Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, October 2, 2024

1. The new NATO Secretary-General
2. Developments in Martinique
3. An incident involving VGTRK staff  members at the UN
4. Russian assessments of the Middle East escalation
5. The crisis of liberal democracies in Europe
6. An attack on the UAE Ambassador’s residence in the Sudan
7. Prospects for signing a New START Treaty
8. The Friends of Peace Group
9. Electoral victories of radical forces in Europe
10. The Russian Foreign Ministry’s report on the glorification of Nazism
11. Aleksandar Vucic’s statement on the Ukraine crisis
12.  Josep Borrel’s remarks
13.  The Russian and Belarusian common approaches to preserving the historical truth
14. The QUAD Summit’s results and UN reform
15. UN role in stopping Middle East crisis escalation
16. Jens Stoltenberg’s statements on the Russian nuclear doctrine
17. Assessments of Iran’s actions
18. Attempts to engineer a clash between Russia and Iran
19. Armenia’s attitude to the CSTO and EAEU
20. The Japanese demarche
21. The collective West’s destabilising influence on the South Caucasus Region
22. Armenia-Azerbaijan relations
23. Azerbaijan’s rhetoric with regard to Nagorno-Karabakh
24. The 75th anniversary of Russian-Chinese relations
25. The Russian opposition to NATO
26. Measures to support  foreign citizens sharing traditional values

Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with head of Arab states’ diplomatic missions accredited in Moscow

Today, on October 2, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov held a meeting with the heads of diplomatic missions accredited in Moscow and representing Arab states. The meeting took place at their request, and we received it in the late hours of October 1. We satisfied their request and the meeting took place.

Its agenda consisted of an exchange of views on the developments in the Middle East with a special emphasis on the continuing and unprecedented escalation of violence there.

The participants in the meeting spoke out in favour of immediately ceasing the hostilities in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict zone. They also expressed their deep concern with the growing risks of the situation evolving into a full-scale war across the Middle East with devastating consequences for the entire region, considering, among other things, the October 1, 2024, retaliatory strike carried out by Iran against Israeli territory. They went on to emphasise that all the involved parties must renounce provocations, exercise restraint and act responsibly in keeping with the existing resolutions adopted by the United Nations and its Security Council.

The representatives of Arab states thanked Russia for its proactive efforts, including within the UN Security Council, to stop the bloodshed in the Israeli-Palestinian confrontation zone and bring the situation back to normal.

The Foreign Minister and the heads of diplomatic missions reaffirmed their unwavering commitment to further coordinating efforts by Moscow and their respective capitals for bringing about a comprehensive and durable peace in the Middle East as quickly as possible by establishing a sovereign Palestinian state within the 1967 borders and with East Jerusalem as its capital.

They also talked about what led to the current situation and described it as a tragedy rather than an escalation by designating among the causes the position of the UN Security Council members representing the West. They have been camping on a subversive position for a year now, which prevented this high international body from sending a strong signal and stressing that actions of this kind were unacceptable.

Let me emphasise Moscow’s concern with this new cycle of escalation in the Middle East. Russia has repeatedly warned against failing to resolve crises in this part of the world, primarily the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, since this can result in a major escalation.

The Foreign Ministry believes that the United States bears much of the responsibility not only at this specific point in time, but also for the overall deterioration we are witnessing today. In fact, for almost a year now, the United States has been blocking the adoption of a UN Security Council resolution requiring a cessation of hostilities in the Gaza Strip and ensuring humanitarian access to its people.

Once again, we call on all the parties involved to exercise restraint and refrain from making the military and political situation even worse, while preventing the region from sliding into the abyss of a bigger war.

Not a single country in the Middle East would benefit from this catastrophic scenario. We expect all the constructive international actors to use any means at their disposal to prevent it from materialising. It is our belief that a fair resolution of the Palestinian issue is instrumental for improving the overall situation.

Russia has been clear and open on this matter. We have regularly presented our position and follow this line on international platforms. Once again, we stress the urgent need to consolidate international efforts for achieving a ceasefire in the Gaza Strip as quickly as possible and creating conditions for resetting a comprehensive political settlement process for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in keeping with the UN Security Council and General Assembly resolutions on the two-state solution.

back to top

Opening of exhibition to mark 75th anniversary of diplomatic relations with the PRC

On October 3, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will participate in the opening ceremony of an exhibition of archival documents commemorating the 75th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between Russia and China, a milestone being widely celebrated in both nations. This important date is closely tied to the founding of the People’s Republic of China on October 1, 1949, a pivotal event in modern world history. We extend our heartfelt congratulations to our Chinese friends on this anniversary. 

Moscow was the first to recognise the newly formed People’s Republic of China, doing so just a day after its proclamation. Over the past 75 years, Russian-Chinese relations have evolved significantly, reaching an unprecedentedly high level. The comprehensive partnership and strategic cooperation between Russia and China continue to grow, serving as a model for mutually respectful dialogue and mutually beneficial cooperation between major powers.

The exhibition showcases key milestones and memorable moments in the history of Russian-Chinese relations through a collection of archival documents. In addition to the physical exhibition, an online version will be available on the Russian Foreign Ministry’s website for anyone interested in exploring this historical journey.

back to top

Sergey Lavrov’s upcoming bilateral and trilateral meetings with Foreign Minister of Abkhazia Sergey Shamba and Foreign Minister of South Ossetia Akhsar Dzhioev

On October 4, Moscow will host separate bilateral and trilateral meetings between Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Abkhazian Foreign Minister Sergey Shamba, and South Ossetian Foreign Minister Akhsar Dzhioev. This will mark Sergey Shamba’s first official visit to Russia as the head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Abkhazia, following his appointment in August 2024.

The ministers will address a broad range of current issues concerning Russian-Abkhazian and Russian-South Ossetian relations, along with foreign policy matters of mutual interest. The trilateral discussions will centre on the evolving international relations system and regional security, with a particular focus on aligning strategies within the framework of the Geneva discussions on security and stability in the South Caucasus.

back to top

Meeting of Moscow Format of Consultations on Afghanistan

On October 4, 2019, Moscow will host the sixth meeting of the Moscow Format Consultations on Afghanistan at the level of special representatives and senior officials. Alongside the regular participants (Russia, India, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, China, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan), Afghanistan’s acting Foreign Minister, Amir Muttaqi, has been invited as the guest of honour, leading a distinguished national delegation to the Russian capital.

The meeting’s main proceedings, to be held behind closed doors, will be opened with a welcome address by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

The discussions at the Moscow Format Consultations will focus primarily on advancing the Afghan national reconciliation process and enhancing practical cooperation between regional states and Kabul in political, economic, counter-terrorism, and anti-drug efforts. A joint statement is expected to be issued following the meeting.

On the sidelines of the event, Sergey Lavrov will hold a meeting with Amir Muttaqi to address key issues of bilateral cooperation between Moscow and Kabul.

back to top

Sergey Lavrov’s participation in the CIS Foreign Ministers Council meeting

On October 7, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will chair a regular meeting of the CIS Foreign Ministers Council in Moscow.

The foreign ministers will review the preliminary results of joint efforts on implementing the priorities of Russia’s CIS chairmanship in 2024. They will discuss prospects for developing diverse cooperation in the CIS format, including deeper economic integration, efforts to counter long-standing and emerging challenges and threats and expanding cultural and humanitarian ties. Special attention will be given to preparations for the 80th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War, which will be celebrated in 2025.

There are plans to exchange opinions on key international and regional issues. Following the meeting, the ministers are expected to adopt several decisions aimed at expanding collaboration in law enforcement, cultural and humanitarian spheres, and enhancing foreign policy coordination within the CIS.

The ministers will approve a plan for multi-level consultations between national foreign ministries for 2025, as well as the date and venue for the next meeting of the CIS Foreign Ministers Council.

Most of the approved documents will be submitted to the CIS Heads of State Council and the CIS Heads of Government Council for consideration.

back to top

Sergey Lavrov’s participation in the 19th East Asia Summit

On October 11, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will take part in the 19th East Asia Summit in Vientiane.

This platform is part of the mechanisms of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), and has always been a key element in the ASEAN-centric system of multilateral dialogue and cooperation in the Asia-Pacific region.

ASEAN traditionally aims to focus the agenda of the East Asia Summit on pressing regional development issues, with an emphasis on strengthening the association’s connectivity and expanding its cooperation potential.

Plans are also in place to discuss the security challenges facing the Asia-Pacific region. Today, these challenges are primarily linked to the Western efforts to militarise the region, establish local NATO infrastructure and create new blocs that serve as an alternative to the ASEAN-centric system of interstate relations, which relies on the principles of open and equitable collaboration. We can observe diametrically opposite trends, specifically efforts to facilitate NATO’s destructive and aggressive undertakings.

Russia invariably advocates for more profound multi-faceted cooperation with ASEAN. All Russian proposals at the East Asia Summit are based on this approach. This includes expanding collective potential in responding to epidemic threats, the prospect of institutionalising this aspect of joint activities, the establishment of permanent consultative channels between tourism agencies and support for volunteer projects, an important aspect of civic responsibility, using the East Asia Summit’s platform. Additionally, we are ready to share our extensive experience of implementing national programmes in the development of remote territories with our partners.

During his stay in Vientiane, Sergey Lavrov will hold a number of bilateral meetings with his Asian counterparts.

back to top

The 1st Ministerial Conference of the Russia-Africa Partnership in Sochi

On November 9−10, Sochi will host the 1st Ministerial Conference of the Russia-Africa Partnership at Sirius University, in accordance with the decisions of the 2nd Russia-Africa Summit.

The foreign ministers of the Russian Federation and African states, as well as the leadership of the African Union Commission and major continental integration associations, will take part in the event.

The business programme on the sidelines of the conference will feature roundtable discussions and panel sessions on key items on the Russian-African agenda, including security, trade and investment, industrialisation, technology transfers, agriculture, the development of the mining sector, education, healthcare and epidemiological safety.

Representatives of Russian and foreign media are invited to cover the event. We are expecting African media outlets to take an active part.

Media representatives can obtain accreditation on the Russia-Africa Summit’s official website until October 25, 2024.

back to top

The Ukraine crisis

Supported by its Western curators, the Kiev regime continues to use terrorist methods against civilians and civilian infrastructure in the Russian regions. The Banderites are extensively using various NATO weapons and UAVs loaded with explosives.

On the second anniversary of the reunification of the DPR, the LPR, the Zaporozhye and Kherson regions with Russia, they are venting their hatred and aggression on the residents of these Russian regions who made their legitimate and free choice during the referendums on September 23-27, 2022, in favour of their future with their historical Motherland. The Ukrainian Nazis may try all they want but they will not be able to intimidate or spread panic among our people.  

On September 29, the Ukrainian armed forces delivered 35 strikes at the DPR, nine hitting Donetsk and 26 Gorlovka. Reportedly, seven civilians were wounded, including adolescents born in 2012 and 2013. Sixteen houses were damaged. On September 30, Donetsk and Gorlovka were attacked once again. A young man born in 2007 was killed and eight people were wounded, including two children born in 2007 and 2015. This is the kind of vengeance that the people who call themselves fighters for freedom, democracy and justice unleash at children. Meanwhile they keep running to international agencies and claiming that children are their prime concern.

On September 29, 56 shells were dropped on the Kherson Region. Thirteen towns and villages were affected by the enemy’s strike. In the early hours of September 30, they also shelled Novaya Kakhovka.  

The Ukrainian armed forces launched a massive drone attack on Kamenka-Dneprovskaya in the Zaporozhye Region, striking a recently renovated children’s sports school. Apparently, the Banderites feel particular fury towards any children’s infrastructure. Other targets hit included a power station, a petrol station and a café where local residents were celebrating a wedding and a child’s birthday. One person was killed.

According to preliminary reports, the Ukrainian drone downed over Lugansk on September 28 was carrying a cluster bomb.

The Russian Defence Ministry reports that in the early hours of September 29, 125 Ukrainian UAVs were shot down over Russian regions. The biggest number, or 67 drones, were intercepted over the Volgograd Region. Seventeen UAVs were destroyed over the Belgorod and Voronezh regions. Eighteen were downed over the Rostov Region, and one in each of the areas over the Bryansk and Kursk regions as well as the Krasnodar Territory. Three more were destroyed over the waters of the Sea of Azov.

The Ukrainian Nazis continue to use FPV drones for deliberate attacks on the civilians in the Belgorod Region. On September 18, a service bus was attacked in Shebekino, resulting in four civilian casualties. On September 21, an UAV attack wounded a tractor driver in the village of Oktyabrsky. On September 22, the strikes at the village of Cheremoshnoye and the Shebekinsky City District left 14 civilians wounded. A civilian vehicle was attacked by a drone on the road between Chaika and Krasny Oktyabr, with the driver severely injured. On September 29, an FPV drone strike at a car in Krasny Oktyabr wounded three women, including two severely. On the same day, an attack by a Ukrainian UAV on the village of Oktyabrsky killed a fighter of the local self-defence unit.

This is what Vladimir Zelensky’s regime, for whom the use of terror methods has become commonplace, normal, and a policy, really looks like. These crimes are on the conscience of the Kiev gang and its Western masters. Russian law enforcement agencies are recording each of them. All those involved will definitely answer to the fullest extent of the law.

Russian law enforcement agencies continue to receive evidence of war crimes committed by Ukrainian militants and foreign mercenaries in the Kursk Region. A woman living in Kulbaki village said that Ukrainian Armed Forces’ militants are deliberately dropping incendiary mixtures from drones onto residential buildings in border areas. According to her, after these strikes, entire streets burn down. They do not care that there may be people in the houses who did not have time to evacuate. The Nazis and their Bandera followers did exactly the same in the occupied Soviet territory during the Great Patriotic War.

In addition to that, people in the Kursk Region report atrocities by foreign mercenaries. One of the locals told military investigators about the atrocities committed by Georgian soldiers of fortune, who threw grenades into basements regardless of whether there were people there or not. According to her, they really enjoyed cutting civilians, and mocked as much as they could. The Poles were also savage.

People who came to the temporary accommodation centre in Kursk told journalists about the first days of the Ukrainian Armed Forces’ invasion of the Kursk Region, including the large number of civilian casualties. According to eyewitnesses, the Ukrainians warned the residents that if they did not leave, then “foreign mercenaries would come and leave no one alive.” According to a Sudzha resident Vladimir Maltsev, “Georgians, Poles, Frenchmen – all these mercenaries – were exterminating people like cockroaches,” and “a lot of women were killed, abused, and raped.”

The investigation received testimony from a resident of Cherkasskoye-Porechnoye village, Sudzha District, who reported that his nephew was killed by Bandera supporters. He was brutally beaten and then hanged in a local church. This is what we are talking about. There is no line between Nazism, fascism, and Satanism. It is all one big dark force that comes if people allow themselves to forget about human dignity.

In the backpack of a Ukrainian Armed Forces militant liquidated in the liberated Snagost village, Russian servicemen found documents and medals stolen from a World War II veteran Nikolai Ptashkin. The awards were returned to the hero's youngest son, who, as it turned out, witnessed mercenaries from France and Poland desecrating the Russian flag, which they tore down from his house, on the eve of the evacuation.

Russian courts continue to sentence Ukrainian neo-Nazis and mercenaries for war crimes based on evidence from the Investigative Committee of Russia. Ukrainian Armed Forces militants Daniil Vereshchak, Artur Sharamok and Artyom Batyuta were each sentenced to 16 years in prison for shelling a road bridge on the Slavyansk-Donetsk-Mariupol highway on February 26, 2022, which resulted in damage to the state, disruption of transport communications and the creation of obstacles to the evacuation of civilians from the combat zone.

Latvian citizen and former Saeima deputy Juris Jurašs was sentenced in absentia to 17 years in prison for his involvement in military actions on behalf of the Ukrainian Armed Forces and for publicly spreading false information about the tragedies in Bucha and Irpen, located in the Kiev Region. His compatriot Alvis Lukša, along with Australian citizen Abdelfattah Nurin, and Algerian citizen Kousseil Louadahi, were also sentenced in absentia to 14 years each for participating in military actions on Ukraine’s side as part of the International Legion.

On September 30, 2024, the Supreme Court of the DPR sentenced Ukrainian serviceman Leonid Onupko to life imprisonment for mass killings of civilians in Mariupol.

Russia’s Investigative Committee has launched a criminal case against New Zealand citizen Jordan O’Brien for his involvement in military actions as a mercenary on the side of Ukraine, including the murder of civilians, targeted assassinations, and terrorist attacks in the Kursk Region. The investigation is currently working to determine the whereabouts of the mercenary and his accomplices.

None of the Ukrainian criminals, mercenaries, and their accomplices will escape justice.

We have taken note of the article published in the Spectator on September 21, 2024, titled It’s Time to Let Ukraine Join NATO. In it, former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, with apparent seriousness, claims that granting Kiev NATO membership could send a “message to the Kremlin” and bring “faith, hope, and clarity” to the Ukrainian people. Notably absent, however, is any mention of love. Such provocative remarks serve only to incite direct NATO involvement in an armed conflict with Russia. Boris Johnson appears indifferent to the potential consequences, showing little regard for the lives of millions of people. His cynicism was evident in April 2022 in Kiev, when he ordered that negotiations with Russia must be stopped and military operations must continue regardless of the casualties, up to the last Ukrainian.

This is the same Boris Johnson who claimed to have a deep affection for Russia, citing his name and education as reasons for his admiration. The global community must realise that personalities like Johnson and others from this Anglo-Saxon Sabbath are pushing the world to the huge catastrophe. We suggest he take a closer look at the statements made by President Vladimir Putin on September 12 and 25 of this year regarding our response to any potential NATO actions aimed at striking deep into our territory, as well as at the updated Fundamentals of State Policy of the Russian Federation in the Sphere of Nuclear Deterrence.

Amid the worsening economic, energy, and demographic crises in Ukraine, along with rampant corruption permeating all levels of government, the Verkhovna Rada has expanded its efforts to eliminate any geographical references to Russian culture and Russia, including the heroes who liberated Ukraine from Nazi invaders. On September 19, 2024, on the second try, it passed a bill by majority vote to rename 327 localities, including several towns in the Russian Lugansk Region. This initiative will likely be funded by the very Ukrainian people who have been robbed, humiliated, tortured, and oppressed by Vladimir Zelensky, instead of addressing their urgent, fundamental needs. The focus should be on survival. Kiev has a lot of more important matters to attend to.

As part of a recent wave of name changes, the village of Chervone (Red) in the Lvov Region has been renamed Galitskoye in honour of the largest memorial to the SS Galicia Division in the area. This marks the first time in history that an entire populated locality has been explicitly named after this SS unit. Where are the OSCE and all those who are generously funded by international taxpayers? Where are the representatives of the various organisations dedicated to preserving the memory of Holocaust victims? How are they responding to this? What is their assessment of the decision to name a village in honour of the SS Galicia Division? Are they unaware of this? They remain silent. It is not trendy to speak out nowadays.

In the Lvov Region, the mining town of Chervonograd (Red City) has been renamed to honour Andrey Sheptytsky, a Nazi collaborator and the head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church during the Great Patriotic War. This decision comes despite the fact that the residents of Chervonograd previously voted against any renaming in three separate city referendums.

All of this is occurring amid an ongoing campaign of violence, a war waged by Ukrobanderites against the monuments and graves of the true heroes who liberated Ukrainian land from the brown plague. On September 21 of this year, in the village of Sadzhava, Ivano-Frankovsk Region, the grave of Antonina Vereshchagina, a 22-year-old radio operator-scout who died in 1944 during a combat mission at the hands of Banderites in the area, was destroyed. Her remains were exhumed for reburial, and plans were announced to dismantle the obelisk dedicated to her, if it has not already been removed. How can such actions be justified or assessed? How can anyone live with this reality?

Despite the Kiev regime’s efforts to review and distort history and to glorify Nazi executioners, it cannot erase from the memories of millions the names of the true heroes who saved humanity from Nazism and contributed to the development and prosperity of Ukraine over the years.

These facts reaffirm the necessity of the special military operation aimed at denazifying and demilitarising Ukraine and eliminating the threats originating from its territory. We are committed to ensuring that all of these objectives are achieved.

back to top

Ukrainian Armed Forces’ links with terrorist organisations

Ukraine opted for terrorist methods as a state policy instrument a long time ago. In fact, the Kiev regime does not hide its links with terrorist groups around the world and, in particular, on the African continent and in the Middle East. The international community’s attention has been drawn to this more than once. In this regard, we note that an increasing number of states become aware of the terrorist nature of the Kiev regime.

On March 1, 2022, on the order of President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky, the International Defence Legion of Ukraine (IDLU) was established and included in the Armed Forces of Ukraine. It is made up of mercenaries, adherents of extremist ideas and outright terrorists from various corners of the planet: from the US, Canada and Great Britain to individuals from the Caucasus. There are also radical Islamists in it: members of international terrorist organisations, including the banned ISIS, Al-Qaeda and the Caucasus Emirate, who have experience in combat operations against the government forces of the Syrian Arab Republic.

Al-Tanf, a US military base located in Syria near the Jordanian and Iraqi border, and the adjacent area has long become a kind of a terrorist hub where up to 500 ISIS members and other jihadists loyal to Washington are retrained at the same time. People from Aouth Caucasus states and the Central Asia are given priority. Special units with them are aimed primarily at carrying out sabotage and terrorist acts against Russian Armed Forces units, including in Ukraine.

The current Ukrainian authorities’ links with international terrorist organisations can be confirmed by the information obtained during the investigation of the terrorist attack at Crocus City Hall. The perpetrators were migrant workers from Central Asia, and the preparation and financing of the attack were coordinated via the internet by members of the Islamic State – Khorasan Province international terrorist organisation.

We can also recall the militants attacking a column of state troops in northern Mali in late July of 2024. Ukrainian officials – Press Secretary of the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Defence Ministry Andrei Yusov and Ukrainian ambassador to Senegal Yury Pivovarov – directly stated their support for organising thiat attack, which caused the immediate severance of Mali’s and Niger’s diplomatic relations with Kiev.

Turkish and Syrian media published information about talks between representatives of the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Defence Ministry of Ukraine, including its head Kirill Budanov personally, with Tahrir al-Sham (formerly Jabhat al-Nusra) on recruiting militants from the Idlib Province, Syria, in order to train them and carry out joint attacks on Russian facilities. About 250 Ukrainian military personnel are reported to have arrived there to enhance the terrorists’ capabilities through the use of unmanned aerial vehicles. All of this once again proves the terrorist nature of Vladimir Zelensky’s regime and helps the global community see the true face of the current Ukrainian authorities and those behind them in the West.

We believe that this practice of criminal cooperation between the Armed Forces of Ukraine and the international terrorist international is absolutely unacceptable. We will continue to fight this evil spirit by all available means, regardless of where it appears: in Russia, Syria, or Africa.

back to top

Moldova update

The Moldovan leadership persists in its hypocrisy to persuade the country residents that there is no alternative to the European integration project. They are threatening the people with what they call a Russian threat. There is no such threat, of course.

In his remarks at the UN General Assembly on September 27, 2024, Prime Minister of Moldova Dorin Recean alleged that Moscow was committed to changing “the sovereign choice of the Moldovan people” and to “suppressing the dignity and will of the people of Moldova.” Was he serious? Or was this some kind of a Moldovan joke, so much so that a Moldovan travelling to New York stays true to his national identity and continues cracking jokes all the time? But once they come back home, they lose this part of their identity. There is an ongoing effort to reshape the Moldovan language and transform it into Romanian, while people are expected to designate themselves as Romanians rather than Moldovans. Everything Moldovan, be it culture, language or ethnic and cultural identity, has been reduced to a token, just for show, a veneer. And this is the captivating narrative they are trying to present to the world. It is high time they made up their mind on whether Moldova has a Moldovan language, whether Moldovans inhabit this country and whether they have a Moldovan culture and history. But if you travel to New York to speak at the UN General Assembly after subjecting the people of Moldova to all these nationalist experiments, you must keep calling them Romanians. Seeing a person who calls himself the Prime Minister of the Republic of Moldova as an advocate for the Romanian population would be quite an interesting sight for the Global Majority. One week prior to that, a PACE delegation summed up its visit to Chisinau by saying that “disinformation supported by the Kremlin, illegal financing and alleged vote-buying represent serious threats” to the country’s sovereignty and security.

It is quite telling that the Moldovan authorities, or should I say the Romanian authorities, have been actively relying on the anti-democratic practices I have just mentioned, and which have been falsely ascribed to our country.

The country persists in its efforts to cleanse its media landscape. On September 25, it blocked five Russian news websites – RIA Novosti, Nezavisimaya Gazeta, Crimea Television and Radio Broadcasting Company (TRK Krym), Krymskaya Gazeta, and the official website of Crimean Republic’s State Council. The block also covered a website explaining to the people of Moldova the possible consequences of European integration.

I would like to draw your attention to yet another fact demonstrating the way Maia Sandu’s regime has been discriminating against Russian journalists. Yesterday, a correspondent from RIA Novosti’s diplomatic desk was denied accreditation to cover the presidential election in Moldova from Chisinau under a far-fetched pretext. He did not receive any follow-up explanations. This is the way the Moldovan authorities have been cleaning up the national media landscape.

Making it impossible for the opposition to make its voice heard has become a favourite for the Moldovan authorities. On September 23, 2024, senior executives from Teleradio-Moldova, a national broadcaster, refused to air a campaign clip for Vladimir Voronin, the leader of the Party of Communists. Why did they do this? Because he criticised the way Maia Sandu’s team did its job. This brand of democracy and European integration contains undertones of a liberal dictatorship. On September 26, 2024, they took a similar decision regarding another presidential hopeful who called for banning the propaganda of non-traditional values in schools.

In fact, Maia Sandu’s regime did a lot to place into the national spotlight the topic of destroying the traditional family and nurturing all kinds of immoral practices. For example, on October 10-13, 2024, Chisinau is scheduled to host yet another LGBT festival. Its organisers chose coming out events, i.e., when people publicly disclose their non-traditional sexual orientation, as the festival’s main topic. This is simply insane.

However, despite all these efforts by the Moldovan authorities to instil what they refer to as the European values, people can see through these efforts and know what underpins them. In fact, Maia Sandu’s sponsors have made no secret of their efforts. On September 27, 2024, the EU Ambassador in Chisinau, Jānis Mažeiks, let it slip while on the air that one of the consequences for Moldova in its European project would consist of enabling foreigners, meaning Western transnational corporations, to buy agricultural land in the country. The Western transnational companies will rob this country, all while inviting the people of Moldova to join these LGBT parades. People will lose their historical lands after their forefathers spilled their blood to defend this territory, after their fathers cultivated this soil which yielded fantastic harvests and were celebrated across the Soviet Union for these achievements. This caused a scandal. And the EU Ambassador mentioned just a fraction of what is being planned with regard to Moldova. The Moldovan leadership rushed to denounce Mažeiks’ words, while pro-government broadcasters conspired behind closed doors to stop inviting him to speak during their shows. If Maia Sandu has a message for the people of Moldova about European integration, she must make sure that those who actually represent this movement get an opportunity to speak their mind. Let the EU Ambassador to Moldova answer all these questions and tell the people of Moldova what he has in stock for them.

Therefore, it is hardly surprising that Maia Sandu’s support has been rapidly waning not only in Moldova, but also across the Moldovan diaspora abroad. Even Moldovans living in Western Europe, who voted her into office in 2020, are turning away from her. There have been protest rallies calling for Sandu’s resignation in the UK, Germany and France. But the pro-government media in Moldova would never report this back at home. I was told that people in Moldova had to go to great lengths to find links to the blocked Russian media outlets, our briefings, and how they have been relying on Russian social media accounts to get their news. It went as far as banning any video recording during the recent meetings held by the President of Moldova with her compatriots in Italy for avoiding any sensitive or embarrassing moments.

And all this is taking place because behind all this fake narrative coming from Chisinau on the triumph of European integration, the country is coming apart, its people are more divided than ever, while Moldova is about to lose its sovereignty. It is high time for the Moldovan leadership to recall whom it is supposed to serve instead of trying to conceal its incompetence by perorating about what they call a Russian threat, since the people of Moldova can see through this rhetoric.

back to top

US military build-up in the Asia-Pacific region

We can observe increasing trends and the persistence of Washington’s strategy to militarise the Asia-Pacific region with the support of its regional and European allies.

Intensive efforts are underway to synchronise the actions of key US strongholds in Asia, including military-political alliances such as: US-Japan, US-Japan-Republic of Korea, US-Japan-Australia, AUKUS (US-UK-Australia), which includes a nuclear component, the US-Japan-Philippines Troika, and the Indo-Pacific Quartet (Japan-Republic of Korea-Australia-New Zealand).

A special role in the US extended deterrence system has been assigned to the US-Japan-Australia-India (“Quad”) quadrangle, which is based on a “force component.” This includes regular military exercises and cross-agreements between the participating countries, aimed at facilitating various aspects of military, military-technical and military-political cooperation.

It is particularly noteworthy that the creation of an Indo-Pacific security architecture in the Asia-Pacific region that is centred on the United States has a secondary civilian component. At the same time, specific areas intended for military applications are being identified, including initiatives on maritime security, control over water areas, and high-tech sectors such as space and artificial intelligence.

The Western efforts in this regard also include linking climate issues to security, which can be seen as an attempt to create new opportunities for implementing the old and dangerous idea of “humanitarian interventions.” It is telling that even in healthcare, priority is being given to the development of relevant tools under the Pentagon’s supervision. A well-known example is the US bio-laboratories deployed world-wide, including in East and Southeast Asia.

Remember, such laboratories were found in Ukraine after the special military operation was launched? We know firsthand what American and other NATO military “doctors” are doing, as evidenced by the situation in Ukraine.

The recent Quad Leaders’ summit (Wilmington, Delaware, September 21) followed the same pattern. One paradoxical illustration is the decision to involve the US Navy Medical Service in implementing the Quad's cancer prevention programme in Asia.

back to top

National Council of Switzerland recognises “Golodomor” as an act of genocide

We have noted that, on September 24, 2024, the National Council, the lower house of Switzerland’s parliament, passed a statement recognising “Golodomor” as an act of genocide. The document alleges that the Soviet leadership had deliberately perpetrated this act in order to destroy the Ukrainian nation.

They are insanely spreading an ideological myth, fabricated for Ukraine or inside Ukraine by those who are ready to falsify history beyond recognition. Clearly, nationalist and Russophobic forces are behind this.

Yet another anti-Russia step by Bern highlights a substantial change in Switzerland’s position. Acting in line with timeserving considerations, Swiss MPs are trying to divide the common tragedy of Soviet nations along ethnic lines, while renouncing an objective assessment of historical reality and facts.

It should be recalled that, in the 1930s, apart from the Ukrainian SSR, a terrible famine was raging across many regions of the RSFSR, including the Volga River area, the Central Black Soil District, the North Caucasus, the Ural area, Crimea and parts of western Siberia. Additionally, people in western Ukraine, then part of Poland, Romania and Czechoslovakia, also suffered from famine. What do the people of Switzerland think about this? I realise that they have no idea of European and Soviet history, as well as their own history. However, the authors of this political decision and declaration (that resounded all over the world) should have clarified at least some facts. In this connection, one would like to ask the following legitimate question: Why are Swiss MPs not accusing the then leadership of their European partners and current partners (who are spreading Russophobia once again) of committing an act of genocide?

Bern’s politically biased attitude confirms the fact that Switzerland has lost its neutral status and the status of an unbiased intermediary (honest broker and mediator, as they called themselves) in resolving international conflicts, so actively promoted by its authorities.

back to top

Russian Foreign Ministry’s report on the indigenous rights situation in certain countries  

The Foreign Ministry of Russia has posted on its website a report analysing the indigenous rights situation in six Arctic Council member-countries, namely Canada, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden, and the United States, as well as in Australia, Japan, and New Zealand.

In recent time, the United States, Canada, and their allies have been active at international universal venues, in regional formats, and the media, trying to shift the focus from the vital problems facing indigenous peoples in North America and the Western member-countries of the Arctic Region, as well as in Australia, New Zealand and Japan to the alleged “violations of indigenous peoples’ rights” in Russia and a number of major developing countries.   

At the same time, practically all the above-mentioned countries have pursued, in some form or another, assimilation and discriminatory policies towards their aboriginal populations, something that has created numerous socio-political and cultural problems. Today, many countries develop mechanisms for coordination and cooperation with indigenous peoples.

Indigenous peoples in various countries are confronted with common problems that include a gradual erosion of their traditional way of life as a result of earlier assimilation policies, violation of the indigenous peoples’ rights to lands of traditional inhabitance and natural resources, decay of the natural environment due to industrial development and certain countries’ overseas military activities, high unemployment and indigenous communities’ dependence on government subsidies.  

The worst affected by these negative phenomena are countries in the Arctic Region, where the above-mentioned problems retain their relevance. As a result, there is a need for solutions, including those suggested by the international community, and this is the reason behind the compilation of the above report.

This agenda was included in the first joint report on the human rights situation in certain countries, produced by the foreign ministries of Russia and Belarus and published in June 2024. The Russian Foreign Ministry’s annual reports on human rights issues also systematically address these subjects, including those related to the glorification of Nazism, the spread of neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance (the latest report was issued in September of this year).   

back to top

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s article about post-war partition of Germany and Austria

The enlightenment mission on the history of the Second World War was the Foreign Ministry’s special area of focus led by Sergey Lavrov. It has already become a permanent effort against the falsifiers of the past. Today we present the article On the Circumstances of the Division of Austria and Germany into Occupation Zones by Sergey Lavrov, released by the Bulletin of the Security Council of the Russian Federation. It is available on the Russian Foreign Ministry website. I will give you a few facts, since there is a reason to do so – the 75th anniversary of establishing the FRG and the GDR in September-October 1949.

The resolution of the German and Austrian issues was a meaningful, if not the key, part of the post-war settlement in Europe. In 1955, Austria became a neutral country, from which foreign contingents were withdrawn. Germany, on the other hand, became an arena of global confrontation between the two systems, as they used to say. It is now clear that this was a confrontation between the forces that really wanted peace for all in the long term and those that kept the vestiges of WWII era “for later”, “as a reserve.”

That being the case, the Soviet Union eventually formalised the termination of Germany’s occupation status, while the United States did not. There are still American occupation troops numbering tens of thousands of personnel present in the FRG territory. German politicians themselves say that after the Second World War, Germany has never been sovereign in the full sense of the word. Moreover, it was the United States that opposed Germany’s reunification.

The present is undoubtedly rooted in the past, and the events unfolding in the world today always have their causes and historical foundations. Today, reconstruction of the world order and its adaptation to the multipolar geopolitical realities is on the agenda. What is important is to draw the right lessons. Those who take up the task of engineering the future world order, should thoroughly learn from the post-war settlement of Germany and Austria. That period is rich in the factual material presented in the article by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

back to top

The global significance of BRICS

A fair share of questions asked by representatives of the media always have to do with BRICS, the Russian chairmanship and the upcoming summit, which is only three weeks away.

The BRICS summit will open in Kazan on October 22. We have been repeatedly asked about the significance of this association for the new, emerging polycentric world, about its accomplishments, as well as what we are offering, and how this can be explained to the average person without overusing political slogans or conceptual philosophy.

Allow me to start by stating that BRICS is a unique format of interaction between states representing different religions, civilisations and cultures, aimed at creating favourable conditions for economic growth of the member states, addressing social problems, and enhancing innovative human potential. In accomplishing these goals, the member states are guided by the principles of equality, mutual respect, openness and a balance of interests.

The first ministerial meeting – in the BRIC format at the time – was held on September 20, 2006 on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly session in New York at President Vladimir Putin’s initiative. It was attended by the foreign ministers of Russia, Brazil, and China, and India’s defence minister, who expressed interest in advancing multifaceted cooperation in a quadripartite format. In 2011, South Africa joined the group.

The decision to expand BRICS made at the Johannesburg summit in 2023 can be described as historic without exaggeration. On January 1, 2024, Egypt, Iran, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Ethiopia joined the association. With the inclusion of the new members, the BRICS palette became even richer, brighter and more diverse. Its international standing and positive influence on global politics, and its capacity to defend the interests of the Global South and East – or the Global Majority – became significantly stronger. Since then, more than 30 countries have applied for rapprochement with BRICS in one form or another, which definitely reinforces my point.

The member states share similar views on the modern world; they support multipolarity as the foundation for sustainable development, the central coordinating role of the UN, the principles and norms of international law, rejection of forceful pressure policies or infringement on the sovereignty of other countries. I am confident that in the current conditions, BRICS has enough weight to promote its own solidarity vision of the future world order, which should reflect the multipolar realities and be based on the cultural and civilisational diversity of the modern world.

The group’s economic influence is steadily growing. As President of Russia Vladimir Putin noted at the plenary session of the Russian Energy Week International Forum on September 26, in the foreseeable future “this growth will be concentrated not in Europe or North America. They are gradually losing their weight in the global economy. This growth will shift to BRICS countries and the states that are willing to join our association and view equal cooperation with due respect for national interests as the promising way to proceed.”

Another shared objective that keeps our association together is to reform the outdated global financial and economic architecture, which does not reflect the increased economic weight of the BRICS countries and other regional centres of power. We reject unlawful economic sanctions, which spiral into trade wars. We insist that the dollar and other international financial instruments should not be weaponised and deem it unacceptable to use them to coerce other countries, impose political will on them, and sometimes even destroy their economies if they are in no position to resist.

The development of partnership within the BRICS is our strategic priority. This year’s theme of Russian chairmanship is Strengthening Multilateralism for Equitable Global Development and Security. Its main priorities are formulated in the Concept of the Russian Federation’s Chairmanship of BRICS in 2024 approved by President Vladimir Putin.

In our work, we primarily strive to stand up to the challenges and threats of our time, and find collective solutions to the global challenges of international development. Specifically, we focus on a wider use of national currencies, joint payment instruments and platforms in mutual trade transactions. Our combined efforts are aimed at promoting and building an interconnected and interdependent international system on a non-aligned and non-hegemonic basis, which would give precedence to such common priorities as economic growth, poverty alleviation, food, climate and water security, combating international terrorism, extremism, and organised crime, etc. Our immediate objectives are to ensure the seamless integration of new members into the existing BRICS cooperation mechanisms without compromising their effectiveness, as well as to develop the modalities of a new BRICS partner country category along with a list of potential candidates.

The work within the BRICS framework is non-confrontational and constructive. It is a viable alternative to a world living by someone else’s, alien rules. The association is building a new ecosystem of political and economic relations between its member countries and with other states of the Global Majority.

back to top

The 8th Eurasian Forum of Young Diplomats

On October 1 through 4, the Russian Foreign Ministry’s Council of Young Diplomats is organising the eighth traditional Eurasian Forum of Young Diplomats in Moscow. The forum highlights the implementation of the Foreign Ministry’s ‘horizontal diplomacy’ programme aiming to expand a network of platforms for the informal communication between young diplomats, state officials and experts. Its purpose is to strengthen the atmosphere of trust and mutual understanding between young employees of foreign policy agencies of friendly countries.

The forum’s main theme is called Eurasia in a Multipolar World: Challenges and Prospects. Its four-day programme includes a discussion of key strategic aspects of Eurasian integration development, including a cultural and humanitarian agenda, traditional economic cooperation spheres and prospects for asserting Eurasia as one of the most significant centres of the modern world’s development, as well as the transformation of the media landscape and digital solutions.

The forum will involve over 40 participants from 15 countries, including Russia, Abkhazia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, China, Cuba, Moldova, Mongolia, Serbia, Syria, Tajikistan and South Ossetia. 

Key events include the official opening ceremony and a discussion on cultural and humanitarian cooperation issues, expert sessions dealing with new media outlets of the multipolar world, sport diplomacy, youth cooperation, a plenary session on Eurasia as a pole of the multipolar world and the role of cross-integration dialogue in forging a new global economic system, and approval of the concluding document. At the end of the event, there are plans to admit new members into the International Association of Young Diplomats and to sign a bilateral cooperation agreement with the Council of Young Diplomats of South Ossetia.

Representatives of the Russian Foreign Ministry’s leadership, legislative and executive agencies, academic and business circles, experts as well as famed athletes, will take part in the work of the forum.

I would like to invite representatives of Russian and foreign media outlets to attend the forum.

back to top

World Space Week

World Space Week is observed from October 4 to 10, and the Russian Federation has been supporting this tradition since its launch by the UN General Assembly a quarter of a century ago.

It marks two major dates in the history of space exploration: the launch by the Soviet Union of the first human-made Earth satellite on October 4, 1957, which opened the space era, and the signing of the Outer Space Treaty on October 10, 1967, as a cornerstone of international space law.

Considering its status as a pioneering space nation, our country persists with its proactive efforts to develop its national space programme and has consolidated its standing as a leading space power which enjoys full sovereignty in terms of its space launch capabilities.

We firmly believe that the near-Earth orbit must remain open to constructive, equal and non-discriminatory cooperation for all countries. The Soviet Union has built a legacy in this sector, and it must live on. Outer space must remain a domain for peaceful exploration, scientific cooperation, humanitarian ties, and it must remain at its best at all times.

However, we are currently facing a real threat of turning outer space into a bulwark of aggression and military confrontation. This results from the policy by the United States and its allies to assert their military dominance in space. Russia believes that transforming outer space into an arena for an armed confrontation would be unacceptable.

It is our hope that the World Space Week under the UN auspices will contribute to shaping a unifying agenda for a peaceful space future for the entire humankind without dividing it using the garden vs. jungle metaphors.

back to top

Soviet and Russian diplomat Yuly Vorontsov’s 95th birth anniversary

October 7 marks the 95th birth anniversary of Yuly Vorontsov, a prominent Soviet and Russian diplomat.

He started his career as a rank-and-file diplomat and went on to become USSR’s First Deputy Foreign Minister.

Moreover, Yuly Vorontsov embodied and impersonated an entire era of diplomatic success and achievements by our country in international and bilateral frameworks. In his foreword to a book of recollections titled Diplomat Yuly Vorontsov, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov praised Mr Vorontsov for the way he served his country while heading its embassies in India, France, Afghanistan, the United States and working as the USSR’s permanent representative to the United Nations. “As a true citizen of his country and a patriot, as well as an effective professional with all his creative energy, a rare sense of tact and intelligence and unique set of human qualities, he has every right to be called a Diplomat with a capital D, and his name has become part and parcel of Russian and international diplomatic history,” Sergey Lavrov wrote.

Yuly Vorontsov has made a meaningful contribution to our country’s foreign policy action whenever international relations reached the most challenging stages in their development. He was among the first to work on the reduction of strategic weapons, and took part in the Geneva talks on disarmament and nuclear test bans. He also made a substantial contribution to signing the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty  in 1987. In 1988, he headed the Soviet Embassy in Afghanistan, and oversaw the withdrawal of the Soviet troops from this country in this capacity. As the Soviet and then Russian Permanent Representative to the United Nations, he worked hard within the Security Council to counter attempts to settle the Balkan crisis by force and to prevent NATO’s eastward expansion. After retiring from the Foreign Ministry, Yuly Vorontsov continued to work within the UN international system.

Yuly Vorontsov was also active in cultural and educational undertakings by serving in senior positions in various civil society organisations and helping return the cultural heritage left by the Roerich family back to Russia. In fact, he was the de facto founder of Moscow’s International Roerich Centre.

Yuly Vorontsov received many Russian and foreign distinctions, including the orders of Lenin, October Revolution, two orders of the Red Banner of Labour, as well as the Order of the Badge of Honour, and the Order for Merits to the Fatherland, 3rd degree, the Order of the Lotus – India’s highest award for foreigners, etc.

In 2009, the International Informatisation Academy Board established the Yuly Vorontsov Medal. It is bestowed on the academy’s active members, including diplomats, researchers, and community leaders for their meaningful contribution to the world’s sustainable development and defending Russia’s interests.

back to top

Answers to media questions:

Question: On October 1, 2024, Mark Rutte officially assumed the role of NATO Secretary General. Does the Foreign Ministry anticipate any changes in the alliance’s stance on dialogue with Russia in light of this?

Maria Zakharova: In this case, it merely represents a reconfiguration of the components of Western aggressive philosophy. The influence of the NATO Secretary General is quite limited. He is typically surrounded by deputies from the United States and Britain, creating a closely-knit circle. Decisions made by the alliance are not solely his to make; he merely articulates them and engages in activities on behalf of the Organisation, under the auspices of Washington, while discussing NATO solidarity.

Regarding Mark Rutte, as Prime Minister of the Netherlands, he demonstrated a strong alignment with Atlanticist and Russophobic sentiments, which likely contributed to his selection as Secretary General of the North Atlantic Alliance. He is seen as a reliable Russophobe, and there is little doubt he will maintain his anti-Russia stance in this new role. We can anticipate even more anti-Russia rhetoric, with no signs of constructive actions.

The alliance’s doctrinal documents suggest that all its current and future activities are focused on confronting Russia. The bloc is increasing its military capabilities near our borders and developing scenarios for potential strikes on our territory. It is leveraging the Kiev regime to deliver what they describe as a strategic defeat on us.

There is no evidence of dialogue or attempts by NATO to find solutions to address crisis situations, and we do not foresee any prospects for such engagement in the future.

back to top

Question: Following the violent suppression of mass-scale protests by the indigenous population in New Caledonia, the French authorities were compelled last week to resort to force in Martinique, another overseas territory. How do you view these developments?

Maria Zakharova: We are monitoring with concern the situation in Martinique, where what began as peaceful demonstrations unfortunately escalated into widespread riots due to the authorities’ indifference and reluctance to engage in a mutually respectful dialogue.

The grievances of the Martinique population against the colonial power are certainly justified. According to the National Institute of Statistics and Economic Research of France, residents of the island pay 30-40 percent more for food than those on the mainland France, and nearly one-third of the population lives below the poverty line. However, instead of initiating a constructive dialogue with the protesters and addressing the socioeconomic challenges facing the island, the central authorities resorted to familiar tactics of force, escalating tensions further. A curfew was imposed in Martinique, and additional law enforcement units were deployed. Dozens of individuals were detained, and there were reports of injuries among both demonstrators and law enforcement personnel.

It’s important to highlight that this isn’t the first instance in recent times where Paris has shown a lack of willingness to engage in respectful dialogue with the indigenous populations of its overseas territories, opting instead for force. In May, protests by thousands of Kanaks, the indigenous people of New Caledonia, were violently suppressed, followed by political repression against the leaders of their national liberation movement. Additionally, in 2023, a highly controversial Operation Wuambushu was conducted to forcibly remove Comorian settlers from the island of Mayotte, which France has illegally annexed from the Union of the Comoros.

Reports from both the UN Human Rights Council and various human rights organisations have documented the excessive use of force by French law enforcement officers.

The deterioration of socioeconomic conditions and the rise of acute political crises in the French overseas territories are direct results of the unfinished decolonisation process.

The situation has reached a critical point, and it’s clear that Paris aspires to be an empire. However, this is a misrepresentation; it has not truly been an empire for a long time, especially regarding the responsibilities it should uphold towards those it integrates or brings into its sphere of influence. Nevertheless, Paris seeks to act like an empire, behaving in this manner and expecting to reap the benefits reminiscent of its historical past. This behaviour must come to an end; the time for change has come.

The landscape of public dissatisfaction with the colonial power’s policies continues to widen. It is crucial for Paris to move away from its traditional colonial tactics of suppressing the interests of the indigenous population and to stop viewing these territories merely as sources of raw materials or as platforms for consolidating its influence in distant regions.

It’s time for Paris to engage in self-reflection. While they often lecture others and claim to have the solutions to external problems, it is now time for them to apply this so-called expertise to their own situation. Once they manage to address these lingering imperial tendencies, they can confidently declare the successful completion of their own decolonisation process. I have no doubt that the world would respond positively to such a shift.

back to top

Question: What can you say about the UN Secretariat’s response to an incident at the UN headquarters involving VGTRK correspondent Valentin Bogdanov and cameraman Ivan Utkin, who tried to address German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock with a question?

Maria Zakharova: All of that unfolded right before my eyes. We chose not to comment on it earlier, because we expected someone to apologise to Valentin Bogdanov or to shed some light on the German delegation’s behaviour. To all appearances, we are living in an era of absurdity. Things took a different course. Let me explain how they played out.

On September 24, during the 79th session of the UN General Assembly, VGTRK’s New York bureau chief Valentin Bogdanov asked a question to German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock on her way to a news conference.

It’s important to be aware of the place where the Russian reporter tried to pose a question to the German minister. Some might think it was a restricted area, or an area that was off-limits to journalists, or perhaps it was an invasion of Ms Baerbock’s privacy while she was off the work. None of that. Things were exactly the opposite. Everything happened in a designated media area. This wasn’t an R&R area reserved for the media, or a security checkpoint. It was a place where media representatives do their work as journalists. This member of the German delegation was in that same place as well.

The German delegation members attempted to obstruct the Russian television crew as it prepared to do its job. First, they pushed the correspondent aside, and then prevented the cameraman from filming the news conference by the German Foreign Minister. The question Mr Bogdanov managed to ask concerned prospects for Russia-Ukraine peace talks. Sure enough, it went unanswered, because in recent years, official Berlin has clearly shown what it really thinks about freedom of speech and respect for journalism as a profession. They do not respect journalists or journalism, nor do they uphold freedom of speech. They trample on it instead.

The German delegation should have been held accountable for what happened. Instead, the blame was laid on the Russian journalists, who were doing their job in a designated media area in accordance with their official accreditation.

In addition to the above, the UN headquarters’ established practices were followed as well. You could (I hope you will) run a story showing footage of official delegations, permanent representatives, and heads of delegations, including foreign ministers and heads of state, walking through these very corridors at the UN headquarters, every day for decades on end, with journalists running up to them, pulling out their voice recorders and microphones, and trying to ask questions. Many of them get answers. This is the place where comments, pull-aside interviews, and on-the-go answers get recorded. Some reporters get rejected, but in a civil manner. It never crossed anyone’s mind to complain about reporters doing their job. That idea came to the head, if I may put it that way, of Ms Baerbock.

Correspondent Bogdanov and his crew were punished by none other than the UN Secretariat, which declared protection of journalists’ rights to work freely not only at UN headquarters but anywhere around the world, and their access to information, as its “mission.”

If the Secretariat were to punish every journalist who asked questions to leaders at the headquarters, there wouldn’t be a single reporter left in the UN building, because all they do is chase after diplomats and ask questions. Sometimes diplomats stop and answer their questions, other times they answer on the go, and still other times they don’t say anything at all. I’ve witnessed many times how UN security or the teams providing protection to delegations have kept journalists at bay. But I’ve never heard of journalists being punished for trying to ask a question.

What we’re seeing in this particular case is an openly selective approach, which can only be accounted for by the UN trying to accommodate the German delegation and Ms Baerbock’s push to limit freedom of speech.

It’s impossible not to draw a parallel with an incident that took place in 2018 on the sidelines of the 40th session of the UNGA Committee on Information, when the Ukrainian delegation made threats following remarks by a Russian representative (Foreign Ministry’s Deputy Director of the Information and Press Department). Camouflage-clad individuals, who attended that meeting, roamed the UN corridors bellowing out threats to life, health, and safety of the Russian diplomat. Do you remember how it ended?

The Committee on Information’s senior officials confirmed that the event, which gathered Ukrainian representatives, had nothing to do with the session’s agenda. However, despite our protests (it was about threats to life uttered by several people who were literally trying to form a circle around the Russian diplomat), the UN Secretariat took no immediate action.

An official petition was submitted. It took the UN several months to respond. They turned down our request to provide CCTV footage and did not let us know about any specific steps taken with regard to the Ukrainian delegation, which brought the rule-breakers to the headquarters. The only positive outcome was recognition of the fact that such incidents should not happen again. Back then, the UN Secretariat acknowledged that.

I’d like to remind you that in the case of VGTRK’s New York bureau chief Valentin Bogdanov, who had official UN accreditation, it took the Secretariat just a few days to take action. Without even looking into what actually happened (I assume they didn’t even see the CCTV footage), the Russian correspondent and cameraman had their accreditation status downgraded. On what grounds? This is something not only Bogdanov, but Russia’s Foreign Ministry as well would like to know.

Russia’s Permanent Mission to the UN has sent a note to the UN Secretary-General asking for clarifications with regard to this incident and an assessment of the German delegation’s conduct.

We will seek justice, reinstatement of our journalist’s accreditation status, and appropriate measures to address Annalena Baerbock and her team’s rude behaviour.

Along with its Western colleagues, the German delegation which touts openness and freedom of the media at all UN and other platforms, has once again shown its true misshapen face and its distorted attitude towards the values it extols.

back to top

Question: Israel is preparing for a military incursion into Lebanon from its southern border, similar to how Ukraine planned the invasion of the Kursk Region, with the United States involved in the planning, support, and command. How will Russia respond to what is happening in the Middle East?

Maria Zakharova: We have already responded today and earlier. There is a statement on the official website of the Foreign Ministry outlining our position on Israel’s ground invasion of friendly Lebanon. It also includes our response to the assassination of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah by Israel. I should add that we view political assassinations as an absolutely unacceptable practice. Beyond the moral aspect, it complicates the search for political and diplomatic solutions to the problems, exacerbates confrontation, and leads to the radicalisation and escalation of conflicts.

Russia’s principled position on the situation in the Middle East and potential solutions is well known. I reiterated it today. I also recommend that you watch or read the remarks by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov during the UN Security Council meeting on this agenda on September 27.

Resolving this protracted conflict is only possible through political and diplomatic means, relying on the existing international legal framework and regulations. The honest fulfilment of UNSC Resolution 1701 (2006) could be key to normalising the situation specifically in Lebanon.

We are doing everything we can, as representatives and heads of the Arab countries’ missions in Moscow also agreed today, to prevent a catastrophic scenario. Russia maintains contacts with international and regional partners. Our country is active in the UN.

Our view of Washington’s role in the current Middle East crisis is extremely negative. The United States is a destroyer and a terminator. The United States has every capability to stop this spiral of violence but instead, it prevents the UN Security Council from taking a strong stance in favour of an immediate ceasefire. The United States makes sluggish and counterproductive attempts at mediation, trying to pose as a peacekeeper in the eyes of the Arab world, while in reality, deceiving them and siding with extreme atrocities and recklessness from those who advocate for further violence.

back to top

Question: We would like to ask for your assessment of the trends in the EU countries and how they reflected on the recent elections in Austria? How would you comment on their results?

Maria Zakharova: Generally speaking, we are witnessing a crisis of liberal democracies and dictatorships in Europe. This was particularly evident in the results of the elections to Austria’s National Council (the lower house of parliament) held on September 29 this year, where the Freedom Party secured an opposition victory, supported by nearly one-third of the voters. This reflected a common trend observed in the EU countries. People are starting to support the idea that cooperation in Europe has been destroyed (as Europe cannot be imagined without Russia) even by the way they vote. In fact, we see that they would have made this choice earlier had it not been for the monstrous propaganda based on lies and falsehoods aimed against Russia, against cooperation and cohesion in Europe, against addressing problems by political and diplomatic means. If this had manifested itself earlier, if pro-Western North Atlantic elites had not been interfering and hindering this process endlessly, democratic institutions would not be stalling in Europe.

France and Germany show the same trends. The latest elections at the federal and regional levels were won by parties that support the primacy of the national and public interests, advocate a balanced migration policy, and criticise the European bureaucracy, which often acts on orders from overseas.

What are the interests of European citizens? They want peaceful coexistence, economic growth, and predictability across the board – in the economy, finance, industry, environmental activism and foreign relations. Our country supported all this to the last and was ready to talk even despite the staggeringly unfair, and later destructive tendencies in the collective West’s policy.

Let us return to Austria. The triumph of the “freedom fighters,” who finished first for the first time, in no small measure reflects voter fatigue of the policy pursued by the Austrian government under the EU umbrella, which includes the unconditional support for the Kiev regime and for the anti-Russia sanctions, which harm their own economy due to the destructive dynamics of the “sanctions wars” and the severed trade ties with our country.

The Austrian people must remember other times, when they received fantastic bonuses from interacting with us. They do not understand why they had to give this up. Their politicians are painting a scary picture of the situation in Ukraine, but they forget to say who provoked it, or to explain that the United States and Britain were behind this, pulling the strings of their NATO satellites and then using the Kiev regime. The truth is beginning to filter through now. The Austrian people now see and understand what is going on much better. These trends will continue to gain momentum.

back to top

Question: Would you comment on the airstrike on the residence of the head of the UAE diplomatic mission in Khartoum on September 29, which caused serious damage to the building?

Maria Zakharova: We have already given our assessment. We comment on each case when crimes like this occur.

We strongly condemn the attack on the UAE diplomatic facility in Khartoum. We consider any attacks on diplomatic and consular missions and attempts on their inviolability as unacceptable. There is, and can be, no justification for such actions that violate the basic norms and principles of international law.

I would also like to stress that the Russian diplomatic mission in the capital of Sudan was also damaged as a result of the hostilities that began in April 2023. Please do not forget about this.

back to top

Question: My question concerns discussions about the possible signing of a new Strategic Offensive Arms Reduction Treaty. Last week, the White House said that it would be ready to start negotiations with Russia on a new START. Commenting on this statement, Press Secretary of our President Dmitry Peskov said that discussion of the new treaty is impossible without…

Maria Zakharova: I like it that Reuters considers Vladimir Putin their president. I think it is worth living and working for.

If you are fired for this, I promise to help in your future career. I would like to send my best regards to the Foreign Office.

Question: Back to the question. Press Secretary of the President of Russia Dmitry Peskov said that the treaty was necessary, and negotiations should resume as soon as possible. However. they are impossible without considering the nuclear potential of European countries. In this context, such negotiations seem unfeasible. Could you elaborate on whether there are any additional stumbling blocks to the negotiations on a new START? Have the West made any attempts to discuss this topic with Sergey Lavrov during the UN General Assembly?

Maria Zakharova: Let’s get to the point. Washington is not ready for a comprehensive dialogue on all significant factors of strategic stability. This is what the Russian side has consistently insisted on. An important element is the current security environment. The Russian side has also repeatedly spoken about this and explained its position.

Russian officials have elaborated on this point. While generally advocating for a political and diplomatic settlement of the accumulated problems, we are opposed to separating negotiations from the military-political realities. Considering the desire of the United States and NATO to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia and radically undermine our security, there is simply no foundation for an equitable dialogue.

Until Washington revises its extremely hostile anti-Russia course, a conversation on strategic issues, including control over nuclear weapons, is meaningless for Russia and, moreover, it is counterproductive.

We see no point in engaging in a strategic dialogue with Washington without a comprehensive effort to reduce the overall level of conflict in relations, with respect for Russia’s fundamental interests and an emphasis on eliminating the fundamental security contradictions created by the US and NATO. These include, first of all, the problem of the harmful expansion of the North Atlantic bloc into the post-Soviet space, which has triggered numerous problems. One of the most striking examples being the Ukrainian crisis, which poses threats not only to regional but also to global security.

As for the UN, there were no meetings or talks about this.

back to top

Question: The other day, the Friends of Peace group held its first ministerial-level meeting on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly to discuss ways of resolving the Ukraine crisis. Representatives from 17 countries of the Global South attended the event. After the meeting, Foreign Minister of the People’s Republic of China, Wang Yi, said that those who joined the Friends of Peace group were, first, peace loving countries, and, second, that this platform served as an open-ended, flexible mechanism for engaging in inclusive dialogue with all the stakeholders in the spirit of openness. What do you think about the creation of this group and the peace efforts by the countries of the Global South?

Maria Zakharova: Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov spoke at length on this topic during his press conference in New York. There have been many initiatives, and this is the way one of them materialised.

We respect the commitment to this cause by these countries, our partners, friends and allies and their willingness to discuss ways of achieving a political and diplomatic settlement. We also appreciate their overall commitment to the peace cause. This mechanism must take shape in order to serve as a conduit for the initiative presented by President of the People’s Republic of China Xi Jinping in 2023. It consisted of analysing and eliminating the root causes of the crisis. This new format must reflect this concept.

back to top

Question: Alternative for Germany and a radical right party in Austria have come under attacks, inspections and have been facing lawsuits. Similar things are happening with Marine Le Pen’s party. This proves yet again that they are being persecuted. But why? What do they want to achieve by acting this way? Can this be viewed as an effort to remove Marine Le Pen from the political arena?

Maria Zakharova: We have a rule against making comments regarding the domestic politics in other sovereign countries, except for when it relates to the Russian Federation in one way or another. The ruling elites sometimes describe Russia as affecting their domestic politics, or civil society organisations and political movements in these countries reach out to Russia or mention our country.

This is the only reason for me to discuss the topic you raised in your question. We usually refrain from doing this unless we are directly involved. However, we have every right to do so, considering that the West has made Russia part of its domestic politics.

It is all quite clear, and this is what I was talking about when I answered your colleague about the election results in Austria. This is a situation when people in Western countries cannot fully enjoy the freedom to express their will. There are several reasons for that. First, the democratic institutions have failed in their mission, just as you have said. Various methods are used to get rid of political rivals. This can be an assassination attempt without a proper investigation, or releasing compromising materials which later prove to be fake. Sometimes this can include a harassment campaign designed to undermine the reputation and sap the morale. And the only reason for doing all this is to prevent these parties and civil society movements from representing and championing the true aspirations of their fellow citizens. We are talking about a diverse mix of interests and aspirations here. You have mentioned several parties with different agendas. In their countries, people use all kinds of varying designations for them. You mentioned the radical right, but not everyone uses this designation. This is not where the problem lies. In fact, democracy is about enabling people to express their points of view and empower political leaders they support during elections to resolve the urgent matters they face in their lives. But this instrument has become ineffective.

Second, there is this outrageous propaganda effort which has literally blocked all the cameras and television screens. It affects the way all media outlets receive and impart information, from the mainstream to the new media, and prevents them from treating news in an impartial and unbiased manner. The Western democratic model has failed in this regard too by evolving into a dictatorship of liberal democracy.

Democracy has come to reject its own ideals. It now seeks to prevent people from expressing their will in a democratic way. This is the reason behind steps to pressure civil society and political movements as you have just described in your question.

back to top

Question: A question on the report regarding the glorification of Nazism. Has there been any reaction from the international community? What steps does Russia intend to take in light of this?

Maria Zakharova: On September 11, the Foreign Ministry published a report on this issue. The report is 1,800 pages long. Over 40 countries and territories, where all the negative phenomena mentioned in the title of the report, such as the glorification of Nazism, the spread of neo-Nazism, and all practices that contribute to the escalation of contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, intolerance, etc. are occurring in one form or another, have become subjects of this voluminous document.

As before, the report was submitted to the UN, OSCE and the European Union, and disseminated as a document of the 78th session of the UN General Assembly. You can read it. I think you may have already done so. We are grateful to the media for their coverage of this issue. 

We understand that the West will not provide a substantive response. It will only appear when asked specific questions by journalists. You can see what they do to members of the media – they cancel them, send them away, arrest them, impose their cancel culture on them or simply persecute them in every way. That is why the media will not comment proactively, to avoid attracting attention. There is almost no one left to ask questions anymore. They are afraid to ask anything even about domestic issues.

Meanwhile, you can gauge their reaction on these issues (and thus also on our report) by observing how, for example, the delegations of those countries vote on the resolution On Combating Glorification of Nazism, Neo-Nazism and other Practices that Contribute to Fuelling Contemporary Forms of Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance.

Let me remind you that Russia, together with a wide range of co-authors, submits this resolution to the UN General Assembly for consideration each year. It is the EU countries, the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Ukraine, Japan and a number of other states that vote against it, remaining in the minority, despite the absurdity of their position and the fact that the Global Majority votes in favour of the resolution. In December 2023, 118 countries voted in favour of the resolution, 49 against and 14 abstained.

Our resolution is opposed by those who incite such nationalist trends in their own countries. By no means do they explicitly call it support for nationalism. Naturally, they will not admit to the reincarnation of Nazism, racism, etc.

In fact, we can see what those concepts include: the glorification of collaborators, demonisation of those who fought against Nazism, the reincarnation of symbols, the reprinting of previously banned literature, the use of everything that for many years was considered obscene due to its Nazi connotation, and the complete, absolute, suicidal desire of the collective West to rewrite the history of the Second World War, and to erase the victory of the Soviet people from it. That’s what the Nazis wanted to do. Now, the collective West is pursuing the same goals by using different methods. The cancellation of our culture and the infliction of a strategic defeat on us – this is their Plan for the East. Then they were eager to cancel us, rewrite, reinterpret, utilise and, if that proved impossible, destroy. Then it was called the Third Reich's Master Plan for the East, and now it is NATO’s master plan.

back to top

Question: On September 27, Serbia’s President Aleksandar Vucic said that the Ukraine conflict could drag on for decades with no settlement in view. How would the Russian Foreign Ministry comment on such statements by the Serbian authorities?

Maria Zakharova: If Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic were really concerned about this, he would have discussed it with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly when both of them were there and such a statement was made.

back to top

Question: On September 30, Josep Borrell, the head of European diplomacy, said in his blog that he urged NATO countries to allow the Ukrainian armed forces to strike Russian airports with Western long-range weapons. In your opinion, why does the politician dare such escalatory statements against the background of Russia’s statements about “red lines” and the unacceptability of such actions?

Maria Zakharova: Did he ever speak any differently? He was the main “mouthpiece” of Russophobic propaganda across the European Union. Just recall his previous statements. Has he mutated in any way? He only got entrenched on the same positions. These are his words about “no peace talks, only battlefield,” “only in battle should it be determined who is the winner and who is not.” That’s what he said. Are you surprised that he repeats these dangerous, irresponsible phrases? Josep Borrell has always been the most active instigator of anti-Russian initiatives. He has long since crossed all boundaries as a diplomat, public figure and politician. He has even ceased to be a “hawk”. He has become some kind of a “snake in the grass.” I am not sure he reads or approves everything he writes. I think it’s being written for him. He says what’s been cooked up for him.

This does not absolve him of responsibility, but shows that he has become a “talking machine.” Josep Borrell absolutely did not ask himself the question he should have asked: on whose behalf does he speak? If he speaks on behalf of the United States, he should have taken a different position, he should have claimed to be the US Secretary of State. If on behalf of the countries of the European Union, it would be good to look at opinion polls. They are now being made evident as voting results in Western European countries. If he had asked himself this question, he would have realised that what he is voicing is propaganda of Anglo-Saxon approaches, which are absolutely contrary to the interests of the countries and peoples of the European Union.

It is an ignominious end to his career. During his last years, he has undone everything he did before. I will not judge his entire creative career. But everyone can see that he is ending it ignominiously.

back to top

Question: Do Russia and Belarus, or Russia and the Central Asian countries, maintain a dialogue that focuses on assessments of the Soviet past and the manner school textbooks describe it?

Maria Zakharova: Absolutely. However, I wouldn’t limit it to textbooks. It covers broader discussions about history and preserving historical memory. This dialogue is ongoing. Many countries have either initiated the rewriting of history themselves, or have fallen victim to influences and pressure to that effect.

Unlike these countries, Belarus has invariably approached our shared history and cultural and spiritual traditions with due care. Our fraternal nations are bonded by numerous friendly and familial ties, the memory of our heroic ancestors, the common past, and a shared future.

We are the closest allies and strategic partners. We are part of the Union State. We are expanding our trade, economic, and humanitarian ties.

At the behest of the presidents of Russia and Belarus, in recent years, historians from our respective countries have closely cooperated on matters of preserving shared historical memory, opposing the falsification of history, and the genocide of the Soviet people during the 1941-1945 Great Patriotic War.

In late January, a Joint Russian-Belarusian Commission on History was created sponsored by the presidential executive offices from both our countries. Their purpose is to coordinate joint efforts to uphold the historical truth, including in study materials. Its working tool - the Expert and Consultative Russian-Belarusian Council on History - is operational. Several study materials for schoolchildren and university students have been put together, including Essays on Common History, The History of the Great Patriotic War, The History of Belarusian Lands and the Belarusian State, and The History of the Union State.

We are working as a team to implement war memorial initiatives. Earlier this year, President Vladimir Putin and President Alexander Lukashenko jointly opened a new Memorial Complex “To Civilians of the Soviet Union” in the Gatchina District, Leningrad Region on the occasion of the 80th anniversary of the lifting of the Siege of Leningrad.

The Union State, through its Secretariat, addresses a separate area of work. Dmitry Mezentsev has a special role to play here. Last year alone, he presented a large number of online books, literature, and projects which, I believe, represents a major contribution to preserving our shared historical memory, which cannot be overestimated.

There is an ongoing project titled “Major Renovation, Restoration, Reconstruction, and Museification of the Brest Fortress Structures at the Brest Hero Fortress Memorial Complex.” Work is underway on the project titled “Creating a Sculptural Composition ‘Monument to the Victorious Soldier’ for the Historical and Cultural Memorial Complex “Northern Front of the Kursk Bulge.” Much attention is paid to international recognition of the genocide of the peoples of the Soviet Union. Exhibitions, commemorative evenings, concerts, interviews, and articles - the Secretariat of the Union State is making ample use of all of that at all levels using every resource it has at its disposal.

In conjunction with our Belarusian friends, we will continue to step up our efforts in preserving history. We are open to a dialogue with everyone willing.

Following up on your question, yes, we do have exemplary cooperation with Belarus in this regard. We are open to a dialogue with the constructively-minded prospective partners and would welcome historians from other countries joining the Union State’s efforts. We have interacted even with those who were reactionary-minded initially.

Historical memory is on the list of topics tackled during bilateral contacts conducted by the Foreign Ministry and, of course, at the top level. We work closely with representatives from Central Asian countries, and more.

If you follow our briefings, you are aware to what extent we are committed to preserving and promoting historical memory internationally. For us, it is not merely our job. It is our duty.

back to top

Question: How do you assess the results of the Quad summit? In particular, the proposal to reform the UN Security Council?

Maria Zakharova: Today, I have already spoken extensively about the narrow-format platforms in this region, created under the auspices of Western thought, but I will add a bit more. Each time, the events held by this association leave an ambiguous impression.

We can see narrow-format mechanisms being created within this framework, which contradict the regional architecture built around ASEAN, which is wise, thoughtful, effective, pragmatic, and aligned with the interests of the peoples of these countries. ASEAN has been connected with Russia by partner relations for nearly three decades now. The actions and steps taken by the Quad often run counter to the established traditions there.

The principles of these organisations’ separate work in the military and military-technical dimensions, as well as in the field of security, objectively contradict the prevailing direction that has emerged today on the Asian landscape, which envisions the progressive formation of a broad seamless space for peaceful, positive development. This philosophy guides the constructive and creative nature of the activities of associations such as Greater Eurasia, the SCO, and ASEAN.

Russia has consistently advocated for a reform of the UN Security Council to adapt this crucial body to today’s realities, including the growing trend towards the formation of a multipolar world order, without losing its efficiency and while maintaining its effectiveness. Granting the Security Council a more representative and democratic character will be a significant contribution to the efforts aimed at building a fair and sustainable system of international relations.

The Quad leaders’ statement following the summit in Wilmington, US, on September 21 is quite vague regarding the topic of reform. It notes the urgent need to reform the UN Security Council, particularly by expanding both its permanent and non-permanent memberships. It also expresses the intention to allocate permanent seats to African, Asian, and Latin American countries.

It is also noteworthy that Japan and India, both aspiring to secure permanent seats on the Security Council, are Quad members. The two other members of the association, the United States and Australia, clearly support not only the ambitions of New Delhi, but also those of Tokyo, as well as Berlin. Thus, the Quad, with the exception of India, advocates for increasing the representation in the Council of not only the countries of the Global Majority, but also of Western states.

One might argue that Japan appears to be a non-Western state. But it is completely subordinated to Western will: American military bases and an American political structure are established in this country. In every sense of the word, the Americans fully control Tokyo.

We strongly believe that the task of increasing the effectiveness of the UN Security Council can only be addressed through its expansion, which should be at the expense of representatives of the Global South. We particularly highlight Brazil and India as natural contenders for permanent seats on the Council. Furthermore, we emphasise the need to rectify the historical injustice towards the African continent within the parameters agreed upon by the Africans themselves.

There can be no discussion about allocating additional seats, especially permanent ones, to the Westerners. Moreover, a question arises: if three countries on the UN Security Council are part of the same military bloc with a command-and-control system, where military and political decisions, which are security issues relevant to the UN Security Council, are made by a single authority (I am talking about NATO and the United States), then how can each of them be represented in the UN Security Council with their own vote? We understand that they occupy three seats and raise three hands, but ultimately, decisions are largely made for them within Euro-Atlantic institutions, particularly NATO. This is done in such a way that they have no right to change their decision or adopt a different position. They vote in unison on the overwhelming majority of issues, and abstaining from voting is not an option.

The Western countries are overrepresented in the Council, especially among its permanent members. Moreover, they maintain an identical, solidary position on almost all key issues on the international agenda. That said, solidarity actually implies autonomy in decision-making, where support is offered for various reasons, but is given independently, based on a free choice. Here, we see one scandal after another. Representatives of countries attend a NATO event only to learn at the meeting itself what they are to ‘vote’ for, because the decision has already been made for them. All these decisions are made in Washington or Brussels, at the alliance’s headquarters, where the Americans once again have the final say. Therefore, Germany’s and Japan’s aspirations to secure a permanent seat on this body are absolutely groundless and will not be supported by Russia.

This leads to the endless talk of depriving Russia of its right of veto, of revising history, and of recognising that it has not historically possessed this right. We hear these statements being pushed through the Kiev regime and emerging intermittently from the most aggressive, Russophobic factions of NATO members.

Our goal is to develop a reform strategy that would be approved by all member states, or, at the very least, by their overwhelming majority. This means that random deadlines on this complex issue, which is crucial for all of humanity, are unacceptable. Haste is fraught not only with a further decline in the authority of the UN Security Council, but also with a general split among the member states of the Organisation.

Admittedly, the participants in the relevant intergovernmental negotiations that have been taking place in New York since 2009 are still far from reaching a truly universal solution. Against this background, we see no alternative to continuing patient and mutually respectful discussions on this platform aimed at reconciling positions on all aspects of eventual transformations.

The West’s statements are absolutely provocative. At the same time, they have a clear goal – they create an atmosphere of toxicity, are propagandistic and once again ‘throw stones’ at our country.

back to top

Question: Do you believe that the UN is capable of stopping Israel’s aggression, considering that after the UN General Assembly session ended, Tel Aviv expanded the war to include Lebanon and Yemen?

Maria Zakharova: If you are talking about the potential of the United Nations, it is there. The almost year-long unprecedented bloodshed in the Arab-Israeli conflict zone, which is visibly escalating into a large regional war, calls for a decisive and consolidated response from the international community. The UN is the best venue to formulate such a response. A broad consensus has formed, primarily in the General Assembly, in favour of an immediate ceasefire, ensuring safe humanitarian access, and restarting the peace process on a generally recognised international legal basis.

However, we understand that this process is being blocked. Two countries are opposing the consensus: Israel and the United States. We have repeatedly made it clear that the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack deserves condemnation. However, a year later, we see that it has essentially become a pretext for collective punishment not only of millions of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, but now also of Lebanese, Syrians, and Yemenis. Egypt, Jordan, and other countries in the region are exposed to mounting tensions as well. I would like to bring to your attention the initiative taken by the Arab countries, who requested an urgent meeting with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. It took place this morning. They looked struck by horror as they spoke about the ongoing developments, fully aware of where they could take them. This is not about panic or fear, but about their professional analysis of a situation that is fraught with devastating consequences for everyone.

Clearly, Israel’s actions are pre-planned and involve a series of political assassinations and attacks involving communications and mass air bombings followed by ground mop-up operations. I’d be remiss not to mention the outrageous statistics on casualties among humanitarian workers and peacekeepers (over 300 people), not to mention tens of thousands of overall casualties. The number of the people impacted by the hostilities has exceeded 100,000. It is impossible to single out humanitarian workers. These are the people who, being fully aware of the risks involved and not being local residents, are still willing to put their lives on the line in order to help someone, or save a child or a pregnant woman. Speaking of humanitarian workers (we keep statistics), this is the largest single loss of life in modern history. Once again, we extend our condolences to their families, friends, and colleagues.

Speaking of the humanitarian personnel, we express condolences and sympathy for everyone who succumbed to this horrendous tragedy that unfolded before our eyes in recent months.

Importantly, the number of dead and injured in Gaza alone is more than double the number of the Ukraine crisis victims over the past ten years. Is it fair to say these numbers out loud? On a human level, I don’t think so. But we are discussing political issues that international organisations and Western countries, primarily the United States, constantly refer to. If people in Ukraine are important to them, other people should matter to them as well. Why don’t they see that?

The reason the tragedy in the Middle East still continues is common for both Arabs and Israelis, especially the families of hostages. It is the failed policy of the United States, particularly when it comes to securing fundamental rights, including the right to self-determination. Everything fell into oblivion, everything has fallen into a pit: human rights, humanitarian norms, the respect for sovereignty and international law. For the United States, humanitarian principles seem to have been switched off in the Middle East. It is no secret that Washington, by using its veto power, blocks the work of the UN Security Council, supplies Israel with weapons, ammunition, and intelligence, being fully aware of the fact that this will not help settle the matter. I’ve heard various specialists, public figures, and experts mention the number of potential casualties if not for... I’m not sure anyone can tally them in this case. We are dealing with a number of victims that is already unprecedented in modern history. This loss of life did not result from a natural disaster where the earth opens up and swallows a city leaving nothing but ruins, as was the case of the devastating earthquakes in Türkiye. We are dealing with a man-made, criminal escalation of the crisis.

For its part, Russia has been making and will continue to make every effort, primarily at the UN Security Council and General Assembly, to prevent the conflict from getting wider and to create proper conditions for achieving lasting peace and security in the Middle East following the creation of an independent Palestinian state based on a two-state solution, which would coexist in peace and security with Israel.

back to top

Question: What is your assessment of the statement by former NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg, who said that the alliance did not have to take any actions in response to the possible changes in Russia’s nuclear doctrine?

Maria Zakharova: What can I say? Is there any imperative for the West to take any extraordinary steps? I think that the actions it must take are quite ordinary. This includes rejecting aggression and doing away with the idea of inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia, while recalling the humanistic messages it has been promoting for many years, restoring the rule of law and ceasing to support terrorism. This is what the West must do. But do these steps have to be taken as a response to changes in the doctrine, or not?

This is what the Western countries must do, if they want to remain among civilised nations. Otherwise, they will definitively become sponsors of terrorism. But before they do this, and since intentions and ideas define their actions, they must first realise where all their aggressive and destructive steps could lead them and that their consequences could be disastrous for them, too.

Many people have been wondering why we keep saying that this could have catastrophic consequences for them, while what matters for us is the way these measures affect us. I have no illusions regarding the fact that the West only cares about itself, and would not give a dime for anyone else. Therefore, the only way for them to understand what is going on is to give them a sense of discomfort and vulnerability. This is the only way for them to understand what is going on. It has been a long time since they gave up on the principles of equality, indivisible security and equal rights. They have long come to view all this as empty talk, at best, if not as callous sentimentality. They deride these principles saying that it’s the early bird that gets the worm. Taking all you can get is what matters the most for them, while the rest does not matter. They have taken this pirate logic on board as their guiding principle. There is a quote from a good Russian film saying that “you will live a beautiful life, but it won’t last long.” This is the kind of mindset they have adopted.

It is for this reason that we focus on things that they can understand by telling them that they would not be immune and that by harming others, including through their sanctions policies, they are also destroying their own economies. They have been sticking to this mindset for centuries, without giving any thought to whether others suffered from their actions, like, for example, those who were taken from Africa and sold as slaves in America. They never cared about the people when exploiting the local population in their colonies, dividing families, or when they carried out nuclear strikes against Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or how the people of Vietnam suffered from napalm contamination. They never thought about it. That is until they felt the pinch from their own destructive actions. This is when they would recall the rule of law, rights and humane values.

back to top

Question: Has Iran warned Russia about its operation? Do you have any estimates regarding the number of missiles that were fired and the targets they reached?

Maria Zakharova: I have already shared the available information with you. We will make sure to keep you updated if we get more information on this matter.

back to top

Question: Last week, President of Iran Masoud Pezeshkian held a series of meetings with Western leaders and referred to Russia as an aggressor during one of them. On Monday, when Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin arrived in Iran on a visit, Tehran talked about its intentions to strengthen its ties with Moscow, while working together to resolve any controversial issues. What is the Foreign Ministry’s assessment of Russia’s present-day relations with Tehran?

Maria Zakharova: This is a classic example of what our detractors are doing to pit Moscow and Tehran against each other, Russia against Iran, to play their games and catch fish in muddy water, as the saying goes. I suggest that we get to the bottom of this issue. This may be an intentional provocation, especially considering that these planted stories tend to originate in Western mainstream media.

As for what we know, we checked this information. In his interviews with the leading US media outlets on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly high-level week in New York, Masoud Pezeshkian used the word aggression when answering their questions to describe Israel’s actions. He said, and I quote: “We cannot stay silent while blaming others of aggression.” He did not refer to Russia as an aggressor. You will not find any official statements to this effect on the website of the Iranian President either. It seems that someone had a false vision or maybe was too eager to interpret what the Iranian President had said in this way. We carried out our own review, which showed that this could have resulted from an erroneous translation. This leads to the following question: was this an accidental mistake on behalf of the Western media or did they do this on purpose? I think that they did this on purpose, since this is not the first time this is happening.

We can understand why they are acting this way. This amounts to an attempt to drive a wedge between Russia and Iran and to try to poison our fruitful cooperation and interaction, as well as to make the situation in the region even more complicated than it is today. We believe that these unscrupulous efforts are vain and will not have any future.

Russia and Iran share friendly ties, which have reached an all-time high, as confirmed during the recent working visit by Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin to Tehran and the upcoming meeting between the presidents of Russia and Iran on the sidelines of the BRICS Summit in Kazan.

I would like to draw the attention of all media outlets who have been spreading messages of this kind to the fact that whenever we face any bilateral issues requiring us to take into account our respective positions, make adjustments or offer clarifications, we have effective and enduring dialogue mechanisms at the level of our embassies, foreign ministries and heads of state. We can deal with these matters on our own. Let me reiterate that leaks, phrases or materials of this kind do not surface accidentally, but rather as an attempt to pit our countries against each other.

back to top

Question: Armenian Foreign Minister Ararat Mirzoyan boycotted an informal meeting of CSTO foreign ministers. On the other hand, Yerevan hosted a meeting of the Eurasian Intergovernmental Council on Tuesday, which Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin attended. Could you explain why Yerevan differentiates between the CSTO and the EAEU, although Armenia and Russia are members of both organisations?

Maria Zakharova: I believe that this is a question for our Armenian colleagues.

We welcome Armenia’s active engagement in the EAEU, several bodies of which Yerevan is chairing this year. We regret that Armenia has suspended its participation in the CSTO. Any state is free to decide what is important to it and what it needs. We believe that the CSTO is good for Armenia in terms of security, just like the EAEU is good for it economically. We see no obstacles to our interaction with it within these two structures. As I have said, it’s a matter of national policy for Armenia as a sovereign state.

back to top

Question: The Japanese government claims that a Russian Il-38 military aircraft violated the Japanese airspace three times between 1 pm and 3 pm on September 23, 2024. It is surprising that Russia has not reacted to these claims. Neither the defence ministry, nor the foreign ministry or Dmitry Peskov have made any statements regarding this. What can you say on this score? Did a Russian aircraft violate Japan’s airspace or not?

Maria Zakharova: Why are you surprised that we have not reacted when you have not asked us about it? We would have answered your question if you asked it.

Japan used diplomatic channels to express a protest. We dismissed it because we had no information confirming its validity.

At the same time, we pointed out that Tokyo’s efforts to politicise such issues are counter-productive as they should be addressed through the agencies concerned.

Please, ask your questions more often, and we will answer them. You can ask any number of questions. Unlike German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock, we don’t limit the number of questions journalists may ask.

Question: A new cabinet was formed in Japan yesterday. The post of minister for economic cooperation with Russia, which was established in 2016, has been abolished. How will Russia interact with the new Japanese government?

Maria Zakharova: That decision has shown that Japan has no desire to develop economic ties with Russia. We are aware of that, and we know why that decision was taken.

The anti-Russia sanctions Japan adopted under US pressure have primarily affected the Japanese economy. The brightest example is its automotive industry.

I believe that this decision is a visible proof of the fact that it was not us who has blocked Russian-Japanese economic ties. Does this meet Japan’s national interests? You tell me. You represent Japan. You live there. So, this is for you to judge. We see this as a logical link in the chain of actions the Japanese government started taking several years ago under US pressure.

As for what we will do and how we will react, we will diversify our economic ties. When one door closes, another door opens. If our economic relations with Japan are suspended by Tokyo, we will look for other partners, including in that region. You know, we have already found them. A Chinese business park opened in the Moscow Region the other day, and the region’s governor, Andrey Vorobyov, spoke about future relations [with China] at the opening ceremony. The upward leap in our economic relations with China was largely precipitated by the fact that Japan has left many sectors of the Russian market, leaving vacant niches which its competitors have promptly taken. We had no objection to that, considering mutual respect in our relations with these “rivals” of Japan, who don’t sever ties but are willing to develop them on the basis of mutual advantage.

back to top

Question: Western organisations are active in the region. For example, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) is planning to monitor compliance with cybersecurity, energy and border security measures in Armenia more closely. In total, $20 million will be allocated for implementing these initiatives. Earlier, the media reported that the organisation would increase its budget in Armenia from $120 million to $250 million. Additionally, the Western press has voiced multiple provocative statements ahead of the anniversary of reinstating Azerbaijan’s sovereignty. What is the possible outcome of all this? What results can these aggressive actions produce, and how can this be avoided?

Maria Zakharova: The destabilising nature of Western countries’ activities in Armenia and the entire South Caucasus confirms this. Speaking of conclusions, you have mentioned these tell-tale statistics that speak for themselves. We have repeatedly provided detailed comments on this issue.

It is impossible to overlook these facts, trends and the experience of neighbouring countries and other nations where similar experiments have already been conducted.

Question: Is it possible to avoid this in the South Caucasus?

Maria Zakharova: Those conducting a nationally oriented policy, those who know history and proceed from national interests, who are not timeservers and spin doctors, but who are state officials thinking about their country and nation can accomplish this. However, if one toys with Western promises …

The West and the United States said that Washington guarantees de-escalation if there is no retaliatory response to political assassinations perpetrated by Israel. I believe everyone has observed the developments and the so-called de-escalation unfolding in the Middle East tonight. Everyone understands that, when they promise a lot, you must see who is making these promises. 

back to top

Question: Assistant to the President of Azerbaijan and Head of the Foreign Policy Department of the Presidential Office Hikmet Hajiyev told La Repubblica that “the best solution for Armenia would be neutrality, not [membership in] military alliances that threaten Azerbaijan’s security.” He also said that Armenia’s military programmes should be “responsible and proportionate.”

How would you comment on this statement? In fact, Baku is making a demand that Yerevan refrain from membership in alliances, including the CSTO, as well as trying to put restrictions on Armenia’s steps to ensure its security.

Maria Zakharova: I really do hope that someday, actually the sooner the better, there will come a time when the relationship between Azerbaijan and Armenia will be free from a third wheel.

I have not seen a single quote where an Azerbaijani official would assert that the CSTO was threatening Armenia’s security. Maybe I am missing something. I will certainly take note of them if you find one.

As for neutral alliances – the CSTO is not a military bloc. The CSTO is an organisation of countries that are concerned about their security. Its statutory documents include no mention of this organisation being targeted against anyone, and nothing in the history of its activities would evidence or confirm this assumption. There is a very specific list of challenges, problems, goals, and objectives that the CSTO is designed to address. But it is not directed against any country. It is not like NATO, or one of those new structures under the NATO umbrella, brand, or franchise. Therefore, this quote in no way applies to the CSTO.

As for a more detailed analysis of this statement or the approach of Azerbaijani officials, they have their own diplomats and press secretaries – those who will be happy to comment on this. But the question was addressed to me. It concerns building regional security.

My answer is that the statement you quoted, as well as Baku’s principled approach, concerns cooperation with military alliances. The West is trying to manoeuvre Armenia and Azerbaijan towards these alliances by hook or by crook. Not only NATO, which is not even hiding its aggressive plans, but also the European Union, which has adopted militarisation as its policy, is doing this. It has already become an integral part of the North Atlantic Alliance. The EU has deployed a “civilian observer mission” in Armenia while ignoring Baku’s repeated complaints. This is not equal interaction, mutually respectful partnership or cooperation. This is an aggressive push for EU interests in a region where the EU does not belong.

Under the guise of good intentions, European representatives are gathering intelligence against Azerbaijan, Iran, Türkiye, and Russia.

As for military programmes, this is up to every sovereign country to decide. However, it is important that they do not undermine the regional balance of power and are not directed against other states. Otherwise, every country that has an army, armed forces and military doctrines implements military programmes.

back to top

Question: These quotes come from an Azerbaijani website, which, as far as I know, is state-controlled. Therefore, I am sure of their authenticity. But NATO, too, claims in its statutory documents that it is a defensive alliance, just like the CSTO.

Maria Zakharova: This is not fair at all. I am presenting a diplomatic note.

Are you being serious? Over the past ten years, NATO has included anti-Russia clauses in every declaration, every statement, from their obsession with inflicting a “strategic defeat” on us to the endless compulsive fixation on Russia at all times. Seriously, this is an idée fixe. They cannot go through a day in the public space without Russia. All the documents they adopt are focused on Russia. What do they plan their military budgets for? Will they fight terrorists? And the support of the Kiev regime – what’s this for? I am shocked by the comparisons.

Over the years of the CSTO’s existence – can you give me at least one statement that could be applicable in this situation? Or anything said by the leadership of the CSTO countries – nothing they say could be even hypothetically compared with NATO’s aggressive rhetoric. You’ll never find anything like this in their remarks or in the CSTO statements.

Question: I am not talking about aggressive rhetoric. I am in favour of the CSTO being a real military-political alliance.

Maria Zakharova: The CSTO has a different goal. It ensures security. And if you want it to turn into NATO, you had better look at the effects of NATO’s actions first. Do you want to have another organisation like that? Look at what it is doing.

This makes you sound like US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who says that the world is divided into those who are “at the table” and those who are “on the menu.” Does this sound inspiring to you? Before you know it, you will be moved from your seat at the table to the plate.

back to top

Question: On September 30, 2024, President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev said once again that he did not doubt that the people of Azerbaijan would be able to return to the so-called region of Western Azerbaijan. What would be your comment regarding the persisting territorial claims against the Republic of Armenia, which could cause a new round of conflict escalation in the region?

Maria Zakharova: I do not know this topic well enough to give you an accurate account or unpack these terms for you. Maybe you can help me out here, would you?

Question: This refers to the Republic of Armenia’s territory, while Ilham Aliyev refers to this region as Azerbaijan’s historical territory.

Maria Zakharova: How do you call this region?

Question: I believe that historical Armenian land makes up half of Azerbaijan’s territory.

Maria Zakharova: We regularly call on officials in Baku and Yerevan, as well as, to follow-up on what you have just said, those who do not hold any official positions, to refrain from using any rhetoric that can be interpreted by the other party as a failure to respect each other’s territorial integrity or viewed as a threat of using force to settle issues and disagreements.

The refugee and IDP issue dominates the agenda for both parties. In this context, we believe that it would be advisable for Baku and Yerevan to step up their humanitarian dialogue in all its aspects, including on preserving cultural, historical and religious heritage sites, ensuring safe and unimpeded mutual access to cemeteries, and searching for persons who went missing during the hostilities. The people of both Azerbaijan and Armenia are eager to address these issues. If there is a need for Russia to contribute to these efforts, we are ready.

back to top

Question: We are marking 75 years of Russia-China diplomatic relations today. Yesterday, the People’s Republic of China marked its 75th anniversary. We were the first country to recognise the newly established Chinese state. In addition to this, during Vladimir Putin’s visit to the PRC in May 2024, the two countries signed joint statements on deepening their comprehensive partnership and strategic cooperation entering a new era. What is the Foreign Ministry’s vision for Russia’s bilateral relations with China in a new era? Are there any priority domains for developing these relations?

Maria Zakharova: I would like to convey my heartfelt greetings to our Chinese friends on the 75th anniversary of the People’s Republic of China. I would also like to congratulate everyone involved, especially the foreign ministry employees in both Russia and China, as well as the former foreign ministry workers, on the 75th anniversary of diplomatic relations between our countries. We have planned a whole series of events, and quite a few articles, publications and collections of works have already appeared in print, covering our bilateral relations in all their aspects. There were also television news, reports and films, and there is much more to come.

The statement by Russia’s Ambassador to China, Igor Morgulov, went viral. In it, he addressed our friends in flawless Chinese to congratulate the friendly Chinese nation and look back at our bilateral relations. I advise all of you to watch this video sequence – it is a true masterpiece. You can find it on the online platforms listed on the website of the Russian Embassy to China.

I would also like to draw your attention to Rossiyskaya Gazeta’s special edition titled Dykhaniye Kitaya, or China Beat. It includes interviews with Russian officials, Chinese studies experts, and those who have devoted their lives to promoting Russia-China relations.

Today, the relations between Russia and China are at their all-time high, and the effort to further reinforce them meets the long-term development goals of the two countries. This is a steady and lasting trend.

Moscow and Beijing have developed a mature, stable and self-sufficient relationship of a comprehensive partnership and strategic cooperation. The May 2024 visit by President of Russia Vladimir Putin and the March 2023 visit by President of the People’s Republic of China Xi Jinping were their first trips abroad after they were re-elected to their high offices. These mutual visits demonstrated the positive and steady momentum in our bilateral ties which has been immune to a challenging geopolitical environment. They held talks in an atmosphere of trust to outline detailed plans for developing our relations in a comprehensive manner. The joint statements resulting from these meetings reflect some of the key takeaways from these talks.

I would like to highlight several points in this regard. Of course, we will continue working together to further strengthen our political dialogue at all levels, while focusing on the diplomatic engagement at the leaders’ level. The two countries are now working hard to prepare for President Xi Jinping’s visit to Russia to take part in the Kazan BRICS Summit in October. Next year, we plan to organise major joint events to mark the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II.

As for our practical cooperation, we will focus on carrying out strategic initiatives dealing with bilateral trade, transport, logistics, finance, energy, agriculture, technology and innovation, industrial cooperation, and minerals. Defending our legitimate interests by ensuring uninterrupted transactions and settlements has become central to our efforts against the backdrop of the growing sanctions pressure that comes from the so-called collective West which has proclaimed a dual containment policy against Russia and China.

We will continue expanding our cultural, educational and people-to-people ties, as well as region-to-region relations. President Vladimir Putin and PRC President Xi Jinping resolved to designate 2024 and 2025 as the cross Years of Culture. This is already the ninth cultural exchange project of this kind for our countries. We will support all kinds of events, from performing arts to exhibition projects, and from cinema to folk art. There is also a major inter-regional aspect here. We intend to perpetuate the positive traditions we have in holding these mutual campaigns for building even stronger bonds of friendship between the people of Russia and China.

On the international stage, Russia and China have been acting in tandem and emerged as a major factor of stability. The two countries are committed to do even more to coordinate their actions in order to fast-track the emergence of a democratic multipolar world order with greater justice for all, empowering all countries to have a say on global governance matters, ensuring equal and indivisible security, and rejecting confrontation and conflict. We will continue working on Russia’s initiative to build a new Eurasian security architecture, considering the way it resonates with the Global Security Initiative as put forward by China.

We will continue to work closely together within multilateral organisations and forums, primarily the United Nations and its Security Council, the SCO, BRICS, the Group of Twenty, and APEC. We will also join our efforts in making a meaningful contribution to boost efficiency of these multilateral cooperation mechanisms. Russia will assist China during its SCO chairmanship in every possible way, especially since our two countries were the founding members of this organisation.

back to top

Question: As constantly emphasised by President of Russia Vladimir Putin and the Russian Foreign Ministry and as is shown by the developments, the United States and NATO, its tool, are our major aggressor and geopolitical enemy. Western politicians increasingly often urge NATO to prepare for war with Russia. NATO’s military contingent is being concentrated in the vicinity of our borders. On September 13, US President [Joe Biden] and British Prime Minister [Keir Starmer] met to decide on delivering long-range missile strikes at Russia. What substantial political and diplomatic tools does the Russian Foreign Ministry have to influence the US aggressor and enemy as well as its satellites in order to prevent a war and coerce the US into holding peace talks on Ukraine and returning to equal and indivisible security?

Maria Zakharova: If we tell everyone about these tools, they may lose much of their effectiveness. 

back to top

Question: Presidential Executive Order No. 702 On Providing Humanitarian Support to Individuals Sharing Russian Traditional Spiritual and Moral Values of August 19, 2024 makes it incumbent on the Foreign Ministry to render support to foreign citizens wishing to emigrate to Russia because of their disagreement with the anti-family and dehumanising policies of their governments. On September 17, 2024, the Government of Russia established a list of 47 foreign states and territories whose policies clash with Russia’s traditional spiritual and moral values. 

At the same time, there are vast population groups in foreign states that share the traditional values but are reluctant to leave; those need support badly.  

What is the Russian Foreign Ministry doing or planning to do to support these citizens? Some options in this regard include identifying and supporting these population groups and organisations, providing legal, information and financial assistance, holding international forums and conferences, and creating international organizations to uphold traditional values.  What aid and assistance can come from the Russian public and independent Russian media outlets abiding by the Fundamentals of State Policy to Preserve and Strengthen Traditional Russian Spiritual and Moral Values?

Maria Zakharova: We note that there are many people in Western countries, who, rather than just abide by traditional values, are attempting to preserve them despite pressure coming from liberal dictatorships. They are faced with the direct challenge: to be or not to be.  There are opinion polls showing that the proportion of these people in the West is on the upturn. We see manifestations of this in their domestic life, including in the United States.  As soon as this debate reached the Congress, they started asking actual questions despite their pretended tolerance and political correctness.

Over the past four years, the United States, for one, witnessed a 5-7 percent decline in popular support for LGBT-friendly laws and approval of same-sex marriages. Large groups of the population are aware that the ultra-neo-liberalism with its transgender deviations is a dead end. Opinion allies form associations to beat off persecution and insist on the need for preserving the traditional family. This is nothing short of passive spectatorship; rather, it is the beginning of an active work to preserve and protect existential things rather than just value orientations. This is a challenge. 

We have always stressed (I think a special emphasis must be put on this) that people in the Western countries (and possibly elsewhere), where neo-liberalism is on the rampage or just getting up steam, would do well to somehow cope on their own.  At the same time, we see that many are unable to cope, or they are afraid of being unable to sustain the pressure, or they understand that they have no chances, or they know that they are cornered.

Therefore, it is not an end in itself for us to take the steps you have mentioned, namely to adopt the laws, executive orders, and measures to grant Russian citizenship to and help these people to move to the Russian Federation. This is not a competition we must win. It is an available option, rather than a priority.

We would be happy if the Germans defended their culture in Germany. For our part, we will preserve it and later will tell the rising generations of Germans about Johann Wolfgang von Goethe and Friedrich Schiller. We will tell the Austrians that Mozart is not a confectionary firm making delicious sweets but a great composer.  We will tell the Americans about their cultural achievements. We will show the French some examples of their culture and tell them the difference between Claude Monet and Edouard Manet. We will preserve all this in Russia, a cultural goldmine of our common civilisation. But it would be a good thing to see them doing their bit as well.

There is an option in this regard. We have communicated relevant instructions on implementing President Vladimir Putin’s Executive Order to our foreign missions. We will do all we can, supporting public organisations and working with civil society and human rights activists. Right now, we are working with the legal community because people apply to us for legal advice. We have published a list of lawyers we recommend to all those concerned: they will cooperate, including on this matter as well.

Importantly, they must understand that they will lose their countries unless they join these people in their endeavour. They will be erased with a pencil-rubber, rewritten, misrepresented… Later, they will read that the Vikings and the musketeers were black just because their requests will fetch this sort of AI-selected replies.  Everything will be twisted and distorted. History itself will be distorted, given that it has been repeatedly rewritten.

A case in point is the International Russophile Movement, a public organisation created with the Foreign Ministry’s assistance in 2023. We saw that they sought to preserve the traditional values and supported that. This movement unites representatives of more than 130 countries, including Western states, who share our values.  Many of them are not our compatriots, but they have a good knowledge of our country’s culture. Some are willing to obtain Russian citizenship, while others seek to uphold values they regard as important in their countries.

I also would like to draw your attention to the Plan for Implementing the Fundamentals of the State Policy to Preserve and Strengthen Traditional Russian Spiritual and Moral Values for 2024-2026. Endorsed by a directive of the Russian Government on July 1 of this year, the document envisages many international events, with the Russian Foreign Ministry as one of the main agents. But it stands to reason that our value-based work is not confined to the Plan alone.

We are active in working with the media and NGOs, and we are determined to do better work.

back to top