Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, October 23, 2024

Table of contents

 

1. Cyberattack on the Foreign Ministry’s website
2. BRICS Summit in Kazan
3. TV BRICS international media network
4. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's upcoming visit to the Republic of Uzbekistan
5. The 8th World Congress of Compatriots Living Abroad
6. Sergey Lavrov’s participation in the International Conference on Eurasian Security
7. Hostile actions of the Polish authorities
8. The Ukraine crisis
9. Concentration camps of the Armed Forces of Ukraine
10. Proliferation of weapons from Ukraine, and Finnish police concerns regarding the smuggling of armaments into the country from Ukrainian territory
11. Moldova update
12. Terrorist attacks on Nord Stream gas pipelines
13. Anniversary of the terrorist attack at Dubrovka Theatre
14. Germany reforms restitution process regarding Nazi-looted cultural property
15. Establishment of Multilateral Sanctions Monitoring Team
16. 80th anniversary of the USSR’s recognition of the Provisional Government of the French Republic
17. Global Dance Overture project launched at BRRICS Summit

 

Answers to media questions:

1. Statements by the French Minister of Defence
2. The theft of frozen Russian assets
3. The incident with British diplomats at Vnukovo Airport
4. Russia’s and China’s approaches to promoting a multipolar world
5. US-Japanese military exercises
6. European integration referendum in Moldova
7. Ukraine and Moldova’s accession to weaken the European Union
8. The role of BRICS in building a multipolar world
9. The work of the trilateral commission of Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia
10. Russia’s alleged interference in the Moldovan referendum
11. The destructive role of the West in the South Caucasus
12. The BRICS countries’ approaches to Middle East settlement
13. Alleged presence of DPRK servicemen in Russia
14. The destructive stance the West takes on Moldova
15. The so-called Skripal case update
16. Volunteers of Victory international forum
17. The disinformation campaign in South Korean media
18. The EU dispatches peacekeeping force to Ukraine
19. Kiev’s attempts to obtain permission to strike deep into Russia
20. Parliamentary elections in the Kurdistan autonomous region of Iraq
21. The escalation spiral on the Korean Peninsula

 

 

 

Cyberattack on the Foreign Ministry’s website

 

I would like to begin differently this time – I hope this won’t become habitual. I need to explain why we have postponed the briefing for several hours.

The reason is a massive cyberattack from abroad began this morning on the infrastructure of the official website of the Foreign Ministry. All its elements have been attacked, and the volume of that combined offensive, which included DDoS attacks, built up.

We have seen many attacks on our site, but today’s cyber offensive was unprecedented in scale. To be able to relaunch our online resources sooner, we decided against increasing the load on our website and therefore postponed the briefing.

The Foreign Ministry’s technical services, working together with the concerned agencies and communications service providers, are taking the necessary measures to ward off the attack that has been ongoing for several hours.

Regrettably, internet users might encounter problems with accessing the Foreign Ministry’s website, especially if they use mobile devices. We recommend checking the Foreign Ministry’s official social media accounts for latest news about Russia’s foreign policy.

We presume that this hostile attack has been caused by the success of the BRICS Summit events that are underway in Kazan.

back to top

 

BRICS Summit in Kazan

 

The bulk of information is coming from Kazan, the capital of Tatarstan. The BRICS Summit and related events are not only the highlight of the month but definitely the year (and possibly even the past few years or even a decade) in light of the world’s movement towards multipolarity. The instruments and mechanisms that are based on our country’s decision to stand up against the unipolar hegemony-based world order have gone into operation. Moreover, they are yielding practical results.

We have told you many times that the BRICS Summit, which is underway in Kazan under Russia’s Chairmanship (it is the first summit held after the group’s expansion in January 2024), is literally one of the largest international events.

The 16th BRICS Summit opened in the capital of Tatarstan on October 22 and will end on Thursday, October 24. It is being attended by delegates from 36 countries and six international organisations, including UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres.  About 20,000 are expected to visit Kazan during the three-day summit. Neary 2,000 journalists from 59 countries will cover its work.

We received many questions about the Western media and whether we had issued accreditation to their reporters. I assure you that correspondents from “unfriendly” countries, that is, countries with unfriendly regimes, in particular, mainstream Western media, are working at the summit. They have been accredited to cover the bilateral meetings held on the sidelines of the summit and the final news conference scheduled for October 24. We don’t practice segregation. We only take response measures when Russian journalists and media outlets are harassed.

Meetings in the restricted and expanded format, as well as events in the outreach/BRICS Plus format, will be held today and tomorrow. The agenda includes various aspects of the BRICS countries’ cooperation on the international stage, the settlement of regional conflicts, and many other subjects, in particular the establishment of the category of BRICS partner countries. It is a matter of concern to many now.

I would like to once again draw your attention to the website of Russia’s BRICS Chairmanship, where you will find comprehensive information about all events scheduled in Kazan.

You can also use the website of the President of Russia and the Foreign Ministry’s social media accounts. You will find reference materials, photographs and videos there. The streaming of the summit events is available on the Rutube and VK video hosting sites. Indeed, we are witnessing – and many of us are taking part in – events that are making history in Kazan.

back to top

 

TV BRICS international media network

 

Continuing with the theme of BRICS, I would like to elucidate another facet of the BRICS group's endeavours: the TV BRICS international network. Established in 2017 following the BRICS Heads of State summit in China, this initiative exemplifies the practical realisation of a proposal put forth during the summit by Russian President Vladimir Putin. The proposal, which garnered support from the leaders of Brazil, China, India, and South Africa, emphasised the necessity to “set up media cooperation, including exploring the possibility of creating a common TV channel for the five countries to disseminate unbiased information on BRICS operations.” This is a quintessential instance where actions have indeed mirrored words.

At present, TV BRICS functions as an international network of partner media within the BRICS+ countries. Its round-the-clock broadcasts in Russian, English, Chinese, Portuguese, Spanish, and Arabic, aired by national television and radio companies across these nations, significantly contribute to the comprehensive information coverage of major international events.

Furthermore, TV BRICS actively cultivates an international network of partner film festivals within the group's countries and educational institutions. It unites journalists, including bloggers, and organises cultural and educational events. It also produces content for the BRICS Podcast project, encompassing topics such as history, economics, domestic politics, and international relations.

After seven years, the TV BRICS network has successfully enlisted over 70 media outlets globally, including those from Russia, Brazil, India, China, South Africa, Egypt, Iran, the UAE, Argentina, Armenia, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Cuba, Mozambique, Tunisia, and Chile. I am confident in assuring you that this is merely the beginning. Interest in BRICS is mounting daily, with the Kazan summit serving as a vivid illustration of this growing engagement.

Western adversaries may speculate about potential changes. However, their impotent rage only serves to unify us, reinforcing our commitment to a peace-loving course oriented towards partnership and alliance, firmly grounded in international law. This course is predicated on mutual respect, consideration of each other's interests, and adherence to all fundamental principles of international law as enshrined in the UN Charter.

We commend the initiative to establish TV BRICS, expand its outreach, and pursue new partnerships. We stand ready to provide the necessary assistance to all media entities engaged in disseminating credible information about the countries within our group.

I seize this opportunity to extend an invitation from our country to all those inclined to join the TV BRICS international media network. Interested parties are encouraged to submit proposals for cooperation and partnership via a letter to our Embassy, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, or directly through the TV BRICS website.

back to top

 

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's upcoming visit to the Republic of Uzbekistan

 

On October 28−29, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov is scheduled to undertake a working visit to the Republic of Uzbekistan.

It is anticipated that the Minister will be received by President of the Republic of Uzbekistan Shavkat Mirziyoyev, and will engage in discussions with Foreign Minister Bakhtiyor Saidov.

The dialogue will primarily focus on further deepening the Russian-Uzbekistani strategic partnership and alliance, with particular emphasis on the vigorous joint efforts to implement the agreements reached following the state visit of President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin to the Republic of Uzbekistan on May 26−28 of this year.

Within this context, the bilateral agenda, alongside pressing international and regional issues of mutual interest, is expected to be reviewed.

An exchange of views will also be conducted on the diplomatic support for the Eurasian integration processes, taking into account Uzbekistan's observer status at EAEU.

Sergey Lavrov is also expected to deliver an address to the faculty and students at the University of World Economy and Diplomacy, which is affiliated with the Foreign Ministry of Uzbekistan.

back to top

 

The 8th World Congress of Compatriots Living Abroad

 

As I have already said at the previous briefing, Moscow will host the 8th World Congress of Compatriots Living Abroad on October 30-31, 2024. As usual, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will take part in it.

Held under the slogan Together with Russia, the congress is to bring together about 400 leaders and activists of the Russian community from 103 countries. The heads of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, central and regional government agencies, NGOs, representatives of traditional religions, academics and media representatives will also take part.

The programme includes three plenary sessions and five themed sections and workshops. There are plans to discuss the most topical issues of conserving traditional and family values, preserving the cultural and historical legacy, upholding the rights and legitimate interests of compatriots, promoting the Russian language and the Russian education system, involving young people in the diaspora’s activities, developing Russian-language media outlets (we call them compatriots’ media outlets), relocating people to the Russian Federation, including in the context of the latest legislative realities that have emerged in our country. Certainly, congress delegates will also focus on preparations for the celebration of the 80th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War.

Once again, I am inviting all media representatives to take part in covering this important event.

back to top

 

Sergey Lavrov’s participation in the International Conference on Eurasian Security

 

As you know, Minsk will host the 2nd International Conference on Eurasian Security on October 31 – November 1. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will head the Russian delegation at the event.

In his remarks at the forum’s plenary session, the Minister will touch upon issues of implementing an initiative, advanced by the President of the Russian Federation, on forging a system of equal and indivisible security in Eurasia. He will set forth Russian assessments of the current situation in the sphere of overall Eurasian security.

back to top

 

Hostile actions of the Polish authorities

 

On October 22, 2024, Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski announced the decision of the Polish authorities to shut down the Russian Consulate General in Poznan under a far-etched pretext.

We are once again witnessing official Warsaw’s unbridled Russophobia plus spy-mania. The Polish authorities are traditionally trying to score political points, while scaring their citizens by an alleged Russian threat.

For the past few years, Warsaw is deliberately doing everything to complicate the work of the Russian Embassy and our consular agencies in Poland. We have repeatedly tried to reach out to the Polish authorities and to convince them that this line is absolutely pointless and destructive, including for Poland, because all similar actions invariably cause Russia to respond accordingly.  Unfortunately, the Russophobia of the current ruling Polish elites is defeating common sense once again.

Doubtless, we will not hesitate to respond to this new hostile Polish act. Warsaw stands to gain nothing by making its ill-conceived decisions and is driving itself into a blind alley still further.

back to top

 

The Ukraine crisis

 

The Ukrainian nationalists persist in their acts of terrorism against civilians in Russia, and not only Russia, as they subject it to daily artillery attacks and drone strikes. Between October 15 and 22, 430 artillery shells were fired and 142 UAVs were launched into the Belgorod Region injuring 39 civilians, including a 12-year-old girl and a 13-year-old boy, and damaging 226 buildings, including 37 apartment buildings. The Ukrainian military use drones to drop Lepestok and Kolokolchik mines on the roads and in rural areas, which cause injuries among civilians.

On October 15, Ukrainian drones attacked two passenger buses, one in Gorlovka and another one outside Belgorod injuring 11 civilians, among them four teenagers. On October 16, explosive devices dropped by Ukrainian drones in the village of Krasny Oktyabr caused 15 pieces of equipment to become engulfed in flames. On October 21, a kamikaze drone attacked a civilian vehicle outside the village of Murom, injuring a civilian.

From October 15 to 22, three civilians died and 12 others were injured amid dozens of daily Ukrainian artillery attacks and UAV strikes on residential areas and civilian infrastructure in the Donetsk People’s Republic. A series of kamikaze drones hit the utility companies in Gorlovka, killing two and injuring three employees.

On October 21-22, the Ukrainian military fired artillery shells and launched drone attacks targeting infrastructure near the Zaporozhskaya Nuclear Power Plant in Energodar, causing a blackout. According to unconfirmed reports, one person died in the attack.

The accomplices of the Kiev regime will be held accountable for their crimes to the fullest extent of the law.

Based on the evidence gathered by Russia’s Investigative Committee, the Russian courts continue to hand down harsh sentences for the war crimes committed by Ukrainian neo-Nazis and mercenaries.

The Supreme Court of the DPR sentenced the commander of the UAF’s 79th Separate Air Assault Brigade, V. Kurach, to 24.5 years in prison. In March 2019, while in a DPR area controlled by the Kiev regime, Kurach ordered large-calibre artillery strikes on the village of Sakhanka, killing a civilian and destroying houses.

Foreign mercenaries - G. Andreoni from France, D. Mishler from the United States, and A. Khetsuriani from Georgia - were sentenced to 14 years in prison for taking part in combat operations on Ukraine’s side. Another Georgian mercenary, R. Ivaneishvili, was sentenced to 13 years in prison. Not a single of the above Ukrainian criminals or their accomplices will escape justice.

Unable to make progress with his dead-end “peace formula,” Vladimir Zelensky is now promoting what he calls a “victory plan” (or, in our translation from insane to a sensible language, a “disaster plan”). We commented on it in detail last week, but I’ll make a few additional remarks today.

Deep down, both of these initiatives advanced by Kiev (I mean the “war plan” and the “disaster plan”) share one goal which is to escalate the conflict at the cost of hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian lives and the pillaging of the country. The main goal is to drag the West into a direct military confrontation with Russia.

Zelensky made the presentation of his “disaster plan” the high point of his speech at the European Council, and yet it was another “nail in the coffin” of the entire Kiev junta.

On October 17, Zelensky was on a “tour” of the European Council and leveraged his acting skills to the fullest trying to convince the audience to support another “opus” that was cooked up by a NATO-centric think tank and sent to Bankovaya Street (his office). He pointed out that the “disaster plan” was designed to bring the Russian leaders to the negotiating table in order to have them implement the above “peace formula” (read: “war formula.”) He tried to dress it up in a way that if the EU countries join Kiev in implementing its “disaster plan” right away, the “war,” as Zelensky put it, could be over no later than 2025. Just a couple months or so, he said, that’s it. He even went as far as blackmailing his allies, claiming that Ukraine’s security could only be ensured “either through NATO membership or by owning nuclear weapons.” I think it gave the shudders even to Brussels.

Zelensky failed to secure Brussels’ collective approval for his new “initiative.” The EU is not united on this issue. Most of Kiev’s allies chose not to criticise Kiev’s proposals, but made it clear they weren’t thrilled about the “plan” that carries the risk of uncontrolled escalation and a standoff with Russia.

Let’s remind everyone that inviting Ukraine to NATO cannot be a subject of negotiation with Russia neither now, nor in the future. Ukraine’s push toward NATO membership which imperils our country’s security, alongside the terror unleashed against the Russian-speaking people of Donbass, was one of the root causes of the Ukraine crisis and triggered the special military operation.

The Foreign Ministry took note of the fact that after the failed presentation of the so-called disaster plan, Foreign Minister of France Jean-Noël Barrot visited Kiev on October 19, 2024, followed by Defence Secretary of the United States Lloyd Austin on October 21, 2024. It seems that they have not gone beyond offering Kiev their moral support, even if Washington’s emissary did have some good news for Vladimir Zelensky when be announced a new $400 million tranche from the $61 billion package approved by the US Congress back in April 2024. However, we did not hear any statements on authorising Ukraine to use Western long-range systems to target territories deep inside Russia.

They keep searching, in vain, for a new plan which would enable them to end the hostilities. But what can be simpler? Just stop supplying weapons to the Kiev regime, and the hostilities will stop too. I think that this is something everyone has understood by now, including small children.

Vladimir Zelensky has not been able to hide from his Western patrons the staffing shortages within the Ukrainian Armed Forces and the de facto failure of the forced mobilisation effort in Ukraine. Even mainstream Western media had to recognise that there were more and more draft dodgers and deserters in Ukraine, while those who were mobilised are increasingly willing to surrender during their first battle.

They understand that they are being sacrificed for the sake of Vladimir Zelensky’s, Washington’s and London’s greed, voracity, and corruption. In fact, Washington and London were the ones who created Zelensky, as if he was their child (could this be called a same-sex union, dare I ask?).

According to the Western media, several tens of thousands of people found themselves in this situation. There is hardly anyone left in Ukraine ready to fight for ideological or any other reasons.

Warsaw’s idea of creating a Ukrainian Legion by staffing it with Ukrainians who settled in Poland and were willing to stand up for the Kiev regime failed abysmally. Less than 200 people volunteered to join this unit.

The campaign to further reduce the mobilisation age in Ukraine all the way down to 20 years is picking up steam, with nationalists from terrorist battalions which were merged into the Ukrainian Armed Forces, including Azov and Aidar, setting the tone. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that fighters from these terrorist nationalist battalions refused to take part in assaults where Ukrainians were thrown into battle like cannon fodder. Instead, they opted for sitting it out in the rear. The Verkhovna Rada picked up their would-be patriotic calls by saying that it was ready to approve the required amendments promptly and without any delays by omitting any sophisticated legislative procedures. Members of parliament have been voicing a rather cynical position by arguing that since any Ukrainian national can be elected to parliament at the age of 21, any 20-year-old Ukrainian must take up arms to defend his country.

What a stroke of genius. But I suggest that we look at this issue from a different perspective. Maybe people in Ukraine will finally realise that this is a way for members of the Verkhovna Rada to protect themselves. It is clear as daylight for them that if those who are mobilised in Ukraine by force at the age of 20 get killed, since this is what is going on right now, these people would never reach the age of 21. Therefore, the current Verkhovna Rada MPs have nothing to worry about, since they would simply get re-elected as long as they are alive with no one there to offer an alternative. All the young candidates would be killed.

The authorities on Bankovaya Street have acknowledged that they have come under serious pressure from the United States on this matter, with the US political establishment referring to its Vietnam experience. Washington sent thousands of Americans there, including 18-year-olds.

The fact that even school students in Ukraine could end up being drafted into the army has scared parents to an extent that tenth and eleventh graders have been increasingly fleeing the country over the past summer. According to varying assessments, there were over 300,000 people of this kind, and possibly much more.

Ukrainian experts believe that the West would be ready to offer Ukraine more military and financial assistance if Vladimir Zelensky lowers the mobilisation age all the way down to 18 years.

I can hardly believe that there is no one left in Ukraine, no journalists, bloggers, or community leaders, or even reasonable people able to speak the truth and say that Washington, London and Vladimir Zelensky, as well as all those who give him money, have launched a real genocide against Ukrainian nationals. The West has embarked on an intentional and well-informed effort to exterminate Ukrainians using Western funding and Western weapons for the sake of fulfilling the corrupt interests of the Western elites. We all know what they are after: what they want is Ukraine’s land and resources so that no one prevents them from disposing of them as they deem fit.

Passions surrounding the Volyn Massacre remain unabated in Poland. On October 13 this year, Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski called upon Kiev to accord the victims of this tragedy the same respect as the remains of Wehrmacht soldiers. In the 21st century, what are they about? While delivering a public lecture at Nicolaus Copernicus University in Torun, he stated, “The sooner this issue vanishes from our bilateral relations, the less of a burden it will be in the process of Ukraine's accession to the European Union.”

I pose a question: Is Radoslaw Sikorski entirely unaware, has no one informed him or shown him video evidence that, for many years now, Nazi collaborators who were responsible for the deaths of Poles – namely, Stepan Bandera and Roman Shukhevych – have been resurrected and glorified in Ukraine? Is he not cognizant of the torchlight processions that have been occurring in Ukraine for decades? That nationalist battalions, such as Azov and others – regarded as terrorists and prohibited in our country – adhere to Nazi ideology, if only at the level of using symbols. Does he truly have no insight into this matter?

How can common ground be reached, and how, from Mr. Sikorski's perspective, will the Kiev regime be capable of achieving any semblance of rapprochement with Warsaw on this issue, given that the driving force of the political machine in Ukraine is now oriented towards the revival and glorification of Nazi collaborators? One must either be naive or deceive both the Polish populace and the international community if they in Warsaw fail to acknowledge the genuine nature of this narrative.

On October 15 this year, Polish Defence Minister Wladyslaw Kosiniak-Kamysz lamented that over the past two years, Kiev has made “not a single good gesture in this direction” and “does not sufficiently appreciate Warsaw's assistance.”

Why should Warsaw extend aid to the Kiev regime, which has elevated Nazi collaborators, whose hands are stained, among other things, with Polish blood, to the status of heroes? Yet, this is a question that no one in Poland dares to pose to the Polish leadership. The “Big Washington Brother” is at the helm there.

According to the Polish Defence Ministry, “if Poland had not donated all these tanks, aircraft, and other weapons, there would be no one to help today.” It was omitted that by supplying these tanks, aircraft, and other weapons, Warsaw is aiding the terrorist Nazi regime in Kiev, which has declared as its heroes the Nazi collaborators Stepan Bandera and Roman Shukhevych, who are associated through their actions, decisions, and hands with the murder of innocent people solely based on national origin.

Polish and Ukrainian nationalists, in alignment with official stances from Warsaw and Kiev, persist in revealing the fundamental nature of their relations, which are rooted in historical grievances, by engaging in conflicts within the memorial domain. On October 13 this year, media outlets reported the destruction of a monument dedicated to the OUN-UPA fighters in the Polish village of Werchrata. Subsequently, on October 15, the All-Polish Youth, a nationalist organisation, reported the so-called “arrival” of the Bandera phenomenon on Polish territory alongside Ukrainian refugees. This was evidenced by the desecration of a monument in Wroclaw, dedicated to the peaceful Polish victims of the Volyn Massacre.

I wish to pose a question: what did Warsaw anticipate? That individuals crossing the border would cease to honour their contemporary heroes? No, certainly not. Allow me to remind you that when the monument in Wroclaw was desecrated, the UPA's red-and-black insignia and a slogan in its honour were inscribed on the memorial, on the stele.

Now, turning to matters that ought to be remembered, both in Warsaw and in the West more broadly. On October 28, we observe the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Soviet Ukraine from Nazi occupiers, a feat achieved through the successful completion of the Red Army's East Carpathian Strategic Offensive. Approximately 2.6 million of our soldiers were killed or seriously wounded in these battles. According to various estimates, Hitler's forces exterminated up to 10 million civilians. More than 700 towns and residential areas were obliterated, and nearly 28,000 villages were razed. The occupiers plundered and demolished tens of thousands of healthcare, educational, and cultural institutions, industrial enterprises, and collective farms.

The current regime in Kiev is exerting every effort to distort and rewrite history, aiming to make society forget the enduring acts of bravery demonstrated by the Soviet people, while attempting to elevate adversaries and malefactors.

Nevertheless, individuals of sound judgment will never forget, nor will they betray the cherished memory of their forebears. We remain confident that the people of Ukraine will, sooner or later, liberate themselves from the present-day supporters of Bandera, who are willing to sacrifice them for the self-serving interests of their Western patrons.

back to top

 

Concentration camps of the Armed Forces of Ukraine

 

Previously, we already spoke about the Kiev regime creating several institutions like concentration camps of Nazi Germany near the Russian border, where part of the residents of the Kursk Region were forcibly driven under threat of weapons. Let me emphasise that civilians, including children, were unable to leave for safe areas after the Armed Forces of Ukraine invaded this Russian region in August.

The data we have differ. We collect information from various sources. For now, we can only say that over 1,000 people are contained in these camps, including children, women, people with disabilities, elderly people, injured, and sick. For obvious reasons, there is no contact with them. We have only preliminary information.

We are talking about 2024. We are talking about people being forcibly taken into captivity and slavery. I do not know what to call it: kidnapping, or trafficking. Find any definitions you like. People are forced from their homeland, their homes, and are held prisoners.

According to the families and friends of the abducted, as well as witnesses whose testimonies were collected by representatives of humanitarian organisations in Russia, these camps are located, in particular, in the basement of a building of a social institution in Sudzha and near the Oleshnya village in the Kursk Region, as well as near ​​the Yunakovka village in the Sumy Region.

The prisoners of these new concentration camps are subjected to physical and psychological abuse every day. There are suggestions that the Armed Forces of Ukraine may use them as a human shield to hinder the offensive of Russian troops, and also send them onto mines, like the Nazis did during the Great Patriotic War. Then (if the worst happens) they will blame Russia again. In addition, the Kiev regime also uses these people for propaganda (exactly like the Third Reich), recording videos with them for Western media, which are shameless enough to stream all this without telling the truth.

The Russian law enforcement agencies continue receiving data about cases when people from the Kursk Region were forced to move into the territory of Ukraine. The office of the Commissioner for Human Rights in the Russian Federation, Tatyana Moskalkova, is working on this. Its team is trying to find all the victims and identify the criminals. Russian investigative bodies are dealing with all the evidence gathered. It is impossible to obtain comprehensive information about the injured civilians from the Kursk Region until the territory is completely liberated from Ukrainian militants.

Hushing up this topic, these stories, atrocities and barbaric crimes in inacceptable. We will regularly update you on this. This directly proves the terroristic and Nazi nature of the Kiev regime and those who sponsor them, supplying it with weapons.

The Ukrainian armed forces have turned into a Nazi army long ago and commit terrible crimes against civilians. They use the example of their idols from the Third Reich, who used the most cruel and inhuman torture and methods of extermination. Just think about it: our citizens are forcibly detained and, deprived of freedom, while suffering from daily pressure and humiliation.

Meanwhile, we are once again seeing that there is no reaction from international human rights organisations. We see yet another proof that these institutions have completely deteriorated. They are only called “human rights organisations” and pretend they feel sorry for someone. They see their main task in serving the interests of Western patrons, grant givers and those who can throw them a bone from time to time so that they fulfil their orders.

back to top

 

Proliferation of weapons from Ukraine, and Finnish police concerns regarding the smuggling of armaments into the country from Ukrainian territory

 

We have noted the ongoing discourse in Finland concerning the illegal entry of weapons into the country, primarily of Western origin, which were previously supplied to the military units of the Kiev regime. This situation has significantly exacerbated the crime rate within Finland, leading to a sense of unease. Such issues are a cause for concern not only for the Finnish authorities, who have recently embarked on a path of overt Russophobia and unrestrained militarisation within the NATO framework, but also for the established Western European "old-timers." These nations are increasingly alarmed by the "proliferation" of weapons they have supplied to the Kiev regime, which are now extending beyond Ukrainian borders into European territories.

We have consistently forewarned of the repercussions associated with the large-scale armament of the Kiev regime, which is engaged in the sale of its own citizens, let alone the arms it receives. We have persistently criticised the systematic breaches by Euro-Atlantic allies, led by the United States, of their obligations under the International Arms Trade Treaty, the European Union Common Position defining common rules governing control of exports of military technology and equipment, the OSCE Document on Small Arms and Light Weapons, the OSCE Principles Governing Conventional Arms Transfers, and the OSCE Principles for Export Controls of Man-Portable Air Defence Systems, in their transfer of military and dual-use goods to Ukraine.

We were fully cognisant and well aware that, in supplying weapons to the Kiev regime in violation of these provisions of international law, the last consideration for Western countries would be the intended targets of such weapons within the regional confrontation.

As George W. Bush once remarked, "the more Russians are killed, the better." We have informed and cautioned them that these weapons would eventually return to their own territories, affecting their citizens, whom they have always regarded as "top-notch." Our warnings were disregarded. Now, the consequences are evident.

Why is adherence to these documents imperative? They specifically refer to the inadmissibility of transferring conventional arms and ammunition if there is reliable information indicating that such property will be used to commit acts of genocide, crimes against humanity, serious violations of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, attacks on civilian facilities, and other war crimes.

Given the West's longstanding acknowledgment of the Kiev regime's corruption, how was it conceivable to supply them with arms that they would promptly resell, market, and barter for their own gain? Such actions were occurring incessantly. The Geneva Conventions of 1949? No, the authorities on Bankovaya seem oblivious to them.

A comprehensive array of international agreements, aimed at minimising the risks associated with high-precision weapons entering the "shadow" market, is also being flagrantly disregarded. This includes UN General Assembly Resolution 62/40 on the Prevention of the Illicit Transfer and Unauthorised Access to and Use of Man-Portable Air Defence Systems of 2007, and the Elements for Export Controls of Man-Portable Air Defence Systems of 2003, agreed upon under the Wassenaar Arrangement on Export Controls for Conventional Arms.

All the aforementioned points once again underscore the pertinence of the objectives of the special military operation, which, as the Russian leadership has repeatedly stated, will be accomplished.

back to top

 

Moldova update

 

Moldova held the first round in its presidential election on October 20, 2024, as well as a constitutional referendum on its accession to the European Union.

Chisinau launched a massive crackdown against the opposition and independent media and used administrative leverage to pressure them directly, while the US and EU representatives had no qualms about interfering in the election process. However, despite all this, the outcome of the election demonstrated that the Moldovan leadership failed in its efforts. The nation firmly spoke out against EU integration, even if the authorities, including Maia Sandu, went to great lengths to sweep these results under the carpet. It is quite obvious that the final results of the referendum, with 50.46 percent of favourable votes and 49.54 percent of votes cast against the proposal, resulted from a last-ditch effort to falsify the final tally. People in Moldova and independent foreign experts have been wondering where these numbers came from. That said, everyone agrees that they were falsified.

First, political observers pointed out that there was no reasonable way to explain why the vote unfolded the way it allegedly did. Preliminary voting results as published by the media showed that the number of votes against EU integration exceed the number of “yes” votes by around 10 percent throughout the day. However, by the end of the vote, this gap started to shrink rapidly as if by magic.

Second, there are almost half a million Moldovans living in Russia and forming a diaspora here, but they were de facto denied the right to vote in this election with only two polling stations to serve them. Let me note for the sake of comparison that there were about 200 polling stations for Moldovan expatriates in the United States and Western Europe. It is not surprising then that huge lines formed in front on Moldova’s embassy in Moscow. Not everyone who came there to cast their ballots were able to do so despite the fact that the voting time was extended for two additional hours. The press office of Moldova’s Foreign Ministry said that this situation was engineered by illegally busing voters to these stations in order to undermine the election process. This statement amounts to mocking their own citizens and denigrating them – there is no other way of describing statements of this kind. On the contrary, you can find many videos on social media from the West where voters were actually bused to polling stations, especially in Romania. There are also videos showing polling stations in European countries with no voters whatsoever.

Third, many Moldovan nationals preferred not to vote in the referendum at all. It seems that they understood the way it would unfold and that its results would be falsified. In fact, they had already witnessed the way all manifestations of the rule of law and democracy were eliminated in the run-up to the election and the referendum. Refraining from voting in the referendum was a way for them to deny their support to the European integration agenda coming from the country’s authorities.

Of course, we must factor in the fact that the authorities committed multiple violations and falsifications during the voting process. An election monitoring group from Promo-LEX, a Moldovan NGO for democracy and human rights, reported 778 incidents. The most recurrent violations included intimidation, vote buying, busing voters to polling stations, and preventing opposition observers from entering the polling stations. Against this backdrop, experts noted the fact that Moldova’s Central Electoral Commission intended to forward information about violations directly to the European Union. They pointed out that this was a way for Chisinau to have its sponsors absolve its sins while sidestepping the OSCE. Despite all its bias and partisanship, the OSCE’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights pointed to the “misuse of administrative resources” by the Moldovan government in its interim report.

Independent observers said that the outcome of the referendum would have been a total failure for the current Moldovan government, had the country’s Central Electoral Commission taken all these circumstances into consideration.

Right after the voting results were released, the Moldovan authorities blamed their failure on external actors instead of blaming themselves. One thing we can agree upon is that external dealings did play a role, coming from the United States and the EU.

Maia Sandu said that freedom and democracy suffered an unprecedented attack in Moldova on behalf of criminal groups – what kind of groups, let me ask – as well as external forces seeking to undermine the country’s national interests by using lies and propaganda and throwing tens of millions of euros into the effort to achieve their goals. Was she taking about President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen who travelled to Moldova on the eve of the election bringing, according to the President of Moldova, “tens of millions of euros?”

Maia Sandu said that vote buying involved 300,000 people. Was she the one who bought them? Of course, she failed to show any details or evidence, and I have every reason to believe that we will not see any evidence. Just like their Western sponsors, the Moldovan authorities would not go beyond referring to classified intelligence. This offers us a good pretext for responding in kind.

Western leaders and EU officials spoke out in one voice, as if they were following the same playbook. On October 21, 2024, the European Commission and the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy released a statement saying that “Russia and its proxies actively tried to undermine the democratic and voting process in Moldova.” During his briefing in Brussels, Peter Stano, the European Commission’s lead spokesperson for foreign affairs – we regularly refer to his statement to reject what he says – blamed our country for its “unprecedented interference,” busing voters to the polling stations and buying their votes. He got it right only regarding the unprecedented interference. It did take place, but it was the United States and the European Union who did it. Their envoys kept coming to Chisinau for all these months to campaign for Maia Sandu, her would-be European vision, and brought money, making no secret out of their efforts.

Once again, both Chisinau and Brussels turned a blind eye to the true causes behind the election results. They also refused to recognise the real outcome by replacing it with what they presented as accurate figures.

Contrary to what the European Commission and its High Representatives have been saying, all these reasons have nothing to do with the Russian forces or their dealings. They demonstrate the will of the people of Moldova to be independent and to speak the Moldovan language. They want to be friends and cooperate with those who have been their reliable friends, defenders and comrades at all times, instead of following the instructions from overseas.

Russia will always respect and support the friendly people of Moldova and promote their fundamental interests.

back to top

 

Terrorist attacks on Nord Stream gas pipelines

 

As time goes by, it is becoming obvious that one or even several non-state actors would be unable to stage acts of sabotage and terrorist attacks on such a scale. I am not talking about individuals, portrayed as Ukrainian divers.

This highly sophisticated operation involving extremely deep dives and the use of military-grade explosives would require substantial resources and equipment, owned only by sovereign states that probably also have access to technical documents of the Nord Stream gas pipelines. By the way, this is a transborder crime. It was necessary to transport all this somehow crossing EU borders.

Sweden’s Royal Institute of Technology and the concerned Finnish experts confirm these findings.

According to available reports, employees of the UK’s Optima Defence and Security Group Ltd., that is currently being liquidated and that specialised in demolition works and mine clearance operations, had completed deep-water research projects near the Ertholmene archipelago and Bornholm Island in Denmark’s exclusive economic zone in August and September 2022, that is, prior to explosions of the Nord Stream pipelines. This British company was a subcontractor of the British Ministry of Defence, the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines. Former high-ranking British Army officers supervised its performance. Its employees have rich experience of working in multiple hot spots in Africa and the Middle East. These works were commissioned by the National Environmental Research Institute of Denmark and the Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute. These facts serve as additional evidence confirming a theory that Western states were directly involved in blowing up these gas pipelines, and thus perpetrating an act of international terrorism.

Against this backdrop, attempts by the collective West to avoid responsibility for this act of sabotage, this terrorist attack on a key facility of the transborder energy infrastructure seems to be even more hypocritical, cynical, outrageous, appalling and monstrous.

It is common knowledge that Danish and Swedish authorities had stopped their national investigations at a certain moment, despite the absence of any results. They simply said that they would investigate nothing because they were unable to make any headway, and they closed the case. At the same time, Copenhagen and Stockholm stubbornly refused to cooperate with our country in establishing the truth. Berlin that obviously continues to investigate the incident on paper alone is toeing a similar line. In reality, all this will produce no results or will generate another far-fetched “fairy tale” about a brave Ukrainian frogman.

The refusal of Western countries to support a Russia-sponsored draft resolution of the UN Security Council that called for an independent investigation under UN auspices in March 2023 is quite telling. Various options were suggested, including under the auspices of the UN Secretary-General, a special rapporteur or a certain group of countries. All of them were rejected. Owing to the stubborn resistance of Washington and its satellites, this initiative failed to obtain the required nine votes for entering into force. Later, the United States and their subordinates repeatedly torpedoed Russia’s draft statements by the President of the UN Security Council on this issue. They voiced a similar refusal quite recently.

On October 4, 2024, speaking at a themed briefing, organised by the Russian Federation, we were forced to announce a decision to stop drafting another document in the context of Western representatives’ reluctance to reach consensus on this issue. Indicatively, the United States and its cronies stubbornly declined to include the word “terrorism” in the draft document in any form (terrorism, terrorist attack, terrorist). I believe, you remember that we discussed this issue. At the same time, addressing voters on September 14, 2024, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz openly pointed out the terrorist essence of this crime.

In any event, destructive actions of the Western camp have not changed our intentions and our determination to obtain justice. We are convinced that everyone, including culprits, masterminds, perpetrators, all kinds of transiters and mediators, everyone involved in the terrorist attack that caused dire economic and environmental consequences, should get the punishment they deserve. Russia intends to make sure that the UN Security Council and the entire international community continue to focus on this issue.

back to top

 

Anniversary of the terrorist attack at Dubrovka Theatre

 

Today is the 22nd anniversary of the monstrous in scale and cruelty terrorist attack at Dubrovka Theatre. I will remind you that on October 23, 2002, a group of 40 armed militants took hostages in the Dubrovka Theatre Centre in Mocow (former Palace of Culture of the First State Ball Bearing Plant). At the time of the seizure the audience watched the second act of the Nord-Ost musical. The hostages included 912 people: the audience, actors and employees of the Theatre Centre as well as 100 schoolchildren.

Leader of the terrorist group Movsar Barayev demanded that the Russian authorities stop the counter-terrorist operation of federal troops in Chechnya. The militants booby-trapped the auditorium and placed female suicide bombers with explosive belts among the audience. People were held for several days in inhuman conditions without water and food.

As a result of this heinous terrorist act 130 hostages died and 782 survived, out of whom 700 were injured to varying degrees of severity. All the militants in the building were eliminated.

These are merely naked results of the terrorist atrocities in the Russian capital 22 years ago. When you talk to those in the audience, the picture appears in horrifying detail, with many personal tragedies and boundless human grief. We mourn with the near and dear of the victims.

We remember that Shamil Basayev took responsibility for the perpetration, and the direct perpetrators were members of illegal gangs operating at the time in the North Caucasus.

I am returning to this subject here at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs precisely because the West was behind them, as it is now behind the Kiev regime. They were supported, romanticised and glorified in every possible way. They were called “freedom fighters” at that time. They were ready to kill and killed civilians, exactly as the Kiev regime is doing now, crowding people into one place, closing them off, not allowing anyone to get out: neither children, nor women, nor the seriously ill. Just the same is happening in the concentration camps where the residents of the Kursk Region, who did not have enough time to leave their homes, were driven. And this is done by the Kiev regime on Western money and with Western weapons in hands.

Currently, our country is again facing threats to security, including from members of international terrorist organisations who, with the direct involvement of the collective West, have joined the banners of armed units of the Kiev regime.

Russia keeps on pursuing its policy of non-tolerance (or zero tolerance, as they say in the West) to any manifestations of terrorism. We will continue to fight this evil in concert with the constructively minded partners and allies, who share our approaches in this area.

back to top

 

Germany reforms restitution process regarding Nazi-looted cultural property

 

Germany has launched a reform of its process for returning Nazi-looted cultural property to Holocaust victims and their heirs. Let’s take a closer look at what they are actually doing. The underlying idea is to simplify the consideration of the owners’ or their heirs’ application for restitution. The current system requires both parties including the current owner of the artefact to agree on a claim before the process can be started. This was almost impossible to achieve, and has been a rare occasion.

Simplifying the procedure seems like a great initiative. The victims of the Nazis now have the opportunity to reclaim what was taken from them, even if decades later. What’s the problem? There is one, however.

All these efforts to facilitate the restitution of stolen property have been announced only in relation to one ethnic group. If we are talking about Holocaust victims, according to international law, the term embraces all victims of the Nazi atrocities – not only Jews. Moreover, this is exactly how the concept is phrased in the UN General Assembly resolutions, OSCE materials, and similar organisations’ documents – regarding various groups and minorities. This is stated very clearly. However, for some reason, the Federal Republic of Germany prefers to single out only one group of victims and make it eligible for restitution. Doesn’t this sound familiar?

In the same way, the German government has been stubbornly refusing to recognise the siege of Leningrad and other crimes committed by the Nazis in the Soviet Union as genocide of the peoples of the USSR. Of all the Leningrad siege survivors, Germany only makes humanitarian payments to ethnic Jews. This looks uncannily like a reincarnation of ethnic segregation, with Jews being framed again. Russia’s demands to extend these payments to all survivors of the siege without any discrimination by ethnicity, by any minority or majority groups, have been consistently ignored. If anything, this is tragicomic. One has no other comment to make.

Meanwhile, the German government does pay social benefits to individuals who served in the SS troops (no, it isn’t a slip of the tongue) during World War II, including to those directly responsible for the siege of Leningrad. Yes, that’s right. Not to the victims, but to those who planned that siege and followed through with it. The German government still provides them with social support.

We will continue to closely monitor the new restitution procedure with regard to the stolen art, since many Holocaust victims reside in our country, among other places. We will do everything to achieve justice based on the law.

I want to emphasise that making only one ethnic group eligible for a simplified restitution process is actually illegal. The Germans have no right to segregate people. We see this as another manifestation of not just hypocrisy, not just double standards, but racism verging on Nazism, and a proof that Berlin has no understanding of its historical responsibility. The country’s authorities continue to cynically divide the victims of Nazi crimes into categories, with some being more worthy than others.

back to top

 

Establishment of Multilateral Sanctions Monitoring Team

 

On October 16, 2024, the United States, the Republic of Korea and Japan issued a joint statement on the establishment of an 11-member “multilateral sanctions monitoring team.” Acting in circumvention of the UN Security Council, these “enthusiasts” have taken the liberty to monitor compliance with the UNSC sanctions against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) and to report the results of such monitoring.

That initiative has nothing in common with the non-proliferation goals or compliance with the relevant UNSC resolutions. Its authors have openly disregarded international law in the pursuit of their self-centred and politically biased interests that have nothing to do with the maintenance of peace and security, such as a world order based on “rules” and the “smash-and-grab” principle.

We would like to remind everyone in this context that the UNSC 1718 Sanctions Committee, which the above group has decided to replace, was dissolved because of the complete bias of the majority of its members, who harmed the international reputation of that auxiliary UNSC body and further complicated the situation on the Korean Peninsula.

We believe that attempts by certain countries or groups of countries to usurp any powers of the UNSC and its bodies are illegal, and the potential results of their activities will have no legitimate power. Such activities can only further aggravate tensions and create additional threats to regional security.

It is strange that it was the United States that has initiated the idea of monitoring compliance with sanctions regarding the DPRK. During the 20 years when the US-led NATO mission operated in Afghanistan, it operated under a UNSCR mandate, under which it was to report to the Council, that is, the international community, on its operations and the situation in Afghanistan. However, the United States has not reported even once over that 20-year period. They did not initiate the establishment of a team to monitor the activities of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan despite the frequent, more than that, almost daily reports of the atrocities committed there by them, such as the bombing of a wedding, the murder of children, corruption, drug trafficking, and an increase of areas sown with narcotic crops. The general public read about this almost every day. However, he United States and NATO did not deem it necessary to monitor their own actions or report to the UNSC, under their obligations, or to the international community as a whole or its individual members. But they are ready to do all of that regarding the DPRK.

The Russian Federation is seriously concerned about the continuing aggravation in Northeast Asia as the result of irresponsible actions by the United States and its allies.

There is no doubt that the policy of mounting sanctions pressure is misguided, useless and inhuman, and should be replaced with peaceful diplomacy based on mutual respect.

back to top

 

80th anniversary of the USSR’s recognition of the Provisional Government of the French Republic

 

During World War II, France fell under the control of the collaborationist Vichy regime and the Nazi invaders. On the Eastern Front, not only were the forcibly mobilised people from Alsace and Lorraine fighting against the USSR, but also French citizens who voluntarily joined the Wehrmacht to take part in “the anti-Bolshevik campaign.” It is no coincidence that London and Washington seriously considered occupying France after World War II, due to the significant extent of collaboration within the country.

Meanwhile, Moscow saw a future for France that was untainted by collaborationism and placed its bets on those French patriots who did not lay down their arms, but stood shoulder to shoulder in the ranks of the fighters against fascism. Our country put its faith in French anti-fascism.

Close cooperation was established with the Free France movement led by General Charles de Gaulle. The Normandie-Niemen air regiment, created on his orders, became one of the most striking symbols of Russian-French brotherhood in arms during World War II. Its memory is revered in our country to this day.

On August 12, 2024, a new sculptural composition dedicated to this iconic unit was unveiled in the Patriot Military Patriotic Park of Culture and Recreation of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation.

The significant contribution of Russians and Soviet prisoners to the success of the French Resistance movement is also noteworthy. We have talked about this many times during our briefings.

The chronicles of our compatriots’ selfless feat were presented in detail, in particular, at the Russian-French expert online conference organised by the National Centre for Historical Memory under the President of the Russian Federation on August 26, 2024, to mark the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Paris from Nazi occupation, which received a wide media response.

The USSR’s recognition of the Provisional Government of the French Republic on October 23, 1944, paved the way for Charles de Gaulle’s historical visit to the USSR in December 1944, resulting in the signing of a bilateral Treaty of Alliance and Mutual Assistance, which served as the foundation for comprehensive cooperation between Moscow and Paris in the final period of World War II. Largely thanks to the USSR, France became one of the victorious powers and received a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.

October 23 is the day that marked the starting point in interstate relations between Russia and France. The history of relations between the two countries is much larger and more extensive. It goes back centuries. But if we talk about the modern period, this is the starting point. But what do we see now? How do we celebrate this date? Do both sides commemorate it?

The French authorities are mired in their anti-Russia phobias, openly supporting Nazi followers in Ukraine. They have forgotten this date. But we remember. We advise Paris to also recall to whom France owes the preservation and strengthening of its positions in international affairs in the second half of the 20th century.

back to top

 

Global Dance Overture project launched at BRRICS Summit

 

All political news, the announcement of bilateral and multilateral events, and materials about their results are provided by the Presidential Executive Office and its press service. But there is also a cultural track on which we would like to brief you.

On October 24, the Kostroma Russian National Ballet will present a National Dance Show within the framework of the BRICS Summit’s cultural programme. Its aim is to acquaint the audiences with our county’s diversity through the folk dance culture of its ethnic groups. The show will launch an international cultural and educational project, the Global Dance Overture, which will be held in the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and China in 2025, and in Brazil, India, Ethiopia and South Arica in 2026.

Supported by the Foreign Ministry and the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation, the project includes performances, workshops and presentations. It will not only acquaint foreign audiences with the unique and diverse folk dance culture of Russia’s ethnic groups, but will also include an educational programme aimed at promoting the development of a global choreographic community.

It is expected that the combined efforts of various dance groups within the Global Dance Overture will be crowned with a festival of BRICS countries’ dance cultures, which is scheduled to take place in Russia in 2026.

back to top

 

Answers to media questions:

Question: The other day, French Defence Minister Sebastien Lecornu said the time was right to discuss deploying a “conventional deterrence” package in Ukraine. “Imagine a ceasefire or a peace treaty. You will realise that the issue of deploying non-nuclear deterrent forces in Ukraine to be able to repel a new threat from Russia is obviously a question that already needs to be addressed,” Lecornu said. How would you comment on that?

Maria Zakharova: I would like to comment on the historical dates we have in common with Paris, which I mentioned in my opening remarks. However, I have to comment on what you have said just now.

Paris has long been talking about deploying a French intervention force in Ukraine. President Emmanuel Macron voiced the idea at the beginning of the year. However, the majority of European capitals have not voiced their unconditional support for this initiative.

It is not that the French defence minister has said something new. He is not the only representative of the collective West who is playing with the idea of sending foreign troops to Ukraine. You know what this scenario will lead to in practice. I can tell those who have forgotten: it will lead to a direct military confrontation between nuclear powers, with catastrophic consequences.  If the French General Staff regards this gloomy perspective as possible, we can only express condolences to the population of the Fifth Republic.

As for Mr Lecornu, I would like to remind him personally that attempts to “deter” Russia or inflict a “strategic defeat” on it ended badly for France in the past.  Slightly more than 200 years ago, the term “Berezina” entered the French language as a synonym for disaster and a reminder of the river where the last units of Napoleon’s Grande Armée were routed. Another Russian word that entered French is “bistro,” a reminder of the Russian Cossacks’ deployment in Paris in 1814. If the French minister takes a look at the map, he will see that the Berezina River connects to the Dnieper. Overall, I think he should reread his history and geography lessons before grabbing a microphone. 

back to top

Question: Quoting several sources from the Group of Seven, Nikkei Asia reported that G7 members plan to keep the Russian assets frozen even after the Ukrainian conflict ends, and guaranteed Kiev a $50 billion loan that will be paid back using the profit from these assets. How could you comment on this report?

Maria Zakharova: It is nothing new. We have commented on the idea of the Kiev regime receiving a loan to be paid back with the profit from the frozen Russian assets, many times. This is plain theft. There is no other way to describe it. The Western countries not only hold the sovereign reserves of our country but also reinvest them without our consent to obtain unplanned profit. This is a clear illustration of another neo-colonial course that the Anglo-Saxons and their satellites are pursuing with respect to the countries of the Global Majority.

Everybody understands that no loans or military supplies will help the Kiev regime. They certainly make the situation for Ukrainian citizens worse and will contribute to the continuing genocide of Ukrainians at the hands of Vladimir Zelensky. At the same time, nobody is rushing to provide Ukraine with interest-free support.

According to the plans that the EU is drafting (specifically, Brussels plans to secure the main part of the $50 billion loan with the future income from the Russian assets), if the frozen assets are insufficient for loan payment, the Kiev officials will have to pay the debt using their own resources. Leading the country to a suicide and then forcing those who are still alive to bury themselves – at their own expense – this is horrific. Is it the only trick that the West practices? Certainly, not. They have spoken about their experience in Vietnam.

It is hard to believe that somebody could see a scenario like this as realistic. The Kiev regime is bankrupt. It lives only on the Western money, with the West’s political and military support.

Either way, no illegal tricks, manipulation or attempts to reinvent it or make seizing the Russian assets legal will go without our response. They will not force our country to pay for this bloody disgrace that the West has created in Ukraine despite all the hostile rhetoric coming from Washington along with Brussels and London that quack and snort to its tune.

Any attempts to take away Russian property will entail a response – and a rather painful one. They know it. Moreover, the systemic effect from the Westerners’ unlawful activity will be destructive primarily for them.

back to top

Question: How would you comment on yesterday’s incident at Vnukovo International Airport when a delegation from the British Foreign Office arrived in Moscow? Russian journalists trying to ask questions were rudely rebuked by British Embassy officials meeting the delegation.

Maria Zakharova: I just saw these videos earlier. I am receiving numerous clips of the incident. It is hard to believe this happened. I asked my colleagues about the situation while you were asking this question. This is simply astounding.

The fact is that visitors from London have arrived in the Russian capital. The “gentlemen” are here. This is quite amusing. The arrival of British “gentlemen” at Vnukovo airport emphasises the current state of British society as it stands. It reflects their attitude towards everything, including the high standards they often proclaim in their behaviour, as well as their views on freedom of speech and media pluralism.Let me explain. People with microphones and recorders tried to ask questions. Minister-Councillor Tom Todd, Deputy Head of the Mission in Russia, shoved the Russian journalists and even tore an accreditation badge from one of them. He nearly broke the camera of another media representative. This is what British “pluralism of opinions and freedom of speech” look like.

We have noted how London mocks and belittles Russian journalists. They did not extend accreditations, did not issue visas and prevented them from attending various events. We were told that while they claim to respect media representatives, they do not consider Russian journalists to be part of that category.

I still need to take a closer look at these videos. However, judging by what I have just seen, British officials have an utter disregard for journalists’ safety, freedom of speech and respect for their profession.

I cannot fathom anyone tearing off a badge. British diplomats—whose freedom of movement is not impeded by anyone—are pushing and shoving journalists, both men and women, attempting to damage their equipment, and so forth.

When Russian ambassadors or other diplomats arrive at their posts at the beginning of their diplomatic mission, they engage with members of the media present at the airport. I recall how Russian and local journalists surrounded our ambassadors returning to a host country after a vacation or business trip and asked questions on current issues. I consider this to be the norm.

On the other hand, Annalena Baerbock has recently demonstrated the same kind of behaviour. Her entourage prevented a Russian film crew led by Valentin Bogdanov from asking her a question at the UN Headquarters. Later, they filed a complaint demanding that the rights of Russian journalists at the UN Headquarters be curtailed. Naturally, we upheld their rights. However, this amounts to one and the same style: to prevent journalists from doing their job, despite their required accreditation and the appropriateness of the location, which offers ample opportunities. I do not know what questions they asked, but judging by the video, they attempted to hear the position of the British Embassy’s representatives on issues they consider topical.

The British establishment and their diplomats in Moscow should, at long last, understand that they can reserve their remaining neo-colonial attitudes for their own journalists. They may attempt to treat the BBC, Reuters, CNN and Associated Press journalists in that manner. Let them try to treat a journalist from The Sun newspaper the same way and take away their accreditation badge. I will be interested to see what happens to them. Let them behave that way towards British or American journalists who have the misfortune of being in their way.

I advise British diplomats to refresh their knowledge of Russian legislation on this issue. Perhaps they are unaware of it.

Return the accreditation badge. It does not belong to you. If you threw it away, go back to Vnukovo airport and look for it, and send it to the Russian journalist with apologies.

back to top

Question: This year Russia chairs BRICS under the motto Strengthening Multilateralism for Just Global Development and Security. China, in its turn, stands for an equitable and orderly multipolar world as well as for generally available and inclusive economic globalisation. How do you view the similarities in the positions of the two countries? How do you assess China's efforts in promoting a multipolar world and democratisation of international relations, as well as in realising genuine multilateralism?

Maria Zakharova: You know it but I will repeat. Russian-Chinese relations stabilise and balance international affairs. It is a kind of a guarantor of international relations.

The approaches of our countries to the aspects of a multipolar world practically coincide. Moscow and Beijing advocate adaptation of the existing international system to polycentric realities, to make it fairer and more equitable, better taking into account the aspirations and development needs of the global majority rather than those of Western states. Not in word, but in deed, they advocate such principles of interstate interaction as respect for the right of each country to choose its own model of development and traditions, cooperation based on a balance of interests, mutual benefit and the rule of law, non-strengthening of own security at the expense of others’ security.

Russia and the PRC do not accept any hegemony in world affairs and jointly oppose sanction pressure, attempts of political diktat and blackmail, as well as other neocolonial Western practices. We are interested in restoring the role of the United Nations as a centre for coordinating countries’ efforts in achieving the goals of the UN Charter, developing regional integration, and attach a great role to such mechanisms of enhancing multipolarity and multilateralism as BRICS and SCO.

We believe and hope that the United Nations will be able to overcome the crisis effects imposed and enforced on it by Western countries. We are not doing this idly, but are preserving the UN principles of international law, enshrined in the UN Charter, and developing them, in particular, within the BRICS framework. Let's see whether the UN will be able to survive or whether the Westerners will sink it. We are doing our utmost to contribute to its survival, but we do not rely on chance alone; we are doing everything to let these principles survive and are creating a good nutrient soil for it.

The abovementioned approaches are recorded in detail in the following bilateral documents: China-Russia Joint Declaration on a Multipolar World and the Establishment of a New International Order of  1997, Joint Declaration between the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China on international order in the 21st century of 2005, Joint Statement by the Foreign Ministers of China and Russia on Certain Aspects of Global Governance in Modern Conditions  оf 2021, and Joint Statement of the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China on the International Relations Entering a New Era and the Global Sustainable Development of 2022.

back to top

Question: The Japanese and US armed forces will hold a large-scale military exercise, Keen Sword 25, involving 45,000 troops, on October 25 – November 1. Japanese media report that many Japanese citizens have sent letters or joint statements of protest to local authorities over the past few days. Russia previously stated that, considering Japan’s plans to hold military exercises near the Russian border, Russia will take decisive countermeasures. Will Moscow take action? What impact do you think this military exercise will have on the situation in the region?

Maria Zakharova: Keen Sword 25 joint Japanese-US military exercise is the focus of our increased attention, because they also include areas of Hokkaido in close proximity to the Russian borders. On October 11, we sent a protest to the Japanese side on this matter as a pre-emptive measure, pointing out that such a practice was categorically unacceptable. Its scale is constantly expanding, including engagement of non-regional NATO member states.

Last week, during a working-level contact between the foreign ministries in Moscow, we expressed regret that our protest had been ignored. We warned the other side that we would have to take adequate countermeasures in order to strengthen our defence capability. It must be understood that these are not one-off actions, but a consistent course in the interests of ensuring the security of the Russian Federation.

It is clear for us that exercises like these escalate tensions in the Asia-Pacific Region and serve as an essential element of the attempts to form a containment system for Russia and China and implant NATO-centric institutions in the region. The official Tokyo directly compares this process to weaving a network. We would like to warn that we have sufficient military, political and other means to cut and neutralise all the “knots” in this net “knitted” there.

back to top

Question: A scandalous referendum on European integration was held in Moldova.

Maria Zakharova: Don’t call it just scandalous. It is a falsified referendum. Call it what it is. “Scandalous” does not imply that its results are falsified. For example, violations that did not affect the voting results are scandalous. It is scandalous when some truly extraordinary events could have taken place in the background. It can be scandalous according to someone's assessments, subjective or perhaps objective.

This is falsification and this is what it must be called. How have we arrived at this conclusion? I spoke about this in the introductory part of the briefing. We have been pointing this out all this time: how the opposition in Moldova is being silenced, freedom of speech is being destroyed, the media is being shut down, and the entire political life of Moldova is being put under control using administrative resources.

It is a falsified referendum. That is what it should be called.

back to top

Question: The EU is now perceived as a strategic adversary of Russia. Doesn’t the Foreign Ministry believe that the accession of such weak, problem-ridden, and subsidised countries as Moldova and Ukraine to the EU might be advantageous for Russia, as it could potentially weaken and divide the European Union?

Maria Zakharova: First and foremost, the characterisation you mentioned does not emanate from us. Our intention was to foster relations both with the EU member states and the organisation in its entirety. We have observed an aggressive stance from the "other side" – a discriminatory attitude towards us, which only intensified over time. Subsequently, we began to observe the European Union's alignment with NATO and how all economic decisions became contingent on political or military-political determinations. We then encountered hostile rhetoric. Following that, they embarked on the very "offensive" they now describe as a "strategic defeat" to be imposed upon Russia.

Initially, it was not us who exhibited disrespect towards the EU or adopted an aggressive approach. Rather, it was the EU (whether acting autonomously or under external influence – this is a matter for scholars and historians to investigate, or perhaps it is time to address it now) that instigated the dysfunction of normal international relations.

The second point I wish to address is that NATO is expanding eastward, including under the aegis, under the "guise" of the European Union. All EU decisions substantiate that the policy of enlargement and expansion has evolved solely into a geopolitical instrument for imposing rivalry and ensuring dominance in Europe by such unlawful means.

The imperial ambitions of the Brussels leadership to extend the borders of the EU are evident. These ambitions are being pursued through neo-colonial methods reminiscent of those that should have been consigned to history, especially given that Europe has ratified numerous human rights documents that ought to have precluded such actions. However, it appears all of these have been disregarded.

The primary victims of these geopolitical ambitions, rooted in imperial thinking, hegemonism, and, to put it plainly, the aspiration to seize the entire national resource base, are weak, problematic, subsidised countries that were transitioning towards building their nationhood. They have never been independent and should have "taken wing" to strengthen their sovereignty and independence. A colossal blow has been dealt to them. This includes both Moldova and Ukraine. It is openly acknowledged that politicians in Chisinau and Bucharest are seriously contemplating the absorption of Moldova by Romania. Who has been appointed as Moldova's sitz-chairperson? A Romanian national.

The European Union's manoeuvrings concerning the European integration process of Kiev and Chisinau epitomise the essence of the so-called rules-based order. This order is predicated upon the West's exclusive prerogative to unilaterally modify terms and agreements in accordance with the prevailing environment. It is the prerogative of the powerful – to act as they please. The prerogative of the strong and the unwise, for truly intelligent individuals would refrain from such conduct. The new dividing lines being drawn by Brussels in Europe will contribute neither to stability and security nor to the trust in the European Union by the Global Majority. Such a scenario does not align with the genuine interests of the European populace, whom the EU leadership, both collectively and as individual regimes, is attempting to make bear the cost of implementing a confrontational policy and strategic blunders of the West. The cost will be significant. Experts estimate that the European integration of Ukraine alone will impose a financial burden of $200 billion on EU member states. Who will bear this cost? Ukraine? They will dismantle every remaining Ukrainian for "spare parts" in the form of organ translants, will they not? With what will they pay? Many of the current EU recipient countries will transition into donor countries, Poland being a case in point. The financial burden will manifest as increased taxation on ordinary citizens, whose social and economic circumstances are already less than enviable, having fallen victim to the short-sighted policies of their leaders.

The potential accession of problem-ridden states such as Moldova and Ukraine to the EU would evidently neither bolster the European Union nor consolidate it. Let us recall a pertinent historical example: some ramifications of the major expansion of 2004 are still being "digested" by EU citizens - in a negative sense, akin to indigestion. This is evident in the way people lead their lives today.

Regarding our interests, they lie in pan-European cooperation. It was for this purpose that we constructed the Nord Streams. What advantage do we derive from the western part of our shared continent faltering and becoming a lagging region globally? What benefit accrues to Russia from the proliferation of Western arms supplied to the Kiev regime across Finland, or from the erosion of law and order in Western Europe? Or from millions of refugees and migrants, undocumented and unassimilated, who are effectively transforming life within the European Union, turning it into a realm that scarcely resembles the European space? This is not a space of multiculturalism; rather, chaos is being imposed upon Western Europe. What benefit is there for us? There is none. This is merely an immediate conjuncture, one we have never subscribed to. We have consistently championed the establishment of long-term, friendly, mutually beneficial economic relations characterised by partnership or allied relationships. This is our interest.

Nevertheless, we are monitoring the developments unfolding in Western Europe and are aligning ourselves with other countries and regions of the world where such relationships are esteemed, respected, and reciprocated.

back to top

Question: Many experts and political analysts agree that BRICS is an integral part of the multipolar world order. Therefore, it is not surprising that the West, namely the counties that are focused on hegemony and unipolarity will do their utmost to prevent other countries from joining the group and to put pressure on those that have already done this. Do you think they will try to do this?

Maria Zakharova: They won’t do this openly. I think that they will try to do this indirectly and behind the scenes, by imposing sanctions, introducing restrictions and putting pressure under various pretexts.

Despite their illogical behaviour, they understand that [multipolarity] is an irreversible process.

BRICS has taken shape and is gathering momentum, producing concrete results in the interests of everyone involved – countries, nations and individuals, companied, enterprises, NGOs, and ordinary people. It is a beacon of hope in a world that was standing at the edge of chaos. It is a symbol showing that all the best things we have created and developed in international relations can be maintained, applied and improved on the BRICS platform.

In the context of ongoing deep transformations in the global economy and politics, the West’s attempts to maintain its privileges through illegitimate, illegal and unlawful mechanisms and tactics, sanctions, military coercion and all other instruments available to them contradict the logic of historical development and have no chances of achieving the desired result.

That is why we are promoting multipolarity and stimulating its development, because we understand that the Western liberal democratic or ultra-liberal logic in international relations and the national structure of states has reached the dead-end. Therefore, we need an alternative, and we have it. Everything they are doing now is trying to deter the undeterrable. Multipolarity is gaining momentum, and it is useless to resist it, although they will try.

As we pointed out on numerous occasions, providing facts to prove the validity of this concept, movement from unipolarity towards a system with numerous centres and civilisational platforms is an objective process that is gathering speed. The economic potential of the new centres of power in Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Middle East is growing, along with a desire to play an independent role in international affairs.

There is a growing demand for the formats that are based on mutual respect for each other’s interests and development paths, and a positive forward-looking agenda rather than revanchism. BRICS meets all these requirements.

This group is winning increasingly more like-minded partners who share a common stiving for a non-aligned, just and equal world order and a comprehensive architecture of international cooperation and indivisible security.

We look forward to hearing the statements of national leaders, who will tell us about the results of their work in the multilateral and bilateral formats. Let’s wait for their assessments.

back to top

Question: Armenia’s Deputy Prime Minister Mher Grigoryan stated that the Moscow-Baku-Yerevan trilateral commission on unblocking regional transport links had suspended its work for lack of consensus on certain matters. Creating a corridor connecting mainland Azerbaijan with Nakhchivan across Armenia’s Syunik Region remains the key unresolved issue. Does Moscow still hope to see transport links open in the region?

Maria Zakharova: It’s not about hope, but about finding a mutually acceptable solution for Baku and Yerevan. The Trilateral Working Group co-chaired by deputy prime ministers of Russia, Azerbaijan, and Armenia has been working hard toward this end. We are ready to continue providing comprehensive support to our partners. The unblocking of transport links would benefit the entire region.

I would also like to turn the spotlight on a recent statement by Deputy Prime Minister and Co-Chair of the Trilateral Working Group Alexei Overchuk who pointed out that “the economic and transport corridors in the South Caucasus can be unblocked only with Russia’s involvement.” We are working on that.

back to top

Question: Lead Spokesperson for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy of the European Commission Peter Stano said that voting in Moldova “took place under unprecedented interference and intimidation by Russia.” He accused Moscow of buying votes, spreading propaganda, and busing voters in, adding that the European Commission was still waiting for the OSCE observer mission to provide its assessments. He made these remarks before these assessments even became available. Why, do you think, Brussels chose not to wait for the findings from a friendly organisation such as the OSCE?

Maria Zakharova: This is a classic case of shifting the blame. Moldova is run by a Romanian citizen, yet somehow Russia is accused of interfering in the country’s domestic affairs. It’s preposterous. Official delegations from Western countries and Eurocrats came to Moldova, but Russia is accused of “interference.” When was the last time a Russian delegation visited Moldova? It was Eurocrats like European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen who promised to throw money from helicopters, yet Russia is accused of interfering.

They leveraged their power and administrative resources to bring down the number of polling stations in Russia, while increasing these numbers in Western countries, but Russia is still accused of interference. How is this even possible? The whole world saw long lines of Moldovan citizens outside their embassies. Without a Moldovan passport, they wouldn’t have been allowed into Moldovan embassies or polling stations opened by the Moldovan side, meaning that these were indeed Moldovan citizens. Everyone saw these lines. To stand in such a line, you need to be determined. It wasn’t summer and the weather wasn’t hot when staying outdoors is enjoyable. It was a fine autumn in Moscow. But to stand in line for hours and moving forward slowly due to the limited number of polling stations in Moscow, one had to be patient and determined, and be driven by the ideals that made them endure long hours of standing in line, despite the risk of retribution coming from the Chisinau authorities who have been doing all sorts of things to the people they find undesirable. Despite the fact that everyone saw Moldovan citizens form lines at the polling stations in Russia, everyone saw empty polling stations in Western countries, and yet Russia is still blamed for interference.

On the other hand, what do we expect? If Peter Stano and the West regard the terrorist regime in Kiev, which is setting up concentration camps for civilians, as a “beacon of democracy,” that means their manipulation of public opinion has reached its peak. When collaborators and Nazi criminals are touted as heroes, and monuments to them are erected in the West, among other countries, and when they cheer those of them who survived to this day and pay pensions to them, it means they are quite adept at brainwashing their own people, and can easily blame Russia for what happened in Moldova.

With regard to “who waited for whom,” Brussels didn’t really need to wait for the OSCE/ODIHR assessments to come in. The EU tried to publicly preempt these assessments because they are political patrons of the Office. Often, they themselves, as experts of the core monitoring teams, create the “electoral scenario” and the “outcomes.”

They have discarded reason and logic in their attempts to pin on us every problem the EU or those they are luring into it are facing. They do not cite references to professional data, ethics, or anything. Russophobia is all that remains in the end of the day, and Russophobia does not require corroborating evidence.

The failure to impose on the Moldovans the outcomes of the elections and the referendum in Moldova that were so much desired by the Euro-Atlantic overseers was obvious and embarrassing to the point that made the Eurocrats extremely nervous. The elections and the referendum were held with gross violations that the West won’t say a bad word about. They couldn’t hide the fact that the referendum was rigged, which everyone was aware of. All of that was a stark example of EU’s infamous double standards.

Even within the heavily biased OSCE/ODIHR, they couldn’t turn a blind eye to patent abuses. Administrative resources affiliated with the West were directly involved in the process. Anything resembling fair political competition was out of the question. No one had the chance to express their opinions or views on a par with the Moldovan officials. There was none of that. The mass deployment of Westerners is proof of that.

back to top

Question: Bidzina (Boris) Ivanishvili, honorary chairman of Georgian Dream – Democratic Georgia, the country’s ruling party, stated recently that a high-ranking Western official proposed former prime minister Irakli Garibashvili start a war with Russia. Georgia also accuses the West of attempting to interfere in the upcoming parliamentary election. What is the ultimate goal the West is pursuing in the South Caucasus?

Maria Zakharova: The West is pursuing several goals, but they are one. In fact, this puzzle picture consists of several pieces.

One goal is to maintain hegemony, that is, the ability to control processes. The second is to inflict a strategic defeat on our country, as they put it. They seek to control the region’s resources, manipulate the situation in their interests, and endlessly destabilise the South Caucasus. They would do anything to remain in control, to manage the resources, and gain benefits. They would not hesitate to unleash new wars or rekindle old conflicts. I do not have to mention their interference in the affairs of sovereign states, because the West does it all the time. [What you said] is a perfect proof of their true goals; this must be always kept in mind. Such behaviour should serve as a warning to all who try to play with the US and the EU. You need to realise what their promises are worth. The EU, Washington and London would promise you the moon, but when push comes to shove, they will produce a long list of what you have to do before you are accepted into their ‘Western family.’ They will present you with a tough plan of action that will amount to de facto renouncing sovereignty and independence (if not de jure), redirecting economic flows and resources, and implementing not just unpopular reforms, but initiatives that will kill domestic industry and destroy the economy. You will be required to re-allocate all resources in favour of the West.

back to top

Question: At the BRICS Summit, the discussion will focus, in particular, on the war in the Middle East. Do BRICS countries have shared views and approaches, or points of contact for resolving this crisis?

Maria Zakharova: The drastic situation in the Middle East is one of the central issues on the international agenda that will certainly be addressed during the BRICS Summit in Kazan.

I must remind you that the leaders of the BRICS countries have paid heightened attention to this crisis ever since the regional escalation began in October 2023. President of South Africa Cyril Ramaphosa, who chaired the group at the time, called for an extraordinary summit on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, which was held on November 21, 2023 via videoconference.

Our approaches to resolving the unprecedented crisis in the Middle East are closely aligned. They are reflected, in particular, in the joint statement, which was adopted on April 25, 2024 following consultations at the level of deputy foreign ministers/special representatives of the BRICS countries for the Middle East and North Africa chaired by Russian Presidential Representative for the Middle East and Africa and Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov. The common denominator in the BRICS countries’ respective stances on the Middle East is the need for an early ceasefire and the start of talks for a comprehensive settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, which underlies the current escalation, as provided for by the decisions of the UN Security Council and General Assembly.

back to top

Question: South Korea has been repeatedly pointing out that North Korea has sent its troops to Russia, and not just ground forces, but also military pilots. Today, Pentagon chief Lloyd Austin, who is currently in Rome, said almost the same thing. He said that Korean troops are present on Russian territory. Yet, no one is offering any proof. Can the Russian Foreign Ministry tell us whether there are North Korean troops in Russian territory? And if they are, what is their mission here?

Maria Zakharova: The answer to this question is quite simple. It is about the armed forces of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, so you can check with Pyongyang where they are deployed. These are their armed forces after all.

Secondly, it is not clear why South Korea has raised such a fuss. We see that, apart from the public statements by the country’s officials, the media have been vigorously involved, their efforts verging on propaganda. In particular, the South Korean media have been peddling these stories.

First, Russia’s military cooperation with the DPRK, as well as our cooperation in other domains, is guided by international law and is never in conflict with it, and second, it never does any damage or harm to South Korea.

It is not clear why Seoul is making such a fuss. Apparently, it was provoked by the information you mentioned, which was disseminated by the official authorities of the Republic of Korea. It would also make sense to ask Seoul why they should care where North Korean troops are. They are concerned about North Korean troops deployed close to their borders. But they seem even more concerned when they are as far from that border as can be, as they themselves claim. Well, they really need to get this straight. If you are interested, ask Seoul, and they will comment, if they think they should.

Having traced the chain of events, it is not difficult to notice who triggered those information waves and why. The first reports appeared in the Ukrainian English-language media.

South Korean intelligence service responded to the news by publishing its ‘research’. After that, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte requested a phone call with President of South Korea Yoon Suk Yeol to discuss response measures, including intensifying trilateral cooperation between the Republic of Korea, Ukraine and NATO – as was to be shown.

Everyone knows the Kiev regime has been begging the Republic of Korea for lethal weapons for over two years, trying to get the country’s officials to change their principled position. The purpose of the fuss is now clear.

I would like to emphasise once again that our cooperation with the DPRK in various areas (and we are cooperating in full view of the whole world, with mutual visits paid, agreements signed, and projects implemented in various fields) has never caused any damage or harm to South Korea. This is a principled approach that I hope will be heard in Seoul. It is of the essence for South Korea to avoid reacting to provocations. This is what West is trying to achieve.

back to top

Question: Following the elections in Moldova, what developments should be anticipated in this country?

Maria Zakharova: I believe it is quite evident.

The West will implement a strategy aimed at undermining countries that, regrettably, find themselves unable to withstand external interference driven by geopolitical ambitions. We shall undoubtedly witness clear manifestations of this approach. I earnestly hope that the people of Moldova will defend their sovereignty, their genuine national identity, culture, history, language, and ethnicity, which are currently being rewritten as circumstances permit.

back to top

Question: The British government has "exhumed" the Skripal case, there is no other way to call it. This case is again being stirred up in public hearings.

Let me remind you that this is a public inquiry into the case of July 8, 2018, when British national Dawn Sturgess, aged 44, died under mysterious circumstances. Her boyfriend, Charlie Rowley, discovered a bottle of perfume in a bin and, unfortunately, made the ill-considered decision to gift it to his girlfriend. Consequently, she applied the perfume, leading to her tragic demise, while he survived. How would you comment on this situation? What is currently transpiring in Britain once more? From where does this Skripal case resurface, and what does it entail?

Maria Zakharova: Over the years, we have consistently maintained a proactive and assertive stance in presenting the international community with the factual narrative of the events that occurred in Salisbury and Amesbury.

We shall persist in our observation. At present, we witness the utilisation of a quasi-judicial mechanism by the British establishment to embed within the public consciousness an anti-Russia interpretation of the 2018 incidents. This endeavour is intended to perpetuate the dissemination of Russophobia. This is because all matters related to the Kiev regime, Ukraine, and the situation surrounding Vladimir Zelensky have begun to operate counterproductively for official London. The narrative has reached a saturation point, becoming intolerable for the people.

The British public had an opportunity to witness the reality of Ukraine when its citizens arrived in the United Kingdom. Despite encountering various forms of exclusion, denial, and limitation on entry, they eventually arrived under specific quotas. The British authorities have experienced firsthand the aggressive Russophobic tendencies of this Ukrainian faction. They observed the reality – not those Ukrainians who acknowledge our shared history, honour the heroes of World War II and the Great Patriotic War, and harbour no ill will but rather perceive merit in cooperation, friendship, and engagement. Instead, they encountered those with a nationalistic inclination akin to the image of a sickle poised at the throat of their target in this "field of rye," or perhaps more aptly termed "field of lies." They have witnessed it themselves, rendering it futile to propagate the notion of a mythical adversary of democracy. Such attempts no longer bear fruit.

As with Usama bin Laden in his time, who, on the one hand, was described by Anglo-Saxon tabloids as "a warrior on the path of democracy," only to subsequently be declared by the West as terrorist number one, we observe a similar situation here. Vladimir Zelensky and the entire junta have transitioned from being perceived as a "warrior" or "democratic reformer" to being viewed as "warriors for Western values," and have now descended to the level of ordinary terrorists, criminals, drug lords, and representatives of the international drug cartel engaged in various forms of international crime. Consequently, this topic can no longer be utilised as a tool. The public is already fatigued and sceptical of all this. Hence, the incidents in Salisbury and Amesbury, involving Sergey and Yulia Skripal, Dawn Sturgess, and others, have resurfaced.

Yet another attempt to associate the events in Amesbury with the provocation surrounding Sergey or Yulia Skripal has been noted. It appears there is a renewed effort to incite anti-Russia sentiments within the British community, given the involvement of a British citizen who perished. It may be prudent to observe some legal procedure to ascertain what transpired in her case.

Despite all the bias, investigation officials were compelled to acknowledge the evident inconsistencies in the British narrative of the Sergey or Yulia Skripal case, which we have been addressing over the years. Furthermore, these inconsistencies are also highlighted in the publication on the website of the Russian Embassy in London, titled Salisbury: Five Years of Unanswered Questions.

This entire situation is characterised by a politicised and non-transparent nature. It clearly indicates that the British authorities are not committed to a fair and impartial trial in the Skripal case. They are deliberately delaying the investigation, diverting it down a misleading path, and politicising the issue. This underscores the apparent frame-up nature of the events and reveals that the true aim of the measures taken during Theresa May's premiership was to tarnish our country's international reputation and bilateral relations.

Moreover, Britain is still uncertain about the circumstances surrounding Princess Diana's death. Numerous theories were proposed, the investigation prolonged, alternative versions expressed, and conclusions drawn, amidst accusations of incompetence or intentional obfuscation. The public remains puzzled about what had happened there. Some witnesses have vanished or claimed amnesia. There is a lack of evidence, facts, and so on. She was a prominent public figure, if not "number one" in hierarchy, then certainly "number one" in terms of public interest. The event that captured everyone's keen interest abruptly concluded one day in the Paris tunnel. The curiosity persists, yet no trace of it can be found.

back to top

Question: Can you tell us about the Volunteers of Victory International Forum that is currently taking place in Moscow?

Maria Zakharova: The Volunteers of Victory International Forum engages in combatting the falsification of history by engaging young people in active efforts to preserve historical memory. As highlighted in their materials, these activities haves taken on a particular sense of urgency in light of the upcoming 80th anniversary of Victory in the 1941-1945 Great Patriotic War.

The forum is held in Moscow on October 21-23 in order to train regional and international teams of the preparation centres from the International Volunteer Corps of the 80th Anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic and World War II. The event brings together around 300 participants from all over Russia and more than 30 foreign countries.

Throughout the forum, participants attend educational and theme-based sessions, master classes, workshops, and roundtable discussions with experts, activists, and representatives of public organisations from different countries. This is not the first time the forum has served as a unifying platform, offering a foundation for experience exchange, fostering the desire to combat historical falsehoods, and preserving history in its true form, as well as strengthening efforts to promote patriotism.

back to top

Question (retranslated from English): Last week, South Korean intelligence officials claimed that “North Korea has sent soldiers to Russia.” What can you say about this claim?

Maria Zakharova: The reaction of official Seoul is baffling. What is the Kiev regime all about? It’s a terrorist regime that is responsible for numerous acts of terror.

I covered this earlier today. I hope you will write in your publication about our material or our today’s assessments regarding the fact that over 1,000 people (this is the verified number, and we believe there are even more civilians involved) were forcibly shipped to concentration camps operated by the Kiev regime. Who is Seoul supporting? Ghouls? Bloodsucking vampires? Who exactly are they supporting and why they align themselves with the stance adopted by the Kiev regime?

There is no need to play along with the Kiev regime, and its Western sponsors should not be writhing in the anti-Russian hysterics. It is important to think about the consequences for South Korea’s security if the Republic of Korea gets involved in the Ukraine conflict (should such decisions be made).

Russia will provide a tough response to any actions that could threaten the security of our country and its citizens, wherever they may be. These measures could be quite impactful. We hope for the authorities in Seoul to show some prudence and common sense.

Russia and the Republic of Korea have a history of productive cooperation, mutual understanding, and cooperation in economic and humanitarian areas. Despite our different political and geopolitical views, this has never been in the way of the successful development of good economic, educational, humanitarian ties, or relations in a variety of other fields. So why would South Korea fall for see-though Western provocations?

It would be great if you could communicate this to Seoul, and if you write about it. The South Korean audience should know the truth and where we stand, and understand the motives and rationale behind official Moscow’s actions.

If only news from Washington get published, the people of South Korea won’t be able to see the full picture of what is happening. The Kiev regime commits acts of terror against us on a daily basis. They launch kamikaze drones to attack kindergartens, hospitals, schools, and civilian vehicles. How many times have they tried to blow up the Crimean Bridge? How many children have died over the years (not just since 2022) in Donbass, Donetsk, Lugansk, and other regions since 2014? How many innocent civilian lives has the Kiev regime claimed? No one in South Korea is talking about that. This issue is raised only when it directly affects South Korean interests. Why not see the full picture? Why not recognise that the United States and NATO aim to drag the Asia-Pacific region into a global conflict? Why not draw the right conclusions? Why not take a stance that would ensure South Korea's security?

back to top

Question: On October 21, Politico published an article discussing ongoing deliberations within the European Union regarding the potential deployment of a peacekeeping contingent to Ukraine following the end of the conflict. Former US Ambassador to Japan Kenneth Weinstein, in comments to the publication, emphasised that the contingent should operate under EU auspices rather than NATO or the United States. What is the Foreign Ministry’s stance on these statements?

Maria Zakharova: Today, we addressed this as an attempt to draw Western European nations into a conflict with our country, and we evaluated it as a reckless move on their part.

Notably, there is no consensus among EU members on these discussions. Many EU countries are led by pragmatic individuals, though the public isn’t consulted on these matters. Citizens observe what’s happening, but their ability to respond is limited by the extensive propaganda within the EU and the weakening of democratic institutions in these countries. Under various pretexts in Ukraine (I shared specific examples today), Western personnel from a broad range of sectors are already present. In this situation, a range of personnel – formerly referred to as “instructors” – are involved, including intelligence operatives, spotters, and members of terrorist groups. These individuals handle military equipment and weaponry, engage in combat, conduct attacks, and provide intelligence for operations. This is consistently confirmed through field reports, prisoner-of-war interrogations, and their own statements, which often reach the media or come to the attention of our relevant agencies. Additionally, we witness Western countries’ distress when their soldiers of fortune are returned, often in a diminished state of combat readiness.

The statement by the former US Ambassador to Japan reflects Washington’s intent to pass the responsibility of sustaining the Kiev regime’s military operations onto Western Europe. Why is this being pursued? From the start, we emphasised that the ultimate recipient of the turmoil the US is stirring globally isn’t solely Russia or China, but also the European Union – America’s own allies and partners. The reason is straightforward: the US resents competition. By the early 21st century, the EU had achieved impressive success, posing a significant economic challenge to American interests. The EU’s success was built on a real economy, not propped up by stocks and bonds of nonexistent companies, as is often the case in the US, nor by debt reaching trillions of dollars. Regardless of how one views this, it was effective, and delivered tangible results. Real resources, including those from our country, were supplied under long-term agreements at stable prices. These arrangements served both Western Europe’s and our interests, and provided a foundation for adapting to emergencies as needed. This reliable safety net helped the EU emerge as a global leader – a fact the US found hard to accept.

This manoeuvre was designed specifically to weaken the European Union. Now, to fully destabilise the EU's economy and ensure its long-term dependency, the US aims to shift the financial burden of supporting the Kiev regime and the conflict onto EU members, effectively binding the EU as a permanent satellite. The goal is not for the EU to operate as an independent alliance, but rather to remain permanently tethered to NATO, whether directly or via the Washington-Brussels connection, and not as an equal partner, but on a leash.

There’s no need to entertain all of the West’s speculations on post-conflict scenarios. The West holds full responsibility for transforming Ukraine into a tool of war against our country, turning it into a battlefield aimed at Russia. Their attempts to create an “anti-Russia” were unsuccessful – an entity that would interpret our shared history in a distorted way and act as if speaking on behalf of Russia globally. Failing at that, they instead chose to use Ukraine as a battleground and an instrument against us.

Brussels is mistaken if it believes its direct involvement in Ukraine’s 2013–2014 events has been forgotten, including the EU countries’ active role in supporting the unconstitutional coup. They directly managed the election of their preferred officials, from Ukraine’s president to government members, down to local deputies and municipalities. Over the following eight years, there is a clear record of EU member support for, and cover-up of, the Kiev regime’s bloody crimes against Russian-speaking Ukrainians and the peaceful residents of Donbass, amounting to what many view as the genocide of the Russian-speaking population. EU taxpayers are unlikely to forget the tens of billions of euros Brussels allocated over the past decade to arm the Kiev regime, aiming to leverage Ukrainians to deliver a strategic defeat to Russia and to kill Russians and Russian-speaking people in both Russia and Ukraine. In essence, EU citizens will remember how their own resources were used to undermine their well-being.

Today, we see the European Union taking extensive measures to prolong the conflict and widen its scope, both politically and militarily backing the Ukrainian regime’s anti-Russian terror. Naturally, any notion of an EU presence or “flags” in Ukraine is out of the question, as the EU has effectively become a military and financial tool under the control of the US and NATO.

back to top

Question: Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky has stated that during his discussions with US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin in Kiev, they explored the possibility of launching long-range strikes against military targets deep within Russian territory. How does the Ministry perceive Ukraine's endeavours to secure authorisation for such strikes? Have there been any recent developments in this matter?

Maria Zakharova: I have addressed this matter earlier today. It would signify the direct involvement of NATO countries in the conflict. Even the most ardent individuals, or those whose heads have "cooled" (in the unfavourable sense) long ago in the West, comprehend the consequences that would ensue. This has been consistently articulated by President of Russia Vladimir Putin.

back to top

Question: How do you evaluate the outcomes of the parliamentary elections in Iraqi Kurdistan, held on October 20 of this year, following four postponements due to political disputes, including those between Baghdad and Erbil? In your view, what potential developments in Russia-Kurdistan relations might emerge from these elections?

Maria Zakharova: We regard the regular parliamentary elections held on October 20 this year in the Kurdish Autonomous Region of Iraq as a step in the right direction.

The definitive assessment of their outcomes, in accordance with federal legislation, will be rendered by the Independent High Electoral Commission of Iraq. As per our understanding, their preliminary remarks concerning the organisation of the election in the Kurdish Autonomous Region were positive, with no significant violations identified. Residents of Iraqi Kurdistan who wished to cast their votes were able to exercise their rights in full. Voter turnout, averaging 72 percent, is described as record-breaking.

It appears that such results establish a favourable foundation for the continued progressive development of the Iraqi region, under the requisite conditions of political stability, which will further fortify our multifaceted engagement with the Kurdish Autonomous Region and Iraq.

It is almost redundant to state that there exists a considerable interest on our part. I trust that you are well aware of this, given the tangible evidence of our cooperation.

back to top

Question: Last week, we witnessed another round of escalating tensions on the Korean Peninsula. How does the Russian Foreign Ministry assess the current situation? Can it be deemed normal, or does it signify more serious changes in the Korean "dossier" and imply that Pyongyang has abandoned one of the fundamental tenets of the DPRK's ideology – the objective of Korean unification?

Maria Zakharova: Regarding Pyongyang's abandonment of the unification objective, it is indeed an established fact. We operate under the assumption that it is the sovereign right of the DPRK to enact conceptual changes in its political stance towards the Republic of Korea. This shift is necessitated by the requirement to account for the new geopolitical realities, which have emerged as a consequence of Washington's manoeuvres, manipulations, and provocations.

The recent developments in the situation and events on the Korean Peninsula are a cause for our grave concern. What is at hand is an artificially induced escalation of tension. This is not an ordinary man-made emergency involving anthropogenic disasters; rather, it is entirely attributable to Washington's efforts to "inflame' the conflict in this region as well. It is an attempt to awaken a dormant conflict, akin to stirring an inactive volcano into a state of active eruption. The current escalation is "abnormal" and can be viewed as such by the United States and its allies, who, under the guise of perceived threats, are executing plans of strategic containment against nations they oppose, in a manner reminiscent of bloc confrontation.

We recognise this as a matter of deliberate provocations orchestrated to pit the countries of the region against each other. The scope of the situation extends beyond just Seoul and Pyongyang, encompassing Tokyo and all countries, including in the Asia-Pacific region, which are being drawn into the United States' provocative schemes and scenarios. What’s the purpose? The underlying reason is the precarious state of the US economy, the complete ideological impasse in its domestic political sphere, and the severe polarisation within American society. This polarisation is not merely fragmentary but is characterised by deep-seated antagonism, typical of a state of civil discord – such is the depth of enmity among individuals within the United States on opposing sides of the political divide.

The perceived resolution, in their view, lies in the initiation of a global conflict, a confrontation – although I am reluctant to term it a world war. This is precisely the direction towards which the Americans are steering the world. It is manifestly evident.

back to top