Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, August 2, 2023

The III BRICS International Youth Camp is underway in the Ulyanovsk Region from August 1 to 6. Its central theme is the media sphere. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov is scheduled to deliver a video address at the official opening ceremony today.

Young journalists, professionals in the field of information and communication technologies, and graphic design specialists from the five BRICS countries will discuss the implementation of joint projects and train in working as a team. We hope that this event will make a substantial contribution to building up trust and mutual understanding among the BRICS nations.

The active involvement of young people in our common efforts is graphic proof of the attractiveness of the idea and concept of the five-nation group, which has become a pillar of the evolving structure of a fairer multipolar world order.

Russia traditionally pays special attention to the development of various kinds of relations between the group’s counties. This year, Russia will host a series of events from the group’s humanitarian basket. Many meetings, including youth events, have been planned for next year when Russia will take over BRICS chairmanship.

Events on international information security scheduled for the second Russia-Africa summit

In the context of our consistent efforts to strengthen national and international information security (IIS) at the second Russia-Africa Summit (St Petersburg, July 27-28, 2023). a solid foundation has been created for taking our relations with African countries, as a whole or with individual African societies, to a fundamentally new level in the spirit of mutual trust and in keeping with the fundamental principles of the UN Charter.

The adoption of the final political and thematic declarations and also the Action Plan of the Russia-Africa Partnership Forum for 2023−2026 is proof of the readiness of Russia and the African countries to strengthen their political and practical dialogue on ICT security. These documents are evidence of the high level of trust and awareness of the goals towards which all countries are working at the UN Open-ended Working Group on IIS, the UN Ad Hoc Committee to Elaborate a Comprehensive International Convention on Countering the Use of Information and Communications Technologies for Criminal Purposes, and the International Telecommunication Union.

During another panel discussion, titled Securing the Information Space: Challenges and Opportunities for Cooperation, government experts and speakers representing the leading technology companies in Russia and several African countries exchanged views on the key matters related to this topic with a focus on shaping a single digital environment where all countries can enjoy safety and stability. The participants spoke in favour of drafting international, legally binding documents for regulating international information security and affirmed their commitment to coordinating efforts both within their regions, as well as at key international platforms.

Signed on the sidelines of the summit with the Republic of Zambia and the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, intergovernmental cooperation agreements on international information security became an example for other African countries to follow. These documents demonstrate that our countries share the same approaches when it comes to building an international information security framework based on the principles of justice, equality and non-discrimination. They also offer new capacity building opportunities in ICT, primarily in terms of training a skilled workforce, and put in place conditions for promoting cooperation between the competent government agencies.

Ukraine update

The neo-Nazi regime in Kiev has been expanding the scale of its terrorist activity.

On July 28, 2023, Ukrainian military units used large-calibre artillery to shell civilian sites in Donetsk with a road interchange, a bus stop, a trade centre and two hospitals falling within their engagement zone.

The same day, the Kiev regime shelled residential buildings in Taganrog using the S-200 air defence system after repurposing it to be used as an offensive weapon. Russian air defence systems succeeded at intercepting these missiles, even though the debris fell over areas of the city. As a result, 22 persons had to be taken to hospitals.

On July 31, 2023, the Ukrainian Armed Forces targeted residential neighbourhoods in the same city, and one of the shells hit a bus with passengers, while another landed on a single-family home, leaving four dead and 11 wounded, according to available reports.

On the same day, Ukrainian militants carried out a strike against Alyoshki in the Kherson Region, killing one person.

Also on July 31, 2023, a grocery store was hit by a missile in Basan, Zaporozhye Region. It was quite crowded when the strike happened, killing three people and injuring 15. A 12-year-old remained stranded under the debris for quite a long time.

Launched by the Kiev regime on the night of July 30, 2023, and August 1, 2023, drones collided with Moscow City high rises. It is obvious that by targeting civilian office buildings with these aerial vehicles, the Ukrainian neo-Nazis followed in the footsteps of their predecessors, i.e., the international terrorists attacking all kinds of civilian facilities, including in this way. New York suffered a similar attack on September 11, 2001, albeit on a different scale.

It is not our intention to compare these attacks in terms of their scale. In fact, comparing them in terms of the damage and destruction they caused or the number of people who were killed would be immoral. However, it is obvious that these attacks rely on the same method and pursue several objectives: destroy civilian infrastructure, threaten civilian lives, and of course produce a psychological effect. Terrorists often use this method, and now the Kiev regime has taken up these terrorist methods too.

I would like to recall that the West has unequivocally denounced various terrorist acts but only when they took place in the Western countries. In those cases, the West described them as unacceptable, bad, illegal actions that fully revealed the inhuman nature of terrorists. The West called them intolerable and even coined a special term – “zero tolerance” – for them. When similar acts of terror occurred elsewhere, for instance, in the countries of the Global South, like Syria or in Russia, the West did not express any sympathy or condemn them – there were no words at all.

This time, the West went even farther. Western officials said clearly that the Kiev regime may choose any targets for destruction.

Spokesperson for the US Department of State Matthew Miller said the Ukrainian authorities may independently choose targets for strikes against Russia. Let’s imagine if the reverse were happening. What if officials of some state said on September 11, 2001 that the terrorists could independently choose targets on US territory? What would have been Washington’s reaction to this? Or in Paris after the Charlie Hebdo shooting? President of France Francois Hollande urged the whole world to unite and asked the leaders and officials of different states to organise a march in the streets of Paris. How would the Elysee Palace react to a call or official explanation from some capital or state that used Washington’s words that the terrorists can themselves choose their targets for destruction? We will leave behind the brackets of this particular case the fact that the Kiev regime is doing all this with Western money, technical support, arms and intelligence.

This is exactly the current attitude to Russia, to the Muscovites that work in this office centre. In fact, the US has officially justified terrorist methods and confirmed that it is possible to destroy civilian facilities and put the lives of civilians at risk. Not a word of condemnation. But on the other side we know the concept – everything for the sake of the “golden billion” and the rest are unimportant. We also know the position expressed by EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell – they are a wonderful “garden” and all others are “jungle.” Segregating people in such a way is part of the thinking.

Realising that they will not be condemned by the West, the Kiev Nazis boldly claimed responsibility for the attacks and are not concealing their true intentions – to intimidate civilians. They are saying that these buildings are not civilian. How come? These are residential buildings and offices. People who come there to work every day have nothing to do with the defence industry or anything like that.

Ukrainian Air Force Spokesperson Yury Ignat said it directly: “It is pointless to speak about Russian peace deep in their territory. They got what they wanted.” We advise Ignat to return to reality. He should not get his hopes up, we are not panicking. On the contrary, our society is becoming even more convinced of the absolute need to implement the goals of the special military operation because the Ukrainian junta continues revealing its monstrous nature time after time. If at one stage, some people could have doubts about the Kiev regime, now these doubts are completely gone.

We also know that Western countries are not only verbally encouraging the terrorist methods of the Kiev regime, but are also directly involved in the organisation of terrorist acts by supplying weapons and passing on the necessary intelligence.

However, inevitable punishment awaits all Ukrainian criminals. Russian law enforcement agencies are thoroughly investigating the criminal cases opened for every crime committed by the Kiev regime. The organisers and perpetrators of crimes are bound to find themselves in the dock sooner or later.

Such a fate has already befallen 18 militants of the banned Ukrainian Nazi formation Aidar, who, according to investigators, were involved in the brutal killing of civilians, torture of prisoners, looting, and robbery. Their trial recently began in Rostov-on-Don.

The Kiev regime continues its anti-religious and arbitrary actions against the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

Last week, Vladimir Zelensky signed a bill whereby Christmas will now be celebrated in Ukraine on December 25 instead of January 7. Such actions are a continuation of the Ukrainian leadership’s policy to eliminate canonical Orthodoxy in the country.

This has also begun to be recognised in the Western expert community. On July 22 in Vienna, the Austrian branch of the Centre for Geostrategic Studies held a conference on violations of the rights of Orthodox Christians in Ukraine. The participants agreed that the neo-Nazi regime in Kiev is destroying the canonical Orthodox Church as the international community looks on.

In this context, once again I would like to draw attention to a report, “Illegal actions by the Kiev regime targeting the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, its clergy and parishioners,” published on the website of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs on July 25. It contains evidence of Kiev’s gross violations of the rights of Orthodox Christians with the tacit support of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, the USA, and a number of other Western countries.

The effort against everything Russian is gathering momentum and going beyond all limits in Ukraine. The Dnepropetrovsk Glinka Academy of Music has lost the name of composer Glinka as part of the authorities’ policy of removing Russian culture from people’s lives. Has this increased the quality of education or the academy’s services? What will they do about the music itself, though? Remove the notes that Russian composes used most often? Paint their portraits over? Remove the pages connected with Russian culture from sheet music?

The name of the Motherland Monument in Kiev will be changed to Mother Ukraine Monument. It was recently illuminated in the colours of the American flag. We would like to know what kind of “mother” Ukraine has become. They have started removing the Soviet emblem from the monument. They didn’t build it, nor did they pay for its construction. They have no connection with it. Destruction is always easier than creation. It is turning into a theatre of the absurd. One more act of vandalism by the Kiev regime under the pretext of “de-communisation” has developed into yet another corruption scandal. It turns out that Ukraine doesn’t produce steel of the required quality, which must be imported. They used this to triple the cost of the project. They don’t have the steel. They can’t produce anything. They can only steal. I am talking about the Kiev regime.

But the ideological impotence of their silly initiatives and huge spending in an impoverished country dosn’t stop the Kiev authorities. It appears that Kiev, like its ideological masters in Washington, believes that it must kill as many – no, not Russians, but Ukrainians − as possible, kill their own people, exterminate them, send them to the battlefront without a return ticket.

Political analysts believe that Ukraine’s problem is sky-high corruption permeating all spheres of life there. This is only natural, because the West, including Washington, had worked for decades to root out the statehood of that young country, sending all kinds of “advisers” and political consultants there, unbalancing its bodies of power and replacing people’s voice and will with endless PR campaigns. In that situation, no government can develop immunity against corruption, racketeering and crime, something which an effective government mechanism must have regardless of its pros and cons, victories and losses, and achievements and failures. The United States, Britain, Germany and Poland, with the Baltics’ assistance, worked hard to destroy Ukraine’s system of government and to subjugate Ukraine. What can they expect from it now?

Every project proposed by Ukraine now is a pretext for the fascist-minded Ukrainian officials to line their pockets – apparently as their final act. They think they have ensured their future politically over there, abroad, with their endless narratives about how they were “tormented” and given “a hard time.” As a last-ditch effort, they want to get as big a piece of the pie as they possibly can. Moreover, Ukraine’s existing system of state governance actually encourages this sort of almost undisguised stealing. The Kiev regime’s dictatorship does not allow dissent and has harsh punishment in store for recalcitrants.

According to a recently published report by the Inspector General of the US Department of State (I want to cite them lest someone says that we are doing this because we “dislike” the Kiev regime; they are the people who publicly worship this regime virtually on the daily basis), corruption in the Ukrainian Government is creating long-term risks for the effectiveness of the US assistance. Plainly speaking, this means that the greater monetary aid the United States extends to Ukraine, the more money will be stolen by the Ukrainian Government. The Americans are even planning to impose strict control over their use of aid. The State Department document says that for this purpose they intend to boost the staff numbers at the US embassy in Kiev. It’s a naïve approach. They think a greater number of embassy jobs will make the Kiev regime steal less. Will they share with the US diplomats? That is the most they can hope for. As was repeatedly the case with US “advisers” who were “moored” to Russia in the 1990s by the same US secret services, it all ended in a joke. The Americans infiltrated these guys in Russia in order for them to build democracy and a liberal economy. But they became corrupted to the core and came under investigation and trial upon returning home. Will it be better in Ukraine? How can they prevent the US money from being stolen? It’s an oxymoron. There are a million contradictions in this sentence alone. This just can’t be! No number of US diplomats will do anything for anyone.

The next step is likely to be US law enforcement forming special units in Ukraine to supervise the movement of “aid.” But if it is supervised, who in Ukraine will need it? Naïve people! Dealing with the Kiev regime for so many years and still failing to understand what it is all about.

July 27 is a day of sorrow for the entire country. On this day, we remember the children who lost their lives during the war in Donbass. Since 2014, the Ukrainian Nazis have killed hundreds of minors of all ages in this region. We talked about this during the previous briefing.

On this day nine years ago, the Kiev criminals cruelly targeted Gorlovka with an artillery strike, leaving dozens of civilians killed or wounded, and there were many children among them. A mourning ceremony took place at the Alley of Angels, which is the memorial in Donetsk.

The Ukrainian neo-Nazis decided to perpetrate yet another heinous act on this day, as if what they did in Gorlovka was not enough for them. They decided to go down the same road again by sending as many people as possible living in this region messages of untold cruelty and cynicism. In these messages, they promised to kill even more children and compared the day of sorrow with “burger day,” cynically accompanying these messages with images of the minors who were killed.

It is beyond my understanding why they are doing this and for what reason. Are they doing this to make sure that people in Donetsk and Lugansk hate them – the Kiev regime – even more? Or to write their names in blood in the annals of regional history? Is this why the Kiev regime is doing all this? Overall, they do not need to go any further to achieve this aim, I believe. These crimes will never be forgotten. Never! Based on what we are seeing and talking about, we must not forget that the Russian Armed Forces in Ukraine are fighting a fascist ideology of human hatred in Ukraine. This is not about fighting specific individuals who have lost all sense of morality or ethics, but about confronting an entire system nurtured to shield its space from any dissenting view and segregate its population by permitting some to live while denying others the very right to exist.

All these facts, and this is just a small fraction of them, demonstrate that the special military operation pursues objectives and goals which are justified and relevant.

Kiev regime’s crimes and use of terrorist methods since 2014

As we have said many times, criminal activity involving the open use of terrorist methods has long become routine for the Kiev regime. Its representatives are no longer afraid to admit this openly, assuming responsibility for attacks on civilian facilities and acts of terrorism against civilians. However, they always emphasise that these are non-civilian facilities. They take responsibility, but they always claim they are targeting non-civilian facilities. But why on Earth are residential buildings listed as non-civilian infrastructure? They deliberately attack buildings where no military facilities or warehouses are located.

This practice was started long ago. During the Maidan events of 2013-2014, nationalist radicals seized power in the country following an armed coup. They resorted to terrorism as a way to overthrow the legitimate government. This was exactly the case. Yes, this was real terror.

Ukrainian politicians, journalists and public figures were the first victims of these extremists and nationalists from the units that staged the bloody putsch in Kiev in February 2014. On February 18, 2014, a group of militants attacked the office of the ruling Party of Regions. They threw Molotov cocktails and smoke bombs at the building, set fire to it, and beat up the people who tried to leave the office. Two employees were killed during this attack. Later, on May 2, 2014, the same tactic was used in Odessa when armed nationalists, encouraged (and later covered up) by the authorities, staged a massacre at the House of Trade Unions. They set the building on fire to destroy any opposition to the new regime and they shot at people who tried to leave the burning building.

I remember how the whole world sympathized with those who tried to leave the twin towers in New York in 2001. We watched the television broadcasts anxiously, praying for these people even though we knew they were doomed. I remember the whooping and hooting of the criminal-extremists who stood in front of the House of Trade Unions and waited for the people inside to burn. Nobody in the West expressed a word of sympathy (I am not talking about condemnation but about simple human sympathy) when the whole world saw this wild, horrible footage of what the Kiev regime’s extremist had left behind. The West fastidiously turned away from this footage because those who were dying were the wrong kind of people. But this was only the beginning. Some people probably still held the illusion that these were just some goons rather than the system, that the authorities would not encourage such atrocities in Ukraine.

But years have passed, and now we are seeing this as a systematic approach with its own ideology, philosophy, and exculpatory manuals, and additional actions on the perimeter, removing everything that could even hint at the dehumanisation of those who stage such actions.

Forty-two people died at the hands of neo-Nazis in Odessa then. They died a horrible death, under torture as the crowd whooped in support, believing this was what should happen to anyone that did not join their ranks.

The conflict in Donbass unleashed by the Kiev regime in April 2014 only encouraged the use of terrorist methods on a bigger scale. The Ukrainian military began to systematically shell peaceful residential areas in the region. On June 2, 2014, Lugansk was subjected to a heavy and deliberate attack from the air. Strikes by SU-25 attack aircraft hit the centre of Lugansk where a kindergarten, a square, residential buildings and city administration offices were located. If you don’t believe this, look at the videos yourselves. They are available. Eight civilians were killed and 28 wounded during this attack. For what reason were they killed? Why was this done? Because this is prescribed by neo-Nazi ideology.

Residents of Gorlovka called July 27, 2014 “Donetsk’s bloody Sunday.” On that day, the Ukrainian army launched a massive artillery strike on the peaceful city. Its residents were not yet accustomed to shelling and failed to hide quickly enough. Civilians, including children, were killed. Dozens were injured.

Later, the Armed Forces of Ukraine regularly attacked residential neighbourhoods of Donetsk, Lugansk and other residential areas of Donbass. Thousands of civilians were killed by Ukrainian shelling from 2014 to 2022.

With the start of the special military operation, the Kiev regime began to use terrorist methods regularly everywhere. Using Western weapons, Ukrainian neo-Nazis are shelling residential districts. They are resupplying firing positions and deploying arms depots in schools, hospitals and residential buildings, using civilians as a “living shield.” They are also shooting refugees and POWs.

Do you want another example? Here you are. Another tragedy of ours happened in Budennovsk. Is this comparison really unjustified? Yes, at that time, it was called something else and the region was different. But in this case armed terrorists also openly used civilians as a shield and this is the main point. We talked about this a year ago but were told that this was not the case, that the Kiev regime did not use this practice. Now it has acknowledged this. They admitted that they had really used civilian infrastructure (kindergartens, schools and hospitals) for military objectives. In simple terms, they dug in there and aimed fire at these facilities. They did all this for new frame-ups without thinking of the consequences for civilians.

Do you remember what happened a year ago? Civilians could not leave their homes because Kiev militants would not allow them to go out and made them sit in their flats and doorways. These militants needed them as hostages. Now there is documented evidence of Kiev’s public admission of these actions.

A separate category of the Kiev regime’s terrorist methods is aimed at achieving political ends. This applies to the explosion of the Tolyatti-Odessa ammonia pipeline in the Kharkov Region on June 5 of this year. It had global importance for food security. It was also an important element of the grain deal – package agreements on the export of agricultural products and fertilisers from Russia and grain from Ukraine.

Since July 2022, Ukrainian armed units were incessantly striking the Kakhovka hydropower station, in part, by using the American HIMARS MLRSs. As a result of these methodical strikes, the station’s structures fell down on June 6, leading to the uncontrolled release of a huge amount of water down the Dnieper River. Consequently, a major humanitarian and environmental disaster took place in the region. Moreover, it may be difficult now to cool the units of the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant. This is not news. We spoke about this.

Don’t believe those who tell you that all this is happening because of the special military operation and this is the Kiev regime’s legitimate (in reality, pseudo-legitimate) response. The Kiev regime was involved in this in 2014, 2015 and all subsequent eight years. They mined power transmission lines leading to Crimea, blocked the water and did all they could to stage these terror acts.

We were told about “the great filmmaker” Oleg Sentsov. True, nobody has seen what he created but he was caught red handed when trying to mine a monument. He walked there. Do you remember what the West did? It conducted a big campaign to demonstrate that he was an artist and may not be touched. But in reality, this “artist” was a terrorist. It all started long ago.

Two attacks on the Crimean Bridge – on October 8, 2022 and July 17, 2023 were terrorist actions without any military sense. Civilians alone use its automobile part. This was common knowledge. Mostly tourists use this bridge, Both the Kiev regime and the West are well aware of this. These attacks killed civilians. The terrorist character of the explosions is obvious. The Kiev regime claimed responsibility for them – calmly and cynically. In the past, they used to say in semi-whisper that they were doing all this but just preferred not to talk about it. Now they are saying this out loud. Why? The answer is clear – because nothing that the West promised to them materialised and they have to turn to terrorism in the open.

The Ukrainian authorities actively use terrorist methods against journalists, and political and public figures in both their own country and Russia. Here are several examples. On April 15, 2015, former member of the Party of Regions party in the Verkhovna Rada [Ukrainian Parliament] Oleg Kalashnikov was assassinated outside his flat in Kiev. The next day, on April 16, journalist Oles Buzina was shot outside his home in Kiev. The assassins have not been brought to justice as yet. On July 20, 2017, prominent Russian and Ukrainian journalist Pavel Sheremet was killed in a car bombing in Kiev.

On August 31, 2018, Head of the Donetsk People’s Republic Alexander Zakharchenko was killed in Donetsk after an explosive device that was planted beforehand was detonated.

On August 20, 2022, journalist and political scientist Darya Dugina was killed in Moscow. The Russian Federal Security Service have found out that the Ukrainian Security Service was complicit in this assassination. On March 6, 2023, an attempt to blow up the car carrying Konstantin Malofeyev, the founder of Tsargrad television channel, was thwarted. On April 2, 2023, war correspondent Vladlen Tatarsky was assassinated in St Petersburg. According to information obtained by the investigators, the explosion in which Vladlen Tatarsky was killed was organised by the Ukrainian intelligence service. On May 6, 2023, writer and publicist Zakhar Prilepin was wounded in a car bombing in the Nizhny Novgorod Region. On July 22, 2023, in the Zaporozhye Region a civilian car carrying journalists was attacked with cluster munitions that have been supplied by the United States. As a result, RIA Novosti war correspondent Rostislav Zhuravlyov was killed and his four colleagues were wounded.

Everything that the Kiev regime is doing now is the tactics of international terrorists. You may remember how the Kiev regime and the Ukrainian Armed Forces tortured and killed captives. They even did it on camera. Is it not what terrorists from ISIS, an organisation banned in Russia, were doing when they filmed their bloody crimes and distributed those videos around the world? Will you explain what for? You will never understand it because to do this, you need to have the logic of terrorists seeking to confuse people, sow terror, show their power and continue to use all this in their interests.

Of late, the Ukrainian authorities have started resorting more frequently to terrorist methods. I have already mentioned some of them. Also, new methods are being designed. This is primarily tied up with the obvious failure of Ukraine’s counteroffensive, for which the United States and other NATO countries are paying through the nose.

The use of terror by the Kiev regime is a factor that exacerbates the crisis in Ukraine and puts off the prospects for its peaceful settlement. You know that to carry out a terrorist attack, Ukraine often uses weapons and equipment supplied by its Western sponsors, which makes them directly complicit in all these crimes.

I will remind you that the terms “regime sponsoring terrorism” and “state sponsor of terrorism” are frequently used by the West. But this is what they are doing – they are sponsoring the Kiev regime’s terrorist activity.

Statement by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk on the first anniversary of the events in Yelenovka

We have noted another anti-Russia accusation by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk. This time he decided to come up with a statement to mark one year since the events in Yelenovka where Ukrainian servicemen held in detention were killed following a missile attack by the Ukrainian Armed Forces.

We would like to once again urge the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to observe the principles of objectivity and impartiality on which his activities and the mandate entrusted to him must be based. It is unseemly for a UN official to assume the role of attorney general on a global scale and give his own evaluation of actions of sovereign countries without producing any evidence and having no idea what evidence collection means.

It is astonishing to hear Volker Türk’s allegation that over 50 Ukrainian servicemen held in detention in Yelenovka were not killed by a missile strike from a HIMARS rocket launcher. This begs the question, why does the office he heads, which does not have the relevant knowledge of these matters that are so specific, have a conviction like this? Has anyone forwarded the relevant materials to him? We would like to learn more about those who forwarded the materials and to read them.

The High Commissioner’s references to certain testimony by victims and their relatives do not have a leg to stand on. Since the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has not carried out any investigation or examination, there is basically nothing to talk about. In reality, what we have here is another empty revelation presented to the public as “highly likely.” We have even shown the many gradations of this. And this is one of them.

At the same time Volker Türk ignores the official information that the Russian Defence Ministry and our country’s Investigative Committee have made public many times.

We regret that the High Commissioner has once again demonstrated double standards and an unwillingness to provide an unbiased assessment of the Kiev regime’s actions.

The UN Security Council meeting on Ukraine’s systematic use of terrorist methods

On July 31, 2023, the UN Security Council held a Russia-initiated meeting on Ukraine’s systematic use of terrorist methods.

The reports at the meeting were delivered by Deputy to the Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations Office of Counter-Terrorism Raffi Gregorian and civic activist Sergey Chaulin injured in the terrorist attack against war correspondent Vladlen Tatarsky in April 2023.

The Russian representative to the UN Security Council gave a detailed description of the terrorist nature of the Kiev regime, providing concrete examples to support his argument and pointing out the responsibility of Ukraine’s Western allies for such activities. He also noted the role of the UN Secretariat and other international agencies that refused to respond to increasingly flagrant actions committed by the Kiev regime and thereby facilitated its slide into terrorism.

For their part, the Western states predictably sought to shift the emphasis to the “Russian aggression,” with a number of particularly zealous supporters of the Kiev regime going as far as to directly justify its use of terrorist methods. I quoted the US State Department spokesman as saying that terrorists can choose their targets on their own. Of course, he said just the “Kiev regime,” not the “Kiev terrorist regime.” But their methods are terrorist methods, and the regime, accordingly, is a terrorist regime.

It is not surprising that the military and political leaders of Ukraine, feeling their absolute impunity, are not afraid of admitting more and more attacks against peaceful civilians and non-military civil infrastructure.

Russia will continue to draw the attention of the international community, specifically the UN Security Council and other specialised agencies of the United Nations, to the dire humanitarian consequences of the terrorist activities pursued by the Kiev regime.

Washington’s cooperation with the International Criminal Court

On June 27, 2023, we learned about the decision by President of the United States Joe Biden to begin sharing with the International Criminal Court what Washington presents as evidence of Russian war crimes in Ukraine. Therefore, the international community is about to witness a radical shift in the way the Americans approach their relations with this judicial bureaucratic apparatus headquartered in The Hague.

Let me remind you that having withdrawn its signature from the Rome Statute, the United States has been ignoring the ICC for many years. Not only did the United States refuse to engage with this body in any way, but also stood in the way of its investigations and targeted its prosecutors with personal sanctions. In fact, Washington made no secret of its fears that the ICC investigations would expose some unsavoury facts regarding the United States so that the international community would learn about the crimes perpetrated by NATO troops in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere around the world where the Alliance left its mark with its military interventions and bloody crimes.

It seems that the current administration in the United States is confident that by relying on its puppet international structures to create negative publicity concerning Russia and its leaders, it can force the whole world to forget about the many war crimes it committed. By the way, let me share an interesting fact with you: this warming in Washington’s relations with the ICC coincided with the beginning of the mandate for the ICC’s new Chief Prosecutor Karim Ahmad Khan, who is a British national. One of his first decisions was to deprioritise investigations into US crimes in Afghanistan. You have the answer here. Mr Khan observed all the principles governing the special relationship between the UK and the United States, and avoided US sanctions.

For us, this decision by the US authorities demonstrates that Washington has not even bothered to keep up the appearances. No one is talking about US law or international law. This all comes down to doublespeak and hypocrisy at its finest. After all, we cannot accept this open and brazen way in which they present their own country – the United States – as a violator of all possible norms. No way. But this is what they do, in such a brazen, boorish and open manner. And this will carry on unless we tell them that they cannot do it anymore.

There is no secret about our attitude towards the ICC, including in the context of Ukraine. The total degradation of this body is the direct result of its readiness to connive with its Western sponsors while ignoring international law and failing to work in the interest of promoting conflict settlement.

Statements by MI6 chief Richard Moore in Prague

We could not ignore an exceptionally Russophobic statement made by chief of the UK’s Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) Richard Moore at the UK Embassy in Prague on July 19. It’s been a long time since we have heard anything like this.

The head of London’s “secret operations” abroad spoke about the “Russian aggression” and the need to “sustain support” for the Ukrainian armed forces. At the same time, he did not openly refute the involvement of the UK secret services in the terrorist attacks against Russia, in particular the Kerch Bridge. He said that Ukraine had a right to defend itself and that the West must help it do this. He obviously did not care that the attacks targeted civilian infrastructure.

We have taken note of Mr Moore’s words that point to London’s intention to drive a wedge in Russia’s relations with African countries, Iran and China. As the Russia-Africa summit held in St Petersburg showed, these British provocations are futile, yet they refuse to give up.

Forgetting about elementary human rules of conduct and even the gentleman’s code, not to mention honour or decency, Richard Moore encouraged Russian citizens to betray their homeland by “sharing secrets” with MI6.

It’s an interesting idea. I think we should strike back by encouraging the King’s subjects and citizens of the other countries of NATO’s “axis of evil” to cooperate with our intelligence service. I think that making this offer to the British, many of whom are extremely hard up, could be a good idea. Why not? After all, London regards this as normal. I see no reason why we shouldn’t do it as well.

We have long been aware of London’s hostile anti-Russia policy. But the latest example of presumption and arrogance of the MI6 head went beyond all limits. Generally speaking, he has hit at himself. He seemed to be more intelligent before.

This frenzied nationalist Russophobia sounds like Goebbels’s propaganda methods. During WWII, the Nazis offered “cooperation” to Soviet and British citizens. They argued that their homeland didn’t love them, but they are loved in the West. Indeed, our citizens are showered with love when Plan B is adopted after the failure of a blitzkrieg and our people are encouraged to cooperate because they are “loved.”

There are things we don’t accept, and there are actions we can reciprocate. You will see this in due time, and don’t you dare cry about interference in Britain’s internal affairs. Nothing of the kind. We simply reciprocated.

Developments in Niger

We continue to closely monitor the developments in the friendly Republic of Niger, where on July 26, 2023, a group of servicemen removed President Mohamed Bazoum from power and announced the establishment of the National Council for Safeguarding the Homeland to govern the country at the current stage. We share the concern expressed in connection with the situation in Niger by the UN Secretary General, the African Union and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS).

We consider it extremely important to prevent further deterioration of the situation in the country. We consider it an urgent task to organise a national dialogue to restore public peace and ensure law and order. As a positive factor, we note that the developments are proceeding peacefully and are not overshadowed by casualties.

We have to state that the current crisis in Niger is taking place against the background of the difficult security situation and the extremely difficult social and economic situation of the country’s population.

In looking for ways to resolve the conflict in Niger, we continue to adhere to the principle of African solutions to African problems. We hope that vigorous mediation efforts will be made to help Nigerien society overcome the crisis through the African Union and subregional organisations. At the same time, we believe that the threat of force against a sovereign state will not contribute to relieving tensions and resolving the situation in the country.

We hope that the people of Niger, with whom we have long-standing relations of friendship and cooperation, will be able to successfully overcome the current difficult period in their history. We are focused on continuing to advance the full range of mutually beneficial Russia-Niger relations.

The EU’s reaction to amendments to the law on NGOs

We have taken note of the statement made by European Commission spokesperson Peter Stano regarding amendments to the Federal Law on Non-Profit Organisations and to the Criminal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Code on Administrative Offences, which regulate the participation of Russian individuals and legal entities in the operations of foreign NGOs.

According to the European Commission, these amendments run contrary to Russia’s Constitution and seriously restrict people’s rights and freedoms. Their “wise” conclusion is that the amendments are aimed at “isolating Russian people from the rest of the world.”

Mr Stano, are you serious? First of all, the “collective West” is much smaller than “the rest of the world.” In fact, it is only a small part of it, in all respects. Nobody has given Brussels the right to speak on behalf of the world, because nobody can have this right. The EU has morally discredited itself. Its inability to make independent decisions has put an end to any idea of it playing a serious role in international affairs. The EU should abandon its neocolonial habits.

Second, we live in Russia. It’s our country, our legislation, and our Constitution. We can decide how we want to live, what we want to do and how to deal with our problems without Mr Stano or Brussels “democracy.” We know how to do it. If we need advice, we will ask for it. So far, I can see that it is Brussels that needs advice as things are going awry there.

We can understand the European Commission’s nervous reaction. Russia’s legislative initiatives will further restrict Brussel’s ability to influence the political situation in Russia. It is this that is the cause of the EU’s resentment, rather than the alleged restrictions on civil rights, which the West is allegedly concerned about.

Furthermore, the EU and the European Commission have expressed their concern through Mr Peter Stano about the alleged restrictions these amendments and other laws impose on Russian citizens and their association with the rest of the world. Does Mr Stano know about the dozens of EU sanction packages, which directly restrict the Russian citizens’ ability to deal with the EU, even if not with “the rest of the world”?

Does Mr Stano know about the EU’s decision to stop all civilian flights? This has affected all people who live on our continent, including in western and central Europe and in Russia, as well as people in other parts of the world who used connecting flights to go to Europe.

Mr Stano probably doesn’t know that the sanctions, which are collectively adopted in the West and are used by the EU or Washington or both, have blocked money transfers, the use of cards and the freedom of movement by any method of transportation?

Mr Stano probably doesn’t know that the EU has been making a mockery of common sense for years, long before 2022, with its manoeuvres at the talks on visa-free travel and visa facilitation, and that it is now using the visa regime as a political instrument, which is forbidden in the documents the EU countries signed.

Mr Stano probably doesn’t know about the vast number of restrictions on trade, ties and humanitarian contacts the EU has imposed on Russia and not only Russia. There are other countries and parts of the world where the EU is acting destructively. There is an endless list of EU bans on Russia. And yet Mr Stano, acting on behalf of the European Commission, has decided to pick on a provision in a Russian law that can allegedly isolate Russians from the EU?

The foreign NGOs that want to lawfully engage Russian citizens only need to register their branches or representative offices in Russia. Will this lead to isolation? It is just a formality which other countries use as well. But this might presumably create problems for those who don’t want to work transparently and in a civilised manner, who have a “secret agenda” and use substantial funds to implement it, including those allocated from the budgets of the countries and associations which are pursuing an unfriendly policy towards Russia. Yes, such NGOs will have problems. We do want to isolate the forces disguised as NGOs which are working on the destruction of our country. This is a fact. We have had enough.

We have to tell the EU once again about the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states.

However, the EC spokesperson has no scruples – and this is the most absurd part – about the legislative process underway in the framework of the European Commission’s Defence of Democracy package. Using the pretext of “defending democracy from covert foreign influence” and acting within the framework of the above package, Brussels is promoting a directive on common transparency and accountability standards for interest representation services paid for or directed from outside the EU, which the European NGOs concerned have dubbed EuroFARA, an EU equivalent to the US Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). Its goal is to ensure tight control over interest representation services and to prevent any attempts to secretly promote them. I would suggest that you look at yourself, at your problems and at the consonance of the above initiatives with the democratic standards you have been promoting for years.

In this context, an EU official’s criticism of a country’s law-making practices aimed at streamlining the work of foreign NGOs looks silly, and I am not just referring to Russia’s law-making practices but any country’s.

Failure by Western OSCE member states to deliver on their transparency commitments when dealing with transfers of small arms and light weapons (SALW)

With the Ukraine conflict moving into a more intensive phase, we are witnessing major violations of the OSCE Document on Small Arms and Light Weapons by the United States (2000) and the Principles Governing Conventional Arms Transfers (1993). There has been much talk lately about how they can manage to find a way to wriggle out of abiding by the documents governing strategic stability and arms control. Experts have been asking these questions lately, and we are getting them at our news conferences. People ask us when the United States and Russia can be expected to focus on mutual arms limitations again, on a new level. I suggest that we zero in on what is actually happening in the United States and across the collective West in this regard so that there can be no doubts about what will happen in the future.

By supplying all these weapons to the neo-Nazis in Kiev, the West encourages human rights violations by the receiving state, escalates the armed confrontation and becomes an accomplice in the war crimes perpetrated by the Ukrainian Armed Forces against civilians on both sides of the line of contact. They are bound by specific commitments as OSCE member states and everything they do is at odds with these commitments.

The fact that many countries of the collective West did not disclose the 2022 data on the exports and imports of small arms and light weapons to and from third countries became a predictable trend. Only 26 out of 57 OSCE member states performed their obligations under the SALW Document, with only seven of them openly acknowledging their arms deliveries to the neo-Nazis in Kiev. It is telling that Ukraine’s main weapons sponsors, including the United States, the UK and France, are not among the latter group. As for the Ukrainians, they refused to disclose SALW import data. This is a clear attempt to conceal weapons transfers to an armed conflict zone. Why is this happening? First, all this is happening in violation of the commitments they assumed. Second, we have already discussed Washington’s corrupt ties with Kiev. If these statistics and data are transferred to the OSCE, we will be able to compare them and get a better insight into what is going on there. Who needs it? All Washington does is pay lip service to fighting corruption within the Kiev regime. In reality, the US is actively involved in these corrupt schemes. In fact, it nurtured these corrupt practices itself to be able to be involved in them, destroy the state and gain leverage over political elites. This way, Ukraine can serve as its tool. It is for this reason that they encouraged corruption there.

However, with massive deliveries of military products to the Kiev regime, Western OSCE member states find it increasingly challenging to conceal the multiple facts exposing theft, the reselling of weapons and their transfers to arms traffickers.

It remains an open question where the next shipment of weapons to Ukraine by the would-be compassionate Western alliance surfaces. But this is happening. Czech and Belgian rifles may well target innocent people, including their own citizens, anywhere around the world. However, NATO and EU countries have been persistently ignoring the threat of nationalists, radicals or terrorists in or outside Ukraine getting their hands on these state-of-the-art weapons. Considering that the risks in this regard are quite high, we can go as far as to conclude that Western countries encourage terrorist activity.

Sending Kiev more weapons and munitions will not turn the tide on the battlefield, but it will definitely draw out the conflict, depleting the European countries’ economies and greatly undermining the defensive capabilities of the Western member states in the OSCE.

But let me return to my first message regarding this topic. Who can we reach out to discuss sensitive issues? Usually, this implies people related to security matters, but these people fail to abide by these rules and their obligations. It is not up to us, but to the international community around the world and their allies to hold them accountable for this.

New evidence of militarist Japan’s crimes

As follows from numerous Chinese and Japanese media reports, an archive document recently found in Tokyo reveals new facts on the structure and operations of Unit 731 of the Japanese Kwantung Army, which used people as guinea pigs in its monstrous bacteriological weapon tests during World War II. Do you remember we were always told that there is no such document? It turns out it does exist.

The find is a 1940 report by the Unit 731 commander to the top national leaders, which strikingly complements confessions made by Japanese war criminals at the Khabarovsk War Crimes Trial in 1949. As it was repeatedly stressed, the international community continues taking legal action to implement its decisions as well as those of the 1946-1948 International Military Tribunal for the Far East. In this connection, we hope to obtain a copy of this document soon by sending a request to our Chinese colleagues, who, according to the available information, have it in their possession.

This event once again compels us to remind Tokyo of the need to admit the full scale of their responsibility for the aggression of the 1930s and 1940s, including the invasion of Manchuria in 1931-1932 and its occupation in 1937, the Nanjing Massacre, the armed provocations at Lake Khasan and the Khalkhin Gol River in 1938-1939 (my grandfather participated in those battles), and much else – the things that Tokyo should not just remember, but also analyse. But they are doing just the opposite, trying to forget everything. The Kishida administration should also stop their revanchist rhetoric and tacit consent to the rallies the far-right nationalists stage outside Russian diplomatic missions in the context of the upcoming anniversary of the USSR joining the hostilities against militarist Japan (August 9, 1945). With this background, everyone should spend their entire lives repenting rather than organise rallies (I am referring to the political establishment in Tokyo). We know that these are stage-managed affairs and we know who organises them, as we are aware of the fact that the Japanese government is directly involved in this. Don’t organise rallies outside our diplomatic missions! From decade to decade, they send buses with loudspeakers on the roof to our diplomatic and consular missions in Tokyo and launch real psychological attacks. Megaphones blaring out round the clock, protesters shouting slogans, and they think that this is normal. They explain that this is their idea of democracy.

To reiterate: they must repent and analyse the past so that they don’t repeat the whole thing again in the future. This is what must be done and where the resources should be channelled – to this, not loudspeakers, buses and megaphones. They think this is normal and civilised behaviour. It is not. Only barbarians behave this way.

Let us note that the Red Army, as generally admitted by Russian and foreign historians, made the decisive contribution to bringing an early end to the bloody war and saved millions of Japanese lives in the main territory of Japan. Were it not for the US nuclear strikes at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, even more ordinary Japanese people would have survived the war. They should always remember this. We will be reminding them. The more buses they send to our embassies, the more frequently will we remind them of the facts.

Simultaneously we reiterate that the South Kuril Islands are an inalienable part of the Russian Federation as a result of World War II. Given this incontestable fact, any further related “protests” on the part of Tokyo will be regarded as an attempt to interfere in the Russian Federation’s internal affairs and a violation of the fundamental principles of the UN Charter.

60th anniversary of the Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapon Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space and Under Water

On August 5, 1963, in Moscow, the USSR, the United States and Great Britain signed the Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapon Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space and Under Water (also known as the Moscow Treaty), which was an important step towards ending the nuclear arms race.

The treaty was the first instrument under international law that significantly restricted nuclear tests in the three environments and laid a solid foundation for international efforts to fully prohibit the tests. It should be noted that it was done at the time when the United States and Great Britain were still able to work in earnest on removing threats to humanity and fulfil their obligations. The Moscow Treaty remains in force to this day.

The world started to hope that the era of nuclear tests would soon end on September 24, 1996, when the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) was opened for signing. Unfortunately, more than 25 years later, the CTBT, which was supposed to become the next milestone after the Moscow Treaty and completely stop all nuclear tests, has still not come into effect.

It did not happen because of the destructive and irresponsible actions of the United States, which officially refused to ratify the CTBT in 2018 and continues to adhere to this stance. We consider this choice by US officials as lack of political will, Washington’s inability to negotiate and unwillingness to comply with its obligations under international law with respect to non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and arms control.

We call on the United States, a country claiming to be an authoritative voice in arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation, to review its beliefs and misguided policies with respect to the CTBT, accept its responsibility, make a step in the right direction (we understand it will be difficult but it needs to be done) and ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, resisting the temptation to resume nuclear tests under any pretext.

International Day of the World's Indigenous Peoples

Every year on August 9, the world celebrates the International Day of Indigenous Peoples, raising awareness of the roots of traditional cultures, inspiring interest in and respect for customs, which is particularly important amidst the current geopolitical changes.

This day has special significance for Russia because in this country, almost 200 ethnicities have lived in peace and accord since the olden times. They speak 270 languages and 47 of these ethnicities are considered low-numbered. Russian law defines indigenous peoples as subject of special legislative protection and holders of collective and individual rights. The unique diversity of customs, traditions and languages is our common invaluable legacy that we cherish and develop.

It is hard to overestimate the importance of the sustainable economic, social and cultural development of small indigenous peoples, the protection of their authentic environment and traditional lifestyles, their rights and lawful interests. Therefore, supporting small indigenous peoples is a priority for the Russian Federation, which guarantees that our society will grow stronger as it faces new challenges.

Answers to media questions:

Question: What does Moscow think about statements by Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan at a news conference on July 25 to the effect that Russia has reduced its negotiating activity in a bid for Armenia-Azerbaijan normalisation because it is too involved in the events in Ukraine and cannot afford to channel its energy on this track? What about Pashinyan’s narrative about the possible withdrawal of Russian peacekeepers from Nagorno-Karabakh?

Maria Zakharova: This logic is hard to understand. It seems that in the opinion of the Armenian leadership everything was going without a hitch on this track before 2022. Let’s look at the facts.

The assumptions that some foreign policy goals have become less important for Moscow against the backdrop of the special military operation are completely unfounded. They are probably value judgments, personal opinions or emotions. It makes sense to pay attention to facts. Russia has been and remains highly interested in promoting the normalisation of relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan and achieving durable peace and accord in the region. This fully applies to the South Caucasus as well. We are also fulfilling all of our other commitments.

What “reduced activity” can be implied if a whole series of contacts with Russia’s participation at the highest and high levels took place in the past couple of months? The most important ones were as follows – the trilateral meeting of leaders in Moscow on May 25 of this year; the 12th session of the Trilateral Working Group on unblocking transport connections, which was co-chaired by the deputy prime ministers of Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia on June 2 of this year; the talks of the foreign ministers of Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia in Moscow on May 19 and July 25 of this year. Is this a reduction of activity? I cited data only for May, June and July.

One has to face the truth. Now everything depends on the consistent implementation of the agreements achieved by Baku and Yerevan, and we are ready to do everything to help them do this. But the priority is the implementation of the agreements by the sides.

I don’t understand at all the talk about a potential decision on the withdrawal of Russian peacekeepers from Nagorno-Karabakh, especially in the current very difficult humanitarian situation there. Is it the wish of Mr Pashinyan? Does he want this to happen? It is common knowledge that our peacekeepers are fulfilling important functions there – from the exchange of prisoners and demining to the settlement of incidents and rendering of humanitarian aid. Does the Armenian leadership really think that this activity is not needed or not desirable? Do they want it to end? They must make up their minds. Unfortunately, we often see representatives of the Armenian leadership take an ambivalent position on several key issues. We wish there were no ambiguity on this issue. Fast and loose talk is counterproductive.

A key contribution of the Russian peacemaking contingent to security in its deployment area was repeatedly noted at the highest level as well as the urgent need for its efforts to normalise the situation.

These attempts to call all this into doubt raise big questions. Why is this being done? In general, after the Armenian leadership recognised that Nagorno-Karabakh belongs to Azerbaijan (as they put it) any grievances about Russia’s insufficient efforts seem even more out of place.

Question: At the end of last week you reported that talks are underway with a number of African countries to open Russian embassies there. Are new personnel being trained for them with the knowledge necessary to work in Africa, or will diplomats who had to leave the EU and the US ahead of schedule be sent there?

Maria Zakharova: So far, there are agreements on opening Russian embassies in some African states with which we have long-established diplomatic relations.

First of all, specialised country experts will be involved in the work of the new foreign missions. The Foreign Ministry has a sufficient number of them and they have already proved themselves to be excellent professionals in this area. As for employees of closed foreign missions in Europe, our ministry has a whole employment programme for them in accordance with their qualifications, professional training and language competence, both in the central office and in foreign missions. Everything is addressed individually here in a systematic way. We consider various employment options for each employee. Everything is specified in the corresponding programme (by programme I mean a document).

Regarding specific plans for opening embassies, we will definitely share information as soon as the negotiation process with our partners allows us to do so.

Question: The US Department of State confirmed that talks on security guarantees for Ukraine started this week. Its Spokesperson Matthew Miller said that this would be about lasting commitments to assisting Kiev on security matters that are not related to the current supplies. Earlier, the Head of the Office of the President of Ukraine Andrey Yermak said that these guarantees would be in force until Ukraine joined NATO. What do you think the message is behind these security guarantees for Ukraine and what does Russia think about Washington’s actions in general?

Maria Zakharova: All this is akin to verbal gymnastics designed to frame the issue using astute language borrowed from political science, while the gist of the matter remains the same. It all comes down to using Ukraine as a tool in a hybrid war against Russia unleashed by the West and keeping the Ukrainian territory as a bridgehead, literally, for delivering on the objective I have just mentioned.

Washington has been quite diligent in acting as the general headquarters of the hybrid war the collective West is waging against Russia without sparing its resources or means or those of the Europeans and without heeding Ukraine’s military losses. Their only objective is to make sure that our neighbouring country remains a threat to Russia for as long as possible. The Americans spent over $43 billion on military aid over the past 18 months alone.

The Kiev regime hoped that it would get a signal regarding its future NATO membership during the Alliance’s summit in Vilnius on July 12, 2023. For Vladimir Zelensky, this was more about being hysterical and undertaking a large-scale PR effort akin to blackmail rather than simple expectations. It is obvious however that there is no consensus on this matter among NATO members, for various reasons. This could be a way to keep the topic of what they refer to as avoiding decoupling and promoting consolidation afloat among political observers. To sum up the Vilnius meeting, Joe Biden’s administration decided to pick the right words to inspire the Kiev regime by promising to think about security guarantees of some sort as a way to motivate it to carry on with hostilities. This goal is rather obvious. I have already talked about it.

I would like to remind you about the position we have adopted in this regard, which we have mentioned repeatedly. Ukraine must be neutral in order to bring about a settlement in the Ukraine conflict. Any attempts to make Ukraine part of NATO, provide it security guarantees of any kind or come up with any other way of framing it – anything that can be viewed as membership in this organisation would complicate the situation around the Ukraine crisis and lead to unpredictable consequences in terms of European and global security. I think that everyone understands this now.

It is important to remember that for the United States, Ukraine is primarily a tool to serve its own geopolitical interests. Eventually, Washington will have to come to terms with the new geopolitical reality and forgo its claims to hegemony. This will not be an easy process for the US and quite a painful one too, considering its aspiration to an exceptional status, but it is also inevitable.

Question: What is Russia’s position regarding Azerbaijan’s demands to hand back to Azerbaijan seven enclaves in the Ararat and Tavush regions?

Maria Zakharova: We know Baku’s position on this matter. Armenia has similar claims towards Azerbaijan.

We believe that all territorial disputes must be resolved as part of the effort to delimitate and delineate the border between Armenia and Azerbaijan as coordinated by the corresponding bilateral commission.

We welcome the fact that it held its fourth meeting on July 12, 2023, after a long break. Russia stands ready to assist these efforts by offering its advice (expert and documentary support) to settle all issues, including the most challenging ones.

Question: Is your ministry involved in the efforts to return Russian prisoners of war from Ukraine?

Maria Zakharova: This is above all the responsibility of the Defence Ministry and Human Rights Commissioner Tatyana Moskalkova. The Foreign Ministry joins in these efforts when and if necessary, but the bulk of responsibility rests with the above two sources.

Question: I have a follow-up question about Askar Kubanychbek. State Duma deputy Maria Butina wrote in her Telegram channel that she had sent a request to the Foreign Ministry. Member of the Presidential Human Rights Council Kirill Kabanov has reported that council members would file an appeal with the Foreign Ministry and the Interior Ministry to give the man a Russian passport in the Bishkek pretrial detention centre and to request that the Kyrgyz authorities release and turn him over to Russia. Is there any new information about this case?

Maria Zakharova: I can only tell you that we have received the appeal and we are working on it.

Question: UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has said that a “handful of donations” can’t replace the amount of grain that was safely exported via the Black Sea during the grain deal period. Could you comment on that, please?

Maria Zakharova: A “handful of donations” is a strange choice of words for the secretary-general of an organisation that deals with global issues. One should ask the recipient countries for which this “handful” is intended what they think about that amount and what they want. Antonio Guterres should have asked them before making such statements on camera. Maybe this “handful” is extremely important to them.

I remember that an audience consisting of a huge number of African leaders applauded President Putin when he announced the intention to send Russian food as humanitarian aid to the countries in need. One should choose one’s words carefully when speaking about humanitarian actions where a country sends aid to other countries free of charge in an act of good will and sympathy. A high position entails great responsibility.

Some people might hypothetically turn this phrase the other way around, for example, that a “handful” of UN Secretariat personnel can’t mend the dramatic consequences of the collapse of international law. It opens the door to the wrong kind of rhetoric, as if efforts taken in accordance with one’s powers and good will can draw a hostile reaction. It is not something anyone should say.

It sounds as if the grain deal and the Black Sea initiative were adopted because Russia allegedly could not for some reason deliver the foods it has promised. This is not true. I believe that the UN Secretary-General knows very well that there were no problems with delivery, sale or free supply of Russian foods other than the unlawful Western sanctions aimed at blocking any ties with Russia regardless of the global needs.

Antonio Guterres should have addressed his message to the countries that churn out a package of unlawful sanctions every month regardless of their direct or indirect consequences. The word “handful” should have been applied to them. A “handful” of Western countries has created conditions for the dramatic consequences of the grain deal’s termination. Before that, they created a situation that has led to the dramatic consequences for global food security. The word “handful” fits them perfectly. The function of the UN Secretariat is to reproach the countries which are destroying the balance in the global economic system and using unlawful sanctions for taking steps that are destructive for the UN as a universal organisation and the world as a whole.

Food security is not being threatened by Russia’s actions. Russia is ready to sell food and fertilisers or deliver them as humanitarian aid. Nothing at all has changed in our position. It is the actions of the collective West that are threatening global food security. It is their irresponsible food, environment and energy policy and their buy cheap, sell high machinations on these markets. It is their disregard for the basic economic indicators. There are elements of a crisis and recession in some Western countries. All this is a wonderful opportunity for UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to thoroughly analyse potential consequences and to direct his criticism at the right quarters.

Question: Does Moscow expect to receive an invitation to the upcoming meeting on the Ukrainian peace formula in Saudi Arabia? Will the Foreign Ministry monitor the developments around this meeting?

Maria Zakharova: We have already commented on this issue. We are maintaining contacts with different countries that propose their peace initiatives. The meetings initiated by the Kiev regime and its Western curators to promote Vladimir Zelensky’s so-called formula are a pretence. It will be neither a research conference nor a meeting of diplomats to find political solutions; it is an attempt to take advantage of certain countries’ sincere intentions and to put together an anti-Russia coalition.

It is bait. The countries that sincerely care and want to settle the situation, to avoid a bigger conflict around Ukraine, are being lured to discuss Zelensky’s formula and develop some sort of a peace initiative. But it is a lie, another staged scheme. Under the pretext of a conversation with the parties that care, they want to put together an anti-Russia coalition to show the world’s alleged unity against Russia’s actions.

I am saying this because Zelensky’s formula has nothing to do with peace or a peace plan. The Russian Federation has repeatedly, including just recently, confirmed that the formula is unacceptable. This story does not and will not work for us. It is pointless to discuss it and assume that Russia would participate.

With meetings of this kind, the Kiev regime is trying to monopolise the right to propose peace initiatives. Everybody saw the Kiev regime’s brazen and obnoxious reaction to the peace initiatives of the countries and political leaders who care. Why? Because they don’t need anybody. They want to dominate and devalue the importance of mediation or humanitarian proposals from other countries. Zelensky’s formula was intentionally composed of things that will never work.

Remember the Western formula? Only fighting until the end and no peace talks. The Kiev regime was blocked from negotiating and eventually, it prohibited any talks. There is no peace agenda. The West is pursuing a goal of killing as many Russians as possible (as confirmed by George W. Bush and senator Lindsey Graham). The goal of the Kiev regime is to kill as many Ukrainian citizens as possible. And it is what they are doing. This is what Zelensky’s formula was created for and inherently, it has nothing to do with reality and none of its provisions are feasible. Ukraine is running around the world with this formula, rejecting anything proposed by potential mediators and countries that care.

As a matter of fact, the Kiev regime’s pseudo-peace plan has nothing to do with peace. It consists of ultimatums that are unacceptable a priori. The demands it makes on Russia cannot and will not be fulfilled. The authors of the peace initiative realise this very well and plainly use the initiative as their cover to justify the Kiev regime’s combat activity and obtain more material aid. It is a corrupt scheme.

These meetings might be helpful if they prompt the West to realise that Zelensky’s intrigues and his plan are leading to a dead-end.

Question: Is it possible that Moscow will establish contacts with the new leaders of Niger amidst this controversial situation? On the one hand, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov condemned the attempts to seize power in Niger and said that the constitutional order in the country must be restored. On the other hand, pro-Russia rallies have been held in that African country. The media report that they used slogans such as “Cheers to Russia!” and “Down with France.”

Maria Zakharova: What do you mean by potential contacts?

Question: Establishing potential relations and a dialogue.

Maria Zakharova: Today and in the previous days, we expressed sincere interest in preventing a further escalation. It is necessary to start a national dialogue for restoring civil peace, ensure the rule of law and public order. We believe that these are the primary measures that must be taken. We have also noted a dynamic that inspires hope.

Any other matters are not important until the situation enters a legitimate and peaceful track.

Question: How is Russia planning to help in resolving the new scandal in relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan? Yerevan sent a humanitarian convoy for the Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh, failing, according to Baku, to coordinate the move with the Azerbaijani authorities. Yerevan has also invited EU observers to monitor the progress of its convoy. At the same time, the Russian peacekeepers are being accused of alleged inaction.

Maria Zakharova: You are right in saying that the dispatch of the humanitarian convoy was not coordinated with the Azerbaijani authorities. Despite that, the Russian peacekeeping contingent immediately joined the search for solutions and established permanent contacts with both sides.

Against this background, we regard any accusations against the Russian peacekeepers as counterproductive and non-reflective of their real contribution to the effort to stabilise the situation on the ground. Contacts have been established and will yield results.

Question: Not so long ago, a captured Russian tank was installed in front of the Russian Embassy in Berlin. Is Russia planning a tit-for-tat response? Will it display captured Western military equipment in front of Western embassies in Moscow: a Leopard for the Germans, a Bradley for the Americans, a Challenger for the British, and APCs for the French? What crippled equipment would you place in front of the Polish Embassy?

Maria Zakharova: The question you have asked about crippled or destroyed equipment and its placing on display before the embassies of corresponding countries should be addressed to the Russian Ministry of Defence and the Moscow authorities. It is they that should make the relevant decisions. We are aware that the public wants this to be implemented. The Foreign Ministry has the full right to support the will of the people and we have used this right. But the actual implementation (if it ever takes place) is up to the Defence Ministry and the Moscow authorities.

The Western states took the liberty to drag out Russian tanks and use them as a pretext for sneering at our ancestors and the current Ukrainian tragedy. But this is unacceptable. They should not get away with it, and not because we are vindictive or always use our right to tit-for-tat. We have not resorted to it previously. I am talking about other ways of showing that there is an alternative to the beastly manner of living proposed by the collective West. There are things that you must not allow to pass by. This is not about being piqued, or feeling superior, or turning sarcastic. This is about plunging people into an atmosphere into which they have plunged others so that they understand what is what, even although they are unable to realise this in full measure. It’s beyond them. After all, this is modern equipment.

For my part, I can say that this event, if we proceed with it, could be held not only in Moscow. The unfriendly countries and suppliers of equipment [to Ukraine] have their general consulates and diplomatic missions in other Russian cities as well. But again this is a question for its would-be organisers.

As for the kind of equipment that is to be installed, it’s not my problem. I am not much of an expert on equipment. This is a question for true experts who will implement the decision.

Question: The German media have been describing the Russia-Africa Summit as a failure. What are its key outcomes? COMPACT-TV broadcasts its programming in Germany, directly bypassing Western censors.

Maria Zakharova: I believe that it was the NATO Summit that failed. Everyone came there. What for? What was the outcome? It all ended with a huge scandal, demonstrating not only a total lack of understanding among participants, but also the absence of unity in their ranks. They also showcased a dictator, a monster nurtured by Western money, but they refused to integrate him into NATO or even to treat him as someone with whom they could talk on equal terms, even in terms of protocol. This was a failure.

No one in NATO could dream about achieving the level of success and scale we had during the Russia-Africa Summit. I do know what I am talking about when discussing how summits take place today. Protocol usually dominates the agenda and the events tend to take place behind closed doors, followed by a news conference. But the 2023 Russia-Africa Summit in St Petersburg was different and even revolutionary. I believe that this was the summit of the future. It included meetings at the highest level, and an exhibition demonstrating the subject matter of the agreements, contracts and future decisions outlined during the summit – this exhibition was in front of the Expoforum building. Had the Western journalists dared write the truth, they would have told their audiences how the summit was organised. Let me give you some facts and figures.

Official delegations from African countries took part in the summit with 27 countries represented at the level of their highest and second highest-ranking officials. Five major African integration associations took part in the summit. There were two plenary sessions.

During the debates, speakers reaffirmed their commitment to working together to build a new multipolar architecture with better justice for all, based on the sovereign equality of states and mutually beneficial cooperation. This is an essential message in today’s world. Unfortunately, we cannot hear it anywhere else these days. There was a time, however, when international organisations within the UN system talked about it along the same lines.

Today, the UN rarely uses words such as justice when discussing the future world order. This is unfortunate. They seldom recall international law or talk about ensuring genuine sovereign equality of states. But the summit reflected all these values, demonstrating how many countries and regional structures share them as far as Russia’s relations with Africa are concerned. If we extrapolate these numbers to include the Global South, this would mean a global majority.

Five key documents were adopted during the summit: four declarations and the Russia-Africa Partnership Forum Action Plan 2023–2026. We signed two documents with Africa’s leading integration associations: the Memorandum of Understanding between the Russian Federation and the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) on the Foundations of Mutual Relations and Cooperation and the Memorandum of Understanding between the Russian Government and the Economic Community of Central African States (ECCAS) on the Foundation for Relations and Cooperation.

There were 9,000 participants and 2,000 journalists, including 400 to 500 foreign reporters. Apart from Russia and the African continent, other countries were also represented at the summit. Foreign business leaders came in thousands. There were over 2,000 Russian business leaders. There were 1,100 in official foreign delegations. The programme included 59 breakaway sessions with 457 speakers. There were four main tracks: The New Global Economy, Cooperation in Science and Technology, The Humanitarian and Social Sphere: Working Together for a New Quality of Life, and Integrated Security and Sovereign Development. There was also a media forum. The summit offered a venue for signing 161 agreements. It included a youth and a cultural programme, a film festival, a gastronomic project, etc.

This was a forum of the future at its finest. This is the way to hold events of this kind, without segregating anyone using the garden vs. jungle approach or any other attributes, without assigning any labels or assessing the extent to which any given country is a democracy. What we had was equality and commitment to peaceful development, justice and rejection of colonialism, imperialism and racial discrimination in all their forms – genuine sovereignty and mutual respect based on the international law, primarily the UN Charter.

Question: In the early hours of July 31, 2023, the opposition held a protest rally against Russians arriving in Georgia near the mooring site of the Astoria Grande cruise ship in Batumi. The opposition threw eggs at tourist buses, chanting aggressive slogans against Russian nationals. How do the foreign ministries of Russia and Georgia interact in such cases? Is there a mutually constructive solution to this problem?

Maria Zakharova: Before we further analyse things, it is important to understand what it was, and it was an ordered campaign. They are held to fit different agendas, in the context of Russia or some domestic issues. We understand who orders them.

Most participants in these campaigns represent the organisers rather than the local population. The evidence is all there, including praise for this provocation from representatives of the radical Georgian opposition and several Western countries. Everybody is aware of the statements made by US Ambassador in Tbilisi Kelly C. Degnan. She directly teaches Georgian citizens how to live and enjoys seeing such campaigns happen. Her statements prove who stands behind and benefits from these acts.

The campaign was not approved inside the country. We continue to receive a great number of messages from Georgian citizens saying that this outrageous incident was unacceptable to them and they (as residents of the country) have nothing to do with it and want to distance themselves from it. Remember what happened when Russia-Georgia flights were resumed? Who could be against the flights? If you do not want to fly, just don’t. If you want to fly, go ahead. People do fly, difficulties notwithstanding, through third countries, and paying enormous money for uncomfortable connections. As soon as citizens of Russia and Georgia were given the opportunity to fly directly, somebody decided to object it. Many public activists in Georgia wondered why somebody else decides for them what they need and what they don’t. It was okay to fly through third countries but not directly? Direct flights are much better for people who now have to think about bigger travel budgets than they initially planned because of the collective West’s schemes on a whole range of destinations.

It was a provocation. If those people had been sincere, they would have thought about the amount of profit they earn from Russian tourism and the opportunities our market opens. They would have thought about their families and friends who are bound up with the other country by history, family ties and so on. What we saw was a typical paid provocation.

Question: Can you please comment on Azerbaijan’s kidnapping of an Artsakh resident from a Lachin corridor checkpoint? He was being transported by the International Committee of the Red Cross and was kidnapped in front of the ICRC and Russian peacekeepers, despite the fact that Baku had received the list of patients transported by the ICRC well in advance. What measures are being taken to help Vagif Khachatryan?

Maria Zakharova: The incident has made it even more difficult to look for complicated but necessary solutions, compromises and decisions, and it further aggravates the situation. We have noted the opposing views on the situation by Armenia and Azerbaijan.

Regardless of the incident, we believe it is important to achieve peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan and ensure the protection of the rights and security of the Nagorno-Karabakh population.

Question: According to the information from Artsakh officials, Russia is insisting on talks between the republic’s representatives and Azerbaijan in Yevlakh. After the recent incidents, are talks involving citizens of Artsakh even possible on the territory of Azerbaijan? How can the safety of Armenian participants in the talks be guaranteed if Azerbaijan gravely violates its obligations to international bodies and ignores the presence of Russian peacekeepers?

Maria Zakharova: I understand that journalists put on different sides of the ring in conflicts (whether hot, simmering or cold) usually face a dilemma: they either remain objective or take a side. There is no way around it due to several aspects of this complex situation.

But there can be no journalism without objectivity. Certainly, there is also a civic position and a personal opinion. But journalism implies objectivity. One should understand that tirades and slogans will not help the case. Even if you ask a question. They will only add to exasperation and agitation. I strongly advise everybody: when you ask questions, please be as impartial as possible and avoid making declarations.

Question: I have only described the situation and provided facts. I have not changed anything. I have only repeated what a resident of Artsakh told me.

Maria Zakharova: I think that you are a professional journalist and see what I mean. Here is my answer; it would not have been complete without the introduction.

Russia supports the idea of talks between Baku and Stepanakert. This issue is on the agenda of our contacts with the parties concerned. The Russian peacekeepers have already helped organise several such meetings, and they are ready to provide the necessary assistance in the future. Russia has not advanced any preconditions; we are working consistently to align the positions of the parties, which are far apart in the context of increased tensions in Nagorno-Karabakh.

As for the events you have mentioned in your first question, they are having a negative impact on the already complicated situation.

Question: We are seeing the beginning of famine in Artsakh. What is being done to unblock the Lachin corridor and ensure the deliveries needed to prevent a humanitarian disaster? Baku is not responding to official and unofficial appeals from Russia and other countries.

Maria Zakharova: We are working with both parties. Although you have said that official appeals are ineffective, we repeat our call for unblocking the Lachin corridor without delay and for creating normal conditions for the life and work of local residents.

A great deal depends on political will and readiness for compromise, which would quickly ease tensions.

Question: President of Russia Vladimir Putin said that Russia and Africa were united by an innate desire to defend true sovereignty. If the President speaks of some kind of genuine sovereignty, does this mean that the problems of Russian sovereignty are similar to those of African countries? International bodies (such as the IMF) do not classify us as developed countries. Does the West want to turn Russia, like the countries of Africa, into its colony?

Maria Zakharova: We can say that we have similar problems but we also have different experiences. One does not contradict the other. On the contrary, it complements President of Russia Vladimir Putin’s statement in general.

The historical experiences differ. The African continent was a colony for the countries that we now call Western. They used to be called metropoles. They ruled everything in Africa, from resources to people’s lives. And when, during the process of decolonisation, they were forced to leave the continent, they created so many problems for the African peoples, for the future, that many of them are still bleeding.

Russia has had no such experience. It has never been anyone’s colony. At the same time, the main thing is that we have never been colonisers. But we share a common understanding and vision, not only in the current situation: it is rooted in the past. Despite different experiences, we share the same view that the revival of colonial systems, imperialism is unacceptable, as is the return of things like racial discrimination or any discrimination at all (nationality, skin colour, geography, language, skull shape, etc.) in any form or at any level.

There were different times: several centuries of colonialism, Africa’s subordination to metropoles, and not just racial discrimination but slavery in the literal sense. Our experience dates back to the 20th century. They wanted to either enslave us or annihilate us, if enslavement did not bring the desired result or did not happen at all. I mean Nazism and fascism, which was based on exactly the same segregation of people. True, there were several other principles like skin colour in Africa or origin, nationality, region of residence in our case. These are the common points.

Experience, sometimes different, sometimes similar, today leads us to understand that a return to segregating people on any basis is inacceptable, as is the oppression of some countries, states, systems by others. This is a common path (I believe that we have travelled it together) of decolonisation. Decolonisation would not have happened without the role the Soviet Union played. This was not just a struggle and support for these countries in their struggle for independence, but also assistance to these countries after they gained independence.

After being colonies for many centuries and having gained independence, it could have been lost due to the huge number of problems created by the colonialists leaving Africa, due to artificially created poverty, and due to the political “young age” of these countries at the time. Only the support of a strong, powerful, and reliable friend (I won’t even say “partner” or “player”) was a guarantee that they would retain this independence, would not lose their freedom again and would develop along their own path. This is what the Soviet Union did for the African continent. Everything together ensures our common views on genuine sovereignty today.

Question: President Vladimir Putin said that “it is not the experts but the media that are brainwashing millions of people.” What do you think the President was talking about? Has the Foreign Ministry faced any intentional efforts to distort the information it communicates inside Russia?

Maria Zakharova: We regularly face situations of this kind. This is precisely what President Vladimir Putin meant. Western mainstream media distort the reality to an extent that it becomes unrecognisable. This distorted vision targets audiences in Western countries and all the countries where the Western mainstream media can beam their broadcasts or have content sharing agreements. The way that this affects audiences shapes the reality, it is a vicious circle.

Not only do we face situations of this kind, but we have to live with them. The Foreign Ministry runs the Anti-fake section on its website where every day we refute specific articles or review publications containing misinformation. There are many anti-Russia video reports. It did not start in 2022 or in 2014, but much earlier.

There used to be a policy of ensuring that there was no positive news about Russia. They either kept silent about us, or talked about crime, corruption or our awkwardness. The media did not say a word about construction projects, sports, culture, humanitarian affairs, education, achievements in research and technology, or about how people live their lives. Later, they started adding a dose of Russophobia to their reporting, first covertly, and then overtly.

Question: Have you faced anything of this kind inside Russia?

Maria Zakharova: It happens here too. In the Anti-fake section, you will find articles from the Russian media written by those who were registered and turned out to be foreign agents. But there is more to it than just foreign agents.

Do you know what distinguishes a fake story or brainwashing from a mistake? Everyone makes mistakes, including the media, state-run news agencies, and government agencies in communications work. This is something that cannot be avoided considering the pace at which we work today and the workload we face. But when there is a mistake, you can recognise it, apologise and set the record straight. As for fakes, they get pushed into the news stream regardless of whether they were exposed as such. They constitute an intentional effort to spread unverified and misleading information.

Everyone does this. The West has been pumping out these fakes on a massive scale, but it happens in Russia too.

Question: Do you think that it would make sense for media outlets, for example Golos Otechestva (Voice of the Fatherland) which I represent, to broadcast in other languages to make sure that foreign audiences learn the truth about Russia? How can this be done?

Maria Zakharova: You can produce news content in foreign languages, make translations, or hire native authors. It depends on your capabilities and resources.

Table of contents:

Дополнительные материалы

Фото

Основные новости внешней политики

Международная безопасность