Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, January 23, 2025
- Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with SCO Secretary-General Nurlan Yermekbayev
- The General Meeting of the Commission of the Russian Federation for UNESCO
- Opening Russia’s Embassy to South Sudan and resuming the work of the Russian embassies to Niger and Sierra Leone
- Ukrainian crisis update
- NATO Military Committee session
- Briefing by Rodion Miroshnik, Foreign Ministry’s Ambassador-at-Large on the Kiev Regime’s War Crimes
- NATO buildup in the Baltic Sea
- Violations of the rights of indigenous people in Greenland by Denmark and the USA
- Violations of the Serbs’ rights in Kosovo
- Preparations for the 80th anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp by the Red Army
- Day marking the break of the Siege of Leningrad
- The 75th anniversary of diplomatic relations with Vietnam
- Vatican’s role in addressing humanitarian issues
- President Trump’s statements on Ukraine
- France’s plans to mobilise young volunteers
- Russia’s expectations of relations with the United States
- European sanctions against Russia
- Japanese centres in Russia
- Russia’s stance on the Ukrainian settlement
- Armenian leaders’ foreign policy decisions
- The US’s activities in the South Caucasus
- Outlook for Azerbaijan’s BRICS membership
- The West’s policy towards Serbia
- Russia-Armenia talks
- Humanitarian aspects of the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict
- Russia and China’s policies towards the United States
- The US’s withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement and the WHO
- Sergey Lavrov’s possible contacts with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio
- The lifting of US sanctions on Jewish settlers in the West Bank
- Possible diplomatic contacts between Russia and the United States
- The 2020 trilateral statement on Nagorno-Karabakh
- The development of a multipolar world order
- The upcoming Antalya Diplomacy Forum
- The repayment of Western credits by Kiev
- Situation on the EU’s energy market
- NATO’s naval build-up in the Baltic Sea region
- The hypothetical change of Canada’s status
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with SCO Secretary-General Nurlan Yermekbayev
On January 23, literally this very moment, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov is receiving Secretary-General of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation Nurlan Yermekbayev who is in Moscow on a working visit.
The meeting’s agenda deals with further reinforcing the SCO and streamlining its operations in a comprehensive manner in today’s environment. Russian is currently chairing the SCO Heads of Government Council. In this context, the participants are expected to pay special attention to practical steps aimed at promoting closer trade, economic and cultural cooperation.
The high officials will also exchange views – or should I say are exchanging views right now – on the latest international and regional developments.
The General Meeting of the Commission of the Russian Federation for UNESCO
On January 28, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will chair a regular General Meeting of the Commission of the Russian Federation for UNESCO. Heads of the corresponding Russian agencies, heads of Russian regions, representatives of the media industry, the business community and academia, as well as prominent figures in culture, education and sports are expected to attend this meeting.
As usual, the Minister will review Russia’s cooperation with UNESCO. Several members of the Commission will also take the floor. The participants will discuss plans to develop their cooperation with UNESCO moving forward.
The meeting will pave the way for adopting the corresponding resolution.
The Foreign Ministry, working in close contact with the relevant federal executive agencies, has been engaged in a system-wide effort to expand the network of Russia’s diplomatic missions in Africa as part of a policy vision as approved by the President of Russia and in keeping with his instructions to this effect. This policy consists of promoting lasting and mutually beneficial cooperation with countries across the African continent.
Opening Russian embassies in African countries constitutes a mutually beneficial proposition for Russia and its African partners and reflects our shared commitment to elevating our multifaceted cooperation to new heights. This goal was set forth in the outcome documents of the 2019 Russia-Africa Summit in Sochi and the 2023 Summit in St Petersburg, as well as during the November 2024 First Ministerial Conference of the Russia-Africa Partnership Forum in Sochi.
In 2023, Russia opened its embassies to Burkina Faso and Equatorial Guinea. This time, it is Niger’s and Sierra Leone’s turn. Embassies there will be resuming their work after its unfortunate suspension in 1992. It happened for financial reasons. We are also opening a new diplomatic mission to the Republic of South Sudan. The Government of the Russian Federation released the corresponding directives in late December 2024. The official openings of these diplomatic missions will be held soon. We will make sure to keep you updated. And I hope to be able to invite you to attend these events.
I will begin by citing more facts that prove the terrorist nature of the Kiev regime, which continues to terrorise the civilian population of Russia. The atrocities being committed by Ukrainian neo-Nazis should qualify as crime, but the term is not strong enough; these acts amount to most inhumane manifestations of the basest vices.
On January 17, the Russian troops liberating Russkoye Porechnoye, a village in the Kursk Region, discovered actual torture chambers in the basements of residential houses, arranged there by the Armed Forces of Ukraine. They found the mutilated bodies of at least seven local residents of different ages with traces of abuse in those basements. As the Banderites were retreating, they showered those people with grenades. A detailed comment on this account was posted on the Foreign Ministry website on January 19. Our experts, including Foreign Ministry Ambassador-at-large for crimes of the Kiev regime Rodion Miroshnik, have also commented on this.
Videos of interrogations of two captured Ukrainian fighters who killed a civilian woman in the Kursk Region’s border area have been posted on social media. They explained their crime by the orders they had received from their commanders to shoot all Russian-speaking residents. As a reminder, international humanitarian law prohibits giving such orders as well as carrying them out. What these subhumans are doing is beyond comprehension. We have repeatedly brought such appalling cases to the attention of international human rights agencies. This is worse than terrorism and worse than crime. It is a combination of all the basest things. We will continue pushing them to respond appropriately.
On January 17, volunteers transporting humanitarian aid to frontline areas were injured in a targeted drone attack on a civilian bus on the Vasilyevka-Shirokoye motorway in the Zaporozhye Region. These volunteers’ courage should be admired because the area is extremely dangerous. They could have avoided the risk and not to go, but they continued to provide assistance seeing it as their duty. It was just something they felt they had to do.
Between January 17 and 20, 11 civilians were wounded as a result of Ukrainian shelling of civilian infrastructure and residential areas in Gorlovka (DPR), also with cluster munitions.
In the morning of January 20, a few minutes before lessons began, Ukrainian fighters purposefully attacked a secondary school in Bekhtery, Kherson Region, firing HIMARS missile systems. That terrorist attack – such acts of terrorism are often described as “inhumane” or “brutal” attacks, but aren’t all attacks brutal? Except that some also involve extreme cynicism. That attack resulted in the loss of two lives, while at least 25 people were injured, including four children. Three of them, including a girl born in 2008, are in grave condition.
I applaud the work of our law enforcement bodies. Now I would like to mention punishment for the Kiev regime’s crimes. Russian courts continue to convict Ukrainian neo-Nazis and mercenaries of war crimes.
An American citizen, Patrick Thomas Creed, was sentenced in absentia to 13 years’ imprisonment for participating in hostilities on the side of Ukraine. This soldier of fortune is a retired US Army Ranger, who also served in US National Guard, infantry and airborne troops, and was repeatedly dispatched to Central America and the Middle East.
Latvian mercenaries Uldis Volmars and Juris Alberts Ulmanis were sentenced to 14 years in absentia. All these foreigners are on the international wanted list.
Ukrainian combatants A.Voloshin, V.Arshulik, S.Karayev, A.Doychuk, Z.Sigerich, A.Kulbaba, and O.Vovk have been sentenced to 15 to 16 years in prison for committing acts of terror against Russian servicemen and civilians in the Kursk Region.
Three gunmen from the Ukrainian paramilitary nationalist group Azov, which is recognised in Russia as a terrorist group, Ye.Lavrenko, D.Klusenko and D.Fedirko, were sentenced to 24.5 years in prison. They routinely shelled civilian sites in Russia.
Azov militant R. Minagulov was sentenced to 24 years in prison. The investigators established that on March 4, 2022 he, following a criminal order by commander A. Dmytryk, opened mortar fire on blocks of flats and public buildings in Mariupol killing two civilians. The perpetrator admitted his guilt. As a reminder, Dmytryk was earlier sentenced in absentia to life imprisonment.
Russia’s law enforcement agencies will continue to work to bring Ukrainian Nazis and foreign mercenaries to justice for war crimes, among others. We will keep you informed about this.
Speaking of tipsters, curators, and everyone else who are inciting the Kiev regime to commit crimes, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer briefly visited Kiev on January 16. Unlike his predecessors, he has been putting off his visit to Ukraine for quite a while after taking office, which is why his unplanned trip gave rise to multiple speculations about London’s real intentions. Many experts agreed that it was an attempt by the globalists to keep the situation the way they want and to prevent a peaceful scenario from playing out, which fact the newly inaugurated President Trump has repeatedly made clear. Supporters of the “party of war” on both sides of the Atlantic have become seriously worried by the current US government’s plans to achieve a speedy end to the conflict. Why? Because peace is not part of their plan. They’ve been working to fill a different order, and they’ve been paid to do a different kind of a job.
This brings to memory the events of spring 2022, when, following the talks in Istanbul on March 29, 2022, Russia and Ukraine were close to reaching mutually acceptable agreements which held promise of a peace deal coming shortly. Then, following orders coming from the overseas “hawks,” then British Prime Minister Boris Johnson rushed to Kiev and told Zelensky to break off talks and to keep waging war in order to achieve “victory” over Russia. It was said that things should be settled “on the battlefield.” Everyone is aware of the way things turned out for Ukraine.
I noted the absolutely drug-induced madness that swept Davos. I mean Zelensky’s remarks, the way he communicated with the media, the delegates, and other things. That also includes his remark that what happened in the spring of 2022 cannot be called a negotiating process or talks, because allegedly “wrong” things were discussed there in the “wrong” way. Why has he been silent all this time? Why didn’t Zelensky say a word about this before that? What stopped him from saying, during these long three years, that these talks were not good enough? What stopped him from letting everyone know it? After all, he was the one who asked for them. He sent delegates there, who took a bullet on their way back to Ukraine. Do you remember? I’m talking about those who participated in these allegedly (from Zelensky’s point of view) “non-talks.” That means that his speeches in Davos were dictated by British “fairy tale writers” in order to once again plant a piece of fake news into the international media landscape in order to lead the international community astray. The talks were allegedly “non-talks,” and, as you may recall, someone out there recently broke out with reminiscences about them not trying to talk Zelensky out of it, even though some time before that they insisted that they did. Things are clear now. Most importantly, the supporters of the “war party,” primarily the Anglo-Saxon representatives, are bent on preventing peace.
Starmer’s visit was marked by the signing of a 100 Year Partnership between the United Kingdom and Ukraine. We addressed this in a January 18 answer to a media question posted on the ministerial website.
Today, I would like to briefly address how this document is perceived within Britain itself. The British media, who conduct assessments within Albion – where experts evaluate such agreements – describe the agreement as merely a symbolic gesture with no substantive commitment. According to The Telegraph, the public embrace of Keir Starmer and Vladimir Zelensky holds symbolic significance, offering reassurance that there are no financial obligations involved – the new partnership between Ukraine and Great Britain does not entail any new funding commitments from London.
Additionally, while speaking in Kiev, the British Prime Minister stated, “This is not just about the here and now; it is also about an investment in our two countries for the next century...” Grandiloquent, but lacking substance. It echoes the rhetoric of Neville Chamberlain, who, upon returning in September 1938 after the Munich Agreement with Hitler, declared to his compatriots that he had secured “peace for a generation.” Doesn’t that sound familiar? For which generation? What peace? Even then, they understood the likely course of events but were unaware of the eventual outcome. There was no reliance on the Soviet Union. The focus was on directing Hitler’s aggression eastward. Let me remind you that less than a year after Chamberlain’s claim of having “brought peace for a generation”, Britain entered the Second World War. It is high time London realised that appeasing Nazis is not only criminal but counterproductive, leading to results contrary to those intended.
Turning to the plans of the collective West, the current American administration seeks to offload the expenses of sustaining the neo-Nazi regime in Kiev onto its European allies, compelling them to urgently find a way out of the present predicament. This was the focus of a meeting involving the defence ministers of Great Britain, Germany, Italy, Poland, and France, convened on January 13 of this year in the Polish town of Helenów. The participants made ostentatious declarations of their resolve to surmount current challenges and continue supporting Ukraine. However, specifics were absent, with mostly declarations of intent on offer. The ministers concurred that Ukraine’s defence industry remains underutilised and that joint production efforts on Ukrainian soil are essential.
Developing this notion, German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius, during his visit to Kiev on January 14, remarked that by sharing their technology with Ukrainians, German partners stand to gain from the Ukrainian side’s military experience.
Incidentally, according to figures provided by Zelensky himself, the Ukrainian armed forces utilise 40 percent American-made weaponry, while the remaining 60 percent is comprised equally of domestically produced and European military equipment.
In this context, we have noted reports suggesting Western plans to deploy troops to “ensure the fulfilment of any peace agreement.” On January 16, British media reported that Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron had private discussions in early January regarding the deployment of military units from both countries to Ukraine as part of a potential peacekeeping mission.
On January 18, in an interview with the Suddeutsche Zeitung, German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius did not rule out the possibility of sending German soldiers to Ukraine to secure a specified demilitarised zone contingent upon a ceasefire.
We reiterate that NATO intervention in Ukraine poses the risk of uncontrollable escalation and is categorically unacceptable to Russia.
Ukrainian media reports indicate a noticeable aggravation of the problem of desertion within the Ukrainian armed forces. In 2024, nearly 89,500 criminal cases were initiated in relation to absence without official leave. Thus, nearly one hundred thousand individuals – according to registered criminal cases – have deserted from Ukrainian ranks. Since 2022, military enlistment centres have placed over half a million draft evaders on wanted lists.
The controversy surrounding the 155th Mechanised Brigade of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, known as Anne of Kiev, comprising approximately 5,000 personnel, persists unabated. Nearly half of these individuals received specialised training in France during the autumn of 2024. Upon completion, several dozen militants absconded from the training facility, dispersing across Europe. Meanwhile, the remainder – estimated between 900 and 1,700 according to various sources – opted to desert rather than proceed to the frontlines. This is notwithstanding the approximately 930 million euros expended on the brigade’s training. Are the European citizens, who are funding these efforts, aware of this situation? This information is conspicuously absent from high-level discussions in their countries. Hence, we are addressing this informational void. A comparable scenario unfolded in Poznan, Poland, where 1,300 out of 13,000 Banderites left the training grounds without authorisation. I reiterate that these individuals failed to reach the frontlines; they are those who were merely undergoing training.
Concurrently, Michael Waltz, the US President’s National Security Adviser, remarked in an interview with ABC News on January 12 that Ukrainians could fix the issue of the personnel shortfall in the Armed Forces of Ukraine by reducing the mobilisation age to 18.
Kiev has already taken heed of this suggestion and is seemingly compliant. Reports on social media indicate that 16-year-old Ukrainians registering at military enlistment commissions are being coerced into signing a “citizen’s consent to military service.” On January 9, the Verkhovna Rada adopted comprehensive amendments to the law on military duty and service, allowing Ukrainians abroad to register remotely from the age of 17, rather than 18. The legislation also introduces basic military training and service for 18-year-old students and their peers not enrolled in higher education, effective from 2025. These provisions equate the two groups. Simultaneously, it is purported that Ukrainians under 25 years will not be subject to mobilisation for the time being.
However, it is evident where this trajectory leads. It is merely a matter of time. The Zelensky regime will not hesitate to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of young Ukrainians for its self-preservation. One must note Zelensky’s indignation during his communications in Davos, where he implored and exclaimed that there ostensibly were no negotiations in 2022. His primary concern was his own fate and persona, which he did not conceal. All of this will transpire. The age limit will be lowered, and the ensuing hundreds of thousands of young people will become the quarry of “people-catchers” to fulfil and satiate the interests of Western overseers.
Moreover, Ukraine is engaged in a struggle not only against its citizens but also against monuments and religion. The Kiev regime continues its assault on the historical, cultural, and moral codes of Ukrainians and their fraternal peoples.
On January 15, the Odessa City Council demanded the removal of a memorial plaque located on the premises of the Saint Archangel Michael Convent. In whose honour was this plaque? Whom do they find objectionable this time? It commemorates the sailors of the Russian submarine Kursk, who perished in 2000. Why was this plaque placed there? Because some of the sailors hailed from Odessa, yet they did not hesitate to demolish the plaque dedicated to their own compatriots.
On the night of December 31, 2024, Ukrainian nationalists dismantled the monument to Vladimir Vysotsky, erected in 2012 near the Odessa Film Studio, disregarding the sentiments of the city’s residents and intimidating dissenters with summonses from the Security Service of Ukraine.
Clearly, Odessa city officials were not satisfied with the controversial decision to raze the monument to Alexander Pushkin on Primorsky Boulevard, which was the city’s historical landmark. On January 17, they laid their hands on the nearby Pushkin plane tree, which featured on the “list of geographical sites the names of which include symbols of Russia’s imperial policy.” The tree, which went through a lot during its lifetime, had no idea, until 2025, that it was a geographical site rather than a botanical plant. The tree has not been cut down, but renamed to Western plane. I’m tempted to ask whether it’s western on all sides. Could it be “eastern” on the side that faces East?
The battle waged by Ukrainian hardcore nationalists against the Ukrainian Orthodox Church is taking increasingly absurd forms. The Ukrainian government is in the process of reviewing a draft regulatory act that outlines the procedure for shutting down religious organisations that “spread the ideology of the Russian world.” These organisations may include parishes whose names contain the names of the saints of “Russian descent.” This goes beyond logic and reason straight into the realm of psychiatry. For example, Prince Alexander Nevsky, who, as they believe on Bankovaya Street, represents a “threat to the national security of Ukraine,” is one such name. I think this is true, because Alexander Nevsky has been canonised, is a saint, and is revered by believers. I don’t think he will be observing listlessly the ongoing developments. However, only mentally challenged people could fight this by pulling down monuments. Head of the State Service for Ethnic Policies and Freedom of Conscience Viktor Yelensky stated that the authorities are going to ask UOC parishes that had been named after the saints of “Russian descent” to take a different name. Why not ask for a change of gender? In fact, they can come up with all kinds of demands. In reality, the parishes will be forced into forgoing their heavenly patron saint. Why? Are the Ukrainian authorities going to ask a saint to produce their passport to see where they were born, under what tsar, and what language they spoke? If the parishes don’t comply, the Ukrainian state threatens to de-register the “wrong” ones via a court ruling. I think Mikhail Saltykov-Shchedrin, Nikolai Gogol, Mikhail Bulgakov, Mikhail Zoshchenko, Ilya Ilf and Yevgeny Petrov would be the envious of this kind of unrestrained imagination, as none of them could even come close to describing this level of absurdity. What is happening in Ukraine now has gone beyond their most witty writing.
These facts once again show the relevance of the special military operation to de-Nazify and to demilitarise Ukraine and to eliminate threats emanating from its territory. All its objectives will, without a doubt, be achieved.
NATO Military Committee session
On January 15-16, the Military Committee in Chiefs of Defence of the North Atlantic alliance convened in Brussels. Journalists posed questions seeking commentary.
Customarily, the discourse centred on Russia. Secretary General Mark Rutte and Chair of the Military Committee, Admiral Rob Bauer, routinely alarmed their alliance counterparts with the Russian threat. They asserted the necessity to prepare for conflict – advocating a “shift to a wartime mindset” (intriguingly, what was it before, given their repetitive assertions that everything must be resolved solely “on the battlefield” rather than at the negotiating table), to augment military expenditures and implement regional defence plans, and to continue assisting Ukraine, which the West, in reality, is employing as a battering ram against Russia. There was paranoid speculation concerning China, Iran, and the DPRK.
All this does not surprise us. I would like to remind you that NATO, as a power instrument of the collective West, has never ceased not only preparing for wars but, more crucially, fuelling conflicts globally. Rob Bauer proudly highlighted that, “Around this table, we have gathered one thousand years of military experience” – perhaps he meant to say “led by the United States”, but refrained – and “This is truly unique in the world.” It is difficult to contest this – no entity possesses such extensive experience in waging wars, brutal colonisation, and the plundering of other nations as the collective West. Even now, the alliance is striving to maintain its global hegemony and to prevent the emergence of alternative centres of power and development.
In this context, they entice countries from other regions into their orbit by promising financial aid and support, subsequently turning them into satellites. It is no coincidence that a record number of 26 partner countries, according to the organisers’ estimates, were invited to the Chiefs of Defence session in Brussels. The cooperation model proposed by NATO remains unchanged – initially, partners are persuaded of the necessity to reform the defence and security sectors and are provided with assistance in this endeavour, then they impose NATO standards (beginning to operate from within) in the armed forces and security structures, and cultivate a pro-Western elite through education.
It is widely known how such partner assistance concludes – interference in internal affairs and alteration of foreign policy direction, imposition of their pseudo-values and the dictate of coalition guidelines. Subsequently, everything proceeds according to plan: plundering, destruction of the national code, identity, enslavement, exploitation.
We urge the countries participating in the event, which are not yet fully ensnared in NATO’s “web” and have not yet pledged to serve the interests of the Golden Billion, to remember their own national interests and to contemplate whether it is prudent to bind their fate to a military bloc that boasts decades of aggression, wars, and conflicts, ravaged nations, and millions of civilian casualties.
Briefing by Rodion Miroshnik, Foreign Ministry’s Ambassador-at-Large on the Kiev Regime’s War Crimes
Foreign Ministry’s Ambassador-at-Large on the Kiev Regime’s War Crimes, Rodion Miroshnik, will hold a briefing at the Foreign Ministry Press Centre at 11a.m. on January 28, presenting a summary report on Kiev regime’s crimes committed in 2024.
The briefing will be held online. The Foreign Ministry will stream the briefing on its website and on its official social media accounts with simultaneous translation into English, French and Spanish.
For accreditation, please address the Foreign Ministry’s Press Centre. Contact information will be posted on our website.
NATO buildup in the Baltic Sea
The North Atlantic Alliance is using every opportunity to build up its capabilities close to Russia’s borders. At a specially convened regional summit of NATO member states in Helsinki on January 14 this year, the “special danger” of our country’s “shadow fleet” was highlighted. They keep on endlessly inventing new tales.
The North European countries are focused on detecting and thwarting attempts to sabotage critical infrastructure. Extensive measures have been announced to increase control of the water area and underwater surveillance, verification of insurance certificates and the development of new monitoring technologies.
NATO’s Baltic Sentry mission has been launched, which, due to the recent incidents with undersea cables between Finland and Estonia, is supposed to enhance the protection of critical underwater infrastructure. Meanwhile, the Alliance, which is going to dispatch warships, aircraft, submarines and naval drones to the Baltic Sea as part of this mission, has completely ignored the possible consequences of such activity for the fairly dense shipping traffic in this area, where the situation is rather tense as it is.
What does this indicate? Clearly, the steps of the North Atlantic Alliance are aimed primarily not at increasing security but rather at “containing” our country. What we are witnessing is an attempt, not coordinated with Russia and other international stakeholders, to create artificial barriers to navigation in the Baltic Sea, which some in the bloc unreasonably want to make their internal water body. This will not go. The Baltic Sea has been and remains a common space for all the countries of the region without exception.
From the legal point of view, freedom of navigation applies in the waters of the Baltic Sea outside the territorial waters of the coastal States, which implies that ships and vessels flying any flag may sail there. Stopping of foreign ships, their inspection, detention or other measures to interfere with the navigation of a vessel in these maritime spaces are possible only on a specific short list of grounds, such as piracy or illegal fishing. Protection of undersea infrastructure is not included there.
Therefore, I would like to remind NATO members that in accordance with the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, coercive measures against a foreign vessel in the economic zone require the authorisation of the ship’s flag state. Interference in the navigation of a vessel cannot be based solely on discriminatory unilateral restrictive measures, unfounded suspicions and a desire to find a “Russian trace.” Anything can be invented. We are now talking about the law.
We will closely monitor the situation in the Baltic Sea and respond appropriately to abuses by ships of alliance member states and comment on all of this.
Violations of the rights of indigenous people in Greenland by Denmark and the USA
There have understandably been numerous inquiries concerning the discourse surrounding Greenland. We have heard statements from both the USA and Denmark. However, these remarks neglect the crux of the issue. Everything has been discussed: sale and purchase transactions, financial figures, forms of mergers or combinations – everything has been said about everything.
I would like to revisit some historical pages of Greenland related to Denmark’s colonial policy and the American military presence. In effect, this elucidates the current situation.
Copenhagen, in its effort to fully dominate Greenland, has, not so long ago, deliberately engaged in the erosion of the unique ethnocultural identity of its indigenous population.
A flagrant violation of human rights by the Danish authorities was the practice of forced contraception among Greenlandic women, employed mainly (one might think – 100 years ago, yet it is not so) in the 1960s and 1970s. According to media estimates, intrauterine devices were fitted to nearly half of the island’s entire female population, subjecting them to procedures that ended their ability to become mothers. In this utterly inhumane manner, Copenhagen achieved a reduction (in some villages, to zero) in the birth rate among the indigenous inhabitants of the autonomy. This was not a mere erroneous, experimental story but a deliberate policy to obliterate the local population on ethnocultural grounds. The Danish authorities aimed to economise (this is the point – this is the purpose of all this and why Copenhagen needed it) on funding kindergartens, schools, and the healthcare system. Over 140 Greenlandic women have filed lawsuits against Denmark, seeking compensation. Greenland’s Prime Minister Múte Bourup Egede termed these actions as genocide. Copenhagen has yet to issue an official apology.
The Danish authorities practised the forced removal of children from Inuit families, transferring them to Danish foster families without the knowledge and consent of the parents (this also was their experiment) to form a Greenland elite loyal to Denmark. I reiterate, this did not occur 100 years ago, not in the distant past – this is not about barbarism. It happened during the lifetime of people who today are considered to be in their prime. All this was witnessed by the now-living generations who became victims of these actions or simply were not born. According to the victims, children were forbidden to speak their native language. Does this ring a bell? Does it not answer the question of why Denmark so fervently supports Zelensky, who wishes to cleanse part of the territory (now, probably, the entire territory) of Ukraine from people who speak Russian?
The Danish authorities used to penalise those who breached the requirement not to speak their native language. After the social experiment, most of the children could not reunite with their families and were placed in orphanages, causing significant psychological trauma. Today, several lawsuits have been filed against Denmark for violations of the European Convention on Human Rights, demanding compensation.
Danish and international experts have repeatedly highlighted the infringement of Inuit rights by the Danish authorities, including restrictions on their access to medical and educational services and housing. Francisco Calí Tzay, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, following his visit to Greenland in February 2023, urged Copenhagen to “address the negative impact of a colonial legacy that has led to structural and systemic racial discrimination against the indigenous Inuit community.”
Significant harm to Greenland and its indigenous population was inflicted by those who now advocate for altering its status – the US military presence on the island, which for many years operated without the consent and control of the Greenlanders. A manifestation of complete disregard for their legitimate interests was the forced resettlement (one might think –100 years ago, when there was no human rights-related discourse) – in the early 1950s – of several Inuit families from their ancestral homelands in connection with the construction of the US Thule Air Base (now Pituffik Space Base) on the territory of the autonomy. The decision to relocate, which the Danish Supreme Court described in 2003 as an “act of expropriation,” was taken without the free, prior, and informed consent of the Inuits. The matter of appropriate compensation remains unresolved.
The prolonged presence of the US Armed Forces in Greenland has caused considerable environmental harm to the island, as corroborated in the findings of Baskut Tuncak, the Special Rapporteur on the Implications for Human Rights of the Environmentally Sound Management and Disposal of Hazardous Substances and Wastes, published in 2018. For instance, in 1968, a plane crash near the Thule base of a US B-52 strategic bomber carrying four thermonuclear bombs led to radioactive contamination of the area. Tons of hazardous waste, posing serious risks to Greenland’s environmental safety, are buried at military facilities abandoned by the US Armed Forces, including the Camp Century submarine base, which was powered by a nuclear reactor.
The intensified rhetoric from Copenhagen about ensuring a prosperous future for the island as part of the Kingdom, both in terms of significantly expanded autonomy rights and economic development, is also not credible. Given the extensive history of colonial exploitation by Denmark and the United States, it is unsurprising that Greenland seeks independence and the establishment of a sovereign state.
Violations of the Serbs’ rights in Kosovo
A merciless campaign of cleansing the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija from Serbs is ongoing. With connivance and actually by behest of Washington and its EU allies, the self-proclaimed Pristina “authorities” are carrying out a forced Albanisation and wiping out any forms of the Serbian community’s autonomy in a bid to deprive it of everything down to the attributes of its national and religious identity.
The main obstacle in the path of the provisional self-government bodies in Pristina is the Serb List, the biggest political party of the Kosovo Serbs, which is the only force capable of opposing the mass-scale violations of the Serbian population’s rights at the upcoming elections to the provincial “parliament” scheduled for February 9 of this year. It is for this reason that they at first attempted to prevent the party from being registered and now are not allowing its monitors to join the territorial election commissions. In short, they are harassing them in every way possible.
It is obvious that the Kosovo “prime minister,” Albin Kurti, is planning to falsify election results to the detriment of the Serb List party in order to install in parliament open puppets loyal to the Pristina government. The wherefore of this is clear. They would thereby create conditions for adapting the local “laws” to the needs of anti-Serbian cleansing campaigns and aggressive pan-Albanian plans. This scenario is fraught with the most atrocious consequences for the local Serbs and directly threatens the entire Balkan region’s stability.
The situation on the ground is being complicated by the increasingly frequent provincial police raids against staffers of the Serbian administrations that Pristina is unable to control. Their cruel demonstrative reprisals (it is the 21st century after all) are meant to increase the fear among the already terrified inhabitants, break their morale, and force them to leave their homes.
The responsibility for the campaign of terror unleashed by Albin Kurti rests squarely with the Western countries that ostensibly disapprove of their puppet’s methods but in fact encourage his criminal policies and are implicated in efforts to erase all vestiges of the age-old Serbian presence in Kosovo. Doesn’t it ring a bell? Of course, it does!
We call on the international missions deployed in the province in keeping with UN Security Council Resolution 1244 to act responsibly while fulfilling their mandates and protect the Serbian minority, given the unconditional respect for the territorial integrity of the Republic of Serbia.
On January 27, we will mark 80 years since the liberation of the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp by the Red Army, which saved the remaining inmates. Many Soviet soldiers died fighting for the liberation of that Nazi camp and the Polish city of Oswiecim (Auschwitz).
Overall, nearly 1.5 million people were killed in that concentration camp by the Nazis. Some died of torture and were killed in gas chambers, others died of hunger or as a result of horrible medical experiments. Most of them were Jews, but there were also people of dozens other nationalities. The tragedy of Auschwitz is the most horrible reminder of the Holocaust and the Nazi’s military crimes committed during the Second World War. In 2005, the UN designated January 27, the day when the Red Army liberated the camp, as International Holocaust Remembrance Day, to perpetuate the link between the memory of the victims and the commemoration of those who stopped those dehumanising policies and violence.
What is happening now? Memory of the victims is kept up, but it cannot be divided from the commemoration of those who stopped the violence and saved people from extermination, because the memory of the victims will not survive without this commemoration.
The tragic symbolism is that over the past few years the events commemorating the liberation of Auschwitz have been organised and attended by the representatives of countries that vote against or abstain during voting on the UN General Assembly resolution on combating the glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. I am referring above all to Poland and other countries of the collective West, which support the neo-Nazi Kiev regime.
I have a far from rhetorical question: What will they celebrate then? In Poland, they have replaced the term “liberation” with the “entry” of the Red Army into the concentration camp. Soviet soldiers certainly entered it. More than that, they liberated the camp’s inmates at the cost of their lives. That is what we call the falsification of history.
They spoke about the camp’s liberation several years ago, but they also said that it was not the Red Army but the Ukrainians who did that because the camp was liberated by the units of the 60th Army of the First Ukrainian Front. There were Ukrainians among the troops of that front, but the majority of the soldiers were Russian. Moreover, it is not a matter of nationalities. Back then, our people didn’t distinguish nationalities but called themselves Red Army soldiers and Soviet people. There were Russians and people of 37 other nationalities among the front’s military personnel. Our country has always said that this is a common victory and we don’t divide it. It is our common victory.
Our Polish colleagues only mention the Ukrainians. They could mention others as well. But no, the event organisers don’t thank or even mention other nationalities, and not because this would take too long. They have a different task – they want to blot out the positive and real memory of the heroic Red Army and to demonise it as much as possible instead. They are using every means available for this purpose, shifting the focus on one nationality, in particular, for time-serving political considerations, and committing the other nationalities to oblivion.
It is notable that German Jew Otto Frank, the father of Anne Frank, wrote in his first letter to his mother that he had been liberated and nursed back to life by the Russians. That’s what he wrote. At that time, all Soviet soldiers were referred to as Russians. Once again – this is not about nationalities. The people who were on the right side of history, on the side of good, who fought heroically and liberated, did not distinguish people by their nationality. It’s what those who were on the side of evil did.
I wonder if Otto Frank’s letter will be rewritten after this briefing. Will they do this? It won’t come as a surprise if a US ambassador slips up again and writes in the social media that Auschwitz was liberated by the Americans. We’ve seen this happen before.
Let me remind you that the museum was established on the area of the former concentration camp in the early post-war years and was included on the UNESCO World Heritage List in 1979. Since 2014, organising the January 27 commemoration ceremonies has been entirely the museum’s responsibility, which Warsaw transferred to the museum from the relevant state agencies. They went out of their way to avoid inviting Russia’s leadership. Instead of sending out official invitations, the museum “notified” whoever it deemed necessary about the upcoming events. What kind of organisation is this? This time, they notified the embassies of the EU member states and the states supporting the Auschwitz-Birkenau Foundation. What about others?
I would like to remind you that in 2013, Russia contributed $1 million to the museum. And yet, we never got any information. That is all you need to know about the international system based on some fake rules. They write those rules and they violate them because in fact, there are no rules except for one – might makes right.
Perhaps UNESCO bodies should discuss the museum’s actions as the organiser of commemorative events who excludes delegations from other museums, which have in fact contributed to its exhibitions. Let me explain.
The Russian Victory Museum on Poklonnaya Hill has provided a permanent display for Block 14 of the Auschwitz-Birkenau Museum. In May 2022, the Polish side (we have repeatedly mentioned this) shut it down “for operational reasons.” This definitely aligns with certain UNESCO leaders’ policy – they used the same logic when they failed to mention representatives of the Russian media as journalists killed [in the line of duty]. Why don’t we ask UNESCO what they think about the Auschwitz-Birkenau Museum and its policy?
This year, like all those years before, Russian representatives will not be invited to the commemoration ceremonies at Auschwitz-Birkenau on January 27. That is, there will be no one there to mention the Soviet liberator soldiers and express gratitude to them. In this regard, there is something that needs to be said to the organisers and all the Europeans who will be there: your lives, your work and leisure, the very existence of your nations, your children have been paid for by Soviet soldiers, their lives, their blood. It was them who crushed the Third Reich machine. You are forever in their debt. You are insulting their memory – not only the memory of the fallen Red Army soldiers whose memorials you are destroying, but also of the Holocaust victims. This is not just about Russophobia. In fact, this is an extension of anti-Semitism and collaborationism. You only pretend to honour the Jewish prisoners. With your other hand, you are destroying memorials to Red Army soldiers, and hundreds of thousands of them were Jewish, too. This is a monstrous version of the same segregation that devolved into Nazism and fascism, only in a modern beautiful wrapping.
You have made us do the math. I am telling you – to everyone who will pretend on January 27 that the Red Army had nothing to do with it – I am telling you that the above-mentioned 60th Army included 1,073 ethnic Jews. This is the most blasphemous desecration of history imaginable. The spiritual heirs of the vanquished, allies of the neo-Banderites, are taking revenge on the bygone generations of victors.
On January 27, Russian diplomats from the Consulate General in Krakow will pay tribute to the memory of the fallen Soviet compatriots regardless of their ethnicity. Flowers and wreaths will be laid at the cemetery in Auschwitz, the resting place of the soldiers who died liberating the city and its environs, as well as at the monument to Soviet prisoners on the Auschwitz-Birkenau Museum grounds. There were 15,200 Soviet prisoners of war there; 2,000 survived. In autumn 1941, Zyklon B gas was tested on them – not for the treatment of diseases, but for extermination. We remember them and will always remember them. To honour their memory, 2025 has been declared the Year of the Defender of the Fatherland in Russia. The initiative was announced by President of Russia Vladimir Putin.
Day marking the break of the Siege of Leningrad
The Soviet troops made multiple attempts to free Leningrad from the chokehold of the siege as part of their counteroffensive operations in 1941-1942. For all people in Russia the very words “siege” and “blockade” have come to symbolise Leningrad and those who survived or did not survive the siege.
On January 12, 1943, units of the Leningrad and Volkhovsky fronts launched a large-scale offensive codenamed Iskra – a Spark. They succeeded in breaching the encirclement on the sixth day, January 18, 1943. It took a lot of intensive fighting to liberate Shlisselburg and Lipki from the Nazi troops. This way, the Soviet troops have been able to carve out a narrow 11-kilometre-wide corridor along Lake Ladoga’s southern banks. They used this route to send in supplies and evacuate people.
It took an entire year before the city could be fully liberated when the Leningrad, Volkhovsky and the 2nd Baltic fronts carried out the Leningrad-Novgorod Strategic Offensive together with the Baltic Fleet and the long-range air forces. January 27, 1944, came down in the history of the Great Patriotic War as the day of breaking the siege and completely liberating Leningrad.
The battle for Leningrad was one of the Great Patriotic War’s most challenging, long, fierce and bloody battles. The Soviet troops undertook an all-out offensive effort in 1944 to liberate the Leningrad and Novgorod regions, as well as part of the Kalinin (Tver) region, forcing the enemy to retreat to the Estonian and Latvian borders. After nurturing plans to seize part of Soviet territory by building an alliance with Nazi Germany, Finland had to announce its withdrawal from the war and sign a truce with the USSR. This successful offensive on the northwestern strategic theatre enabled the Soviet troops to embark on the victorious march across the European military theatre.
According to German military archives, Nazis and their accomplices planned to raise Leningrad to the ground and exterminate all its residents, including by cutting off supplies, destroying food reserves and causing people to starve to death. The orders coming from the Nazi command were crystal clear: keep the city under siege, strangle it with a tight blockade, do not accept any capitulation offers, shoot anyone crossing the frontline and seek to exterminate all city dwellers. The enemy was willing to go to great lengths to fulfil its inhuman agenda, sparing no effort or weapons. More than 150,000 shells and over 107,000 incendiary and fragmentation bombs were thrown at the city on the Neva River. These barbaric bombings and regular artillery strikes targeted residential neighbourhoods, hospitals, maternities, schools and childcare institutions, museums, palaces, and institutes.
Unprecedented in terms of its length and its grave, and gruesome, consequences, this intentional effort to exterminate people during the siege of Leningrad lasted for 872 days, from September 8, 1941, to January 27, 1944. During that time, more than a million people died from starvation, illness or shelling, according to several estimates. Historians and volunteers have been working to unearth new data and specify these statistics. Up to 4,000 people died every day in the city from exhaustion. But how did they lose their lives? They died painful deaths, in horrific suffering. Tens of thousands of siege victims died during evacuation.
In 2022, the St Petersburg City Court backed a motion filed by the Prosecutor General’s Office to recognise what the occupation authorities and German troops did together with their accomplices, i.e., armed units formed in Belgium, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, Norway and Finland, as well as individual volunteers from Austria, Latvia, Poland, France and Czechoslovakia, as “a war crime, a crime against humanity and an act of genocide against national and ethnic groups forming the population of the USSR and the peoples of the Soviet Union.”
Since 1995, we have been commemorating the breaking of the Siege of Leningrad on January 27, the day when the blockade was lifted in 1944. In 2014, legislators approved a new title for this remembrance date by calling it the Day Marking Leningrad’s Complete Liberation from the Nazi Siege. This way, it fully reflects the decisive role and contribution by civilians to defending the city.
In his January 2023 remarks on the 80th anniversary of breaking the Siege of Leningrad, President Vladimir Putin said that this day mattered not only for Leningrad residents, but also for the whole country: “But historical memory must be preserved with the express purpose of preventing a repetition of the tragedies like those our people went through during the Great Patriotic War. There is also a practical point in this – we must promptly react to the emerging threats against our country.”
The 75th anniversary of diplomatic relations with Vietnam
On January 30, the Russian Federation and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam will mark the 75th anniversary of diplomatic relations.
In 1950, the Soviet Union became one of the first nations to recognise a new sovereign state in Southeast Asia and provided substantial assistance to the heroic people of Vietnam during their protracted struggle for freedom and independence, as well as throughout the country’s peaceful development.
It is symbolic that Vietnam will celebrate the liberation of southern Vietnam and the country’s reunification on April 30, 1975. On September 2, we will congratulate our Vietnamese friends on the 80th anniversary of independence, which was proclaimed on September 2, 1945. In turn, we hope the leadership of Vietnam will attend festivities in Moscow marking the 80th anniversary of the Victory in the Great Patriotic War.
Our countries maintain an intensive and trust-based political dialogue. We would like to specially note President Vladimir Putin’s state visit to Vietnam in June 2024. In September 2024, National Assembly Chairman Tran Thanh Man paid an official visit to the Russian Federation. In October 2024, the President of Russia met with Prime Minister of Vietnam Pham Minh Chinh on the sidelines of the BRICS summit in Kazan.
In mid-January 2025, Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin visited Hanoi, where he held talks and reached important agreements on more active cooperation in various fields.
Our mutual trade has been growing steadily over the past few years. We are implementing joint oil and gas projects on the continental shelf of Vietnam and in the Nenets Autonomous Area of the Russian Federation. We continue to manufacture Russian motor vehicles in Vietnam and to cooperate in the civilian nuclear power industry. We are expanding our scientific, educational, cultural and humanitarian ties, as well as cooperating in the tourism industry.
Moscow and Hanoi hold similar or coinciding positions on many global and regional issues and closely coordinate their activities at the UN and other international organisations.
Close and active collaboration on all these and many other aspects has made it possible to elevate Russian-Vietnamese relations to the level of comprehensive strategic partnership as far back as 2012. We strive to promote this partnership in the interests of our nations and for the sake of upholding peace and security in the Asia-Pacific region.
I would like to take this opportunity and to congratulate all citizens of Vietnam on the upcoming joyful Tet holiday, Vietnam’s Lunar New Year, which will be celebrated on January 29, and to wish them wellbeing and prosperity.
Question: What is your comment on the Vatican’s role in addressing the humanitarian challenges and in settling the Ukraine crisis as a whole against the background of the destructive position demonstrated by the West?
Maria Zakharova: The Vatican’s and Pope Francis’ well-considered position, designed to contribute to the resolution of this grave crisis, stands in stark contrast to the collective West’s destructive stance aimed at inflicting a “strategic defeat” on Russia. It is, in fact, the West that has unleashed a hybrid war against our country and provoked the conflict in Ukraine. We have never heard the Vatican’s representatives or its diplomatic service urge us to end talks or refrain from entering into negotiations. Nor have we heard statements suggesting that the dispute should be resolved on the battlefield. Their discourse has been entirely different.
We would like to highlight in particular the Holy See’s positive role in resolving a number of humanitarian problems within the context of this conflict. The Vatican and Russia have established constructive and effective collaboration in this regard, yielding concrete results.
For example, the Pope’s Special Envoy for Peace in Ukraine Cardinal Matteo Zuppi was actively involved in a mission to bring back to Russia 16 wounded Russian soldiers as part of two recent Russian-Ukrainian POW exchanges (December 30, 2024 and January 15, 2025). This work was carried out as a follow-up to the Moscow agreements reached during the Cardinal’s visit to Russia in October 2024.
We hope to continue our constructive humanitarian cooperation with the Vatican, as we do with all other foreign partners wishing to achieve long-term peace based on respect for the legitimate interests of all peoples and ethnic groups inhabiting this region. However, unlike the Vatican, not all parties demonstrate this desire in response.
Question: What is Russia’s reaction to Donald Trump’s statements on Ukraine? Talking to journalists, he said Russia would face huge problems if it failed to accept a deal. Should we remind the US leader that Moscow is constantly emphasising its openness to negotiations?
Maria Zakharova: High-sounding statements are being made every day and every hour. Previously, they were made by President-elect Donald Trump and his advisors. Now they are made by President Donald Trump and his advisors. It is their well-known tactic. They have repeatedly stated publicly that the previous US administration, the Department of State, and Joe Biden personally made grave mistakes in Ukraine. While we regard many actions taken by the Biden administration to support the terrorist Kiev regime as crimes, it must be acknowledged that the former administration made these mistakes as a nation rather than as private individuals. Joe Biden was the head of state; his administration was running the country; US officials represented the nation. What should be done about mistakes committed on behalf of a country and in the process of governance? They should be corrected. Therefore, it is necessary to rectify those mistakes, considering that the current Trump administration has repeatedly stated, admitted, and argued that the situation in Ukraine is a result of the previous administration’s mistakes.
This is the logic behind the statements made by the United States. It is highly unlikely that a repetition of the actions taken by Joe Biden and his administration would amount to an effort to correct their mistakes.
Question: French President Emmanuel Macron plans to mobilise young volunteers to fortify the country’s army in case of a dangerous turn of events. What’s your take on his plans? What goals is the French leader really after?
Maria Zakharova: Over the years, we have seen Paris take measures to reinforce the military and technical capabilities of the French army. Back in 2022, President Macron announced his plan to get the armed forces ready for “high-intensity warfare” and to put the economy “on a war footing.” A new law on military planning adopted shortly thereafter provides for doubling France’s military budget within ten years. The innovative types of weapons continue to be developed, and many of them are being tested on Ukrainians and Ukraine, which the collective West uses not only as a tool to wage the hybrid war against Russia, but also as a testing ground.
Some time ago, Zelensky and Ukrainian high-ranking military officers urged the West to test new types of weapons in Ukraine which is exactly what is happening. France is no exception. Plans are in place to increase the number of the main and reserve armed forces. Thus, the French President’s plans to enroll young people for the military service fit seamlessly into this militaristic policy.
You are asking about President Macron’s goals. The answer is clear, and the French leader gave it once again in his recent address to the armed forces. To quote, “The line of our security runs through our borders in Europe and Ukraine. Let us not delude ourselves: this [Ukrainian] conflict will not end tomorrow or the day after.” Clearly, Paris is gearing up for continued confrontation with our country. The fact that the Elysee Palace hasn’t uttered a word about talks, peace initiative, or peace plan serves to confirm this viewpoint. The French youth is being prepared for this confrontation as well. So far, the discussions have revolved around voluntary enrolment. In Ukraine, too, it all started as a “voluntary” initiative and was shortly followed by an open season on potential recruits.
In addition to Macron talking about this as a French national, he is also relaying the narrative of the war party, which includes representatives of various North Atlantic countries. It can be described by a lack of desire to respect Russia’s legitimate security interests, a push to make the Ukraine crisis last as long as possible, and to use Ukraine and Ukrainians as a deterrence tool to inflict a “strategic defeat” on our country. This is yet another proof that France and Macron in person have been among the main patrons and instigators of the Kiev regime all along and consistently escalated their rhetoric and tensions in general.
We keep hearing French officials make irresponsible remarks about possible deploying NATO contingents in Ukraine, either as “instructors,” or as a way to provide military aid to the Ukrainian armed forces, or under the guise of “European peacekeepers.” With his new bellicose statements, the French president is clearly trying to send a message to Vladimir Zelensky, who is encouraged to lower the mobilisation age down to 18 years (we have covered this earlier today), and to “block” calls for peace by a number of European politicians and US politicians.
The other day, the media reported on the French Special Forces’ exercises which took place on a terrain that is similar to the Dnieper River bend north of Kiev. Our advice is to adjust the location of such manoeuvres next time and choose a water obstacle that looks like the Berezina River in order to properly practice retreat. This river and the surrounding landscape can be reconstructed fairly easily for practicing these skills.
Question: Earlier this week, Donald Trump officially took office as President of the United States and signed a number of executive orders to follow up on his campaign promises. How does Russia assess his return to power? What are Moscow’s expectations concerning the future of Russia-US relations with President Trump in the White House?
Maria Zakharova: President Vladimir Putin covered this in detail during the January 20 meeting with permanent members of the Security Council.
In particular, he noted that “We observe that the newly elected President of the United States and his team have expressed a desire to re-establish direct contact with Russia, which the outgoing Administration had severed; furthermore, we note his remarks on the necessity of doing everything possible to avert a third world war; we welcome this stance.”
We have never given up on a dialogue. We have always been willing to maintain steady cooperative relations with any US administration, which I reiterated on many occasions. We assume that the dialogue will rely on an equal and mutually respectful basis, considering the meaningful role played by the United States and Russia in international politics, including the efforts to improve strategic stability and security.
Question: The agenda of the January 24 meeting of the Committee of Permanent Representatives in the European Union includes an item on extending economic sanctions against Russia which expire in January. In December 2024, Prime Minister of Hungary Viktor Orban told the EU leaders that he was ready to veto the rollover of the sanctions, which will result in their expiration on January 31. He explained that if Trump decided to slacken anti-Russia sanctions, he would demand that the EU does the same. The Financial Times has written in this connection that EU officials are drawing up fallback measures to safeguard the bloc’s sanctions against Russia (which expire in January 2025) after Hungary threatened to veto their renewal. What do you think of this EU policy?
Maria Zakharova: It can only be interpreted as yet another round of the EU’s bureaucratic twists and turns over the coordination or extension of anti-Russia restrictions. The EU considers it possible to disregard the norms of international law by selectively turning them upside down, let alone their own legislation. They have done every possible thing wrong with their laws. They have abused them in every possible way. More than that, the EU’s unilateral sanctions are an illegitimate measure in terms of international law.
It is no secret that the anti-Russia sanctions, which the EU regularly extends and expands, are a result of the joint efforts by the EU’s liberal elites, which are using the myth about the “Russian threat” to promote their political careers, and the US political, financial and economic circles behind them. The others are forced to accept the result of that “cooperative effort.”
Many of those who refused to believe or accept this are coming to see that the anti-Russia sanctions have not reached the desired effect. Instead, they have affected above all the economies of the countries that have adopted them.
The Brussels’ restrictions were adopted to sever the Russian business’s ties with the global market and the financial system, to deprive it of access to advanced technologies, and to provoke economic destabilisation in Russia. They have not achieved their goals. Russia is successfully developing its economy in the new geopolitical and geoeconomic realities.
We were ready to develop relations with them on the basis of equality and in the interests of prosperity in Russia, in their countries and throughout the world as a whole. They have chosen differently. It’s strange but they thought that we would be unable to brace ourselves, to respond and find a solution. We are developing partnership with the Global Majority countries based on equality, mutual advantage and mutual respect. This is reality.
At the same time, European statistics report an industrial decline in the EU countries. In November 2024, compared with November 2023, industrial production decreased by 1.7 percent in the EU. Industrial decline has been reported in 17 out of 27 EU countries. The monthly decline in Germany, which used to be the driver of the EU’s economy, was registered at around 4 percent on average in the second half of the year.
It is not us but them who need to decide. Should they continue with this illegal policy to harm Russia and consequently worsen their own economic situation?
Our stance on this issue has always been crystal clear. We might change it when – and if – the EU stops this madness. As long as they continue with these destructive activities, we will defend ourselves. If they act against us, we will respond in kind to protect our interests.
I would like to repeat that this was not our choice, so that they don’t say later that we have not warned them. It is the collective West that has made this choice for itself and the world as a whole.
Question: On January 21, 2025, the Foreign Minister released a statement saying that it has notified Japan of its withdrawal from intergovernmental memorandums regarding the Japanese centres.
There are currently six Japanese centres in Russia. They can be found not only in Moscow, but also in St Petersburg, Vladivostok, Khabarovsk, Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, and Nizhny Novgorod. Many Russians continue taking Japanese language lessons there and study Japanese culture. I am certain that these Japanese centres stand as a symbol of friendship between our countries regardless of where our diplomatic relations take us.
Still, a decision has been taken regardless. What will be its practical consequences? Will all the six Japanese centres in Russia have to suspend and stop their activities? If so, when will it happen? Apart from the Japanese people, I have many Russian friends who want to hear your reply. May I ask you to explain to us what is going on?
Maria Zakharova: I knew that Japanese journalists have questions on this topic, so I prepared an answer for you.
The way you have framed this issue as two different topics surprised me. You are saying that we must maintain friendly ties between our countries regardless of where our diplomatic relations take us. But wait? Who are the parties to these diplomatic relations? We are talking about relations between our two countries. This is not just a matter of several people talking to each other. I may not know the way you frame this issue in Japan, but if diplomatic practices are any guide, and taking into account what we learned based on our professional experience and our work, diplomatic relations can be defined as relations between states, countries, and their people.
You managed to separate these two aspects? How did you manage to do that? For you, developments at the official level do not matter. Just go ahead and promote friendly ties. We are all for it – I mean for promoting friendship. However, this friendship must apply to the relations between our countries in all their aspects. Otherwise, we would have a situation when some maintain friendly ties, while others – and I am referring to Tokyo here – keep coming up with new ways of destroying this friendship. We have been regularly making this point. You do not come here frequently. If you come here more often you would have already learned about it. Still, you can read the statements and explore Tokyo’s measures regarding our country. Can sanctions be a manifestation of friendship?
Turning to the decision we have taken, we offered a detailed explanation in a Foreign Ministry press release dated January 21, 2025. It deals with terminating two intergovernmental memorandums adopted in 2000 and 2003: the Memorandum between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of Japan to Create and Operate Japanese Centres on the Territory of the Russian Federation for Providing Technical Assistance for Reforms in the Russian Federation – it was signed in Tokyo on September 5, 2000; and the Memorandum between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of Japan on the Operation of a Japanese Centre on the Territory of the Russian Federation for Providing Technical Assistance for Reforms in the Russian Federation – it was signed in Vladivostok on June 29, 2003.
At the time, we reached these agreements based on a shared understanding that working with Japan when undertaking reforms in Russia could help, just as these documents say, promote a positive and effective partnership between our two countries, as well as forge closer bonds in various spheres, including in the economy and culture.
However, has Tokyo demonstrated any willingness to reinforce our mutual understanding or strengthen friendly state-to-state ties these days? We do not see this, since this is not true. But can we talk about an effective and positive partnership? No, Tokyo has acted to doom this creative partnership, and its actions have had a destructive effect not only in terms of our friendship and partnership, but also for maintaining normal contacts between countries.
Since February 2022, the Japanese Government has been taking overtly hostile steps regarding our country, including illegitimate sanctions against Russian leaders, people, financial institutions and entire sectors of our economy. Japan ended Russia’s most favoured nation status in trade, and has been taking part in stealing our sovereign assets in one way or another, while also supporting Kiev’s Russia-hating policy, including by offering Ukraine material and technical support. All this runs counter to the letter and spirit of these memorandums. It is clear that the goals and objectives as set forth in these documents have become irrelevant considering the fact that Shigeru Ishiba’s administration continues to push its anti-Russia policy, including by adopting a new package of restrictions on January 10, 2025. Japanese officials doomed these documents by taking specific steps. This means that officials in Tokyo were the ones who made the cooperation as described in these memorandums irrelevant.
In terms of the practical implications, we believe that the memorandums become invalid on the day Japan is notified of the decision by the Government of the Russian Federation by sending a corresponding note – it happened on January 21, 2025. Therefore, this decision comes into force on January 21, 2025.
As for the Japanese centres, which operate as Russian legal entities, but get all their funding from the Government of Japan and are controlled by the Japanese embassy, they will now operate outside of the bilateral intergovernmental framework. It is obvious that our specialised agencies will now have to define the legal framework for their operation and status, primarily in terms of foreign funding. In addition to this, Japan may also decide to close these centres, but it goes without saying that it will have to respect Russian law.
If you have any follow-up questions, you can forward them to us to get a detailed answer.
Question: Does this mean that the Japanese centres will not cease their operations?
Maria Zakharova: It is not for the Foreign Ministry to decide. This decision is taken by the corresponding authorised bodies considering the legal standing. They are the ones taking decisions to this effect.
Question: US President Donald Trump has repeatedly said that Russian President Vladimir Putin must agree to end the Ukrainian conflict. Could you cite some of Russia’s “red lines” for possible future discussions? How can we ensure that an eventual agreement is not just a temporary ceasefire in a protracted conflict that goes on for years, if not decades, but paves the way for a lasting peace?
Maria Zakharova: The phrase you just used – red lines – has been grossly overused and misused lately. One gets the impression that we’re in an art class discussing a painting, like Bathing the Red Horse. And now you’re asking me to show you these red lines.
However, I can repeat what the Russian side has stated repeatedly, no problem.
In principle, President Vladimir Putin set forth Russia’s approaches in this room at the Foreign Ministry’s press centre on June 14, 2024. They can be accessed anytime; they can and should be considered by anyone who is not fixated on aggression or their own sick ambitions, but is genuinely looking for ways out of the situation.
Ukraine’s situation is complicated, with its political and state structure in ruins, undermined by the endless experiments of the West. The country is sacrificing its citizens every day, sending them to slaughter. It keeps demanding more and more support from the world for its terrorist activity. The country (I mean the Kiev regime) has driven itself into a dead end. This is what needs to be considered.
Russia has set forth its approaches. Russia does not contradict itself, but clearly states that we were willing to negotiate, were ready to reach agreement, and demonstrated a respective approach during the talks. We have repeatedly pointed out that those who envision a peaceful political and diplomatic settlement have tools to pressure those who forbade Vladimir Zelensky to negotiate [with Russia]. We said that Ukraine needed to abolish its own law banning itself to negotiate, naturally, adopted under pressure from the West. Our stance is clear, with no contradictions, which means there is no need to return to the red lines issue now. We take a consistent approach to this issue. We have made it very clear, presented our approach. We regularly comment on the situation concerning the conflict and present our assessments; we call a spade a spade. Why would we need to provide a simplified view of this situation now?
Question: Armenian Parliament Speaker Alen Simonyan said that Yerevan has no plans to withdraw from the EAEU, although the republic’s government has approved the draft law on joining the European Union. Earlier, Moscow made it clear that being a member of both associations is impossible. Did the Armenian side give any explanations in this regard at the recent talks between the foreign ministers of Russia and Armenia, Sergey Lavrov and Ararat Mirzoyan?
Maria Zakharova: Speaking about the talks between the Russian and Armenian foreign ministers held recently in Moscow, corresponding comments were made at a news conference, including on these matters. Also, a press release has been published in their wake.
If you still need more information, I can add that the conversation was candid, part of it one-on-one. They actually talked for three hours behind closed doors. Indeed, the parties had a frank exchange on many points of particular relevance for both.
Question: Is there any hope for a positive solution to the issue after those three hours?
Maria Zakharova: You should never lose hope.
Question: It is well known that in recent years, under the administration of Joe Biden, the United States has intensified its negative policy towards the South Caucasus. This included efforts to create tensions between certain states in the region and Russia, interference in the internal affairs of these countries, and involvement in the Armenian-Azerbaijani peace process. In your view, with Donald Trump returning to power in the United States, is there a chance that this negative focus on the South Caucasus could diminish? Could such a shift improve the prospects for signing a peace agreement between Baku and Yerevan and foster more comprehensive and robust engagement through the “3+3” mechanism?
Maria Zakharova: Predicting the potential approach of the new Trump administration towards the South Caucasus is challenging at this stage. Past experience indicates that external interference, particularly by the US and the EU, in the region’s affairs has not yielded positive outcomes.
It has been emphasised multiple times that the genuine roadmap for reconciliation between Baku and Yerevan, as well as for achieving a lasting and stable peace, is outlined in the series of trilateral agreements reached by the leaders of Russia, Azerbaijan, and Armenia between 2020 and 2022.
We support direct dialogue between Baku and Yerevan and are always prepared to assist our Azerbaijani and Armenian partners in all aspects of normalisation. This includes drafting a balanced peace agreement, reopening transportation and economic links, conducting border delimitation and demarcation, and fostering civil society engagement. To achieve lasting peace and prosperity, it is crucial to solidify this process within a regional framework.
Regarding the 3+3 Regional Cooperation Platform, it is a highly promising mechanism for fostering dialogue among South Caucasus countries and their immediate neighbours. This format is entirely independent of Western involvement and is focused on its own objectives, namely, the progressive development of cooperation in areas of mutual interest. There is no concealed or behind-the-scenes agenda. At the most recent meeting in Istanbul on October 18, 2024, the foreign ministers of the participating countries agreed on a concrete plan of action, which we are confident will be implemented in the coming year.
Question: As you mentioned to my colleague, there are chances and hopes for a brighter future under Donald Trump.
Maria Zakharova: Are your hopes tied solely to the American electoral cycle?
Question: Hopes that things will improve and become easier.
Maria Zakharova: For the situation in the world to truly become easier and better, we must focus on advancing our own interests – specifically, our national interests. Ideally, everyone should respect international law and each other. This forms the foundation of hopes: not wishful thinking, but hopes grounded in action. There’s the secret revealed. I believe I’ve provided a more comprehensive answer than I gave to your colleague earlier.
Question: In 2024, Russia deepened its ties with Global South nations, particularly through its BRICS chairmanship. Could you elaborate on the situation during Russia’s leadership and the prospects for Azerbaijan’s potential BRICS membership? How aligned are Moscow and Baku today in their views on fostering a more equitable international order?
Maria Zakharova: This question is primarily one for Baku to address, as it concerns the participation of a sovereign state in the group.
From our perspective, we welcome Azerbaijan’s interest, along with that of other nations aligned with us, in joining BRICS, a group that advocates for the interests of the Global Majority. In 2024, this topic received significant attention, largely due to Russia’s role as chair. While the chairmanship has since transitioned to another country, our stance remains unchanged. I would like to reference the joint statement by the leaders of Russia and Azerbaijan on August 19, 2024, which outlines the matter comprehensively.
We consistently support the expansion of BRICS cooperation with nations of the Global South and East, particularly those that uphold the principles of multilateralism in international relations, follow an independent foreign policy, and refrain from participating in illegitimate unilateral sanctions imposed without the approval of the UN Security Council.
In 2024, during Russia’s BRICS chairmanship, we aimed to engage as many like-minded nations as possible, including the Republic of Azerbaijan, in the group’s events under the traditional BRICS Plus/Outreach format. We plan to continue these efforts during Brazil’s chairmanship in 2025.
Regarding the prospects of full membership in BRICS, such decisions, like any others within the group, are made through comprehensive consultations and consensus. Last year, Azerbaijan was added to the list of countries expressing interest in strengthening cooperation with BRICS. The doors of BRICS remain open. The priority is to enhance the effectiveness and strengthen the expanded strategic partnership within the group.
In response to your question, I’ve outlined everything the Russian side has stated throughout 2024.
Question: Do Moscow and Baku share similar views on building a just international order?
Maria Zakharova: We have consistently highlighted that on many key issues, our positions are either similar or closely aligned.
Question: What does Russia think about President Aleksandar Vucic’s assumption that the West is planning a colour revolution in Serbia?
Maria Zakharova: There have been such facts in history. The Balkans in general and Serbia in particular, both as an independent state and as part of Yugoslavia, have always been a major irritant for the collective West because of their cultural identity, historical stance, and their peaceful vision of the Balkans, Europe and the world as a whole.
I sometimes think (based not only on emptions but also on historical facts) that the collective West, which pandered to the fascists and Nazis, did not fight them properly and helped them escape after the Soviet Union routed the Nazi armies, can’t forgive Serbia for its principled stance. While Europe first fawned at and was enamoured of Nazism, then did not resist it, and ultimately collaborated with the Nazis and fascists, Serbia and Serbs, who lived in the centre of that Europe, took a different position of principle. It looks like the West couldn’t forgive them for upholding the values of importance to them in the 1990s, and for refusing to abandon their couture, history and religion.
Historically, Serbia attracted many Western countries which wanted to bring their order to it. In the 20th century, they couldn’t forgive Serbia for surviving and for upholding things of life-defining importance to them.
This explains the current developments. We see a huge desire of the West to lure Serbia into its far from friendly embrace. But this is not what friends do. Friends don’t betray or deceive. The West knows that Serbia is a hard nut to crack. They have been close to pushing Serbia towards self-deceit or false trust by the West several times. But they failed every time, even though they tried different methods. In the 1990s, the West acted from positions of strength to trick Serbia into losing its historical province of Kosovo. They acted through cunning and promises. Serbia every time stayed true to what it is. But the West has not stopped its attempts.
As for the practical parameters, you should ask President Vucic for facts, figures and information. It is a question for him. I can’t comment on this information because only the President of Serbia has the facts. However, I have described the historical logic of the West’s actions towards Serbia in answer to your question.
We have always been at one with Serbia in its resistance to harmful external influences, in protecting its independence and sovereignty in domestic and foreign affairs. I don’t think anyone can question that.
Of course, we see that the West is using identical methods against sovereign states. They use a blueprint in relations with other states as well, like attempts by the United States and its allies to overturn election results and distort the voters’ will by providing their own “assessments” and not just promoting but forcibly imposing them. We see who finances and issues instructions to the puppet NGOs and all manner of “active citizens” who promote Western schemes that can only benefit the West rather than schemes of Serbia’s integration into the West’s economic community. They incite people who rally for their civil rights in Serbia to turn them from democratic into anti-state actions. These are two different things.
We have seen the attempts to wreak chaos, like they are now doing in Serbia, in other countries as well. It is the collective West’s master key for getting a foothold in a state that cannot resist such attempts or believes Western promises. They have formulated the goal of using chaos and other abovementioned methods to deprive Belgrade of its sovereign will, force it to abandon its vital interests, give up historically normal and friendly relations with Russia and betray it. These are not just high-sounding words, although they are important as well. Any nation appreciates such words about friendship because they are backed with practical actions. The thing is that this – giving up relations with Russia, as the West insists – will also affect the Serbs. It was not in 2022 that the West began demanding this for the first time. It always wanted this from Serbia, but its pressure redoubled in 2022. The special friendly relations between our nations are a pain in the West’s neck.
Question: Did Russia and Armenia manage to reach common ground with regard to the draft law On Starting the Process of Armenia’s Accession to the European Union following talks between Sergey Lavrov and Ararat Mirzoyan? Or, does Russia still believe that this draft law marks the beginning of Armenia’s withdrawal from the EAEU, as Deputy Prime Minister Alexey Overchuk stated earlier? Moreover, the Armenian Foreign Minister said that the parliament, where the majority of seats are held by the party of Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, will vote for adopting this draft law.
Maria Zakharova: Your question sounds like are you done eating or did you enjoy your meal? Two parts of your question merge to form one mixed thesis.
I addressed this matter earlier. We discussed everything, including complex issues, exchanged opinions, and expressed our views.
You would like to know whether the position presented by Deputy Prime Minister Alexey Overchuk is relevant, correct?
His position is based on the laws of sciences such as economics and jurisprudence. The explanations he provided are not political declarations, or explanations of obvious causal links. He explained the ways things work in general. He did not make any political statements that are detached from reality. All he did was clarify the crux of the matter.
Question: My question was about something else. Did the sides manage to reach a common understanding during the talks, or did they still stick to their own respective opinions after the talks? The Armenian Government stated at the top level that this process will be taken up by the parliament. We knew where Russia stood. Now, I would like to know if each side had stuck to its own opinion, or did they manage to strike a compromise during the three-hour talks that you mentioned?
Maria Zakharova: I have addressed this on an earlier occasion, as did the foreign ministers during the news conference.
To reiterate, talks imply an exchange of views on a particular issue which has effectively taken place. Our position, which was made known by the Russian officials that you mentioned, is not based on politically-motivated demands or political declarations. It is based on realities, laws, the economy, and an understanding of law and order. That is precisely what it is based on.
You keep asking about compromises, etc. There are certain laws underlying this “genre,” which Mr Overchuk explained in an exceedingly correct way. The talks allowed the parties to exchange views on these issues.
Countries are run by different politicians with their own views. However, I believe that this meeting and the talks provided a venue for a candid and trust-based dialogue.
Question: I would like to know what you think about the trial over the leaders of Artsakh, which is currently underway in Baku and is ridden with gross violations of human rights. In 2023, at the Valdai Discussion Club meeting, President Vladimir Putin was asked to comment on this arrest, and he expressed hope that the Azerbaijani leadership would act in a humane manner with regard to the detained leader. As we know from Ruben Vardanyan’s letter, his interrogation records have been falsified. His right to defence has been grossly violated. He also said he had been tortured. We can safely say that all other detained Armenians were treated the same way. This is why we would like to know what you think about the ongoing developments.
Maria Zakharova: Speaking of the long-lasting Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict in general, it has caused a huge number of issues between Baku and Yerevan, including major humanitarian tragedies.
Acting within the framework of the trilateral process, the leaders of Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia reached an agreement on the importance of resolving humanitarian issues, among others. In particular, the October 31, 2022 statement explicitly says that “the parties agreed to make additional efforts aimed at the urgent resolution of outstanding tasks, including the bloc of humanitarian issues.”
We reaffirm our commitment to the above agreements. We are ready to provide the necessary assistance to our Azerbaijani and Armenian partners with regard to observing refugee rights, preserving cultural, historical and religious heritage, searching for the MIAs, and exchanging and returning of all detainees. We are confident that this will help create an atmosphere of trust in the Baku-Yerevan dialogue.
I understand that you will likely want to get an answer in the “press the button - get the result” format. However, certain issues have remained unresolved for decades and became even more complicated over time. They did not arise overnight, but are part of a “tangle” of problems that has been forming for several decades. Considering this, they should be addressed following the how-to instruction that I just mentioned.
Question: President of Russia Vladimir Putin and President of China Xi Jinping spoke the day after Donald Trump’s inauguration. Russia-China relations are defined as “a comprehensive partnership and strategic interaction entering a new era.” Moscow and Beijing act “from a position of solidarity” on international platforms, and their respective stances on the overwhelming majority of foreign policy issues are in accord or closely aligned. Could you briefly outline where the two countries’ approaches coincide with regard to the United States, apart from equally rejecting the policy of unilateral US domination in global affairs?
Maria Zakharova: Russia and China truly value their partnership and strategic cooperation, including what was achieved in this respect thanks to the personal efforts of the two countries’ leaders. Thanks to their contributions, Russia-China relations have reached an unprecedented level. Our cooperation is rooted in a broad commonality of national interests; it is not influenced by domestic politics, current affairs or third countries. Our ties are self-sufficient. We are aware of each other’s objectives and interests. Our relations have strong internal energy and are guided by the principles of equality, mutual respect and support on issues of vital importance to our countries.
Russia and China closely coordinate their moves in international affairs. The foreign policy tandem between Moscow and Beijing makes an important contribution to building a fairer international system and addressing global and regional issues. We have repeatedly demonstrated a joint responsible approach to global affairs, due to our coinciding or similar views on key international issues. At the same time, we do not seek confrontation with anyone or use our friendship against anyone.
As for the United States, indeed, in diplomacy, the history of international relations, and geopolitics, we use the concepts of triangles, poles and the like. However, the focus should be on the quality of bilateral relations between Russia and China. We see that our approaches coincide in relation to the United States, as well as to other countries. We have never had the intention of slamming the door shut or scrapping contacts [with any country], let alone of imposing any sanctions or brandishing a similar crude weapon. This is our policy with regard to the United States, given the importance of the three states on the world stage, because any alternative would be counterproductive.
We strive for positive, constructive and efficient interaction. In this respect, we see eye to eye with our Chinese partners; we have similar goals and objectives. Neither of us has ever initiated any unilateral or illegitimate measures of influence.
Moscow and Beijing have repeatedly stressed their openness to dialogue with all international partners, including the United States, even at times when Washington demonstrated really odd approaches. But every time that happened, we said that we were ready to continue – that is, on the understanding that the dialogue would be equal, honest, mutually respectful and aimed at balancing interests, not at unilateral diktat, pressure or threats.
I already commented on a similar issue today by quoting President Vladimir Putin’s recent remarks where he acknowledged President Donald Trump’s constructive statements. I would rather not repeat it.
Question: President of the United States Donald Trump decided to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement on climate and the World Health Organisation. What would be your comment on this matter?
Maria Zakharova: There has been a joke going around for quite some time now that unpredictability is the only predictable element in US foreign policy. This goes to say that the only predictable thing about it is its unpredictability. To an extent, this makes this joke kind of irrelevant, since we can now anticipate and predict in all certainty that when one administration signs any international legal agreements, the other administration will not view them as binding.
We have said many times that the political forces ruling the United States are not there to fulfil the promise of democracy but to make some kind of an American-style democracy reality. What am I talking about? They do not represent the entire nation. Instead, what they do is lobby the interests of a specific section of the population. This way, they do not take diverging opinions into account in the decision-making process and do not seek to bring them to a common denominator, while focusing entirely on catering to specific lobbying groups, politicians, etc.
As for the withdrawal by the United States from the Paris Agreement on climate, I can say that this was quite a predictable move on behalf of the new master of the Oval Office. We can also make an obvious conclusion that this is already happening for the second time. This does not mean that the Paris Agreement will cease to exist. International efforts will continue in this sector.
Russia views the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and its Paris Agreement as the key international instruments for global climate cooperation.
As for the second part of your question, the United States has already tried leaving the WHO. But what happened? The attempt was unsuccessful. There were disagreements on this issue inside the United States. So far, the current President announced his position. We have yet to see the legal framing they offer in this regard for us to be able to share our comments.
Let me remind you that the United States accounts for 22 percent of the WHO’s assessed contributions. It also makes voluntary contributions, including from non-government sources. It is clear that if the United States does withdraw from the WHO, which is the leading international institution in promoting cooperation in public healthcare, this would deal a major blow to this cooperation. We can only regret this.
Russia stands for development, strengthening and reinforcing cooperation on healthcare. It is essential that the countries in the Global South are the primary beneficiaries of these efforts.
The recent pandemic confirmed that we can be effective when fighting today’s challenges only by working together. All those who preached any other approaches failed, changed their mind or started to come together.
We will keep a close eye on the developments concerning the decision by the new administration of the United States regarding the WHO, and will be responsive in sharing our views, considering that this decision goes beyond Washington and will have a direct bearing on an international organisation within the United Nations.
Question: On January 21, 2025, Marco Rubio was appointed and sworn in as the new US Secretary of State. In this connection, what are the chances of a meeting between Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and the new US Secretary of State? Are you working on this issue?
Maria Zakharova: These contacts have not been discussed so far.
Question: US President Donald Trump has lifted sanctions targeting Jewish settlers in the West Bank. How does Moscow assess this decision in the context of the deteriorating situation in the West Bank?
Maria Zakharova: We view it as a decision of the US Government. That is all I can tell you. It should first of all be assessed by regional players.
It is quite possible that we will revisit this issue later, once the overall US strategy becomes clearer, once it is reflected in specific actions, and once the entire picture is clarified.
As President Trump had promised, he is now signing a slew of executive orders. I believe we need a bit more time. I do not use this phrase very often, but we need more time to evaluate the overall picture of Washington’s Middle East strategy. Much has been said, but they are just beginning to take specific steps. Let us wait for a comprehensive picture to emerge.
Question: We are increasingly hearing statements about a possible meeting between President of Russia Vladimir Putin and the new US President, Donald Trump. Has the US side requested a meeting with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov?
Maria Zakharova: I have just commented on a similar question. No, they have not requested this. This has not happened.
Regarding the level of presidents, the Presidential Executive Office comments on these issues.
Question: On January 21, 2025, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov met with Foreign Minister of Armenia Ararat Mirzoyan. Do you have the impression that the Armenian side is ready to honour the terms of the trilateral statement of November 10, 2020, and to unblock lines of communication via the Zangezur corridor?
Maria Zakharova: I have not heard Yerevan say that it does not consider itself to be a party to these documents. There has been no statement that they are null and void, and Armenia has not withdrawn from these agreements. Consequently, the country remains a party to what its leader has mentioned. That is all I can say regarding your question.
Question: Growing geopolitical differences, deepening global inequality, a surge in violence against civilians, unwillingness to tolerate any diverging views, uncertainty resulting from technical failures, and the consequences of the climate crisis in all their aspects – all this has undermined the feeling of justice and trust in international institutions. The fact that the international system in its current form was unable to resolve these present-day challenges further weakened cooperation which was fragile to begin with.
What does Russia think about systemic challenges to multilateralism and how does Russia contribute to dialogue on reinstituting diplomacy as a primary tool in today’s rapidly changing international environment?
Maria Zakharova: I think that the question you have just asked is worthy of a doctoral thesis. What a broad and far-reaching question. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov answered it in terms of its pragmatic and practical implications during his press conference on Russia’s foreign policy performance in 2024, which was held in this very room on January 14, 2025.
In terms of the general long-term trends, the world’s structure is changing and is moving towards multipolarity. The United States, including its new administration, believe that they would not be able to benefit from this world order. This is why they have been seeking to promote their America First agenda in order to retain their dominance. This is why they have been sticking to the vision whereby only force rules the world and brings peace.
But there are objective historical development processes at play. No one has the power to reverse the emergence of a multipolar world order, which is an objective process. They can try delaying these processes, but they do not result from any political agendas or unfold against someone’s will. They are unfolding this way because this is the historical reality we are living in. There is potential for moving in this direction. This is the environment in which the global order evolves. There are new major actors with solid economies, which are self-reliant in terms of their natural resources and want to play a bigger role in regional and international affairs. Being able to control their own natural resources is their primary objective. This is what sets this stage apart from colonialism as we call it.
At this historical juncture, there is growing appetite for more stability within this system. This is what the countries in the Global South and East want. They stand for the sovereign equality of states and civilisational diversity. The emergence of new decision-making centres across the world is one of the key trends in the transformation of the world order.
Russia has been taking part in these processes and facilitating them. We focused our foreign policy efforts on promoting constructive cooperation with everyone seeking to create a favourable and thriving environment for their nations based on the principles of mutual respect and benefit, as well as international law. Just as most other countries, Russia refuses to accept any attempts to impose any alien norms or unclear rules. We also oppose the aspirations by certain countries to establish their hegemonies. We call for settling all disputes and disagreements at the negotiating table by seeking to balance our interests, free from any coercion or dictate by force. However, we can stand up and defend ourselves whenever there is a failure to abide by any of these principles. Not only does the Global Majority support, but it also proactively advocates our approaches, including in terms of strengthening the multipolar world order and the sovereign equality of states. They have pinned their hopes on us.
Question: The 4th Antalya Diplomacy Forum (ADF2025) will be held in Antalya on April 11-13, 2025, under the auspices of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and at the initiative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Türkiye. This year’s theme, “Reclaiming Diplomacy in a Fragmented World,” reflects the vital need for diplomacy to reassert itself as a stabilising force amid growing global differences. Is the Russian Foreign Ministry planning to attend the forum, and at what level?
Maria Zakharova: As you know, high-ranking Russian representatives regularly take part in this event. In March 2024, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov addressed its special session and held a number of bilateral meetings with his foreign colleagues in Antalya.
We regard the Antalya Diplomacy Forum as an authoritative international venue for discussing current international and regional issues.
To answer your previous questions: just recall how many similar forums existed 20 years ago. You could count them on the fingers of one hand. They were mostly held either in Western Europe or overseas. Everyone was waiting for a diplomatic forum or conference to take place in a NATO country.
Now, look at the number of venues that have emerged in countries where such forums never took place before. Major political science or international diplomacy forums are held in the UAE, Türkiye, China, India, and many other countries. They are no less, and sometimes even more, impressive than some long-established events. Why is this the case? Because they see reality as it is and acknowledge it. They are not afraid to remove the ideology-tainted glasses – while many have never worn them at all – and see things as they truly are, rather than just read narratives based on guidelines handed down from above.
As for Russia’s participation and its level, relevant decisions are in the pipeline. We will certainly inform you if and when these are approved.
Question: Following our victory in Ukraine and the conclusion of the special military operation, how will the debts and loans acquired for armaments and economic support be repaid?
Maria Zakharova: You seem to be asking me to specify “for whom” once more. Are you referring to the Kiev regime?
I believe that this matter should be of greater concern not so much to the Kiev regime itself (which is already so far gone that no one there cares about anything without the appropriate fix-up), nor even to the pseudo-elites in Western countries (as they are adept at manoeuvring), but to the citizens of these nations, who are issuing the loans for this entire “banquet.” If the Anglo-Saxon solution, which has been brewing – that they have consumed everything, yet it is the EU countries that must foot the bill – comes to fruition, it will necessitate even more financial resources. Let them contemplate this matter. The question is theirs to answer.
The West’s lack of confidence in recouping their funds is evidenced by the utterly fraudulent scheme sanctioned by the G7, which involves using proceeds from Russian sovereign state assets, unlawfully frozen in Western jurisdictions, to facilitate a €45 billion loan to Ukraine. As part of this, the EU has pledged to provide the Kiev regime with over €18 billion by 2025.
Brussels has proposed a maximum 45-year repayment term for the loan, funded by revenues from confiscated Russian state assets. This entire financing scheme for the Kiev regime already encompasses a time frame in which there will be no one left to hold accountable among those currently operating in the West and in Kiev. What does this resemble?
It resembles the decision made by the now-departed administration of Joe Biden – namely, his personal decision as President of the United States to pardon his relatives, who faced neither criminal cases nor charges, pardoning them all at once, knowing that everyone has their hands in that pie. It is somewhat similar here.
Who will carry the burden of this debt? It will fall upon the shoulders of EU taxpayers and future generations of ordinary Ukrainians, who are being ensnared in this debt trap.
Those currently deciding to grant loans to Kiev are driven by apparent motives – to keep the Nazi regime in Ukraine subservient to the West for the foreseeable future by luring it with a “financial drug” and to ensure they can continue to plunder the remaining resources in this country, as they have been doing all along. This is possible because certain Ukrainians, traitors to their own people, have allowed it by passing outrageous laws, obtaining loans, swiftly embezzling them, signing debt obligations everywhere, purchasing property abroad, vacationing, and dealing with the funds stolen from their own citizens. Ample information is available online.
It is bewildering that the citizens of Ukraine, who still remain there and either support Zelensky or have ceased to support him but remain in solidarity with the current affairs, continue to express surprise when videos surface online depicting their elites’ opulent holidays abroad. For some reason, this surprises them.
We have discussed this for years, explaining how the allocation of aid to Ukraine from the European Union or the West correlates with the emergence of bulk buyers of luxury goods in shops and salons across the EU. A span of a week to ten days would elapse from the issuance of the loan; it would be routed through the Kiev regime’s banks, agencies, and departments, flowing and streaming to the pertinent citizens and responsible individuals in Ukraine, who would then partition, embezzle, and cash it all. These citizens would fly to European cities, primarily to shop or deposit money in banks, before returning home. We have discussed this on numerous occasions.
Question: What would be your forecast for the EU gas market following the halt in transits via Ukraine?
Maria Zakharova: What the Kiev regime did will have a negative bearing on the EU economy in general, including its gas market, because Brussels views the halt in Russian gas transits through Ukrainian territory only as a way to fulfil its political objective of ending Russian energy supplies to the EU. In other words, they do not take into account the energy security of specific EU member states, the sovereign choices they make regarding their energy mix, and the obvious economic fallout from their actions. The way they have been able to follow this ambiguous, and dubious, approach is anyone’s guess. It seems that this is the agenda they are pursuing.
EU officials are trying, or should I say persist in trying to persuade everyone that they anticipated and prepared this move in order to avoid any damage for the union. However, we have been there before. Moreover, they used to claim to be able to gain an even greater edge once they manage to tame Russia, as they say, by exploiting Ukraine.
Brussels has been suggesting all kinds of rather straightforward EU-style methods it has already tested on its consumers for dealing with the shortfall in Russian gas supplies. It plans to address this issue by buying more LNG from the United States, which comes at a higher price, and trying to scale down its consumption. What has been the result so far? They used to say that everything was fine – after all, no one got frozen. But there was also the deindustrialisation, disruptions along the value chain and all these businesses and European companies fleeing the European continent. Tens and hundreds of major companies moved to US territory, dealing a major blow to EU’s development prospects. This is not a matter of staying warm or freezing; what is at stake here is that this has made the development plans EU countries used to nurture irrelevant.
This has undermined manufacturing across the European continent and led to a decline in the quality of life there. I am saying this without any sarcasm or gloating. This is just a fact. We warned them; it is not that they did not know that this would happen.
But the European Commission does not want to be complacent and has been proactive in its efforts to undermine EU energy security for good. It plans to draft a roadmap by the end of February 2025 for completely weaning itself off Russian energy imports.
But there are many more crazy things coming from the EU. By the same token, the United States forced Europe to welcome the multi gender and diversity vision, fly these flags, stage parades and harmonise their laws. The gender agenda penetrated, and permeated, all documents, even those that are not related to the human or cultural dimension in any way whatsoever. The EU and countries within its orbit, which associate themselves with European politics and want to serve as guinea pigs – they amended their laws without any objections, distorted everything to an unthinkable extent in order to comply with what the United States wanted. A directive by the Department of State was all it took to instantly take the United States out of the game. It happened in a matter of a second. No more flags or parades, they said, and if we spot a staff member from an American embassy or US government agency involved in anything of this kind, they will face severe punishment. The same goes for the energy sector. It is all the same. All EU members had to queue up like zombies on their way to an abyss. They do not seem to be able to get back to their senses. This is why, in late February 2025, they want to release a roadmap for completely weaning themselves off Russia’s energy imports. I think that the EU will follow up by adopting roadmaps on stopping to eat and will then go on to ban thinking altogether. This is the way they are heading.
Therefore, we are witnessing an effort by the EU to destroy with its own hands the very foundation which ensured its wellbeing for several decades. At the same time, they oppose or reject the existence of any other centres of power or the emergence of any other economic growth powerhouses. But how can it be otherwise, if they get Russian energy resources on equal terms and use them to expand manufacturing the same way the EU once had. This is how all these new centres of gravity came to be.
The energy policy Brussels has been trying to impose reminds me of an explosive mixture blending the hopeless experiment to quickly scale down fossil fuel consumption with a determined effort by senior EU officials to slice up the EU market in Washington’s interests.
It is quite surprising that EU officials decided to go down this road. As for Russia, it has been consistent in advocating a vision in which there is no alternative to constructive cooperation between stakeholders based on mutual respect and international law.
We always seek to maintain global energy security, supply reliable and advanced sources of energy to consumers, and balance the interests of those who buy and produce these commodities in everything we do on the international energy market.
Russia remains a reliable energy supplier and has been fulfilling its contractual obligations in good faith. We are committed to steadily expanding bilateral and multilateral cooperation with all our partners. We used to express hope that economic expediency prevails there. I think that they must come back to their senses. But this is their problem, not ours.
Question: NATO ships have begun to gather in the theatre of the planned patrol operation to protect shipping in the Baltic. Warships from the Netherlands, Germany and France have already arrived in Tallinn. A Norwegian frigate is expected to arrive. Sweden plans to send up to three ships as well. It is also planned to use unmanned boats. The residents of St Petersburg have certain concerns in this regard. What to expect? According to the Foreign Ministry, what are the potential risks to the Russian Federation’s trade routes and its national security from the NATO flotilla operating in the area?
Maria Zakharova: Your question is largely within the purview of the Russian Defence Ministry. You are not talking about what the “enemies on the other side” are doing. You’re asking what we need to do to ensure our defence capability and maintain our security.
I provided the broader context for these events and commented on it in the introductory part of the briefing.
Question: How would the Russian Federation react to a hypothetical change in Canada’s status, in particular, if the US-Canada integration scenario plays out?
Maria Zakharova: You have rightly pointed out that this is a hypothetical scenario. Did you mean, if Canada holds a referendum on accession? This is a question for them. It is about their reaction to the US statements, their vision of their sovereignty and independence. I do not think it is a question for us.
However, speaking substantively rather than hypothetically, Russia, as we have repeatedly said, is committed to the principles of equality, respect for the right of nations to self-determination, the sovereign equality of states, and their territorial integrity, enshrined in the UN Charter. If a government “behaves decently,” as Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said – that is, respecting the rights of all ethnic groups of citizens – this government thereby represents the entire population residing on their territory. This is the cornerstone, which Sergey Lavrov mentioned once again during his news conference on the performance of Russian diplomacy in 2024.
Дополнительные материалы
-
Фото
 Русский дом.mp4)