Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, April 10, 2024

Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process Tor Wennesland
Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with chairs of BRICS parliamentary foreign affairs committees
The CIS Foreign Ministers Council Meeting
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s participation in a meeting of the United Russia Party General Council Commission on International Cooperation and Support for Compatriots Abroad
Republic of Bashkortostan presentation
The situation around the Zaporozhye NPP
Ukraine crisis
The legal effect of the International Court of Justice’s provisional measures
Western cyberattacks on Russian critical infrastructure facilities
Attacks on the Russian Embassy in Lithuania on April 7-8, 2024
BRICS Council on Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism
Outcome of the 55th session of the UN Human Rights Council
Results of the first quarter of Russia’s CIS chairmanship
Change in the venue of the 34th Session of the FAO Regional Conference for Europe
Events to mark the 80th anniversary of Moldova’s liberation from Nazi occupiers
The International Day of the Resistance Movement
70 years of the Battle of Dien Bien Phu
Tchaikovsky Planet exhibition to open at the World Musical Culture Museum in Dalian, China
Bolivia to use the Russian pavilion at the 60th Venice Art Biennale 2024

Some statements by the Austrian Chancellor
Imposing unconventional values in Moldova
Formation of a special fund to support Ukraine
NATO’s expansion in the South China Sea
Russia-France relations
Results of Sergey Lavrov’s visit to China
Russia’s mediation in talks between Yerevan and Baku
Armenia’s rapprochement with the Western countries
Russia-Armenia relations
Decision by the Olympic Committee of Ukraine on interaction with Russian athletes
China’s peace plan
Creation of a renewed Entente
UN Security Council resolution on Gaza
French ideas on sending troops to Ukraine
UN Security Council sanctions against North Korea
The situation at the Armenia-Azerbaijan border
Nikol Pashinyan’s visit to Moscow
The West’s destructive role in the South Caucasus

Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process Tor Wennesland

On April 10, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will receive UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process Tor Wennesland, who is on a visit in Moscow.

The meeting’s agenda includes a detailed discussion on the current situation in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict zone, primarily in the Gaza Strip, with a focus on expediting a ceasefire. The two officials will also focus on discussing subsequent collective steps to promote a political solution for the Middle East Peace Process based on the universally recognised international legal framework and the two-state solution as its central element.

Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with chairs of BRICS parliamentary foreign affairs committees

On April 11, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will meet with chairs and representatives of BRICS parliamentary foreign affairs committees.

The meeting’s agenda covers a wide range of matters related to the association’s activities and prospects for strengthening interaction within international parliamentary structures.

The heads of the relevant committees within the BRICS legislative bodies will be in Moscow to attend the first meeting of the chairs of BRICS parliamentary foreign affairs committees. They are also scheduled to meet with the Speakers of the two chambers of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation.

The CIS Foreign Ministers Council Meeting

On April 12, Minsk will host this year’s first meeting of the CIS Foreign Ministers Council, to be chaired by Sergey Lavrov.

The ministers will exchange views on current international and regional matters and discuss efforts within the CIS in their key aspects with a focus on implementing the Russian Chairmanship’s 2024 priorities. Today, we will be summing up the results of the first stage.

The participants are expected to pay special attention to building up security cooperation in the CIS region, working together to counter long-standing and new challenges and threats, and promoting cultural and humanitarian cooperation, including in the context of preparations for the Year of the 80th Anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War, to be celebrated in the CIS in 2025.

The ministers will review performance under the 2023 the Plan of Multi-Level Consultations between CIS Foreign Ministries and the Programme of Action to Promote Closer Partnerships between CIS Foreign Ministries.

There are plans to approve several statements as part of efforts to strengthen foreign policy coordination.

Certain documents to be approved at the meeting will be submitted to the CIS heads of state for approval.

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s participation in a meeting of the United Russia Party General Council Commission on International Cooperation and Support for Compatriots Abroad

On April 16, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will chair a regular meeting of the United Russia Party General Council Commission on International Cooperation and Support for Compatriots Abroad at the Foreign Ministry’s Mansion.

The meeting participants will exchange opinions on the results of presidential election in the Russian Federation, in the context of current geopolitical realities, and discuss topical issues of Russia’s BRICS chairmanship.

Republic of Bashkortostan presentation

On April 17, the Cultural Centre of the Foreign Ministry's Main Administration for Service to the Diplomatic Corps (GlavUpDK) will host a presentation of the economic, investment and tourism potential of the Republic of Bashkortostan. The event will feature an exhibition highlighting achievements in the sphere of socio-economic development, as well as the region’s unique natural beauty and distinctive culture. The presentation will provide an additional impetus to expanding international and foreign economic ties of this territory of the Russian Federation.

Representatives of the diplomatic corps, business circles, Russian and foreign media outlets are invited to attend the event.

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Head of the Republic of Bashkortostan Rady Khabirov are expected to speak.

The situation around the Zaporozhye NPP

Since April 7, 2024, Europe’s largest Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant has been subjected to systematic Ukrainian attacks using unmanned combat aerial vehicles.

On April 7, 2024, the Armed Forces of Ukraine used kamikaze drones for hitting an area near the NPP’s canteen. Later, a drone attacked a local freight port; other drones hit the dome of the NPP’s Unit 6, as well as a personnel training centre. Air defence units repelled an attack on the Zaporozhye NPP’s Unit 5.

On April 8, 2024, a kamikaze drone was downed over the NPP and fell on the roof of the engine room of Unit 6.

On April 9, 2024, the Armed Forces of Ukraine attacked the Zaporozhye NPP’s personnel training centre containing the world’s only life-size reactor room simulator.

Russia raised the issue of the Kiev regime’s attacks on the Zaporozhye NPP at the International Atomic Energy Agency and the UN Security Council. It urged top IAEA officials to provide direct assessments of Ukraine’s criminal actions without any ploys, shirking and insinuations.

An emergency session of the IAEA Board of Governors will soon be convened on our initiative. The issue of Ukrainian attacks on the NPP will also be raised at a UN Security Council briefing. We intend to urge specialised international organisations to recognise current developments around the Zaporozhye NPP and Ukraine as a whole. This should be an open and direct conversation based on facts. This conversation is long overdue, as highlighted by the situation around the Zaporozhye NPP.

At the same time, we realise that Western representatives have decided to hush up the situation. They are virtually preventing their own mainstream propaganda media outlets from reporting this news. We can hear regular statements directly approving criminal actions of the Kiev regime, including those against nuclear facilities. The West believes that the regime can do anything without exception.

We will continue to do our best, so that the international community’s reasonable majority will not overlook such complicity in the crimes of the Kiev regime.

Ukraine crisis

The Kiev regime is not stopping its terrorist activities against the civilian population and infrastructure in Russia.

On April 2, the Ukrainian armed forces shelled the town of Kakhovka in the Kherson Region. Three civilians were injured of varying severity and a power line was damaged. An in-patient building of the local hospital was destroyed in the urban settlement of Novaya Mayachka.

From April 3 to 7, four people were killed and 41 injured, including five children, as a result of shelling of residential areas in Donetsk, Gorlovka, Yasinovataya and Makeyevka in the Donetsk People's Republic.

Over the past week, the Banderites have repeatedly opened fire at populated areas in the Belgorod, Bryansk and Kursk regions and Belgorod itself. Unfortunately, they caused casualties and destruction.

Neo-Nazis continue to actively use drones to strike peaceful targets.

On April 4, in the Kherson Region, a UAV rammed a Gazelle pickup truck carrying groceries to a shop in the village of Babino. Two people died, and the wounded man, who tried to escape, was killed by a second drone.

In Novaya Kakhovka, they dropped a drone bomb on a repair crew restoring mobile communications. Two workers were killed, and another one is in serious condition at a hospital. One of the victims could have survived, but the Ukrainian fighters began to hit the ambulance crew that arrived at the scene with drones. As a result, it was not possible to provide medical assistance to the wounded person in time.

On April 7, a young woman was killed in the village of Shagarovka, Belgorod Region, and four people suffered closed head injuries, including two children, as a result of fragments from a downed Ukrainian UAV.

On April 5, Russian air defence forces intercepted and destroyed 51 Ukrainian UAVs. Most of them – 44 drones – were shot down in the skies over the Rostov Region, another six over the Krasnodar Territory, and one over the Saratov Region. In the Morozovsky District, Rostov Region, eight people were injured while dealing with the aftermath of the drone downing. The Ukrainian Security Service and the Main Directorate of Intelligence of the Ukrainian Ministry of Defence were quick to declare the "success" of the attack and their involvement in it. They claimed that the targets of the UAV were military airfields, where dozens of aircraft were allegedly destroyed and damaged. In reality, this turned out to be just another fake of Kiev propaganda. And people did suffer.

On April 7, the Ukrainian armed forces attacked Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant with drones.

In this context, the facts set out in a report by the US CNN channel on April 2 are quite remarkable. It stated that the Ukrainian armed forces were using long-range drones to attack Russian civilian infrastructure facilities, including oil refineries. Western specialists are involved in target selection, and the UAV routes are plotted and adjusted in real time using foreign intelligence data.

All of the above-mentioned crimes are carefully recorded by the Russian law enforcement agencies. Those involved are being identified and brought to justice.

Kiev launched its “counterterrorist operation” in Donbass almost a decade ago. It was a direct consequence of the armed coup d’etat staged with the West’s support, guidance and conduct and the advent of national radical forces to power in Ukraine.

On April 14, 2014, Acting President of Ukraine Alexander Turchinov issued an executive order on the entry in force of a decision by the National Security and Defence Council of Ukraine of April 13, 2014 on urgent measures on overcoming the terrorist threat and preserving the territorial integrity of Ukraine. On April 15, 2014, Turchinov announced the start of the counterterrorist operation’s power phase. Indicatively, he did this on the following day after CIA Director John Brennan visited Kiev.

In effect, this was a civil war unleashed by Kiev against its then compatriots in the country’s southeast. People there demanded only one thing – respect for their lawful rights to speak the native tongue and teach children in it, know history and pay tribute to their heroes who saved the world from fascism almost 80 years ago. However, the Ukrainian rulers did not want even to listen to them. Kiev accused all residents of Donbass of state treason and terrorism and suppressed their protests with its regular army, special units of the Security Service and the Interior Ministry of Ukraine, and neo-Nazi punitive battalions, including the Right Sector, Azov and Aidar. These forces launched hostilities against the residents of Donbass. All this was recorded in chronicles. Using artillery and aviation, Kiev attacked residential districts in Donetsk, Lugansk and other cities and villages.

Indicatively, the United States and the EU did not urge the Kiev regime to refrain from the use of force, like they did in case of Viktor Yanukovych. They urged him to display a “humane attitude” to the Maidan protesters. Meanwhile, the latter threw Molotov cocktails, burned down tires (that specially trained people brought them in commercial amounts) and set up not peaceful tent cities but paramilitary camps in the streets of cities. Having destroyed the infrastructure, they went over to sniper attacks at civilians.

During all these years, we have known very well and said this publicly that the accusation of Donbass of terrorism is a fake. This is the fake against which the world is “fighting” but the West is actively distributing it for some reason. Now the UN International Court of Justice has confirmed this. In its judgment of January 31, 2024, it refused to recognise the DPR and the LPR as terrorist organisations and Russia as a sponsor of terrorism. This verdict refuted Kiev’s main argument in justifying the war it unleashed against civilians. Kiev accused Donbass of being ruled by Russia-sponsored terrorists. The International Court actually confirmed that Kiev’s aggressive actions against Donetsk and Lugansk were based on lies from the very start.

The Vladimir Zelensky regime tried to use NATO’s 75th anniversary for begging the alliance for yet another alms. On April 4-5, 2024, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba attended celebratory events in Brussels. He bluntly asked NATO to present Ukraine with as many anti-aircraft Patriot missiles as possible. He also expressed Kiev’s claim to a share of a new $100 billion fund for helping Ukraine, which Brussels is just creating.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg reacted rather dryly to yet another manifestation of Ukraine’s dependency. He said: “Support to Ukraine is not charity; it’s an investment in our own security.” Previously, they used to say that this was a good investment into killing Russians. Now it transpires that the bloc sees its security in killing citizens of our country.

On April 6, Vladimir Zelensky said in an interview with the Ukrainian television that Ukraine was ready to continue the war on loan, if the US approved that form of assistance. In other words, he is ready to pick the future generations’ pockets so that today’s Ukrainians continue to die. Without hesitation, he will sell what is left of Ukraine’s natural resources (are there a lot of them left?), if necessary, and sacrifice the future of millions of his compatriots, who are cannon fodder to him.

At the same time, according to the Ukrainian Ministry of Finance, the total state and state-guaranteed debt increased by 30.4 percent by the end of 2023, reaching a record $145.3 billion (+ $33.8 billion for 2023), or 85 percent of GDP. And the upward trend continues.

The Kiev regime and its Western masters continue to exploit the theme of children without any scruples. Another meeting of international coalition for the return of Ukrainian children is scheduled for April 11, the founding meeting of which took place on February 2 online under the patronage of Ukraine and Canada (the very country where the Nazis are applauded in parliament).

We have already given our assessment. Children’s theme is used as bait to involve as many countries as possible under the pretext of addressing an important task, and then present this as the beginning of work to implement the notorious Zelensky formula and evidence of its support by all coalition participants.

The cynicism of the project’s creators is fascinating. They trumpet about the need to save Ukrainian children from the non-existent Russian danger for the whole world, while hiding carefully the real problems that Ukrainian families are facing in Europe. European social services are literally stealing Ukrainian children, taking them away from living and healthy parents by force, under various pretexts. The American, British, French, Ukrainian media say nothing about this. Let us fill this gap.

Russian diplomats abroad continue to receive requests from Ukrainian citizens who have lost all hope to return their children taken away by EU social services. There are dozens of them. Why are they asking Russia, which is supposedly the worst rights violator and kidnapper of Ukrainian children? The fact is that, as the applicants admit, the Ukrainian embassies, called upon to guard the interests of their citizens, refuse to help, citing certain “political circumstances.” Vladimir Zelensky does not need children, but money, so that he can later send them to their graves or force them to pay off their debts. But Ukrainian citizens will not be told this in their foreign missions. After all, they are doing “important” things there begging for money and recruiting terrorist and extremist representatives so that they join the ranks of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. It feels like the Kiev regime is paying back to its masters for the European military and financial assistance by handing Ukrainian children to EU social workers.

These people seek protection from Russia, because they understand that, despite the Western and Kiev propaganda’s machinations and the pressure they are suffering, Russia is not an enemy of the people who have become victims of Vladimir Zelensky’s regime. We are the only ones who can protect them. Of course, we could not but respond to their pleas. We have drawn attention to this problem more than once, including at the UN.

Finally, Kiev had a thought for its people. The issue probably got too important to be ignored any longer. This past week, the Verkhovna Rada’s Human Rights Commissioner Dmitry Lubinets told the Ukrainian media in an interview that 255 Ukrainian children were removed from their parents by social services in European countries. Where was the Vladimir Zelensky regime all this time? Let me tell you. They focused on making sure that the President appears at cultural and public events across various venues while children of Ukrainian nationals were disappearing in the same countries. He appeared at all these forums and festivals and did his posturing there, even if these events never had any political agenda before, but his appearances undermined their reputation. This is what Ukraine was up to as a state. They did not want to ask EU countries what would happen to these children or to raise this issue with them. They have a different concept since they keep telling everyone that it is Russia that kidnaps Ukrainian children.

Our representatives respond to all the enquiries we receive by offering straightforward and well-documented answers, and we are also proactive when it comes to holding news conferences and briefings and communicating with journalists around the world who want to get any details on this matter. All our positions reside on a sound legal footing. In fact, Russia has been trying to find the parents of these children on its own, and answers enquiries whenever parents are searching for their children. This is a transparent and honest effort on our behalf, and humanitarian concerns is all we care about, as we have been saying all along. Our country has always been there for the children whose parents found themselves in difficult situations abroad or suffered from various regimes. If history is any guide, we have the experience to deal with these matters and know how to do it, how foreign children facing these circumstances can get on with their lives, study, preserve their bond with their historical homeland and grow up to become prominent sons and daughters of their respective countries after Russia saved them. There are quite a few examples of this kind.

But I suggest we go back to what the Kiev regime has been doing all this time. All it did was run around the corridors of international institutions, inundate Western, American, NATO-centric media outlets with misleading press releases and perorate about the fate of its children, while alleging that it was Russia that kidnapped them. But it was in the European Union that 255 children were removed from their parents. Germany presents the most dismal picture with 71 cases, but the situation in other countries is just as bad. There were 22 cases of this kind reported in Poland, 25 in Italy, 24 in the Czech Republic, and 17 in Sweden. These children were taken away from their parents, stripping them of their right to provide for the wellbeing, education and upbringing of their children.

We expect those pretending to defend the rights of Ukrainian children in the West to set up a coalition for returning minors abducted by the European social services. Since these are basically the same initiatives in terms of their subordination and slogans, but in a different context, they could well use the same model for returning Ukrainian children to their Ukrainian parents. We are ready to facilitate the efforts of this coalition, which must be created. We have a lot of useful information in this regard.

Mikhail Bulgakov remains a hotly debated topic. The Ukrainian Institute of National Memory has released the full version of its opinion arguing that the work of this great writer constitutes a national security threat. It claims that “of all the Russia writers of that time, he was closer than anyone else to today’s masterminds behind Kremlin’s efforts to justify the ethnocide in Ukraine. Propagandists in Kiev believe that Mikhail Bulgakov “hated Ukraine’s aspirations to become independent,” camped on the positions of the White Movement and approved the expansionist effort by the Russian communist movement.” In this connection, the institute demanded that Mikhail Bulgakov’s good name be erased from the country’s memory by demolishing monuments and memorial signs, renaming streets and other geographical sites bearing his name. If anyone, for whatever reason, ever decides to write The Master and Margarita’s sequel, it must be staged in Kiev. I cannot think of a creator who could suggest anything along these lines. This would make for some terrible writing, producing a documentary chronicle rather than a work of art.

Anatoly Konchakovsky, who founded the Mikhail Bulgakov Museum in Kiev, was not afraid to publicly lambast this decision. He is no longer afraid of anything, it seems. In fact, this is the end of the road leading to an abyss and total alienation.

It is telling that in his video message to Ukrainians back in February 2021, Vladimir Zelensky cited Mikhail Bulgakov when commenting on the fake news about the ban on selling his books. At the time, Vladimir Zelensky referred to Mikhail Bulgakov as a “Ukrainian writer,” saying that Kiev would not “let anyone appropriate him,” just as it refuses to give up Ukrainian territory. Why have they made this U-turn? The answer is simple. Mikhail Bulgakov talked Russian, wrote in Russian and thought in Russian. But this cannot happen in today’s Russophobe Ukraine. This is how a “Ukrainian writer” turned into a Ukraine hater and an advocate of an Imperial vision. I can hardly think of another example to illustrate this point. This is probably the kind of a turnaround Germany’s Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock was referring to when she mentioned making a 360-degree turn. There is no logic to explain this, apart from the fact that the West sponsors Ukraine in its self-defeating and destructive efforts.

All these facts prove, once again, that the objectives of the special military operation to de-Nazify and demilitarise Ukraine, as well as remove the threats emanating from its territory, remain relevant. They will be fulfilled, just as the Russian leaders have said many times.

The legal effect of the International Court of Justice’s provisional measures

On April 2 of this year, the Western countries had a get-together in The Hague amazingly titled ‘Restoring Justice for Ukraine.’ I don’t know how far they planned to go back to decide that justice needed restoring. However, since they decided to bring this up, we are ready to join them in discussing this subject.

Predictably, the political declaration adopted at that meeting is packed with outright lies – as was to be expected from yet another Western propaganda trick. But a dirty attempt to hide behind the status of a high international authority really stands out: a reference to the Order of the International Court of Justice of 16 March 2022.

The declaration asserts that the order is valid, moreover, it is legally binding. I know I should recommend those who wrote the declaration to read up on the basics of international law, but I won’t. It’s useless. It’s part of their ideology: if they alternately declare Mikhail Bulgakov a “Ukrainian writer” and a “Ukrainophobe,” they can easily use the same approach in all other areas. Let’s look at it from the legal perspective.

First, on March 16, 2022, the International Court of Justice issued so-called provisional measures. This is not a judgement, which is binding upon the parties concerned as per the United Nations Charter.

Secondly, and most importantly, the Western writers of the declaration chose to omit the most important fact about that order, which is something they always do. Two months ago, on February 2, 2024, the ICJ issued a judgment on this case recognising that it did not have jurisdiction to examine all of Ukraine’s accusations against Russia. Ukraine claimed that Russia’s special military operation and the recognition of the DPR and LPR as independent states violated the Genocide Convention (Russia allegedly breached its obligations under the Convention). That allegation led the Court to order provisional measures in March 2022. However, in its judgment of February 2 this year, the Court upheld Russia’s objection recognising that those claims were in fact extrinsic to the Convention and could not be considered by the court.

The lack of jurisdiction means there are no legal grounds to order provisional measures.

It is worth noting that Ukraine has already demanded that the Court hold Russia accountable for its failure to comply with these provisional measures. The court rejected this claim along with other accusations against Russia, but agreed to look into Ukraine’s possible violation of the Genocide Convention by committing genocide in Donbass.

Finally, it looks like those amnesiac writers need reminding that the ICJ provisional measures introduced in March 2022 applied not only to Russia, but also to Ukraine. The ICJ demanded that Kiev “refrain from any action which might aggravate or extend the dispute before the Court or make it more difficult to resolve.” The case is now narrowed to the issue of genocide committed by the Kiev regime. However, for some reason, the April 2 Hague Declaration does not include a demand that Kiev immediately stop its regular massive shelling of residential areas in Donetsk, Belgorod, Kursk, Voronezh and other Russian cities, its strikes on the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant, brutal terrorist attacks or murders on Russian territory.

This shows that the West does not want any justice for Ukraine. Moreover, it is actively resisting attempts to restore it. That is precisely what propaganda acts such as the above-mentioned declaration are doing.

This is not propaganda. This is propaganda of lies. There is a difference. It’s one thing to propagandise, promote, defend, popularise, use every opportunity to make your point of view heard on important and fateful decisions or prospects for the future. It’s another thing to propagate lies.

What the Restoring Justice for Ukraine meeting did is a blatant example of propagating fake news, spreading falsehoods and misinformation. Their immediate motives easily obliterate their declared commitments to verify information and combat false news. If such a conference works for them, they will use any arguments. So what if their case is demolished by a two-page text written by real experts? They will do it anyway, if only to attract the attention of a global audience, at least for a few days, just feel a part of something right, good, and necessary. It doesn’t matter that their actions and statements will be disavowed later with facts in hand. And that’s what we’re doing now.

So they have achieved their dirty goal, spending a huge chunk of Western taxpayers’ money. They have held another event and once again aired misinformation that had nothing to do with reality.

We will continue to fight such falsehoods and disavow lies, and we will include this in the ‘Published materials that contain false information about Russia’ page on the Ministry’s website. We have been trying for years to present all the insinuations to a wide audience, to refute media fabrications purveyed by the ideologues of Western liberal democracies, who are using fake news as a tool of their aggressive policy in the international arena.

Western cyberattacks on Russian critical infrastructure facilities

Since the special military operation in Ukraine was launched, the scale and intensity of cyberattacks on Russian critical infrastructure facilities have reached unprecedented levels. They were targeted at state institutions, including medical, energetic, and transport spheres, media, and simple civilians. People who received calls on their phones, whose emails and accounts were hacked on social media, and who received tonnes of spam, including threats or attempts to lure money, in such forms as DDoS attacks, content spoofing, personal data phishing, and telephone fraud.

Our specialists have established that foreign intelligence services are behind many major attacks using information and communication technologies. Moreover, they operate mainly via Ukrainian hackers. It is convenient. It is no secret that Ukraine has become a foothold for anti-Russia aggression in cyberspace. The Kiev authorities talk openly and are proud of carrying out cyberattacks against Russia, often even trying to take credit for made-up operations. IT Army is most advertised by the Kiev regime and their Western patrons. This association, controlled by the Ukrainian Ministry of Defence and supervised by NATO member states, is in fact a conglomerate of criminals, specialising primarily in plain stealing of assets. According to Sberbank of Russia, there are more than 1,000 fraudulent call centres in Ukraine, which are already terrorising the entire Europe.

Let me remind you that NATO’s military-political leadership continues to increase its capacities to target the Russian cyberspace. In order to prepare and carry out cyberoperations, the US and their allies use a network of special centres controlled by the US National Security Agency and located along the Russian borders (in particular, in Estonia, Latvia, Finland, and Romania; with Georgia and Moldova in the future). These are cyber laboratories created for tactical and technical support of groups from the bloc’s cyberteams or special operations forces. They are also used to monitor the cyberspace and collect intelligence data, and work out scenarios of how to strike Russian critical information infrastructure facilities using information and communication technologies.

All of this is yet another proof that Western countries use information and communication technologies as a tool in the hybrid war against Russia, under the pretext of protecting democratic values. In contrast to this policy, Russia, together with the majority of developing countries of the Global South, adhere to different principles and approaches. At international negotiation platforms, we advocate the establishment of a just and equal system of international cybersecurity, as well as setting common rules for everyone in the digital sphere and following them.

We believe that this is the only possible solution that will make it possible to ensure that the principles of sovereign equality of states and non-interference in their internal affairs are complied with. It will help prevent and settle conflicts related to the use of information and communications technologies.

Attacks on the Russian Embassy in Lithuania on April 7-8, 2024

We would like to note the following in connection with attacks on the building of the Russian Embassy in Vilnius on April 7-8, 2024.

According to Lithuanian media outlets, the police have already arrested a felon who had pelted the Russian diplomatic mission in Lithuania with incendiary bombs for two consecutive nights. Fortunately, none of the embassy staff was injured; however, the building was damaged.

We consider this incident to be the result of a purposeful Russophobic policy conducted by official Vilnius and its unprecedented anti-Russia rhetoric. Since 2022, the country’s journalists, encouraged by the authorities, have been openly calling for a siege of the Russian diplomatic mission; rallies and other aggressive acts are taking place in direct proximity to the embassy all the time.

We demand that Lithuanian law-enforcement agencies objectively investigate this crime and duly guarantee the safety of the Russian diplomatic mission in strict compliance with the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

Everyone involved in this attack must be located and punished, and the Russian side must be reimbursed for the damage done to its diplomatic mission.

BRICS Council on Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism

On April 24, delegates from the BRICS countries will gather in Nizhny Novgorod for a meeting of the Council on Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism. The event is included in the calendar of Russia’s BRICS chairmanship.

The participants will exchange experience in combating money laundering and terrorist financing, as well as discuss joint projects and cooperation between the relevant agencies of the BRICS members, including in the light of the terrorist attack in the Crocus City Hall on March 22.

The meeting will result in developing joint measures to minimise global risks, including terrorism financing, combating corruption, drug trafficking, and the use of cryptocurrency for crime.

On the Russian side, Yury Chikhanchin, Chairman of the BRICS Council on Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism and Director of the Russian Federal Service for Financial Monitoring, will take part in the meeting and deliver a welcoming address.

The meeting is taking place as part of the International Science and Practice Forum on Topical Issues of Combating Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing. Its programme includes a plenary session, round tables and discussions, which will bring together heads of relevant ministries and agencies, international experts and representatives of the scientific community in Nizhny Novgorod from April 24 to 26.

We invite media to take part in this event. For questions on media accreditation, please contact the press service of the Federal Service for Financial Monitoring: pr@fedsfm.ru

Outcome of the 55th session of the UN Human Rights Council

The 55th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council took place in Geneva from February 26 to April 5. It resulted in the adoption of 36 resolutions on a wide range of thematic and country-specific human rights issues, as well as two decisions concerning the procedure for remote participation in hybrid meetings of the Human Rights Council and the postponement of certain activities under the Council's mandates.

The Russian Federation, which participated in the session as an observer state, continued to make an active and effective contribution to work to overcome politicisation and confrontation in its activities. In doing so, we have consistently upheld the principles of cooperation and the establishment of constructive and mutually respectful dialogue among states in the HRC in order to find optimal solutions to pressing human rights problems.

During the session, the Russian delegation brought to the attention of the Council and the international community information about serious and massive violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law by the Kiev regime. It drew attention to the existing problems related to protection and promotion of human rights in Western countries. Particular emphasis was placed on the rapidly deteriorating situation of human rights in the Baltic states, where Russophobia and the violation of the Russian-speaking population’s rights continue to gain momentum.

During the discussion on the human rights situation in Afghanistan, Belarus, Venezuela, Iran, the DPRK, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Syria, and Eritrea, we stressed the unacceptability of using human rights issues to interfere in the internal affairs of states and exert pressure on legitimate governments.

At the initiative of Ukraine and with the support of its Western patrons, a resolution was adopted on the Situation of Human Rights in Ukraine Stemming from the Russian Aggression, extending for another year the term of office of the International Independent Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine. Twenty-seven delegations spoke in favour of this anti-Russian document, which is far from reality, 17 abstained and 3 spoke against it. It is indicative that just over half of the Council's member states spoke in favour of the resolution. This indicates that the international community understands the political background and the engagement of the Kiev regime in this endeavour.

Russia does not recognise the mandate of the Commission and reaffirms its position on the rejection of any form of cooperation with this illegitimate mechanism.

Results of the first quarter of Russia’s CIS chairmanship

Russia has chaired the CIS for the first three months. It is successfully fulfilling the concept of chairmanship and the extensive plan for its implementation that includes over 150 items. It held about 60 various events at high and expert levels, including those that were not initially envisaged by the plan.

Inter-ministerial consultations held in Minsk on February 8-9 of this year on cooperation in the CIS in 2024 opened a series of 17 consultations between CIS countries’ foreign ministries scheduled for this year. The participants held a detailed exchange of views on the entire integration agenda with emphasis on reaching the goals set in the concept of our chairmanship.

Obviously, trade and economic interaction is a cornerstone of multilateral cooperation in the CIS. It largely allows the CIS members to minimise the negative consequences of Western illegitimate unilateral restrictions and demonstrate the record GDP growth rates.

In late March of this year, Moscow hosted two planned events – a meeting of the CIS Economic Council at the level of deputy prime ministers and the International Economic Forum of the CIS Member States, which brought together over 2,000 experts from the CIS countries to discuss current issues in different areas of economic cooperation, including logistics, industrial cooperation, construction and tourism, to name a few.

By tradition, we focused on cultural and humanitarian cooperation. In February and March of this year, Russia hosted major events like the Games of the Future and the World Youth Festival, which were attended by representative delegations from almost all CIS countries, among others.

Recently, Samarkand held an opening ceremony for the Cultural Capitals of the Commonwealth interstate programme. The Gromyko Competition for Young CIS Specialists in International Relations was launched.

Many interesting events are still ahead. The nearest will take place the day after tomorrow -- on April 12, Sergey Lavrov will chair a meeting of the CIS Foreign Ministers Council in Minsk.

Change in the venue of the 34th Session of the FAO Regional Conference for Europe

Thanks to coordinated efforts of the Russian Foreign Ministry, the Russian Embassy in Chisinau and the Russian permanent mission at the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), our country managed to get a change in the venue for the 34th session of the FAO Regional Conference for Europe on May 14-17 of this year. We managed to get it relocated from Chisinau to the FAO Headquarters in Rome.

On March 19, the Moldovan authorities announced their refusal to let the Russian delegation arrive in the country to take part in the said event. They offered Russia to take part in it at the level of the Russian Embassy in Moldova or remotely.

The venue change ensured the observance of the principle of sovereign equality of all member states of the UN, which is sealed in its Charter. I would like to recall that equal participation is a foundation for a full-fledged non-politicised dialogue on providing food security in Europe and Central Asia.

Having abused its status of a host country and resorted to arbitrary actions, Moldova sustained both political and financial losses.

It is even interesting to analyse this case. Think about the following question. Represented by the Maia Sandu regime (but not citizens that are friendly to Russia), Chisinau announced its refusal to admit the Russian delegation to Moldova. What kind of forum was scheduled to take place there? What organisation was the Russian delegation supposed to meet in Chisinau?

This organisation is FAO. First, the entire Western world to which President of Moldova Maia Sandu is oriented and whose agenda she is fulfilling, talks only about international food security at all platforms. Second, Russia is one of the world’s largest food suppliers, with its supplies being both commercial and humanitarian. The latter are linked with the UN and other international agencies. Russia is also helping countries on its own.

So whom the Moldovan President decided to deny entry and participation in the work of FAO? To one of the world’s major food suppliers? For what purpose? In order to complicate again the problems of global food security, which were provoked by her Western patrons? This is an obvious subversive act of a global scale. It is now being committed in Chisinau by the Western appointees with Romanian passports. They are not acting against us – we know how to defend our interests. No, the regime of Maia Sandu and many others brought by the Westerners exist on Western money alone and prejudice international security in different manifestations only with the account of the political resources of the Western regimes.

This does not boil down to the denial of visas or transfer of the venue. This is not solely about our success in preserving all provisions of the UN Charter (although this is extremely important). The point is that the Westerners impose on such states (they consider them their protectorates for some reason) representatives of small-caliber but malicious saboteurs that are complicating the already difficult situation on international security in different areas. It is necessary to talk about this regularly. It is important to say who is undermining food security and how and why certain countries are suffering from the regimes brought by the West.

Events to mark the 80th anniversary of Moldova’s liberation from Nazi occupiers

This year marks the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Moldova from Nazi occupiers by the Red Army troops.

Let me remind you that it began on March 17, 1944, when the troops of the 2nd Ukrainian front reached the Dniester near the city of Yampol.

On March 26, 1944, the city of Balti was taken and 85 km of the USSR state border along the Prut River restored. Red Army troops occupied bridgeheads near the villages of Chitcani and Varnita on the western bank of the Dniester, creating the Serpeni bridgehead, which was necessary for the attack on Chisinau.

On March 30, after stubborn fighting, Ribnita and the district centre of Lipcani were liberated, followed by Rezina on April 2 and Ogreev (Orhei) on April 6. On the night of April 12, the troops of the 3rd Ukrainian Front commanded by Army General Rodion Malinovsky took Tiraspol, and the troops of the 2nd Ukrainian Front took the regional centres of Dubasari and Grigoriopol. By mid-April 1944, half of the territory of the Soviet republic was cleared of Nazi invaders.

Today’s Moldovan leadership, which is obediently implementing the collective West’s goal to create an alternative history and justify Nazi criminals, does not take part in commemorative events to mark the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Moldova.

Why? Because, considering the events of the 20th century, they are promoting neo-Nazi ideology. Nothing can justify the Maia Sandu regime’s absence from these events. There is no explanation for this except one. Back then, the Nazis lost, and now they want to take revenge on Moldova. They will fail. Instead of bowing to their ancestors and paying tribute to those who made the future of their country possible, they go as far as to openly mock veterans, activists, and volunteers. The Maia Sandu regime is openly mocking them.

Fortunately, today’s leaders of the republic are a minority: the people of Moldova remember and honour the deed of the heroes who fought against the Nazi and gave their lives for the generations to come.

Let me list several examples of today’s true resistance. We will talk about this today. April 10 marks International Day of the Resistance Movement. It is unfolding all over the world right in front of our eyes.

On April 4, residents of Dubovo village, Dubasari district, honoured the memory of the fallen soldiers and officers with a minute of silence and laid flowers at the granite slabs over the mass grave.

On April 6, on the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Orhei, hundreds of caring people marched along the city’s central street paying tribute to those who did not return from war.

In Basarabeasca, a Live and Remember memorial panel was installed, with the names of local residents and veterans of the Great Patriotic War inscribed on it.

In Transnistria, creative groups organised the Songs of the Victorious War festival.

On April 8, a photo exhibition dedicated to the 80th anniversary of the liberation of the Moldovan capital from the Nazi invaders opened in Chisinau.

On the eve of Victory Day, May 9, young volunteers and activists held a cleanup day in different districts of the republic to improve memorials and joined the international Garden of Memory campaign.

All of this guarantees that all attempts at “brown revenge” in Moldova are doomed no matter what pretext it is wrapped in. The Moldovan people know their real history and honour their true heroes. I repeat once again: the Moldovan language exists.

The International Day of the Resistance Movement

The International Day of the Resistance Movement is celebrated annually on April 10. On that day, we cherish the memory of the people who were fighting against the German Nazi invaders during World War II.

These were the most widespread forms of struggle against the invaders: anti-Nazi agitprop; publication of underground books; strikes; subversion and sabotage on transport and industrial facilities producing products for the invaders; armed attacks to kill traitors and representatives of the occupational authorities; collection of intelligence information for the armies of the anti-Hitler coalition; and partisan struggle against fascism.

The international character of the resistance movement was its important feature. Thousands of Soviet citizens and representatives of the white emigration took an active part in the activities of numerous partisan units in Europe (primarily, in France, Italy, Poland and Czechoslovakia).

The monument at Père Lachaise Cemetery in Paris perpetuates the memory of thousands of Russian participants in the Resistance Movement. Streets of French cities bear their names. Recently, the Russian Memory Association restored the grave of the founder of women aviation units of Free France Alla Bassine-Dumesnil in the Russian necropolis of Sainte-Geneviève-des-Bois in the suburbs of Paris.

Our compatriots played a big role in establishing first Polish and Czechoslovak partisan units. Thus, units of the Communist Gwardia Ludowa (later called Armia Ludowa) began to be set up in late 1941. Former POWs joined them instantly and some became commanders of partisan movements. The Unit of Fyodor emerged in the Lublin Province. He was a Soviet officer by the name of Fyodor Kovalyov, alias Theodore Albrecht. The unit named after Bartosz Głowacki operated hear Krakow under the command of Nikolay Slugachyov (Russian Tadek), and the unit Avenger fought near Pulawy under the command of P. Vishnyakov.

Units headed by Soviet partisans liberated whole cities in the spring of 1945, for instance, Pribram near Prague. At this place, the Death to Fascism partisan unit commanded by Ye.A. Olesinsky resisted attacks by SS men until early hours of May 13. They were trying to break through to the West and surrender to the Americans or Brits.

Russian companies and battalions formed by former Soviet POWs after 1943 played an enormous role in the partisan war in Yugoslavia, which was the biggest outside the USSR. A company in the third Slovenian partisan brigade named after Ivan Gradnik deserves special mention. Its commissar − Mekhti Gusein-zade − became famous as a daring saboteur under the name of Mikhailo.

Overall, 6,200 partisan units operated on the occupied Soviet territory in 1941-1944. In Poland, the total number of Soviet citizens fighting in partisan units was about 20,000. There were 3,000 Soviet partisans in Czechoslovakia, over 6,000 in Yugoslavia and more than 300 in Greece. Over 100 Soviet citizens fought in Norwegian partisan units.

Recalling the participants in the Resistance Movement today, we feel deep gratitude for those who brought closer our victory over fascism in all of its manifestations.

The current authorities of the European countries that are obsessed by anti-Russia phobias and have smeared their reputation by their support for the Kiev regime should recall the outstanding role played by our compatriots, be they Russian emigres or Soviet citizens from among former POWs, in fighting the Nazi invaders and liberating Europe from the Nazi yoke.

70 years of the Battle of Dien Bien Phu

In light of the recent aggressive statements by the French political leaders, who openly announced plans to send troops to Ukraine, I should like to bring up the anniversary of a crushing defeat that Paris sustained in Vietnam, which marked the beginning of the collapse of the French colonial empire. We believe that remembering those events should be a warning for all those in the Elysee Palace who have been literally haunted by Napoleon’s shadow these days.

The Battle of Dien Bien Phu, often referred to as the Vietnamese Stalingrad, claimed thousands of lives. The brutal confrontation took place from March 13 to May 7, 1954 and marked a turning point in the eight-year war between the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and France’s colonial forces.

In 1946-1954, France, supported by Washington, unleashed the Indochina War in a bid to maintain its influence in the region after World War II. It should be specifically noted that the French colonial troops were a motley mix of foreign legionnaires, mercenaries of all stripes, including Nazi fugitives hiding from trial and hoping to start over with a clean slate with Paris’s help. However, they dirtied it again, as the brutality of their methods had no limit. Just like the Americans who came to the Vietnamese land later, what they did was close to scorched-earth tactics.

For 54 days, the Vietnamese revolutionary army demonstrated extraordinary military valour in the battle of Dien Bien Phu. They also appeared exceptionally skilled in the art of war. In fact, it became so bad that the French soldiers hastily left their positions as soon as they heard that the Vietnamese were advancing. The decisive phase of the battle, the general assault, began on May 1. By that time, the garrison’s morale was close to rack bottom – the French were in panic. The total death toll was over 2,000 killed on the French side. Nearly 12,000 French troops were captured – only a few managed to escape from Dien Bien Phu. The most capable French troops in Vietnam – paratroopers and legionnaires – almost ceased to exist.

The surrender of the French garrison of Dien Bien Phu on May 7, 1954 finally broke the morale of the French command, extinguishing any faith or hope for a good ending of the war in Vietnam. Before the start of active operations, the hawks in Paris boasted they would “defeat the crowd of Vietnamese peasants armed with flintlock rifles and bamboo sticks in just a couple of weeks.”

Along with a crushing military defeat, France suffered high reputational losses, as its international influence as a former member of the anti-Hitler coalition fell dramatically. The very next day after the fall of Dien Bien Phu, ceasefire talks began in Geneva. The war ended with a convincing victory of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the withdrawal of French troops in July 1954.

Ten years later, in 1964, remembering that defeat, French President Charles de Gaulle warned US President Lyndon Johnson against a military operation in Vietnam, prophetically calling it a very risky venture. But France then had an independent voice and the capacity to pursue an independent foreign policy.

Tchaikovsky Planet exhibition to open at the World Musical Culture Museum in Dalian, China

On April 11, the Russian National Museum of Music will open its Tchaikovsky Planet exhibition at the World Musical Culture Museum in Dalian, China.

As part of the Russia-China cultural cross years, the Russian National Museum of Music will present an exhibition showcasing the life and work of one of Russia’s most talented composers. This exhibition will be held in line with a cooperation agreement between the two museums. The exhibition will feature authentic materials from the collection of the National Museum of Music, including historical documents, personal items, photographs, engravings and lithographs. Notable exhibits include the famous Child Album, scores from the 6th Symphony, the opera Eugene Onegin and The Nutcracker ballet, as well as photographs, letters and drawings.

On April 10, the Museum’s Director-General Mikhail Bryzgalov will deliver a lecture on the Music Museum, the main depository of Russian musical culture, at Dalian University of Foreign Languages, one of China’s leading universities. His lecture will cover the museum’s history, its depositories and collection of musical instruments, as well as the museum’s exhibitions and educational projects.

The exhibition will be open to visitors until the end of 2024.

Bolivia to use the Russian pavilion at the 60th Venice Art Biennale 2024

From April 20 until November 24, Italy will host the 60th Venice Art Biennale 2024, titled Foreigners Everywhere. Russia has been taking part in this major art forum since the early 20th century. The Russian pavilion, designed by outstanding Russian architect Alexey Shchusev, opened in Venice in 1914 and underwent renovations in 2021.

In 2023, the Plurinational State of Bolivia approached Russia with a request to use its pavilion to display an art project involving artists and sculptors from a number of Latin American and Caribbean countries.

Considering the friendly relations between Russia and Bolivia, as well as with other South American states, Russia decided to accommodate the Bolivian authorities and public. Consequently, the Latin American project titled Qhip Nayra Untasis Samaqapxanani (looking to the future-past, we are treading forward).

The Biennale management supported Russia’s decision and expressed their desire for Russia to resume participation in future contemporary art exhibitions.

By allowing Bolivia to use the Russian pavilion, the Russian Federation demonstrated its commitment to genuine, not imaginary, cultural diversity, depoliticised and equitable international cultural cooperation that aims to unite nations, regardless of political considerations.

Answers to media questions:

Question: The Chancellor of Austria Karl Nehammer said in an interview with French magazine Le Grand Continent that the Global Majority disagreed with the West’s position on Ukraine. He pointed out that while Western countries had quickly reached a consensus on how to support Ukraine and end the war, most of the world, particularly BRICS countries, did not share the Western assessment and did not understand the Western position. He regarded that as a problem. How can you comment on this statement?

Maria Zakharova: It seems that Chancellor of Austria Karl Nehammer expressed regret over this issue. He appears to be saddened by the Western isolation.

The Chancellor of Austria has highlighted a fact that we have discussed at length before. It is an obvious observation. Nehammer has candidly acknowledged that the collective West has isolated itself by plotting against Russia and imposing containment measures on other states. The West has fallen into its own trap, and has distanced itself from the Global Majority.

On the other hand, if members of the collective West stop quoting their own playbooks to one another and cease to give credence to both obvious and far-fetched statements, they might see the truth. Accepting what everyone else sees and understands is the first step towards recovery. Yes, they have driven themselves into a blind alley by sticking to their current position. This self-isolation is an unprecedented act that has backfired and contradicted their original stance. I mean their attempts to isolate our country. If they have already come to realise this, and if the collective West continues to express this viewpoint, there is a chance they will find a way to rectify this dead-end situation. However, if the West adheres to the previous dogma and keeps repeating like a mantra that they have isolated one-sixth of the world’s landmass and are planning to isolate countries of the Global Majority, if they persist on this, future generations will regard them as a laughingstock.

Question: An MP representing Moldova’s ruling Party of Action and Solidarity said the other day that the alleged EU efforts to enforce untraditional values was “a Russian propaganda fake” aimed at discrediting the upcoming referendum on Moldova’s accession to the European Union. Would you comment on this?

Maria Zakharova: They’ve got what they fought for.

They spoke about isolating Russia, refusing to hear of the rising multipolar world. They tried to preserve their domination but have pushed themselves into a dead end of self-isolation as a result. This also goes for the situation in Moldova. What they were accusing us of has turned out to be a fake story they themselves circulated.

We did this before, that is, demolished statements made by Maia Sandu with facts. Let’s review them.

The argument that Brussels is not interfering in the internal affairs of other states with its LGBT agenda, which has been declared extremist in Russia, is wide open to criticism. Take Hungary’s 2021 Propaganda Law, which bans the propaganda of same-sex marriage and sex reassignment among minors. Brussels resorted to open blackmail, using the law to suspend the transfer of funds that were due to Hungary from the EU budget and funds. Some even said that Hungary had “no place in the EU.” The media launched another dirty persecution campaign against Hungarian leaders, Hungary as a whole and Hungarian citizens, even though the law was adopted in strict compliance with democratic procedures. Most importantly, it reflected the will of the overwhelming majority of Hungarian citizens.

Speaking about pseudo non-interference, I would like to remind everyone that on February 29, 2024, the European Parliament adopted a resolution encouraging candidate countries to “actively promote and ensure the rights of LGBTIQ individuals,” including “through education and awareness-raising activities.” In other words, accession to the EU is directly conditioned on the creation of “the new European individual” based on obligatory LGBT indoctrination. Sure enough, when they speak about advancing human rights from that angle, they are really creating a “new” European individua that never existed before.

The West has been trying to reformat public opinion in Moldova for years. Here are a few examples. Over the years of Maia Sandu team’s in power, they have created the most favourable conditions for aggressive pro-LGBT propaganda by Western NGOs, media and diplomatic offices.

The gay pride parades held in Chisinau every year are attended by members of the ruling party and Western diplomats. Those who protest against these policies and have a fundamentally different view of the situation are not given any support but are accused of all manner of sin.

In 2021, Chisinau ratified the Istanbul Convention adopted to advance these pseudo-values. In November 2022, the Moldovan authorities launched an “LGBT children in your school” campaign to “encourage students to initiate discussions and deliberations on gender and sexual identity.” The children, who go to school to receive knowledge, were urged to think and talk about gender identity. The outraged parents forced the government to curtail the campaign.

No one is even trying to hide the real aims behind this policy. It consists of destroying Moldova’s traditions, morality and the way it perceives its national identity, as well as harming people who inhabit this country’s territory. Anna Revenko, who heads the Centre for Strategic Communication and Combating Disinformation in Moldova – or the Ministry of Truth, as the Moldovans call it, said that with the information war Russia has been allegedly waging against Moldova, “we have come to believe that the Moldovan language is our mother tongue, that we form a new nation, and that we have ties with Moscow.” Can you imagine that? The Moldovan language enjoyed legal status there for so many years, and people used it in their everyday lives, but now it turns out that someone is imposing this language on them. I can hardly find any words to elaborate on this matter. This is like Mikhail Bulgakov and George Orwell combined.

The problem is not just with how absurd all this sounds, but that this posture is an insult for the people of Moldova. Most of them remember and treasure their culture and history. They uphold their traditional views on family, marriage and morality. Of course, there is always place for something new. But what about the famous Western tolerance and respecting people who want to live by the traditional family values? That is where the problem lies. In fact, there is an effort to force something new on the people, considering all the money and political weight backing these initiatives, while presenting them as an expression of Western liberalism. Meanwhile, no one listens to those who want to preserve their traditional views regarding their forefathers, their country and culture. This is the gist of the matter. The ideas of freedom, equality and tolerance, in its positive connotation, are the best the West had to offer. However, for some reason, these elements have been put aside. Instead, they are aggressively imposing misguided values designed to shatter centuries-old and sometimes even millennial lifestyles that are nonetheless totally compatible with today’s world. On the contrary, this way of life is a cultural treasure and a universal, global civilizational asset, including for specific countries and nations.

According to the recent polls, 85 percent of Moldovans oppose same-sex marriage, while the Moldovan Orthodox Church still enjoys a very high level of trust as an institution. Has any of Moldova’s current leaders, who came to power using Western money, thought about it?

Question: On the 75th anniversary of the North Atlantic Alliance in Brussels, all the countries of this military and political bloc were offered to create a special fund to support Ukraine, which would exist for five years and hold 100 billion euros. Contributions would be compulsory for all the countries in the alliance. NATO ministers met the idea with a mixed response; some were questioning the amount. The US House of Representatives, where the majority of members are Republicans, is still not ready to vote for a bill, supported by the US Senate back in February, to provide $60 billion for Kiev’s military needs. Could you comment on the NATO Secretary-General’s initiative and the real purpose of creating this sort of fund?

Maria Zakharova: Indeed, the initiative of creating yet another fund for Ukraine was mentioned during the NATO Foreign Ministers’ Meeting on April 3-4 and another get-together, the NATO Council – Ukraine meeting, which took place on the sidelines.

As the Westerners have failed at their vain attempts to deliver the notorious strategic defeat to Russia through the hands of the Kiev regime, the alliance is frantically looking for new opportunities to fuel their bloody project.

Similar pro-Ukrainian funds and initiatives are being mass-produced, in the UK, Denmark, Belgium and other Western countries. Various coalitions are being created. The Westerners have plenty of ideas that they have not been able to implement successfully.

I should remind you how difficult it was to push through the recent EU package of 5 billion euros for Ukraine. Now some of the members have suggested raising the stakes 20 times to reach 100 billion. Perhaps Europeans should consider addressing their own economic problems such as supporting their farmers, instead of sending money to neo-Nazi militants. If they are willing to sacrifice their own farmers, perhaps they should donate to the people starving in Africa or the needy in Asia rather than extremists and terrorists in Ukraine. Where did this eagerness to sacrifice everything and everybody, specifically for those who adhere to the neo-Nazi and, in recent years, terrorist ideology, come from?

NATO could consider funding the countries it has destroyed, like Afghanistan and Libya. I believe Iraq would not reject help either.

The Western states should consider paying for their colonial past. Britain and France as well could open their wallets. There are things to fund.

The Ukrainian charges of Washington and its allies would certainly be happy to gain access to more billions through their corrupt schemes but, as we know, the alliance has not finalised its decision yet.

Question: On April 7, Japan, the United States, Australia and the Philippines held a joint military exercise in the South China Sea. The United States, Japan and the Philippines will also hold their first summit in Washington on November 11. Japan’s Kyodo news agency reports that Japan, the United States and Australia intend to show solidarity with the Philippines. These joint preparations were presented as the four countries’ first collaboration at sea. The spokesperson for the Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs reported that the consultations on the defence cooperation between the Philippines and Japan continue with the purpose of reaching agreement that would allow both parties to station troops on each other’s territories. The Philippines closed similar agreements with Australia and the United States. What can you say about these four countries’ activity and strengthening military cooperation in the South China Sea? What is their purpose?

Maria Zakharova: The purpose is the same, to continue NATO expansion to other regions of the world. The countries of the Global Majority have been analysing this activity. Everybody understands that the Western expansion, their ideas, steps and actions do not seek to support or strengthen security, nor do they seek to solve any existing problems. On the contrary, they intend to fuel disagreements and use existing or potential conflicts to practise their theory of controlled chaos, and to obtain economic benefits to create unfair competition, to mend the economic and financial wounds they inflicted upon themselves or to patch the holes from the trade war against a whole number of countries. That is the main idea.

I am talking about control over the countries that are unable to maintain their own sovereignty or protect themselves. It is also about destabilising the relations between countries. The North Atlantic Alliance is now trying to project the entire scope of NATO ideology manifested in Europe, to other regions of the world.

Question: Russian-French international relations are currently at a very low level. Is a complete break-up of these relations likely, from your point of view? How close are Russia and France to this?

Maria Zakharova: Why are you concerned with France alone?

Question: We can add London and Washington to the list.

Maria Zakharova: I totally agree with the second part of your question. We have repeatedly mentioned the hybrid war that the Washington-led collective West has unleashed against our country.

In the context of this war, each [Western] country plays a role of its own and follows a specific dynamic pattern, including an evolution, progress, or dysfunction. But in any event, they are touting the NATO-developed approach that implies an absolute rejection of multipolarity as an upcoming reality, along with unending attempts to perpetuate what they call their “domination,” pursue a policy of containment, or inflict a “strategic defeat” on those whom they regard as their rivals, being unable to work with them in a normal way within the framework of the existing international mechanisms.

I agree that the latest French statements are so controversial that they stand somewhat apart from others. We already said that the EU and its “solidarity groups,” as they call them, would do well to find out what Paris means by making absolutely opposite statements.

To our sincere regret, the current French politicians are putting France in a bad light internationally. Each new absurd statement of theirs, one that has to be virtually deciphered, is met with shrugs and wry smiles. This is the truth.

Experts would come together and rack their brains about what the French foreign minister or the French president wanted to say and how that aligned with other things. I don’t know, possibly many current government appointees in France simply lack professionalism, or they are attempting to sit on two bar chairs at once. It is hard to say, why they make these odd and mutually controversial statements.

I think we are dealing with the West as a collective philosophy of aggression against Russia and those countries, which Washington, London and Brussels regard as rivals. They do not want to talk to them as equals and are trying to push through their decisions by force, financially, economically, or geopolitically.

As you know, this is not our choice. We have used and professed different methods. But they have thrown down the gauntlet, and we have accepted it.

Question: What is your assessment of Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s visit to China? Should we expect new bilateral contacts soon, given the Kremlin’s yesterday statement to the effect that this meeting could be regarded as a preparation for a potential summit?

Maria Zakharova: Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov assessed the visit across the board at a news conference yesterday.

I can only reiterate that Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s visit to China was productive. He was received by PRC President Xi Jinping and held substantive talks with PRC Foreign Minister Wang Yi.

The talks took place in an atmosphere of friendship and mutual respect traditional for our bilateral relations and demonstrated once again the two nations’ community of views on the main global processes and the striving to strengthen foreign policy coordination in the interests of peace and stability in the region and the world as a whole.

The leaders’ diplomacy, the central element of our bilateral comprehensive partnership and interaction, plays the key role in strengthening the Russian-Chinese strategic link-up. It is thanks to the two presidents’ personal focus that our relations have reached an unprecedentedly high level and continue to develop dynamically amid a difficult international situation.

This year, President of Russia Vladimir Putin and PRC President Xi Jinping will have an opportunity to maintain their running political dialogue both bilaterally and at international forums.

The schedule of presidential contacts is discussed with the Chinese side on a regular basis, including during Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s just ended visit.

In addition, the foreign ministers discussed the two countries’ international coordination. In the light of the Russian BRICS Chairmanship, they focused on prospects for this organisation’s further development, with account taken of the accession of new members and the emergence of the category of partner countries. They also discussed prospects for the BRICS summit in Kazan in October 2024 and the BRICS Foreign Ministers’ Meeting in Nizhny Novgorod in June.

They held an in-depth dialogue on cooperation within the SCO, with China due to take over from Kazakhstan as SCO President soon. Prospects for harmonising the SCO Eurasian development agendas and BRICS programmes were noted.

The foreign ministers exchanged views on cooperation at other international venues, including the UN, the G20, and APEC, where Moscow and Beijing have established close and productive ties.

They also focused on the Ukraine crisis, with Sergey Lavrov expressing renewed gratitude to China for its objective and even-handed position on the Ukrainian issue and its readiness to play a positive role in the matter of political and diplomatic settlement of the conflict. As you may understand, the West has deprived the Kiev regime of every opportunity to hold talks [with Russia]. This has been enshrined in law. In Beijing, the ministers voiced a shared opinion that any international events, which failed to take into account Russia’s position and only promoted the ultimatum-like Zelensky’s “peace formula,” lacked prospects.

Russia reaffirmed its support for China’s position on Taiwan as an inalienable part of China, given the more frequent provocative attempts at outside interference.

Question: What is your assessment of Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan's dialogue with Western leaders shortly after returning from Brussels, particularly his phone conversation with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz regarding the talk process between Yerevan and Baku? Can it be said that Yerevan is trying to replace Russian diplomacy in the trilateral mechanism with Azerbaijan with Western diplomacy? Is there a feeling that this is happening?

Maria Zakharova: What do you mean by replacing with Western diplomacy?

Question: I mean excluding Russia as a participant in the already established trilateral mechanism and replacing it with Western countries.

Maria Zakharova: This is not about specifically tailored mechanisms but rather a global trend.

Russia has proven itself to be a global mediator in effectively resolving regional issues and working effectively in the interest of peace and the well-being of all countries in the region. This was not driven by opportunism or self-interest but rather a genuine investment in the future of the region − an effort to harmonise and find common ground, address conflicts and establish peace between these countries and in the region as a whole,. It is a philosophical concept that has materialised in reality through documented plans and actions.

Now, let's consider the involvement of the West. Driven by jealousy, anger, and a desire to disrupt the establishment of peace in the region, the West is positioning itself as a new mediator. However, as we have emphasised multiple times, their actions and role demonstrate the opposite. They are not interested in mediation. Their intentions are to destabilise the situation and bring back the worst times in history.Furthermore, their focus seems to be on collecting information for their own purposes rather than promoting peace in the region.

Question: How would you comment on the actions of the Armenian leaders in this situation?

Maria Zakharova: I have commented on this many times before. It is evident that every sovereign state has the right to pursue its own foreign and domestic policy.

However, it is important to note that these actions seem to contradict the established goals and upset the balance of power and interests in the region. These factors are crucial not only for individual countries but also for the region as a whole.

We can observe similar instances where the West has disrupted emerging harmony and the resolution of issues in other regions of the world.

Question: How can Nikol Pashinyan's claim that Armenia has made no mistakes in its relations with Russia be assessed? According to him, Russia cannot point out a single instance where Armenia failed to fulfil its obligations. He also alleges that the opposite situation has occurred frequently.

Maria Zakharova: Did he provide any examples?

Question: So far, I have not heard any examples − just words.

Maria Zakharova: If you are interested, please ask for further elaboration. Then we can provide a comment.

Question: What is your reaction to the decision of the Ukrainian National Olympic Committee to prohibit Ukrainian athletes from taking group photos with Russians, shaking their hands, and giving interviews together? These guidelines will be included in the code of conduct for Ukrainian athletes at the Olympics in Paris.

Maria Zakharova: Considering the events that have been unfolding for many years, where former collaborators and supporters of Adolf Hitler have been glorified as heroes of the Kiev regime, permeating the entire nation of Ukraine, and where Nazi greetings and symbols are used almost as national or state symbols in the chevrons of battalions that are part of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, with direct references to Nazism and fascism, nothing surprises us anymore. It only reaffirms Ukraine's self-destruction under Western influence. That's all.

We should not view this as an isolated incident or an independent action. It all stems from the same underlying causes. This is not a civic stance or an individual's opinion on certain matters or events. It is the ongoing self-destruction of Ukraine, which the whole world has been witnessing for many years.

Question: Vladimir Zelensky and the Western coalition have been pushing their so-called peace formula to ensure that there are no alternatives to their vision of a fair settlement in the global political discourse, including in the Global South. How effective have they been in promoting this agenda? Yesterday, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov discussed the Chinese peace formula in Beijing. Is there a possibility that it could become one of the pillars for a potential peace process?

Maria Zakharova: China maintains a balanced position regarding the ongoing developments in Ukraine and has a deep understanding of the conflict’s historical context and its geopolitical causes, as reflected in the document released by the Chinese Foreign Ministry on February 24, 2023. It lists the Chinese proposals for settling the Ukraine crisis.

President Vladimir Putin said that “many of the provisions of the peace plan put forward by China are consonant with Russian approaches and can be taken as the basis for a peaceful settlement when the West and Kiev are ready for it.” During their talks, the Russian and Chinese foreign ministers once again stressed that international initiatives, which fail to take into consideration Russia’s position, including the situation on the ground, have no future. Anything detached from reality and taken in a vacuum without considering the specific context is doomed to fail.

We remain in close contact with our partners on the Ukraine issue, and discuss all the main developments along this track in a trust-based and timely manner.

Question: The UK and French foreign ministers, David Cameron and Stephane Sejourne, recently announced the creation of a renewed Entente. There seems to be a clear anti-Russian agenda underlying this initiative. What does this mean? Is it just rhetoric timed to the 120th anniversary of the original military and political alliance, or something else, demonstrating an actual geopolitical rapprochement between France and the UK? Could their intention be to create an alternative to NATO in order to reduce their dependence on the United States?

Maria Zakharova: This was a ridiculous statement, for several reasons. I would like to answer it with a question: Will they recreate the Entente in its original form, when Russia was also a part of it? Or will it be the Entente’s second iteration, when its troops invaded Russian territory? I will be able to provide more specific comments on this situation once they answer this question.

It could well be that they are unaware of what the Entente means to begin with. Perhaps they have forgotten all about it or openly refuse to discuss historical facts. They simply forgot them, and that is all there is to it. But no. I want to hear what kind of an Entente alliance they want to recreate today. What specifically are we talking about here? The Entente existed in several forms. It started as a single association, but evolved into something totally different over time in a specific historical context. I would like to understand what they are talking about, specifically, before commenting on this matter.

Question: The UN Security Council passed a resolution calling for a ceasefire in Gaza, but the war continues there. What would be the consequences of failing to comply with the resolution?

Maria Zakharova: According to Article 25 of the UN Charter, the member states of the United Nations “agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council.” In other words, the Security Council resolutions are binding for all UN member states. Therefore, the Security Council can discuss matters related to non-compliance with its resolutions whenever it deems necessary.

This fully applies to UNSC Resolution 2728, passed on March 25, 2024, which calls for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. Russia continues to insist that this provision from the Security Council resolution be fulfilled in all urgency. At the same time, we have heard destructive statements by US representatives at the UN Security Council who voiced opposition to certain provisions in this resolution, arguing that they allegedly were legally void. We are dealing with some kind of legal obscurantism here.

On the other hand, we see that certain countries have forgotten the meaning of diplomatic and consular immunity when dealing with the staff of foreign and diplomatic missions. This is probably what the rules-based order is all about. It means that binding decisions have no legal weight even if the United States voted for them too.

This should serve as a specific example for the international community to understand what the notion of a rules-based order means for them. It is like a buffet lunch: the US believes that the collective West will dictate to others what to do, while reserving the freedom to choose whether or not to act in the same manner. Western countries rushed to assure everyone that the rules-based order means international law. If that were the case, suggesting that provisions stated in a UN Security Council resolution are legally void would never occur to them.

Let me remind you that grave and systematic violations of Security Council resolutions, as well as of international humanitarian law, may enable the Security Council and international courts to take even more decisive measures.

Question: What measures are we talking about here, specifically?

Maria Zakharova: We will closely monitor these developments.

Question: It was reported on several occasions that France was preparing to send troops to Ukraine to fight against Russia. Has the Foreign Ministry asked for clarifications on this matter through diplomatic channels?

Maria Zakharova: We have not and we are not going to. We have taken these aggressive statements under advisement. We are ready for any scenario. We have made our position clear.

We saw the way France’s EU and NATO allies reacted to French President Macron’s statements. They said they did not sign up for this and have no idea what the issue is about. These statements were poorly received by the overwhelming majority of the French people who are unwilling to become cannon fodder like Ukrainians for the sake of the Zelensky regime and the dangerous geopolitical ambitions entertained by the ruling Western elites.

Question: Could you provide an update on the UN Security Council sanctions on North Korea? Do they have an expiration date? Is there a mechanism to lift them?

Maria Zakharova: Regarding the duration of sanctions on North Korea, you can find answers to your questions in the UN Security Council resolutions that regulate this issue. A special section of the UN Security Council’s website has concise information on this matter.

All we can say about these sanctions is that they do not benefit anyone, hold back the socioeconomic development of the DPRK, and have a damaging impact on the people of that country.

I have a question: whenever the United States talks about food security, does it have North Korea in mind? Apparently, it doesn’t. Once again, we are faced with the concept where some countries have a free hand to do anything they want, while others can do nothing.

Russia openly raises concerns about the futile and counterproductive nature of these sanctions at the UN Security Council, trying to convey to our colleagues a simple message that maintaining the sanctions regime in its current ossified form, which suppresses the incentives for dialogue and alleviating confrontation surrounding the Korean Peninsula, has no future.

The perpetual sanctions on Pyongyang are a thing of the past. Only those who still think in terms of a neocolonial revanchist “philosophy” and aim to break the DPRK as a sovereign state have a stake in preserving the sanctions. They forget that the DPRK is a country with a long history and its own unique form of government.

Sanctions do little to promote regional security. Why not start by setting a specific and foreseeable timeline for them? Peaceful steps that align with the efforts to rebuild trust and consider the legitimate interests of the Korean people are what we need now. They should lead to an honest political process, rather than being a smokescreen for the same old anti-Pyongyang ambitions entertained by Washington and its allies.

Question: In recent days, Azerbaijan has started regularly firing the territory of the Republic of Armenia. There is a sense that Azerbaijan is pursuing an information campaign to set the stage for a new round of escalation. What’s your take on this situation and Baku’s actions?

Maria Zakharova: We have shared our assessments of the situation on the Armenian-Azerbaijani border at previous briefings. We emphasised that all territorial disputes and mutual claims between Baku and Yerevan should be settled using exclusively political and diplomatic methods. We call on both sides to show restraint and to bring down their bellicose rhetoric.

The necessary mechanisms to achieve sustainable peace and prosperity in the South Caucasus are already in place. This primarily involves a set of trilateral agreements signed by the leaders of Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia in 2020-2022. We urge our partners to resume interaction within the formats that have proven their effectiveness. For our part, we remain ready to provide the necessary practical assistance to Baku and Yerevan in their pursuit of mutually acceptable solutions, including the delimitation of the Armenian-Azerbaijani border. At the same time, we warn about the dangerous role of the West, which is now starting a dirty game to destabilise the region.

Question: Will Nikol Pashinyan attend the inauguration of President Vladimir Putin and the Victory Parade in Moscow? Is there any information about it from the Armenian side?

Maria Zakharova: Please direct this question to Yerevan. The Executive Office of the President of the Russian Federation comments on all matters related to the ceremonies and events of the Russian head of state.

Question: The situation on the Azerbaijan-Armenia conventional border has worsened. The Armenian armed forces are amassing materiel and manpower. Our army’s positions have been repeatedly targeted. All of that happened right after Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan met with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Head of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen in Brussels on April 5. Do you think these events are related?

Maria Zakharova: I have just commented on the situation on the Armenian-Azerbaijani border.

With regard to the meeting in Brussels, the Foreign Ministry released a separate statement addressing our assessment of this event. We condemn the irresponsible and destructive interference of external forces in the affairs of the South Caucasus and their efforts to sow discord between the countries in the region and their neighbours.

We firmly believe that all arising issues should be resolved in a constructive manner based on a compromise in accordance with the principle of regional responsibility agreed upon at the second meeting of the 3+3 Consultative Regional Platform in Tehran on October 23, 2023, which was attended by our Armenian and Azerbaijani partners.

To reiterate, the West has a destructive role to play in the South Caucasus. There is a reference point we can rely on, since it played out the same way in other countries and regions around the world, including in recent past. There are no examples of the West’s constructive role. There are examples of terrible disasters where entire countries were torn to pieces out of the best intentions, or because they believed and hoped, leaving their history “for later” and neglecting the analytics. Many countries that embraced the Western agenda ended up in disaster.

Notícias de política externa

Compartilhar link