Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, February 4, 2022

Yesterday we published detailed information on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s talks with his Chinese counterpart, Wang Yi, held in China. It is available on the Ministry’s website.

It was pointed out that the talks took place during the Lunar New Year, one of the most important festivals among Chinese traditions and culture.

We have a tradition too. It is to send our best wishes to our Chinese friends in the Chinese language. I would like to honour this tradition now.

祝贺兄弟的中国人民春节到来.

我想祝愿中国朋友们: 春节愉快、恭喜发财、万事如意.

我衷心祝愿北京2022 年冬季奥运会成功、加油.

Here is an unofficial translation into English:

I would like to wish the friendly Chinese people a happy New Year according to their traditional calendar. May you have a happy holiday, well-being and prosperity, and may all your wishes come true.

I would like to wish success to the 2022 Winter Olympic Games in Beijing. All the best!

We have received many questions and requests regarding this issue. I believe I have answered them.

Sergey Lavrov’s upcoming meeting with the ambassadors of China, South Korea, North Korea, Mongolia, Vietnam and Singapore

We recently announced a reception to be held on behalf of Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on January 31 for the ambassadors of the countries that celebrate the Lunar New Year, their traditional festival, which I just mentioned. The event has been postponed until February 8. It will be attended by the ambassadors of China, the Republic of Korea, the People’s Democratic Republic of Korea, Mongolia, Vietnam and Singapore.

These receptions hosted by the ministry’s senior officials with the representatives of the above countries have become a good tradition that helps us strengthen friendly ties and mutual understanding with the regional countries. This year the event will be attended by Sergey Lavrov.

Sergey Lavrov’s upcoming meeting with CSTO MPs and diplomats

On February 9, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will meet with the chairs and members of the CSTO countries’ parliamentary committees/commissions on international affairs, deputy foreign ministers and ambassadors of the CSTO member states to Russia.

They will discuss the intensification of CSTO activities, including the parliamentary component, and current international and regional matters.

Conference of the Valdai Club with the support of the Russian Foreign Ministry “Collective Security in a New Era: Experience and Prospects of the CSTO”

On February 9, the Valdai International Discussion Club will hold a conference, with support from the Russian Foreign Ministry, titled Collective Security in a New Era: Experience and Prospects of the CSTO. It will be attended by the CSTO Secretary General, deputy foreign ministers of the CSTO member states, and leading political analysts and experts on international security. The conference is part of a series of events dedicated to the 30th anniversary of the Collective Security Treaty and the 20th anniversary of the CSTO, which will be marked in 2022.

The conference will be streamed live on the Foreign Ministry’s social accounts and the Valdai Club’s online platforms.

Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova

Diplomatic Workers’ Day

Our country marks a professional day – Diplomatic Workers’ Day – on February 10. It was established by executive order of the President of the Russian Federation of October 31, 2002. This year, we will celebrate its 20th anniversary, a milestone anniversary. The date of the holiday goes back to the earliest documented mention (February 10, 1549) of the Ambassadorial Prikaz, which is the first state body in our country’s history that oversaw foreign affairs.

As is customary, we plan to hold a number of events to mark this date. Unfortunately, due to pandemic restrictions, they will be held mostly online or in a hybrid format. We will focus on the information part of it.

On February 10, wreaths will be laid at memorial plaques in the Foreign Ministry building with the names of our colleagues who fell on the fronts of the Great Patriotic War and in peacetime in the line of duty, as well as at the graves of prominent Soviet and Russian diplomats buried at Novodevichy Cemetery. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and ministry officials will also lay flowers at the monument to Yevgeny Primakov.

The Foreign Ministry’s Department of History and Records has a display dedicated to Russian diplomacy’s history in the lobby of the Foreign Ministry’s central building. The materials will be available online as well.

The ministry and foreign missions will post online materials on the Russian diplomatic service’s history to mark Diplomatic Workers’ Day. In the run-up to our professional holiday and as part of the #Memory of Diplomats campaign, we pay tribute to our deceased colleagues, carefully preserve our memory of them, and recall the glorious chapters of Russian diplomacy and its outstanding figures. We will be posting a variety of materials, so follow our hashtags.

Of course, we are expecting Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to deliver a traditional congratulatory message to the ministry staff.

Diplomatic Courier Remembrance Day

Diplomatic Courier Remembrance Day to commemorate couriers who lost their lives in the line of duty is marked on February 5.

This date was not chosen at random. On that day, one of the first diplomatic couriers in the Soviet Russia Theodor Nette accomplished his feat. On February 5, 1926, together with Iohann Mahmastal, Theodor Nette was on an international express train headed for Riga. The couriers were attacked by armed men. Nette was killed by a headshot after fatally shooting the first attacker, and the seriously wounded Mahmastal managed to secure the diplomatic mail. Theodor Nette was buried at the Vagankovo Cemetery in Moscow on February 9, 1926.

To commemorate the lives of the employees lost during the Great Patriotic War, the names of diplomatic couriers who performed their duty at the cost of their own lives are listed on a memorial plaque in the high-rise section of the Foreign Ministry building.

In today’s challenging circumstances, despite the introduction of radio and space communications, the internet and other technological achievements, diplomatic courier service remains one of the most reliable ways of communication. The success of this service largely depends on the selection of personnel and the human factor, which we hear and talk about so often. Diplomatic courier is an unusual job, vocation and career. It requires enormous responsibility for the safety and inviolability of entrusted state materials, documents, and secrets, and involves many risks.

Even today, many diplomatic couriers have to deal with adversity, including emergencies and armed conflicts. On top of that, the pandemic has taken its toll on diplomatic courier work, and I think more than one book will be written about this.

State and departmental awards are presented to diplomatic couriers for their courage and good decision-making, as well as for the safety of diplomatic mail.

This year, this day is marred by a tragic event. On January 28, Director of the Foreign Ministry’s Department of Diplomatic Courier Service Sergey Lukyanchuk unexpectedly passed away.

Mr Lukyanchuk devoted almost 30 years of his life to working at the ministry. He held various positions, both in the central office and abroad. In July 2018, he became head of the Department of Diplomatic Courier Service.

He was a true professional and a great person. His death came as a shock to us. Tomorrow, as we remember the names of our colleagues, we will once again commemorate his memory. He will forever remain in our hearts. We all knew him as a gracious and soulful person, a highly professional leader and an experienced and knowledgeable, dedicated and insightful diplomat who truly served his country.

Update on Ukraine

This week, we once again witnessed the continuing information and political campaign by the West to spin the myth of the Russian threat. It is alleged that our country is about to attack, that it has specific plans to do so, etc. All this nonsense is written by our foreign, Western partners that you read yourselves. This is a story about an alleged Russian threat to Ukraine and the escalation of international tensions. All of this runs contrary to the real situation and to the common sense that would prompt the need to put an end to this Western, primarily Anglo-Saxon, hysteria and to normalise the situation as soon as possible.

Any available means are used for this purpose. On February 2, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson published a video on the government’s official social media page where he personally tells viewers about Russian troops near the border of Ukraine, intimidating viewers with an alleged very real prospect of an imminent Russian invasion. Mr Johnson, Jennifer Psaki said she dropped the use of the word “imminent” in this context. Maybe you should follow suit for a few days and then the situation will improve by itself? When one stops using words like this, everything becomes quieter and calmer. Stop scaring everyone, stop spreading false news and threats. The video is telltale. He is threatening to impose new sanctions on Russia. An alarming soundtrack behind his words; inflammatory propaganda; disturbing music in the background of Mr Johnson’s words completely drowns the voice of the Kiev regime who has, in fact, already expressed the opposite to what the Anglo-Saxons are trying to scare us with.

The Ukrainian authorities have suddenly realised that the West is using their country for its own political interests and are now trying to backpedal. Ukraine’s Secretary of National Security and Defence, Alexey Danilov, said recently that he did not see any evidence for the assertions by some from the West of an impending Russian “invasion.” Ukraine’s Defence Minister Alexey Reznikov and Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba have expressed similar views.

As for statements by the US and British press services, they are already becoming a laughing stock in both Russia and the rest of the world. It is impossible to take these mythical clichés and phobias seriously.

We need to display an honest approach to reality rather than a world of fantasy invented by Anglo-Saxon politicians. Neither Washington nor London hear Kiev’s pleas “to back off.” They have their own “goals” and political crises. They urgently need an opportunity to go to a virtual war. This is how they distract their own people from domestic political problems. The United States and other NATO countries continue to supply Ukraine with new consignments of military aid (as they call it), thereby further complicating the search for a peaceful settlement to the conflict in Donbass. All this is playing into the hands of the Ukrainian party of war, those who continue calling for murder, expelling objectionable people, and doing away with the disobedient.

The shelling of Donbass continues. This is a violation of the ceasefire that has been in place since July 2020, as well as the appeal by the Normandy Four in Paris on January 26 of this year to strictly observe it. The number of violations in this region has already exceeded 3,000 since the beginning of this year.

We urge the NATO countries to immediately stop their efforts to fan the hysteria around the internal conflict in Ukraine and stop their military support and assistance for Kiev as one of the conflicting parties in eastern Ukraine.

We hope the Ukrainian authorities will stop dancing to the tune of their NATO mentors because this is a road to disaster. Kiev must show independence and start a full-fledged dialogue with Donetsk and Lugansk with a view to finding a peaceful settlement to the conflict as soon as possible, as is envisaged in the Package of Measures for the Implementation of the Minsk Agreements approved by UN Security Council Resolution 2202.

Britain’s interference in the affairs of other states

On January 22 of this year, the British Foreign Office and Foreign Secretary Elizabeth Truss made bold statements:

“We have information that indicates the Russian Government is looking to install a pro-Russian leader in Kyiv …”

“We have information that the Russian intelligence services maintain links with numerous former Ukrainian politicians…”

The Foreign Office did not cite any evidence to justify its groundless statements. They simply say “We have information” and then use their favourite phrase “highly likely.”

Of course, these fakes were debunked in just a couple of hours but they were still able to fan anti-Russia hysteria. We disavowed all of them. Everything is on our website.

Against this backdrop, we would like to draw your attention to the tactic used by our colleagues from foggy Albion when they are caught red handed. We don’t simply tell them that “we have information” but rather present to the public authentic documents proving that the Foreign Office, British embassies and other official structures are conducting hostile activities against states.

During the entire year of 2021, starting from February, there was an avalanche of leaks out of London, compared to which the high profile case of the 2018 Integrity Initiative looks like a child’s play. At that time, the hacker group Anonymous published internal documents of the project that the British Institute for Statecraft launched in 2015. They mapped out a series of measures to counter Russian propaganda and the hybrid war that Russia was allegedly waging. Our British partners were creating clusters of opinion leaders that were supposed to support the anti-Russia discourse, including on social media. The entire effort was conducted via secret contacts at UK embassies. The goal was to create a global network for information influence and political interference in the affairs of other states. It was reported that Integrity Initiative cells were successfully operating in Germany, France, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands and Greece, to name a few.

At that time, replying to a parliamentary inquiry, the then deputy to Foreign Secretary Alan Duncan had to admit that since 2017 his office allocated over 2.2 million pounds sterling in the form of grants for the activities of the aforementioned institute and the Integrity Initiative. The Foreign Office said that it was not going to display transparency and present official information on the project to Russia or other interested parties. It was argued that this information could ostensibly be used to undermine the programme.

So, what has changed since 2018? Judging by everything, the UK Foreign Office has increased secret funding of similar programmes and no longer comments on the leaks that testify to their existence. Apparently, the Foreign Office has found a way to prevent new parliamentary inquiries.

And now I will mention the facts that London is trying hard to prevent from reaching Western media. What if faithful British taxpayers find out how their quid are spent?

In February 2021, the same Anonymous group published an archive of documents of the British Foreign Office on a new project – Undermining Russia. The name speaks for itself. All masks are off! For the first time in centuries, we saw what stood behind them. We commented in detail on this news a year ago and asked our colleagues for explanations. But they did not explain anything. Numerous inquiries by the media also went unanswered. Apparently, the Foreign Office continues quietly funding formally independent Russian-language news publications in Russia and other post-Soviet states, and is establishing a secret network of influential bloggers on Russian-language social media. The goal is to create the conditions for regime change in Russia and to undermine Russian influence in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. As the published megabytes testify, many authoritative London-based media outlets, for instance, the BBC Media Action and Thomson Reuters Foundation are involved. When we mentioned this for the first time, the BBC replied with indignation that this was not news-related but different media. They prefer to play down the fact that this is the same corporation. Obviously, they realise that they have a number of respectable employees but some others are engaged in such unseemly activities. It is time to call things by their proper names. This may be a unit but it is still a part of the BBC.

Why do we mention them? Probably, because British Foreign Secretary Elizabeth Truss did not rule out imposing sanctions on Russian media the other day. She also said what she thought about Russian citizens and business. But, as you know, if measures are taken against Russian journalists, we will be able to respond. We have been taught how. Previously, we never did anything like this. We created the conditions to support the work of foreign correspondents in Russia, showed our will to cooperate. We were open and strictly followed the spirit and letter of the law, and honoured all international commitments. If this happens and sanctions are adopted against Russia media, don’t be angry. We will be entirely justified in responding in a targeted way. We are just informing you.

On October 3, 2021, Russian-language Telegram channels published a financial plan of the government organisation Global Britain Fund. London officials refused to comment on the leak but one of the grant recipients, Dmitry Aleshkovsky, the founder of the Takiye Dela fund, confirmed in absentia the authenticity of these documents. These documents mention a request for a sum equal to 1.64 billion roubles for the funding of Russian NGOs. This is a flagrant violation of the 1961 Vienna Convention because the funds for promoting British interests went through the British Embassy.

On December 8, 2021, Anonymous published documents of ARK, a subcontractor of the British government’s Conflict, Stability and Security Fund (CSSF). Its annual budget exceeds 1.1 billion pounds sterling while its goals are set by the National Security Council that includes senior officials of the UK intelligence community. Under the Aurelius project, the employees of an information warfare special unit were supposed to refute Russia’s official data on the activities of its Aerospace Forces in Syria and spread this disinformation via Rusian-language opposition media and social networks.

In December 2021, the Underside investigative website published applications for 56 grants of the British Foreign Office, worth a total of 1.3 billion rubles, which were filed by Russian NGOs from 44 regions. This information was accompanied by a detailed analysis showing Britain’s undisguised interference in our domestic affairs.

As our British colleagues probably understand, we will not drop this issue. Our response will be proportionate to the statements of the Foreign Office. The more absurd and fake the allegations they hurl at us, the more we will do to refute them with fact-based counterarguments. We do have them at our disposal. We will continue demanding explanations and an end to the nefarious tactics British diplomatic missions use to carry out unrelated tasks. We will also draw public attention to Britain’s neocolonial conduct. The Russian and international public should know who their “heroes” are.

Situation concerning RT channel broadcasting in France

On February 3 it was reported that the French audiovisual and digital regulator Arcom launched an investigation into RT France citing allegations from some unnamed “associations.”

The media regulator has not revealed the essence of the allegations. A request from the TV channel’s editor-in-chief still remains unanswered. Meanwhile, for some reason some local media outlets were informed about the details of the case. Their publications show that the reason for the investigation was some “flaws” in the broadcaster’s reports on the yellow vests protests. I realise that the pandemic has dealt a severe blow to France and slowed down many processes there, yet it can’t be that slow. When were the protests and the reports on them? Why did they recall them just now? Why was it synchronised with Germany’s persecution of RT DE and UK’s Foreign Office’s statement about possible sanctions against Russian media, as well as with the complaints regarding the coverage of the events in Syria and the Central African Republic. That’s a powerful story.

I would very much like to think that this is a misunderstanding which will be cleared up soon, but this is hard to believe. We do not believe; we hope. Especially, in view of the way RT France correspondents have been treated by the French officialdom for a number of years. We raised this issue with our French colleagues. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has repeatedly spoken about it in public, and we sent information via diplomatic channels. Obviously, a different school of thought has gained the upper hand in Paris.

Although analogies are premature, it is hard to view the attack on the RT’s French office separately from the developments around their colleagues in Germany, Foreign Office’s unambiguous statements and the “reports” that were posted just over a week ago on the website of the US Department of State. Four countries – the US, Germany, France and the UK, have declared a real war on the Russian RT channel. Or are these random events just happen to coincide in time? It is a pre-planned campaign. What is its objective? To promote their own Anglo-Saxon agenda in the information space and stop the spread of counter-arguments, objective materials and positions of other parties.

What Berlin is doing defies the understanding of what freedom of expression is. It is a blend of propaganda and violation of democratic principles. That step was a signal that triggered a series of responses on our part.

The situation around RT offices in France, Germany and a number of other countries that consider themselves to be paragon democracies leads to the conclusion that it is either a coordinated assault on the Russian broadcaster or at least identical instances of selective defence of the freedom of the media and plurality of opinions, which is a well-rooted practice there.

In view of unanimous silence from respective human rights bodies of international organisations about such pressure, it will regrettably build up and take even more aggressive forms, as practice shows. Such an approach runs contrary to international obligations of these countries, discredits their proclaimed commitment to the high ideals of democracy and devalues all their attempts to show leadership in this area.

We expect an impartial, fair and transparent review of this case and call on Paris to take appropriate measures to ensure normal conditions for the operation of RT France.

ICAO report on fact finding investigation into the May 23, 2021 event involving Ryanair flight FR4978 in Belarus airspace

On January 31, 2022, participants in the 225th session of the Council of the International Civil Aviation Organisation discussed the ICAO team’s final fact-finding report submitted by the ICAO Secretary General in connection with the May 23, 2021 incident involving Ryanair flight FR4978 in Belarus airspace.

The report contains information about the Group’s work, data obtained by its members and their findings. Contrary to widespread statements by Western experts and politicians, the Group’s members reached the only possible conclusion and noted that a Belarusian Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-29 Fulcrum fighter did not escort or intercept flight FR4978. The report notes that the airliner’s crew made an independent decision to land in Minsk. Everything is in accord with statements by the Russian party, official Minsk and the facts presented.

However, evil does not give up. Predictably, the Group’s findings did not suit the Western countries concerned. Quite possibly, the explanation for this is that there was an intention to use the report to justify the unwarranted restrictive measures that they imposed on the Belarusian aviation sector. As a result, the final report can hardly be called final. Taking advantage of their majority status in the ICAO Council, these countries suggest that the Group’s members continue the investigation, and that look for other evidence of Minsk’s “guilt.” It appears that ICAO specialists are being instructed to learn from their mistakes and “provide the correct results.”

This reminds one of elections in Venezuela. These elections will be called legitimate as soon as the result obtained is in line with the expectations of the West, in particular, the United States. Although dozens of elections have been held in Venezuela, their results are not in accord with Washington’s directives. The United States will therefore consider them illegitimate and will insist that new elections be organised. These are already historical facts. No matter how hard they try, all this will be included in articles, research papers, books and websites. Future generations of US politicians, primarily Anglo-Saxon politicians, will be inevitably shamed. Let’s recall those persons who are providing the required “backing vocals.” Colin Powell, an outstanding US diplomat, politician and former secretary of state, went down in history as a tragic figure and a victim of American lies and propaganda. All right, you may continue to write this history. What will happen to people who have been victimised by Anglo-Saxon diplomacy en masse?

One of the Group’s tasks was to expose any discrepancies in order to ensure flight safety. For example, the report implies that some European countries received warnings about a bomb threat in 24 hours or even later. However, instead of acting to rectify the situation, Western members of the ICAO Council merely want to criticise Minsk.

Once again, we are convinced that a number of countries are unceremoniously taking advantage of the Belarusian party’s actions in connection with reports about a flight safety threat to achieve their own selfish political goals. It would be interesting to see the Western states’ response to an investigation dealing with other similar aviation situations. They include a decision to land the aircraft of the President of Bolivia in Vienna in 2013, the landing of a Belarusian Belavia plane or the emergency landing of another Ryanair flight in Berlin in May 2021. At that time, the plane was flying from Dublin to Krakow, and its crew received reports that there was an explosive device onboard. Is there a desire to conduct an investigation? How many times will the Group’s members have to report and rewrite specific findings?

International civil aviation and ICAO should not become a tool of political pressure or a means of fighting undesirable governments. Hopefully, the organisation and its experts will continue to act along precisely these lines.

Russia’s assistance to facilitate cost-effective navigation via inland European waterways

Members of the Executive Committee of the UN Economic Commission for Europe have approved a technical assistance project calling for a comparative analysis of technical regulations on inland European waterways and aiming to boost the efficiency and safety of inland water transport in the Commission’s region. Funding for the project will come from Russia’s voluntary donation to the UN Economic Commission for Europe.

The project, with a budget totalling $242,300, will be implemented from March 2022 to February 2024. Its main goal is to provide technical assistance in integrating inland European waterways.

The project aims to draft a standardised approach and regulatory legislation for the mutual recognition of ship and navigation documents. Recommendations for eliminating barriers that hamper freedom of navigation will also be drafted under the project.

Russia attaches great significance to the project implementation activities of the UN Economic Commission for Europe and will continue to use the Commission’s tools to support the countries concerned in accordance with the priorities of the Russian Federation’s state policy in the sphere of facilitating international development.

Moscow recognised as world’s best metropolis

I want to sincerely congratulate our country and its capital city. One of the UN bodies engaged in habitat rating of world cities recognised Moscow as the world’s best metropolis in terms of infrastructure development and the quality of life.

This is an unbiased evaluation. There are some cities to compare with. The way Moscow is developing is amazing. My congratulations once more!

Delivery of Sputnik Light vaccine to Turkmenistan

Russia and Turkmenistan continue their active cooperation in combatting dangerous infectious diseases under the challenging conditions of the global pandemic. Another shipment of the Russian Covid-19 Sputnik Light vaccine in the amount of 800,000 doses, of which 300,000 are free of charge, has been delivered to Turkmenistan on January 29.

Russia reaffirms its readiness to continue expanding interaction with all its partners in the spirit of friendship and mutual assistance.

Anniversary of the Battle of Stalingrad

The Battle of Stalingrad ended on February 2, 1943, with the victory of the Red Army.

The battle lasted 200 days, from July 17, 1942, to February 2, 1943, on an area of over 100,000 square kilometres. It involved two million people on both sides, up to 2,000 tanks, some 2,000 warplanes and 26,000 artillery guns and mine-throwers. It was the largest battle in history in terms of targets, scale and intensity.

The battle itself consisted of two stages: a strategic defensive operation (July 17-November 18, 1942) and a strategic offensive operation (November 19, 1942–February 2, 1943).

During the defensive operation, which was fierce and bloody, the Red Army managed to foil the enemy’s plans to seize Stalingrad in one quick battle.

Soviet soldiers fought valiantly for every lane, house and metre of land. The defenders of Pavlov’s House, whose heroism went down in history, held the building for 58 days, refusing to retreat a single step despite heavy air raids and artillery and mortar fire. Marshal Vasily Chuikov, then commander of the 62nd Army, wrote in his memoirs: “The small group that defended that house killed more enemy soldiers than the Nazis lost during the capture of Paris.”

For the Germans, Stalingrad was a windmill that ground down hundreds of thousands of German men and officers and destroyed military equipment, including tanks and aircraft.

In their letters back home, German soldiers wrote about the fighting graphically and realistically: “Stalingrad is hell on earth. It’s another Verdun, the Red Verdun fought with new weapons. We launch attacks every day. If we manage to take 20 metres of land in the morning, the Russians take them back in the evening.” A German corporal wrote to his mother: “You will have to wait long for the breaking news announcing that Stalingrad is ours. The Russians refuse to give up, fighting to the last man.”

The Red Army launched a counteroffensive on November 19, 1942. The operation involved the troops of the South-Western, Don and Stalingrad fronts commanded by Nikolay Vatutin, Konstantin Rokossovsky and Andrey Yeremenko, with support from the Volga Flotilla. They attacked the enemy on two flanks, moving inexorably towards each other, until they met on November 23, 1942, to complete the encirclement of the enemy group that comprised 330,000 military personnel. It was the largest number of German troops encircled during WWII.

The highest pint of the counteroffensive was Operation Ring, during which the army of Field Marshal Friedrich Paulus was completed routed. By the end of January, the German group of forces was surrounded on a relatively small area in the ruins of Stalingrad. Its defeat was completed on February 2, 1943. Field Marshal Paulus, 24 German generals and 2,500 officers with the remaining troops (some 91,000 in general) were taken prisoner.

The Battle of Stalingrad ended in a glorious victory for the Red Army. It changed not only the course of the Great Patriotic War (19141-1945) but of WWII as a whole. The enemy’s casualties were estimated in some 1.5 million dead, wounded and missing or 25 percent of the forces on the Soviet-German Front. A national mourning was declared in Germany for the first time in WWII. The casualties of the Red Army exceeded one million, including some 480,000 dead. The Wehrmacht suffered a crushing defeat in the Battle of Stalingrad due to the Red Army’s uncompromising will to win.

On December 22, 1942, the Soviet Government established the Medal for the Defence of Stalingrad to commemorate the heroic battle. It has been awarded to over 700,000 of those who fought in Stalingrad, and 112 of those who distinguished themselves in the battle have been awarded the Order of Hero of the Soviet Union.

The Battle of Stalingrad State Historical Memorial Museum has been established to commemorate the event (I have been there and invite everyone to visit it. It’s a must see). It includes the world-famous Mamayev Kurgan. It is one of the strongest impressions in my life. I first visited it several years ago. I was speechless. It is magnificent, and just imagine that it was created in the post-war period, when the immediate task was to rebuild the country. And it has been made so elegantly, creating images that have become part of the global history of art. The complex includes the Battle of Stalingrad Panorama Museum with Europe’s largest panorama, the Memory Museum located in the place where the Soviet army seized the headquarters of the 6th Army and its commander, Field Marshal Paulus. Overall, the museum comprises over 200 historical sites.

In accordance with Federal Law No 32-FZ On the Days of Military Glory and Memorable Dates of Russia, adopted on March 13, 1995, February 2, the day when the Red Army routed Nazi forces in the Battle of Stalingrad in 1943, is marked as a Day of Military Glory.

The anniversary of the Yalta Conference

February 4, 1945, marked the beginning of the Yalta (Crimea) Conference of the leaders of the USSR, USA, and Great Britain. The second meeting of the leaders of the three allied powers – Joseph Stalin, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Winston Churchill – took place in the Livadia Palace near Yalta from February 4 to 11.

By the start of the conference, World War II was at its final stage, primarily as a result of the USSR’s successful offensive operations. The Red Army had fully liberated the territory of the USSR as well as most of Poland and Czechoslovakia from Hitler’s forces and made a considerable advance in the Warsaw-Berlin sector. The long-awaited opening of the Second Front in Europe – the disembarkation of the allied forces in Northern France in June 1944 – made a contribution of its own to the fight against the German aggression.

The range of military and political issues on the conference agenda was quite broad. The participants analysed in detail the situation on the fronts and outlined prospects for military operations designed to inflict a final defeat on Germany. The powers of the anti-Hitler coalition declared that it was their “inflexible purpose to destroy German militarism and Nazism and to ensure that Germany will never again be able to disturb the peace of the world.”

Adopted largely due to the Soviet diplomatic efforts, the Yalta decisions precipitated the end of WWII and had a great influence on the postwar world order. The leaders coordinated the procedure for enforcing Germany’s unconditional surrender, an early termination of the war in the Far East, the creation of a permanent mechanism for consultations between the three powers’ foreign ministers in the form of regular meetings, etc.

They also focused on the postwar establishment of a universal international organisation to maintain peace and security, the future UN. To draft its charter, it was decided to convene a special conference in San Francisco. The three leaders decided that the Organisation’s activities should be based on the principle of consensus among the permanent members of the Security Council as they dealt with the cardinal matters of ensuring peace.

The heads of the leading powers of the anti-Hitler coalition stressed in the conference communiqué: “Our meeting here in the Crimea has reaffirmed our common determination to maintain and strengthen in the peace to come that unity of purpose and of action which has made victory possible and certain for the United Nations in this war.” These are important words. It would be good if Washington and London kept this in mind today. It was noted that “Only with the continuing and growing co-operation and understanding among our three countries and among all the peace-loving nations can the highest aspiration of humanity be realised-a secure and lasting peace.” I would like to remind you that this was said, when the three powers had different political systems and absolutely diverging views on fundamental issues related to both their own internal development and the future of the world. Despite this, the three leaders found the inner strength, the will and the capability to define the main thing – the unity of purpose in achieving peace. It was stressed that the United Nations would play an important role “both to prevent aggression and to remove the political, economic and social causes of war through the close and continuing collaboration of all peace-loving peoples.” What has changed? Have they ceased to be peace-loving, if they behave the way they do? After all, no one has officially renounced the goals.

In the context of UN discussions, the Soviet delegation got the US and Great Britain to agree that the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic become founding members of the upcoming international organisation. In Yalta, the allied powers reaffirmed their desire to see Poland a strong, free, independent and democratic country and guarantee its security. As a result of the decisions taken in Yalta and later in Potsdam, Poland acquired considerable extensions to its territory in the north and west.

The decisions of the Crimea Conference have become an inalienable part of the so-called Yalta-Potsdam system of international relations that emerged following World War II.

I would recommend to all those interested in history to acquaint themselves with the documents of the Russian Foreign Ministry Archive on the Foreign Policies and Diplomacy of the Leading Countries of the Anti-Hitler Coalition.

Answers to media questions:

Question: Russia has highlighted risks to its security that would be likely to arise if Ukraine joined NATO. Do you think the United States and other NATO countries will be able to grant Russia long-term, legally binding security guarantees? Will the sides be in a position to come to terms on not creating conditions that the other side might regard as a threat?

Maria Zakharova: Do you think I am a prophet or a person who comments on the main foreign policy aspects of our concept and work on the international arena? I think I am the latter. We are not in the business of fortune-telling, prophesying, or anything of the sort. We are doing concrete, applied work aimed at obtaining the security guarantees you have mentioned.

You know the timeline. The relevant proposals have been submitted to our US and NATO partners. They have responded and their response is being discussed and analysed. I would also like to remind you about the statements made by the President of the Russian Federation yesterday as well as the comments issued by the Russian Foreign Ministry and primarily Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. All of this is being studied and analysed in order to report our country’s position to the President. Accordingly, it is the President who will decide on our further steps.

There is, of course, international political forecasting as an element of our work. We are practicing applied diplomacy. We are doing our best to bring our partners back, first, to reality, and, second, to realising the need to fulfil their commitments. We have reminded them about their commitments, which many of them either have forgotten or were unaware of, since they are not independent players. There are also people who have not read the documents or who say that they are beginning to read them starting from a certain year, while regarding them as no longer relevant prior to or after a certain year. We have reminded them about the existing security and strategic stability obligations, which were signed by their governments. We have launched what is in many respects educational work. We have submitted our concrete, well-formulated proposals based on facts, documents, international law and diplomatic practice. We have held a number of meetings, consultations and talks. We have shown our openness regardless of the fact that current official representatives and politicians in the West indulge in absolutely mind-boggling statements. We have shown our willingness to solve all existing problems through diplomacy and in a peaceful manner. Accordingly, we are working on this.

Question: The Foreign Ministry of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic said that it was expecting a reaction from the guarantor states of the Minsk accords to the West’s arms deliveries to Kiev. How do these supplies tally with the West-declared desire to settle the Ukrainian conflict with the help of diplomacy?

Maria Zakharova: They do not tally with it at all. On the contrary, they contradict it. We have repeatedly said so, but this is not the only case in point where what our Anglo-Saxon partners and their vassal states say and do is miles apart. I would like to emphasise once again: they may say one thing but do the opposite.

We have repeatedly commented on the increase in arms supplies to Ukraine (I have just done this), and on a number of Western countries evacuating their diplomatic personnel from Kiev (I mean the situation where they first alleged that the Russian Embassy was being evacuated, then it turned out that they were evacuating their own nationals), and the endless claims about the mythical Russian threat. All of this is the artificial fomenting of tensions and an information and political attack.

I can only reiterate what Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said not so long ago. I quote: “What the West is doing in terms of “pumping” weapons into the hands of the Kiev authorities is making them increasingly tempted to go over to the strong-arm methods of solving problems in Eastern Ukraine. For us, this is absolutely unacceptable, for obvious reasons.” Let me remind you that Mr Lavrov said this at his news conference, held in this building on January 14, 2022.

I also would like to draw your attention to the fact that we have commented at different levels and made statements to the effect that these actions, both individually and in the aggregate, testify to the possibility of provocations staged by the fomenters of these tensions.

Question: The administration of the Czech President Milos Zeman destroyed by mistake the secret report about explosions at ammunition depots in Vrbetice, in the east of the country, which are suspected to have been carried out by Russian security services. It was reported by the Czech radio on January 29. Is it possible to say that this act of destruction was deliberate? Will it create opportunities for falsifications?

Maria Zakharova: We have seen the speculations in the Czech media about the destruction of the secret document in the Office of the President of the Czech Republic regarding the case of 2014 explosions at ammunition depots in that Czech village. It is for Prague to comment on this development, not us. I can say that we are unfamiliar with the details of how secret documents are processed by the Czech government. It is not our issue.

It is obvious that someone needed to plant new “facts” on the “Vrbetice case” in the public space. This is a new stage in the campaign which began with an information and political attack almost a year ago. It looks like they have nothing to report. You probably remember the statements made earlier. There was no evidence, facts, proof or leads regarding the “Russian trace” in this sad story. I think it is a trick designed to distract attention. As for the facts, I commented on what was reported in the press. We don’t know what really happened there.

We consider the accusations levelled against Russia by a number of Czech officials last spring to be absurd. The Czech side used these events as a pretext for completely destroying its relations with Russia. Currently, we are hearing some statements about the wish to bring the situation back to normal but there have been no specific steps to achieve that.

Question: The US Department of State is going to pull the families of its diplomats out of Belarus because of its apprehensions about an escalation of tensions around Ukraine. How can you comment on the motives and decision of US leaders?

Maria Zakharova: This is their diplomatic service, their citizens and employees. Undoubtedly, it is their sovereign decision. However, it is impossible to overlook that it was taken in combination with other propaganda steps. I have just spoken about it. The story of their Embassy’s evacuation has been unfolding for a month now. It started when reports appeared about the Russian Embassy evacuation from Ukraine. This was a clumsy and deliberate fake. This information was quickly proved to be a lie, but this topic needed to be kept alive. So it came to the US missions abroad. Are they going to evacuate them or not? How will they evacuate them? Let them comment on this themselves. Whether these facts are true or not, or the State Department mixed something up again, or the White House and the State Department are going to try to outrace each other with their refutations. I don’t know. But it is impossible to overlook that this is another sketch in their propaganda show or to see the interconnectedness of these information attacks and leaks. We call it a provocation.

Question: France has noted some progress in the Normandy format talks, according to French government spokesperson Gabriel Attal. The Secretary of Ukraine’s National Security and Defence Council is calling for negotiations on a new agreement. How do you see the current situation and prospects for the Normandy format?

Maria Zakharova: I would like to clarify right away that the main negotiating platform for resolving the intra-Ukrainian crisis is the Contact Group, where all parties to the conflict are represented – Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk. Unfortunately, during the meeting on January 26, its participants again had to deal with the Ukrainian side openly sabotaging the negotiation process. Their motives are easy to understand.

As for the Normandy format – a mechanism intended to give political impetus to the Contact Group’s work and help Kiev in fulfilling its obligations under the Minsk agreements – the January 26 Paris meeting at the level of political advisers to the leaders of the Normandy Four countries was not easy, but at the same time, it was frank. All the parties reaffirmed that there was no alternative to the Minsk agreements and agreed on the need to comply with the Measures to Strengthen the Ceasefire agreement of 22 July 2020. This can be considered the main outcome of the meeting.

Unfortunately, the latest statements made by the Kiev authorities, which call into question the sincerity of their intentions to resolve the crisis in Donbass by peaceful means and on the basis of the Package of Measures, underscore what was said before. Unfortunately, they seem to have given up on them.

In particular, Secretary of Ukraine’s National Security and Defence Council Alexei Danilov told the Associated Press on January 31 that it was “impossible” to implement the Minsk agreements, while Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba, in an interview with the Polish daily Rzeczpospolita, said there will be no special status, in the way Russia imagines, and no veto right. This is not Russia imagining something. This is written in the Minsk agreements, which were signed by the President of Ukraine in the presence of all the others and who also helped draw them up. It is not Russia imagining some special status. The agreement contains all the steps that need to be implemented.

So, if Paris wants to make progress in resolving the intra-Ukrainian conflict, our French and German colleagues need to make an effort with Kiev to make Ukraine fully comply with the Minsk agreements.

Question: NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg suggests that Russia resume relations and restart dialogue with NATO. Can you comment on this?

Maria Zakharova: We constantly hear: “We are for peace and friendship.” But then they start expelling our diplomats, or do whatever they can to complicate their work, or make any action impossible to realise. There is nothing new in this. This is precisely what we were talking about: deeds are at odds with statements, with declared messages, formulas and theses having nothing to do with real events. It is not the first time that we have heard their appeals for dialogue. But invariably we are given to understand behind closed doors that the contacts, talks, and dialogue should focus on the Ukrainian problem. NATO has nothing to do with this problem, but for some mysterious reason they constantly tend to incorporate it in there. We are open to dialogue as such. It should be equitable, respect the interests of both sides, and take everyone’s concerns into consideration. I mean our identical and equal approach to everyone. This thesis has not been devised especially for NATO. We approach other structures and organisations from the same position. Probably this is not our know-how. It is contained in international legal agreements, primarily the UN Charter. We have regularly put forward initiatives to discuss real issues in the area of military restraint, transparency, prevention of unintentional military incidents, a moratorium on the deployment of short- or intermediate-range missiles. But we have no intention of debating all this [Ukrainian] mythology. I mean the matters that have much to do with both NATO’s agenda and threats that actually exist, many of which have failed to materialise only by a happy coincidence. All of this has been disregarded for years. So much for Mr Stoltenberg’s suggestions. NATO has clearly indicated that its priority today is to contain Russia in all areas and along all vectors. This position is shared not only by NATO, but also, unfortunately, by the EU: “Let us talk, of course, but we will be containing you.” Do you remember these odd ideas? The Alliance has demonstrated that its priority is to contain Russia, with plans for military organisational development, military exercises, and infrastructure expansion linked to this. NATO’s plans for cooperation with partners have been adjusted accordingly. We should take things for what they are, not see them reflected in a false mirror. I repeat, it is not we who are expanding towards the Alliance, towards its borders, but NATO is bringing its forces and weapons closer to Russia.

If we act on the basis of what is said by certain politicians, such as the UK Foreign Secretary, who tells the world that they will help their Baltic partners via the Black Sea, this logic permits everything, including claims that it is Russia that is threatening NATO by pushing its forces towards NATO’s borders. Then everything tallies. But this is a mirror-world, a theatre of the Absurd, a freak thriller. We proceed from the assumption that so far we understand and know geography, facts and figures. We call this education, knowledge, and their right perception.

We posed specific questions to the NATO members on security guarantees: non-expansion of the alliance, non-deployment of attack arms systems near our borders and a return to the NATO armed forces configuration in 1997 when the Russia-NATO Founding Act was signed.

In addition, we asked the members of the alliance and the EU countries how they understand the principle of indivisibility of security. We are convinced that it is unacceptable to enhance one’s own security at the expense of the security of another state (this is not just our personal conviction; it is the commitment officially assumed by the OSCE countries that signed and adopted these documents). We are waiting for clear answers. Depending on their response, we will decide whether there is room for a practical dialogue rather than just talks to observe the formalities, which makes no sense.

I can explain why they make historical, geographical and evidential mistakes. First, there is an obvious problem with education because even if you are ignorant, you can always admit this and ask for clarification. Second, the technology today makes it easy to find a needed document quickly, in a couple of minutes, and to have a basic idea of a problem in 20-30 minutes. I am not even talking about studying a problem. There are specialists that deal with that. They can prompt and provide reference materials.

I have a personal answer to the question of why they are making these absurd assertions about us being a threat to NATO, Britain’s assistance to its Baltic partners via the Black Sea and the Mongol-Tatar incursions. Why does this happen? I will explain it to you. Apart from the low quality of education, I am convinced the reason is that they have never been responsible for their actions. There is no such culture. They take a step, turn the page and move on. Nobody has ever taken them to task. Whatever happened was a fleeting experience. No need to record it.

I was struck by our diplomatic service’s culture of archiving documents. They did not have the information and technology we do now. They did everything by hand – bound documents and sent them to the archives. Now there are modern methods for preserving documents. Take, for instance, remarks by officials. They also form part of the positions and approaches of a state and we treat them carefully. You can find almost any statement made by the Russian foreign minister in the past 20 years (I cannot say that we have some special funding; certain funds are allocated for this purpose, of course, but this is simply our work culture). Both transcripts and video files are accessible on the ministry’s website. We are ready to be responsible for both our deeds and words. We are not embarrassed in the least. On the contrary, we emphasise the consistency of our approaches and the continuity of Russia’s position. I just tried to find a statement, a transcript of British Foreign Secretary Elizabeth Truss’s interview with BBC TV. They don’t have it on their website. There is no consistency with this. They are not used to reporting to anyone. They make statements on the spur of the moment to derive benefits from the current situation and to attract voters. None of them has ever been interested in what will happen next and how their words match their actions. Much of what they say is erroneous, but they do not think it is necessary to be interested in their own position, their state and commitments. No obligations are rooted in the past. They fulfil only the commitments that allow them to meet the interests of today or tomorrow, based on an election campaign or an election marathon.

Question: How do you think Moscow might respond to London’s actions as regards the assets and property of Russian citizens and companies in the United Kingdom?

Maria Zakharova: We have heard these outrageous statements. I looked for the transcripts to compare media coverage with the original statement. We noted UK Foreign Secretary Elizabeth Truss’s recent statements about their intention to pass a document through parliament with new grounds for sanctions against Russian companies and individuals.

As far as we understand, any company from our country can fall under sanctions for the same reason, that is, for being from Russia. We believe this step will trigger yet another round of tensions and will not help normalise bilateral relations (even though Downing Street has mentioned, as have other officials, the need to improve relations). Moreover, by taking this step Britain will reduce its own investment appeal and actually threaten its own big businesses that are actively involved in dealings with Russian companies. Threats like this amount to a violation of human rights and the fundamentals of developing a democratic society. I understand that Britain is a constitutional monarchy with three estates, but London still declares it is progressing towards a democracy.

Let’s see how it goes. If the announced sanctions are imposed indiscriminately on all Russian companies, as some British officials have said (that is, without legally grounded facts), they will become a serious obstacle for the development of our trade and economic ties. We will respond appropriately.

Let me recall that we have long drawn London’s attention to the fact that the United Kingdom has become a global launderette for laundering dirty money. We have passed on information through the UK’s official law enforcement channels about those guilty of corruption that have fled our country, settled in Britain and continued their illegal activities. However, the British authorities do not pay attention to these reports even though we have cited court verdicts and presented facts. Everything was ignored. The British authorities support people who commit real crimes the same way they backed militants and terrorists from the North Caucasus at one time. This is a bad British tradition. Something should be done about it.

Question: Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba announced the creation of a new alliance that could include Ukraine, Poland and Great Britain. Should this alliance be taken seriously?

Maria Zakharova: You don’t even ask anymore if Dmitry Kuleba can be taken seriously. Any alliance against someone is doomed to fail and not just because we want it to fail. There is logic and historical experience. It is normal to confront, in an international legal format, a real aggression and to counter new challenges and threats. But it is not smart to set up certain blocs, alliances or “herds” to team up against someone for no real reason. Not to mention that actions like this contradict international legal commitments. Such statements bring back historical associations that obviously will not benefit the countries that plan to participate in such alliances.

I would like to remind our Western partners that the world has already witnessed the fanning of militaristic horror and Europe’s split by a Tripartite Alliance. The same applies to the use of the word “Axis.” Europe went through all this on the eve of World War I. We saw this also during World War II. We know how it all ended and the disaster it led to. These “experiments” must not be repeated. No fantasies on this issue can conceal that their true goal is provocation.

Question: The Russian media cited Zamir Kabulov as saying that Russia is not ruling out the possibility of Kabul sending a number of junior- and medium-ranked diplomats to work at the embassy in Moscow. Have you received any indication of this from the Taliban government?

Maria Zakharova: I have no information to supplement Mr Kabulov’s statement. I have nothing to add for the moment. It would be appropriate to ask the authorities of Afghanistan or their representatives about the plans for its diplomatic service.

Question: Some media outlets in Azerbaijan are reporting on the resumption of construction of a bridge that should become an alternative route to the Lachin corridor between Armenia and Artsakh. There is no consistent indication on who initiated this construction, but there are assertions that Russia decided to build it. Can you comment on this information? If this alternative road is built, will the restrictions on the Lachin corridor remain in place?

Maria Zakharova: There is no information on this. I saw the reports. We are monitoring this and will certainly update you on it in detail as soon as we receive more information.

Question: As we understand it, the journalists at the Moscow Deutsche Welle office must surrender their credentials today. Has the Foreign Ministry received these documents?

Maria Zakharova: We informed the Moscow Deutsche Welle bureau that it would be closed today, February 4, 2022. The staff was notified that they must hand in their accreditation documentation during the day. We were asked if this means they should leave. You don’t quite understand the situation. There are about 19 people at the bureau, including 16 Russian citizens. However, even the bureau’s three foreign citizens do not have to leave after surrendering their accreditation. I would like to emphasise that we are always in contact with our colleagues that represent the foreign media. You know this. We are always willing to help and support them.

Interestingly, RIA Novosti is interested in the destiny of Deutsche Welle while the head of the bureau did not call us (at least until this morning). It is surprising but it is true. In an interview he called our actions incomprehensible, but it is always possible to clarify things. Nobody contacted me or the Press Centre but the German diplomats did. This is to say that the German government always tries to remain aloof and says that the media are autonomous and that government officials have nothing to do with their destiny. So, the journalists do not address us on the issues linked with their activity, but German diplomats do.

We were also asked about our next steps. They depend on Germany. If they decide to escalate tensions, we will follow suit. If Germany is ready for normalisation, we are also ready for it. We have repeatedly addressed the German officials (at the Embassy in Moscow, the Ambassador personally, and Berlin via our Embassy in Germany) with a proposal to find a compromise or a resolution to arising issues that would be suitable for our German partners. Here is my abstract thinking. Considering how active the German Union of Journalists is, it could conduct this dialogue with the Russian Union of Journalists. A brilliant idea. But first the German Union needs to increase tensions, unleashing an information war against its Russian colleagues. When they get a response from us, they call on us (addressing nearly everyone save for President of Russia Vladimir Putin) to normalise the situation. They find themselves in a mess. What do they want? They should make up their minds what game they are playing and then make their high-profile statements and take unfriendly steps.

Let me emphasise that if the Germans want to discuss something, to talk and find a way out of the situation, we are always open to this. German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock came to Moscow and conducted talks. Russian officials raised this issue and proposed starting a dialogue, and not necessarily at the government or foreign minister levels – there are public organisations as well. The German delegation showed no interest and even no emotion at all. I don’t know why. This is why it is what it is at this point.

We are always in contact, ready to help and support, answer questions and show understanding for the situation of the other side.

Question: There is little time left before the opening ceremony of the Winter Olympics in Beijing. What is your farewell message to our athletes?

Maria Zakharova: Do your best, after you prepared for the Games for such a long time. This is what you and your families have devoted your lives and efforts to.

I wish you success and patience, joy from your victories and from the victories of your teammates and friends. I wish you a wonderful atmosphere that, I hope, will not be spoilt by the pandemic or the intrigues of ill-wishers. I wish for you to enjoy a true Olympic atmosphere and to have faith in yourselves. You know well that we are with you, that we are cheering for you. The whole country is cheering for you.

Go, Russia!

Table of contents

Дополнительные материалы

Фото

Основные новости внешней политики

Международная безопасность