are not telling them who they can cooperate and maintain relations with, and who they should disregard. We develop these relations in the interests of nations, and we use a stable legal framework for this purpose.

We are ready to expand cooperation, depending on each specific country. This includes Peru. We are open to political contact with Lima, and we are ready to expand trade and economic, cultural and humanitarian ties. With this in mind, we will build upon our subsequent plans and efforts for Latin America in the foreseeable future.

Question: What are Russia’s plans in Latin America through the end of the year?

Maria Zakharova: If I understand you correctly, you are interested in specific sectors of the Peruvian economy.

I will be happy to provide you with reference materials on our trade and economic cooperation and areas of interests.

Question: Is World War III a realistic scenario for you?

Maria Zakharova: Many are trying to answer this question. Is WWIII possible? Maybe it’s already underway? What form would it take? Many people are talking about this. Rather than talk about WWIII, let’s talk about ways to prevent it.

We have been saying for many years now that international law and the United Nations must serve as an insurance policy against WWIII. These emerged following World War II to guarantee that WWIII would never happen. Either way, they did their job. I mean the UN and the international legal system in general.

For three or four years now, we have been witnessing the collective West’s attempts to destroy international law and introduce a rules-based order instead. That is, to come up with their own rules instead of international law. This is extremely dangerous, because it implies the dictates of one group of countries, something that is fraught with global imbalance and other countries finding it impossible to uphold their interests. Each country is entitled to pursue a sovereign foreign and domestic policy, to defend its interests, to grow its economy, and to promote humanitarian rights and its own security.

When a group of countries seizes power or claims to seize power, a major disaster is in the offing. We did our best to tell the world this and let everyone know that the dictates of one pole is not possible and would only lead to devastating consequences.

Our efforts should focus on overcoming the collapse of international law and it being replaced by a rules-based order. If the international community musters enough strength to unite to fulfill this goal, I think any challenge can be overcome.

Question: During a telephone conversation between President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan and President of Russia Vladimir Putin, the Turkish leader suggested an initiative to set up Moscow-Kiev talks in Istanbul with UN mediation. What does Russia think about this proposal?

Maria Zakharova: I already commented on this. We are invariably grateful to the countries, politicians, or heads of state that make efforts to act as mediators. This position takes on a special dimension amid numerous countries that profess, contrary to their own laws and traditions, or the other way round, in continuation of their own traditions, aggressive rhetoric and refuse to settle problems peacefully or to use diplomacy. Every thought about peaceful mediation counts. We are always grateful for such proposals.

Question: Recently, various means of confrontation are being used, such as information warfare, biological warfare, mental warfare, etc. What wars and on what fronts are these being waged? What are Russia’s victories and defeats?

Do you think the confrontation between the collective West and Russia has aggravated compared to the Cold War?

Maria Zakharova: Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov expressed the answer to this question when he said that a total war is being waged against Russia. It includes a number of areas that you mentioned, and more.

The foundations underlying international relations during the past several decades since the end of WWII are being discarded.

Documents supplémentaires

Photos

Actualités de politique étrangère

Sécurité internationale

Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, June 3, 2022

Documents supplémentaires

Photos

Actualités de politique étrangère

Sécurité internationale

Поделиться ссылкой на выделенное