Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, February 28, 2024
- Sergey Lavrov’s visit to the Republic of Turkey
- Sergey Lavrov’s speech at the World Youth Festival
- Sergey Lavrov to participate in a meeting of Russia-the Islamic World GSV with ambassadors from the OIC member states in Moscow
- Sergey Lavrov’s upcoming talks with Minister of Foreign Affairs of Nigeria Yusuf Tuggar
- Update on Ukraine
- Spy network involving chemical weapons uncovered in Zaporozhye Region
- Statements by the President of France on the likely deployment of EU military contingents in Ukraine
- Statements by Bundeswehr Chief of Defence Carsten Breuer
- Sofia hosts another annual event commemorating pro-Nazi general Hristo Lukov
- Developments in Moldova
- Moldova denounces international agreements signed within the CIS
- Further evidence of British military crimes in Afghanistan
- Crisis in EU agriculture
- The effect of anti-Russia sanctions on the global economy
- Extraordinary Informal Meeting of BSEC CSO
- The suspension by the Latvian Ice Hockey Federation of valid licenses held by Latvian athletes over their participation in the Games of the Future
- 100th anniversary of consular and diplomatic relations between the USSR and Austria
- 65th anniversary of the agreements between the United Kingdom, Greece and Türkiye on the independence of Cyprus (London and Zürich Agreements)
- Day of the Arctic
- New package of anti-Russia sanctions
- Russian “debt” to India
- Statements by Armenian politicians
- Statements by Moldovan border guard officials
- Statements by President of France
- Denmark’s decision to stop investigation into Nord Stream explosion
- The opening of the Russian Embassy branch in Republika Srpska
- Russia’s reaction to Sweden’s NATO membership
- Greek military assistance to Ukraine
- Israeli plan for a post-war settlement in Gaza
- Nikol Pashinyan’s statements on the CSTO
- Russia-India relations
- Yerevan’s position on the Armenian-Azerbaijani settlement
- Armenian officials’ anti-Russia statements
- Statements by Armenian politicians
- Zelensky’s potential visit to Armenia
- Chinese Special Representative Li Hui’s planned visit to Russia
- Western rhetoric about protecting human rights in other countries
- NATO expansion and the prospect of a settlement in Ukraine
- Russia-China relations
- Situation in Transnistria
- The Union State of Russia and Belarus
- Opinions about the Soviet Union’s dissolution
- US Destructive activities
- Activities by Russian public organisations
- Participation of foreign journalists in events in Russia
- The offsite briefing of the Foreign Ministry’s spokeswoman in Sochi
Sergey Lavrov’s visit to the
On March 1-2, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will visit Turkiye at the invitation of Foreign Minister of the Turkish Republic Hakan Fidan to participate in the Antalya Diplomacy Forum.
The foreign ministers are expected to hold talks covering a wide range of issues, primarily the state and prospects of bilateral cooperation in areas of mutual interest, such as trade, energy, security, banking, and tourism.
The parties will exchange views on current issues on the regional and international agenda, including the current situation in
The ministers are also expected to coordinate a schedule of bilateral contacts at various levels.
On the sidelines of the Antalya Diplomacy Forum, Sergey Lavrov will also hold a number of other bilateral meetings.
Sergey Lavrov’s speech at the World Youth Festival
On March 2-6, the
On March 4, the Minister will take part in the main programme of the Festival. In addition to speaking at the key session of the discussion programme at MGIMO University and the 7th Global Forum of Young Diplomats – Russia and its Role in Building a Multipolar World, for an audience of 1,200, Sergey Lavrov will meet with a participant in the New Year Tree of Wishes, M. Pevneva, and launch the next stage of the People of Artek international campaign. The Minister will have a busy schedule at the Festival.
A number of representatives from the Russian Foreign Ministry will also be working there, and we will inform you about this. The next briefing will take place on March 6 at 11 am as part of the Forum, which will be held at Sirius. We will certainly post the announcement on our website. We invite everyone to participate. There will be many fascinating events.
On March 5, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov is scheduled to take part in a meeting of the leaders of the Russia-Islamic World Group of Strategic Vision with ambassadors from the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation member states accredited in Moscow.
During the event, Chair of the Russia-the Islamic World GSV and Head of the Republic of Tatarstan Rustam Minnikhanov will inform representatives of the diplomatic corps about the Group’s performance results in 2023 and plans for its further activities, including the GSV’s special event, Russia-Islamic World: A Just Multipolar World and Secure Development scheduled for May 16, 2024 as a side event at the International Economic Forum Russia-Islamic World: KazanForum 2024 in Kazan (May 14-19).
Representatives of federal and regional authorities, members of the group representing Russian religious associations, as well as representatives of academia, business and the media have been invited to the meeting, which will be held at the Foreign Ministry Mansion.
Sergey Lavrov’s upcoming talks with Minister of Foreign Affairs of Nigeria Yusuf Tuggar
On March 5-7, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Federal Republic of Nigeria Yusuf Tuggar will be in Moscow on a working visit. He is scheduled to meet with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on March 6.
The ministers plan to discuss a wide range of current aspects of Russian-Nigerian relations and explore the possible ways to build up bilateral cooperation, including stepping up political dialogue and expanding trade, economic and humanitarian ties.
A thorough exchange of views is planned on the international and regional agenda, specifically focusing on ways to resolve crises on the African continent, especially in the Sahara-Sahel region.
We hope that Yusuf Tuggar’s upcoming visit will contribute to promoting mutually beneficial cooperation between the Russian Federation and the Federal Republic of Nigeria across the board.
Reeling from the loss of the strategically important town of Avdeyevka and infuriated by its own impotence in the face of the success of our Armed Forces, the Ukrobanderite neo-Nazi regime continues to take it out on Russian civilians, acting with habitual disregard for human life. It is making extensive use of the weapons supplied by the West to fire shells into Russian towns and villages and to carry out terrorist attacks.
On February 21, the Ukrainian forces used the US-made HIMARS MLRS to launch a premeditated attack against (just think of it) the Kalinin Republican Clinical Hospital in central Donetsk. On the same day, they opened fire on residential neighborhoods in the Kirovsky, Kuibyshevsky and Kievsky districts of that city killing a woman and injuring seven more other people. On February 24, the Banderites attacked a Donetsk restaurant hosting a wedding reception from HIMARS MLRS. Luckily, no one was affected.
On February 22, the Kiev regime used an UAV to attack a bus in the Kherson Region servicing the Novaya Kakhovka-Topolyovka route. The driver and a passenger were injured.
On February 25, one civilian was killed by Ukrainian fire in the Kremensky municipal district, the LPR.
Note that the Kiev junta still considers the above regions and towns to be Ukrainian, and their residents (they say so openly) to be citizens of Ukraine and yet it mercilessly bombards them. I can’t even begin to imagine what the criminal regime led by Vladimir Zelensky would have done to these people if it could act on its notorious plans to “return” these territories to Ukraine. These plans will never come true. However, it is useful to imagine what could have happened.
In addition, on February 26, Ukrainian gunmen attacked the village of Novaya Tavolzhanka, the Belgorod Region, with mortars, injuring two children. They also attacked a civilian vehicle in the village of Pochayevo with a drone, killing three civilians and injuring four others.
All of these heinous atrocities by the Kiev regime are being documented by Russian law enforcement agencies. The perpetrators will inevitably be held accountable.
Based on the evidence gathered by the Investigative Committee of Russia, the Russian courts continue to hand down verdicts to Ukrainian militants who have committed grave crimes against civilians.
A Ukrainian militant from the neo-Nazi organisation Azov, Alexey Bura, was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of three civilians in Mariupol in March 2022. Another Azov militant, Denis Zhuchkov, was given a similar sentence in absentia for the murder of four people and an attempted murder of three people in Mariupol in March 2022.
Roman Shebanov, an Azov militant, was sentenced to 28 years in prison in absentia for ordering the shelling of civilian infrastructure in the DPR in March 2022.
Azov neo-Nazi Artyom Stupnitsky was sentenced to 25 years in absentia for the murder of a civilian in Mariupol in February 2022.
Not a single Ukrainian criminal will escape punishment. They will all be hunted down and brought to justice.
On February 24, another group of Westerners came to Kiev, including the prime ministers of Belgium, Italy and Canada in the company of President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen. They did not come empty-handed.
Ottawa and Kiev signed a security cooperation agreement under which Kiev is promised financial and military aid to the tune of $2.2 billion. Another $125 million will be spent on demining, reconnaissance, medicine and Ukraine’s cyberspace development. They allocate over $2 billion on military aid and 20 times less for medicine and demining. This is absurd. Obviously, the use of arms worth such a huge sum will entail enormous human losses, whereas the aforementioned $125 million won’t be enough to cure people or overcome the consequences of dragging out the conflict. Why are they doing this? They are supposedly demonstrating their commitment to certain humanistic ideals. What are these ideals for which they allot 20 times less money than aggression?
Belgium is planning to open offices of the Belgian Development Agency in Kiev and Kharkov.
Italy also signed a security cooperation agreement with Ukraine. It is worth noting that several days before, Italian Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani warned that this document is not legally binding and has no guarantees of military and political support. Is this done to show the wretched Ukrainian citizens that are being daily led to the slaughter that Western Europe is on their side? In reality, this document is just a piece of paper.
Shortly before, Kiev signed a similar document with Copenhagen. Denmark also reported the transfer to Ukraine of another package of military aid worth 247.4 million euros. Overall, according to the media, this year, the Danish authorities will transfer to the Armed Forces of Ukraine no less than 1.8 billion euros and a total of 8.5 billion euros in 2023-2028.
On top of all that, Britain and Poland suggested ridding European arsenals of leftover Soviet arms whose service life is expiring and giving them over to the Armed Forces of Ukraine. The goal is to send this old scrap metal for disposal in Ukraine and replace it with NATO weapons. This will provide additional contracts for companies of the Western military-industrial complex that are making money on the conflict in Ukraine and the tragedy of its citizens. That’s their idea of humanism.
Despite the symbolic character of these agreements on security guarantees and the absence of any new elements in the latest round of pumping Kiev full of arms and combat equipment, their signing is still another step in the West’s hybrid war against Russia. It confirms that the West is preparing for a long-term confrontation with our country and is reluctant to settle the Ukrainian crisis by political and diplomatic means. Is it the choice of the European citizens? No. Washington has made this choice for the taxpayers, citizens and the public of the EU countries. It has placed Europeans who swore allegiance to the White House in important positions in these countries and the structures of the military bloc, rather than Europeans who believed that this is their choice to make via democratic institutions in their own countries.
On February 24, former UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson also visited Kiev out of old habit. Obviously, he wanted to see how Bankovaya Street was carrying out his two-year-old order to give up peace negotiations with Russia and continue fighting “to the last Ukrainian.”
Judging by all appearances, Johnson’s Kiev charges did not disappoint him. No one in Ukraine is thinking of any talks with Moscow. On February 25, this was reaffirmed by Head of the Office of the President of Ukraine Andrey Yermak, who, though allowing for a possibility of inviting Russia to the “peace summit,” stated that this could only happen if the Russian leaders were ready for what he called a “fair settlement” based on the “Zelensky formula,” which is essentially an ultimatum for Russia’s capitulation. It goes without saying that this will never be accepted.
These statements testify to the progressing inadequacy of the Ukrainian top echelon and Kiev’s unwillingness to settle the crisis through political and diplomatic methods. This contradiction between the “peace formula” and the rejection of peace talks will lead them nowhere. The Zelensky regime is still thinking in terms of war and dreaming of Russia’s “military defeat.” They simply refuse to face reality. I am sure that they are aware of the reality but fear to spell it out to themselves. This is why they are lying to their own people and the media, downplaying the losses and embellishing the situation. Their aim is to involve as many Ukrainians as possible in the horrible pit of war, get more money from their Western sponsors, and pocket whatever they can get. The false peace initiatives put forward by the Kiev regime are designed to conceal Vladimir Zelensky’s aggressive plans and create a broad anti-Russian coalition consisting primarily of Global South and Global East nations, which are being deceived into joining it.
On February 26, Paris hosted a high-level conference on Ukraine, attended by presidents and prime ministers of more than 20 European countries. The event was intended to demonstrate Europe’s moral support for and solidarity with Kiev in the face of its disastrous military setbacks. In reality, it seemed more like a meeting of Ukraine’s main donors, who had to decide on further assistance to the Zelensky regime, given the clear tendency for problem-besieged Washington to shift the burden onto its NATO satellites within the EU framework. In all evidence, this was the reason why the “forum” was attended by Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs James O’Brien, who acted as the curator from the US.
The outcome of the conference indicates that the Europeans are deeply worried about the possibility of a military disaster in Ukraine and are ready to do whatever they can to avoid this scenario. I understand that far from all West European leaders are trained well enough to measure up to their high posts. This shows in the behaviour of many foreign ministers and heads of state who are ignorant of the history of their own countries and fail to grasp the realities. These poorly educated graduates of the Yales and the Sorbonnes do not know the simplest things, such as this one: “No matter how hard you flog a dead horse, it will never jump to its feet and haul the cart.” West Europeans should question their governments about where their hard-earned money is being sent and what they hope to get in exchange from the Kiev regime, which no longer has control over the situation on the battlefield or in politics, and will never achieve any real victories.
We hear many absurd statements but President of France Emmanuel Macron has stooped to a new low. His aggressive statements about the likelihood of EU troops being sent to Ukraine or a coalition being created to provide the Ukrainian army with long-range weapons testify to this. In many respects, his grandstanding was meant to suggest to the Kiev regime and those poor devils who are dragged to the Ukrainian military commissariats that their sacrifices were not in vain and the West would always be with them. In fact, Mr Macron said nothing new. It is no secret that servicemen from a number of NATO countries have been in Ukraine for quite a while and are active in helping the AFU, including by operating Western weapon systems supplied to Kiev. Standing behind the Ukrainian “Maidans” were also NATO experts from the United States, the UK and European countries.
However, just two weeks ago, Mr Macron denied any French involvement (mercenaries, soldiers) in the Ukraine conflict, claiming that mercenaries were banned by French law. He is not responsible for the EU’s defence policy, nor is he duly authorised to take any steps in this area. He can only order about the citizens of his own country. So, what did he mean? Actions of this sort conceal the West’s desire to prolong the agony of the Zelensky regime, particularly against the backdrop of growing arms and manpower shortages experienced by the Ukrainian army.
We took note of an article published by The New York Times on February 25 about the Ukrainian government’s cooperation with the CIA after the Maidan protests, as a result of which Kiev became one of the US’s core partners in fighting Russia. We have been discussing these facts for many years now, long before this article was published. Importantly, Kiev began its anti-Russia cooperation with the CIA not after 2022, not after the Maidan, but many years before that. The special services from the United States and other countries occupied entire floors in government buildings in Kiev and directly supervised Ukrainian agencies and security services.
This article says that Washington helped train Ukrainian spies operating inside Russia, in Europe and Cuba, and other places with “significant Russian presence.” There is nothing new about this. Telephone bomb threats targeting civilian infrastructure, and social, medical, and educational institutions in the Russian Federation came from Ukraine. Who was behind them? Not amateur hackers, that is for sure. How many years has the telephone terrorism under the guise of bank employees or law enforcement agency officers lasted? All of this is directed against Russian citizens and comes from Ukraine. The people carrying out this extremist and terrorist activity have every personal detail of the users, including phone numbers, bank accounts, and names of the banks, as well as addresses and names of relatives. After all, someone had to provide them with all this. The oversight of these terrorist activities, which are now in full bloom in Ukraine and are supervised by the Kiev regime, originated many years ago under the supervision of the US and British intelligence services.
In addition, 12 secret bases along the border with Russia have been built in Ukraine since 2016 at the instigation of the United States. In turn, the Kiev regime shared valuable intelligence with Washington regarding Russia. According to the article, with the special military operation underway, the interaction with the CIA gained additional momentum. The US intelligence service began to engage in target pointing for the Ukrainian forces and to supply them with other “actionable” information. In 2022-2023, we repeatedly made it clear that the Americans and the British were working as spotters, using the Kiev regime’s capabilities to attack our territory. This evidence-supported information was brought to the attention of the international community through international organisations. There is no sensation in this article. It is a statement of facts. It may come as a sensation for the American public, though.
How does the information blockade work in the United States, if the American public falls prey to it? They block their own citizens from information, and official materials that were released a long time ago are now causing genuine surprise. The piece stresses that at a certain point Kiev became irritated by the “undue caution” of the Americans, and started acting independently, plotting murders and other operations at its own discretion, to which the United States responded by threats to cut off the support. This thesis holds no water. Such inferences look like a clumsy attempt by the American special services, the White House and the Biden administration to absolve themselves of responsibility for the bloody crimes committed by Zelensky and his criminal inner circle. It won’t work. If things were the way they are depicted in this article, these horrific terrorist attacks would have stopped very soon. However, Russian public figures and journalists continue to be killed to this day, and terrorist attacks against the civilian infrastructure continue unabated. Who knows it better than the United States? I’m not sure about the level of caution showed by the United States, but it failed to stop the person who was supplied with ample amounts of funding and weapons to continue the terrorist activities in the Russian Federation.
As a reminder, the cowardly murders of Donbass militia leaders, such as Commander of the Sparta battalion Arsen Pavlov (call sign “Motorola”) in October 2016; Commander of the Somalia battalion Mikhail Tolstykh (call sign “Givi”) in February 2017; Russian political scientist and journalist Darya Dugina in August 2022; and military correspondent Maxim Fomin (aka Vladlen Tatarsky) in April 2023 are part of this list. The United States is responsible for Kiev’s attacks on the Crimean Bridge in October 2022 and July 2023, which resulted in civilian deaths. The Ukrainian attack with a US Patriot SAM system against the Il-76 military transport plane in the Belgorod Region is a recent and very telling example.
The American journalists should not hesitate to ask the Biden administration about its involvement in these crimes.
On February 25, during a news conference at the forum titled “Ukraine. Year 2024,” Vladimir Zelensky openly admitted that during a one-on-one meeting on the margins of the Normandy format summit with the President of Russia in Paris on December 9, 2019, he ignored Vladimir Putin’s call for a ceasefire in Donbass and the withdrawal of forces and means from the demarcation line. In so doing, he reiterated his reluctance to comply with the commitments under the Minsk Package of Measures. In fact, Mr Zelensky not only demonstrated once again Kiev’s inability to reach and honour agreements, but also recognised that Russia has never been the aggressor that Ukraine and the West have so painstakingly tried to dress it up as.
The above facts confirm the importance of the special military operation’s goals to denazify and demilitarise Ukraine and eliminate threats coming from its territory. Without a doubt, all of these goals will be achieved.
Spy network involving chemical weapons uncovered in Zaporozhye Region
In a follow-up to the February 27 report by the Federal Security Service of Russia (FSB) on Kiev regime’s crimes against local officials and service personnel of the Russian Army, we would like to clarify, on the international legal plane, the details of a criminal case launched by Russia’s FSB Investigative Directorate against Ukrainian secret services agents who planned to commit terrorist acts using an analogue of agent BZ, and the ensuing arrest of three Ukrainian nationals.
What is at issue here is a violation of Article I of the Chemical Weapons Convention which prohibits the use of toxic agents as chemical weapons. A laboratory of the 27th Research Centre of the Russian Defence Ministry tested samples of ampoules seized from a cache on the territory of the Zaporozhye Region of the Russian Federation and identified an analogue of agent BZ controlled by the CWC and its derivative which are included in the list of Schedule 2 substances (CWC).
The investigation has established that Ukraine’s special services issued instructions to carry out terrorist acts on the territory of the Zaporozhye Region against representatives of the local authorities and law enforcement agencies, as well as the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, including the use of chemical weapons by adding them to food and drinks. The aim was to destabilise the activities of the authorities and, consequently, the situation in the area in question. The Investigation Department of the Federal Security Service of Russia opened a criminal case under Article 355 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation “The development, manufacture, stockpiling, acquisition or sale of the chemical, biological, toxic and other types of mass-destruction weapons banned by an international treaty of the Russian Federation,” on the proved count of terrorist activity by the special services of the Kiev regime.
Such cases are a vivid example of criminal activities of the Kiev leadership and their security agencies. They add to the ugly picture formed by the facts released in October 2023 of multiple instances of toxic chemicals and riot control agents being used by Kiev regime’s special services and militants as a means of warfare alongside provocations at chemical industry facilities in Donbass. The use of such toxic agents by Kiev is not an isolated incident.
It is deeply disturbing that the toxic substances and instructions on how to make them found in the possession of the Ukrainian terrorists are endemic, so to speak, to the United States’ military chemical programme. In other words, they have never been produced anywhere but in the United States and were in service only with the Pentagon. This circumstance unambiguously points to the specific curators of the Ukrainian security services and the Kiev regime as a whole, who do not shy away from direct complicity in the terrorist activities of their underlings, be it rocket and artillery shelling of civilian facilities and civilians or the use of toxic substances for terrorist and military purposes in violation of their obligations under the CWC.
We will follow the new information on this matter as it is released by our law enforcement agencies. This issue will be raised with international organisations.
We are witnessing a process of “double standardisation” of all events. We remember how anxious the Western regimes were about everything related to chemical warfare agents (Salisbury, Amesbury, Novichok and the like). But this time everybody is silent. Why didn’t anyone rush to a microphone? For instance, as Theresa May once did in the British Parliament on seeing some information from British secret services about the use of chemical arms by Russia on Britain’s territory (as London put it). Do you remember how this idea was worded? “Europe was attacked. England was attacked." Let me recall that Ukraine is also part of Europe. Is nobody in NATO or the EU interested in what is happening there? What are these substances? Doesn’t the United States want to put this issue on the agenda in Congress?
This is linked with the American programmes, as was the case with biological laboratories. The US authorities had to acknowledge their existence when they saw the evidence. The evidence was presented this time as well. Does nobody want to put questions to the Pentagon, the US Department of State or the White House? What is the US up to in Ukraine this time?
I will recall how it was at that time when the Western countries stood to gain from fuelling the story around the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Organisation as a whole. In March, it will be six years since the high-profile accident in Salisbury. Britain developed it not by a sinusoid but as a vertical take off. It presented this accident as “deliberate poisoning of former GRU officer Sergey Skripal and his daughter Yulia.”
London used this incident to unleash a large-scale anti-Russia political and propaganda campaign to achieve the international isolation of our country and curtail bilateral relations. Accusations bore the weight of verdicts. We were accused and punished practically at the same time. Russian diplomats were expelled. They intimidated us with all kinds of actions. During all this time, the British authorities have been stubbornly avoiding a substantive dialogue with us on the full circumstances of the accident (including presentation of substances with which Skripal and his daughter were allegedly poisoned).
After the Salisbury case, London refused to cooperate with Russia’s competent bodies on investigating the incident. In April 2018, the Prosecutor-General Office of Russia sent requests for legal aid in the criminal case of the Skripals’ attempted murder to the British Home Office. The Foreign Office informed our embassy about a decision of the British authorities to reject these requests. Overall, since the moment of this provocation in Salisbury (this is how we describe it), the Russian Embassy in London sent over 60 notes to the British Home Office. They contained numerous questions about the Skripals. Most of them have gone unanswered. Formal offensive replies were received on some items.
This incident has political underpinnings. It is enough to recall how the British rushed to the capitals of the EU member countries and their other associates without waiting for the results of the investigation. The British persuaded them to expel Russian diplomats without presenting any facts, any information. They promised to submit irrefutable facts later. Eventually, journalists received the information with which London tried to convince its allies of Russia’s guilt. This information was presented at the level of schoolchildren in the fifth form. There were five pages with arrows. These papers said that this was done by Russia because Russia did it in the past and, hence, Russia is always capable. There were no photos or anything looking like evidence.
Of course, Britain did not send anything to any NATO or EU members but they still expelled Russian diplomats then. Why did they do it? Because the majority of them took Britain at its word. True, some of them gave Russian diplomats the benefit of the doubt and didn’t expel them. Later we asked privately those who had joined this action if they had received any evidence or arguments in addition to London’s public statements in the “highly likely” style. They told us honestly that London had not presented anything to anyone. This is how Britain brazenly deceived its allies once again.
I will repeat, that Britain cannot present any credible information on the Skripals case to anyone – whether to its closest allies or us. Obviously, the reason is simple – either it has something to hide or does not have any real evidence, or both.
We intend to continue working to establish the truth. Being deeply concerned for the fate of its citizens, Russia regularly insists that the British authorities promptly present the required information and provide consular access to the Russian citizens (in accordance with the provisions of the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and the 1965 Bilateral Consular Convention).
Experience shows that the British are not interested in a fair and unbiased investigation of the Skripals incident. Likewise, Denmark, Sweden and probably Germany are not interested, either, in conducting a normal, transparent legal investigation of what happened to the Nord Streams. In the past, London deliberately dragged its feet on the investigation of the Salisbury incident and did all it could to politicise it. London’s actions have again confirmed that it was running an orchestrated campaign to damage the international reputation of our country. This was its real goal.
Statements by the President of France on the likely deployment of EU military contingents in Ukraine
We took note of French President Emmanuel Macron’s belligerent statements, following the meeting of European leaders, in support of the Ukrainian Nazi regime. He convened the meeting in Paris on February 26. We commented on these statements both at the time and then later in view of the broad international response to the statements.
One has the impression that Paris is losing what remains of its sense of reality and self-preservation. For a number of years, the Elysee Palace has been dragging France, to the detriment of its national interests, into the Ukrainian conflict to please Washington, the EU, and NATO. We have had to state many times that France has become an accomplice to the military crimes committed by the Ukraine regime.
It will be recalled that Paris was among the first to start supplying the Kiev regime with NATO ammunition, and they masterminded the creation of “tank” and “artillery” coalitions. Currently, they are putting together a “long-range missile” coalition and campaigning to provide Ukraine with combat aircraft. Paris is active in training Ukrainian military personnel and is complicit in deploying mercenaries in Ukraine, including French mercenaries (although Paris denies this fact whenever it can). But you can’t deny the obvious. They do supply mercenaries to the Kiev regime and Mr Macron’s statements have confirmed this.
What has all this led to? Nothing but an escalation in hostilities, which is absurd, given the French president’s statements about certain peace efforts and attempts to achieve a political and diplomatic settlement. We are used to controversial statements from the French president, the Elysee Palace, and the French foreign ministry. It apparently makes no difference to them what they say. But the problem is that peaceful civilians are being affected in the meantime. Many are killed because of the stance taken by Paris and the “aid” (although, this is not aid) it sends [to Ukraine]. Its financial support and the arms it supplies to the neo-Nazi Kiev regime also have a lot to do with people dying in Ukraine.
Now, Paris is hinting that the West is not ruling out a direct military clash with our country. It must be noted that dozens of EU representatives (heads of foreign ministries, defence ministries, and even heads of state) have declared that they have initiated or planned nothing of the kind, being aware of how these statements were misguided, futile and dangerous. This, incidentally, has been stated by German representatives.
What does this indicate? It shows that the Western approach to world affairs has suffered a total ideological and philosophical breakdown. NATO’s bloc discipline prevents member countries from conducting defence and geopolitical policies of their own unless they take into consideration NATO’s standards. Yet certain countries make such crucial statements that they have to be denied by other NATO member countries. This points to a crisis within the Western community, which is unable to develop a single ideology and approach to key existential issues based on truly democratic principles.
The Western states’ cynical use of Ukraine as a tool of struggle against Russia “to the last Ukrainian” and a testing ground for NATO arms and military equipment could be a prelude to their own direct involvement in military operations.
This raises the following question: do the citizens of France and other EU countries fully understand where the Elysee Palace and other EU and NATO governments could lead them? Neither the French parliament, nor the French public have any idea what is on Mr Macron’s mind. He did not consult anyone. There was no discussion. This is not part of his programme, nor was this mentioned in his earlier remarks. He just upped and said this, and Western Europe shuddered with horror at the thought of being involved in something so disastrous.
Do the French want to become cannon fodder and find their death in Russia? Are they ready to support their president’s escapade that may have the most grievous and unpredictable consequences? We think that the citizens of France would do well to give this serious thought and pose these questions to their national leaders.
Statements by Bundeswehr Chief of Defence Carsten Breuer
The Foreign Ministry has noticed a statement by Chief of Defence of the Bundeswehr Carsten Breuer about the need for the German Armed Forces to achieve wartime combat readiness within five years in connection with an alleged threat emanating from Russia. We are noting an upsurge in war mongering in Germany, and we have already discussed this issue. Nowadays, the top political leadership of Germany is trying once again to convince the public at large that a military clash with Russia is imminent. We are closely following German military preparations that are primarily directed against Russia.
We would like to note that on the borders with Germany, France has now made certain statements that it would be appropriate to assess in the context of German interests and to find out whether they are voicing a consolidated position and consulting each other. Or, perhaps, any emotional Russophobic statement will suffice, provided that it is directed against Russia. We will respond adequately to these statements and remarks by the Chief of Defence and to all practical actions that Germany has already taken.
We would like to remind Mr Carsten Breuer and his political inspirers that they are not the first to dream of the German Armed Forces achieving wartime combat readiness. Each time, this spelled disaster, above all for Germany.
Sofia hosts another annual event commemorating pro-Nazi general Hristo Lukov
Unfortunately, Western and Eastern Europe are reliving news from the past. On February 17, 2024, Sofia hosted yet another neo-Nazi gathering in memory of Bulgarian general Hristo Lukov who collaborated with the Nazis. Called the Lukov March, this paramilitary gathering copied the torchlight parades that took place in Nazi Germany and praised an accomplice of Adolf Hitler. In fact, the central district of this European capital has been hosting this event for over 20 years. We have been discussing this issue for just as long (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). For a long time, the Bulgarian authorities confined themselves to empty-worded declarations on rejecting the ideas of the marches’ organisers and did not dare to take decisive action to bring them to an end. Quite possibly, the Bulgarian authorities are waiting for Germany to attain wartime combat readiness. In that case, they would benefit greatly from these marches. These are probably links in one and the same chain.
In December 2023, Sofia mustered enough political “courage” to barbarically desecrate and destroy the Red Army monument, a common Russian-Bulgarian memorial. This step was taken in circumvention of a court decision. Before that, Bulgaria’s Russophobic wing made statements noting that they would demolish all monuments honouring their own soldiers and Red Army personnel. They have no legal grounds for doing this.
The contemporary pro-Nazi Bulgarians have adopted the Russophobic narratives of their authorities and have taken to the streets under the slogans mentioning “victims of the Communist regime.” At the same time, some representatives of the Sofia municipal council urged the city hall to prevent the Russian Embassy from holding events marking Defender of the Fatherland Day. These events are essentially linked with the memory of Victory over Nazism during the Great Patriotic War.
The extremely alarming trend of exonerating Nazism, bolstered by active support from official Sofia and the Kiev regime preaching this ideology, reflects the continued moral degradation of ruling elites in the European Union and NATO countries. We realise the dangers of this situation. It could have disastrous socio-political consequences in these states, as well as wider repercussions on an international scale.
I would like to remind everyone that the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation recently ruled that it was acceptable to use the “Italian salute” with the hand outstretched. For 80 years, the whole world has associated this salute with fascism and Nazism. The authorities have now allowed this salute. The overall neo-Nazi jigsaw puzzle consists of these small “bits.”
At the same time, the responsible approach of the Global Majority, who clearly perceive this danger, gives reasons for positive hopes and forecasts. I would like to note that the results of voting on the draft resolution, which the Russian Federation submits annually at the UN General Assembly, show that there is still hope. This draft resolution aims to combat the glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.
There is only one problem: The Global Majority supports this resolution by either co-authoring this document or voting for it. However, the collective West collectively opposes it.
We continue to monitor the situation unfolding in Moldova, where the leadership has become entrenched in a destructive Russophobic policy and double standards. It is clear that their political statements increasingly contradict the actions of the Chisinau regime.
This is most evident in the official Chisinau’s attitude towards the special military operation. The second anniversary of its beginning became the occasion for yet more groundless accusations against our country of “terror” and “diabolical aggression.” Many falsehoods have been spread. A real hysteria took over Chisinau. At the same time, the Moldovan leadership still does not want to hear anything about the genocide of Donbass residents in 2014-2022, regardless of how we use this term: in the legal sense or as a metaphor that best reflects the essence of the events that happened in Donbass. The Sandu regime also does not want to hear anything about the other crimes of the Kiev regime.
Another example is the Moldovan authorities’ attempts to justify the purchase of NATO military equipment by citing the “Russian threat” and the “irrelevance” of the republic’s neutral status. Let me remind you that it was enshrined in the Constitution of Moldova. On February 18, Moldovan Defence Minister Anatolie Nosatii said that since Russia had “totally violated the concept of neutrality” by attacking Ukraine, it is unclear, they say, “how much this status protects us.” The Moldovan government has announced plans to create a national air defence system by 2030, which will require several billion euros. The acquisition of a second radar for monitoring the country’s airspace worth 15 million euros has also been announced.
This is despite the fact that the republic is among the poorest nations in Europe, and the reality of the “Russian threat” raises questions even among representatives of the collective West. Let me give you an example that should be clear and relevant for the Chisinau authorities. Even the US Ambassador to Chisinau, Kent D. Logsdon, said on February 21 that so far there is no evidence or signs that Moldova is threatened by a military attack from Russia. At the same time, the regime of Maia Sandu, her ministers and heads of departments continue to repeat this narrative as a mantra.
Double standards are also evident in the Moldovan authorities’ approach to history. Acts of vandalism against Soviet military memorials go without any reaction from the country’s leadership. This indicates tacit encouragement of such extremist activities. In particular, there was no response when an obelisk was torn down from the grave of a participant in the Great Patriotic War, Guard Captain Andrey Kolbinsky, in the centre of Chisinau on February 24 of this year. At the same time, Moldovans are regularly told about the “horrors of the Soviet era.” Now, according to the decision of the country’s education ministry, a new subject will be introduced in the school curriculum, where children will be told about the “repression of the totalitarian communist regime.”
We have repeatedly touched upon the topic of Moldova’s being part of the USSR. Here are some additional facts about “Soviet terror in Moldova” that we would like to share with the authors of the aforementioned curriculum.
In 1944-1945, when the Great Patriotic War was still raging, 448 million Soviet roubles were allocated from the USSR budget for the reconstruction of Moldova. Other republics of the Soviet Union donated to Moldova 20,000 tonnes of ferrous metals, 226,000 tonnes of coal, 51,000 tonnes of petroleum products, and 17,400 tonnes of seeds. Will Maia Sandu tell the children about this? Or will this information be prohibited, just like any information that does not support their Russophobia?
In the 1970-1980s, the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic was rightfully considered a “national fruit and vegetable garden of the USSR,” with fresh and processed agricultural products being the main exports. From 1945 to 1990, the production of tinned fruit and vegetables rose from 28,000 to 728,000 tonnes. To put it more clearly and visually, this signifies a 26-fold rise in production.
Thanks to the construction of large power-generating facilities, electricity generation in the Republic increased from 100 million kWh in 1950 to 17 billion kWh in 1989.
Mechanical engineering, which included tractor manufacturing, the production of electric units and machines, as well as light industry, especially the production of shoes and knitwear, had undergone significant development.
I sincerely hope that this data will be presented with all the details and illustrations as part of the curriculum on the “repression of the totalitarian communist regime.”
Yes, there were numerous challenges and problems. But when data, facts and figures indicating the progress of the Moldavian SSR and its achievements are erased, a blow is dealt to the history of the Moldovan people. After all, all of those achievements belong to the people who lived and worked in this territory, including Moldovans and people of other ethnicities who consider this republic their homeland.
What did Maia Sandu do? She deprived the country of the Moldovan language, and “reassigned” it as Romanian. Now she is also taking away the history of the country’s achievements and exploits from its citizens. Who gave her the authority to do this?
The language issue deserves special mention. On February 21, Moldovan President Maia Sandu stated that “the Romanian language in Moldova is a bridge for dialogue between all communities.” I understand that there has been a global trend in recent years to refer to people of one gender by using words for the other gender, and several dozen genders have been recognised. Therefore, one could also consider the Romanian language in Moldova as a “bridge for dialogue between all communities.” But what are those communities?
The paradox lies in the fact that, firstly, the majority of the country’s residents believe they speak Moldovan, not Romanian. Secondly, about 80 percent speak Russian. Thirdly, only about 7 percent (not 70 or 17 percent) of the country’s residents are ethnic Romanians. Therefore, the absurdity of the language policy of the Chisinau “elite” is obvious. They have chosen the wrong bridge.
Moldovans can see that the authorities are disconnected from the country’s real life and its citizens, and they openly express their disapproval. But who hears and sees them? Maia Sandu has taken control of the media, despite her claims about democracy and freedom as the fundamental values. It turns out that these values are false, or Maia Sandu was deceiving everyone. Or maybe both.
Moldovans are witnessing the erosion of their nation’s sovereignty and identity. They observe the severing of ties with Russia, which is being presented to them as part of some kind of “European project.” Europe has had a variety of projects. Adolf Hitler, Nazism and fascism were also European projects. So where is Moldova and its people being dragged into?
Russia, on its part, is always ready to continue cooperation with our Moldovan friends based on our deep historical roots, mutual respect and consideration for each other’s interests.
Moldova denounces international agreements signed within the CIS
We have consistently emphasised that the Moldovan leadership, in its thoughtless pursuit of dismantling decades-long, beneficial ties with Russia and the CIS, is drifting away from reality and the core interests of Moldovan citizens. Recent statements made by the Moldovan government’s press service have dismissed international treaties within the CIS, claiming they “do not align with the current state of affairs,” because “the country’s policies are at odds with the goals outlined in these agreements by the signatory nations. What a remarkable assertion.
Let’s discuss the specific objectives that the current Moldovan authorities’ policies are at odds with. I will mention several concrete documents that Chisinau believes are no longer necessary.
For instance, Maia Sandu’s team dislikes the agreements on cooperation in counteracting counterfeit medicines and on cooperation in public health protection. At the same time, as Moldova contends that the situation with healthcare and the accessibility of medicines for its citizens leaves much to be desired.
Moldova, and particularly Maia Sandu, appears to dismiss the significance of the agreement on the interaction of CIS member states during the evacuation of their citizens from third countries in emergencies. It seems that Moldovan citizens might be advised to rely on commercial flights, similar to the approach taken during the evacuation from the Palestinian-Israeli conflict zone. In 2020, amid emergencies and the pandemic, Russia facilitated the relocation of numerous people without prearranged agreements about how to divide the groups and who was responsible for what. Instead, Russia extended assistance and friendship without any formalities. Given the existence of many families with dual Russian and Moldovan citizenship, one may question the value Chisinau places on these people.
Moldova also plans to withdraw from the agreement concerning the exchange of information related to natural and man-made emergencies, information interaction in mitigating their consequences and providing aid to the affected population. This decision raises the question: in what way is this decision at odds with Maia Sandu’s goals? Meanwhile, during heavy snowfall in January this year, Chisinau managed the situation using KAMAZ snow removal machinery provided by the Moscow government, rather than European equipment.
In terms of denouncing agreements related to the establishment of a common scientific and technological space among CIS member states and cooperation in forming a unified educational space, the situation appears rather straightforward. Moldova’s scientific and technological potential, inherited from the Soviet Union, is visibly diminishing, with fewer students enrolling in its universities each year. Consequently, Chisinau deemed agreements in this sphere unnecessary.
As we know, the route to the European Union, which Moldova eagerly pursues, involves implementing harsh restrictions on journalists’ professional activities and suppressing dissent, which echoes the situation we saw in Ukraine. This may explain the country’s intended withdrawal from two agreements regulating the activities of the Mir interstate television and radio company.
These are just a few examples. While the comments may carry a degree of irony, it is essential to recognise that the unwarranted termination of agreements established over the years in such socially important areas holds far more adverse consequences for Moldova’s citizens than for its government. Denouncing dozens of agreements, thereby dismantling socially crucial bridges built by others, does not require much foresight. Moldovan authorities must realise that it would be hard to resume participation in agreements they are actively dismantling.
Further evidence of British military crimes in Afghanistan
There is growing evidence of war crimes committed in Afghanistan by Western countries, in particular by British servicemen. There is irrefutable testimony from individuals who were directly involved in the events.
At the ongoing hearings held by the national “Independent” Inquiry relating to Afghanistan, former UK Minister for Veterans' Affairs Johnny Mercer – a veteran of the NATO campaign in Afghanistan himself – confirmed the allegations of criminal activity by UK forces against Afghan civilians. Appeals to the army command on this issue were ignored, and no proceedings were initiated. According to Mercer, after being elected to Parliament in 2017, he was warned twice not to talk too much. Later, when he became minister in 2019, he was not allowed to set the record straight either.
During the hearings, Mercer confirmed extrajudicial killings by UK special forces of civilians who “posed no danger,” as well as the widespread use of unregistered weapons in Afghanistan that could not be traced.
It is outrageous that the British government is doing everything it can to ensure that the truth about the crimes committed by British special forces in Afghanistan is not made public. Obviously, this is the reason for the delays in issuing visas to former members of the Afghan Special Forces, who have a lot of evidence of civilians being shot in Afghanistan. According to the BBC, and confirmed by the British authorities, about 2,000 visa applications from Afghans are currently being blocked.
Once again, we call on both official London and its NATO allies to avoid covering for war criminals. We hope to finally see an impartial and transparent investigation, which should end with the punishment of the military personnel involved in those crimes. The families of dead and injured Afghans must see justice.
A wave of farmers’ protests has swept over a half of EU countries, from Lithuania to Portugal, this year. The farmers’ complaints are simple: rising prices of feed, fertiliser, energy and food, unfair competition from cheap agricultural imports, primarily from Ukraine, which European producers cannot rival, falling living standards and profitability of production, and a growing risk of bankruptcy and farms going under.
We have pointed out on numerous occasions and with facts in hand that all this is a direct result of the anti-Russia sanctions. We provided our arguments, facts and figures. We have accumulated evidence, which includes strategic mistakes made by the EU authorities in the energy, food and financial sectors. European farmers are furious about cuts in state subsidies, which have been sacrificed to the packages of financial assistance to Ukraine, and the draconian “green” standards in agriculture.
The farmers’ main demands include a reduction of agricultural imports from third countries. EU agriculture ministers held a special meeting on February 26, 2024, to discuss the crisis situation facing the agricultural sector.
As a result, the Brussels bureaucrats have adopted a series of superficial tactical concessions. They have extended a moratorium on compliance with several EU environmental protection norms that require farmers to leave a share of agricultural lands fallow. They have adjusted or more precisely downgraded their plans to strengthen the CO2 emission standards in the agricultural sector. They have also shelved the draft regulations on reducing the use of pesticides, which is unpopular with farmers.
There are plans to poll farmers about their concerns and to continue dialogue on the future of agriculture, as if polling farmers will settle all the problems. The goal of the proposed poll is to allow the farmers, who are rapidly sliding into poverty, to let off steam.
What about their main concern, that is, the uncontrolled import of Ukrainian agricultural products into the EU? Despite the direct demands by the protesting farmers, the European Council has supported the proposal of the European Commission to renew the suspension of import duties and quotas on Ukrainian exports to the EU. I wonder if the EU is really building a democracy, which is defined as the will of the majority that respects the opinions and interests of the minority. All countries have agriculture, which is the foundation of industry. Will they ever take this into account? Whose opinions are respected when they adopt decisions that contradict the will of the majority? Yes, they have also approved certain restrictions on products of major importance for the EU market, namely, poultry meat, sugar and, strangely, chicken eggs. But they have probably done this to limit access to the products protesters are throwing at European politicians, who stubbornly continue to erode the foundations of their countries’ agriculture.
The reasons for the aforementioned extensions are purely political and have no relation to reality or people’s requirements. What is the real goal of the European bureaucrats and officials, the EU and the European Council? They want to give Kiev an opportunity to earn money for repaying their Western loans. It was Brussels and Washington who created the situation in which they announce the allocation of new tranches of assistance to the Kiev regime (to Ukraine, as they say) every month. But the bulk of this assistance is used to pay for purchases and cover interest on loans. The Kiev regime has no money to pay them; it has nothing other than losses. What will they do next? They are using this simple method – the import of Ukrainian agricultural products – to settle the problem. Such horrible machinations on the global scale, considering that the West has been playing up the issue of food security, which is allegedly threatened by Russia, for the past two years.
They allow the European and transnational agricultural conglomerates, which are set to buy up Ukrainian agriculture, to continue to line their pockets by importing Ukrainian agricultural products at dumping prices. What do European citizens and farmers have to do with that? European farmers have actually become pawns in a big political game.
To justify their decisions, European officials blame Moscow for their problems, in particular, the low prices of Ukrainian agricultural products imported to the EU and the negative effect this is having on its agricultural market. And they traditionally propose dealing with these problems by fighting “the Russian threat.” They say that Ukrainian agricultural products must be returned to the global market without delay because Russia is filling the niche vacated by Ukraine. Do they care about the concerns of European farmers or food security? The Western countries planned to feed the planet as a whole, if not the universe, but it has turned out that food is divided into political classes: the acceptable food products, which can be used to feed the Earth, and unreliable ones.
In this context, they cannot be bothered with the real needs of European farmers. They must prevent Moscow from getting additional revenue from sending high-quality competitive goods to the global market. According to their plans, our agribusiness should have been in tatters by this time or made fully dependent on the West. But their plans have not materialised. Our agricultural sector is still with us, alive and kicking. At the same time, they are urging Ukraine to be proactive, to make its agricultural exports miraculously reach other countries via the EU without being lost there. It’s a masterpiece of the theatre of the absurd. This is EU policy towards a territory it has created, which is known as “Ukraine is Europe.” And the immeasurable losses of their own farmers are nothing other than “collateral damage” of the pro-Ukraine hysteria in the EU.
The effect of anti-Russia sanctions on the global economy
We regret to acknowledge that political factors are influencing global economic processes more and more. Countries of the “collective West,” primarily the United States, actively resort to financial, trade, investment and technological tools to achieve their foreign policy goals. They are using a wide range of non-market competition measures against Russia. To put it simply, this amounts to a trade war. These measures include undisguised pressure on foreign businesses operating in Russia and on international partners, not to mention the direct discrimination of Russian companies in the West; we will soon mark the 1,000th anniversary of such discrimination. Over 18,000 anti-Russia restrictive measures have been approved.
These Western actions run counter to economic interests of the majority of the global community and are fraught with greater structural problems in the global economy. It should be noted that Russia is confidently managing the all-out pressure from the “collective West” against all odds.
In turn, the global economy is facing turbulence and stagnating growth rates. The IMF predicts that global GDP growth in 2024 will not exceed 2023 levels and will total about 3.1 percent, as well as 3.2 percent next year.
The main economic players and interstate associations are vying more actively for control over transport and logistic and production chains, for access to consumer markets and resources worldwide.
Unprecedented Western restrictive measures have forced many countries to conduct international payments and settlements using their own national currencies. These measures have only accelerated the de-dollarisation of the global economy and the creation of payments and settlements mechanisms that do not depend on the West. A multi-currency economic foundation of the future multipolar world (that would be free from neo-colonial dictates, ultimatums and unilateral US sanctions and those of their satellites) is gradually emerging.
The Western-provoked global crisis of faith is accelerating the process of systemically reassessing and reformatting global economic ties. The establishment of new cooperation mechanisms (that would replace traditional Western tools used to maintain and strengthen Western domination to the detriment of developing countries) is now on the agenda.
Many European countries with well-developed economies are facing de-industrialisation and rampant unemployment. The economy of Germany that is irreversibly losing its status as the engine of the European economy (while implementing the current policy of anti-Russia sanctions) is the most graphic example.
Despite a projected decline in average global inflation rates, experts do not rule out geopolitical risks causing new price hikes. Social tensions tend to increase as a result.
The imbalanced global food market vividly illustrates the negative influence of anti-Russia restrictions. Western sanctions and measures restricting food, fertiliser and fuel exports from Russia have caused electricity prices, as well as those for food and other staples, to skyrocket all over the world. The many protests involving European farmers show that the situation in the EU agro-industrial sector continues to deteriorate.
Extraordinary Informal Meeting of BSEC CSO
On February 23 this year, the Committee of Senior Officials of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation Organisation met under the Albanian Chairmanship-in-Office. The meeting, initiated by the Ukrainian side, was dedicated to the second anniversary of Russia’s special military operation.
Convened with numerous procedural violations, the event was a blatant example of Tirana’s unscrupulous and biased approach to its obligations under the chairmanship. We regret that, instead of maintaining the positive working dynamics established by Serbia and Turkey last year, our Albanian colleagues preferred to begin their tenure by inciting confrontation and politicising the forum entrusted to them.
It was egregiously disrespectful, on the part of the organisers, to schedule the meeting on Defender of the Fatherland Day, a holiday that also recognises the Red Army’s role in liberating Europe from Nazism in 1945. Today, Russian military are working towards the same goal as part of the special military operation.
We note with satisfaction that the short-sighted approach taken by the current Albanian chair of the BSEC as well as some of its members is not shared by the absolute majority of its member states, which insist on adhering to its socio-economic mandate and preserve the much-needed mechanisms of multilateral regional cooperation the BSEC provides.
Russia, in turn, explained its views on the true causes of the Ukraine crisis. We pointed out the benefits derived by the Americans from the hostilities in Ukraine and the “sanctions” they have initiated, completely depriving the EU economies of their competitive advantages.
Together with the pragmatic states of the Black Sea region, primarily our Turkish friends, we will strive for the opposite. Namely, we will work to establish a zone of development and prosperity in this region. We are confident that fully achieving the objectives of the special military operation will create a favourable context for these efforts.
The text of the Russian statement at the meeting will be available on the Russian Foreign Ministry’s online resources.
Kazan is hosting the International Multisport Tournament Games of the Future which will take place from February 21 to March 3. The Games are open to all countries and bring together athletes from over 100 countries. The opening ceremony was attended, alongside President Putin, by heads of Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan, and the first competitions came as a high point on the international agenda. A number of countries have volunteered to host the next tournament on their territory and to build on the phygital movement spearheaded by Russia. These competitions confirm Russia’s status as an international sports powerhouse, fostering depoliticised international sports cooperation in the spirit of the true values of sport and Olympism.
This success could not have left our “well-wishers” in the West untouched, as they are bending over backwards to prevent our country from hosting competitions. Now, onto the “sports” news.
We noted that the Latvian Ice Hockey Federation has suspended its athletes’ valid licenses due to their participation in the Games of the Future in Russia, and these hockey players are now persecuted by the Latvian media.
It seems that the Latvian authorities don’t care a hoot about the fundamental principles of the Olympic Movement and internationally recognised sports standards. At the same time, their own athletes, who performed well at the international tournament, are facing discrimination.
This shows once again that the Latvian authorities are using absurd pretexts to exert political pressure in order to intimidate their own people. In recent years, Riga has become quite adept at fabricating politically motivated cases out of nothing.
Almost immediately, the Estonian federation followed suit. In other words, they are punishing their own athletes for doing what they are supposed to do – realising their talent and dedicating their lives to taking part in competitions.
These actions are truly regrettable and, speaking of the official authorities in these countries, downright disgusting. After all, they are harming their own people. The Baltic countries have once again demonstrated their Russophobia. They are willing to act against their own and their citizens’ interests, in this case, athletes, in an effort to put a spoke in our wheel. I understand that everything is relative, but there are things we can use as a basis for a comparison. All their spokes will get broken. We are moving forward, whether the Baltic countries have noticed it or not. I’m afraid they may break their fingers in the process. Are they masochistic or something? It’s all absurd, because they are harming their own citizens in the first place.
We firmly believe that sport presents a unique opportunity to develop and promote social ties and to build mutually respectful communication, and is designed to bring peoples closer and foster unity. Our country is making tremendous progress in this regard despite the pressure from international sports associations led by the International Olympic Committee and international sports federations. We continue to advance sports cooperation with our partners and create new competition formats which are held in the spirit of fair competition and without discrimination against athletes. We will continue along this path. We will work to expand this work regardless of whether someone approves or not.
With regard to punishing athletes who are taking part in the competitions, this is just another example of politicising the sports sphere, which does nothing but sow discord in the international sports community and undermines the Olympic spirit.
100th anniversary of consular and diplomatic relations between the USSR and Austria
One hundred years ago, on February 25, consular relations and on February 29, diplomatic relations were established between the USSR and Austria. However, the history of Russian-Austrian ties is more profound, interesting, and extensive, tracing back to the late 15th century. The first exchange of ambassadorial missions occurred in 1489 between Ivan III and Frederick III.
Over the span of a hundred years, bilateral relations have gone through numerous phases. Notably, a crucial historical milestone stands out: thanks to the resolute stance of the USSR leadership, the Alpine republic attained its statehood in May 1955.
Until recently, Austria tried to diligently uphold the principles of neutrality and valued its reputation as a respected international negotiation platform. Regrettably, we can only reminisce about this commitment in the past tense. The Austrian leadership has opted for a confrontational path regarding Russia, departing from its traditional neutrality, and has taken opportunistic measures at the expense of the pragmatism that characterised Vienna for many years.
We hope that truly responsible and clearheaded politicians in Austria understand that there is no viable alternative to maintaining an equal and mutually beneficial dialogue with Russia.
On February 11 and 19, 1959, the London and Zürich Agreements were signed by the United Kingdom, Greece, Türkiye, and the Greek and Turkish communities of Cyprus. These agreements resulted in the establishment of the Republic of Cyprus in August 1960. However, its independence was significantly constrained from the outset. London, Athens, and Ankara were designated as “guarantors” of the new state with the authority to intervene in its internal affairs. Additionally, Greek and Turkish military contingents were stationed on the island. The United Kingdom retained sovereignty over two areas of the island, covering a total of 99 square miles (256 square kilometres), as sovereign bases, along with various other facilities and a comprehensive set of privileges inherited from its former status as a colonial power.
Embedded within the Constitution of Cyprus, these agreements inherently had a dangerous potential for conflict, which became evident during the violent inter-communal clashes in December 1963 and subsequent periods, ultimately culminating in the tragic division of the island in 1974. The remnants of colonial-era dynamics, enshrined in the agreements made in Zürich and London, persist to this day and allow the British to exhibit assertive behaviour in the region, disregard international law, and use military force without the sanction of the UN Security Council. Undoubtedly, such actions undermine regional stability, escalate tensions on and around the island, and hinder the resolution of the long-standing Cyprus problem.
Throughout the decolonisation process, our country supported the Cypriots’ rightful aspirations for self-determination. The USSR consistently pointed out that the British authorities, while imposing the plan of dealing with the Cyprus issue, were more interested in strengthening their domination in the new historical landscape rather than providing help. This sowed the seeds of strife and discord between the Greek and Turkish communities in Cyprus.
As a responsible member of the international community and a permanent member of the UN Security Council, the Russian Federation consistently upholds the principle that a compromise for a Cyprus settlement should be reached in line with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions, through voluntary negotiations between the Cypriot communities and with a careful consideration of their legitimate concerns and interests, free from external pressure, imposed timelines, or ready-made solutions. We are ready to support such efforts sincerely and substantially.
Since 2011, February 28 has been marked as Day of the Arctic. This event primarily aims to popularise Arctic expeditions, scientific research projects and to raise awareness of environmental protection issues in this unique region, its inimitable culture, as well as efforts to support Arctic communities.
The Arctic region is rich in various mineral resources, accounting for about 22 percent of untapped global hydrocarbon resources. This includes crude oil (13 percent), natural gas (30 percent) and gas condensate (20 percent). The majority of these resources, about 84 percent, are located on the Arctic Ocean shelf, while Arctic states’ landmass accounts for 16 percent. For example, the Yamal-Nenets Autonomous Area is a leading source of hydrocarbons in Russia, primarily natural gas and crude oil.
February 21, 2023, became an important day for the Arctic, Siberia and Russia’s Far East. On that day, President of Russia Vladimir Putin announced in his Address to the Federal Assembly that Russia intends to expand the capabilities of the Northern Sea Route. He also suggested developing ecotourism and made amendments to the Basic Principles of the Russian Federation’s State Policy in the Arctic to 2035.
This year’s agenda of the Day of the Arctic includes the Arctic Dictation environmental education project, initiated by the Russian Arctic National Park.
The Russian Federation considers the development of high-seas Arctic navigation along the Northern Sea Route, especially from the west to the east, to be of great importance. This is largely due to the dynamic development of the Asia Pacific region, which is becoming a major factor of global economic growth.
Russia sees the development of the Northern Sea Route as crucial due to its role as a responsible participant in international economic relations. Facilitating uninterrupted logistics chains for delivering goods to its northern regions is essential for ensuring their sustained development and improving the standard of living for local residents.
Today, the Northern Sea Route is functioning actively and effectively. According to the Northern Sea Route Administration, 1,219 navigation permits were issued in 2023, compared to 1,196 in 2022 and about 1,200 in 2021. Only one Russian-flagged ship was denied access.
The deteriorating navigation environment in other regions further emphasises the need to diversify international shipping, including via the Northern Sea Route, the shortest transport corridor linking Europe with the Asia Pacific region. According to statistical records, Asia currently accounts for 11 out of the 17 major ports worldwide.
It is worth noting that transport, logistics and other companies from various Asian countries, including India and China, are increasingly interested in cooperation with Russia in using the Northern Sea Route.
As a littoral Arctic state, Russia prioritises operations on the Northern Sea Route and will continue to do everything possible to ensure the safety and security of this transport artery. It will also treat the fragile Arctic ecosystem in great care. Naturally, authorities will comply with Russian legal documents that regulate navigation via the Northern Sea Route. The current navigation procedure is neither burdensome or discriminatory and does not prevent foreign ships from using this route.
Question: How would you comment on the EU’s latest package of sanctions adopted against Russia? How much impact will they have on the Russian economy?
Maria Zakharova: We already know, particularly from the implementation of the 13th sanctions package, that, for the political elites in the West, the emphasis is not so much on the substance but on the adoption of restrictions as such. Just a few days ago, German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock said that while they were imposing sanctions they understood it would not deter Russia from its foreign policy course, but the sanctions themselves were still important. In other words, the Westerners consider the sanctions themselves to be important.
It appears that their approach is guided by the motto: “the sanctions themselves matter.” They may be inclined towards different sanctions, but they remain silent about the actual effect of these sanctions and their repercussions on the EU itself.
Our country has developed sufficient immunity to sanctions, which helps us neutralise yet another futile attempt by Brussels to undermine the sustainable growth of the Russian economy. And certainly, the new EU sanctions will not alter the course of our ongoing special military operation, the implementation of our foreign policy objectives, or Russia’s unwavering commitment to safeguarding its legitimate interests, particularly as regards security.
The EU is gradually realising that sanctions contribute to strengthening Russia’s economic sovereignty. This wasn’t our choice; we took a different path. But when faced with this challenge, we seized the opportunity to our advantage, acquiring new capabilities and expertise in the industrial, technological, and financial sectors.
At the same time, the sanctions are undermining the development prospects of the EU’s economy. We never took pleasure in this and it was never our objective. We have always stood for a strong, pan-European, and possibly Eurasian continent with shared economic goals and objectives. It’s evident that this unity would progress at different speeds and have its unique characteristics, but it would maintain a shared agenda for cooperation.
Western Europe has made its choice. Unfortunately, it is following a path marked by these sanctions, bringing itself closer not to the desired “strategic defeat” of Russia, but to its own deindustrialisation and a lack of resources for growth. Brussels has utilised everything at its disposal, from senseless and inhumane bans aimed at pressuring and reducing the standards of living of ordinary Russian citizens through the embargo of various consumer goods to the suspension of passenger services, but it has not achieved its goals. Instead, they have inflicted harm upon themselves and others without success.
Some countries resorted to blatant blackmail. The European Union, fully aware that indiscriminate sanctions against Russia would eventually undermine global food and energy security, had the audacity to accuse us of provoking these crises. This didn’t work either (we spoke at length about this today). Even though EU members cannot stop clinging to their colonialist habits, they are still unable to grasp that intentionally false promises and pressure tactics used by Brussels in dealing with third countries, especially ours, will no longer work.
The European Union is now experimenting with restrictions on other major economies. In particular, they are targeting the Global Majority, using Russia as a pretext. In an attempt to overcome their own powerlessness and crises (industrialisation is no longer helping, and there is no economic growth), they are trying to impede the global economy through this anti-Russia message.
As part of the recent anti-Russian packages of sanctions, Brussels has imposed secondary sectoral restrictions on a wide range of economic operators from China, India, Iran, Central Asia, Armenia, the UAE, Serbia, Türkiye, Singapore, Syria, Sri Lanka, and Thailand. By doing so, the EU explicitly demonstrates its belief that it can dictate the conditions for trade and economic cooperation between Russia and other sovereign states.
These actions are not confined to our country; they actively impede the economic progress of sovereign states all across the world. The EU justifies its measures by the need to combat the circumvention of anti-Russia sanctions and achieve the goal of inflicting a “strategic defeat” on us. I assure you, as time passes, they may resort to arguments such as alleged deficiencies in democracy, inadequate respect for human rights, or weak adherence to specific Western doctrines in these countries as justifications. They will come up with pretexts, and economic pressure will likely persist.
We have no doubt that the peoples in the countries whose business circles are targeted by EU sanctions will draw the necessary conclusions about EU policy and the consequences of the aggressively promoted “rules-based order” concept.
Essentially, this is additional proof of the “agony of sanctions” currently unfolding in the European Union. They find themselves with little else to use against us, but in doing so, they primarily harm the interests of ordinary Europeans.
Question: How would you respond to information published by the World Bank about
Maria Zakharova: This information is false.
The fact is that the above figure ($774 million) was either mindlessly, or perhaps deliberately presented as
Question: Speaker of the Armenian Parliament Alen Simonyan believes the Russian border guard should leave
Maria Zakharova: We consider this as another example of unfriendly behaviour by an official representative of
As far as we understand, the story with Zvartnots arises from the recent insinuations around Russian national Dmitry Setrakov. I can assure you that Russian representatives did not commit any illegal actions in this context. We always respect the national laws of sovereign states.
Question: On February 25, the chief of the Border Police of Moldova said that if the President of the
Maria Zakharova: We have noted that Chisinau's anti-Russia rhetoric has been taking on a perverted and grotesque form. It is just obscene. The statement you mentioned is part of the same story. Even in
What can I say? This was a private comment. I think it’s telling. I have nothing to add.
Question: Going back to Emmanuel Macron’s statements about the possible deployment of personnel to
Maria Zakharova: What exactly is going to happen?
Question: If NATO military personnel from the EU are sent to
Maria Zakharova: There is no “risk.” This is just escalation per se. Obviously, every weapons shipment leads to escalation. Every new tranche spent on a war being conducted by the
Speaking of direct confrontation, we should clarify what “direct confrontation” means. I know the military has their own terminology, so it would be better to ask them. But in the context of ordinary logic and foreign policy evaluation, it is obvious that the EU and NATO countries have been dragged into this conflict. This includes weapons and ammunition shipments, endless financial injections and intelligence. The
Will this involvement and the anti-Russia hybrid war unleashed by the West be elevated to a new level? It might be better to phrase the question like that. We should address this question to Emmanuel Macron and the Western community.
Question: Danish law enforcement officials stopped their investigation into the bombing of the Nord Stream gas pipelines, they said, because they did not have the authority to continue the investigation on Danish territory even though they found evidence of deliberate sabotage. What will
Maria Zakharova: Let me tell you what we have already done.
It was the Russian delegation that submitted a draft resolution on the Secretary-General’s establishing a corresponding independent international commission to the UN Security Council. Unfortunately, during the vote on March 27, 2023, our initiative was blocked. It did not receive the required number of votes due to the deliberate destructive policy of the Western members of the Security Council.
They insisted that the Security Council has no reason to interfere in national investigations by
Denmark’s decision to suspend the investigation into the terrorist attacks on the Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 gas pipelines right after Sweden did, that, let me remind you, happened in Denmark’s exclusive economic zone in September of 2022, fully confirms the Western countries’ lack of interest in identifying who really ordered and carried out this bombing.
I talked earlier about how meticulously everyone dug into the pseudo or alleged Novichok poisonings in
Since the very beginning,
It took the Danish side eighteen months to reach the conclusion that deliberate sabotage had taken place. At the same time, paradoxically,
All this clearly confirms the relevance of
Let me remind you that our national investigation continues.
Question: When will a Russian consulate open in Republika Srpska? What did President Milorad Dodik say?
Maria Zakharova: A Russian Embassy office in
We will update you on this. We are confident that the opening of the mission in
We appreciate the attention given to this issue by President of Republika Srpska Milorad Dodik.
Question: Currently, it is evident that
Maria Zakharova: This matter has been addressed on multiple occasions, but I will reiterate it.
First, Sweden’s potential NATO membership and its departure from its longstanding policy of military non-alignment (a history that spans 200 years, let me emphasise) – a policy that played a significant role in maintaining stability in the Baltics and the broader northern European region – inevitably transforms this region from a zone of stability and cooperation into one of potential conflict.
The second important thing is that
The third thing is that we will closely monitor
Question: What concrete measures will
Maria Zakharova: We will take reciprocal action based on the practical actions of
Question: I have a question about the Greek state’s military assistance to
Maria Zakharova: We record all hostile acts without exception. This concerns
Speaking of
Question: Today and earlier, you have listed direct strikes on the city of
Maria Zakharova: We have repeatedly drawn the attention of the Greek authorities to precisely this issue. We noted that indirect involvement in the Ukrainian conflict, by supplying the
Weapons and artillery shells do not ask people their nationality; nor do they request their passports. They simply kill people of all nationalities. This goes for Donbass, the
The Defence Ministry of the
Question: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu presented a plan for a postwar settlement in
Maria Zakharova: We have seen articles in the media. We do not have the original text. But judging by this fragmentary information, achieving sustainable peace in the region and creating conditions for resolving the Palestinian problem based on this proposal will be difficult.
History proves that any Middle East settlement initiatives and attempts to bypass the existing international laws are doomed to fail if they go against the decisions of the UN Security Council, which provided for the creation of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders with its capital in East Jerusalem, coexisting in peace and security with
Everyone knows
This is the isolation in which the
It is also necessary to ensure the political and geographical unity of
Question: You have mentioned an intra-Palestinian meeting. What does the Russian side expect from it?
Maria Zakharova: It is clear. A discussion of the current problems. Of course, we will provide additional detailed information on this and will certainly publish it.
Question: Prime Minister of
Maria Zakharova: We categorically reject any reproaches by the Armenian authorities for the CSTO’s alleged failure to fulfil its mandate and commitments to
We believe the
The style and logic of Armenian statements are not perfectly clear. Literally, a short while ago, Armenian representatives spoke about
Question: On February 25, Der Spiegel reported on alleged secret talks between
Maria Zakharova: Such planted stories are literally a daily occurrence. I don’t think they are even worth commenting on. I can only say our countries have durable, time-tested bonds of friendship. Relations between
Question: I have a question on the trilateral statement or, on its loose interpretation by
And I have another question in this context. Recently, Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan has been pitching his Crossroads of Peace project in the Western platforms as an alternative to the aforementioned route with substantial support. Why are
Maria Zakharova: We know that the Armenian authorities have expressed their readiness to open regional connections based on the principles of sovereignty, jurisdiction, equality and reciprocity. In fact,
As for the statement’s item on the control of the Megri route by the FSB’s Border Service, it is logical in terms of both the rational traffic organisation and the economy. The Russian frontier guards are already located in the south of the Syunik province, protecting the border between
As for the Crossroads of Peace, we do not consider this project to be an alternative to the Megri or any other route. It is sooner a broader view of the future regional and sub-regional connections. Deputy Prime Minister Alexey Overchuk supported this project and noted
As for out-of-region players, their reluctance to unblock connections in the
Question: In an interview with
Maria Zakharova: I always ask for facts. Were there any citation provided?
Question: There were in the Armenian media.
Maria Zakharova: I am referring to citations that would show that
The aforementioned grievances of the Prime Minister of Armenia are completely unfounded. Russian officials have never even hinted at any calls for the overthrow of legally elected authorities in any country whatsoever.
It would be good if speaking about such things, the authorities in
A logical question suggests itself. Do those that are now in power in
Questions to journalists about the facts they presented were the only events in the public space. If there are doubts about these facts, Armenian representatives can always issue a denial. We do this regularly. We have the Antifake section of the website and can refute fake allegations one after another. It is also possible to turn to the courts for this purpose.
Question: The Secretary of the Security Council of Armenia stated that the Russian military failed to prevent the shooting incident in the region on February 12. According to him, the EU observers have no access to that site, but Russia does. What is your reaction to this statement?
Maria Zakharova: I have already said a lot on this topic, but let me repeat it once again.
We regard such statements entirely negatively. This is not the first time that Secretary of the Security Council Armen Grigoryan has twisted the facts just to (I think) please someone in the West or perhaps to come up with a reason to criticise Russia.
There are no Russian military personnel in the vicinity of Nerkin Hand village. In accordance with the agreement with the Armenian side, a Border Guard Service post of the Russian Federal Security Service was placed there in 2021. However, as we know, an investigation is currently underway in Armenia with regard to violations of the order on preventing provocations and maintaining restraint in the border area.
We consider the attempts to vilify our representatives to be counterproductive. For over 30 years Russian border guards have been protecting the borders of the republic and have repeatedly demonstrated their value.
In contrast to the Russian border guards, the pseudo-observers of the European Union are not engaged in the very thing for which they were called there. Their main occupation is intelligence activities with regard to Russia and Iran and, naturally, a bit of self-publicity.
Question: Armenian media reported about preparations for Vladimir Zelensky’s visit to Armenia. They say that it is tentatively scheduled for March. At the same time, neither Yerevan nor Kiev have denied it. What do you think this may lead to?
Maria Zakharova: You have rightly pointed out that this should be commented on by the two states in the first place. I think that Armenia, as an ally of Russia, is well aware of our position. It is justified with regard to the Kiev regime, which through its actions destroying its own state and sovereignty has brought suffering and tragedy not only to its own country, but to the entire region, and perhaps to the world as a whole.
Question: The tour of China’s special representative Li Hui, who is to visit Ukraine, Russia and the EU countries, has been announced. What tools do you think China has to influence the conflict in Ukraine and what does Moscow expect from this visit?
Maria Zakharova: China’s Special Representative for Eurasian Affairs Li Hui arrives in Russia on Sunday. He is scheduled to meet with Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Galuzin on the same day. I think we should wait for these talks. We will certainly comment on their results.
Question: My question is regarding the late opposition figure Alexey Navalny. On February 16, Iceland Foreign Minister Bjarni Benediktsson stated in Munich that Vladimir Putin and the “Vladimir Putin regime” are directly responsible for Alexey Navalny’s death. How does the Russian government respond to these statements? The Western press has accused Vladimir Putin of this. Is Russia afraid of new sanctions similar to the Magnitsky Act being introduced? What was the timing of Alexey Navalny’s death? Who benefited from it?
Maria Zakharova: The last question is for Russian law enforcement.
As for the West’s efforts to uphold human rights in other countries, if Western regimes paid as much time and attention to their own internal problems with human rights, they would have had democracy a long time ago.
As for sanctions, the West does not need excuses. They used to look for them in the past. Today, they no longer need them to adopt sanctions. They just need “numbers”: 13th package, sanction number 12,000, 150-millionth restriction. Previously, paragraphs were needed, but now only numbers are used to indicate the numbers of these decisions on sanctions.
Question: Hungary approved Sweden’s joining NATO. Sweden is about to become the second country after Finland to expand the North Atlantic Alliance. At the same time, President of Russia Vladimir Putin signed an executive order re-establishing the Moscow and Leningrad military districts. How does Russia assess the current geopolitical situation considering these circumstances? Has the possibility of a political, diplomatic settlement of the Ukraine crisis become more or less likely?
Maria Zakharova: We just talked about Sweden and NATO in various contexts. I will say it again. Sweden and Finland joining NATO only aggravates the already complex, and perhaps even critical, geopolitical situation in the world. As we can see, any expansion of the alliance, be it to the east or to the north, is not a stabilising factor. On the contrary, all this is resulting in increasing tensions, militarisation, and escalating conflict in relations between countries that find themselves on both sides of the dividing line drawn by Washington and its allies.
Today, the collective West continues its policy of escalating tensions, stepping up its support of the Kiev regime by supplying weapons and financing it. It is taking more anti-Russia political steps, using over-the-top rhetoric and the concrete decisions reinforcing this rhetoric. The West is increasing its own defence industrial capacity and military presence near Russian borders. These measures are said to be aimed at containing Russia. Then the objective was changed to inflicting a “strategic defeat” on Russia; now they are saying it is necessary to prevent Russia from winning. There is a lot that can be said on this, but it can also be answered in short. All this will destabilise the entire world.
As for a possible political and diplomatic settlement, various steps are being taken, including by China, which we have just been discussing. But everything is blocked. London and Washington prohibited Vladimir Zelensky from having talks with Russia. Can any progress be made (for the Kiev regime) without this? If they believe that they have blocked direct talks with Russia, but will be able to drag Russia into some forums or formats where some ultimatums will be presented to our country, they are mistaken. Sergey Lavrov has regularly spoken about this. The other day, the Minister reaffirmed all this once again.
Question: Soon, China will host the main political event of the year, Two Sessions. One of the key issues on the agenda is economic development. China insists on opening up to the outside world even now as the global economy is recovering. How does the Foreign Ministry see China’s approach and its role in the development of the global economy?
Maria Zakharova: The Russian Federation sees China as one of the leaders of the global economy and our strategic partner in global development issues. In recent years, our country and China have demonstrated a joint desire and will to intensify bilateral relations in various fields. We used to talk a lot about how the economy lagged behind politics (I mean in our bilateral relations), but now everything is being harmonised.
Over the past 40 years, China has demonstrated unprecedented growth rates. Thanks to the hard work and talents of the Chinese people, it has become a developed industrial power and achieved great success in high-tech fields. It is important that this progress is based on China’s declaration of a non-confrontational approach and is not ideologised. In China’s statements and political actions, we see and hear its focus on peaceful and mutually beneficial cooperation, both with its allies and its neighbours. This principle should be embedded in relations between all countries.
We are sincerely pleased with the successes of friendly China and hope for further prosperity there. We look forward to deepening and expanding Russian-Chinese economic cooperation, which makes an important contribution to the socioeconomic development of the two countries and ensuring the stable global economy as a whole.
Question: Recently, NATO released more statements warning about the consequences of Transnistria’s becoming part of Russia. Is this a real possibility?
Maria Zakharova: If you mean the statement by NATO Deputy Secretary General Mircea Geoana dated February 26 that “if Russia decides to annex Transnistria, the alliance will condemn this action and continue to support the Republic of Moldova,” as we see it, this is a nervous reaction to the 7th Congress of people’s deputies of all levels taking place today (February 28) in Tiraspol. For a few days now, Chisinau has been speculating and guessing as to what resolutions this forum might pass. NATO is probably wringing its hands over this as well.
As for support, in fact, the militarisation of Moldova by NATO, despite its neutral status, there is nothing new here. The bloc is stubbornly trying to mold a “second Ukraine” out of the republic, contrary to the attitudes of the majority of the Moldovan people, and the bloc seems to be ignoring the possible consequences for the country and the region as a whole.
Question: Alexander Lukashenko said Belarus will never support merging with Russia because they are much stronger as two independent states. What is Russia’s position on this issue?
Maria Zakharova: Our position boils down to our existence in the Union State. We are pursuing objectives in the planned integration processes in line with a collectively drafted legal foundation. The latter’s goal is to implement the interests of two countries and peoples. We are living in this kind of space and are striving to enhance and develop integration. There may be no doubts about this.
Question: There was no funding for the state programme of support for the Russian language abroad in 2023. Has this problem been resolved today?
Maria Zakharova: Let me check on this.
Question: In his conversation with Tucker Carlson, President of Russia Vladimir Putin said that the collapse of the Soviet Union is how the previous leaders put it. But their opinion is not a fact. Is there a legal document with a number and date on the secession of the republics from the USSR in accordance with Law No. 1409-I of April 3, 1990? If there was no legal secession, then on what foundation are the US and its satellites supplying arms to the territory of Ukraine? What is the position of the Russian Foreign Ministry on this issue?
Maria Zakharova: We have repeatedly answered this question to your agency and other publications. You can request this information from the state archives. We have already expressed our position.
If you are asking us, we have already given you the answer. If you disagree with it, you can ask other experts or request information from several departments at once. I will hardly tell you anything new on this account because I am voicing the official position of the ministry. As a person interested in history, I can tell you whatever I want but this would not reflect the position of the Ministry. As for the Ministry’s opinion, I have already expressed it.
Question: US specialists are conducting medical experiments on people on the occupied territories of Ukraine. They remove human organs from bodies of both military and civilians. They are doing this cruelly, without using anesthesia or painkillers when people are conscious. The scale of US activities in this area is impressive, considering that hundreds of thousands of unaccounted for illegal refugees move to the US and the EU where they are easily used as suppliers of organs or free labour. There is no need to kidnap people by force, as was done before. It is enough to stage a coup d’etat, destroy and bomb their state and lure them with generous refugee allowances. They volunteer to come, crossing borders, undergoing tests and waiting for their lot. Can Russia stop it and what mechanisms does it have for this purpose?
Maria Zakharova: You are seeing what is happening. We are conducting the special military operation because all the facts you mentioned started coming to light, that this was happening in the direct vicinity of our country to the population, which said many years ago that it was being exterminated precisely because of its ethnic and cultural origin. All this (all actions mentioned by you) was being done to destabilise this region and our country. Moreover, this destabilisation was given a much more serious military-political and geopolitical dimension by the weapons flooding the country in parallel with the monstrous facts that you cited and that have become known.
The special military operation was launched in response to these activities. Russia explained its arguments and goals. Here’s one of the answers for you.
Before this, and in parallel with this we were upholding international law as the only insurance against the world’s sinking into some bottomless hole of impunity for the crimes you mentioned.
We are not involved in improving life inside the United States or any other sovereign countries. We devote all our efforts to pursuing our own domestic and foreign policy and creating security for our country and people. We are bringing the following theses into the world via our foreign policy and by our international efforts – preservation of international law; multipolarity as an efficient mechanism of countering monopoly or unipolar world or global dictate of one power centre; respect for the principles of the UN Charter and their implementation in the daily life of international relations. These are not just several principles but specific areas in which our country is working in the international arena. We continue doing this today.
I think this also applies to the adoption of a number of doctrinal documents by our country. They are perceived in the world as additional insurance for preserving civilisation values, cultural and historical achievements and historical facts. We have announced this. This is also our reply to global destabilisation and the destructive policy of chaos that you mentioned in the beginning of your question.
Question: What are the United States and its allies doing globally in the occupied Ukrainian territories is nothing less than Nazism or fascism. President of Russia Vladimir Putin said in one of his interviews that anti-fascist propaganda should also be launched at the global level, if by public organisations rather than the state. How can this be done? How will the Foreign Ministry assist these international initiatives? What civic or NGO initiatives are particularly needed today?
Maria Zakharova: Please keep in mind that we represent the executive authority. In this country, public initiatives fall within the purview of civil society and its institutions.
We have the Civic Chamber of the Russian Federation. You can take a look at the activities of each of its members: what initiatives they introduce, what events they sponsor, what books they publish, and so on.
Let me give you an example related to Russia’s foreign policy and the situation in Ukraine. I am referring to Mr Maxim Grigoriev, Chairman of the Foundation for the Study of Democracy and his fundamental research on neo-Nazism in Ukraine:
Ordinary Fascism. Military Crimes by the Ukrainian Armed Forces (2014-2016) [Обыкновенный фашизм: военные преступления украинских силовиков (2014-2016)];
Ordinary Fascism. Ukraine’s Military Crimes and Human Rights Violations (2017-2020) [Обыкновенный фашизм. Украинские военные преступления и нарушения прав человека (2017—2020)];
Ordinary Fascism. Ukraine’s Military Crimes against Humanity (2022-2023) [Обыкновенный фашизм. Украинские военные преступления против человечества. (2022–2023)];
The Black Book. Atrocities by the modern Banderites – the Ukrainian neo-Nazis in 2014 – 2023 [Черная книга. Зверства современных бандеровцев - украинских неонацистов. (2014-2023)].
I am speaking about public initiatives of this kind. It’s just an example. There are many such initiatives. This is one of them.
Question: Russia held a number of forums and events. The most important of these was the 80th anniversary of the siege of Leningrad. There were also the Valdai Forum, the United Russia Forum, and the Multipolarity Forum. We noticed that they were not attended by the media accredited in Russia. Is it just a coincidence or something related to the upcoming Russian presidential elections?
Maria Zakharova: I’ll inquire. I have no information on this point, either. What I know is that the accreditation for many forums is open and in no way segregated.
There were, indeed, forums in 2023, such as the SPIEF, where it was announced that a number of correspondents from unfriendly countries had not been invited. But, as far as I know, SPIEF was unique in this regard. Perhaps there were others, but I know nothing about them.
OK, I will ask organisers of the forums we have mentioned whether they invited foreign correspondents accredited in Russia. Personally, I attended the Multipolarity Forum on February 26 and the International Congress of Russophiles on February 27. I saw some foreign correspondents there. Perhaps there were more of them. But it’s none of our business. They are public organisations and invite journalists on their own.
If you are saying this because you would like to go but they don’t invite you, then let us remind our political science venues, public organisations, or government-sponsored global forums that there are respected foreign correspondents accredited in Russia. I didn’t think you suffered from a lack of attention. I will ask for more information and reach out to you personally.
We issue announcements and alert foreign correspondents, including those accredited in Russia, virtually on the daily basis. We post the accreditation forms. For example, the World Youth Festival will kick off in a few days. It will be attended by many journalists accredited in Russia. We also helped the Forum because the organisers asked us to.
Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova’s offsite briefing on March 6, 2024
The next briefing is to take place in Sochi on the sidelines of the World Youth Festival. You are all invited. You will have an opportunity to ask questions both online and face-to-face, if you are accredited and present there.
As a reminder: March 6, Wednesday, 11am, on the sidelines of the World Youth Festival, Sirius Federal Territory. We will you see there.
