Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, St Petersburg, June 7, 2024
- Foreign Ministry events on the sidelines of the 2024 St Petersburg International Economic Forum
- St Petersburg and the Leningrad Region’s international and interregional ties
- Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s participation in BRICS Foreign Ministers’ Meeting
- Foreign Minister of Cuba Bruno Rodriguez Parrilla’s visit to Russia
- Ukraine crisis
- Possible loans to the Kiev regime to be funded from future gains derived from managing Russia’s frozen assets
- Moldova update
- Developments on the Korean Peninsula
- A Western “journalistic” investigation into the activities of the Fund to Support and Protect the Rights of Compatriots
- 50th anniversary of diplomatic relations with Trinidad and Tobago
- Celebrations of Russian Language Day
- Plundering Crimea’s cultural heritage during the Crimean War of 1853-1856
- Russia Day
- President of Bolivia’s visit and Russian-Bolivian relations
- Concerning Russia’s “interference” in the elections to the European Parliament
- Some statements made by Gabrielius Landsbergis
- The potential improvement of Russian-German relations
- The double standards of Western society regarding Moldova and Türkiye
- The meme “there is a Moldovan language”
- Russia-China cross years of culture
- The role of BRICS and the SCO in shaping a multipolar world
- The dialogue with the United States regarding the ceasefire in Ukraine
- The activities of the EU Mission to Armenia
- The participation of the Taliban in SPIEF 2024
- Statements made by the German Minister of Defence concerning a potential war with Russia
- Russian-Afghan economic relations
- The role of regional diplomacy in Russian foreign policy
- Foreign Ministry’s stance towards ambassadors of unfriendly states
- The opening of a representative office of a Russian bank in Africa
- Russian assistance to African countries and efforts in countering terrorism
- Russia’s relations with Arab countries
- Various aspects of the use of strategic nuclear weapons
- The President of Russia’s visit to Uzbekistan
- Retaliatory measures against unfriendly countries
- Pro-Russian westerners
- The information attack on the Fund for the Defence of the Rights of Compatriots
Foreign Ministry events on the sidelines of the 2024 St Petersburg International Economic Forum
The St Petersburg International Economic Forum is our gracious host today. Using this friendly platform as a venue for holding Foreign Ministry’s events has become a fine tradition.
I think everyone present here is well aware of how fascinating the forum is in terms of organisation and efficiency. For those of you who are watching this online, they have here fascinating presentation expositions, an information- and events-packed agenda, and engaging topics and speakers. I will be happy to answer your questions about foreign guests, organisation matters, and the Foreign Ministry’s participation.
The Foreign Ministry is represented at the forum by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. Today, he will hold meetings with the delegations from Sudan, Nicaragua and El Salvador. Information will be posted on our website following these meetings. The high-ranking ministerial officials will attend the sessions and panel discussions hosted by the ministry. Their remarks are available on our website and social media.
The session sponsored by our Ministry, “International and National Experience of Regulating Artificial Intelligence. Best Practices” will take place today at noon. Tomorrow, on June 8, Foreign Ministry’s International Life magazine will host a panel discussion, “Polycentricity: the norm of a future world without colonies or hegemons”. Everyone is welcome to attend.
St Petersburg and the Leningrad Region’s international and interregional ties
We took note of the consistent efforts undertaken by the leadership of St Petersburg and the Leningrad Region to build up multifaceted interregional and foreign economic ties with friendly countries, which is critically important considering the geopolitical situation at hand. Following the current SPIEF, St Petersburg will sign a record-breaking number of agreements with investors with an eye toward further strengthening Russia’s technological sovereignty.
Targeted efforts are being made to strengthen economic cooperation with the CIS countries. For example, the volume of St Petersburg’s trade with Belarus grew by 11 percent last year to $2 billion, and import increased by almost 40 percent. The Leningrad Region is among the leaders in terms of expanding trade with that republic, which now stands at nearly $1 billion. Joint projects are being implemented in construction and the production of agricultural and utility equipment.
Contacts with the St Petersburg’s major partners in China (trade is up by 53.6 percent), India (up by 127.8 percent growth), and Türkiye (up by 72.5 percent) are now more frequent and extensive. Ties with Serbia in healthcare, education, the manufacturing and high-tech industry, as well as tourism and urban infrastructure have expanded.
The Leningrad Region now has stronger ties with its partners in Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and South Ossetia. Plans are in place to sign agreements with the Republic of Abkhazia, and regions of Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Syria and the Republic of South Africa.
The Leningrad Region and St Petersburg are on the leading edge of building up the legal framework for region-to-region cooperation. They are in the process of concluding more agreements with the friendly and constructively-minded countries, and the provisions of these agreements are pragmatically laid out in road maps.
We maintain close contacts with our compatriots who now reside outside of Russia and are connected by unbreakable historical, cultural and spiritual ties with St Petersburg. Diplomats and guests from 40 countries and delegations of war veterans from 13 foreign countries visited the city in January to attend the commemorative events dedicated to the 80th anniversary of lifting the Siege of Leningrad. More than 2,300 recipients of the medal For the Defence of Leningrad or the badge To the Resident of the Besieged Leningrad live in 38 countries around the world. Preserving the sacred memory about the feat of the victorious generation is particularly important in the run-up to the 80th anniversary of Great Victory. Preserving historical memory is just a part of our sacred duty. It is also important to fill this memory with concrete actions in order to maintain generational continuity, which requires daily constructive efforts.
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s participation in BRICS Foreign Ministers’ Meeting
On June 10-11, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will take part in a full meeting of the BRICS Foreign Ministers in Nizhny Novgorod. A separate meeting with several countries of the Global South and East will take place as part of this session.
The upcoming meeting will focus on topical issues on the international agenda, improvement of the global governance system with an emphasis on increasing the role of developing countries, conflict resolution, and interaction at leading multilateral platforms.
In the BRICS format, the ministers will discuss the progress in implementing the BRICS leaders’ agreements, including the development of modalities for establishing the category of partner states, and outline further steps to develop a strategic partnership, including during the Russian chairmanship. Particular focus will be placed on preparations for the upcoming 16th BRICS Summit in Kazan.
Ahead of the ministerial meeting, the traditional meeting of BRICS sherpas/sous-Sherpas will take place.
We will promptly update you on the main meetings. The press centre is working to cover events. A series of Sergey Lavrov’s bilateral meetings is planned, with further updates to follow.
Foreign Minister of Cuba Bruno Rodriguez Parrilla’s visit to Russia
On June 10-12, Foreign Minister of the Republic of Cuba Bruno Rodriguez Parrilla will be on an official visit to Russia.
On June 10-11, he will visit Nizhny Novgorod to take part in the Meeting of the BRICS Ministers of Foreign Affairs/International Relations, including in the BRICS Plus/Outreach format.
On June 12, the foreign ministers of Russia and Cuba will hold talks to discuss a wide range of issues related to further promoting bilateral strategic partnership in political, trade, economic, scientific, technical, cultural, humanitarian, and other spheres.
A discussion is planned on current international and regional issues, key aspects of cooperation at the UN, including within the Group of Friends for the Defence of the UN Charter, and at other multilateral platforms. The focus will be on issues related to Russia and Cuba’s active involvement in the process of forming a new, more equitable polycentric world order.
Moscow and Havana consistently advocate for ensuring compliance with generally recognised norms of international law, such as the principles of respect for national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of states.
The talks will also address the topic of countering illegitimate unilateral sanctions the United States and other countries of the collective West use as a weapon of blackmail and pressure, as well as for their attempts to destroy states.
Nobody knows better than Havana what sanctions and life under sanctions are. Russia has always supported Cuba, providing assistance and taking every effort to prove and show the monstrosity of the sanctions policy unleashed by the West against countries that it considers necessary to “rebuild” for its own profit, not only through practical assistance, but also through upholding international legal norms.
On May 31, Washington, following a number of European countries, gave the Kiev regime a green light to use the supplied weapons for strikes at the Russian areas bordering on the Kharkov Region. Declaring this decision, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said that the strikes will reach deeper inside Russia and the West will keep on adjusting its strategy.
I will allow myself to say what he, for some reason, was shy to say: fire (not the West’s stance) adjustment has been carried out by Washington for all these years, not only starting from 2022. The involvement of Western countries in destroying Ukrainian statehood and in direct hostilities against peaceful civilian population in Donbass is not a secret. Why so modest? Why do they call it now an indulgence granted to the Kiev regime in 2024 only for using their weapons for strikes? This is the deceit, lies and hypocrisy, which as the West thinks will let them to evade liability in the future for their destructive activity and for all that they have allowed the Kiev regime. Actually, they have been doing it for many years. I want to upset them: they won’t be able to get away with it.
Literally, several hours later Ukrainian Armed Forces attacked residential blocks in Belgorod using US HIMARS multiple rocket launchers – that is, used the US weapon against civilian targets to commit a terrorist act. All rockets launched at the city were shot down by Russian air defence forces.
There are many examples of such statements by Western representatives and their specific actions for the Kiev regime to implement the terrorist strategy; I have just given the most indicative and representative one. We won’t have enough time to mention each similar statement by the collective West.
What has happened is further evidence of the West’s involvement in the grave war crimes that the Kiev regime have committed for many years. They were invented, developed and implemented not just by the gang on Bankovaya Street, Vladimir Zelensky and his criminal group. Everything was prepared by representatives of the collective West individually or in their NATO team. We do have the evidence. The weapons supplied to the Kiev regime by the West cannot be used without Western instructors on the ground. Target acquisition is impossible without the relevant data involving coordinates, which the Kiev regime does not have. It is supplied by the collective West, primarily by the United States and Great Britain.
In fact, Washington has made a full confession. We see and hear their cynical acknowledgement (I won’t call it sincere) of complicity in killing women, children, and civilians in Russian regions and border areas. The debris of Western missiles, including HIMARS, in the Belgorod Region will serve as the undeniable evidence of guilt borne by the United States, the UK, and other countries that have been involved in these crimes through collective responsibility.
Ten years ago, on June 2, 2014, the Kiev regime committed a heinous crime against civilians in Lugansk. A Sukhoi Su-25 ground attack aircraft from the 299th Tactical Aviation Brigade of the Armed Forces of Ukraine deliberately fired cluster munitions at the Heroes of the Great Patriotic War Park, a children’s playground and the local administration building in the city centre, killing eight and wounding nearly 30 people.
The Kiev regime and those who brought it to power (let me remind you that this happened in June 2014 as a result of the anti-constitutional coup carried out in Ukraine at the West’s instigation) needed this demonstrative massacre of innocent civilians to sow panic, intimidate people, and show what would be done to them and how they would live if they failed to obey the illegal Kiev regime.
They can refer to the results of the 2014 election in Ukraine as much as they want. But we do remember that the election was preceded by an anti-constitutional coup d’etat. We recognised the election results with a reservation that we were just taking them under advisement to give peace a chance. This was the key condition for Russia’s recognition of the so-called Ukrainian “presidential election.” Everyone was aware of how and by what methods the election was carried through. Even the West was embarrassed (a highly infrequent thing in its history) to acknowledge that it more or less conformed to some international norms.
The Kiev regime and its sponsors tried to break the resistance of Lugansk residents and set nationalist radicals against the population. They did not only fail, but achieved the opposite effect. The LPR defended its right to self-determination and the right to speak its native Russian language freely, observe its traditions and honour its real heroes who gave their lives to rid humanity of fascism. Today the republic is an integral part of the Russian Federation and, together with all our people, continues to fight for security, independence, justice, historical memory and against dehumanisation, primarily of the European continent.
This act of aggression, like other bloody war crimes of the Kiev regime, behind which the West is, has no statute of limitations and will not be consigned to oblivion.
Back in June 2014, the US and its allies chose to pretend publicly that nothing happened, while it was clear they were behind these crimes. Today they are openly speaking about the imminent delivery of American F-16 fighters, which can be used for aerial bombing of peaceful cities and civilian targets. Since the collective West behaves boorishly and allows itself a lot, why not also immediately announce its plans, intentions and actions? Because it was necessary to accustom their own people to this thought and corrupt their media, lulling their vigilance and turning them away from their journalistic duty.
This process has been repeated many times even in the latest history. Western journalists have learnt not to notice the bombing of peaceful cities (for example, in Serbia), or the occupation of independent countries (as it happened in Iraq and still continues in Syria), or the complete destruction of sovereign states (Libya). Now we see how Western mainstream media have learnt not to see the murder of thousands, even tens of thousands of children in a few months: 15,000 killed Palestinian children is a monstrous figure. In the context of history, it is unlikely that anyone can provide an example for comparison. But the largest Western media holdings do not make this the main topic of their stories.
Let me remind you how it happened in Syria. The story of one killed child became the topic of global forums organised by the West. Photos of one particular boy were placed behind NATO countries’ presidents. The tragedy of one single child could have an impact on the adoption of laws, decisions, and declarations at major Western forums. In Donbass, children died regularly. The West did not see them, including because their journalists did not talk about it. Now thousands of Palestinian children are dying in Gaza and the region as a whole, but the West has trained its media to turn a blind eye to this.
Based on evidence provided by the Investigative Committee of Russia, courts in the Russian Federation continue to pass sentences on Ukrainian neo-Nazis, who have committed grievous crimes against civilians.
Pyotr Shuflin from the Azov Battalion has been sentenced to life for having killed three civilians in Mariupol on March 14, 2022.
Former Ukrainian Navy Commander-in-Chief Sergey Gaiduk and former First Deputy Commander of the Ukrainian National Guard Valery Kondratyuk have been charged with issuing orders to launch artillery attacks on numerous populated localities in Donbass, which killed or wounded 166 people, including three children, and destroyed over 60 civilian infrastructure facilities.
Investigation continues into recruitment of mercenaries for participation in hostilities on the side of Ukraine. The criminal cases of US citizen St John Michael-Arthur and Latvian citizen Atvars Anins have been sent for transfer to court and conviction in absentia. It has been established that they participated in the conflict as part of the Armed Forces of Ukraine for a monetary reward and openly shared their selfish motives and details of criminal activity on social media.
UK mercenary Mark John Ayres, who fought against the Russian Armed Forces from March 2022 to March 2024, has been convicted to 14 years imprisonment in absentia. He underwent military training in Ukraine and joined the Azov Battalion. His complicity in military crimes has been fully proved, including by eyewitness evidence. An international arrest warrant has been issued for him.
Ukrainian journalist Dmitry Gordon has been charged with instigation of terrorism and a war of aggression against Russia. A criminal case against him has been sent to court. He is making propaganda for terrorism; what he is doing has nothing to do with journalism.
According to the Investigative Committee of Russia, 296 criminal cases against 458 Ukrainian militants had been sent to court as of June 1, 2024, with 250 sentences passed, including 32 life sentences.
Ukrainian criminals will not avoid punishment. They will face the full extent of the law.
The Kiev regime’s terrorist attacks destroy not only Russians but also native Ukrainians. Let me say a few words about the so-called “mobilisation” to the last Ukrainian. Judging by all appearances, the dearth of manpower in the Armed Forces of Ukraine is so bad that officials on Bankovaya Street decided to enlist Ukrainians with dual citizenship or a residence permit in other countries. They are primarily targeting ethnic minorities, such as ethnic Hungarians, Moldovans and Bulgarians, who will be drafted en masse into the Ukrainian Armed Forces.
Ukrainian social networks began to publish reports to the effect that “citizens of other countries” are now detained en mass at the border and sent to recruitment offices. Currently, it mostly concerns Moldavians, who have Ukrainian passports and work in the neighboring Odessa Region. In addition, this measure also concerns long-haul lorry drivers, who as a rule have dual citizenship or permissions to legally stay abroad for a long time. In this context, noteworthy is the fact that the US Embassy in Kiev strongly advises its citizens with dual nationality not to visit Ukraine. Is it dangerous now?
Taras Kremen, Ukrainian Commissioner for the Protection of the State Language, or "Sprechenführer" as he's popularly known, has noted the need for the employees of the recruitment offices to strictly abide by language laws and abstain from using Russian. What do you think, when an employee of that “slaughterhouse” office is frogmarching a Ukrainian, what language they are both speaking? Judging by videos, they are using Russian obscenities. Did the Ukrainian language defender, Taras Kremen, regulate it somehow? Has he made any reservations that the Ukrainian language must be spoken in Ukrainian recruitment offices? Are there any exceptions for the Russian obscene language? Has he ever heard what language they speak in the Ukrainian armed forces? Or they will also be given some instruction, or they will be prosecuted to the full extent of the Ukrainian law for not using Ukrainian and pronouncing various Russian words to describe equipment, express emotions and their thoughts about the Kiev regime?
This not hypocrisy or double standards, but baseness that those who sold out for dollars, pounds and euros have fallen to. They are prepared to kill anybody, to fasten in the pillory anybody who disobeys Ukraine’s immoral laws adopted for Western money. It doesn’t matter how monstrous and absurd they are: the main thing is that they are paid for by the West. This shows that the official defender of the Ukrainian language demands that the military recruitment offices (better to say “manhunters”), which are trying to forcibly seize citizens subject to mobilisation, and the people who resist this, act within the framework of the language law and speak Ukrainian. For many years a terrible tragedy has been evolving before the eyes of the world. It is now a tragifarce if you look at what the Kiev regime is doing.
On May 29 Verkhovna Rada received a draft law on establishing military police to combat the growing desertion. The forcefully recruited do not want to be victims of the Kiev regime and whenever possible do their best to evade mobilisation or escape from the front. And it's not just a few. The numbers are in the hundreds. At this rate, their number may soon increase to tens of thousands. That is why the Bankovaya Street is trying in every possible way to prevent this terrible process from growing. I do not know if there are any historical analogies. How much does the Kiev regime hate its own population to do this to them?
It is reported that 100 percent immunity from mobilisation is only guaranteed to employees of enterprises owned by Western capital. This is worse than trading in slaves. When they came and bought people in Asia and Africa, they purchased those who were not part of their people. Here the Kiev regime is behaving this way with its citizens, brothers and sisters. I have read and seen many confirmations of the criminal nature and actions of the Kiev regime, but this is probably the most frightening. They are literally selling people to Western companies so that they could continue to bring the most profit to the West. And those who work for themselves or for the Ukrainian population (that is still there) are “fed to the lions,” given that the weapons are made in the West.
As a result, several industries are already experiencing worker shortages. In Kiev and other large cities, there is open discussion about the severe lack of workers, particularly in the housing and utility services sector. In Chernigov, the situation escalated to the point that at the end of May this year, the local drama theatre had to suspend its activities due to the mobilisation of 34 employees, including 7 actors. Housing and utility services facilities and civil infrastructure are being shut down – everything is falling under the knife of the Kiev regime.
Why is this being done? Primarily to preserve the power of the Vladimir Zelensky regime. Previously, from a procedural standpoint (without discussing ethics, morality, or historical context), it was legitimate. Now, its legitimacy is increasingly being questioned, with more and more people expressing doubts. As a result, more draconian measures are being implemented against Ukrainian citizens to maintain total control. People are sent to the “meat grinder” and are being deprived of the right to ask questions, pursue their own interests, or work.
On June 5, US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan announced Washington’s intention to provide Ukraine with a new significant package of military assistance in the coming weeks. This announcement coincides with efforts to compel representatives from various countries to participate in the “peace” conference in Switzerland.
I appeal to Washington: either support the peace conference or continue increasing arms supplies. You cannot claim to advocate for peace while simultaneously fuelling the conflict. The specifics of the new military assistance package are currently unknown, but it is not difficult to surmise that it likely includes long-range missiles, ammunition for HIMARS multiple launch rocket systems, and other destructive weaponry.
On June 4, US White House National Security Communications Advisor John Kirby actually confirmed the carte blanche given to the Armed Forces of Ukraine to target our military aircraft in Russian airspace. He stated that Washington has never imposed restrictions “on the Ukrainians shooting down hostile aircraft (read: Russian), even if those aircraft are not necessarily in Ukrainian airspace.”
Let me remind those who doubted the need for a special military operation. In 2021, the Russian Foreign Ministry issued numerous statements about the perilous proximity of NATO military aircraft to civilian aircraft, particularly over the Black Sea. We pointed out that certain manoeuvres were being practiced, posing a threat to civil aviation (not just Russian). Now, Washington asserts that it has never imposed any limitations on the Kiev regime.
In this context, we noted the remarks of Christian Freuding, head of the German Ministry of Defence working group coordinating military assistance to Kiev. He stated that the Ukrainian armed forces can use Patriot anti-aircraft missile systems to target objects in Russian airspace directly bordering the Kharkov Region.
All these actions are interconnected; they are not random decisions. The West has been pursuing a policy of destabilisation in the region for many years, deliberately escalating tensions and raising the stakes in the conflict. The US and Europe are in a panic that their plan might completely collapse. They failed to achieve their goal of destabilising Russia economically and socially in the early months of 2022. Despite flooding the Kiev regime with all kinds of weapons, they were unable to change the developments on the battlefield. Their only strategy now is to escalate the situation further: intimidating, supplying more weapons, and demanding new sacrifices from Vladimir Zelensky in the form of Ukrainian citizens. This only prolongs the agony of both the state and Ukrainian society.
We are fully aware of the current situation and the challenges facing our country and people. As the Russian leadership has repeatedly emphasised, we are prepared to repel any attacks on our Motherland and will defend ourselves by all available means.
I would like to point out that Russia is not the only target; other targets include free international communities and the countries that defend their sovereignty, independence and who do not want to live according to the “rules” that the West made up and nobody has seen. Because the West’s only rule is that the West is always right.
We noted Kiev’s harsh anti-China rhetoric. When visiting Singapore and the Philippines on June 2−3, 2024, the regime’s ringleader Vladimir Zelensky allowed himself some offensive statements about Beijing’s consistent, balanced and constructive course with respect to the Ukrainian crisis. He was particularly irritated by China’s refusal to attend a so-called peace conference on Ukraine on June 15−16, 2024, in Bürgenstock, Switzerland. This conference is actually unrelated to peace. Vladimir Zelensky went as far as saying that China is “a tool in Vladimir Putin’s hands” and questioned Beijing’s ability to take sovereign decisions based on national interests independently and without anybody’s advice. I am not even talking about other insults against China. Vladimir Zelensky is copying his curators – Washington that has long resorted to boorishness, unsubstantiated accusations and direct insults. He is looking up to his “seniors” and mimicking them. What I find really ridiculous though is that Vladimir Zelensky accuses China, a sovereign state, a permanent member of the UN Security Council, and a responsible participant in international relations, of taking spoon-fed decisions, while doing exactly that: he can’t make a move without external curatorship, which is paid and supported by politicians, the media, etc. These accusations come from Vladimir Zelensky who, under the pressure from the United States and the UK, prohibited himself, by law, from having talks with the Russian Federation. And this person is daring, or should I say is stupid enough, to accuse somebody of not acting independently.
On June 4, the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry, with its typical arrogance, responded to China’s proposal to hold a summit with equal participation from Russia and Ukraine, which would focus on discussing all the peace initiatives. The Ukrainian Foreign Ministry should be happy to be mentioned in the context of some sort of equality, considering that the Kiev regime is a terrorist reegime. They have been issued a credit of trust. But no. The Foreign Ministry of Ukraine told Beijing that only Kiev “can determine what peace will look like” and that “the only fair grounds for achieving peace is Zelensky’s ‘peace formula’.”
These statements speak volumes. You know, by commenting you can only spoil it. Our Chinese friends as well as our partners from the Global South had yet another chance to see the Kiev regime’s aggressive and confrontational stance with their own eyes. One can forget about any political will to achieve peace. It is a system created by the West in order to be used as a tool against Russia and to de-stabilise the situation in the region and the world. The Anglo-Saxons and their Ukrainian puppets continue to stubbornly impose their dead-end formulas and formats, refusing to hear and even think about any constructive initiatives or proposals from other states.
On June 4, the Verkhovna Rada passed the bill on the English language and its use in Ukraine, in the second reading. The bill was initiated by Vladimir Zelensky in June 2023, submitted to the parliament and passed in the first reading last autumn. What is the bill about? I will remind you. Ukraine is the same “modern” state where everything has been done to make sure that the native population speaking Russian and other minority languages could not use them to the full extent. The law enshrines the status of the English language, which is not a mother tongue to the majority of people in Ukraine, as one of the languages of international communication, and regulates “the specifics of its use by government bodies, local authorities, as well as in education, culture, healthcare and other areas.” Let this sink in: the law regulates that the government bodies will use English in their work. What does this mean? It means that the government bodies will be made up of people whose mother tongue is English, or Anglo-Saxons. Some will say it is impossible, but my answer is, they have already been through this.
Following the 2014 anti-constitutional coup, the government of Ukraine included officials from the United States, Canada, the Baltic States, and other countries that have never had anything to do with Ukraine. On top of that, these were not just holders of dual citizenship (dual citizenship was illegal in Ukraine in 2014). These people had passports and were nationals of their original countries in the first place. They were citizens of NATO countries. Without changing citizenship and in their national capacity, they became ministers and heads of industries in Ukraine. Now, the law enshrines the communication of such leaders with the people of Ukraine by way of introducing the English language the system into the government bodies. The ordinary people in Ukraine are clueless. They probably think, or are being told, that this is part of the package that needs to be adopted in order for Ukraine to be accepted into the European Union as soon as possible. However, this is being done with a different purpose in mind. It’s being done to put Western officials into the government bodies in Ukraine. They will be the ones to organise life for the Ukrainian people. Now, civil servants from the central and local executive authorities, officers of the Ukrainian Armed Forces and contract servicemen, as well as law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and customs and tax service officials must speak English. Can you imagine why this is being done? From September 2026, English will be used “for education in kindergartens and other preschool institutions”. English language requirements for senior executives will become effective two years after the martial law is lifted, and four years later for other categories. They are getting ready to occupy their territory. There is no other way to describe it.
This state of affairs is typical of colonies, whose inhabitants must understand what their masters from the parent country are telling them. This was the case during the Polish nobility in the 17th -18th centuries and during the Nazi occupation in the 20th century. Today, time has come for the English language.
Learning foreign languages does not contradict Article 10 of the Constitution of Ukraine, but I would like to note that the same article “guarantees free development, use and protection of the Russian language,” against which the Kiev regime has unleashed a genuine war seeking to eradicate it: books in Russian are being removed from libraries and destroyed, and using Russian in mass media and even songwriting is illegal.
Yesterday, June 6, the world marked Russian Language Day, or Pushkin Day. Modern-day Ukraine recalls the name of the great poet only when it is about to tear down a monument to Pushkin, his bust or a memorial plaque that has miraculously survived to this day. Few of the current Ukrainian fighters against Pushkin in Ukraine know that many drawings for his immortal poem Poltava were made (get ready, Bankovaya) by Taras Shevchenko, who in Kiev is referred to as “the luminary of Ukrainianism.” He is practically a hero, an ideal hero for almost any occasion. His works are not used in their entirety. Lines that the Kiev regime finds suitable are ripped out from his poems. The fact that Taras Shevchenko never hid his respect and love for the Russian poet is not publicised in Ukraine. Banderites avoid the historical truth like the plague.
We are convinced that no matter how hard the Zelensky regime tries, destroying the great and powerful Russian language is beyond his powers. Millions of people in Novorossiya and Malorossiya speak it as their native language. It is also spoken by many people of other ethnicities living in these regions. The Russian language is a universal means of interethnic communication.
The above facts and everything that I mentioned in the context of the situation in Ukraine, once again confirm the relevance of the goals and objectives of the special military operation, and the Russian leadership has repeatedly made it clear that they will be fulfilled.
Possible loans to the Kiev regime to be funded from future gains derived from managing Russia’s frozen assets
We are closely following the pseudo-legal experiments conducted by the Group of Seven, which is trying to develop a “quasi-legal” scheme to seize Russian sovereign assets through a mechanism of loans issued to the Kiev regime that are allegedly secured by future profits gained by Western financial entities that are managing our immobilised gold and foreign exchange holdings.
Just like the attempts to steal funds owned by Russia, these antics run counter to the international law and the G7 countries’ own legislation. Everyone is perfectly aware of the fact that the windfall revenue gained by foreign financial organisations from the management of our assets is due solely to the illegitimate steps seeking to immobilise them. In fact, they plan to declare Russian reserves a security, and future gains from it will not only be instantly appropriated by Westerners, but also spent to fund another military adventure against Russia. Naturally, we will respond to these steps just like we always do.
As a reminder, we have a set of retaliatory political and economic measures in store that we can use against those who are trying to take possession of Russia’s reserves. In May, a presidential executive order was issued concerning a special procedure for compensating for the damage caused to Russia and our Central Bank due to unfriendly actions on the part of the United States. A similar arrangement can be applied to other countries, including the European countries that have much more property and money in Russia than the United States.
Moreover, the United States and the EU have already proved that they can no longer be considered reliable jurisdictions for foreign investors, whose investments can be seized and ransacked at any time. This is not happening only with regard to our country. Many countries and peoples have gone through similar experiences, such as Venezuela which is still unable to return its own money, the money of its people. The examples abound. These actions are unsubstantiated. This is a case of trivial theft.
Economic agents from the Global Majority countries are clear about what is going on and are gradually shedding their Western assets and reducing the use of the US dollar and euro in payments. These processes have sped up lately.
Once again, we call on the right-minded political, business and expert circles of the West to tally the risks associated with these actions and what exactly they are going to be implicated in. It is important to ponder this thoroughly before going in. The response will not be long in coming.
The country’s authorities, the incumbent regime, continue the “de-Moldovising” policy under the pretext of the “Russian threat.” We are perfectly aware that this is not the point, Russia has nothing to do with that. What we see here is just a political order generously paid for by the West. It includes stealing everything from the Moldovans: their language, nationality, history, future and their country.
On May 30 this year, the Moldovan parliament, thanks to the votes of the pro-Western majority, adopted a declaration condemning “the genocide policy of the Russian Federation against Ukraine.” Our country is charged with waging a “war of aggression” and “denying the existence of the Ukrainian nation”. This is how the Maia Sandu regime worded it. They have just told the citizens of Moldova, ethnic Moldovans, that there is no such ethnicity and that they do not have their language either. At the same time, they accuse Russia of “denying the existence of the Ukrainian nation.” I am not going to give other quotations from this horrible document. Moldovan experts agree that the real reason for this odious paper is, in fact, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s visit to Chisinau on May 29. (Seeking to curry favour, they had to bring a gift or something to the table, and so they did).
Independent Moldovan political scientists point out that “an aggressive war” and “a denial of the existence of the nation” are what the Maia Sandu regime is doing to the Moldovan people, statehood and national identity, and “cynical, inhuman policies” are being pursued by the authorities specifically against Moldovans. If someone says that these claims are unsubstantiated and unfounded, I have evidence to present:
Repression against the opposition and anyone disagreeing with the Moldovan leadership policies is being stepped up. On May 30, an amendment to the article of the Criminal Code on high treason passed the second reading in the Moldovan parliament. In the new wording, “rendering assistance for the purpose of carrying out hostile activities against the security of the state” will be equated with high treason. Even Amnesty International, an engaged and biased organisation, had to admit that such a vague wording “can be used to combat political dissent and critical opinions under the pretext of countering malicious foreign influence.”
The policy of suppressing freedom of speech is continuing. On May 24, the Council for the Promotion of Investment Projects of National Significance decided to permanently revoke the licences of five bilingual Russian-Moldovan TV channels. Their broadcasting was suspended in 2023 and now they have been stripped of their licences. The closed media outlets are being replaced by European, mostly Romanian, analogues. It was the same in Ukraine with the language. First they crushed the Russian language, and then they started to promote English. Monstrous? Yes. These are today’s values of liberal democracy.
One of Maia Sandu’s main election promises in 2020 was to fight corruption. Today, three and a half years after she came to power, Western handlers agree that the results are dismal. According to the 2023 report of the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO), a mere 16.7 percent of anti-corruption recommendations by this pro-Western structure have been implemented for the parliamentary corps and 26.8 percent for the judiciary.
The situation in education and science is rapidly deteriorating. In 2023, the number of institutions in Moldova that were engaged in research activities decreased by a third compared to 2022 (this is only from 2022). We are not making analogies with the period of what they call “Soviet occupation,” we are comparing only with 2022. There are 47 organisations left, and the number of researchers has been reduced by 10 percent. What does this indicate? It shows that the current authorities do not need Moldovan scientists, educated citizens of Moldova. Western “liberal democracies” are after the resources of those countries where they try to bring and impose this democracy. To make sure that the people do not to resist and ask questions it is necessary to deprive them of intellect, historical memory, any scientific basis of their existence and activity. This is happening now in Moldova under Maia Sandu. What will happen next? Young people will leave Moldova looking for opportunities to get education in other countries.
Against the background of the extremely bad situation in the socioeconomic sphere, NATO continues to pump arms into Moldova. On May 31, German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius promised during his official visit to Chisinau that Germany would finance the purchase of 14 more Piranha armoured personnel carriers in addition to the 19 handed over in 2023, as well as provide the country with air defence equipment to combat drones.
The population's trust in Maia Sandu is rapidly shrinking. According to a sociological poll conducted in May this year, about 70 percent of Moldovans do not have financial stability and are not sure about their future. Protest sentiments are growing in the Moldovan society.
This is natural. Moldovans have proved many times in their history that they value their own national identity, historical roots and cultural code. They show that they will be able to defend them now as well.
Developments on the Korean Peninsula
We are deeply concerned and alarmed about the increasing tensions around the Korean Peninsula, which appear to be escalating with each passing day.
On June 4, Seoul suspended the 2018 inter-Korean military agreement, citing the necessity to “enhance the combat readiness of the armed forces” in response to “provocations” from the DPRK. This agreement had played a stabilising role for several years, preventing the escalation of tensions between the parties. As a result of the suspension, formal legal restrictions that previously prohibited artillery firing in the demilitarised zone and propaganda broadcasting to the North have been lifted.
This South Korea’s move is likely to escalate tensions and heighten the risk of dangerous incidents. The Americans and their allies often portray their actions, however reckless, as being for the sake of peace and stability. Have they ever made a different statement? But according to the West’s perspective, everything that the DPRK does is seen as inherently evil. They even coined the term “axis of evil,” which included Pyongyang. However, reality often unfolds quite differently. It would be better if Seoul demonstrated strategic independence, prioritised its own national interests, and pursued reconciliation by implementing confidence-building measures. This approach could help prevent the situation from escalating into a military catastrophe, a scenario that we and the entire world are now watching with growing concern.
The negative trends in the subregion are caused by the actions of the United States. They consistently engage in military manoeuvres with their allies. These actions are attempts at intimidation under the guise of addressing the “North Korean threat.” Additionally, the activities of the US-South Korean Nuclear Consultative Group further contribute to the destabilisation of the situation. Its third regular meeting is scheduled for June 10, 2024. Adding to this, the planned US-South Korean Ulchi Freedom Shield interservice exercise in August may fuel more danger. These exercises include scenarios of potential nuclear strikes on North Korean territory. It begs the question: where have the United States and the collective West acted differently? While claiming to pursue peace, stability, and prosperity for the Korean people, their methods often yield the opposite result.
Given this context, the recent agreements among the defence heads of the US, the Republic of Korea, and Japan in Singapore on June 2, 2024, are worrisome. Particularly concerning is their decision to conduct the first trilateral interservice exercise Freedom Edge aimed at addressing challenges in the Indo-Pacific region. Hence, the primary challenge in the region stems from the policies of the United States. There are no other challenges present, and any potential issues necessitate a collective approach. This reaffirms Washington’s intent, as it forges a tripartite military alliance with Seoul and Tokyo, not only to target the DPRK but also to strategically constrain Moscow and Beijing.
We noted the recent Russophobic remarks made by the Minister of Defence of the Republic of Korea, Shin Won-sik, during the Shangri-La Dialogue forum in Singapore on June 1, 2024. In his address, the high-ranking official of the South Korean government accused Russia of “betraying the international community” by, despite being a permanent member of the UN Security Council, receiving weapons from a regime that violates the council’s resolutions. He claimed that Russian-North Korean military-technical cooperation exacerbates tension on the Korean Peninsula and influences the situation in the European theatre of operations. However, as usual, he did not provide any evidence to support his claims.
I have just one question regarding the logic behind this. Even if we follow his logical chain, suggesting that recent Russian interactions somehow deviate from legal norms and provoke destabilising “military-technical cooperation,” I would like to inquire: was there no tension on the Korean Peninsula before? Did it all begin in 2023 or 2024? It seems that neither international organisations nor representatives of global diplomacy have ever been involved in resolving the situation on the Korean Peninsula. According to this narrative, there were never any issues. What you won’t hear from American lieges under pressure! Even if it means stating utterly illogical things that contradict their own recent historical approaches.
We find it rather suspicious that the South Korean side chose the Singaporean platform to voice these baseless accusations against Russia. It appears that Shin Won-sik, with his bold statements, aimed to curry favour with Vladimir Zelensky and his Western sponsors present at the event.
Shin Won-sik’s latest attack raises questions about the Republic of Korea administration’s commitment to the pragmatic approach to maintain relations with Russia, which they have publicly declared and reaffirmed in bilateral discussions more than once. How can this be deemed pragmatic when it’s marked by such aggressive rhetoric?
Russia cannot afford to stand idly by as events unfold and will take necessary actions to counter threats and safeguard its national security.
A Western “journalistic” investigation into the activities of the Fund to Support and Protect the Rights of Compatriots
The other day, we witnessed yet another provocative media campaign in a number of West European countries, where thirteen major media outlets almost simultaneously published “journalistic investigations” into the Fund to Support and Protect the Rights of Compatriots, a Russian non-profit NGO. This was a planted story that was later picked up by other media.
Considering the scale and coordination of this campaign, one has no doubt that it is a deliberate provocation involving security services of unfriendly states, rather than a “journalistic investigation.” What aim is it pursuing? Its goal is to discredit the human rights Fund, intimidate its partners in Europe, and maximally impede the effort to protect the rights and legitimate interests of Russian compatriots living abroad. What is happening to them at this moment? They are either under immense pressure or facing persecution.
Look at the outrages committed in the Baltic states. We speak about them each time. They are pressurising our compatriots so as to intimidate them and make them renounce their cultural, humanitarian and historical ties with Russia. Thus, they are being forced to give up what makes up their cultural code. If people refuse to comply, they are deported or banished. I am speaking about permanent residents of those countries, particularly the Baltic states, not people who came there as tourists. Accordingly, they apply to lawyers and seek legal protection which is provided by the Fund to Support and Protect the Rights of Compatriots. This is why the West, primarily the security services of NATO countries, turned against the Fund itself.
Predictably, their accusations have nothing to do with logic or common sense. Allegedly, the Fund is an arm of the Russian secret services and promotes Russian influence abroad. It is aimed at destabilising governments and misinforming the public. More than that, it seems to threaten the EU countries’ security. Faced with the EU sanctions, it is guilty of trying to circumvent them. I can’t think of a more absurd and illogical information aggression. So let us dot all the i’s and cross all the t’s.
This Fund is a unique, independent, non-profit organisation that has rendered legal, consultative and, if necessary, material aid to Russian citizens and compatriots finding themselves in a difficult situation abroad since its establishment in 2011. The situations might be so critical that the Fund tries to scrape up some material assistance, but their activities mostly concentrate on legal support and legal protection.
The Fund has created a number of legal aid centres and runs legal pages in the media supported by the Russian expatriate community. All of this is within reach and can be seen. Does this pose any threat to European security? They provide regular consultations to compatriots and Russian citizens and enhance legal literacy in Russian expatriate communities, including among young people.
What can be wrong with that? What’s the problem? They are involved in human rights activities, which are the key element, as the West told us, of the democratic system. Moreover, the Fund fully complies with the obligation to obey national laws in the countries where it operates.
Financing legal services is a crucial and more than justified line in the Fund’s work under the current circumstances. This category of spending is highly relevant today, given the West’s campaign of Russophobic pressure and persecution of Russian compatriots in the Baltic states, the US, and Western Europe, let alone Ukraine.
The acts of aggressive discrimination against Russians are multiplying. Accordingly, there are increasingly more cases regarding human rights violations by the authorities of unfriendly countries submitted to national and international courts of justice. There are also new grounds for taking legal actions, including unlawful deportations, withdrawal of residence permits, violation of property rights (something that we have repeatedly discussed), judicial procrastination, and abuse of other legislative and procedural norms. Court proceedings are initiated against active Russian compatriots accused not so much of specific offenses as of intending to commit them. The pretext is the notorious threat to security, often based on information classified by the Western secret services. It is only natural that people seek aid and find it at the Fund.
Let me stress that the Fund’s operations are absolutely open, transparent and respectful. We prioritise glasnost. They publish documents and file full-scale reports as per standards laid down for non-profit organisations in Russia. It is for this reason that the sham investigators found so much information on its activities in the Internet. True, they were not objective in presenting it and, as usual, they have distorted everything. This is why we had to respond and inform our audiences that the Fund is fully committed to its reporting obligations, as it was declared and required. But the “investigators” failed to notice this.
I think the time is ripe for an announcement expected by our compatriots: the Fund will continue its operations. I can’t invite journalists, because I am not a member of that organisation. But I can motivate and advise. Apply for comment and interviews to the Fund’s executive director. Learn the truth on your own and obtain information other than the one provided by the sham investigators. Ask the Fund directly. They will not turn you down. You can send requests to Alexander Udaltsov. He has always responded in a prompt and substantive way to all requests for comment or interview. He will tell you a lot and put things in their proper place. As for us, we will follow all this “dramaturgy.”
50th anniversary of diplomatic relations with Trinidad and Tobago
Yesterday, June 6, marked the 50th anniversary of diplomatic relations between Russia and the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago.
Over these 50 years, relations between Moscow and Port of Spain have come a long way. At the same time, they have always been based on friendship, respect and mutual consideration of interests, as well as a common commitment to the norms and principles of international law.
We appreciate Trinidad and Tobago’s balanced approaches to the key challenges of our time. We are ready to further develop Russian-Trinidadian cooperation both bilaterally and at various multilateral platforms for the benefit of our nations and in the interests of forming a fair multipolar world order.
We would like to take this opportunity to wish our Trinidadian friends peace, wellbeing, and prosperity.
Celebrations of Russian Language Day
On June 6, the 225th anniversary of Alexander Pushkin’s birthday was celebrated all over the world.
This is an event of global significance. According to the Presidential Executive Order, Pushkin Poetry Day became celebrated nationwide in 1997. Importantly, the birthday of the greatest Russian poet is celebrated as Russian Language Day in Russia. Alexander Pushkin made an invaluable contribution to the creaqtion of the modern Russian literarylanguage which is a unifying factor for peoples representing different cultures and religions in Russia.
Russian is not only a language of great literature but also of breakthrough scientific discoveries, works of art, and modern education, of which Russia and people around the world with Russian education are rightfully proud. Its role for global information interaction and widespread dissemination of knowledge is also important. Today, Russian is spoken by over 250 million speakers on the planet which enables them to discover an entire world of cultural achievements, technological progress, the social sphere, and expanded opportunities for education.
The global significance of the Russian language is highlighted by the fact that the UN has included Russian Language Day in the international calendar of its significant dates, as part of the programme for the development of multilingualism and cultural diversity. The UN’s multilingualism is the key to success when discussing the most important problems and ideas that concern the whole world and each country individually. Russian has a special role in this. It has been given the status of an official language of the UN from its very creation. As one of the six languages used in meetings and documents, Russian helps a number of delegations participate in discussions and share all nuances of their experiences.
Russian Language Day being celebrated all over the world. Russian diplomatic missions and cultural centres aboard, as well as associations of Russian language teachers, unions of compatriots, alumni of Russian universities living in various parts of the world traditionally organise diverse thematic events. You can find out more about them on the Russian Foreign Ministry’s official social media accounts.
Large events are also held at Russian representative bodies at international organisations. On the eve of the holiday, the Permanent Mission of Russia to the UN held a gala reception at the UN, where Alexander Pushkin’s poems were read, excerpts from his works were performed, and an exhibition of illustrations to his works was presented. The Representative Office of the Russian Federation to UNESCO carried out an extensive programme which included an exhibition, a roundtable discussion, a seminar for linguists and translators, a film screening, and a gala concert.
We would like to especially thank our compatriots who devoted their lives to supporting the Russian language, educating their own and other children in Russian, and preserving our culture. I cannot but mention the International Russian Language Organisation established in October 2023 at the initiative of President of Kazakhstan Kassym-Jomart Tokayev. It is open for any country to join.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov sent an open message with greetings to the participants of the anniversary events.
Plundering Crimea’s cultural heritage during the Crimean War of 1853-1856
We will now discuss the attitude of those who call themselves “civilised and exceptional” towards the humanitarian sphere and culture.
We have repeatedly talked about the crimes of Western countries during the colonialism era and about their moral and material responsibility before exploited countries and oppressed nations.
Today, I would like to tell you about the barbaric plundering of Crimea’s cultural and historical legacy during the Crimean War when the peninsula was occupied. How did the “civilised” Europeans behave? They behaved just like they do today when they are not rebuffed, just like during the Napoleonic Wars in 1812. We have repeatedly recalled that the Russian army did not behave that way during the occupation of France in 1814.
It is common knowledge that historical landmarks in Sevastopol and its environs suffered most of all during the Crimean Wat because the main hostilities had raged there. Virtually all famous buildings in the city were either damaged or destroyed completely. The British controlled that area for quite a while, since the autumn of 1855, in the vicinity of Sevastopol and its environs. This is where the Tauric Chersonesos Reserve is now located. Lieutenant Colonel William Monroe from the 39th Infantry Regiment, a famous botanist and antiquarian, organised predatory excavation works involving 50 to 60 men daily. The British were already accustomed to acting this way because they had behaved similarly with regard to the peoples of Africa, Asia and Greece. The “excavation works” yielded multiple ancient Greek coins, ceramics and marble headstones. British sources themselves confirm that the artefacts, obtained during these excavation works, eventually reached the United Kingdom. Some of them were deposited at the British Museum, and still others sold to private collectors. No one hastened to apologise, and no one is eager to do this today. Moreover, no one intends to reimburse the Russian side for the losses incurred.
Barring Sevastopol, cultural landmarks in Kerch also suffered grievously. Enemy forces occupied the city on May 12, 1855 and virtually plundered it. Kerch always “gets it” in the historical context. Regardless of any specific historical period, they city has been plundered all the time, and its museum depositories have been swept clean. Looters laid their hands on items from the collection of the Kerch Ancient Artefacts Museum. According to eyewitnesses, the museum hall’s floor was littered with fragments of glass and ceramic vessels, funeral urns and statues, and the showcases were pried open and broken. After the European press carried stories about these incidents, the British tried to blame Turkish soldiers; they learned how to “act kindly” under a foreign flag. However, there is irrefutable evidence of the fact that British officers and soldiers were directly involved in the looting.
The British took advantage of occupying Kerch, built on the site of ancient Greek Panticapaeum, for conducting predatory excavation works, with the direct consent of Her Majesty’s Government and on orders from Fox Maule Ransay, The Lord Panmure, the Secretary of State for War. He ordered the establishment of an ad hoc commission for conducting excavation works and selecting surviving exhibits of the Kerch Museum. This was done to replenish the British Museum with ancient exhibits; they remain there to this day. To prove our point, we have included hyperlinks to the museum’s exhibition.
They plundered Sevastopol and Kerch. Those saying that they want to instil civilisation and democracy in these cities, regions and these nations, including our nation, continue to plunder. In reality, they simply need our resources, including historical artefacts.
A lot of important events is taking place these days, the most important one being June 12, Russia Day. We will surely celebrate it. Respective materials will be posted on the Foreign Ministry’s social media accounts among other things.
Question: Could you sum up the preliminary results of President of Bolivia Luis Arce’s visit and give us an overview of Russian-Bolivian relations?
Maria Zakharova: We consider the results of President of Bolivia Luis Arce’s official visit to St Petersburg on June 5-7 very important. I will comment on the part of the visit that has already concluded. The talks with President of Russia Vladimir Putin became a milestone in bilateral political dialogue. Intense meetings with the leadership of key Russian government agencies and economic operators made it possible to make serious progress in resolving issues related to the implementation of large investment cooperation projects.
Let me remind you that Russian-Bolivian relations, which marked its 125th anniversary last year, are based on a mutual desire to build a more just democratic world, shared interests in ensuring the sovereign development of our countries and peoples, and a basic attitude towards international law.
Russia is ready to share knowledge and technologies so that Bolivia establishes its own production facilities with high added value and skilled jobs in this friendly country.
This has already been implemented in practical terms at the Centre for Nuclear Research and Technologies which produces radiopharmaceuticals to combat cancer. Another socially significant task of the Centre is to process agricultural products at a qualitatively new, high-tech level.
The same approach is used when implementing the project for the industrial exploration of Bolivian lithium deposits, which will open a new chapter in our trade and investment ties. We are also talking about using the best technologies available today for direct and environmentally safe extraction of this valuable metal. We believe that this will serve as a significant factor in transforming Bolivia into one of the most advanced centres for the production of batteries, which are in high demand in the present-day global energy sector.
In addition to these new projects, we can note many years of Gazprom’s successful work at the Bolivian oil and gas fields. It is carried out for mutual benefit, develops dynamically, and is aimed at ensuring sustainable development of the country’s gas industry.
Let me also note that Russia and Bolivia, being truly multiethnic countries with a thousand-year history and having a rich diversity of cultures and traditions, are important partners for cultural and educational exchanges. Over 3,000 Bolivians have been trained in our country and received high qualifications. This tradition continues today. We have hundreds of students from Bolivia.
Our cooperation has been built on this, and this is an excellent foundation for progress. We look to the future of bilateral relations with optimism. We are set to further promote bilateral ties in the spirit of traditions of friendship, true equality, and strategic partnership.
Question: How would you comment on the remarks made by the head of European diplomacy Josep Borrell regarding alleged Russian interference in the European elections?
Maria Zakharova: The upcoming European Parliament elections are marred by practices that contradict the very principles the European Parliament has long championed. We recall the frequent criticism directed at certain countries for being undemocratic and not meeting high standards. Now, as the European Parliament elections approach, we see political repression, searches, and media campaigns. They have once again activated the spy mania button, searching for the so-called “hand” of the Kremlin and Beijing. The narrative of the notorious Russian hackers remains a convenient tool for them.
All these actions are intended to create an electoral advantage for candidates favoured by the collective West for the European Parliament. Typically, these candidates’ agendas are rooted in Russophobia, a trend openly embraced by Westerners. It became necessary to target those who not only have a special relationship with Russia but also offer an alternative to the prevailing trends in the European Parliament. These people have a pressing agenda and aim to bring the voice of the people into the conversation, allowing the residents of their respective countries to have their problems heard. Europeans are growing weary of the constant refrain that Moscow is to blame for everything.
They have more urgent issues: their economies are collapsing, and there’s uncertainty about their energy future since they were forcibly cut off from Russian energy sources. They even face issues with self-identification. Consider the state of human rights, which used to be a priority for them. Now, none of this seems to function effectively. They lack a clear understanding of their values. Beyond gender and the LGBT agenda, they have nothing substantial to offer either their people or the global community.
Everyone talks about polycentricity and multipolarity. The trajectory of historical development indicates that new centres of influence, whether existing or emerging, will embody economic growth, scientific and technological advancement, cultural achievements, and values that enrich global civilisation. These centres have contributions to offer for civilisational progress.
What does Western Europe have to offer? Swapping body parts? Developing new hormonal drugs for them to take? Inventing a few hundred more genders? Addressing crises? There isn’t a single instance where it has effectively played a significant role, despite taking on such obligations.
When it comes to the situation in the Middle East, the Western countries were part of the Quartet but were simply sidelined, seemingly content to be overshadowed by the United States. A catastrophic tragedy concerning human rights is unfolding in the Gaza Strip. Where are all the humanitarian and human rights advancements developed by Western Europe? Why aren’t they applying what they were so proud of and encouraged the rest of the world to adopt? This is an opportunity for them to make a difference, yet they remain inactive.
All these candidates with their outdated pro-Washington agenda, who are once again vying for seats in the European Parliament, require artificial support rooted in Russophobia, spy mania, and the constant search for external scapegoats outside of Western Europe.
It is premature to comment on the results at this stage. Currently, we are focusing on observing the progress of the European Parliament elections, mirroring the approach the EU countries have taken toward Russia. Several months prior to Russia’s presidential elections in 2024, Western European nations have already drawn conclusions not just about the voting procedures but also about the outcomes. They shouldn’t be angry now. We will first assess the voting process according to established norms of propriety, and then scrutinise the results.
Question: How could you comment on the recent statement by Lithuanian Minister of Foreign Affairs Gabrielius Landsbergis made on May 31 in his interview to Radio Liberty Belarusian Service before the informal meeting of NATO foreign ministers in Prague on the expediency of using Western weapons supplied to Ukraine for strikes at not only Russian cities but also at Belarus, if necessary?
Maria Zakharova: You flattered him by calling a Lithuanian Foreign Minister. I think he is just a lunatic, because a person paid for diplomacy just cannot call on unleashing another bloodshed. This is a sign of his mental disorder. Combined with what he had said before there is only one conclusion to be made. I will not comment on his aggressive rhetoric and rude statements in defiance of any international practice.
Under the updated 2021 Military Doctrine of the Union State any aggression from the outside against Belarus will be considered by Russia as an encroachment against our common union territory with all ensuing serious consequences. We would also like to remind such “figures” that a joint regional military force, as well as Russian modern defence systems and tactical nuclear weapons are deployed on the territory of the fraternal republic in order to assist the Armed Forces of Belarus in ensuring the security of the western borders of the Union State and the CSTO.
The main thing, we talked about it today, is that with these statements the Collective West habituates the population to the ideology of war, to the fact that the state of peace is not normal. In this way, they confuse and corrupt their media, which are not able to write proper stories and prepare reports that such statements can have serious consequences both for those who make them and for the people of the countries on whose behalf they are made. Western media are paralysed. This dysfunction leads to a situation in which the citizens of these countries do not realise the seriousness of the fact that figures like Gabrielius Landsbergis, detached from reality, make such terrible and monstrous statements in the nationalist vein using aggressive rhetoric at that.
Question: In the past, many thought of Germany as one of the most benevolent European countries toward Russia, but now Vice Chancellor Robert Habeck says that Berlin should have allowed Ukraine to strike targets inside Russia from the start. Do you think Russia and Germany can be back to good relations now at all, and if so, how soon?
Maria Zakharova: I will answer your question in a moment, after I’ve given you some background on the issue. The German authorities are not their own masters and are not acting in the best interests of the German nation. What they are doing is fulfilling the instructions that are imposed on them, or accepting compelling proposals that they cannot refuse. Who issues those instructions? The administration in Washington.
Therefore, when we talk about bilateral relations, as you said, before defining the other party’s attitude to Russia, we need to accept that their politicians are not independent and are not doing what their voters have bidden them to do. Most Germans want to build pragmatic, mutually beneficial and productive relations with Russia, which would benefit public interest. They see nothing wrong with Russia benefiting from this accordingly. But the German authorities cannot implement this mandate because it runs contrary to the orders they get from Washington. This is the most essential thing to know about our bilateral relations. Now we’ll consider the state of these ties.
Our bilateral relations have been thoroughly undermined by Germany’s efforts (keeping in mind the bosses on the Capitol). The government of the Federal Republic of Germany continues to demonise all things Russian. Along with Russian citizens, our compatriots and the media, this policy extends to everyone who is on friendly terms with them, doing business or working with them. They are also whipping up aggressive spy mania.
I will remind you of a journalistic investigation that exposed spying activities by US intelligence services, such as tapping of former Chancellor Angela Merkel’s phone. There was no backlash. No US diplomats or agents were expelled. There was no media campaign to condemn American spies. No one was arrested. Is that normal? What does this imply? It showed that Washington has total control of every aspect in Germany. The country was not allowed to be independent even in matters of national security, as phone calls involving the German Chancellor are a sensitive security issue. I do not even need to mention other countries. Any voices in favour or in support of bilateral relations with Russia are immediately stifled there.
Berlin has stated that it shares and supports the philosophy of inflicting a “strategic defeat” on Russia. In making this move, they have failed to ask an important question. What will happen to them afterward? At present, as Germany has lost the stable supply of Russian energy resources following the US demands and later actions, German businesses are relocating from the country. Has anyone tried to estimate the consequences of our country’s “strategic defeat”? Well, they should. Another thing is that it will not happen, even though they are counting on it. With this approach taken by the German authorities, any normalisation of bilateral relations is out of the question.
Question: A Moldavian Courtyard, which almost everyone visited, was presented at SPIEF. Have you been there?
Maria Zakharova: I saw it, but haven’t been able to visit yet. Everything looks so beautiful there. I suspect it is delicious, too. I will probably go there.
Question: It is delicious, beautiful and hospitable like in Moldova. Today you have said that Moldova was tightening the screws in the media. Last night the news came that performers had arrived from Moldova and that their company has initiated repressive measures against them. What could be worse? At SPIEF, they often said to Moldova “to be with us” and “come back,” in particular referring to the EAEU. But the authorities are dragging it in the wrong directon. Is it really possible to join the European Union forcibly now? Just now, at a parallel session, Ilan Shor said that now they would scare the Romanians with joining the EAEU.
Maria Zakharova: They do not only join the European Union by force, but may also exit forcefully. Look how long the procedures for Britain’s exit from the EU, which are not yet completed, lasted.
Türkiye is a striking example. Over last decades, economic indicators have been confirming the country’s development. Every nation and country have their own traditions and specifics, but we can see that sociopolitical life in Türkiye was based on democratic principles and is developing rapidly. The democratic process is gaining momentum. The country takes an active part in international life. It seems that everything is in favour of granting the promise made in the past to include Türkiye in the European Union. Why not? After all, countries that do not meet the basic requirements for a candidate are being drawn there, contrary to the will of their peoples at that. The same way that they do not accept but keep on the hook countries that, on the contrary, want it and meet the criteria for membership based on unbiased, primarily economic indicators (after all, the EU was originally conceived as an economic organisation) and systematically improve them. Türkiye is a specific example.
What can it tell us? There are double standards in every aspect of the West’s approach to the international agenda. I will not comment on their domestic life: let them deal with that on their own. However, if they are part on the international community, with some of them being permanent or non-permanent members of the UN Security Council and want to have some leadership in global affairs, as they say, then they have to make straight their attitude towards the world and cancel double standards.
As for the Moldavian Courtyard, I will definitely go there.
Question: I will tell them to wait for you.
Maria Zakharova: If a couple years ago I was told that the expression we came up with to react to what was happening in Moldova (“Moldovan language exists”) would become a meme and a hashtag, I would have thought that impossible. Now, when we meet with friends and colleagues, even with strangers who come to Russia from Moldova, or if we meet abroad, we greet each other with this phrase: “Moldovan language exists.” We take pictures and make videos. How can this be?
We have to live in the absurdist theatre. We are told that men are not men now, and not even women, but nonbinary persons. Women are not really women either, but anyone. Moreover, they say that there can be both “those” and “others” in unlimited quantities inside every person. We are told that this is the norm. The same happens in other areas of life. Moldovans are told that they are not Moldovans. Ukrainians are told that they should speak English and forget Russian, because the Kiev regime believes they never used it at all. Heroes of world civilisation become anti-heroes, and traitors become new heroes. This is a substitution of concepts that permeates all spheres of life due to the fact that it is precisely the approach lobbied by the West in world affairs.
Question: The years 2024−2025 have been declared as cross-cultural years between China and Russia. How would you evaluate the current cooperation in the cultural sector between our nations, and what do you think are the prospects for such collaboration?
Maria Zakharova: Our connections in the areas of humanitarian and cultural exchange constitute vital elements of our broader bilateral relationship, characterised by comprehensive partnership and strategic cooperation.
The significance of cultural and humanitarian exchanges in fostering mutual trust cannot be overstated. Beyond our extensive shared border, our nations are bound by deep intercultural connections, and enduring friendship between our people.
As you rightly pointed out, the Years of Culture for both Russia and China, declared by President of Russia Vladimir Putin and President of China Xi Jinping, mark the 9th bilateral thematic exchange initiative. Prior to this, we have celebrated years dedicated to Russian and Chinese languages, youth exchanges, interregional cooperation, science and innovation, media, tourism, and sports. The new cross campaign upholds our longstanding tradition of cultural exchange. Its significance is magnified by its alignment with the commemoration of the 75th anniversary of diplomatic relations between our nations this year. The inaugural ceremony took place on May 16 in Beijing, attended by the leaders of both Russia and China.
We are pleased to highlight the significant interest in the cross years project from various top national organisations and regions in both countries. The programme boasts a diverse array of events, encompassing fine arts, exhibitions, folk art, cinema, and more, catering to a wide audience. With such vibrant activities, the potential for cultural exchanges is enormous, and we anticipate these events growing in scale and frequency in the years to come.
During the fight against the pandemic from 2020 to 2022, the pace of our interactions understandably slowed. However, we are now witnessing a swift resurgence in full-scale contacts, interactions, and exchanges.
Numerous renowned musicians and performers have toured China, while various exhibitions and shows have been organised in both countries. Several events in this realm have already gained significant importance for our nations, such as festivals showcasing national culture, which are held alternately in Russia and China, including the Russian-Chinese Culture and Art Fair international festival, held annually on the banks of the Amur River in the cities of Blagoveshchensk and Heihe. We anticipate that the events most cherished by the people of our nations, featured in the cross years programme, will also become regular in the future.
Cultural centres, established reciprocally in the capitals, are actively engaged in promoting culture and traditions of our nations. The Russian Cultural Centre in Beijing serves as a focal point for those interested in our country. It offers film screenings, exhibitions, concerts, lectures, masterclasses, a library, and Russian language courses accessible to all. We invite our Chinese friends to explore these offerings. The vast potential of our relations is evident to all.
Question: How do you assess the role and position of BRICS and the SCO in today’s system of international relations? How do you assess their contribution to the formation of a multipolar world?
Maria Zakharova: By and large, this is the first strong foundation for a multipolar world. There are natural global centres that took years, decades, and sometimes centuries to take shape. There are also man-made hubs that have been created to reflect the realities of the future. I think the SCO and BRICS are associations that picked up certain trends in the regions and began to accumulate the work of the member countries to overcome common challenges. At the same time, they have been programmed to become centres of a polycentric world, and poles of a multipolar world, because they play a key part here. Importantly, they rely on wholly different principles than the entities that claimed the role of global centres in the West.
They are not based on the principles of hegemonism, imperialism, their own exceptionalism, command and administrative system, or subordination of the will of some people to the will of other people, or segregation. They are open, equal, mutually respectful (if I may put it that way), both with regard to the members of these communities and with regard to everyone on the outside. That is why I believe they have a great future ahead of them. It is important for the experience gained in these associations to be replicated as much as possible when creating other associations, because it is positive and constructive, and does not lead to chaos, destruction, or aggression. On the contrary, it leads to creative activities, harmonisation of interests, consideration of mutual concerns, mutual assistance, and support - all of which, unfortunately, have become irrelevant in the modern world of recent decades.
Look at the rhetoric coming from Western countries. These are words of hatred, aggression, words that divide people. You will hardly ever see, hear or read in the remarks made by Western officials words like “friendship,” “sympathy,” or “mutual assistance.” I’m not even talking about love. Everything they say comes from the point of view of endless attempts to realise their own request for segregation. Anything goes that can be used to divide people by any criteria. You will never find in their remarks words that unite people, or bring humanity to the light. Meanwhile, all words, terms and messages are contained in the documents of the above associations, primarily BRICS.
Question: Has ceasefire in Ukraine been discussed with Washington through any channels at all?
Maria Zakharova: I do not have any information in this regard. If you specify what you mean, perhaps we will know the sources of your information.
Question: No.
Maria Zakharova: I will be able to comment on it when l have details. So far, I have nothing to share with you.
Question: The other day, Deputy Foreign Minister of Russia Mikhail Galuzin gave an extensive interview to TASS news agency, where, among other things, he accused the EU monitoring mission in Armenia of spying against Russia, Iran and Azerbaijan. Moscow, as well as Baku, has repeatedly expressed concern over this mission’s activities. Did Russia notify France about the need to shut down this mission through special channels?
Maria Zakharova: No one was notified about it. We immediately spoke about everything publicly. I have no doubt that French diplomats in Moscow do more than go to restaurants. I’m sure they do some work occasionally. But they have themselves put some limits on it. Sometimes, we have suspicions about how well they go about their work. We immediately started to speak publicly and openly in the information space about our negative attitude towards the above EU mission in Armenia and repeatedly commented on the confrontational nature of this semi-military presence of the EU in Armenia.
There’s no need to look for evidence. It’s all obvious. The anti-Russian, anti-Azerbaijani, and anti-Iranian objectives of this mission are becoming increasingly clear, especially after NATO countries started joining it. I think everyone was clear about everything at that point. Nothing else but destabilisation of military-political situation and turning the region into yet another arena of geopolitical rivalry should be expected from such “initiatives” of the European Union.
I mentioned another arena of rivalry for a reason. You can argue that the region was unstable as it was. That is correct. But there was a chance to stabilise the situation, to resolve the long-standing crisis in order to unblock opportunities for humanitarian communication of people, expanding the economy, infrastructure, transport, logistics, and bringing stability to the regional agenda and consolidating it there. All the chances were there. Painstaking efforts began, which started to yield results. This caused displeasure of the West, which does not see this region as a place of stability, peace and security. Hence, this mission.
We are convinced that all the pressing issues facing the South Caucasus today should and can be resolved through the collective efforts of regional states exclusively in the interests of the countries of the region without outside interference.
Question: The Foreign Ministry and the Ministry of Justice recently asked President of Russia Vladimir Putin to strike Taliban from the list of terrorist organisations. Today Taliban representatives are at the forum. Does it signal that the request to remove Taliban from that list will be granted?
Maria Zakharova: Let’s divide these questions. Participation of Afghanistan’s economic bloc is not a signal at all. It is a routine work. It means that the relevant government entities, economic operators are interested in developing own economy and economic relations, in particular with Russia. Maybe they will find here some other partners, not only from our country.
As for the second track of the question, we have stated on many occasions that Russia is going to gradually develop its multifaceted cooperation with the present Kabul administration, which has been governing Afghanistan for almost three years now.
The work on removing the Taliban movement, the backbone of this administration, from the domestic terrorist list reflects a recognition of objective realities following the US and NATO flight from Afghanistan and the collapse of the pro-American regime in Kabul in 2021.
What does “reflects realities” mean? It is not a figure of speech. These are the tasks for the regional countries to deal with for the sake of stability and security in the region. These are the problems that were multiplied by the Americans and NATO countries over the 20 years of their destructive presence in Afghanistan, which require an immediate solution. That’s what it means. It's not a situational solution. It is something that will make it possible to solve pressing issues for the sake of regional stability and security. I do not even say that for the benefit of bilateral relations, but for regional stability and security, which in this case is a basis and part of the general world situation. The problems emanating from Afghanistan have been affecting security in all the world for many years.
Question: German Federal Minister of Defence Boris Pistorius said that Germany has to make steps to prepare for possible war in 2029. What is Russia’s attitude to this statement? Or is it a sign that the West wants a war with Russia like WWII no matter what?
Maria Zakharova: We have already said today that German leadership is not independent. Regrettably, it has lost the ability to conduct an independent and sovereign policy both inside West Germany and abroad.
What does it mean? It means that all these statements are coordinated from Washington. What does the United States want? Another world chaos. I have a feeling that that the ideologues of the liberal democracies in the United States are literally dreaming about how to drag Europe into even greater confrontation. The present level of problems on the European continent is not enough for them. They need competitive advantages of artificial nature that would be able to delay their economic collapse for some time. How can they provide for themselves? By sowing discord in Europe. Alas, there are not only preconditions, but facts in favour of this analysis.
I think that Germans themselves should answer the question what Boris Pistorius is thinking about. They should ask their government: what is it dragging the German people into? Where from did it pull them out? Clearly, out of stable economic relations with Russia and out of reliable energy cooperation. This is what the German government has pulled its people out of. What are they dragging them into? Now, in order to get American liquefied gas, they have to join the queue and wait to be allowed to buy what they need for their own money at a high price, for the development, for the existence of not only the economy but the country in general. Now they have to ask permission for this. And there is still doubt if they will be allowed to use the gas or not.
This is how the United States is developing its allied relations with those who lost their independence and failed to pursue and proceed from their national interests, while agreeing to serve the interests of other countries.
Question: A delegation representing the Taliban is taking part in the St Petersburg International Economic Forum. What does Russia stand to gain from cooperating with them politically and economically?
Maria Zakharova: I have addressed this issue multiple times and covered it extensively over the past few days. Let me clear up your question, and then maybe I will be able to give you a broader answer. Tell me please why you in Austria are concerned about how we are building our relations with the Taliban Movement in Afghanistan? There’s no catch in my question. I’m just trying to understand. Why?
Question: Because almost no one in the world has ever had economic relations with the Taliban. Russia is expanding its dialogue with them. We find it interesting.
Maria Zakharova: Why didn’t the Western countries build relations with the Taliban?
Question: I’m not sure why politicians do what they do.
Maria Zakharova: I think you should direct that question to the politicians in Austria. Why didn’t they start building relations when it became clear that the Taliban Movement had come to power in Afghanistan? If they tell you that the Taliban is on the terrorist list, you can clarify this point. After all, your politicians provide money and weapons to the terrorist Kiev regime and see nothing wrong in that, and are even scaling these activities up. That is an interesting point. This question is not directed personally at you, but rather at all those who are painting this issue in this particular way and stoking this matter in connection with the Taliban-Moscow contacts.
Earlier, I explained that some problems have been created during the 20-year-long NATO presence in Afghanistan. They have multiplied the already existing problems. These problems need to be resolved. I’m talking about drug trafficking and organised crime, including the terrorist threat.
Who will come in and help the region deal with the problems created by America and NATO in Afghanistan? Twenty years ago, America moved into Afghanistan with a UN Security Council mandate to reduce the terrorist threat, to fight it. In all that time, they never once reported to the Security Council. Then, they shamefully fled from there, leaving Afghanistan and the countries of the region one-on-one with this problem. Who will help us cope with these daunting challenges? Even if the United States and NATO countries wanted to (at least they have stated so), they are failing, just as they are failing in other parts of the world.
Here’s my answer to your question. Whenever you try to articulate a topic, you should specify the historical background and circumstances rather than just try to make it a hot-button topic and use clichés to describe it.
Question: With urban population on the rise and influence of the urban areas growing, how does the Russian state view regional and urban diplomacy at the federal level, and how important regional diplomacy is for Russia’s foreign policy?
Maria Zakharova: The Foreign Ministry has a department dedicated to these matters which maintains daily contacts with the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. In addition to us helping them advance their international agenda, the Foreign Minister holds regular meetings - a Council - with the constituent entities to discuss global strategic matters that are part of the constituent entities’ interaction with their international partners. This includes cross-border and region-to-region cooperation, cooperation on a collective basis, and cooperation through civic society and economic operators, to name a few. This makes up a large part of the ministry’s activities and is critically important for us.
Unfortunately, a number of countries no longer talk to Russia or Russia’s constituent entities. I’m referring to the collective West. Many projects have been terminated or suspended. Some have even broken twin city ties. We’ve seen it all. But, as Minister Lavrov said, they will get over it.
The point is that people, citizens, residents, in a word, everyday people need all this. This is about business ties, transnational families and historical contacts. We see that even within the collective West people are tired of Russophobia and want to see it go. However, the regimes continue to dominate with their anti-Russia agenda. But why focus on this negativity, when we have tremendous achievements - not just opportunities - in this area with other countries.
I just mentioned cultural ties with China, which include region-to-region cooperation with a large number of our southern and eastern neighbours which includes crossborder and region-to-region interaction. They maintain international cooperation with the countries that share our approaches to mutually respectful and equitable cooperation.
Question: As a state, Great Britain is considered an unfriendly country. The people, though, have remained friendly. What can we do to make other diplomats feel like guests in Russia?
Maria Zakharova: To make who feel like guests in Russia?
Question: Make the ambassadors and other diplomats feel at ease in Russia.
Maria Zakharova: It depends on what people bring along when they come to us. Alexander Nevsky famously said it in his own time. Those who come with a sword will definitely feel uncomfortable, not at home and not as welcome guests. Those who come with an open heart and interesting projects, and treat our people and country with respect, will always feel not just as welcome guests, but at home. We will spare no effort to make them feel that way.
Question (retranslated from French): Considering the strengthening ties between Russia and Africa, is Russia contemplating the establishment of a Russian bank representative office in Africa to facilitate direct financial and economic transactions without intermediaries?
Maria Zakharova: Regarding the establishment of Russian bank representative offices in African countries, we are not excluding such a possibility. However, it depends not only on Russia but also on the interest of our African partners and the specifics of their national regulatory frameworks. Additionally, we must consider the extent of Western efforts to obstruct such developments, as we have observed significant pressure on many countries and economic operators globally. This topic is of great interest to us, and we are committed to engaging with African nations and operators who share a mutual interest in this collaboration.
Simultaneously, Russia is exploring various options to simplify trade and financial transactions with African partners. Through our central banks, we are developing opportunities to increase settlements in national currencies, establish direct interbank correspondent relationships, and build a payment and settlement infrastructure resilient to external influence. We believe these efforts will strengthen Russian-African trade and improve cooperation between our companies and local economic operators.
Russia is interested in developing multifaceted, mutually beneficial trade and economic relations with African countries. Our readiness for this has been reaffirmed by the Russian leadership during the Russia-Africa summits and in meetings between our Foreign Minister and African partners. We are prepared to cooperate with the African continent to enhance the sustainability, predictability, and security of our mutual trade exchanges.
I would like to once again draw your attention to the statement made exactly a year ago by President of Russia Vladimir Putin at the plenary session of the Russia-Africa summit.
Question (retranslated from French): Africa is closely monitoring the Russian special military operation in Ukraine, which we see as a lesson for us. We also see that Russia is helping some African countries fight terrorism, for example, the Central African Republic, Niger, Mali and Burkina Faso. Could Russia increase its assistance to Africa for preventing and combating terrorism?
Maria Zakharova: We are grateful for the balanced assessment of global developments expressed and shared by African countries. We see that it is not a partisan or timeserving stand but a position based on their knowledge of history and respect for what Russia has been doing for Africa. You don’t see such relations often now. Few countries remain grateful and retain their historical memory. African countries not only express gratitude to us. We see that remembering the past is part of the national idea, policy and probably cultural code of Africa. They not only remember the suffering of African peoples but also remember and are grateful to those who helped liberate Africa from the colonial yoke.
But I also remember other examples, just as you probably do, when countries with a difficult history, which suffered from genocide and persecution, only retain the fact of their suffering on their historical memory but forget information and facts about those who helped them overcome suffering, as if this never happened. It is amazing that this has not happened to Africa.
Here is another issue I would like to mention. A Western politician once said that Western civilisations have a “gene of democracy” and a “gene of freedom.” However, I see that the collective West, in particular the EU, has lost its freedom, not to mention democracy, even though they have never been enslaved or colonised, and their people have never been sold as goods.
Take a look at Africa, which has lived under colonial pressure for centuries. African were sold as a commodity, and even worse things happened to them. Commodities were regarded with more concern than slaves. Yet despite that horrible past, I would say that it is Africa that has the “gene of freedom,” to use a term coined in the West. Africans are behaving as free people in the most complicated situation, relying on their historical memory, national interests, the feelings of justice, duty, respect and, of course, equality. I felt like I had to say this.
As for combatting terrorism, you have said correctly that my country helped and continues to help many African countries fight the terrorist threat. This primarily concerns the Sahel-Sahara countries, which have suffered from terrorism more than others. Russia has always responded to requests for help it received from the authorities. We will continue to help our partners enhance the combat ability of their national armed forces and train their military and law enforcement personnel. We intend to continue developing defence and military-technical cooperation with African countries. We see that they highly appreciate the results of such cooperation.
We put a high value on cooperation with African countries, including in combatting terrorism. The Declaration on Strengthening Cooperation in the Fight Against Terrorism adopted at the Second Russia-Africa Summit in St Petersburg in 2023 provided an additional powerful impetus to this cooperation. During the first ministerial conference Russia-Africa, which will be held in Sochi on November 9-10, 2024, we will also discuss joint counterterrorism actions and hold special themed events.
Russia will continue to build up practical assistance to the education and training of law enforcement and judicial personnel from African countries in countering modern challenges and threat at the multilateral and bilateral levels.
In this context, we would like to mention the current success and a positive outlook for a project Russia has initiated at the UN Office on Counter-Terrorism to increase awareness about measures to prevent terrorists from acquiring weapons in Africa. We are using this project to inform our African partners about the attest Russian achievements in this sphere. In addition, we co-financed the second phase of the UN Office’s initiative on strengthening the potential for establishing national and regional coordination mechanisms for the prevention and combatting of terrorism. The recipients of that initiative should be the countries of Southern Africa and the Great Lakes Region.
Question: How do you evaluate the state of Russia’s relations with Arab countries now?
Maria Zakharova: That’s an important and complex question, but I’ll do my best to address it concisely.
We see Russia’s relations with Arab countries as promising, both bilaterally and within regional frameworks.
We have significant potential to develop relations in economics, finance, security, international cooperation, and the humanitarian sphere. This mutual interest is shared by both Russia and the countries in the region. Additionally, there are civilisational responsibilities that we share, such as preserving our cultural code and traditional values across our countries and peoples.
Question: Is Russia obliged to coordinate the use of strategic nuclear weapons with other former Soviet republics?
Maria Zakharova: This is a legal and highly sensitive matter. I will consult experts and give you an answer.
Question: The media coverage of President Vladimir Putin’s visit to Uzbekistan was limited, but the visit featured high-level representation. We’d like to know more about it. What was the purpose and agenda of this visit?
Maria Zakharova: You can find detailed information about the visit on the official website of the President of Russia. The site has published a comprehensive report on the trip. If you have specific topics you are interested in, please let me know, and I’ll gladly request relevant materials from my colleagues.
Question: Much is being said about the puppet nature of Vladimir Zelensky’s regime and a hot phase of the war with the US (Sergey Lavrov). Under what conditions may Russia declare the US an enemy?
Maria Zakharova: It has already been identified as our adversary. Therefore, if this concerns style only, it’s probably of no interest to you. Your focus is on our substantive relationships.
Corresponding measures have been enacted not just targeting America, but against all countries pursuing unfriendly policies. There are likely varying degrees aligned with actions taken by other nations. However, this isn’t merely a figure of speech; these are real steps taken by our country.
Question: Many individuals from Anglo-Saxon countries wish to engage and collaborate with Russians, hence my question. Some intended to attend the SPIEF but were denied permission by their respective governments and couldn’t travel. Could the Foreign Ministry provide information and contacts of such individuals, enabling us to access alternative viewpoints from people residing in the USA and Great Britain?
Maria Zakharova: There was a prominent case of Scott Ritter being forcibly removed from a plane. This isn’t an isolated incident; it has happened before. It surpasses all reasonable limits – it’s not just a warning but a form of intimidation. It’s a physical prevention of an individual leaving US territory. What comes next? Will people be chained to radiators? They haven’t engaged with Russia or participated in any forums.
Question: Are there more such contacts?
Maria Zakharova: Do you understand the essence of this issue? The point is they are not just discouraged; they are intimidated. They are afraid to even say what is happening to them.
Let me clarify that if there are any instances where publishing such information will not cause harm, I will certainly make it public.
Question: In your opening remarks, you have already mentioned the information attack on the Foundation for the Support and Protection of the Rights of Compatriots. Could you elaborate further on what, in the view of the Foreign Ministry, is the objective behind these information attacks on our foundation?
Maria Zakharova: As I mentioned before: to intimidate, obstruct operations, discourage economic operators from engaging, dissuade compatriots from seeking assistance, and impose maximum difficulty, labelling and marginalising in the process.
This too is a component of the ongoing information war, which itself is a facet of the hybrid warfare against our country.
