Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, March 20, 2024
- The election of the President of the Russian Federation
- Sergey Lavrov’s talks with Foreign Minister of Serbia Ivica Dacic
- The Ukrainian crisis
- Russia accused of forced assimilation of Ukrainian children
- NATO’s 2023 report and remarks by Jens Stoltenberg
- Anti-Russia statements and actions of Icelandic officials
- International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea bars two arbiters from examining a Russian-Ukrainian legal dispute for their support of a declaration condemning the special military operation
- European Organisation for Nuclear Research terminating cooperation with Russia in 2024
- IOC’s decisions on granting access for “neutral” athletes from Russia to the Olympics
- IOC urges athletes and governments to refrain from taking part in World Friendship Games
- Summit for Democracy
- TikTok restrictions in the US
- European Commission’s abuses in the procurement of anticoviral vaccines
- Threats to participants in the World Youth Festival
- Remembrance Day for the Victims of NATO bombings in Serbia (1999)
- 20th anniversary of Serb pogroms in Kosovo ( Serbia )
- More “ghosts” of Britain’s colonial past
- 80th anniversary of the initial liberation of Moldavia from the Nazi invaders
- Talks with the United States on arms control with no preconditions
- The EU’s decision to transfer the interest on the frozen Russian assets to Ukraine
- NATO Secretary General’s tour of the South Caucasus
- Using Russian MIR cards in Armenia
- European politicians’ comments on the Russian presidential election
- Statements by the President of Moldova
- A Russian Embassy employee being declared persona non grata by Moldova
- Argentina’s BRICS membership
- The situation around the Zaporozhskaya NPP
- US interference in China’s domestic affairs
- The Boao Forum for Asia
- The United States creating the Starshield network
- Russian television broadcasting in Armenia
- Germany’s supplies of Taurus missiles to Ukraine
- Statements by the Armenian leadership
- Türkiye’s role in settling the Ukrainian crisis
- Talks between Azerbaijan and Armenia
- A meeting of the Joint Russia-Kazakhstan Demarcation Commission
- Western interference in the South Caucasus
- Russia-Africa relations
- The roles of Russia and Africa in building a multipolar world
- A buffer zone in Ukraine
- Russia-China relations
- Russians casting their votes abroad
- Visa-free travel to Iran and other countries for Russian citizens
The election of the President of the Russian Federation
I will begin with a brief overview of the results of the election of the President of the Russian Federation abroad, which is within the Foreign Ministry’s purview. We have received a lot of questions about, among other things, who voted for whom in a particular country. We have summed these questions up, and I will now give you a comprehensive answer. The district election commissions’ voting records are posted on the CEC websites. The results of voting in the Russian presidential campaign of 2024 will be reviewed during a meeting of the Central Election Commission chaired by Ella Pamfilova on March 21.
Most experts and analysts agree that the elections abroad were a success despite the unfriendly countries’ promises to hinder and obstruct them and their attempts to prevent us from choosing proper electoral formats and logistics. This is an excellent result against the background of the collective West’s plans to disrupt and interfere with our elections.
The Foreign Ministry worked extensively in Russia and abroad. Voting took place at all 288 polling stations in foreign countries. As a matter of fact, there were several more polling stations, but 288 were within our purview. The turnout was high with 383,553 voters showing up at the polling stations. To put that in perspective, it is about twice as many as during the parliamentary elections in 2021. The Central Election Commission has the prerogative to announce the official results, but already now, given that the data from the polling stations, including the ones abroad, are available on the CEC websites, everyone can see that Vladimir Putin has won a landslide victory, including outside the Russian Federation.
The election campaign abroad owes its success to outreach campaigns conducted by diplomatic missions under our guidance and with direct coordination by the CEC. In particular, our foreign missions focused on providing enhanced security measures. Thanks to our missions’ efforts, the voting was held without serious incidents. Provocations by anti-Russian forces were quelled in a timely and effective manner.
There were some egregious instances. In Moldova, an extremist act took place during the voting. We shared this information publicly. If we look at the global picture and take into account the unfriendly countries’ direct and indirect “promises” and “assurances” to the effect that “our elections will not take place” and “this is not an election” (which clearly reveals their unwillingness to provide a proper environment for holding the elections) and if we also bear in mind the massive turnout, we can say that the elections were held without serious incidents.
During the preparation and holding of the elections, all Foreign Ministry units at home and abroad worked in coordination to ensure that adequate preparations were made for our citizens abroad to vote. Russia guaranteed its citizens their constitutional right to take part in the election.
The situation was complicated by the fact that in late 2023, decisions by unfriendly regimes reduced our diplomatic presence. Consulates general were closed in localities that are densely populated by our compatriots. The number of Russian diplomatic staff was reduced right up until the start of the election: our diplomats were expelled and declared personae non grata; and visa issuance was delayed to thwart personnel rotation at our missions. These malevolent acts by unfriendly regimes against Russian diplomats are ongoing. The countries that we call unfriendly or subject to influence by the collective West are expelling Russian diplomats in connection with the presidential elections. I understand why Russian diplomats are causing such bitter feelings. It’s because their performance is excellent.
The Foreign Ministry and the foreign missions covered the voting process at polling stations around the world on social media, in real time and around the clock, showing the real picture, as opposed to what the mainstream Western media tried to portray. Our embassies and diplomats became a source of truthful information about the voting abroad. The Western journalists did not have the chance to go at full throttle as they had planned and as their regimes encouraged them to do.
You may have noticed that their plan was to start covering the Russian presidential election from noon on Sunday. Unlike them, we started providing information on our social media the moment the elections started. Many of our foreign offices held the polls ahead of schedule over several days in accordance with the laws of the Russian Federation. Unfortunately, Western journalists, who swore allegiance to their political regimes rather than their profession, were left with no chance to distort the picture and turn the legitimate expression of the will by Russian citizens into some kind of protest rally, staged performance, or flash mob.
I will give you some figures. We are talking about 288 polling stations in 144 countries. As many as 1,200 articles, thousands of photos and videos have been posted on our resources since early March. It was not an information race to achieve a goal that we had set ourselves. We did this to prevent insinuations regarding the presidential election abroad.
Those who followed our Telegram channel could see everything that was broadcast literally live, with their own eyes. The information was transparent and readily available even though the collective West and its hired provocateurs spared no effort to, first, obstruct the voting, then to smear it, to downplay its importance, to make a show out of it, in a word, to do everything to turn people's civic responsibility into some kind of civil irresponsibility. In fact, hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens who live and work abroad came to ballot stations. Despite all their plans, the Westerners failed.
Our citizens who came to vote in the presidential election were the best answer to the Western information, or rather disinformation, campaign. This is important. We were happy to post videos refuting all the insinuations. Our citizens explained why they had come to vote, looking directly into the camera. They said they would make their choice at the polling station, confirming that they had not come to take part in a flash mob or a protest rally, but to vote. They responded to outright insults and threats with our Russian folk songs. They responded with dignity and honour. I think a better way to put it would be as follows: the West wanted things to turn out as badly as possible, but things turned out our way.
We have noted a flurry of statements by our Western “partners” with regard to assessing the results of the presidential election in our country. As if on cue, they began to read out the same lines from guidance materials, using the same words and expressions, even before the polling stations closed. Many rehearsed long before the elections started. Of course, the goal was to distort the results. They were unable to disrupt the elections, including those abroad, or to influence the will of the citizens, having no right to do so, and decided to distort the results.
Commenting on these attacks, I would like to point out that presidential elections in Russia are direct. No one has the right to insult the Russian people who have made their choice. And if you in the West are jealous, don’t be. Instead, go ahead and fix your pseudo-democracies and your laws, and bring them in line with real and true democratic norms. And we will be happy for you.
Sergey Lavrov’s talks with Foreign Minister of Serbia Ivica Dacic
On March 21, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will meet with his Serbian counterpart Ivica Dacic. We will publish more details on the event later and will be keeping you up to date on the talks and their outcome tomorrow.
The Kiev regime tried very hard to disrupt the Russian presidential election in the border regions of Russia, particularly focusing on its former territories, the DPR, the LPR, the Zaporozhye and Kherson regions. So much for the support of people they still call “Ukrainian citizens.” Of course, they are Russian citizens now, but the Kiev regime continues to insist that they have the right to call them “Ukrainian citizens.” These so-called citizens of the Kiev regime (which they are not) first received threats from the people who “care” about them so much and want to get them back. After the threats came targeted bombing of civilian areas. This is how much they care. “Their” residents have been receiving open threats of physical violence. It reached the point of actual terrorist activity.
On March 15, in the Kherson Region, the Banderites struck two polling stations in Kakhovka and the village of Brilyovka, Alyoshkinsky District. They also planted an improvised explosive device at another polling station, in Skadovsk. Perhaps there is somebody left on Bankova Street whose brain is not dulled by drugs? Do you really believe that, after you have intentionally bombed and shot people at polling stations, you still have the right to make claims? The only right way to respond to this is to express historic contempt for everything associated with the Kiev regime. Unfortunately, there were casualties. Two people were wounded.
On March 16, in the Zaporozhye Region, the Ukrainian Army dropped explosives from a drone five metres away from a polling station in the village of Blagoveshchenka. I want to ask those who commented on the Russian election in the Western countries: are you sure you did not forget to include anything in your playbook? How about condemning the terrorist attacks committed by the Kiev regime at the polling stations? This is exactly how the incidents should be qualified. Do you want to know why you are not talking about this? I am addressing Washington, London, Paris, Berlin and collective Brussels. Because you do the targeting for the Kiev regime, and you provide the coordinates for strikes on people who want to live freely and participate in the democratic process – genuinely and not hypocritically like you.
On March 17, a woman was killed in an artillery attack by the Ukrainian neo-Nazis. She was a member of a local election commission in Berdyansk. The morning of the same day, the Ukrainians used two UAVs to attack two polling stations at the Molodyozhny and Sovremennik cultural centres in Energodar, a satellite city of the Zaporozhskaya NPP.
Where is the OSCE? I would like to ask everybody who has been foaming at the mouth about observing the Russian presidential election in 2024. Can you not see from Vienna that polling stations are being bombed? Do you still lack information to resolutely protest the actions of the Kiev regime? What else do you need to draw the necessary conclusion based on indisputable facts? I will tell you: one must have courage and integrity to do that. Apparently, the specialised bodies in charge of making such statements lost both courage and integrity long ago.
As a result, Kiev failed at preventing Russians from expressing their will freely. The voting turnout in the regions reunified with Russia was above the nationwide average and exceeded 80 percent. People showed resolve and unwavering commitment to vote for the future of their Motherland, its prosperity and steady progress.
They did it amidst shelling, knowing that they may get killed by the Kiev regime. They did exactly what they did in 2014, when they voted in the referendum for true freedom. Where are these numerous non-government organisations, special reporters of special committees and tribunals who are so concerned about the situation in Ukraine? Don’t you see that the Kiev regime is shooting people at hospitals, schools and polling stations? But you stay silent. This is more than betrayal; this is a crime against history. You have betrayed the people that you “care” so much about. You have been betraying them all these years, and now you are committing an actual crime.
On March 12, Russian military personnel and the Federal Security Service’s operatives prevented militants from invading several districts of the Kursk and Belgorod regions.
Between March 12 and 19, at least 98 casualties, including 16 fatalities, were recorded in the Belgorod Region alone. About 40 people, including children, are currently receiving treatment at medical facilities.
In the early hours of March 14, 60 drone strikes were launched in various Russian regions.
On March 14, the Armed Forces of Ukraine shelled the central hospital building in Kakhovka, the Kherson Region. On March 16, pro-Bandera supporters hit a group of people near a local monument to the victims of Nazism. The attack killed one woman and injured four other people.
On March 15, Ukrainian Nazi attacks killed three children, including a girl born in 2021, in Donetsk.
On March 17, the Armed Forces of Ukraine shelled kindergartens in Brilyovka, the Kherson Region, and Belgorod. A shell fragment killed a civilian resident of Belgorod.
We are recording every incident in this category. The Investigative Committee of Russia and our law enforcement agencies are working super-fast. Where are all those international institutions that have been repeating the words “Ukraine,” “human rights” and “civil society” for so many years? Each time, they turn away and say they do not know from what direction civilians were attacked. They have even stopped repeating the word “Bucha” because it is improper to refer to something that never happened and to distort the facts. You should use real facts, there is no shortage of them.
The Russian Federation’s courts continue to pass sentences on Ukrainian militants, found guilty of committing grave crimes against civilians, using evidence collected by the Investigative Committee of Russia.
A court in Donetsk sentenced Azov militants, who fired mortars at residential buildings, to between 26 and 27 years in prison.
Not a single Ukrainian criminal will go unpunished. They will be exposed and severely punished in accordance with the law.
Speaking of the Kiev regime’s Western curators, US Senator Lindsey Graham (designated as terrorist and extremist in Russia), one of the architects of the “war to the last Ukrainian” plan who visited Kiev on March 18, called on the Zelensky regime to recruit young people under the age of 25 and to fast-track the adoption of a draft law on ramping up the mobilisation drive. In his opinion, everyone should take up arms. “We need more people in the line,” he cynically noted, adding that the Ukrainians should be fighting for themselves and not think about whether the United States would continue to support Kiev or not. Clearly, the people on Bankova Street got the message, because members of the Verkhovnaya Rada Committee on National Security, Defence and Intelligence obsequiously decided to fast track passage of the draft law.
Where exactly does US Senator Graham need more Ukrainians? Is it on the battlefield? He knows perfectly well what will happen to them in the very first days after they get there. So, where does he need to see more people? Is it on the list of dead and MIAs? Without a doubt, the people on Bankova Street are not in a fit state to think properly. What about the others? Senator Graham will return to the United States. He has his own base. Do people there understand who they voted for? Only a subhuman monster can go to a foreign country and force people, this time without offering any promises and “without buying” their conscience, to face imminent death.
The most recent 20th meeting of the Ramstein-format Ukraine Defence Contact Group took place on March 19. However, Kiev didn’t get any presents for the anniversary, which is not surprising. Washington is openly saying that the recent $300-million package of emergency aid to the Ukrainian Armed Forces was the last one and there was no money left for another tranche. Kiev’s European allies have adopted a similar position.
At the same time, the West continues to use Ukraine as a battleground to dispose of obsolete weapons. The National Interest openly writes that the Zelensky regime’s allies see nothing wrong in dumping unneeded military junk and scrap metal into the embattled country under the guise of aid. That includes decommissioned French AMC-10RC tanks that were manufactured in 2000, refurbished British Challenger-2s, and American Ml Abrams tanks.
The other day, The New York Post reported about the high probability of the military equipment supplied to Zelensky’s regime ending up on the black market. We’ve covered everything that they are writing about now as a “revelation” a year and a half or two years ago and backed it up with evidence. We pointed out that the first batches of the US and Western equipment sent to the Ukrainian forces immediately showed up on the black market. We said they first make it to the EU black markets and then spread further into the Middle East and North Africa and the rest of the world. It appears that the US media can obtain the data that gets published only from their employers or grant providers. If this data is available from open, unambiguous, and objective sources, they are not interested.
It turns out that because of the lack of adequate accounting, the Pentagon is not in a position to determine how much ammunition went to Ukraine and has no clue how it was used. Have we not been talking about this for two years now? There are questions about $42 billion worth of arms supplies. This begs the question: What will the additional tens of millions of dollars – the allocation of which is causing so much fuss in the US Congress – be used for, given that everyone is clueless as to what happened to the previous millions and billions of dollars?
We have noted what Defence Minister of South Korea Shin Won-sik had to say about the events in Bucha. He expressed doubts about the Ukrainian version of the events surrounding the “Russian massacre” saying that the details have not yet been established as fact. You see, even this kind of rhetoric has started to surface. They stopped using Bucha to directly malign the Russian Federation, and are now even using rhetoric that calls the official Western version into question.
These words confirm what Russia has been saying for almost two years now. They didn’t want to hear it, but they will have to now. The “tragedy” in Bucha is a cynical provocation staged by the Kiev regime and its Western handlers. The media that spread it must be held accountable.
They adopted exactly the same position with regard to Syria, when they first released footage of children allegedly killed by the Assad regime. Later, when these children began to “talk,” it turned out that no one from Assad’s side had even touched them. Also, when the children started talking about the horrors they had experienced all their lives from the forces of international extremism and terrorism backed up by the Westerners, the Western media immediately lost interest in them.
We will be sure to publish a selection of materials that appeared in the Western media the first day after this story, actually this fake story about Bucha that was passed off as fact. We will give the names of media outlets, the dates when it was done, and the names of the reporters who said it on camera in Western, primarily American, media.
While spreading their falsehoods about the “atrocities of Russian soldiers” in this town, the people on Bankova Street persistently keep silent about the daily occurrences in their city, for example, in the local pre-trial detention centre nicknamed Guantanamo. In the meantime, Russian servicemen who have been there and returned home under POW exchanges are talking about the inhumane conditions of detention and elaborate methods of physical violence and vicious beatings during interrogations. The International Committee of the Red Cross and other international organisations are kept in the dark about this. But how can it be hidden if it is already in the public domain? You can find people who talk about it – ask questions and send them letters. The fact is that international organisations are reluctant to see this side of the situation. They do not want to see it and turn away. But there is nowhere left to turn.
In this context, the information provided by Ukrainian POW from the 24th brigade of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, Vladimir Buchok, is quite remarkable. A video recording of his confessions was made public. He said that the special training courses in Britain were used to teach them more than just using weapons and combat tactics, quote, “The psychologists worked with us making us dislike Russian soldiers and all Russians in general, so that we would kill them and treat them cruelly if we took them prisoners”.
Once again, we urge the relevant international organisations to start paying attention to the mass violations of international humanitarian law by the Kiev regime and have it disclose what is really happening in the pre-trial detention centre in Bucha.
All this goes to show the urgency of the goals set by the Russian leadership as part of the special military operation.
On January 4, 2024, the Presidential Executive Order titled On Determining Certain Categories of Foreign Citizens and Stateless Persons Having the Right to Apply for Russian Citizenship came into effect. This order established a simplified procedure for granting Russian citizenship to specific groups of foreign citizens, including Ukrainian citizens, their children, spouses and parents, as well as orphans and children without parental care temporarily or permanently residing in
The executive order does not contain any provisions aimed at altering or erasing the distinctive ethnic or cultural characteristics of underage Ukrainian citizens residing in
The primary objective is to extend Russian citizenship for humanitarian reasons, so that children who have been removed from conflict areas and evacuated to Russian territory can reintegrate into peaceful life with full access to the rights and social services afforded to Russian citizens.
It is important to note that the process of obtaining Russian citizenship for these individuals is not automatic but requires a voluntary application for citizenship as outlined in paragraph 3 of the executive order. As per paragraph 7 (h) of the executive order, children aged 14 to 18 years can acquire citizenship only with their express written consent.
According to paragraph 7 (c) of the order, irrespective of the child’s age, the application for Russian citizenship must be accompanied by documentation verifying the absence of parental or relative care. This procedure is initiated by official representatives of the underage children upon their own volition. Acquiring Russian citizenship does not necessitate relinquishing Ukrainian citizenship and undergoing a due process. Upon reaching adulthood, individuals have the autonomy to retain dual citizenship or opt to renounce one citizenship, along with the freedom to choose their place of residence independently.
In addition, in cases where underage children have blood relatives, including those residing in Ukraine, specialised Russian agencies offer comprehensive assistance to facilitate their prompt reunification with their family.
As for accusations from the Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding the “forced assimilation of Ukrainian children,” such allegations do not align with the provisions outlined in the executive order and are largely based on misinterpretation of legal concepts.
It is within the sovereign authority of any state to establish regulations governing the acquisition of citizenship. Similar provisions can be found, for instance, in paragraph 1 of Article 3 of the European Convention on Nationality of November 6, 1997, of which
We also believe that the objections raised by the
References made by the Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs not only to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, but also to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948 and the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 1949, are inappropriate.
The
The procedure outlined in the executive order for applying for citizenship by Ukrainian orphans and children without parental care is not new. Similar provisions were outlined in Presidential Executive Order No 330 dated May 30, 2022, wherein orphans and children without parental care, incapacitated persons who were citizens of the Donetsk People’s Republic, Lugansk People’s Republic or
Furthermore, when granting citizenship to orphans and children without parental care (citizens of
NATO’s 2023 report and remarks by Jens Stoltenberg
On March 14, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg presented the annual report on the activities of his organisation in 2023. We have analysed it in detail. It contains nothing new. Even this formal document is steeped in the psychology of confrontation between the NATO “golden” billion and the rest of the world. It focuses on containing
NATO’s budget has been growing for nine years, reaching nearly $1.1 trillion last year. What is it, if not a budget for wars and conflicts unleashed and fuelled by NATO? Of course, we constantly hear statements that it is not NATO itself that is waging the hybrid war [against
The report states with satisfaction that in 2023, 11 member-countries reached the target of spending 2 percent of their GDP on defence and that in 2024, their number will rise to 18. This is what the famous “bloc” discipline is all about. It makes them build up military expenditures, while citizens of European countries are facing an unprecedented decline in living standards, huge economic problems, and the lack of prospects for further development at the declared rate.
As expected, the report pays much attention to the confrontation with
Terrorism, a prominent global problem, has receded into the background. Indeed, how can Washington and its allies fight what they are generating? They supply weapons to the Ukrainian militants to deliver terrorist strikes at civilians and the civilian infrastructure in
Now let us turn to the Russian elections. We regard Mr Stoltenberg’s allegations that the presidential elections in
To reiterate: the direct presidential election is a matter for each citizen of the
They can do as they please. It’s their people, politicians and systems. This has nothing to do with
Anti-Russia statements and actions of Icelandic officials
We have noted a surge in anti-Russia rhetoric in
Bjarni Benediktsson is distorting history – a well-worn tactic used by regimes and states expressing unfriendly and hostile attitudes towards
It is worth noting that, on March 12, 2024, the Government of Iceland unveiled a long-term plan for expanding assistance to the
Work is underway to conclude an Iceland-Ukraine agreement on security cooperation.
Consequently, supposedly “peaceful”
We naturally consider
On March 14, 2024, the Permanent Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea published the tribunal’s decision to bar two arbiters from reviewing the case, citing bias. This involves a Ukrainian lawsuit in connection with the seizure of Ukrainian naval warships and personnel in 2018 following their abortive breakthrough from the Black Sea into the
President of the Tribunal Donald Malcolm McRae (New Zealand/Canada) and Rüdiger Wolfrum (
At the same time, this institute made a poor analysis of the situation and ignored such fundamental international principles as the right of nations to self-determination, formalised in the UN Charter. The institute also overlooked the entire history of developments in Donbass and even failed to mention the Minsk Agreements. In effect, its declaration had purely political, rather than legal, implications.
It should be noted that the institute has passed only six declarations throughout its 100-year-plus history. None of them condemned aggressive actions of the
Multiple international judges and lawyers who are IDI members declined to vote for this declaration or abstained, citing the need to remain objective. However, McRae and Wolfrum unconditionally supported this openly prejudiced document. Moreover, they did not notify the tribunal and the contesting parties about their decision.
Citing this argument, the Russian side demanded that the obviously biased arbiters be barred from the case.
Most members of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea supported
The tribunal’s decision confirms the fact that the groundless condemnation of Russian actions highlights a biased and prejudiced attitude. All Western jurists should remember this.
The decision is posted on the website of the Permanent Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.
European Organisation for Nuclear Research terminating cooperation with Russia in 2024
On December 15, 2023, during a closed meeting of the Council of the European Organisation for Nuclear Research, the member states decided not to renew the cooperation agreement with the Russian Federation. We consider such actions to be politicised and absolutely unacceptable, as they run completely counter the spirit of scientific cooperation.
In its effort to inflict a “strategic defeat” on Russia, the West is also ramping up pressure on Russia in fundamental science. All this is doomed to failure, as has been proven repeatedly in just the past two years. It is noteworthy that the victims of such an aggressive campaign are foreign institutions and scientists who would like to develop cooperation with our country. At the same time, we understand perfectly well that the special military operation is just a pretext to increase subversion. The ground was laid for a long time.
Russia remains open to interaction with those who are ready to pursue relations with us on an equal and mutually respectful basis. The military and political situation in the world should not undermine progress in fundamental research. We are invariably committed to international cooperation in various fields of science.
We consider continuous scientific and technological progress to be a necessary condition for solving the challenges faced by humanity. It is obvious that current challenges in this area cross borders and are global in nature. Experience shows that breakthrough scientific discoveries in recent years have been made as a result of scientific cooperation – interaction and free exchange of research results, developments and breakthrough achievements. Accordingly, the fruits of science, the results of scientists’ work, regardless of their nationality and ethnicity, are a public good and contribute to improving the quality of people’s lives.
The right of every person to participate in scientific progress and share in its benefits is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (clause 27.1). Ensuring access to scientific knowledge and equal rights for scientists are a priority of UNESCO’s activity. It would be nice for this Organisation to comment on this bizarre decision.
Cutting off Russian scientists from the work at CERN is an obvious example of discrimination against Russian researchers based on nationality. The weaponisation of science as a sanctions mechanism to escalate geopolitical confrontation is a monstrous attempt to achieve momentary political results, and all of humanity will have to pay for these “experiments.” We are sure that the Western scientific community and even the reasonable part of the establishment understand this.
IOC’s decisions on granting access for “neutral” athletes from Russia to the Olympics
The recent decisions adopted by the Executive Committee of the International Olympic Committee align with measures and principles formulated in December 2023, particularly concerning the inclusion of “neutral” athletes from Russia and Belarus in the Olympics.
Just to remind you, the International Olympic Committee chose not to include the Russian Olympic team, official representatives of Russia, and the Russian Olympic Committee in the Paris Olympic Games and barred the use of the national flag, anthem, and any symbols associated with Russia. Additionally, athletes representing sports societies of the Russian Armed Forces or law enforcement agencies were not allowed to participate. Only individual “neutral” athletes and their support staff were permitted to take part.
The current decision of the IOC establishes a commission tasked with addressing specific matters related to the admission of athletes based on these principles. However, “neutral” athletes from Russia will not participate in the opening ceremony, and any medals they earn will not contribute to the overall medal count. The commission has the authority to impose additional sanctions on “neutral” athletes found to be in violation of this status. Members of the commission will continue to monitor the actions of participants even after the conclusion of the Olympic Games.
It is obvious that the decisions made by the IOC are illegitimate, unfair and unacceptable. We are outraged by the unprecedentedly discriminatory conditions the International Olympic Committee has set for Russian athletes, who are forced to compete under a neutral status, effectively pressuring them to sever ties with their Motherland, citizenship, history, culture, and people.
Such actions not only divide and politicise the international sports movement but also turn the IOC, which is intended to foster global sports development, into a tool for unfair competition, following the agenda of certain states.
Our country consistently promotes international sports cooperation based on equality and non-discrimination, advocating for equal access to sports competitions for all people without exception.
Moreover, the International Olympic Committee has become a breeding ground for neo-Nazism and racism. This is the most accurate characterisation. The segregation of individuals based on nationality, ethnicity, and exclusion from international sporting events based on citizenship serve as clear evidence of this.
IOC urges athletes and governments to refrain from taking part in World Friendship Games
The International Olympic Committee recently released a statement calling for athletes and nations to boycott the upcoming World Friendship Games scheduled to take place in Moscow and Yekaterinburg from September 15 to September 29, 2024. This statement is not only completely unacceptable and highly politicised, but it is also consistent with their recent decisions filled with racial discrimination.
Such statements from an organisation tasked with upholding Olympic ideals are disheartening to those unaware of the underlying motivations of its leadership. These decisions demonstrate how far the IOC has strayed from its professed principles in favour of political convenience, veering into the realms of racism and neo-Nazism.
The objective of the Games hosted by Russia is to ensure free access for both Russian and foreign athletes and sports organisations to participate in international sports competitions, while also developing new formats of international sports cooperation. The World Friendship Games are not intended as a substitute for the Paris Olympic Games. Allegations that our country is politicising sports or exerting pressure on athletes and governments to compel their participation in the Games are entirely baseless, constituting disinformation and false narratives.
Russia remains open to sporting interactions with all nations on the basis of equality and non-discrimination, in accordance with the Olympic spirit and principles, which we steadfastly uphold. We advocate for integrity and equity in all sporting competitions.
In this regard, we would like to remind you of the 4th Principle of Olympism outlined in the Olympic Charter, which says, “The practice of sport is a human right. Every individual must have access to the practice of sport, without discrimination of any kind…The Olympic spirit requires mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play.” All individuals associated with the IOC as officials and receiving compensation for their work are obligated to uphold the Charter, rather than devise new regulations that contradict its principles.
We are not the ones sidestepping sports organisations; rather, it is Western sports bodies, influenced by their respective governments, that are adopting an unfriendly and confrontational stance towards Russia, thereby rejecting dialogue and cooperation with us.
The World Friendship Games are organised by an international association, and all anti-doping requirements set by WADA will be met.
I have already spoken about the UN General Assembly resolution 78/10 of November 21, 2023, mentioned in the IOC statement, “Building a peaceful and better world through sport and the Olympic ideal.” Russia was forced to abstain from endorsing it due to its openly discriminatory language, influenced in part by France’s and other authors’ Russophobic stance. This language contradicts the widely accepted interpretation of sports as a means to promote unity and universal values, overcome racial and political barriers, and combat prejudices. Nonetheless, we remain committed to advocating against discrimination in sports and for equal opportunities for all athletes in sporting events, both within the UN and other international forums, in collaboration with like-minded states.
The World Friendship Games, representing the true Olympic ideals, will showcase friendship, openness, sportsmanship, equality, and justice. We invite all athletes and sports organisations to join us in this celebration of sport.
They say there is only one country that has the right to do anything because it is democracy incarnate, which can judge the level of democracy in other countries and has held the “summit for democracy” or the “summit of democracies” over the past few years.
The three-day Summit for Democracy organised by the Biden regime has ended in Seoul today. It was the third such get-together held in the past two and a half years, and it will likely be the last one because the Americans and those who believed their myths about democracy have little to show.
Not surprisingly, the current event ended in complete failure for the United States, just like all the previous ones. Moreover, it appears that even the event organisers expected this, which is why they did their best to “manage expectations,” as they say in the West. It means that they didn’t announce their goals but planned to go along with whatever happens, adjusting targets and objectives to match the result.
This explains the near total media blackout during preparations for the “summit.” Considering such secrecy and expectations of failure, it is strange that South Korea has not rescinded its agreement to host this miserable event. I am sure that any other relatively independent country would have done it. Regrettably, Seoul probably didn’t dare to disobey the order of its overseas “bosses.”
It is obvious to all reasonable members of the international community that the American ruling class is using such gatherings to put a veneer of legality on their detestable practice of interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states in the spirit of the infamous “rules-based order,” which is a crude instrument for steamrolling the egoistical interests of the globalist circles of the United States and its client states.
The US claim to leadership in promoting democratic values throughout the world is completely ungrounded. They have no right to do this in the current situation or in historical context. We will talk about this today.
Diplomatically speaking, the US reputation in the spheres of democracy, freedom and honouring obligations – which is part of democracy – has been ruined. We pointed this out several times, including in the Foreign Ministry statement of December 1, 2021, and comment of March 28, 2023.
The situation has further deteriorated since then. You can only talk of the reputation of Biden’s grotesque regime satirically. The Americans themselves have destroyed it. They have exposed themselves by taking certain actions, and no amount of “summits” and other gatherings can remedy the situation.
To quote President Putin’s words about the current situation in the United States, it is not democracy but catastrophe. The whole world is laughing at what is happening there, he said. Maybe they hold these summits to laugh at themselves together with the other participants? Even a simple onlooker can see that it is Washington that is the main obstacle to democracy in international relations. Sovereign nations can decide what they need to do at home and how to build relations in their societies and beyond them without nagging American and other “teachers.”
The flagship idea of “summits for democracy,” which Joe Biden put forth during his election campaign in 2020, has breathed its last. All normal people are sure that it will be buried with the pseudo-democratic administration that has been posing as “liberal.” Therefore, I will not comment on the details of that pseudo-summit for democracy. What they are doing is more than a grotesque; it is an insult. I will briefly touch on several moments.
We categorically reject the allegations of disinformation campaigns targeting Russia at that gathering. Who is saying this? The United States, which orchestrated the Bucha massacre together with the Kiev regime? We demand that the names of those allegedly killed by the Russian military be published. Or was two years too short a time to compile the list? Everything is upside down: we are being accused of disinformation by those who engage in it.
Likewise, we regard provocative remarks that tarnish the dignity of other countries as unacceptable. It is not only ourselves that we want to protect but also the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of other states and the prohibition on disinformation about them.
We consider it absolutely unacceptable that China has been besmirched and accused of evil manipulation of information, which is actually typical of the West’s biased actions in the spirit of double standards. It is equally unacceptable that the West is using such rhetoric towards North Korea. We strongly condemn the unacceptable intention by the summit organisers to use it to put pressure on China by inviting “Taiwan representatives.” Russia is committed to the traditional [One China] concept. We support the efforts of our Chinese friends to protect their state sovereignty and territorial integrity. There is only one China, and Taiwan is an integral part of it. No pseudo- or quasi-summits for democracy inspired by Washington will change this.
And one more remark, this time about democracy itself. As I said, Russia does not consider it necessary or appropriate to assess the positive and negative elements or the right of nations to have their own systems of government. There are many systems of government in the world. All states have a right to their own views and traditions. No matter how distorted democracy is in the West, it is the choice of the people who live there.
Our country and other sovereign nations do not and will not ever accept attempts to impose the monochromatic and misguided Western model of democracy on them. We will rebuff any and all attempts to interfere in our internal affairs. This position is shared by the overwhelming majority of states. In fact, the Americans themselves should be the first to support us in this because they firmly uphold the principle of non-interference in their affairs. I am referring to the Americans who do not live according to “rules” but according to law and their Constitution, those who have the courage to express their views in keeping with the law. Regrettably, others have been deprived or have deprived themselves of this. There are few people in the White House and the State Department who have their own opinions that are based on law and the feeling of real freedom. Over the past decades, they were deliberately removed from their offices, segregated and de-professionalised for political reasons.
American democracy and diplomacy have deteriorated into wicked and grotesque events such as the “summits for democracy.” They should have used the money to correct America’s internal mistakes that eroded the foundations of democracy rather than squander it to allow people to see at close range those who are doing irreparable damage to American democracy.
The situation surrounding the TikTok video platform in the
The shameless restriction of citizens’ access to information sources is a violation of generally accepted norms of international law and the First Amendment to the US Constitution.
The banning of TikTok illustrates
Discussions within the UN Open-ended Working Group on international cybersecurity reveal, that the resources of the Western transnational corporations I mentioned are not used for development purposes, but rather to advance a political agenda that benefits the
European Commission’s abuses in the procurement of anticoviral vaccines
Look at what is happening to democracy, which is falling apart on the European continent not just under the gaze of, but under the direct management of those processes by the United States.
The next elections to the European Parliament will be held on June 6-9. In this regard, the transparency, accountability and integrity of specific political figures among EU leadership is of particular importance. This is the very democracy that Westerners in Seoul are now teaching the world. We are talking about the European Commission’s commercial deals with leading Western pharmaceutical companies, including the US’s Pfizer, which developed one of the COVID-19 vaccines. Mind you, its revenues skyrocketed. The European Commission spent 71 billion euros to purchase 4.6 billion doses of the vaccine.
In December 2023, the EU countries destroyed at least 215 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines worth 4 billion euros because they were not needed. Unneeded vaccines ended up in landfills across the continent, and attempts to deliver surplus to third countries became difficult “due to falling demand and logistical problems.”
What does this mean? That no one will ever verify how many doses of this very COVID-19 vaccine, supplied by Pfizer for fabulous sums of money and lobbied for by Ursula von der Leyen, were disposed of in landfills. No one will be able to count it. No one will ever know how much was purchased because it will all be written off as destroyed.
The head of the European Commission had direct influence on the negotiation process to purchase 1.8 billion doses of vaccines “for the needs of the EU.” The conditions of the largest of the European Commission’s contracts were negotiated by Ursula von der Leyen with Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla in person, by text message and without witnesses. So much for democracy.
Two people representing different nations are sitting on different continents, and without consulting the people, one asks the other via SMS whether the other will take 70 billion worth of these drugs from him. The other continent replies that they will take them, even a little more – they say, send them for 71 billion euros. Here comes another text message with a question about whether they will be able to explain it to their people. This is followed by a reply from Ursula von der Leyen saying that no one will ask people, and when they come to check whether it meets the parameters or not, everything can simply be disposed of. I think Pfizer must have written, is it definitely going to work? To which Ursula von der Leyen said you can sure send it, and then she sent the funds. I wonder if the 71 billion euro transfers were also done over the telephone. Send me, Ursula, 71 billion euros by telephone.
A phantasmagorical story about how in the same second, if we take a historical scale, they are “teaching” democratic processes, while among the “teachers” are those who deceive their own citizens like this, making monstrous and absolutely non-transparent deals, and then literally “cover up any trace of it” to avoid responsibility to their people or nations, as in the case of Ursula von der Leyen.
As I said, the head of the European Commission did all this in secret. She did not provide anyone with any reports. Not to mention involvement of a joint negotiating team, and there were no experts at all. All this runs counter to European Commission regulations.
The volume of vaccines purchased far exceeded the needs of the EU countries (the EU population in 2021 was 443.2 million people). This was perfectly clear. The EU Attorney General’s Office confirmed that an investigation had been initiated into the purchase of coronavirus vaccines in the EU. However, administrative investigations, even when problems are identified, do not change anything. Legal proceedings are either dragged out or soft-pedaled. This is what Western democracy is all about. Vaccine purchase agreements were originally drawn up with a clear bias in favour of the pharmaceutical industry, and the EU member states are powerless to change their onerous terms. Despite the lack of demand, Pfizer will continue to supply vaccines until 2027. That is, they will supply vaccines to the European Union and the EU will dispose of them. Again, Pfizer will supply their vaccines and the EU will dispose of them and again send the money to the American company.
Ursula von der Leyen refused to make public its correspondence with the Pfizer CEO. I would like to remind you that the European Commission has a legal obligation to make public communications that may contain information about the EU’s deals to buy billions of euros worth of COVID-19 vaccines. Efforts by MEPs and human rights NGOs who have tried to read the terms of unedited versions of the vaccine contracts and make them public were to no avail.
I wonder if the United States was touting this in Seoul as an example? I doubt it.
The EU court did not find the interest of “third parties” in the case “justified.” The impression is that only two people were involved in the deal – the Pfizer representative and Ursula von der Leyen. She bought the vaccines and apparently got injections herself. No third party had anything to do with it. How could it be? It was done in the interests of third parties – the people of the EU countries. It turns out that now they can’t even ask questions.
The direct complaints of Belgian human rights activist and lawyer Frederic Baldan to the Court of Justice of the EU against the actions of the EC and its head in the procurement of vaccines were dismissed as “groundless.” The lawyer demanded suspension of the entire current European Commission for violating public morality, fair governance and undermining the trust of European citizens. All this did not prevent Ursula von der Leyen from running again for the post of EC head, and on March 7 the European People’s Party supported this decision by nominating Ursula von der Leyen as its official candidate.
All of the above shows that the Westerners have lost touch with reality, although they endlessly teach democracy to everyone. At the same time, not a single institution of this democracy works properly for them.
Threats to participants in the World Youth Festival
The World Youth Festival wrapped up in
Did the
We consider it unacceptable that young people who took part in the event are subjected to pressure from political communities and the media in unfriendly states.
Despite the Western elites’ bias against the Festival, this holiday of young people, youth and friendship was held at the highest level. This was repeatedly noted by representatives of various countries. The festival gave a lot of positive emotions to our citizens and foreign guests who participated in it, and contributed to the development of international youth cooperation, despite the new dividing lines that the West is trying to create from the ruins of its own democracy.
Remembrance Day for the Victims of NATO bombings in
March 24 marks the 25th anniversary of NATO aviation demonstrating to the whole world what “humanitarian intervention” really means and what “American democracy” is. It was this term the
In 11 weeks, starting on March 24, 1999, 3,000 cruise missiles were fired at a sovereign European republic, and 80,000 tonnes of aerial bombs were dropped on it, including cluster shells and depleted uranium munitions, which are now being used in our region. According to Serbian authorities, about 2,500 people died during the barbaric bombings, including 89 children, 12,500 residents were injured and 1,500 villages destroyed. Material damage, according to some sources, was estimated at between $30 and $100 billion.
Several years ago (in 2018) I had a chance to drive around
The US and NATO’s military operation against Belgrade was undertaken without the approval of the UN Security Council, under the pretext of groundless accusations that the authorities of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia were carrying out “ethnic cleansing” in the Kosovo autonomy, which allegedly caused a humanitarian catastrophe in the region.
Will American representatives in
20th anniversary of Serb pogroms in Kosovo (
March is the most tragic month in the modern history of
As always, the attack targeted the most sensitive spot: the historical memory of the Serbs that have been living in Kosovo for centuries. Vandals took aim at cemeteries, ancient churches and monasteries, which are sacred for Serbian Orthodoxy and are extremely valuable world cultural and historical sites of 12th-14th centuries, many of which were on the UNESCO World Heritage List. The majority of the non-Albanian population of the region was under threat, and they were clearly given a choice: either be exterminated or leave their historical lands. The Kosovo Force (KFOR) created by NATO did little to counteract the rampant violence.
For over several days, the militants robbed and killed, led by foreign instructors, with the European Union and NATO’s silent approval and the pretext of “protecting the oppressed civilian Albanian population in Kosovo” (despite the fact that the number of Albanians was many times greater than the Serbs). The Serbs’ six years of suffering culminated in the March pogrom in Kosovo and Metohija. The events of March 17-18, 2004 are meticulously described in a documentary made by the state Radio and Television of Serbia (RTS) for the 20th anniversary of the pogroms.
The main goal pursued by the radical instigators of the pogroms was to expel the Serbs from Kosovo and Metohija and erase all material evidence that they ever lived there. Thus, the ground was prepared for the subsequent unilateral declaration of “independence” from
Nineteen people were killed over two days, almost a thousand were injured, over 4,000 left the region, many went missing; six cities and nine villages were completely cleared of Serbians and other non-Albanians. More than 30 Orthodox churches were blown up, and more than 40 Orthodox cemeteries were destroyed. This was all under the supervision of those who call themselves “civilised.” Despite numerous appeals to international courts, no one has answered for these crimes.
As we see, with the Western curators’ tacit approval, the authorities in Pristina continue their methodical policy of squeezing the Serbs out of Kosovo today, threatening the survival of the remaining Serbian municipalities in the region.
Let me also add something. The Moldovan language exists. This is the same policy of Westerners: to rewrite the ethnicity and cultural identity of people. We do not speak in the language of high resolutions, but, as people see it, this is genocide when they are forced to abandon what has always been their cultural identity and what they have stood for generation after generation: their language, history, culture.
We will continue to support
More “ghosts” of Britain’s colonial past
On March 12-14, the British media published a series of articles on the fate of half a million Indians who were taken to Caribbean countries to replace African slaves. In history, they are known as coolies, although these days, former Western European – in particular, British – exploiters prefer to shy away from this term considering it pejorative. Formally, coolies were hired workers, but in reality, they were deceived into servitude. They found themselves in unbearable labour conditions and, restricted in rights, they were little different from slaves. In 90 percent of cases, despite agreements, the coolies were never paid for their work and could not return home after their “contracts” ended.
Today, this is called human trafficking, or illegally trafficking people and keeping them hostage for the purpose of selling them into modern slavery. At the time, this practice was in line with Western “rules.” A young Mahatma Ghandi was involved in protecting the interests of this category of Indians.
The most recent campaign was initiated by Guyana, where 40 percent of the population descend from the people who were trafficked from India since 1838 and from China since 1853. In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, President of Guyana Irfaan Ali spoke about the atrocities committed by British exploiters and called for admitting historical mistakes.
The media report that Guyana initiated establishing a special commission to study the damage caused by the exploiters and estimate its financial equivalent. They expect to develop a compensation scheme. The issue will be proposed for discussion by CARICOM, the regional association of the Caribbean countries. In 2014, the organisation sent a proposal for a compensation payout, the Regional Justice Plan, to former colonial powers. However, the “democratic” Western European capitals arrogantly ignored the requests.
London typically rejects the idea of paying compensation to victims of colonialism, trying to get away with half-measures. For example, the Church of England plans to expand its earlier announced aid foundation for countries affected by mancipation. The church plans to raise more funds from private and corporate donations. At the same time, the British monarchs, who are nominally the heads of the Church of England, may have condemned the shameful chapters of the country’s colonial past but never expressed remorse at the British royal family’s key role in the English slavery system.
The British government has also rejected the idea of paying compensation to the victims of colonialism. In 2015, then UK Prime Minister David Cameron, who has quite a few slave owners among his ancestors, spoke about this. The current chief of the British cabinet of ministers, Rishi Sunak, simply refused to apologise for London’s role in slave trade. However, he continued to demonstrate neo-colonial tendencies with respect to Guyana and the Caribbean countries in general by sending there a patrol ship in late December 2023, allegedly to protect the country’s sovereignty from its neighbour Venezuela.
London has repeatedly ignored the inconvenient legacy of its colonial past. We call on British officials to stop enshrouding their past crimes with high-flown rhetoric. England’s ruling class must take practical steps to pay compensation to the descendants of slave trade victims, and finally apologise to other peoples for their brutal treatment. It will not be an easy path, but London has to do it. We realise that they are currently more concerned about the whereabouts of the Princess of Wales, Kate Middleton. Once they have found her, they should get to this.
80th anniversary of the initial liberation of Moldavia from the Nazi invaders
March 17, 2024, marked a significant anniversary for the people of Moldova. On March 17, 1944, the Red Army started liberating Moldavia from the Nazi invaders.
During the Uman-Botosani offensive operation, elements of the Red Army’s 2nd Ukrainian Front covered over 130 kilometres in several days and reached the Dniester River near the city of Jampol. On March 17, 1944, Red Army soldiers crossed the river and liberated over 40 communities on its western bank, including the city of Soroki. Units of the 2nd Ukrainian Front subsequently advanced on Beltsy and reached the Soviet State border on the Pruth River on March 26. This created favourable conditions for the upcoming Jassy-Kishinev operation during which enemy forces withdrew completely from Moldavia.
Private Alexander Chuprov serving with a motorised infantry battalion was among the first Soviet soldiers to set foot on Moldavian territory near the village of Kosoutsi. On March 17, 1944, he crossed the Dniester River under intensive machinegun fire, killed the crews of a heavy machinegun and an anti-tank cannon, as well as eight enemy submachine gunners. Chuprov’s actions helped his battalion to secure the bridgehead. Over ten Soviet officers and soldiers became Heroes of the Soviet Union after crossing the Dniester River. Hundreds of soldiers received orders and medals. An obelisk with marble memorial slabs, as well as a monument honouring 40 Kosoutsi residents (who were killed in action) was built in honour of soldiers-liberators at the former bridgehead in the village.
Unfortunately, official Chisinau that blindly follows the Russophobic line of the collective West is now trying hard to rewrite history. Extremist forces, encouraged by this official behaviour, vandalise Soviet-era war memorials.
Fortunately, the people of Moldova remember and honour the feats of the soldiers-liberators during the Great Patriotic War. Volunteers and activists play an important role in preserving the memorial heritage. They restore damaged monuments and hold events marking memorable wartime events. We would like to thank them for this highly important, essential work we do together. We are convinced that all attempts to erase the memory of the unprecedented heroic feat of Soviet soldiers who liberated Moldavia from Nazi slavery are doomed to fail.
Question: US Permanent Representative to the UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield said Washington has offered to start arms control talks with Moscow and Beijing without any preconditions. Is Russia ready to sit at the negotiating table to discuss a future security system without preconditions? Or is this simply impossible during the current acute geopolitical confrontation with the United States?
Maria Zakharova: We have repeatedly voiced our position on this issue. It has remained unchanged. We are ready to discuss issues of security and stability only as a package, with emphasis on the themes that directly concern our national security interests. At this point, we are being offered a dialogue exclusively on US terms and only on the issues that interest Washington.
You cited a statement by US Ambassador to the UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield. Our diplomats working in the UN have already answered her question. Our representatives in the UN and we use terms of international law, which are apparently unclear to the public at large. I will put it in simple words: How can one discuss arms control with a country that is unable to control where it sent weapons while helping the Kiev regime? Imagine, now Washington is going to control arms on a global scale. They have a commission in Ukraine that is unable to get to the bottom of what happened with the weapons and money for their purchase to support Vladimir Zelensky. Let Washington learn to control its own arms first.
American weapons are spreading unchecked all over the world from the places in which they arrive. They are already surfacing in EU black markets and have reached the conflict zone in the Middle East. Even American journalists can no longer ignore this information. Today, we have already cited their articles on this subject. The existence of an official commission established by lawmakers of the US defence sector is telltale enough; not to mention that the Americans have lost control even over what can be counted or measured in units and boxes. Meanwhile, the US is again pushing through its global ideas on how it will rule the world.
First, Washington should learn to control its own spot deliveries – when it knows the people whom they are sent to -- albeit on a large scale. All Ukraine is swarming with American instructors, inspectors, secret service officers and military. Pentagon Chief Lloyd Austin visited these places many times before he fell ill. But the Americans have lost control over their own arms supplies.
That’s where one should start. It is important at least to understand how the Americans will get out of this situation. I can imagine what they will do now – they will write off these weapons. They will sweep this under the rug, as they have always done, against the backdrop of the upcoming presidential election. They will again "pass it on" to the next administration and say that it was before the elections, and after them everything will be different, people will change. Victoria Nuland and other members of the team are already fleeing from this sinking ship. This is what is going to happen. They have always behaved in the same way. However, this specific example should show how the US is exercising control, or, strictly speaking, doesn’t control anything at all.
I’d say that this was a household example. It is specific and based on facts but is still simple. But something should be done about it too. If the US can use it to show its domestic responsibility at least to its own citizens, taxpayers, it will have a chance to make demands on other countries on a global scale. This is what they like to call a specific case. Let them handle this at least.
Question: Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski and other European politicians, including Josep Borrell, said that the foreign ministers of the EU countries made a political (rather than legal) decision to transfer to Ukraine a share of the frozen Russian assets. It is reported that 90 percent will go for military needs and 10 percent will land in the European peace funds. What can you say about this escalation of tensions over the Russian assets frozen in the West?
Maria Zakharova: We have commented on this more than once. This is outright banditry, stealing. In legalese, this is a crude, unprecedented violation of fundamental international norms. We have said that we will respond to these actions. This is what is going to happen. We have repeatedly described such criminal actions by the West.
Question: NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg visited Azerbaijan, Georgia and Armenia. Can you comment on his tour of the South Caucasus? Might his visit increase tensions between Baku and Yerevan, given yesterday’s statement by Nikol Pashinyan about the threat of a new war with Azerbaijan?
Maria Zakharova: This is yet another attempt to drag the South Caucasian republics into the “Euroatlantic” zone of influence. NATO and its member countries have made these attempts for a long while and in a systematic way. The recent visit by this top-ranking official confirms that NATO’s activity in this sector has grown by an order of magnitude.
The thing is that now there are fewer problems in the region, but who in the West can be satisfied with this state of affairs? The West is restless because these two states are cooperating with each other and are heading towards peace agreements. The West is displeased with the fact itself that these states are in contact with Russia based on an equitable and mutually respectful dialogue aimed at establishing peace in the region.
Hence the unending attempts by NATO and the EU to encourage the states in the region to break off relations with each other and Russia and incite tensions along our southern borders. Their ultimate goal is to open a “second front” against our country in the South Caucasus and to set fire to the region once again. Agreements reached with Russia’s mediation were to the West like a red rag to a bull, because this was a road to genuine peace based on mutual respect and regard for each other’s interests.
Let me remind you that the latest NATO summit held in Vilnius in July 2023 reaffirmed the 2008 formula that Georgia would join the alliance. They are actively imposing on Tbilisi the coalition standards in order to establish control over the defence and security sectors of this former Soviet republic. Western envoys have been much more active in their overtures to Armenia. Specifically, they are peddling a programme known as the Armenia-NATO Individual Partnership Action Plan. Their efforts are aimed at discrediting Yerevan’s ties with Moscow and ideally at their total curtailment. The West is not even concealing this. They also are trying to drive a wedge into our partner relations with Baku. The West has a range of objectives and goals.
As is obvious, NATO is not interested in stability and peace in the South Caucasus. Washington and its satellites are masters at inculcating anti-Russia narratives in the region and sowing chaos and discord. This is what they are skilled in and fond of doing. The bloc’s interference in regional affairs will only destabilise further the already difficult situation. The efforts by these “helpers” are unlikely to meet the interests of nations living in the South Caucasus.
Question: On March 19, the media reported that as of March 30, 2024, the ATMs of most Armenian banks would not accept Russia’s Mir cards. What is your comment on Armenia’s decision?
Maria Zakharova: We saw this report and the relevant explanations offered by the Armenian side. This needs to be clarified, and our agencies, both related ones and the Government as a whole, are looking into the matter.
Question: What can you say about the strong words spoken by EU politicians about the legitimacy and transparency of the election in Russia? The EU expressed discontent. EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell said that the election took place in an “ever-shrinking political space.”
Maria Zakharova: We have already commented on this. There is a wonderful saying about seeing things not as they really are but as you are. He is talking about some limited political situation. Probably, he is limited himself – limited by his “flowering garden.”
The three-day presidential election took place in full conformity with our legislation and standards established by world experience. That said, such standards do not exist even in international organisations that have arrogated the global monitoring functions with regard to all elections, specifically the OSCE’s ODIHR. However, they have not come up with any standards. We consider it very important to follow the Russian laws, taking into account international experience as well. Everything was in accordance with both.
Foreign representatives were present at polling stations as monitors. You could see this with your own eyes. Head of the Central Election Commission (CEC) Ella Pamfilova was giving live updates and commented on all issues long before the election. I would like to remind you that it is the voters who determine the legitimacy of elections. The turnout set a record. The CEC announced all figures.
As for the final summing up of the results, Ms Pamfilova will do this on March 21, 2024. All those in the West who had any doubts can watch her live. I don’t know what Westerners put up as their main grievance. They saw people lining to enter polling stations. They could talk to voters either personally or via the media.
That said, the ambassadors of the collective West cannot come to the Foreign Ministry not because we prevent them from interacting with us, but because they are ordered by Brussels not to go. And, after all this, we are criticised for the lack of freedom, transparency, and what they call conformity? They have even withdrawn their own diplomats from the zone of legality and professionalism, which invalidates their remarks on the conformity or non-conformity of anything.
As for statements by EU officials about the election, I think they were unable to exercise their sovereignty. On March 18 of this year, when many polling stations were still open, Europe and the collective Brussels began to express their dissatisfaction with our election.
We monitored statements by EU officials. They sounded the same and contained the same words, as if based on the same manual. Later, the US joined the process and emphasised what happened in reality – something we talked about. The Americans said that this is reality and that Vladimir Putin is the president elect of the Russian Federation.
Thus, the EU is being used as the Americans’ “useful idiot” to pursue and fuel the Russophobic policy. People like Josep Borrell and Ursula von der Leyen regularly act in this capacity. What EU nation has delegated them this authority? None! We do not know who has authorised them to speak on behalf of all EU countries in this tone? But they are doing this and, obviously, they are affiliated with Washington. Today, I spoke about Ms Leyen’s contacts with US pharmaceutical companies. I cited impressive figures. It is clear who is behind what there.
Unfortunately, this is yet another example of how the EU has lost its independence, role and importance in international affairs, as well as a sober perception of reality, under US pressure.
Another explanation is rooted in simple envy because all their efforts have fallen flat. Russia’s economic indicators are stable, while their numbers have dropped due to the West’s own anti-Russia actions. Nobody knows how to overcome the crises in the West European economies, which are leading to stagnation and a recession.
Probably, they also feel a powerless rage because of the loss of their ties with Russia, which gave them prosperity and growth prospects. On top of all that, they are eager to find someone who is to blame for their misfortunes. They are unable to acknowledge their mental defeat. They want to find out who is to blame for their carelessness, self-harm, and taking the wrong path. They are endlessly searching for the guilty party. But they just need to buy a mirror. Then so much will become clearer.
Question: On March 18, President of Moldova Maia Sandu said that Russia did not hold free and fair elections, citing the alleged exclusion of political opponents from the race, repressions aimed at silencing dissent, and the absence of a free press. How do you respond to these allegations?
Maria Zakharova: To illustrate a striking departure from the democratic norms during electoral processes, I would like to consider a recent unprecedented case. It was an outrage! Less than two days before the general local elections, the Moldovan authorities hastily rehashed the electoral legislation to drop rivals from the race. As a result, over 100 opposition candidates were left on the sidelines. Does this align with the principles of free and fair elections? Can we genuinely discuss, as Maia Sandu suggests, the existence of free and fair elections, when opponents are systematically excluded, repression is rampant, people fear speaking out, and a free press is nonexistent? The circumstances mentioned above serve as evidence in support of her statements, but with just one distinction. The case in point is Moldova, not Russia.
I referred to a November 2023 case. Just four or five months ago, under the leadership of Maia Sandu, Moldova witnessed the removal of candidates from elections, repression, intimidation of citizens, distortion of democratic procedures, and a departure from free and fair elections. So, she said that about herself. The Moldovan president simply described what had been happening in the country under her leadership. It’s challenging to refer to Moldova as “her country,” considering that Maia Sandu also holds a Romanian passport. The president of Moldova seems to be eager to “Romanianise” local society and statehood.
Regarding the “repressions,” it is common knowledge that the Moldovan opposition is under strong pressure from the country’s law enforcement agencies. On January 26 this year, the Information and Security Service of Moldova approved a list of 530 individuals and legal entities to be subjected to additional monitoring and restrictive measures by government agencies and financial institutions. Notably, a number of prominent opposition figures have been blacklisted as “unreliable.” What further questions can there be? Maia Sandu was certainly speaking about herself on the issue of reprisals.
There are speculations about it being possible to bring criminal charges for “anti-state activities” against Moldovan politicians, who have visited Russia. This is what repression is all about. It is worth noting that following Head of Gagauzia Evghenia Guțul’s trip to Russia, she was branded as a “conduit for the Kremlin’s interests.” Moreover, several Moldovan delegates to the World Youth Festival in Sochi were subjected to humiliating eight-hour questioning upon their return to Chisinau.
Finally, let us discuss the issue of a free press. Moldova has purged its information space from all independent, primarily Russian-language, media outlets. Although they lifted the state of emergency in late 2023, the Moldovan authorities are in no hurry to withdraw the ban on Russian-language TV broadcasting imposed in 2022-2023, when Russian television channels saw their licenses revoked. Still operating Russian-language media outlets are facing fines, and their staffers are under pressure or expelled by the authorities. To oversee the media, the Government has established the Strategic Communication and Anti-Disinformation Centre. It is worth noting that the “strategic communication” is the Western euphemism for propaganda.
Question: On March 19, the Moldovan government declared a staff member of the Russian Embassy in Chisinau persona non grata for conducting voting in Transnistria during the Russian presidential election. What is your opinion on this?
Maria Zakharova: This decision by the official authorities in Chisinau is part of the anti-Russia campaign aimed at destroying Russia-Moldova relations altogether. We view this move as a way to settle scores, because Russian citizens living in Transnistria were given the opportunity to express their will in the Russian presidential election.
There are approximately 250,000 Russian citizens in Moldova, with about 220,000 living on the left bank of the Dniester River. On March 17, more than 46,000 people on the left bank cast their votes. If polling stations had not been opened there, our fellow citizens would have been unable to exercise one of the fundamental democratic human rights, which is the right to vote. Perhaps, from Maia Sandu’s perspective this is compatible with the rules-based order, but it has nothing to do with democracy. Of course, Chisinau’s actions will not go unanswered.
Question: President of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation and Chairman of the Russian part of the BRICS Business Council Sergey Katyrin mentioned in an interview that as of 2024, there are ten official BRICS member countries, namely, Russia, China, India, Brazil, South Africa, the UAE, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Ethiopia. Is Argentina’s membership still pending, or has it withdrawn its application?
Maria Zakharova: In December 2023, President of Argentina Javier Milei sent personal messages to all heads of state of the current BRICS members, informing them that the Argentinian government has revised the previous administration’s decision to join BRICS.
Should Buenos Aires reconsider its decision and approaches us again, we will be open to considering their application, taking into account the opinion of all BRICS members.
Question: The Russian Foreign Ministry issued a statement on the second anniversary of the return of the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP) to Russian jurisdiction. Appreciation was expressed to IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi, who, during a meeting with the President of Russia, referred to the situation regarding the nuclear and physical security of ZNPP as “precarious.” The Foreign Ministry statement noted that the objective of the IAEA Secretariat’s expert group is to prevent the security threats posed by the Kiev regime to the station. Does this mean that Rafael Grossi and the IAEA experts maintain dialogue with Kiev regarding the station’s security? If so, why does the shelling continue? How does this correlate with the fact that the IAEA Board of Governors demanded Russia’s departure from the “Ukrainian NPP” and suggested returning the station under the full control of competent Ukrainian authorities?
Maria Zakharova: The line of contact with the armed formations of the Kiev regime remains in close proximity to the Russian nuclear facility, the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP). Therefore, the assessment provided by IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi, stating that the situation with physical nuclear safety at the station cannot yet be described as completely satisfactory, is entirely justified. We have repeatedly brought this fact to his attention.
The presence of the IAEA Secretariat’s experts at the ZNPP was one of the factors that led to the cessation of direct missile and artillery shelling of its territory by the Ukrainian forces.
However, we will be able to ensure the complete safety of the station only after we achieve the goals of demilitarisation and denazification of the territories that remain under control of the Kiev regime.
At the same time, not a single anti-Russia document of the IAEA governing bodies that was pushed through by the Western countries has any influence on the existing state of affairs. The issue of state affiliation of nuclear facilities is not within the purview of the Agency.
Question: Currently, the revision of legislation in accordance with Article 23 of the Fundamental Law of the People's Republic of China on the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is nearing completion. Meanwhile, relevant US agencies and individual members of Congress are discrediting Hong Kong legislation, denouncing human rights and the rule of law in Hong Kong, and demanding the adoption of draft laws imposing Hong Kong-related sanctions, thus interfering in Hong Kong’s affairs. How would you comment on these moves by the United States?
Maria Zakharova: I would like to draw your attention to the material posted on our website on March 12.
To reiterate, such moves by the United States and its satellites are yet another example of gross interference in China's internal affairs and a display of double standards or the destruction of any standards at all when the stated desire of some Western leaders to expand respectful and equal relations with Beijing turns into hypocritical and unjustifiable criticism of the legislative initiatives advanced by China's regional authorities and gets implemented in various other areas.
Clearly, meddling in China's domestic affairs, including Hong Kong, has become a routine activity for Washington and its allies. Instead, Washington should focus on addressing its own snowballing domestic challenges, including in the sphere of legislation.
I think the federal government in Washington should be deeply concerned about the situation in places like Texas and several major cities in other US states, because the situation there is truly worsening. The issue is about abandoned and dying cities populated by homeless people and drug addicts, in fact, ghettos. This reveals the imbalance of development between states and lack of harmonious coexistence within the United States of America.
America is facing issues not only in the sphere of democracy, freedom, human rights, economy, and culture; problems have accumulated in the state structure as well. They have things to tend to. I wonder why they are dealing with China's domestic issues. Who gave them that right? This is the key question: who gave them the right to interfere in the affairs of sovereign states? These states are sovereign by the sum total of their performance: they are self-reliant and also provide the world with the results of their work, help in crisis situations, come to the rescue of the countries, peoples, and continents when needed, or offer help proactively to individual countries. Why, despite the responsible approach to their international role, do some states become the object of interference by the United States? It is impossible to understand this except if you explain it by hegemony, which Washington seems unable to shake off.
Question: The Boao Forum for Asia will take place in China next week. Its motto is “Asia and the World: Common Challenges, Shared Responsibility.” What would you say is the greatest challenge facing Asia and the world this year? What makes this forum relevant?
Maria Zakharova: This is a follow-up to your previous question. All challenges arise from the irresponsible, destructive, and aggressive actions of the United States of America.
Specifically, this relates to the United States and its allies’ attempts to spread bloc-based aggressive ideology reminiscent of the Cold War era in this region, creating dividing lines and conditions that perpetuate NATO’s presence here.
This is evident, particularly in the economic sphere, where unilateral sanctions, bans, and stop lists are increasingly being introduced, protectionism is growing, and the process of reformatting supply chains under the “exclusively for those of our own” mode is underway. Exclusive partnerships are being formed, where political considerations outweigh economic ones. As a result, the economy suffers.
This logic directly contradicts Asia’s traditional agenda, which relies on trade liberalisation, openness, and inclusivity. It is no coincidence that formats that prioritise non-politicised dialogue on political and socioeconomic issues enjoy great demand. The Boao Forum for Asia and the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok are prominent examples.
For the Russian side, these forums provide an opportunity to discuss with the constructively minded representatives from the government, business, and expert circles of the Asia-Pacific region the current state of the Russian economy, the formation of new supply chains with our participation, the development of trade and economic ties with leading Asian partners, including China, and to share with our colleagues information about strengthening integration within the EAEU, including the Union's cooperation with individual Asian countries and groups of countries in the context of Russia’s vision for a Greater Eurasian Partnership.
A representative delegation from Russia, including representatives from the Government and the academic community, will participate in this forum.
We wish our Chinese friends every success in hosting the Boao Forum for Asia.
Question: Our sources in the United States report that in cooperation with the intelligence community, Elon Musk’s SpaceX is developing a network of hundreds of Starshield spy satellites. It will enable the US military to receive real-time information about practically any object at any point on the globe. The US National Reconnaissance Office has referred to this project as the world’s most powerful and sustainable space system for reconnaissance and monitoring. Does Russia see this network of spy satellites as a threat? What is its stance on the expansion of the US intelligence capabilities in space? Will Moscow draw the attention of the international community to these activities, particularly at UN platforms?
Maria Zakharova: We are well aware of Washington’s efforts to involve the private sector in servicing its military space ambitions. We have repeatedly mentioned in the media and during our interactions with our partners at international platforms the mounting trend whereby the US and its allies are using satellites and the ground-based infrastructure, including commercial civilian systems like Starlink for ensuring the intelligence activities and military operations by foreign armed forces and interfering in the domestic affairs of sovereign states.
We understand that in doing so, Western NATO countries are testing new mechanisms for provoking domestic upheavals and changing the governments that do not conform to their “rules-based world order.”
In the language of international law, they are creating serious risks for the security of space operations and long-term sustainability of space activities. This is fraught with negative consequences for countless socio-economic processes that rely heavily on space technology.
In this case, we are not only talking about this and exchanging views with our partners, but also taking action within the framework of international law. To draw the attention of the international community to Washington’s reckless behaviour in outer space, the Russian Federation submitted to the UN General Assembly a draft resolution on space science and technology for promoting peace. This document is aimed at achieving a shared understanding at interstate level that it is unacceptable to use space systems, including commercial systems, for coercion of geopolitical opponents. They are becoming a legitimate target for response measures, including military action.
Question: Has Moscow received Yerevan’s proposals on regulating the broadcasting of Russian TV channels? Armenian Minister of High-Tech Industry Mkhitar Hayrapetyan has reported on the transfer of the relevant document. If so, what is the gist of these proposals? At what stage is the discussion of these proposals today? Can Russian TV channels be turned off in Armenia?
Maria Zakharova: We are in contact with Armenian officials on this issue. We are conducting consultations and have not yet finished the exchange of views. We have received suggestions from Yerevan and have sent our own considerations. We are in close contact on this issue.
Our common goal, which both sides and our peoples are interested in, is to resolve all current problems and avoid new ones in an atmosphere of mutual respect. We believe that officials involved in such contacts should work in this manner. This is our approach.
Question: There is no threat of our television being turned off there, is there?
Maria Zakharova: I said what we are doing to prevent this, even hypothetically.
We remember well the slogans under which the representatives of the current government of Armenia came to power. These were the slogans of maximum openness, total freedom and transparency. They owe their political popularity to their absolute openness. Surprisingly, at that time, the current authorities criticised their predecessors for not fully complying with the requirements of freedom of speech. I don’t want to discuss it, but I remember it being presented as a major grievance. I don’t even want to think that any Yerevan officials may follow in the footsteps of those whom they once criticised, or, even worse, will start turning off the channels that are so much in demand in Armenia. In my opinion, freedom of speech lies in the combination of access to the media, openness and observance of laws. One should seek harmony in this synergy. I cannot imagine that people who came to power under the banners of a movement towards greater democracy would forget their own principles and start shutting down TV channels or engaging in censorship.
Question: Olaf Scholz’s colleagues from the ruling coalition and the opposition have been known to pressure him to send Taurus missiles to Ukraine. However, he refuses to do so. Judging by recent polls, the majority of ordinary Germans support him. Can we conclude that the position of Germany’s ruling circles does not reflect the opinion of the majority of ordinary Germans?
Maria Zakharova: This is a problem of their political structure. I’m not going to give my assessments; I’m just stating the fact. There seems to be a deadlock or problematic aspect to it. We have all heard the purported postulates about democracy. We see how all of this is implemented in practice. Clearly, there is a discrepancy.
Since they constantly criticise our system, I keep telling them that we have direct elections. Our politicians come to elections with their programmes, share them with the people, and voters make their choice with knowledge of the programme and the political figure they are voting for.
Germany has a traffic light coalition. On the one hand, it was voted in by the people who delegated and voted for a specific programme. Then, parts of the programmes remained after this coalition was formed. All of this looks like a patchwork. Hence, in my opinion, the impossibility of implementing the will of the voters, the people.
It is hard to determine where the will of the people ends and the will of Washington begins in the context of what is happening in Berlin. That is why we see the lowest numbers of electoral support personally for Olaf Scholz and his government over the entire period of such polls since 1997. The lowest indicators. This is a question and a problem of their “democratic institutions.”
I’m not sure who in the current German leadership cares about what ordinary voters think. All they care about is their own popularity rankings. They are not saying it’s about delivering on promises. What they are talking about is whether people recognise them or not, support or do not support them based on personal liking or disliking. People are not asked about how things get implemented, or what policy will be pursued, and people get no chance to assess it.
For example, the refusal to interact with Russia on the energy track. Who made this decision in Germany? The people, perhaps? Of course, not. No one from big business could ever make such a decision because large and medium-sized businesses rely on these energy prices in their future trading plans. Who made this decision for Berlin, if it was not the people, not the elites? Washington did it using its ability to exert influence. Hence, entrepreneurial activity has slowed, and German taxpayers’ money is thoughtlessly poured into non-starter projects like supporting the Kiev regime. I think your question may get an answer during the electoral campaigns and state elections in Germany in September 2024. But it is up to the German voter to answer this question, not me.
We have answered our questions and made our choice during direct voting based on an understanding of who we are voting for. So, let them figure out for themselves how things work, who approves of whom, and who supports the actions of the government when it appears to be one but, on the other hand, is torn apart by differences.
Question: Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan said during a meeting with residents of the Tavush Region that if Yerevan does not meet Baku half-way on the issue of the border communities, a war could start at the end of the week. At the same time, it is Baku that initiated the signing of the peace treaty and has not voiced any military plans. What or who, in your opinion, is behind the Armenian leader’s statements?
Maria Zakharova: I have already commented on this as soon as these reports appeared. We doublechecked them, and they corresponded to what was said. We thought perhaps all of this was just a planted fake. But no, everything in the news matched what was said.
We commented on this at once. I can only add that intimidating one’s own population is hardly the best way to achieve the desired outcome for Armenia. These issues need to be addressed in a calm and constructive manner. There is a mechanism for this: the Commission on the Delimitation of the Armenian-Azerbaijani Border. Considering our extensive experience in demarcation and delimitation, we are ready to provide all possible assistance to its work. We can assume this role.
Now let’s talk about the role we definitely cannot have. We are in no way connected (let me stress that no one and no structure in Russia has any connection) to the decisions that the Yerevan leadership has called possible. We would like to ask everyone, including the media and people in Armenia, to understand and remember that what was said by Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan should not in any way be associated with Russia. We were not consulted on this matter. There were no contacts. This is exclusively the decision of the Armenian leadership based on consultations with the West (the European Union, NATO, individual countries). This is their area of responsibility. As for the agreements and decisions made, and the manner in which they were pushed, these questions are best directed to Yerevan. Considering what we constantly hear post factum about the steps taken by the Armenian leadership regarding global decisions. Then third countries are blamed for them. We come under attack all the time. Then the CSTO is blamed. I would like those who voice these decisions made by Yerevan under the influence of its Western partners to take responsibility for them, either individually or together with these partners.
Russia has nothing to do with this. We are consistently striving to communicate, both publicly and through bilateral channels, that endlessly searching for those guilty and responsible for individual decisions made in Yerevan is unacceptable. In this case, we are taking a proactive approach. We do this so that it cannot be said later that all of this is happening again because of someone in the CSTO or in Moscow. No, this is something that we have nothing to do with.
Question: During a telephone conversation with President of Russia Vladimir Putin, President of Türkiye Recep Tayyip Erdogan said that Ankara would continue its efforts to promote a peaceful resolution of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. I would like to hear Moscow’s assessment of Türkiye’s role and, in particular, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s role in this matter.
Maria Zakharova: We appreciate the support of everyone who speaks in favour of a settlement, in favour of peace and negotiations, and everyone who offers their mediation efforts. There are many such countries, public figures and state officials.
As the world realises the destructive path the collective West is pushing the entire planet towards, more and more people are supporting peace and a peaceful settlement. This is what we have been doing for many years – asking, appealing, proposing and encouraging everyone in every possible way to implement the Minsk agreements. We are grateful to everyone, regardless of how feasible their proposals, programmes or actions are. They are sending an important message – a call for peace amid endless aggressive statements. The collective West is pushing for further escalation, continuing to supply weapons and sponsoring acts of terrorism. We are grateful to everyone, and this certainly applies to Türkiye’s initiative and the personal initiative of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
Question: Recently, we have seen positive shifts in the negotiations between Azerbaijan and Armenia. However, we have noticed that Armenia’s international partners sometimes interfere with the negotiations, pushing Yerevan to engage in provocations, or make incendiary statements. In this regard, Baku insists on bilateral negotiations, considering it the most effective way to achieve peace. What is Russia’s assessment of Azerbaijan’s efforts to establish peace and stability in the region?
Maria Zakharova: Positive shifts in the negotiation process between Azerbaijan and Armenia were observed when the trilateral agreements (1,2,3,4) were actively implemented at the highest level, when regular conferences were held in the Russia-Azerbaijan-Armenia format, with our country serving as a mediator. This does not mean that there are no other theoretical possibilities. Surely, there are. I am just referring to a period when positive changes occurred. These are the facts. Those changes were due to the implementation of the trilateral agreements and the formats that stemmed from them or were created for the purpose of implementing them. There are concrete examples of this.
But the West, seeking to intercept that agenda, began to infiltrate the region. The fact that the process was entering a peaceful trajectory, with an international legal dimension, did not sit well with them. The two countries were negotiating without any aggression or anger despite the difficult past; they were looking to the future and had a clear plan on how to reach that peaceful future. That agenda was essentially hijacked. The West imposed its own Nagorno-Karabakh formula on Armenia, ignoring the need to respect the rights and security of the local Armenian population. What was the result? You know what happened. We hear this from the local population in Nagorno-Karabakh as well. This has created an additional problem in the region. Today, the Western regimes are forcing Yerevan to make unilateral decisions regarding disputed territories on the border.
We see the Western countries trying to pit Yerevan against both Baku and Moscow, seeking to disrupt the positive trends that you are asking about, in relations with both. Despite this, we have had and continue to have relations with Yerevan. I sincerely believe that they will move forward towards allied relations.
We see the West trying to infiltrate the region in order to pursue its own interests. What lies behind their interests? The endless “controlled chaos” ideology. Another important point is that they have lost any skill they had in controlling that chaos, but the ideology remained. The EU mission is using Armenia’s territory to spy on our country, Iran and Azerbaijan. There is evidence of that. This destructive activity leads to growing tensions in the region, and may even have irreversible consequences. This is clear to everyone who has access to sources of information and is capable of analysis.
We have repeatedly emphasised that all the solutions for normalising relations between Baku and Yerevan, including the peace treaty, border delimitation, and the unblocking of transport routes, are spelled out in the trilateral agreements between the leaders of Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia. They should serve as the framework. They were drafted and signed, and then repeatedly reaffirmed on the basis of free will, equal participation and respect for the participating partners. This has been repeatedly stated by all parties.
What makes these trilateral agreements so unique? The fact that they are comprehensive and propose inclusive and compromise solutions that take into account the interests of all countries. A lot of hard work has been done. But the West is seeking to undermine the results of that work simply because they have their own vision of the region’s future.
Question: Recently, the joint Russia-Kazakhstan demarcation commission held its 136th session. The commission reviews the borders between Russia and Kazakhstan, proceeding from Soviet law No. 1409-I of April 3, 1990. Does Kazakhstan have a document on its cessation from the USSR? Have all aspects of this law been fulfilled? At what stage are the talks now?
Maria Zakharova: Based on the treaty between the Russian Federation and Kazakhstan on their state border, which was signed on January 18, 2005, the two sides started mapping out the line of their state border in July 2007, having established a joint commission. During this time, they have done extensive work to demarcate the land border, which spans 7,548.1 kilometres.
They are currently drafting the final demarcation documents and discussing issues related to outlining the state border in the remaining sections.
Question: Earlier you agreed with us that the Anaconda Ring plan is underway. This plan involves the establishment of military infrastructure around Russia. Recently, Chair of the Georgian Dream ruling party Irakly Garibashvili said that “Georgia is still facing the risk of being involved in an armed conflict and opening a second front against Russia.” How does the Foreign Ministry interpret this statement? Is anything being done to prevent Georgia from creating a second front?
Maria Zakharova: We regularly comment on this issue. We spoke at length about it during a briefing on Western interference in the affairs of the South Caucasus.
As we see it, the chair of the ruling party in Georgia has essentially confirmed a well-known fact – that the Westerners and the Kiev regime continue provoking Tbilisi. This means that they have not given up their plans to destabilise the entire post-Soviet space, including the South Caucasus.
In this context, a range of measures are being taken, primarily by post-Soviet countries themselves, to defend their sovereignty. How is this being done? They assess whether Western proposals align with their national interests. Nobody is talking about the need to block the development of relations. The only issue is how effective and constructive these proposals are in terms of meeting the national interests of these states. Or are these proposals aimed at subjugating the will of those states by powers that do not seek equality in international relations but rather perpetuate the ideology of monopolies and colonies.
Now a few words about the issues of ensuring security in the Georgia-Abkhazia-South Ossetia triangle. This matter is reviewed in the framework of the international Geneva discussions with the participation of official representatives of Abkhazia, Georgia, South Ossetia, Russia and the United States. The EU, UN and OSCE co-chair these discussions. A natural question arises: How do the plans of Westerners to further inflame tensions in the region tally with their participation in the Geneva discussions?
Question: President Vladimir Putin enjoyed another win in the rather specific context of Russia-Africa relations that have strengthened in the past years. What will be happening next in Africa policy? Does Russia plan to stick to the current course or will it move forward?
Maria Zakharova: This is your first briefing, so welcome. We hope to see more of you.
Being able to interact like this is an amazing achievement in communication. We are separated by thousands of kilometres, seas and oceans. But I can see and hear you very well. This is truly a great opportunity to use modern achievements in the information and communications environment.
Our relations with the countries of the African continent have expanded rapidly lately. This was clearly demonstrated by the 2nd Russia-Africa Summit in July 2023 in St Petersburg, and the economic and humanitarian forum. Our countries approved a joint declaration at the forum that reflects our common approaches to forming a new and more just multipolar world order where Russia and Africa can fully realise their potential for progress. Strategic focuses of cooperation across all areas were outlined, from politics and military security to broadly humanitarian issues, including the economy, business, tourism, education, healthcare, etc.
As concerns the election, I cannot forecast the official results before the announcement, which will take place tomorrow. All the other candidates have recognised Vladimir Putin’s victory. Therefore, Russia’s consistent approach toward African countries that has been one of equality in all things, partnership and mutual respect, will be preserved and guaranteed. This is enshrined in the official policy doctrines that regulate Russia’s international activity. We are ready to move forward down this path with our African friends and address the common issues that our peoples face, in the interests of our countries and the planet in general.
Question: We noted that Russia is part of the movement for multi-polarity, a movement that is also beneficial for Africa, whereas the Western bloc is constantly imposing its unipolar world order. How does Russia plan to reverse this trend and support Africa in its journey to genuine independence?
Maria Zakharova: Russia and Africa are becoming increasingly involved in the work of forging the multipolar world, and take this work very seriously. They participate in international organisations and co-author vital documents for the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council. There are associations like BRICS that are harbingers of multi-polarity. Russia was actively involved in creating BRICS. Later, South Africa also joined the association.
We extensively cooperate with regional African associations on a wide range of global and regional issues. You are right; the West has been trying to disrupt this multi-polarity process as it affects the West’s interests which are informed by its persistent colonial view of the world that has reached a new level. While in the past, the world was ordered by the principle of the empire and its colonies, now the countries are controlled by neocolonial practices through transnational companies, discrimination in trade, isolating countries from scientific and technological progress and its results, poaching talent, draining resources and robbing the African continent. Africa is not the only affected continent. Yes, Africa is affected more than others. But Asia is in a similar situation. Similar things are happening to Europe and Latin America today.
The West will continue to create obstacles. The process of reformatting politics, the economy, the culture and human values will be indeed under pressure from the West. But we are the global majority. I believe it is in our power to reverse this trend. How? As I said, by cooperating within international organisations, searching for common solutions to global issues, developing regional organisations, economic cooperation, humanitarian links, information exchange, the Russia-Africa strategic partnership that was highlighted as the common goal in the summit’s final resolutions and that seeks to ensure more stability for this process, accelerating much-needed changes in international relations.
Question: How can the appearance of a sanitary zone in Ukraine be justified by international law? Maybe it would be more appropriate to withdraw our consent to Ukraine’s illegally obtained independence and recognise it as a disputed Soviet territory? The will of the source of power and the people of the country would be required for this.
Maria Zakharova: You regularly ask questions like this (and not just you alone). Don’t you hear that I am saying such issues must be resolved on a legal plane? They are not within the competence of the Foreign Ministry. We have judicial power, judicial bodies and we have a society that unites historians and international lawyers. It is possible to hold conferences and litigation in the legal area. There are many relevant organisations, but these issues are not within the competence of the Foreign Ministry.
I understand your interest in this. I will say that we would have to take our interaction to some other area. It is pointless to answer the same questions. This is counterproductive. I think we have agreed with you on this. I cannot answer the same questions with the same phrases just in order to simply reconfirm our position. This is unfair to other people who also want to ask questions and to our experts who have to prepare similar answers over and over again.
As for a “sanitary zone,” I understand this is largely a military-political term. I would be pleased to ask our experts about it.
As regards such terms as “line of contact” and “sanitary zone,” I think in this respect we should rely on the goals and tasks set by the national leadership in the framework of the special military operation. We should also proceed from the situation on the ground and comments by our top leaders and military. We cooperate on this track, but they certainly have the first and decisive say on this.
I will discuss this notion with the experts. If it concerns international legal realities, we will certainly forward this material to you.
Question: There is always a focus on the first statements by a president elect during the post-election vote count. While addressing his election staff in the early hours of March 18, President of Russia Vladimir Putin said that the convergence of interests between Russia and China was a stabilising factor in the international arena. Does this mean that the interaction between Moscow and Beijing will largely define the effort to formulate new global ideas, values and meanings as the world goes through fundamental changes?
Maria Zakharova: Much is already being determined by the interaction between Moscow and Beijing. Russian-Chinese relations have developed dynamically in all areas, this being an example of equitable and mutually beneficial cooperation and support in matters related to key national interests. We are responsible participants in international relations and major countries from the geographical, geopolitical and international legal points of view, as well as in terms of our economic, research and technological potential. We have stated this repeatedly. This level of bilateral relations is a result of long-term planning and extensive and concerted efforts by the governments, businesses, and the public.
Relying on a similar understanding of the root causes and regularities in the development of the current geopolitical situation in the world, Russia and China jointly continue to closely coordinate their foreign policy steps aimed at shaping a more just and democratic multipolar international order based on equality, respect for the interests of all states, cultural and civilisational diversity, and a precise balance of interests of all members of the international community.
Our joint inclusive and creative initiatives are acquiring new prospects in a situation where the Western countries have been purposefully destroying the system of financial, trade and economic ties. Moscow and Beijing are the natural drivers powering the emergence of these global ideas and values.
This is gaining increasingly more sympathy and support from the Global Majority, as was graphically demonstrated by the recent resolution to accept new members into BRICS, and other things. We will continue to expand the club of friends and allies and intensify our mutually beneficial cooperation at the UN, G20, SCO, APEC, and other multilateral organisations.
Question: Can protest votes cast outside Russia be regarded as a win for the West, or is it a win for us because it is proof that Russian citizens can freely express their will?
Maria Zakharova: There are many elements to this. Different political analysts, experts, lawyers and social scientists will always find something in the presidential election in Russia, just like any other elections held at different levels, from the municipal to the presidential, which is important to their social group or their professional activities.
One social group will describe it as their win because the election was based on certain voting principles or because the candidate who highlighted issues of importance to that particular group won. Others will say they won because new technologies were used during the election. And still others will argue that the election did not match their understanding of the process. Different groups will provide different assessments.
The most important thing for us is that we have held direct elections of the head of state in accordance with Russian laws amid ruthless aggression by the “collective West” and the Russophobic policy which NATO has been pursuing for years to inflict a “strategic defeat” on Russia, as they say. One of the goals and objectives of this blow the West has to deliver to inflict a “strategic defeat” on Russia is to strike at our democratic institutions. They are distorting reality and accusing us of retreating from democracy.
I would like to remind you that we are living in conditions of hybrid aggression. The media, communication resources and the cyber environment are being used to put pressure on Russia and to interfere in our internal affairs. At the same time, munitions, weapons and huge funds are being sent to the terrorist regime built on policies of extremism and terrorism, that is, the Kiev regime, for targeting our regions and civilian infrastructure.
As we confront this situation and take measures to prevent the goal of the aggression from being achieved, we maintain democratic principles of national development, holding elections in the country and beyond it in keeping with our legislation. Let’s be clear: we did this despite threats to the safety of our diplomats and our foreign offices, as well as the safety of those who came to polling stations. There were numerous provocations before the voting day, intimidation and promises to disrupt our elections. We analysed all possible risks, which were numerous, and abandoned online voting because it would have been disrupted by large-scale cyberattacks. Moreover, many websites of government agencies were not available to users abroad or did not function properly.
This is why we opened polling stations abroad, even though their number was smaller than usual because unfriendly government have reduced the number of our foreign offices. The election was held in 144 countries, where the Russian Foreign Ministry opened 288 polling stations, and several other stations were opened additionally by other authorities.
In addition to the journalists who covered the election, our foreign offices also provided information about it. They did so because Russian journalists were unable to do this in some countries, and even local journalists could not make unbiased reports. They were harassed by the authorities of unfriendly countries, prevented from doing their jobs and threatened with blacklisting and various punitive measures. We were aware of that. That is why Russian diplomats, who organised polling stations and became members of electoral commissions in accordance with Russian law, also provide online information about the election. They have posted thousands of items. I view this as a major achievement showing that we can take actions of fundamental importance for us even despite aggression, that is, strengthen our statehood, our political structure and our social system. We can do this, and we will prove that we can do this both in the country and beyond it, in keeping with our commitments and despite the unprecedented pressure coupled with armed aggression.
Question: Members of the International Russophile Movement participated in past elections as observers. For them, this involved challenging work that could have led to certain consequences and reactions in their home countries. If Russia welcomes their participation as observers, could members of this movement be granted most favored status for obtaining visas, as well as providing long-term visas for them?
Maria Zakharova: The International Russophile Movement is not affiliated with any state, either Russian or any other. It is a non-governmental entity consisting of individuals representing a social movement and civil society. They represent themselves. If they require assistance, we are open to communicating with them, just as we do with all representatives of civil society seeking to strengthen bilateral ties and peace. We are always willing to help.
Question: This week, a group of tourists from Iran arrived in Moscow for the first time under the Russian-Iranian agreement on visa-free group travel. The active tourist season is ahead; with which other countries are there plans to introduce visa-free travel? Which countries might open to Russians for visa-free travel in the near future?
Maria Zakharova: An agreement with Iran to launch visa-free group tourist trips was reached in August 2023. The first group of Russian tourists visited Iran in October 2023, and an Iranian group arrived in Moscow recently.
We anticipate high demand for this agreement in the upcoming tourist season. We encourage tour operators to take advantage of this existing experience.
Regarding plans to expand visa-free travel, we do have such plans. Talks are underway with an entire range of countries in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. However, it would be premature and unethical to disclose details at this time. Once agreements are reached, we will provide updates.
Information about unilateral visa-free entry for Russians by foreign states is promptly shared on the websites of the Foreign Ministry, the Consular Information Portal, and social media accounts of the Consular Department.
Дополнительные материалы
-
Фото
 Русский дом.mp4)