Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, October 16, 2024

Table of contents

1. Sergey Lavrov’s participation in a meeting of the 3+3 Regional Platform
2. 16th BRICS Summit
3. The BRICS Business Council annual meeting and the BRICS Business Forum
4. The 8th World Congress of Compatriots Living Abroad
5. Sergey Lavrov to take part in Eurasian Security Conference
6. Ukraine crisis update
7. Moldova update
8. Developments around the East Asia Summit platform
9. Repressions against Russian civil society members in Poland
10. Reduction of the diplomatic corps in Norway
11. Italy denying visas to the Russian delegation going to the 75th International Astronautical Congress
12. Statements by Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba
13. The initiative of reparations to be paid to the Caribbean nations
14. United Nations Day
15. The 60th anniversary of the Druzhba oil pipeline
16. Zambian Independence Day and the 60th anniversary of diplomatic relations with the Republic of Zambia
17. 80th anniversary of the liberation of Belgrade from the Nazi invaders
18. The 80th anniversary of the Red Army's liberation of East Finnmark from Nazi occupation
19. The 80th anniversary of the Soviet Army's Budapest offensive
20. The International Educational Programme for Journalists: Noise. Industry. Journalism 5.0

Answers to media questions:

1. Statements by Finland’s Foreign Minister
2. Article “The Struggle for BRICS: Why the Future of BRICS Will Determine the World Order”
3. Meeting of five nuclear powers’ representatives in New York
4. Statements by Vladimir Zelensky
5. The Ukrainian Foreign Ministry’s statements regarding Jared Leto
6. The Nobel Peace Prize and US nuclear strikes on Japanese cities
7. Israeli attacks on the infrastructure of the Gaza Strip
8. The deployment of Russian border guards along the Armenian-Iranian and Armenian-Turkish border
9. Azerbaijan’s cooperation with NATO
10. Armenian-Azerbaijani relations
11. Azerbaijan’s policy on monuments to Armenian participants in the Great Patriotic War
12. The dependence of developing countries’ financial institutions on Western capital markets and the payment infrastructure
13. Prospects for resolving the conflict between Georgia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia
14. The Israeli military and political leadership’s plans
15. Japan-US relations
16. The Armenian-Azerbaijani settlement
17. New formulas for resolving the Ukraine crisis
18. Opening a “second front” in Georgia

 

 

Sergey Lavrov’s participation in a meeting of the 3+3 Regional Platform

 

On October 17-18, 2024, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will visit Istanbul for the third meeting of the 3+3 Regional Platform (Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia + Iran, Russia and Türkiye).

We regard the 3+3 Regional Platform as an effective mechanism for coordinating the efforts of regional countries to establish lasting peace and stability in the South Caucasus and the Middle East and promote mutually beneficial trade, economic, transport, logistics, cultural and humanitarian cooperation.

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

back to top

 

16th BRICS Summit

 

I would like to brief you on a major event which Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will attend. It will be held at the highest level. It is a BRICS summit scheduled to take place in Kazan on October 22-24. The 16th summit of the group, it will be held in Russia, which holds the BRICS chairmanship this year. The theme of the summit is Strengthening Multilateralism for Just Global Development and Security.

The heads of state will have a busy agenda. They will discuss global and regional issues and the results of cooperation within the framework of their countries’ strategic partnerships in politics, the economy, culture and the humanitarian area. They will also review the results of their security interaction, including the work of their high representatives and relevant agencies in this sphere. They will focus on reforming the international financial system and enhancing the role of BRICS countries, as well as promoting interbank cooperation and mutual settlements in national currencies. Another important item on their agenda will concern the establishment of the new category of BRICS partner states.

The main results of the summit will be set out in the final declaration, including the member states’ consolidated approach to current international and regional issues and the further development of BRICS.

A meeting in the BRICS Plus/Outreach format, scheduled for October 24, will be attended by delegations from over 30 developing countries, in particular, those chairing regional cooperation mechanisms, as well as the heads of executive bodies of international organisations. The main theme of the meeting is BRICS and the Global South: Building a Better World Together. The meeting will focus on the current cooperation between the Global Majority countries and on enhancing their role in decision-making on international issues. Other items will include the situation in hotspots, primarily the Middle East, sustainable development, and food and energy security.

Substantive information regarding these issues has been posted by the Presidential Executive Office and the Foreign Ministry. Our representatives and ambassadors are contributing by giving interviews, speaking about the upcoming events at various venues and in the media, holding news conferences and briefings, and answering questions. We will be happy to answer any questions you may have.

I would also like to note that Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will hold a number of bilateral and multilateral meetings with our partners on the sidelines of the BRICS summit. We will provide updates on his schedule. This information will be posted on the Ministry’s website and social media accounts.

back to top

 

The BRICS Business Council annual meeting and the BRICS Business Forum

 

The annual meeting of the BRICS Business Council and the BRICS Business Forum is scheduled to take place in Moscow on October 17-18.

The BRICS Business Council serves as one of the principal mechanisms for corporate interaction within the association. During the event on October 17, the annual report, encompassing proposals and initiatives from the Council's working groups, will be approved. This document is set to be presented to the BRICS heads of state at their  meeting in Kazan.

On October 18, the BRICS Business Forum will convene. Traditionally held ahead of the BRICS Summit, the forum serves as a vital platform for fostering connections among representatives of the business community of the BRICS nations. This year’s panel discussions will concentrate on financial and investment co-operation, international trade and logistics connectivity, agricultural business development and the enhancement of food security, sustainable energy transition, and the role of technological cooperation in advancing the ESG agenda. This agenda underscores a concept that emphasises three primary criteria against which corporate performance is evaluated. It is anticipated that leaders of the BRICS nations will address the plenary session.

In addition, the BRICS Solutions Awards and the BRICS Best Women's Startup Competition awards ceremonies will be held within the framework of the Forum.

back to top

 

The 8th World Congress of Compatriots Living Abroad

 

On October 30-31, 2024, Moscow will host the 8th World Congress of Compatriots Living Abroad, an event to be attended by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. The Congress, held under the slogan Together with Russia, will bring together approximately 400 leaders and activists from Russian communities across 103 countries. It will also see the participation of heads of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, central and regional government agencies, non-governmental organisations, representatives of traditional religions, journalists, and scholars.

The event's programme features three plenary sessions alongside five thematic sections, designed to address the most pressing concerns facing our foreign community. These discussions will encompass the preservation of traditional and family values, the safeguarding of cultural and historical heritage, protection of the rights and legitimate interests of compatriots, promotion of the Russian language and education, engagement of youth in diaspora activities, development of Russian-language media, and matters concerning relocation to the Russian Federation. A focal point of the Congress will be the preparations for the commemorative activities marking the 80th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War.

In the face of anti-Russia sentiment and Russophobia propagated in the nations of the collective West, our diaspora remains more robust and united than ever. Our compatriots abroad are resolute in continuing their collaborative efforts for the prosperity of Russia.

In referencing Russia, we mean our  history, culture, and contribution to the collective cause of peace, security, and the preservation of civilisational achievements, which represent genuine values over superficial ones. Our compatriots are committed to further strengthening ties with their historical homeland in this context.

Please note that accreditation for the Congress is already open.

back to top

 

Sergey Lavrov to take part in Eurasian Security Conference

 

On October 31 and November 1, Minsk will host the second International Conference on Eurasian Security. The Russian delegation will be led by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

In his remarks at the plenary session, the Minister will focus on steps to implement the initiative, put forth by the President of Russia, to develop an architecture of equal and indivisible security in Eurasia. He will present Russia’s assessments of the current state of affairs in the sphere of continental security.

back to top

 

Ukraine crisis update

 

I simply cannot help but comment on the recent media reports. I am referring to yet another show put on by Vladimir Zelensky. I cannot call it otherwise. It was not just a statement. It was really a touring show entertaining audiences around the world. Apparently, he stayed in Kiev for a few days, using the time to visit the Verkhovna Rada and speak – I would say “from the heart,” but he has no heart.

Speaking in the Verkhovna Rada, Zelensky presented his new plan. He had a plan A, which failed. He had a plan B – but that failed, too. He has apparently gone through the entire alphabet by now, reaching the very last letter, so I guess that this is his plan Z, if we use the Latin alphabet.  This “plan” will definitely work, unlike his previous ideas.  It is telling that the meeting was not streamed live for “security reasons.” It is difficult to fathom what those reasons were, given that visits of foreign guests to Kiev are always broadcast live, and journalists comment on them online in real time. However, for some reason, Zelensky feels unsafe in his own capital city, especially in the Verkhovna Rada. Maybe he was afraid that one of the deputies would suddenly show civil courage and do something to him?

On the other hand, this was so Zelensky-style. Why would the citizens of Ukraine be allowed to watch another episode of the shameful farce put on by the Kiev regime? They will show a doctored version later, after editing things out. This new show will be presented to the Ukrainian public without a chance to act or call for justice.

Regarding the content of Vladimir Zelensky’s address, it’s hardly a plan. It's a series of disjointed slogans, more like the bloody rants of a neo-Nazi killer.

His so-called “plan” consists of five points, including yet another outburst about Ukraine joining NATO. From Zelensky’s perspective, this is supposed to show resolve and reveal how partners view Ukraine within the security structure. However, I can inform Zelensky (if he doesn’t already know) that Ukraine’s partners have made it clear how they see Ukraine in their security framework: they are sick to death of it. They envision Ukrainian citizens in graves as well. That’s why they put this clown in power, to destroy Ukraine as a state and kill as many Ukrainians as possible (this is what the West says). And sadly, it’s far from over.

The next point in Zelensky’s so-called plan is the strengthening of Ukrainian defence. He claims this will be achieved through “targeted operations in certain areas.” It’s almost laughable how he plans to do this – by “damaging Russian aviation with the help of partners.” Essentially, he is trying to drag NATO members into direct conflict with our country. Moreover, he demands permission to use long-range weapons on Russian territory, fully aware (or at least those who crafted these slogans for him are) of the serious consequences this would provoke.

The Russian leadership addressed this matter in statements made on September 12 of this year.

This so-called plan also includes proposals for deploying a “comprehensive non-nuclear strategic deterrence package” in Ukraine, as well as intensifying sanctions against Russia.

The plan also expresses the idea that after the conflict, the Ukrainian military could use their experience to bolster NATO’s defence in Europe. So, after all these years of asking the West to strengthen Ukraine’s security, was Vladimir Zelensky really preparing to enhance the West’s security instead? I wonder where the Kiev regime’s experience would be applied – Afghanistan, Libya, Syria? Where could it be useful? I’ll answer that myself: for instance, on the African continent. That’s where the Kiev regime has already demonstrated its capabilities. They have refined their terrorist activities, which could certainly serve the West well in that regard. After all, neither Washington nor London have ever hesitated to use terrorist groups as tools for destabilising regions around the world. That’s the real story here.

It has come to light that this plan includes three additional secret appendices, which the Kiev regime claims to have already shared with its partners. According to Vladimir Zelensky, all these measures will supposedly bring an end to hostilities no later than next year.

But if you look at the overall picture – both the public points and the hidden sub-points – this isn’t Vladimir Zelensky’s victory plan. It's a blueprint for further disaster for Ukraine and its people. All of it is geared towards another attempt to extort money and showcase the regime’s terrorist capabilities.

I believe that today Vladimir Zelensky has finally proven that he hates the Ukrainians to a degree that can be called Ukrainophobia.

Ukrainian Nazis continue terrorising Russian civilians by shelling and attacking them with UAVs every day.

On October 8-16, 567 munitions and 267 drones were fired at more than 80 communities in the Belgorod Region, resulting in 30 civilians injured, including a two-year-old girl. A civilian who was wounded as a result of shelling of Yasnye Zori on August 20, and a woman who suffered from an UAV attack in Ustinka on October 12, died in the Belgorod city hospital. Residential buildings, social facilities, and industrial and agricultural buildings were damaged. Using UAVs, the Ukrainian Armed Forces scattered Lepestok mines in ​​the Krasny Oktyabr village, one of which caused an explosion of a civilian car on October 14. Fortunately, there were no casualties.

Over the course of a week, five people were killed and 25 wounded, including two children, as a result of dozens of daily attacks by the Ukrainian Armed Forces using 155 mm shells, including cluster munitions, as well as HIMARS, MLRS and UAV strikes. There have been repeated hits in the Petrovsky District of Donetsk and Gorlovka, where a school, a shop and a market were damaged.

On October 13, a child was seriously injured when a toy mined by Bandera followers found under a bench in a public garden, near a monument to Alexander Pushkin, exploded in Stakhanov, the LPR. I do not believe there are many ISIS members (a banned terrorist organisation) who would come up with such an idea. On the same day, two people were killed and one wounded as a result of an UAV attack on a civilian car in Lisichansk. Four others were injured during the shelling of a market in Kremennaya.

This is far from a complete list of the Kiev regime’s atrocities. Russian investigative bodies are recording all of them. All those involved will be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law.

Now I would like to speak about the atrocities committed by Ukrainian militants and foreign mercenaries in the Kursk Region. Russian law enforcement agencies are examining the testimony of a captured militant regarding cases when Bandera followers abused and murdered a Russian prisoner of war due to his wife’s refusal to comply with their demands, including humiliating ones. The Ukrainian Nazis first shot our fighter in the leg, and then shot him dead while filming their vile crime and the hero’s last words to his wife.

Russian servicemen reported that gold teeth were extracted in a UAV workshop abandoned by militants of the Ukrainian Armed Forces in Novoaleksandrovka, the Kursk Region, which apparently belonged to the locals they killed.

This is the characteristic trace of the Nazis, who not only mocked and killed people over eighty years ago, but also literally dismembered them: skin, hair, crowns, and teeth separately. What more is required to make UNESCO, UN agencies, the OSCE and other international human rights organisations (that is what they call themselves) of all types in the West to raise their eyes from their manuals and see what’s really going on? This is the dirty work that Gestapo members did in concentration camps. Today, the Ukrainian neo-Nazis are clearly striving to imitate them in every way. They have the same heroes (Stepan Bandera and Roman Shukhevych) and the same emblems (swastikas, SS symbols, wolf heads, mouths, and muzzles). One gets the impression that this is not enough for them and they want to surpass their idols from the Third Reich in every regard.

We previously reported on the concentration camps the Ukrainian army established in Russian border regions. According to recent social media posts, there are two such camps in the occupied territory, one near Oleshnya in the Kursk Region and the other near Yunakovka in the Sumy Region of Ukraine. Over 1,100 people, including more than 40 children, as well as sick and seriously wounded Russian citizens, are kept there in hellish conditions. The priests of the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church are sent there as well. The inmates of these camps, which the Ukrainian army modelled after those in Nazi Germany during WWII, are routinely subjected to physical and psychological pressure. The Kiev regime is likely to use them in prisoner swap deals to return the Bandera fighters who have been taken prisoner. Their number is growing due to the successful operations of the Russian army in the Kursk Region and Donbass.

According to Russia’s Human Rights Commissioner Tatyana Moskalkova, a minimum of 398 people, including women, children and senior citizens, have been killed and 1,157 wounded as the result of the Ukrainian terrorist attacks in the Kursk, Belgorod and Bryansk regions in 2022-2024. Families are looking for over 1,000 people who have been forcibly evacuated by the Ukrainian military from the Kursk Region in violation of the humanitarian law. I would like to repeat that these people are not the victims of the conflict but the victims of terrorist attacks. We support the human rights ombudsman’s appeal to the international community to give an appropriate assessment to these flagrant military crimes committed by the Ukrainian military.

Relying on evidence provided by the Russian Investigative Committee, Russian courts are passing stiff sentences for war crimes to Ukrainian neo-Nazis and mercenaries.

Maxim Yukhimchuk, howitzer battery commander of the Azov special operations battalion of the National Guard of Ukraine, has been given a life sentence for giving a criminal order to target a civilian car in Mariupol in April 2022. As the result, two civilians were killed.

An American mercenary has been sentenced in absentia to 14 ½ years in prison. You might wonder who he is. He is former US Marine Trevor Reed, who fought on the side of Ukraine in the Donetsk People’s Republic. He has been put on the international wanted list. That same Trevor Reed who was sentenced in Russia before? He was given a 9-year sentence for attacking policemen in Moscow. And this is what US officials said about his case back then. The US State Department expressed serious concern about Reed’s health and prison conditions in Russia. Then White House Press Secretary Jane Psaki said the following: “Ambassador Sullivan… called Trevor Reed’s trial ‘a mockery of justice,’ and we certainly agree. I’ll use this as an opportunity to once again call on Russia to swiftly release… Mr (Trevor) Reed.” In 2022, we swapped Trevor Reed for Russian pilot Konstantin Yaroshenko. What would the Department of State and the White House say now about that US citizen and their attitude to his actions? Do they want to express concern over his social conditions? Or maybe they want to specify the international legal status of his presence in the conflict zone?  Or will they express outright support to him for abetting terrorism? We’re waiting for US reaction regarding this.  

The Prosecutor’s Office of the Donetsk People’s Republic has sent to court criminal cases against Swedish citizen Kjell Skillt and Moldovan citizen Stanislav Gibadulin. According to investigators, Kjell Skillt served with the Azov Regiment from 2014 until 2015. From March 2022 until March 2023, he served with the Special Operations Forces of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Stanislav Gibadulin has been serving with the Armed Forces of Ukraine since 2015. An international arrest has been issued for both mercenaries.

The Investigative Committee has opened a criminal case against US mercenary Derrick Bales who served with the Armed Forces of Ukraine during the armed conflict. He was a member of the private military company Forward Observation Group during the invasion of the Kursk Region. He is accused of staging a terrorist attack and is also suspected of killing civilians together with other members of mercenary units.

After collecting the required evidence, the Russian Investigative Committee accused Vasily Malyuk, Head of the Security Service of Ukraine, of masterminding the July 17, 2023 terrorist attack on the Crimean Bridge. He is also suspected of masterminding the October 8, 2022 terrorist attack against this infrastructure facility. An international arrest warrant has also been issued for him.

I would now like to speak about “assistance” to Ukraine. This is how Western states are calling their activities. In reality, this assistance helps destroy Ukraine. France continues to vie for the title of the best accomplice of the terrorist Kiev regime. In addition to recent promises made by President of France Emmanuel Macron on the sidelines of the 79th Session of the UN General Assembly to train and equip a brigade of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, Paris has now announced the delivery of a batch of its Mirage 2000 fighters that can hit ground targets to Ukraine. 

In this connection, it would be appropriate to recall an opinion regarding these obsolete aircraft that, nevertheless, feature state-of-the-art technologies and weapons, voiced by representatives of the Kiev regime. For example, Yury Ignat, a former spokesperson for the Air Force of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, said in March 2023 that Mirage and Tornado warplanes would not help Ukraine. He asked experts to refrain from making stupid comments. “Any help is important to us, but not in the form of Mirage 2000. We have already talked about this many times.”  If you take Mirage 2000 and see in what way it is better than MiG-29, you’ll understand everything at once.  

France therefore differs little from other Western nations providing Kiev with their outdated weapons, including decommissioned F-16 fighters. Ukraine’s patrons have turned it into a facility for testing military technologies and a landfill site for disposing of obsolete weapons that often require additional resources for repairs and maintenance. The West is doing all this under the pretext of unlimited support for the Kiev regime. In reality, its sponsors are cynically using Ukraine for their own selfish goals.

We would like to comment on the recent publication in the French media about the collaboration between Permanent Strategic Framework (CSP), an alliance of armed Tuareg groups in northern Mali, with Ukrainian security services.

We have repeatedly alerted the international community to the Kiev regime’s ties with international terrorist organisations. Kiev would collaborate with anyone, in Africa, the Middle East or Russia, to achieve its political goals. Is the Kiev regime hiding this? No. On the contrary, every terrorist attack on peaceful civilian infrastructure, a public facility or civilian population, they hail every successful attack as their “achievement.” Other achievements include the broad recruitment of members from international terrorist organisations, including ISIS and Al-Qaeda, and cooperation with the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (formerly Jabhat al-Nusra) group in the Syrian province of Idlib, as well as unprecedented support for Islamists in the Sahel region, which is very unstable in terms of security.

It is no secret that Kiev officials previously openly declared their support for jihadist groups in a number of countries in the Sahel-Sahara region. This was the reason why the governments of Mali and Niger decided to sever diplomatic relations with Ukraine and make a joint appeal to the UN Security Council to inform the international community about Ukraine’s subversive activities in Africa.

In this regard, the above-mentioned publications became yet another confirmation of the cooperation between Ukrainian military intelligence and the anti-government groups in the Sahara-Sahel area. This did not come as a surprise to us. However, it seems to be a revelation for Western audiences. Ukrainians are transferring FPV equipment and training local militants, which undermines the respective regional governments’ efforts to maintain security and amounts to gross and irresponsible malign interference in African affairs.

We are confident that this new crime committed by the Kiev regime will receive a proper legal assessment. As a reminder, Mali is already investigating the circumstances of Kiev’s cooperation with local extremists. We await its results.

Russia, which suffers daily terrorist attacks, with its civilian facilities targeted by Ukrainian drones, knows first-hand what such cooperation between Kiev and terrorist groups can lead to. It is definitely part of their toolkit for imposing a US-style world order – Western-style, or NATO-style, whatever they call it. We will continue to uncompromisingly fight these actions by all available means, and to assist friendly African states in ensuring their security.

On October 14, Ukraine celebrated the anniversary of the establishment of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), a group of Nazi collaborators founded in 1942. Many materials from Soviet and Russian archives exposing its crimes have been published. In fact, many in the West are fully aware of the man-hateful nature of Bandera’s ideas. In 2020, the CIA released about 300 pages of declassified documents confirming the crimes committed by Stepan Bandera and his henchmen, and their close collaboration with the Nazis, including with the leadership of the Abwehr military intelligence service. What was the Abwehr? It was part of the Third Reich, the Nazis, the murderers of humanity. In those documents, he is frankly referred to as a “Ukrainian fascist.” He and his UPA fighters killed over 5,000 Ukrainians, 15,000 Jews and several thousand Poles in just five weeks that his “state” was in existence. This information comes from the materials published by the CIA, America’s intelligence service. The documents are accessible to anyone who wants to know the truth, or who values the truth more than anything else.

A few more facts from history: Stepan Bandera, the mastermind of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), was killed in Munich 65 years ago, on October 15, 1959. It was done by decision of the Supreme Court of the Soviet Union, which sentenced him to capital punishment (in absentia). The modern-day Ukrainian Nazis and their sympathisers in the West should learn their history lessons and watch Russian law enforcement agencies mete out justified punishment to these criminals based on facts. The fate of Bandera followers is sealed. They will suffer yet another crushing defeat, shame and infamy even now when they are being glorified and celebrated like their idols, Stepan Bandera and Roman Shukhevych. These reincarnation attempts won’t succeed. All their efforts to whitewash names that have been splashed with blood have had an opposite result, turning those who tried to return antiheroes to the pantheon of history into terrorists.

In the context of UPA celebrations, the tone of discussions on the Volhynia Massacre of 1943-1944, when the Bandera units mercilessly killed tens of thousands of Poles, is indicative of the real nature of “mutual understanding” between Kiev and Poland, its closest European “ally.”

The media often quote various Polish officials who are piqued by Ukraine’s stubborn disregard for its neighbours’ proposals on that settlement of that grievous problem. How can it be settled?

A solution involves the admission that Bandera, Shukhevych, UPA and all the other similar organisations created under the umbrella of the inhuman Third Reich are Nazis, henchmen and proponents of the nationalist man-hating ideology. It is the only solution that will bring down and disperse the Kiev regime’s ideology and the political strategy of the collective West built on it. They claim that those who now exhibit the swastika and SS paraphernalia in Ukraine are the descendants of the “great Ukrainians” who fought for their “national identity.” It is from that source that they derive their strength, while drawing huge amounts of money from the West. As soon as someone in the West finds the courage to read out the decisions of the Nuremberg Trials, let alone officially recognise them (they don’t need their recognition), as we as their own refence materials, reports and documents from that period, which prove that Bandra and Shukhevych were Nazi collaborators and henchmen, the problem will disappear like a morning fog. That is why the Kiev regime refuses to assume responsibility, while Warsaw can’t do anything about it.

Kiev refuses to permit the exhumation of victims from the Volhynia Massacre, and Warsaw refuses to budge on this issue, threatening to block Ukraine’s admission to the EU. Deputy Speaker of the Verkhovna Rada Yelena Kondratyuk added fuel to the fames by saying on October 8, 2024, that the restoration of the UPA fighters’ memorial in Poland must become the first stage of joint efforts to commemorate the victims of the Volhynia Massacre. Is this logical? They want Poland to unveil a monument to those who killed, raped, burned, tortured and maimed Poles. I would like to ask Poles: You don’t like this, do you? Why then do you think that we should like what Kiev is doing? Why should we sit quietly when monuments to our heroes are torn down and replaced with monuments to the antiheroes who killed and burned us, trying to destroy us as an ethnos, a culture, an identity, a country and a nation? This is “gratitude” Kiev style, the neo-Nazi gratitude for the all-round assistance they received from an ally in the anti-Russia coalition. This is evidence of recognition for Kiev’s feeling of impunity and all-permissiveness, which the West has deliberately cultivated in Kiev. It is also an element of blackmail. Kiev thinks that it can do anything because Washington and London have said so. Well, NATO must now stew in its own juice, thinking of a way to deal with that enfant terrible, the monster they themselves have created.

But there have been a few incredible manifestations of courage and resilience.

The story of Yelena Chesakova from Odessa went viral on social media. You’ve probably seen the photos and videos. On October 7, she climbed onto the pedestal of the former monument to Catherine II, unfurled a Russian tricolour and tried to publicly tell the truth about the conflict in Ukraine, before she was taken away by the police. In a video of her interrogation, which has been shared in posts online, she said that she would never forgive the brutal crimes committed by the Ukrainian Nazis on May 2, 2014 in Odessa or by the Armed Forces of Ukraine in Donbass. She expressed support for the Russian world and Russia, announced the masterminds behind the fratricidal conflict of the two Slavic nations – the United States and NATO – and called on the Ukrainian military service members not yet poisoned by the virus of Banderism to lay down their arms. Chesakova was arrested for expressing her civic stance, and is now facing a retribution. What does this amount to? I will tell you – this amounts to anti-fascism. This is it. In the same way, anti-fascists in the 1930s and 1940s protested at the cost of their lives. They did not just protest, but –

I cannot talk about this unemotionally. When you realise that one woman can do something that amounts to real heroism on a global scale. Those anti-fascists, what they did, individually, or in groups, was not just protesting. They stood in the way of that Nazi, fascist machine. They knew what would happen to them. They made a conscious choice because they realised nothing else could stop it. Western European anti-fascists did not act for the sake of the Soviet Union, or for the sake of the Red Army. They accomplished those deeds in the name of their own nations. They did it for the sake of the future of their children. They realised that Nazism will hit their own homes in the first place. I do not know what will happen to Yelena Chesakova. We will pray for her and do everything we can to help. We will call on the international community to finally heed the people standing up to this collective West, who do it like this, standing up alone, fully aware of the consequences.

In addition, I would like to point out that the place she chose for her protest was symbolic. The flag of Russia was unfurled where an outrageous historical injustice was committed when they dismantled the monument commemorating the woman who founded that very city. This is now a focal point of all the pain and protest against the monstrous dehumanisation and violation of the truth that we are now witnessing in Ukraine. It is a place of strength where a person of any ethnicity or generation can see the light. We call on international human rights organisations to pay special attention to Yelena Chesakova’s situation.

This case once again confirms the relevance of the goals of the special military operation to denazify and demilitarise Ukraine and eliminate threats emanating from its territory. All of them will definitely be achieved.

The personal courage and active civic engagement of this Odessa woman can only be admired. In today’s Ukraine, it is not allowed to express opinions that run counter to the Nazi narratives of the Kiev regime without running a high risk of reprisals by the authorities and nationalists.

back to top

 

Moldova update

 

NATO continues to wage a crusade for the freedom and independence of the Moldovan people. In a few days, on October 20, they are to cast their ballots at a presidential election and a referendum regarding the country’s integration in the European Union (EU). The Moldovan experts have described the actions of Maia Sandu’s regime during the election campaign as an absurdist totalitarian theatre.

Unable to present any positive results of their four-year rule to the electorate, the Sandu regime is relying heavily on administrative pressure and the persecution of political opponents, independent media and everyone else who are not directly subordinate to the government.

On October 9, 2024, the police confiscated the campaign materials of the Party of Communists of the Republic of Moldova at a printing shop. They did this without any reason. Has the party been prohibited? Or did it print prohibited materials?  Not at all. On October 13, 2024, the police confiscated an issue of the Revival Party newspaper. Both expressed their own views of the situation, saying that Moldova should not join the EU. This has sealed their fate.

On October 10, 2024, access to the Telegram channels of several opposition members of the Moldovan parliament, head of Gagauzia Evghenia Gutul (Yevgenia Gutsul) and several Moldovan media outlets was blocked. On October 11, 2024, the public learned about the termination of seven Facebook and Instagram accounts. These platforms have been banned in Russia because they posted extremist materials. As many as 23 pages and 20 accounts have been deleted for criticising President Sandu and urging people to vote against European integration during the referendum.

The West, which is now attacking the freedom and independence of Moldova, used these social media and its own internet platforms to say that killing Russians and calling for the assassination of Russians was perfectly acceptable, just like these extremist networks think. Do they want to spread these “values” in the form of “democratic guidelines” in Moldova? They don’t terminate openly extremist accounts, which call for killing people on ethnic grounds, but delete or block accounts where people express alternative views without calling for killings or violence. This really is a looking-glass world.

It is notable that even such a biased organisation as the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) had to mention Chisinau’s flagrant infringements on election rights in Moldova. In its interim report published on October 4, 2024, it mentioned the authorities’ abuse of the administrative resource, refusal to register some presidential candidates, and a limited number of polling stations, for example, in Russia. This assessment is obviously vague and does not reflect the real state of affairs, but the ODIHR has put it on paper even though it is a thoroughly biased organisation. This means that these drawbacks are too large to be overlooked.

Despite the authorities’ effort, Maia Sandu’s disapproval rating is extremely high, which is why her Western sponsors are increasing their flagrant interference in Moldova’s internal affairs. They are doing this to save their wards. How are they doing this? As usual, they have started by throwing money around and making anti-Russia statements.

On October 9, 2024, the European Parliament adopted an anti-Russia resolution on strengthening Moldova's resilience against Russian interference ahead of the upcoming presidential elections and a constitutional referendum on EU integration. The MEPs called for imposing sanctions on individuals and entities that actively participate in subverting Moldova’s sovereignty. Who is subverting Moldova’s sovereignty? It must be those who insist on referring to Moldovans as Romanians, or those who say that there is no such thing as the Moldovan language, that there is only the Romanian language. This is what can put an end to Moldova’s sovereignty and identity. But these individuals have not been mentioned. The finger has been pointed at the Moldovan opposition, which calls for preserving culture, traditions and legality in the country. In that resolution, European deputies call on the EU to increase technical assistance to Moldova to facilitate the process of its integration into the EU, and support for Moldova’s Centre for Strategic Communication and Combating Disinformation, which Moldovans call the Ministry of Truth [as in George Orwell’s novel 1984] and which is doing exactly what the Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels did.

On October 10, during her visit to Chisinau, President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen openly campaigned for Maia Sandu. This is in line with their “rules.” I am just wondering if she has already sent a letter of congratulations to Maia Sandu, just as Francois Hollande sent one to Hillary Clinton before the US elections ended.

Ursula von der Leyen has announced the European Growth Plan for Moldova. Most of this growth plan is offered to Moldova as a loan. The amount of this plan is impressive, too. It is 1.8 billion euros, which is really a lot, except for one small nugget – you know, a caveat with an asterisk, the fine print no one sees or cares to read for some reason. This fortune is a loan. Not a gift, not humanitarian aid, or gratuitous support. It is a loan. No one is asking who will be repaying it and how. Where will the money come from? Who will take care of this? Those things seem immaterial today. It is more important to air a lofty figure while avoiding the subject of this being a loan, not a grant. This is a very real case of Western interference in Moldova’s internal affairs, not some mythical Russian foreign influence.

On October 4 of this year, the EU Council churned out new sanctions for “actions aimed at destabilising Moldova.” Who are the targets? Five individuals and legal entities, including the head of Gagauzia, Evghenia Gutul, founder of the Eurasia autonomous non-profit organisation Nelly Parutenko, and the NGO itself.

It is noteworthy, however, that in an effort to keep Maia Sandu in power by all means, the West is increasingly letting things slip about its true interests in relation to Moldova. Recently, EU Ambassador to Chisinau Jānis Mažeiks said that Moldova’s European integration would give Western transnational corporations – what do you think? An opportunity to help Moldovan businesses? To invest in the Moldovan economy? To support Moldovan startups free of charge? No. Western transnational corporations (as the EU ambassador openly said) will be allowed to buy the country’s land. This is it. End of story. The Germans failed to do this 80 years ago, by occupying and appropriating that land, thinking of it as their property, their fiefdom, and then blatantly exporting black soil – actually stealing fertile soil from the occupied territory. Today, what they failed to do will be achieved by the efforts of transnational companies. Someone may argue that they will be buying it. But we know how they pay for what they buy. We know this will be later presented as if Moldova is overindebted and past due on its loan, is in no position to pay it back, and this will be used as a reason for not paying for the land. Moldova is literally going to be trapped in bondage. This amounts to enslavement and colonisation. This is neocolonialism. This is slave trade all over again, only in a new way. In the midst of the 21st century, they are “trading slaves and gold for mirrors.” Well, unlike indigenous tribes who exchanged their land for beads and mirrors, new colonies will be offered nothing but pieces of paper with a few numbers scribbled on them. In exchange for these papers, they will take the most valuable treasures the country has. What is the most valuable treasure in an agrarian country like Moldova? Land.

On October 8, Romanian MEP Claudiu-Richard Târziu publicly announced that Moldova’s accession to the EU is possible only after the republic withdraws from the CIS, after the country’s de-Russification and dismantling of Soviet monuments. What Soviet monuments was he referring to? Let’s think about it. Firstly, the monuments honouring the heroes of the Great Patriotic War, World War II, who fought against Nazism. Secondly, there are monuments and memorials of great figures of science, culture, and art – some of them Moldovan, others Moldovan and Russian. Why? Because the West seeks to erase the Moldovan identity. They want children in Moldova to grow up without knowing their heroes or the people who forged the great victory as well as their current prosperity. The individuals responsible for important advancements in science, culture, and art. And thirdly, of course, there are the monuments that were erected in the name of peace and friendship and reflected the priorities of the peace-loving Moldovan people. This Romanian MEP, or whatever he calls himself, is calling for this heritage to be demolished.

One of the pro-government propagandists in Moldova recently let slip that Maia Sandu’s re-election will be instrumental in preserving Moldova as an important logistics hub for supplying Ukraine with goods. But of course. This is actually true. Moldova is a tool, a point on the map that the West needs to achieve its geopolitical aspirations.

But it would have been out of character if the West had tried to keep Moldova at its own expense, by paying its own money. No, they prefer partying on someone else’s dime. They will make the Moldovans themselves pay for it. Most of the financing provided to the republic is in the form of loans which will be repaid by the country’s future generations. The country will become dependent on the money that Maia Sandu will now receive and which she will steal. According to IMF estimates, from January to June 2024 alone, Moldova’s public debt increased by $330 million. This is a huge amount for Moldova, especially given that during the period in question, the republic’s negative trade balance exceeded $3 billion.

These are the real performance results of Moldova’s government and the effect of its policy of rapprochement with the EU and distancing from Russia and other CIS countries. This is what the Moldovans are now being vigorously urged to vote for. I am sure that the Moldovan people are aware of the abyss that the current regime and its Western handlers are pushing them to.

back to top

 

Developments around the East Asia Summit platform

 

As you know, in line with its Indo-Pacific strategy, the West has been resorting to unscrupulous manoeuvres for several years in order to impair the functional capabilities of multilateral ASEAN-centric organisations. This also concerns the developments now shaping up around the work of the East Asia Summit.

Since its inception in 2005, this mechanism focused on issues of all-inclusive practical cooperation between the ASEAN states and its dialogue partners. Six basic sectoral guidelines, including the economy, energy, environmental protection, healthcare, finance and emergency response issues, were initially charted. East Asia Summit’s Terms of Reference were seriously expanded in 2017 following the approval of the Manila Action Plan, a roadmap of the association’s activities in 2018-2022, including connectivity and food security issues. An ad hoc group of permanent representatives of East Asia Summit countries, affiliated with ASEAN, was established for boosting the forum’s performance. This entity was supposed to implement the decisions taken by the leaders.

With the active support of Russia and China, this line of ASEAN partners made it possible to draft and approve, before 2021, multiple documents that are  important in the context of intensifying regional collaboration concerning sustainable development and response to trans-border issues and challenges. At that time, the United States and its allies, primarily members of the pro-NATO Asia-Pacific Four (Japan, the Republic of Korea, Australia and New Zealand) started systemically hampering the productive work of the East Asia Summit’s platform in accordance with their Indo-Pacific line aiming to alter the cooperation-oriented Asia Pacific format using bloc-related standards.

A paradoxical situation shaped up in 2020 at the height of the Covid pandemic. A group of countries that I have already mentioned (the same four countries) meticulously deleted all provisions dealing with practical cooperation from the draft leaders’ declaration on enhancing the regional anti-pandemic potential in the format of 18 East Asia Summit states. It was proposed by Russia and supported by ASEAN. This took place in 2020. After 2022, they motivated everything by Russia’s “aggression.” And what happened in 2020? At that time, there was no aggression worldwide, except the Covid-19 pandemic. Why did they have to hamper this process then? This is how the West acts. The statement was eventually approved. But the West refuses to carry it out and to work for implementing this document.

In 2021, it took the concerned parties a lot of time and effort to coordinate a document for enhancing collaboration in tourism as a tool for artificially suppressing the pandemic’s negative economic consequences. However, the document shared a similar fate. Russia suggested launching expert contacts and a ministerial dialogue in this sphere, but this appeal was disregarded. The document is shelved and blocked every year, and some of its provisions are deleted. As usual, the situation is not changing.

The peak of the West’s destructive behaviour was the blocking of the leaders’ draft statements on promoting volunteering work in 2022. How could this hurt the West? They also blocked the statement on boosting energy cooperation proposed by China.

In 2023, the Western group equally enthusiastically criticised a Russian proposal on adopting a detailed and well-articulated draft of the EAS action plan for 2024−2028 and our idea of initiating a review of the leaders’ decisions adopted since the EAS’s inception. There were 44 documents altogether. We suggested a review to determine what else should be done to ensure their implementation. But that idea came up against the Western countries’ unwillingness to work together.

Instead of using the EAS for practical work in the regional format, the West assigned it the role of a platform for spreading ideological narratives in the spirit of the “rules-based order”. At the same time, the United States and its vassals are trying to shift practical cooperation in the region to a network of a dozen US-centric, closed bloc associations and partnerships created by the United States as an alternative to ASEAN.

This year, Russia consistently upheld the EAS’s practical significance at all stages of preparations for the summit in the context of ensuring the region’s sustainable economic and social development. We supported the draft document focused on practical aspects, which the Laotian chairmanship proposed, and cautioned the participating counties against making it hostage to their geopolitical ambitions. In other words, we encouraged them to work constructively and strive for practical results. Nevertheless, Western counties did not abandon their intention to politicise the EAS. Refusing to look for compromise, they stepped up aggressive rhetoric, saying that they would only approve the document if it included confrontational content, ultimately preventing its adoption.

The Russian delegation had to raise the issue of misconduct by the US and allied delegations, in particular, the blocking of our proposals regarding efforts to implement the EAS roadmap on practical collaboration.

We reinforced our call on all counties to prove their commitment to the development of multilateral ASEAN-centric mechanisms with two new initiatives of importance for the region. Relying on the experience we have accumulated during the implementation of national programmes and international cooperation in the SCO and APEC formats, we proposed analysing the possibility of joint development of remote territories. We also submitted an initiative on strengthening social and cultural connectivity in the region.

We took note of the Western-inspired publications according to which Russia derailed the summit and that the EAS’s attitude was unconstructive and uncooperative. They made a great deal of other allegations. I have provided the facts that are based on our experts’ information and show who is really hindering the work of that organisation.  

back to top

 

Repressions against Russian civil society members in Poland

 

A few more stories of the “exceptional” ones and their proteges.

Between September 30 and October 11, Poland hosted the Warsaw Human Dimension Conference held by the Maltese Chairmanship-in-Office and the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR).

Many ask what this human dimension implies, particularly in the OSCE’s interpretation. The term is used to refer to a set of norms and activities related to human rights and democracy, which the OSCE views as one of the three components covered by its security concept, along with the politico-military and economic and environmental dimensions. Why do they need to use this language, this terminology, which sounds anything but human? This is a question worth asking.

This conference, held for a third time by a group of OSCE countries, is a completely illegitimate substitute for the consensus annual meetings that review the implementation of participating states’ human dimension commitments. Russia’s official delegation has been boycotting these gatherings for reasons of principle, and a number of other countries support this decision.

At the same time, representatives of Russian civil society continue to attend these conferences, trying to offer alternative to Western narratives, and share that point of view with a wide international audience. Unfortunately, this is precisely why, from year to year, Poland – which is home to the ODIHR headquarters and host of the key OSCE human rights events – has been creating multiple obstacles for them. How does this country treat representatives of civil society, something the West promotes as the conductor of democratic procedures, institutions and traditions? It uses sanctions lists, denies them visas, delays them for hours at the airports, and puts them through gruelling interrogations. Is this how civil society and its representatives are respected in the West? As a reminder, the OSCE’s requirements are clear – the state hosting international events must ensure unhindered access to its territory for all participants on a non-discriminatory basis.

This year, Warsaw refused to issue visas to Chair of the Women’s Dialogue international peacekeeping movement Yelena Semerikova and her colleague. Apparently, this was a revenge for her vibrant, sharp and truthful address last year. She has connections with that country. Her mother, an ethnic Pole, fought in Poland, liberating it from the Nazis. Yelena Semerikova maintains close ties with many Polish public organisations. However, all this means nothing for official Warsaw. She was never granted a visa.

This story is yet another confirmation of Poland’s blatant hypocrisy, for all its grandstanding for democratic principles at the OSCE. Maybe less ardent support for democracy would work better. Maybe too much ardour is what spoils everything. They always pose as great defenders of civil society at human rights events. We see how this translates into real life. We see dubious figures, recognised as extremists in a number of OSCE countries, allowed to speak at events. However, when it comes to Russian public figures and civil society activists, they are prevented from attending the event for which they registered in accordance with its rules and procedures, because Warsaw does not like what they say.

What is the conclusion? It’s obvious. Poland does not want to hear the truth. Perhaps, neither do others – Warsaw may not be the only responsible party. They do not want to hear the truth about serious problems under the OSCE mandate, such as rampant aggressive nationalism and neo-Nazism, repressions against the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, attempts to eradicate the Russian language in Ukraine, and massive violations of Russian-speakers’ rights in the Baltic states.

All of the above again proves that Poland has long lost the right to host international functions and OSCE events. That is why Russia and a number of other countries insist on moving the ODIHR headquarters and other OSCE activities to another venue. Those who do this in Warsaw and their Big Brothers in Washington and Brussels should think about it and decide whether they want to lead the organisation to destruction for the sake of momentary political benefits.

back to top

 

Reduction of the diplomatic corps in Norway

 

Upon the Norwegian authorities’ demand, the Russian Embassy in Norway, as well as Russian general consulates general in Kirkenes and Barentsburg, are forced to reduce the number of accredited diplomats down to the established quota starting from October 17.

We regard this decision as part of Norway’s policy to restrict Russian diplomatic presence in the country, which has already suffered significantly after the expulsion of a significant number of Russian diplomats in 2022−2023.

Oslo’s latest ultimatum puts a great obstacle to the operation of Russian foreign missions in Norway. In fact, this is the aim of Oslo’s decisions. They almost paralyse Russian foreign missions’ activities in several areas. The consular section of the Russian Embassy in Oslo will continue to work, but with a limited number of personnel, while the consulates general in Kirkenes and Barentsburg are forced to temporarily suspend consular services.

Nevertheless, our foreign missions will continue to make all necessary efforts to ensure the legitimate rights and interests of Russians living in Norway. Consular offices will resume functioning as soon as an algorithm for working under the new conditions is developed. We recommend that Russian citizens follow the updates on the websites and accounts of Russian foreign missions. We will take this latest unfriendly step into account when building a further course with respect to Norway. We promise that our response, sensitive for the Norwegian side, will definitely follow.

back to top

 

Italy denying visas to the Russian delegation going to the 75th International Astronautical Congress

 

Italy isn’t at its best these days.

On October 14–18, Milan is hosting the 75th International Astronautical Congress, which is one of the most reputable platforms in the world to discuss the development prospects of the space industry. Every year, the event of the International Astronautical Federation brings together over 5,000 participants, including heads of space agencies, cosmonauts, scientists, and experts from various countries. Roscosmos Space Corporation and several organisations in the Russian rocket and space industry have been permanent members of the Federation since 1993. Every year, they transfer membership fees to its budget. Representatives of Russia have been elected to its management bodies many times.

This year, a representative Russian delegation led by Director General of Roscosmos Yury Borisov planned to take part in the Milan congress. Official invitations were sent by the President of the International Astronautical Federation (a US citizen, which did not prevent him from acting within the framework of the rules approved in his own Federation). Invitations were also sent by the President of the Italian Space Agency. Despite these invitations and Russia’s full membership in the Federation, as well as no financial or other debts, or full compliance with the necessary formalities, including participation fees and flight and accommodation costs. What do you think has happened? The Italian government did not issue visas to Russian delegates.

I understand that Italy is a great space power. Perhaps it can compensate for the absence of the Russian delegation, though for many, it is debatable. Think about it: if Italy does not allow a country that has been making daily invaluable contribution to space exploration for decades, which declared space a zone free from conflict and unfair competition, to take part in space events, then who does its government steal from? Who is it making worse for? In fact, our achievements in space exploration do not need advertising. Russia shares them generously with all other countries that do not have a potential, capacities or capabilities which make it possible to deliver astronauts or cargo, build a space station or take a place aboard the ISS, or put devices manned by their astronauts into orbit. Russia helps all. Russia is ready to provide such opportunities, and is doing it. How many astronauts from all over the world have been using these capabilities for decades? Who is the Italian government deceiving when it does not issue visas to Russian representatives? Themselves and their own people. They even make themselves look ridiculous.

We are outraged by the official Rome’s another unfriendly step. Moreover, it is disgraceful for Rome to do such things. The Italian side has once again neglected its obligations as a country hosting a major international event. We regard the decision to refuse visas to the Russian delegation as unlawful and unfounded. We also regard it as another manifestation of Russophobia by the current Italian leadership. Rome’s decision fully contradicts the goals and tasks of the Federation, undermines international cooperation in peaceful space exploration, and deals another blow to Russian-Italian relations, which are suffering their deepest crisis since the end of World War II due to the actions of the Italian leadership.

This approach of the Italian side contradicts Russia’s honest and open policy when holding international events in Russia. For example, the International Conference on Space Exploration was held in St Petersburg in 2021. It was organised by Roscosmos and the International Astronautical Federation. Despite the coronavirus restrictions, the Russian side fully complied with its obligations to the Federation to issue visas to foreign conference participants. Let me remind you how many restrictions on border crossing were introduced in the world. Nevertheless, we fulfilled all our obligations.

Now the official Rome has once again reaffirmed that it bows to the collective West, hence to its own detriment. They have ridiculed themselves on the international stage. It would be better if Italy listened to Russian representatives on the topic of space to educate themselves. Rome has once again shown that it is using unfair methods, as well as unilateral destructive steps. It looks like it is done to serve Washington. There is simply no other option. And the US needs this to prevent the emergence of a multipolar world. The West needs it to preserve the irrevocably disappearing Western-centric rules-based world order, while in fact they only have one rule: the rule of the strong.

back to top

 

Statements by Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba

 

We have noted official Tokyo’s recent more active rhetoric on nuclear and missile threats allegedly emanating from North Korea. On October 11, 2024, Prime Minister of Japan Shigeru Ishiba addressed the East Asia Summit in Vientiane and voiced additional baseless accusations on this issue.

What is the real reason for inciting this hysteria? We could not help but notice the new Japanese Prime Minister’s “presentation” of his own concept for building an Asian model of NATO in a US publication prior to his inauguration. This concept notes openly that members of the proposed association should have access to US nuclear weapons in the joint nuclear missions’ format, or they should be able to deploy these weapons on their territory. 

Perhaps this can be explained by the fact that the Prime Minister of Japan has just assumed office. Perhaps they did not tell him, or they do not know some aspects. Even when the United States deploys its nuclear weapons on the territory of other countries, it never allows anyone to access them in any form. I am saying this in order to inform the Japanese leadership.

Japanese Foreign Minister Takeshi Iwada commented on prospects for implementing the idea of this alliance and admitted of an intention to tie the strings crosswise, so as to obtain a net. For whom is this net intended? Is this a trap for Japan itself? Does Japan assess the consequences of its actions at least one step ahead? Do they have an idea of what would happen in the region if the United States deploys its nuclear weapons in Japan? Are they thinking about the consequences of this? An incorrect answer implies that this would facilitate greater security. The correct answer is that this would wreck stability in the long-suffering region.

We can see how Japan continues to rapidly expand military-political cooperation with Washington in accordance with its drastic remilitarisation line. It continues to accumulate an offensive potential and to expand the scale of military training activities by involving extra-regional forces of Euro-Atlantic nations. Additionally, Japan claims the right to play its own role in maintaining the US “nuclear umbrella.”

In this context, all Japanese accusations with regard to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea are typical of someone who yells: “Stop the thief!” They are the thief who has been caught red-handed. I would like to warn Tokyo using the terminology of Japanese Foreign Minister Takeshi Iwaya: When you start knitting the string, make sure that it does not become a noose on your neck. 

back to top

 

The initiative of reparations to be paid to the Caribbean nations

 

On October 25-26, Samoa will host the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. The outcomes of this summit may entail most unpleasant consequences for London, including in terms of finances: 15 member states of the CARICOM trade and economic association, once the plantation and slave-trading centres of the British Empire, intend to demand from London reparations of at least $260 billion for centuries of slavery. This amount is by no means final and could be significantly increased. If the Commonwealth summit meets with a refusal, CARICOM members intend to file a lawsuit with international judicial authorities.

The idea of seeking reparations from the former mother country for centuries of colonial exploitation and slavery, which have been the main cause of socio-economic problems and dire poverty until now, have been discussed already for a long time. But now, thanks to just and persistent demands from the Caribbean states, appeals for compensation are beginning to take shape.

In her address at the opening of another UN General Assembly session this past September, Prime Minister of Barbados Mia Mottley urged on behalf of the Caribbean community to complete the unfinished work and to resolve the question of reparations for slavery and colonialism. Earlier, the Prime Minister repeatedly noted that Britain's debt to her country for the period of colonial exploitation reaches $5 trillion.

I would like to recall a fact that even the British themselves recognise: Britain did not intervene in the affairs of only 22 countries out of 193 UN-recognised states. The expansion of the British Empire was geographically the most extensive among other Western European states, covering almost all regions of the world. By seizing rich countries and territories, the British then siphoned off resources and used these countries as raw material appendages and markets for their manufactured goods and as a way to replenish slave markets. That terminology is impossible to use today. It is so wild. But when you come to the countries of the region and you go to the central square, you are shown the places where people were sold. Where were they sold to? To the United States of America, to Britain, to Europe, but primarily to the Anglo-Saxon world.

I will remind you that 10 non-self-governing territories still remain the British colonial dependencies now. Using the UN classification, some of them are in the Caribbean (Anguilla, Bermuda, British and Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Montserrat, Turks and Caicos Islands).

Just in early October, Great Britain entered into an agreement on returning the Chagos Archipelago to the sovereignty of Mauritius after many-year territorial dispute. It seems like something to be happy about. However, Diego Garcia, an atoll accommodating a UK-US military base, will remain under the US and UK control for the next 99 years.

The brutality of the British colonising policy was well known in its own time, and has been put on record and well documented as well. Britain’s colonial machine literally ground up millions of lives on different continents. We have every reason to talk about the British being responsible for the genocide around the world. In a cowardly attempt to evade responsibility for the crimes of the past, London is now purposefully working to destroy archives in order to obstruct the efforts to assess the scale of its crimes and criminal acts. At the same time, with the prodding of the elites, the colonial period has largely remained a factor of national pride for British society. A specific system of values - the ideology of messianism and the heavy burden of the white man, who is allegedly the source of progress for the “sub-humans,” which they believe the rest of the world is - is firmly entrenched.

London cannot continue suppressing independence and sovereignty of the peoples indefinitely. Russia supports the Caribbean nations in their pursuit of a fair compensation from Britain for the past and present grievous consequences caused by colonisation and neo-colonialism. These are not mere words and concepts. They represent an insupportable burden that has been borne by the peoples. It is not just about oppression. It is about bullying, exploitation, and the absence or the inability to exercise human rights. It is about withdrawing a notion of law and rights from the lives of entire nations.

I would like to note that the Soviet Union played an important role in decolonisation and consistently opposed the policy of neo-colonialism in the Caribbean. In the second half of the 1950s, the core principles of the Soviet foreign policy were proclaimed which included support for the national liberation movement of the colonial peoples and co-operation with the newly independent states.

The USSR initiated the adoption of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (it was approved by Resolution 1514 on December 14, 1960 during the 15th session of the UN General Assembly.) This made it possible to establish the UN Special Committee on Decolonisation (known as C-24), of which Russia remains a member to this day. The efforts of the Soviet Union towards this end allowed the UN to play a decisive role in the process of colonial countries achieving independence. I think that in many ways we are now on the receiving end of retribution for that.

With Washington and London pursuing a course to restore an ideology-driven and essentially neo-colonial policy in the Caribbean in the spirit of the Monroe Doctrine, the relatively young by historical standards Caribbean nations are striving to assert their sovereignty and the right to an independent path of development.

Russia consistently reinforces this approach in its partners and supports the Caribbean countries in their pursuit of a fair compensation for past and present grievous consequences caused by colonisation and neo-colonialism.

back to top

 

United Nations Day

 

On October 24, the international community will once again mark United Nations Day. On that day in 1945, the UN Charter came into force and became the cornerstone of international law, proclaiming the fundamental principles of communication between countries, including sovereign equality, non-interference in domestic affairs and self-determination of peoples. Those norms have stood the test of time and are key to ensuring harmonious coexistence among the nations.

Today, humanity faces an ever expanding rash of challenges. To be effective, responding to them must rely on the united efforts of all countries. A new structure of a multipolar world is taking shape due to the centre of political and economic influence shifting to Asia, Africa and Latin America which makes the UN an even more consequential entity. It should become even more important, but only if the United Nations is not turned into a slave of the West, just as things were in the times of the slave-owning system. Only a world organisation with universal legitimacy, unique competences and a vast array of instruments can play a coordinating role in agreeing truly collective solutions to pressing issues. Again, this is unless the UN defeats its own purpose.

At the same time, however, the Organisation is finding it increasingly difficult to live up to its lofty mission. The countries of the collective West are responsible for this, and are trying to take it hostage and to use it to promote their lop-sided narratives and high-profile PR campaigns that benefit their own audiences and which are adjusted to electoral cycles. As a consequence, the truly enormous potential of the Security Council, the General Assembly, ECOSOC and other UN bodies is often misused.

The credibility of the UN is often undermined by its Secretariat, which has been usurped by Westerners. UN officials often disregard Article 100 of the Charter, which requires them to act impartially and not to be led on a leash by a small group of Western countries that have come to believe in their own exceptionality and that they can get away with anything.

In turn, Russia, as a founding state and a permanent member of the UN Security Council, is clear-eyed about its responsibility for the future of this world organisation. Given these circumstances, we intend, alongside the like-minded countries of the Global Majority, to resolutely uphold its basic principles, to safeguard the international legal norms that are laid down in its Charter in their entirety and interrelation, to curb unilateral initiatives to reform the United Nations, and to prevent the attempts to put it at the service of the golden billion’s interests.

back to top

 

The 60th anniversary of the Druzhba oil pipeline

 

October 15 marked the 60th anniversary of the launch of the Druzhba (Friendship) oil pipeline. The Soviet Union built the world’s largest trans-European system of trunk oil pipelines to deliver oil to socialist countries in Eastern Europe, including Hungary, the German Democratic Republic, Poland and Czechoslovakia.

For 60 years, the Druzhba oil pipeline served as an energy bridge facilitating mutually beneficial cooperation between our country and European states, contributing to the region’s energy security.

Despite baseless accusations from European officials that Russia is provoking a global energy crisis, our country remains a reliable and responsible supplier of energy resources. Recent developments surrounding the Druzhba oil pipeline attest to this.

In mid-July 2024, the Kiev regime, clearly acting on orders from its Western handlers, halted the transportation of oil owned by Russia’s LUKOIL via the pipeline’s southern offshoot to Slovakia and Hungary. Despite these latest politically motivated restrictions, obviously driven by the West, Russian suppliers were able to step in. In July, Tatneft significantly increased deliveries to refineries in Slovakia and Hungary, sending around 330,000 tonnes of oil to each country via the oil pipeline’s southern offshoot. This helped compensate for the lost deliveries, which were not LUKOIL’s fault, and ensured the system’s overall reliability.

It is in this atmosphere that we are now marking the 60th anniversary of the Druzhba oil pipeline project, a unique initiative from every perspective, political and infrastructural. How should this landmark be celebrated? There should be official ceremonies, awards for industry veterans who devoted the best years of their lives to this project, recognition for those who maintain and operate the pipeline today, as well as scholarships and grants. I am talking about joint international events. Instead, we are witnessing yet another round of Western schemes, attempted through the actions of the Kiev regime.

back to top

 

Zambian Independence Day and the 60th anniversary of diplomatic relations with the Republic of Zambia

 

On October 24, the Republic of Zambia will celebrate its Independence Day.

We value the traditionally friendly Russia-Zambia relations, built on mutual respect and consideration for each other’s interests. Moscow and Lusaka maintain political dialogue, collaborate on the international arena, and expand trade, economic, education, cultural and humanitarian ties.

On October 30, we will mark the 30th anniversary of diplomatic relations with Zambia. On that day, our states started expanding and strengthening bonds of friendship and cooperation. The Soviet Union became one of the first countries to recognise the independence of the young republic, providing vital support to the Zambian people, a tradition continued by the Russian Federation.

We congratulate our friends on these significant dates and sincerely wish the people of this remarkable African country well-being and prosperity.

back to top

 

80th anniversary of the liberation of Belgrade from the Nazi invaders

 

Eighty years ago, on October 20 (the date we are about to celebrate), 1944, a major event of the final stage of World War II on the Balkans took place: the Red Army and Yugoslav partisans liberated Belgrade.

Thanks to the success of the Red Army’s Jassy-Kishinev offensive in August 1944, Nazi Germany lost its allies, Romania and Bulgaria, which ensured the rapid advance of the 3rd Ukrainian Front under the command of Marshal Fyodor Tolbukhin to the borders of Yugoslavia.

As a result, the Soviet troops destroyed the German army group Serbia and inflicted serious damage to other units in the Army Group F, liberating the eastern and north-eastern regions of Yugoslavia and thus creating favourable conditions for further advance towards Budapest.

The People's Liberation Army of Yugoslavia, including the 1st Army Group commanded by Peko Dapčević, as well as the locals who sympathised with the Soviet fighters, provided considerable assistance in destroying the Nazi invaders.

The nation of Yugoslavia praised the feat of its liberators. The Presidium of the Anti-Fascist Council of the People’s Liberation of Yugoslavia awarded orders and medals to more than 2,000 Soviet soldiers and officers for the courage and bravery during the battles for Belgrade. In turn, 300 soldiers and commanders of the People’s Liberation Army of Yugoslavia were awarded Soviet orders and medals.

October 20 is an important date that unites the peoples of Russia and Serbia. A lot of commemorative events are scheduled to mark this date in Belgrade, including those marking our nations’ special affection for each other. Guests from Russia are to take part in these events. The central place is given to wreath- laying at the Cemetery of the Liberators of Belgrade. A march of the Immortal Regiment is being arranged. Russian and Serbian creative groups will perform on the city’s main square. At night, a ceremonial meeting will be held in the People’s Theatre, as well as a festive fireworks display.

The Russian Ministry of Culture and the Russian Military Historical Society opened thematic exhibitions in the Belgrade Central Park and the Russian Centre for Science and Culture, where a Russian-Serbian cultural forum and scientific conference will also be organised ahead of the anniversary.

I would like to use this occasion to once again thank the authorities and people of Serbia for their respectful attitude to those who gave their lives fighting against Nazism. The country ensures the preservation of 49 Russian military burial sites dating back to World War II, unlike some Eastern European countries, which have turned places of memory into places of desecration, their own dehumanisation, and a hotbed of vandalism.

We believe that the memory of the joint feat of our nations that defeated Nazi Germany will continue to serve as a solid foundation for Russian-Serbian friendship.

back to top

 

The 80th anniversary of the Red Army's liberation of East Finnmark from Nazi occupation

 

On October 25, 1944, 80 years ago, the Red Army during the final stage of the Petsamo-Kirkenes Offensive liberated the northern Norwegian town of Kirkenes and its surroundings, East Finnmark, from Nazi occupation, advancing subsequently to liberate the entire north-eastern territory of Norway up to the Tana River. Each year on this day, we solemnly commemorate the Soviet servicemen who participated in the battles on Norwegian soil and pay homage to the memory of the fallen heroes. During the course of the Petsamo-Kirkenes Offensive, the Red Army suffered a total of 6,084 casualties. Additionally, 12,678 Soviet prisoners of war perished in German concentration camps located within Norway.

In 1952, a monument dedicated to the Soviet soldier was erected near the centre of Kirkenes as an expression of gratitude for the liberation. The Norwegian name, "Russemonumentet," translates to "Russian Monument." The inscription on the pedestal, rendered in both Russian and Norwegian, states: "To the brave Soviet soldiers in memory of the liberation of the town of Kirkenes in 1944."

According to archival records, the remaining living quarters, food depots, and other captured assets were transferred by the Soviet authorities to the local populace. Provisioning of weapons and supplies to the volunteer and other units of the Norwegian Armed Forces was duly organised. The Soviet forces also undertook the demining of territories, the repair of roads, the reconstruction of bridges, and other civilian infrastructure destroyed by the Germans, thereby facilitating the restoration of normalcy for the Norwegian people.

On October 17, 1945, Norwegian Prime Minister Einar Gerhardsen conveyed in his message to the Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars, Joseph Stalin, "The soldiers of the Red Army have fortified the friendship between our two nations, leaving the Norwegian people with feelings of gratitude and admiration for the great Soviet people." King Haakon VII of Norway, in his evaluation of the USSR’s liberation mission, remarked, "The war was won by the Red Army on the Eastern Front. It was this victory that precipitated the liberation of Norwegian territory in the North." In October 2019, King Harald V of Norway, with words of appreciation engraved on a monument to Soviet soldiers in Oslo, concluded his speech in Kirkenes, stating, "Norway thanks you. These words are carved in stone."

We observe with profound regret and dismay the manner in which our shared military history is presently being manipulated in Norway, becoming a pawn to short-term interests. It is evident that certain Norwegian politicians, along with so-called historians and experts, are endeavouring to highlight the individual contributions of specific peoples of the USSR in the liberation of Northern Norway, categorising military monuments as either "acceptable" or "unacceptable." Moreover, there have been calls for their demolition.

We have consistently asserted that, for us, there exists no notion of "our" Victory versus "another's" Victory. There is one Victory for all. However costly it was. We shall eternally honour the valour of the liberators and the participants in the Arctic convoys across the Barents Sea, the Resistance fighters and partisan units, as well as the valiant Norwegians who aided Soviet prisoners of war in Nazi concentration camps, and who, alongside the Red Army, expelled the adversary from their homeland.

The Petsamo-Kirkenes Offensive shall eternally stand as an emblem of heroism, epitomising the unwavering resolve and unparalleled selflessness of Soviet soldiers. The victory therein resulted in the liberation of the northern regions of Norway and the neutralisation of the threat to Murmansk and the Northern Sea Route.

In commemoration of the anniversary of this event, in September of this year, Marka Company issued a postcard titled "80th Anniversary of the Liberation of the Soviet Polar Region and Northern Norway in the Petsamo-Kirkenes Offensive."

Additionally, a selection of documents from the Archive of Foreign Policy of the Russian Federation is available on our website, serving as a tribute to the liberation of Norway's northern regions by Soviet soldiers in 1944.

back to top

 

The 80th anniversary of the Soviet Army's Budapest offensive

 

In September 1944, Soviet forces crossed the Hungarian border, and by October, they had occupied one-third of Hungary's territory, thus creating favourable conditions for furthering the offensive in the Budapest direction.

On October 29, 1944, the Budapest Offensive Operation was initiated by the 2nd and 3rd Ukrainian Fronts with the objective of defeating German forces in Hungary, extricating the country from the war, and obstructing Nazi operations in the Balkans.

Advancing on October 29, Soviet troops approached Budapest by November 2; however, units of the 2nd Ukrainian Front were unable to capture the city. The enemy mounted a resolute defence, as Hitler was determined to retain control of the Hungarian capital. On December 20, forces from the 3rd Ukrainian Front were deployed to the mission. On December 26, Soviet troops, having successfully crossed the Danube, encircled Budapest and issued a surrender ultimatum, which was rejected by the pro-German authorities. Amidst fierce combat, the Red Army captured Pest on January 18, 1945 and the Buda district on February 13. The city suffered near-total destruction, with retreating German forces demolishing all bridges over the Danube.

In the engagements on the Budapest line, the Red Army was reinforced by Hungarian military units, including the Buda Volunteer Regiment and the railway construction detachment.

As a result of the Budapest Offensive by Soviet forces, all objectives were accomplished. The enemy was compelled to hasten the withdrawal of its forces from Yugoslavia, enabling the Red Army to continue its advance into Czechoslovakia and towards Vienna.

In commemoration of these events, the Medal For the Capture of Budapest was instituted in June 1945. It was awarded to 362,000 servicemen.

back to top

 

The International Educational Programme for Journalists: Noise. Industry. Journalism 5.0

 

As you may be aware, we frequently announce various socially significant events with an international component.

The National Youth Forum, Shum (Noise), is held under the auspices of the Federal Agency for Youth Affairs (Rosmolodezh) in the Kaliningrad Region. The forum is designed to assist young professionals in realising promising projects and facilitating their employment. The educational programme comprises four specialised shifts, each with its own specific focus and target audience.

One of the international shifts for journalists is Noise. Journalism. Industry 5.0, which commences in Kaliningrad on October 26 and will continue until November 1. This educational programme is tailored for federal and regional media professionals, journalists, and bloggers aged 18 to 35. Young journalists from over 80 countries have confirmed their participation.

Forum participants will have the opportunity to enhance their skills in creating photo and video content, develop algorithms for various stages of production using artificial intelligence, realise their own media projects, and engage in a team competition to solve practical problems posed by clients.

This initiative will facilitate the exchange of experience between journalists and media experts and promote the professional development of participants. All involved will work on tasks provided by companies and organisations operating in the market, all of which are linked to real-life scenarios. The outcomes of this collaborative effort are anticipated to result in employment contracts, job opportunities, and long-term cooperation, which, I believe, is considered invaluable in today's world.

back to top

 

Answers to media questions:

Question: In an interview with the Financial Times, Finnish Foreign Minister Elina Valtonen said that Western states are tiring in their support for Ukraine and increasingly hoping for some form of conflict resolution. How would you respond to this statement?

Maria Zakharova: They have psychologically entrapped themselves, leading to an impasse. Initially, they fabricated the notion of a Russian threat, subsequently pursuing the objective of inflicting a "strategic defeat" on Russia. They have since manipulated the Ukrainian issue across all dimensions, elevating Vladimir Zelensky to an exalted status on the international stage. This has inevitably led them to an intractable dilemma: what follows? Presently, they are attempting to extricate themselves from this predicament.

We have duly noted the remarks of the Finnish Foreign Minister. The entirety of this narrative is absurd, illogical, chaotic, and lacks any coherent strategy. Their ambition to impose a "strategic defeat" on Russia is destined to fail, as are all notions of isolation. Their tactics have consistently been underhanded, and this remains unchanged. This is well understood. There is no substantive discussion of a "strategic defeat" either theoretically or practically. This is recognised universally. They adhere to a prescribed narrative and persist in its repetition.

Regarding the notion of "some form of conflict resolution in Ukraine," the official representatives of the collective West appear to be clinging to the familiar mainstream narrative of inflicting a "strategic defeat" on Russia, which aligns with their interests. If this is their stance, what dialogue can be pursued with them? Why engage further with these assertions? We have addressed this on numerous occasions.

In reference to the "fatigue" of Western nations regarding their support for the Kiev regime, it is apparent that these expressions reflect concerns about developments not proceeding according to their intended plans. This is not the outcome they anticipated. They did not envisage enduring hardship in their pursuit of imposing a "strategic defeat" upon us. It was seemingly expected that they would collectively enter a period of prosperity; however, inexplicably, instead of reaching this "zenith," they appear to have transitioned directly to a "sunset."

Upon reviewing the complete article in the British newspaper in question, one can discern Ms Valtonen's call to double the aid to Ukraine, which aligns entirely with the assertions of Finnish President Alexander Stubb, who directs the foreign policy of this nation. These individuals consistently articulate Finland’s readiness to extend assistance to the Kiev regime "as much as necessary" and advocate for permitting the Kiev neo-Nazis to execute missile strikes deep into Russian territory.

It is imperative for Helsinki to recognise that the objectives of the special military operation will be achieved, as repeatedly affirmed by the Russian leadership. We are undertaking all necessary measures to ensure this outcome. The Finnish authorities would be well-advised to recalibrate their stance; otherwise, it appears just plain silly.

back to top

Question: In September, Foreign Affairs published an article called The Battle for the BRICS. Why the Future of the Bloc Will Shape Global Order. Among other things, the article states that many Western analysts have been predicting its demise for 15 years since BRICS’ founding. It also says that BRICS members are too different and often have polar opinions on a variety of issues. They are also scattered around the world, which makes building a significant partnership difficult. However, we can see that BRICS not only survived but continues to develop successfully. What prospects do you have regarding the words of Western analysts and what are the main reasons for developing BRICS?

Maria Zakharova: Forecasting is an important aspect of state planning, including in foreign policy. We pay great attention to publications by serious analytical bodies, including foreign ones, as long as they do not practice black PR or publish openly biased and politically-charged content.

Regarding the demise of BRICS, as Foreign Affairs rightly notes, this group of countries has heard all sorts of slogans and curses since day one. We are familiar with these “studies.” Subsequently, it became clear that these publications are more about bias than actual forecasting. They must have received quite good money, grants or fees, for disseminating this sort of playbooks. The message has always been the same: first, ignore and say nothing (look at the early BRICS summits: for the first five or six years, Western media did not cover them at all); and second, when it is no longer possible to ignore – especially in recent years when one country after another, dozens of countries expressed willingness to join the group – present it only in a negative light.

This is not forecasting. This is a political put-up job. One can tell many things based on this sort of jobs – in particular, one can understand the approach to BRICS and its activity by those who order such publications. I am talking about our Western non-partners.

We have noted a pattern: the deeper and more effective cooperation within BRICS, the more biased publications emerge. It means that the group is moving in the right direction.

BRICS is not a threat to the West in any way. BRICS does not make aggressive speeches or direct its participants towards any confrontation. There is nothing of the sort. However, the West cannot stop throwing tantrums.

As for the reasons for developing the group, it is obvious to us that its very nature is the fundamental factor here. This is an innovative format of interaction between states that brings together different cultures and civilisations, countries with different economic and political potentials, systems and levels of development, and, as analysts correctly note, often with different views on the global agenda. Every participant has its own nuances.

At the same time, we are united by a common goal, which is our firm commitment to conducting an independent foreign and domestic policy, protecting sovereignty, and our national interests.

Over the years of cooperation within BRICS, a unique culture of dialogue has been established, along with open and trusting relationships based on the principles of sovereign equality, respect for the choice of one’s own development path, and consideration of each other’s interests. This helps our countries find common ground and even solutions to complex issues that will always arise because these are the issues on the BRICS agenda, and they concern the lives of our citizens.

It is precisely this format that should become the basis for a more just multipolar world order, a model of equal communication between states, aimed at a constructive search for answers to the challenges facing the world, without imposing any external recipes or inauthentic values that do not correspond to universal human priorities, views, and beliefs.

The secret of the group’s success lies in the fact that it has no confrontational, aggressive, or “hidden” agenda. It is a union of like-minded parties who may have different views on certain topics, issues or problems. This group is about friendship. After all, friends do not force each other to share absolutely all interests or think only a certain way. You do not demand that your friends abandon their beliefs or what is important to them. You do not try to isolate your friend from talking to other acquaintances or friends. Friendship is something completely different. Friendship is about support, understanding, loyalty, and the absence of violence. It is about what the world only began to strive for in the 20th century; and then, due to the policies of Anglo-Saxons, it was dragged again into disagreements and conflicts fuelled by them. The BRICS countries do not build their communication on the principle of leaders and followers. I will refrain from other comparisons. You understand what I am talking about. They have consensus; they coorinate their positions and develop a common vision while taking each other’s interests into account.

back to top

Question: Last Thursday, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said that a meeting of the five nuclear powers will be held in New York in the next two weeks. Is the date of the meeting determined? Who will represent Russia? What would Russia like to achieve from this meeting?

Maria Zakharova: The meeting you are asking about has already taken place. It was held on October 10 in New York, at the expert level.

Russia was represented by officials from the Foreign Ministry’s Department for Non-Proliferation and Arms Control.

I would like to note that in August 2024, the functions of the coordinator among the nuclear five were transferred from Russia to China in rotation, so all logistics, announcements and final notes (regarding meetings in this format) will be released by our Chinese colleagues after being agreed upon with the other participants. Please follow updates from the Chinese Foreign Ministry. As for us, we are always ready to answer your questions.

Regarding our substantive participation, we intend to continue using this platform to convey fundamental Russian approaches and deliver important signals on acute international security issues concerning the strategic risks created by Western countries that increase the level of nuclear danger.

back to top

Question: Could you comment on Vladimir Zelensky’s statement that the North Korean authorities have allegedly begun assigning their military to the special military operation on the side of Russia?

Maria Zakharova: Do you mean assign or send?

You can clarify the list of participants in the special military operation with the Russian Ministry of Defence. This is their prerogative.

As for any statements made by Vladimir Zelensky and other representatives of the Kiev regime, their goal is well-known. I don’t want to comment on them, because something new emerges every day. It would be better if they commented on the issues that require their attention. For example, for many years, they have not been able to provide the lists of victims (as they call them) of the Russian Armed Forces in Bucha. This is their area of ​​responsibility. Neither Russia, nor the UN Secretary- General, nor journalists have been provided with the lists of people who the Kiev regime has presented as victims of Russian aggression in Bucha. No one knows the number or what kind of people we are talking about in general, who they are. But Kiev has their names, dates of birth and citizenship. All this should be presented. Where is it? We know where. None of what the Kiev regime is talking about happened. Apparently, they killed everyone there themselves, laid them out and made it look as if it was done by someone else, just as the Nazis did during World War II. This is what Vladimir Zelensky needs to comment on.

back to top

Question: The Foreign Ministry of Ukraine called Jared Leto’s promise to perform in Russia “when all these problems are finished” an insult. Meanwhile, Jared Leto also said he would like to go to Kiev. The Ukrainian Ministry said that “there can be no appeasement for Russia while it continues its attempts to solve the ‘problem’ of Ukraine’s very existence.” Is it possible that Ukrainian diplomats are starting to realise that Vladimir Zelensky’s regime has put their country on the brink of political survival?

Maria Zakharova: It is ridiculous to hear this from those who have made the Nazi collaborators Stepan Bandera and Roman Shukhevich national heroes, who violate all international legal obligations, abolish the Russian language, persecute people for their religious views and destroy monuments to their own heroes, even those who founded their cities. These cities would not exist today without the people to whom these monuments were erected. And now they are tearing them down.

The performer you mentioned is fortunate to find himself in good company, somewhere between Alexander Pushkin and Catherine the Great.

back to top

Question: Nihon Hidankyo, Japan, has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Japan remembers the special interest of the Russian people in the tragedy caused by the US atomic bombings. This is vividly depicted in Moscow, My Love, a Japanese-Soviet film. The film’s protagonist, a Japanese ballet dancer named Yuriko, dreams of studying in Moscow. Her dream comes true, but her life is tragically cut short. Yuriko was from the second generation of victims of the atomic bombing – she develops leukaemia and dies.

How did Russia perceive the Nobel Committee’s decision? What does awarding this organisation signify? There is an opinion that giving the award to Nihon Hidankyo is a secret message to Russia, which appears to demonstrate its nuclear potential during the special military operation. What do you think about it?

Maria Zakharova: You have mentioned Moscow, My Love, a film released in 1974, and said that the main character, played by a Japanese actress, fell ill with radiation sickness and died. Do you know the real story of this Japanese woman?

Question: She studied in Moscow and died here in hospital.

Maria Zakharova: Do you think she died in a Moscow hospital?

Question: Yes. But they do not show that in the film. She is just shown in hospital.

Maria Zakharova: This is what happened in the film. And the real story?

Question: I only know what happened.

Maria Zakharova: Japan remembers well how the Soviet Union treated the tragedies of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. You said so yourself. How can you remember it well if you do not know the facts?

This film, although fictional, is based on a true story. It is about a real Japanese citizen who underwent treatment in the Soviet Union. Of course, I can help you learn more on this topic. But I can tell you myself what happened and how. Let’s go through it together.

Question: I was born in 1974. I would be happy to hear the story.

Maria Zakharova: I was not born in 1974 yet, but I know about it. See how interesting this is. I suggest that we start from the beginning, with the Nobel Committee.

In recent decades, the Nobel Committee has been overtaken by Western countries that shamelessly use it for their own narrowly selfish, politicised purposes, including political ones. It is obvious that along with real achievements in science, medicine and literature, unfortunately, prizes are also awarded to those who are promoted solely by the West.

For example, in 2022, the Nobel Peace Prize laureates were: Belarusian would-be human rights activist and prisoner of conscience Ales Bialiatski, the Memorial International Society, and the Centre for Civil Liberties, a Ukrainian human rights organisation founded in 2007. They received the award for deliberately organising campaigns to denigrate the authorities of their states for many years, under the pretext of protecting the fundamental rights of citizens. Why was this done? To fulfil Western orders. In particular, the West declared Belarus (I don’t know how many epithets were used) a pariah state on the wrong side of history. They fabricate many things. They use opportunities like this to give awards to those who work against these states to consolidate this narrative in the public consciousness.

The renowned narrative involving Russian and Soviet author Boris Pasternak's receipt of the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1958 is widely known.

In January 2015 – believe it or not – the CIA declassified approximately one hundred documents pertaining to Boris Pasternak's novel, Doctor Zhivago.

These documents corroborated what had largely been public knowledge: the CIA actively promoted this and similar works for their own interests. Newly disclosed details were among the revelations.

The United States intelligence service believed, “this book (Doctor Zhivago) has great propaganda value,” <...> “more important than any other literature that has yet come out of the Soviet bloc.”

Therefore, it appears that the judgement was based not on literary qualities, but on propaganda ones. Can you explain why and how this is related? This is because the CIA also promoted this book on the platform of the Nobel Committee for its own purposes.

The CIA's objectives included shaping public opinion to compel the USSR to publish the novel, acquiring the original text, and rapidly disseminating as many editions of Doctor Zhivago as possible in various languages. The declassified memorandum noted that the Russian edition should be published by an apolitical publishing house.

It emerges that the initial surge of interest in the Russian publication of this novel was orchestrated by the CIA. This endeavour was intertwined with the Brussels World's Fair, where the USSR showcased a vast pavilion exhibiting numerous technological advancements, including achievements in the automotive industry (such as the Volga and Chaika cars) and a replica of Sputnik-1. Approximately 16,000 Soviet citizens, including numerous representatives of the cultural and creative elite, attended this exhibition.

Dutch intelligence agent Joop van der Wilden facilitated the printing of the Russian text of Doctor Zhivago at Mouton Publishers (presently De Gruyter Mouton) in The Hague.

An initial Russian-language edition of 1,000 copies was produced, with 200 copies dispatched directly to CIA headquarters in Washington. It appears there were literary aficionados present, as no doubt remains. A total of 435 copies were distributed to CIA officers and informants in Frankfurt, Berlin, Munich, London, and Paris.

At the Brussels exhibition, Soviet citizens were discreetly handed copies of the book, distinguishable only by an unremarkable blue cover.

CIA Director Allen Dulles deemed the operation to have “fully justified the effort, given its significant impact on the Soviet Union.” Subsequent distributions of the book followed.

In July 1959, the Agency printed 9,000 pocket-sized copies of the novel, omitting any mention of the publisher. The US intelligence agency operated under the guise of a fictitious Parisian publishing house, Société d'Edition et d'Impression Mondiale

The primary distribution channel on this occasion was the World Festival of Youth and Students in Vienna. Such actions are indeed remarkable, especially in the context of the Peace Prize. A total of 2,000 copies of the novel were disseminated among students from the USSR and Eastern Europe, alongside other CIA-prepared works, including those by George Orwell, James Joyce, Ernest Hemingway, and Vladimir Nabokov. This book was thus included in a distinguished list.

It is the initial print run of Doctor Zhivago that served as the formal pretext for the Nobel Committee to consider Boris Pasternak's candidacy, as the Swedish Academy is unable to award a novel not published in its original language. This is indeed a fascinating development, isn't?

According to the declassified documents, intelligence services recommended that the novel receive heightened attention compared to other works, reflecting their role within the Nobel Committee.

The CIA believed that awarding the Nobel Prize to Doctor Zhivago would be instrumental in the campaign against the USSR, as explicitly stated in the documents, and would contribute to dismantling the Iron Curtain. This initiative was part of a so-called cultural programme, which in reality was a comprehensive influence campaign aimed at destabilising Soviet society from within.

Upon declassifying the documents, the CIA issued a statement suggesting that the Nobel Prize was “allegedly” or “apparently” not a direct objective of US intelligence, serving as an addendum to redirect the attention of those familiarising themselves with the declassified materials.

This was an addendum to turn the attention of their audience who are familiarising themselves with the declassified documents.

This instance vividly illustrates how literary works and the actions of individuals in the fields of art, culture, and science are leveraged by intelligence agencies to further their objectives. This relates to the matter of the Nobel Committee and Western influence.

Regarding Hiroshima and Nagasaki, our country has always been devoting special attention to this tragedy. All Soviet children knew about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They might not know how the capital of Japan was called, they might not be able to spell out Tokyo, but they knew very well what had happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Soviet and Russian delegations visiting Japan always laid wreaths at monuments to the victims of US nuclear strikes. The Soviet leadership received representatives of the Council for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which in its day included the Japan Confederation of A- Bomb and H-Bomb Sufferers Organisations, also known as Nihon Hidankyo. Our country published books, produced feature films and documentaries. Additionally, the Japanese side received a newsreel, filmed by Soviet diplomats, at the scene of the disasters almost immediately after the bombings.

What can we say about the current situation? Unfortunately, Japan prefers not to recall the Russian people’s special attitude towards the tragedy. The Japanese side distorts our attitude towards nuclear weapons and the root causes of this tragedy.

For several years, they are not inviting our diplomats to attend memorial ceremonies every August 6 and August 9 in Japanese cities incinerated by the “nuclear flame.” How can this be explained? And what is the reason for this? Why are they doing this? I will tell you if you do not know. They are doing this to create an impression that it is our country that bears the blame. This is absurd, but this is so. All countries, except Russia, are invited. Although Japan was at war with our state during that period, we always called those strikes a crime since the first days after the nuclear strike. We also noted the need to remember the innocent victims of those bombings. Today, they are casting us in a certain light and implying that this is all our fault. This is compounded by the fact that the Japanese side prefers not to name the real culprit responsible for the tragedy, specifically, the United States. They publish books and textbooks, open museums and hold exhibitions while refraining from directly mentioning the country which used nuclear weapons to bomb Japanese cities. They are omitting the fact that there was no strategic need to conduct such strikes for ending World War II, and no one reminds the United States of its obvious guilt.

Instead of openly saying that the US is responsible for subjecting Hiroshima and Nagasaki to nuclear strikes (that impacted the war-time generation and subsequent generations), the Japanese side obeys the will of Washington. The latter is hypocritically spreading, via the Nobel Prize Committee, a concept and a fake ideology and warning the world against the use of nuclear weapons. This information is fake because it is linked with Russia all the time for some unspecified reason. 

The United States remains the only country to have used nuclear weapons against civilians, although there was no urgent need for doing this. Let us call things by their proper names. This was obviously done to avenge the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour. Nobody is concealing this fact. Nevertheless, for some reason, the Nobel Prize Committee and other formats link the issue of nuclear weapons with our country. Western representatives are trying to artificially link this issue with Russia, although they have no right or any reasons for this. Such is the gist of their actions.

Now about the film Moscow, My Love, which is based on a true story. It’s not just a cinematic trope. Correct me if I’m wrong. I’d like to learn more about that story. I’d love to know more. Let me tell you what I do know about the film though.

Her name was Hisako Nagata – not the character, but the real person who inspired it. She was severely affected by radiation sickness after surviving the atomic bombing of Nagasaki. Because of that, she developed scarring in her larynx that impaired her breathing and made her unable to eat. She couldn’t eat. For more than six months, Hisako received treatment at the Botkin Hospital in Moscow. The doctors in our country faced a challenging task of removing the scars in her throat to allow the girl to breathe and eat. The operation was successful. Do you know where Hisako Nagata went to recover after the surgery? You won’t believe it and you probably won’t mention it in your reports. She went to Crimea, where she was surrounded by care and attention.

I’m asking you to find out more about her life. I think it would have been appropriate for representatives of the Japanese public (not the government, as there is no doubt that it is fully dependent on the US) to inquire at Botkin Hospital, one of Moscow’s largest medical centres, what they could do to convey words of gratitude for Russia’s contribution to the rehabilitation of Japanese citizens affected by the American bombing. They never did. Why? Because the Japanese public has no idea about it. No one is telling them about it. The issue is sealed. Nobody ever brings it up. However, as you know, buses are sent daily to the Russian Embassy in Tokyo with loudspeakers talking about how bad Russia is. They have been doing this for decades.

Actress Komaki Kurihara, who starred in the film, is a great friend of our country. She heads the organising committee of the Russian Culture Festival in Japan. Unfortunately, in recent years, the Festival has faced serious difficulties because the official authorities in Tokyo are creating an unfriendly atmosphere around it (and Russia in general).

Ask us questions more often. I will talk more often about Japanese history. I also asked you a question. I would be interested to know what happened to the Japanese girl. If you suddenly need contacts at Botkin Hospital, I will be happy to oblige.

back to top

Question: Two days ago, the Israeli army launched an attack on a hospital in the town of Deir al-Balah in the Gaza Strip, where it was alleged that a Hamas command centre was operating. The attack resulted in the deaths of four Palestinians, including a child and a woman, and injured approximately 40 individuals. Disturbing footage showing people on fire has also surfaced. How do you evaluate the actions of Israel, leading to the deaths of ordinary Palestinians, as well as the actions of countries supporting Israel in attacks on the civilian infrastructure of Gaza?

Maria Zakharova: This footage is deeply disturbing. It can elicit nothing but shock and, naturally, compassion. We extend our heartfelt wishes for the swift recovery of all the injured and express our profound condolences to the families of the victims, not solely in this particular instance (which is self-evident), but also for the entire past year of utter chaos, which American overseers have inflicted upon the already challenging life in the region.

Our stance is consistent and principled. We have repeatedly asserted that violence against civilians, indiscriminate attacks on civilian infrastructure, and locations where people congregate en masse are inexcusable and cannot be justified. Such actions by the military contravene both international humanitarian law and universal moral standards.

The sole means to alleviate the suffering of the Gaza Strip's inhabitants is to halt hostilities. Since the inception of this crisis, unprecedented in both scale and devastating impact, Russia, along with the majority of the global community, has been actively striving to normalise the situation in Gaza and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict zone at large as expeditiously as possible.

It is crucial that this is not merely a statement of the necessity to cease hostilities, but rather to resolve the conflict on the basis of international law, within the existing and well-established international legal framework.

Regrettably, due to the stance of the United States and its allies, it remains impossible to pass a United Nations Security Council resolution with a clear demand for a sustainable ceasefire. American attempts to instead foster indirect negotiations between Israel and Hamas have not succeeded. The situation in Gaza continues to deteriorate, with the regional conflict intensifying and extending beyond the Palestinian territories to include Lebanon.

In these circumstances, we deem it essential to pursue the adoption by the UN Security Council of decisions that would align with the interests of swiftly de-escalating violence in the region. The United States must remember that, like the other permanent members of the Security Council, it bears a special responsibility for maintaining global peace and security. They must cease obstructing the normal functioning of this vital international body.

back to top

Question: We observe conflicting statements from the Armenian side concerning the prospective Zangezur Corridor regime. Yerevan asserts that the security of the route ought to be managed by the Armenian authorities and dismisses any allusions to the trilateral statement. Such declarations have become increasingly frequent following the announcement that security at the checkpoint with Iran will transition from Russian to Armenian border guards. What is the official stance of Moscow regarding security in the Zangezur Corridor? What is Moscow's perspective on Russia's future involvement in this corridor?

Maria Zakharova: I would like to draw your attention to the fact that we do not employ the term to which you are referring.

The matter concerning the presence of Russian border guards along the borders of Armenia with Iran and Türkiye is an entirely separate issue. Regarding the Russian stance on the matter of unblocking communications, we have previously provided commentary. You are well aware of our position, which remains unchanged and is being handled within the appropriate frameworks. We are undertaking all necessary measures in this regard.

back to top

Question: Last week, the Director General of the NATO International Military Staff, Lieutenant General Janusz Adamczak, visited Azerbaijan and engaged in discussions with the Chief of the General Staff of the Azerbaijani Armed Forces, Kerim Veliyev. During the meeting, Mr Veliyev highly appraised the current level of relations with NATO and emphasised the importance of developing mutual cooperation. He particularly highlighted the significant contribution to the training of Azerbaijani units within the framework of the NATO Operational Capabilities Concept and underscored the necessity for the continued development of cooperation. In response, Mr Adamczak discussed with Mr Veliyev the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, stating, “It is important that Azerbaijan continues to demonstrate its solidarity with Ukraine, stands for its independence and territorial integrity.” How would you comment on such close cooperation between Baku and NATO, and Azerbaijan's support of Ukraine's and the West's approaches in the conflict with Russia?

Maria Zakharova: We have previously addressed similar inquiries and have consistently articulated our perspective on the destructive nature of NATO's activities – not only the organisation itself but also the European Union as an entity now “attached” to the bloc – across various regions, including the South Caucasus. All these assessments remain pertinent.

Wherever this aggressive bloc manifests, new dividing lines are drawn, and a confrontational agenda is imposed. There is blatant interference in the internal affairs of sovereign nations. NATO's activities, whether directed towards Azerbaijan or Armenia, ultimately seek to transform the South Caucasus into yet another arena of confrontation with Russia, to pit the countries of the region against each other, and subsequently to derive their own advantage. We maintain that decisions within this region should be determined by the nations of the region themselves.

The forthcoming 3+3 format meeting to be held in Türkiye on Friday is a perfect affirmation that this is achievable. There exist pertinent bilateral and multilateral mechanisms. All these processes should transpire without external interference. We communicate this position to both Baku and Yerevan. I believe they hear us and comprehend our stance.

Another matter (and I am acutely aware of this) is the considerable difficulty in contradicting the West once a nation has demonstrated concession and jeopardised its independence.

back to top

Question: Azerbaijan has initiated the widespread demolition of residential buildings in the occupied town of Stepanakert. Notably, historical neighbourhoods from the 19th and early 20th centuries are being razed. Essentially, measures are being taken to prevent the Armenian population from returning to their homes, even if they wished to. What is your comment on this matter?

Maria Zakharova: To the best of my understanding, we are discussing the territory of Azerbaijan. Firstly, the laws of Azerbaijan are applicable in this region. Secondly, concerning cultural heritage sites, there are specialised international organisations dedicated to such matters. Should there be any concerns, they ought to be directed through the appropriate institutions established for this purpose, such as UNESCO. The countries in question engage in cooperation across a range of areas. Thus, this query is not directed towards us.

However, what truly concerns us is the plight of individuals who have been displaced from their homes – where someone's life has unfolded, where another's life has just commenced, and where the deceased are interred. The entirety of a family's life and history is linked to this location. It represents an immense tragedy, replete with numerous facets and subtleties.

We have consistently remarked upon and highlighted Baku's constructive initiatives aimed at providing those who have left their native lands with the opportunity to return. I can candidly state (and I trust my expert colleagues will pardon me) that we address this matter during bilateral discussions with our Azerbaijani counterparts and receive pertinent explanations, among other things. We fully comprehend the impact of such loss on individuals historically connected to these areas.

Nevertheless, I must underscore once again that the opportunity for return has been made available. I do not wish to comment on the actions of the Armenian side at present (referring to official Yerevan). I believe that you, as a journalist and public figure, are capable of delivering your own evaluation, perhaps even more effectively than I can in this context. Yet, what has transpired has already occurred. Concurrently, I reiterate that an opportunity for return existed and continues to exist. If, as you suggest, there is an interest in preserving homes and native lands, it may be prudent to seize this opportunity. Is there indeed such an interest?

Question: I don't know.

Maria Zakharova: How can you not know? That is not accurate, as you are aware. We have discussed this matter, and you have posed questions on it. How can you not know?

Question: People do not trust the Azerbaijani side to ensure their security. This is why refugees I know from Artsakh are afraid to return there.

Maria Zakharova: If I may, could I pose a counter-question? Has any action been taken by the authorities in official Yerevan to facilitate the return of these individuals? You are directing this question to me, but perhaps it should be addressed to the other side. That seems logical to me. As an official representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, I can only speak to the endeavours our nation is undertaking. Russia is acutely aware of the plight faced by individuals who are displaced from their homes due to circumstances such as tragedies and conflicts.

We extend support to those who seek refuge with us by offering opportunities for work and study and ensuring that all legal formalities are addressed. Not only do we bear an enormous responsibility for the fate of these individuals, but we are also aware of the challenges we are embracing, given that certain representatives of the international community may not favour our actions. Nevertheless, we remain resolute in our commitment to advocate for those who are deprived of their legal rights concerning their native places, homes, language, culture, and sites of memory. I urge you to pose this question to yourself, as I have already articulated it.

back to top

Question: At a recently held summit in Moscow, the heads of CIS states adopted a statement in connection with the 80th anniversary of the Soviet people’s victory in the Great Patriotic War, which often mentions their deep concern over the increasingly frequent and deliberate attempts and incidents involving desecration or demolition of the monuments honouring those who fought Nazism during World War II, and they strongly urged everyone to show respect for the memorial and burial sites, regardless of where they may be located, to ensure unhindered access to them, and to prevent acts of vandalism and destruction. I would like to know what you think about the current policies of the Azerbaijani authorities regarding the destruction of monuments to Armenian participants in the Great Patriotic War in Artsakh. You said the Russian side raises this issue during talks with the Azerbaijani side. Has Azerbaijan provided any clarifications in this regard, and what are the concrete outcomes of these talks?

Maria Zakharova: I have covered our position many times. If you would like to get a response from the Azerbaijani officials, I can help you forward your question to them and relay their answer to you. I’d be happy to do that.

back to top

Question: Employees of the US Treasury’s OFAC (Office of Foreign Assets Control, financial intelligence service), with strong support from the US State Department and their foreign-based diplomatic missions, regularly contact members of the Global South banking systems in order to stave off their contacts and attempts at establishing cooperation with the Russian banking system, including a number of commercial banks. In particular, whenever Russian commercial banks try to open correspondent accounts in national currencies with the banks in these countries (UAE, Oman, Türkiye, Egypt, or India, to name a few), OFAC officials, US embassies, and the State Department instantly come up with threats and warn these countries’ authorities that they may put their national commercial banks on US sanctions lists and disconnect them from the SWIFT payment system. Is the Foreign Ministry taking any countermeasures to support Russian commercial banks abroad? Can you provide a broader comment on this situation, considering the unending flow of declarations coming from the collective West about market freedom, capital movement, and financial rights?

Maria Zakharova: The Anglo-Saxon world has long discredited the very idea of the free market and fair competition, which they themselves promoted in the first place. In their neo-colonial paradigm, financial and any other rights can be enjoyed only by the “civilised” and “democratic” Western “garden.” Only they can control it. Everyone else can obtain “permission” to engage these mechanisms only when it benefits the “golden billion” or, at the very least, doesn’t hurt them. The “golden billion” must keep its dominant position intact and feel exceptional. This is why they are aggressively promoting the “rules-based international order.” A more accurate way to put it would be to say that there is just one rule - might makes right where might is the West - which believes they can impose their vision of good on everyone else. This rule is about them trying to impose their will on the international community across all sectors, primarily the economy and finance.

Those who disagree get “disciplined” by the West. Various sanctions, restrictive measures, and blacklists are employed, all of which are outside the international law, domestic legislation, and without a doubt, violate the principle of sovereign equality of states which is enshrined in the UN Charter.

The pressure exerted on countries that are friendly to Russia is part of this “collective punishment” strategy. Our partners are witnessing the brutish behaviour of the Americans, British, and the EU, who shamelessly hand out “instructions.” Some receive “free passes,” others receive orders - not to obtain “scarce goods” but to report “in person” and get their portion of punishment or “instructions” on how the world works in their opinion. They keep telling everyone who they should interact with.

The problem lies in the fact that most financial institutions in developing countries are dependent on Western capital markets and payment infrastructure, as well as rely on Anglo-Saxon rating agencies. We are working with our friends from Global South and Global East, the Global Majority, to identify mutually acceptable solutions that will help us create smoothly operating payment system and the necessary infrastructure. The Foreign Ministry provides the necessary diplomatic support for such activities.

We believe it is essential to prioritise national currencies in mutual settlements and to move away from “toxic” currencies in foreign economic activities. Ultimately, we aim to build an independent financial infrastructure that is free from the West and its destructive mindset, and resistant to external pressure. This includes harmonising payment systems (including digital currency payment systems from central banks and other financial assets), establishing direct interbank ties, and developing financial information exchange mechanisms.

A comprehensive reform of the global monetary and financial system is crucial, as the latter no longer meets the current needs and interests of most countries and is primarily used as a tool to promote Western neo-colonial interests. We are closely interacting with our partners, including within BRICS (this issue will be discussed in Kazan), the G20, APEC, and other international venues to address these matters.

But whenever the United States, Britain, and their allies who keep oinking along get involved, they try to block these discussions.

back to top

Question: From the perspective of the Russian Foreign Ministry, what are the realistic prospects for the Georgian Government's current aspirations for a settlement of the South Ossetian conflict? Does the Russian Federation plan to assist in this process in any way?

Maria Zakharova: The recent statements by Georgian officials on this matter were addressed by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in his response to a media question following the High-Level Week of the 79th session of the UN General Assembly on October 28 this year.

The issue of post-conflict settlement between Georgia, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia is being deliberated under the aegis of the International Geneva Discussions on Security and Stability in the South Caucasus. Our shared priorities with our Abkhazian and South Ossetian allies remain consistent. These priorities include obtaining legally binding guarantees from Tbilisi on the non-use of force against Tskhinval and Sukhum, as well as initiating the process of delimiting state borders with these republics. It is not yet feasible to speak of any progress on these scenarios, given the persistent fundamental differences in the approaches of the parties towards the geopolitical realities that have evolved in the region.

The recent statements from Georgia regarding its intention to offer an apology to the people of South Ossetia for the conflict instigated by the regime of Mikheil Saakashvili in August 2008 provide us with a measure of hope in this respect. It is indeed encouraging to hear public recognition of the well-established fact that an individual, driven by passions and morbid ambitions, with an unhealthy outlook on life, and who became yet another victim of American deception, embarked on what is historically regarded as aggression. I must remind you that this is not merely our interpretation. This was comprehensively documented in a report commissioned by the European Union, specifically the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission led by Swiss diplomat Heidi Tagliavini, commonly referred to as the “Tagliavini Report.” All relevant wordings and facts are contained therein. Fifteen years ago, the EU demonstrated greater bravery. Such individuals were present then. Despite the complexities of the situation, Carla Del Ponte also asserted that illegal transplant surgeons operated within the territory of Kosovo. I am uncertain as to why representatives from European countries once possessed the courage to speak the truth.

We anticipate that this sentiment will be mirrored in the actions of the Georgian delegation during the forthcoming rounds of the International Geneva Discussions on Security and Stability in the South Caucasus.

It is crucial that Sukhum and Tskhinval are likewise prepared to turn a tragic page in the history of relations with Georgia. At the same time, we recognise that no one in Georgia, Abkhazia, or South Ossetia will forget past events. However, there is a distinction between not forgetting and preserving the memory, and actively moving forward to normalise relations and overcome the contradictions to which individuals like Mr Saakashvili have made them hostage. Furthermore, the countries are prepared to turn this page, focusing on reinforcing statements with specific practical actions, foremost among them the conclusion of a legally binding agreement on the non-use of force by Tbilisi.

As a participant in the International Geneva Discussions on Security and Stability in the South Caucasus, and as the immediate neighbour of Abkhazia, Georgia, and South Ossetia, Russia has a vested interest in the normalisation of relations between these countries. Moscow stands ready to assist in this endeavour in every conceivable manner, both bilaterally and multilaterally.

back to top

Question: Israel’s calls on the United Nations to withdraw its forces from southern Lebanon are designed to make sure that no one can witness or prevent it from killing people there. It may also use chemical weapons after its failed ground invasion. What does Russia think about these plans?

Maria Zakharova: I will refrain from commenting on the plans by Israel’s military and political leadership or judging them. We do not know their plans. As you understand, they do not share their plans with us. However, even without this, we have commented on what is happening there many times.

In fact, we feel a lot of pain regarding the regional developments, and there is still a threat of a major war. There is an external power, I mean the United States, that can bring the Israelis to their senses, but is has been doing everything to dodge what we view as its direct responsibility. Everything going on in this region falls within the United States’ sphere of responsibility. And not only because the United States assumed the honorary mission of a mediator in this conflict.

The Americans have spent all these years trying to persuade everyone that there was no need for an international mediation effort and that this approach has long since outlived itself. They have been arguing that present-day geopolitical solutions, their experience and capabilities would pave the way for countries and nations in this region to overcome their long-standing crises. But the Americans failed in all their undertakings, having tried focusing on various domains, including finance, geopolitics, as well as what they call diplomacy or shuttle diplomacy. It is now their duty and their obligation, and there is no way for them to evade responsibility for what they have done.

The United States has been hypocritically pretending to restrain Israel, but has not been able to walk the talk. The US and Israel are allies and have been working together to achieve a common goal of transforming the Middle East geopolitics, even if it is more of an American rather than an Israeli goal. This has led to regular escalations with Libya, Syria or other countries in the regions suffering from their geopolitical experiments.

They failed to achieve this by staging the so-called colour revolutions during the Arab Spring uprisings. The effort to take the region under their control by relying on international extremist and terrorist structures also failed, and Russia played a major role in derailing this policy. However, they got a chance with the bloody terrorist attack which took place on October 7, 2023. It enabled the State of Israel to use all its military might to create a new regional order and make sure to align it as much as possible with Washington’s interests.

It is the United States which stands to benefit the most from what Israel’s military and political leaders are doing by raising the Gaza Strip to the ground, attacking Palestinian cities on the West Bank, destroying Lebanon, shelling Syria, and threatening Iran. They believe that there is no place for UN peacekeepers or the United Nations in general, or the international law in the emerging regional security architecture in the Middle East.

back to top

Question: In early October, many media outlets published statements by the new prime minister of Japan, Shigeru Ishiba, who reminded the United States about the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Some outlets interpreted that relatively anti-American tilt as a signal indicating changes in Japan’s foreign policy. But the leading Russian media pointed out other statements in which Ishiba focused on the Asian variant of NATO and called for the deployment of US nuclear weapons in Japan and other Asia Pacific countries. What can the Russian foreign ministry say about these contradictions in the Japanese prime minister’s statements? Are there any indications that Tokyo might go out of Washington’s total control, even if partially?

Mara Zakharova: We do not see any contradictions in the statements of Mr Shigeru Ishiba. He did not say that it was the United States that dropped the nuclear bombs. He only mentioned seeing the footage of the nuclear bombing released by the US. These details were probably lost in translation, but that’s what he said. He did not say anything about Washington’s responsibility for the nuclear bombing of Japanese civilians, which was an inhuman act. Moreover, the Japanese prime minister openly said in his concept of an “Asian version of NATO” that its members should have access to US nuclear weapons, including in the format of “joint nuclear missions,” and the ability to deploy them in their territory.

I would like to point out again that such statements can only be made by individuals who have fully succumbed to Washington’s pressure. I can’t imagine a situation when the head of state who has assumed power in the course of his political career remained ignorant of the fact that the deployment of US nuclear weapons in other countries never entailed the right of these countries to use or even control such weapons.  They can’t do anything. The United States does not deploy these weapons in the interests of these countries but so that it will have an opportunity to launch nuclear weapons from their territory.

At this stage, we don’t see anything that would indicate the new Japanese administration’s divergence from the pro-American line and the shameful silencing of its current ally’s role in the tragedy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Yet even this is not the main point, although no logical conclusions or forecasts can be made without knowing history and using it as a key element of education. The main point is that those who have formulated a concept under which countries will be able and obliged to deploy US nuclear weapons in their national territory must be aware of what this will lead to. The fact is that the Japanese government and civil society will have not access to or ability to monitor or control these nuclear weapons.

But the worst part is that this will become a terrible catalyst of escalation in the region with unpredictable consequences. That is, we are aware of the consequences but would not like to make them public. Hopefully, they will not come about.  They must surely be aware of this. If they continue talking about deploying nuclear armaments and sorting the problem out later, it is evidence of their total lack of responsibility, inability to understand the situation, or their complete subordination to Washington. This means that they are not steering a national policy in the interests of the nation but a US policy in their territory.

back to top

Question: What does Russia think of Nikol Pashinyan’s opinion on interpreting Clause 9 of the Trilateral Statement of November 9, 2020 on allowing Russia’s Federal Security Service to monitor Armenia’s efforts to facilitate traffic between western districts of Azerbaijan and Nakhichevan, rather than controlling such traffic?

Maria Zakharova: Russia proceeds from top-level agreements reached under the trilateral format (1, 2, 3, 4).

The leaders decided to establish the Trilateral Working Group, chaired by deputy prime ministers of Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia. The group’s members accomplished a lot, coordinated the main parameters of unblocking railway traffic, including transits between the main territory of Azerbaijan and the Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic via Armenia’s Syunik Region.

It would be in our mutual interests to coordinate remaining issues and various interpretations in the same format that was used to address them. We see no alternative to this. We will continue to work in this direction.   

back to top

Question: Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto noted that, despite criticism by EU foreign ministers, Budapest will continue to promote the Friends of Peace project. Does Moscow welcome the desire of such countries as Hungary, China and Brazil to find an effective formula for resolving the Ukraine crisis, as well as their reluctance to follow “peace formulas” of Kiev and the West?

Maria Zakharova: I would like to draw your attention to the fact that even the Kiev regime no longer uses the “peace formula” concept. They now prefer to talk about a “victory formula”. But we realise that this a formula for disaster. This is why there nothing to discuss here. Everything is clear. The previous propaganda ploy has been consigned to the dustbin like a 2023 leaflet that has faded away, become discoloured and shredded. No one cares about the “peace formula” anymore.

A new formula has now emerged. Vladimir Zelensky is promoting another idea. They have provided him with yet another set of talking points. Their gist does not matter; most importantly, he should make them public. Consequently, everything is clear here. All these “peace formulas” and Burgenstock-style conferences have been discredited. All this only serves as yet another platform for begging for arms. The amount depends on the generosity of others.

Our partners, allies or other countries realise that the Western idea has failed, and that it is necessary to rectify the nosediving situation. Speaking of constructive-minded parties offering their own initiatives, we welcome everything linked with a comprehension of the root causes of this crisis and a desire to move towards peace using political and diplomatic methods, rather than discussing continued carnage, arms deliveries and efforts to drench the region in blood.

We have already commented on specific proposals. They should manifest themselves, win reputation, find specific forms of existence, etc.  We have indicated that views regarding the essence of this process, specifically, an assessment of the crisis’ root causes (including a statement by the President of China) should serve as a foundation for a new initiative.

back to top

Question: Once again, Georgia accused the West of pressuring it to open a second front against Russia. Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze expressed hope that the Ukraine conflict would end next year and then, the West would immediately lose interest in opening a second front in Georgia. Does the Russian Foreign Ministry share the same hopes?

Maria Zakharova: I believe that Georgian citizens, who feel deeply about what happened to them during the first decade of the 21st century, understand the root causes of the developments. It was a wild venture into which the West pushed the then leaders of the country. This fact is becoming more obvious and more dimensional. New documents emerge. Similar events have been happening in other parts of the world. People can see what has been happening to them, and that behind the words of freedom, democracy and everything good, there was a dangerous wolf hiding. It was also a toxic wolf. It has big teeth and lacks moral and ethical principles because all it wants is to eat. His bites are poisonous. It seems to me that understanding Mikhail Saakashvili’s criminal venture is one of the things that shape the modern views of the official Tbilisi and civil society in Georgia. This is why they see the prospects of a second front realistically. I believe nobody wants to be dragged into somebody else’s game to become a pawn.

As concerns forecasts, past centuries have shown that, as long as the West does not experience a serious counteraction, it will push everywhere despite logic, law, morals and ethics. Countries should build their internal potential and create a system of their internal security. It is important to ensure that security is indivisible for everybody. We must strengthen our immunity in every sense of this word. All sensible countries must unite under the aegis of the new world order that is not based on somebody else’s unknown rules, or on somebody’s superiority and dominance, but that is based on multipolarity, polycentricity, respect, sovereignty and everything that was enshrined in the UN Charter. This is the way. Then any talk of a second front, dominance, divide and conquer, would be irrelevant. Let’s not make predictions. Let’s work. The summit in Kazan is aimed exactly at working.

back to top