Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, March 13, 2025
Table of Contents
- Outcomes of March 11 US-Ukraine meeting in Jeddah
- 11th anniversary of the Crimea referendum
- Ukraine update
- Children affected and killed by the criminal actions of the Kiev regime (2014 – present)
- Prospects for a European troop deployment in Ukraine
- France’s plan to allocate income from frozen Russian assets to support the Ukrainian Armed Forces
- Third anniversary of the Bucha staging
- Spy hysteria spirals upward in Belgium
- NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte’s statement on Bosnia and Herzegovina
- Attack on a passenger train in Pakistan
- Plans to open the Embassy of the Russian Federation in the Dominican Republic
- The 10th anniversary of the Treaty on Alliance and Integration between the Russian Federation and the Republic of South Ossetia
- 25th anniversary of the Bolshoi Theatre School in Brazil
- 59th International Mendeleev Chemistry Olympiad for school students
- Lawless action against Milorad Dodik
- Russia exercising its veto power at the UN
- US policy towards Taiwan
- Prospects for normalising Russian-US relations
- Americans ready to tone down anti-Russia rhetoric within the G7
- Ukraine ceasefire plan
- Efforts to achieve a settlement of the Syrian crisis
- Europe’s role in the settlement of the Ukrainian conflict
- The militarisation of Europe
- US proposals for a ceasefire in Ukraine
- Certain European leaders’ statements on the situation in Ukraine
- The outcomes of the negotiations between the American and Ukrainian delegations
- American business community’s chances of participating in SPIEF-2025
- Developments in Syria
- Nuclear threats by the President of Italy
- Statements by former German Chancellor
- OSCE Secretary General’s visit to Moscow
- Annual march of Waffen-SS Latvian Legion veterans
- Protests in Serbia
- Foreign mercenaries’ involvement in the Ukrainian conflict
- Kurdistan Workers’ Party declares ceasefire
- Internal political situation in Syria
- Optimisation of the visa regime between Russia and China
- Protecting Russian journalists from cyber threats
- Hypothetical scenarios for the development of relations with the United States
- Russian-US talks
Outcomes of March 11 US-Ukraine meeting in Jeddah
We receive multiple requests from the media for comments on the outcomes of the US-Ukraine meeting in Jeddah on March 11 this year, including a proposal for a 30-day ceasefire.
In this regard, we would like to say that we were closely following the meeting between representatives of the United States and Ukraine in Jeddah on March 11. We have read the statement adopted following the meeting, which contains a range of ideas.
At the moment, we have not received any official communications to this effect.
For our part, we will be ready to discuss the initiatives laid out there during our future contacts with the United States. These contacts are possible as early as today. We will inform you of their outcome depending on the specifics that we will have at our disposal.
11th anniversary of the Crimea referendum
On March 16, we will celebrate the 11th anniversary of a landmark historic event, the general referendum in Crimea on its reunification with the Russian Federation. March 18 marks the 11th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty on the Accession of the Republic of Crimea and the City of Sevastopol to the Russian Federation.
On that day, Crimean citizens made a free, conscious and independent choice regarding their own and their children’s future. In the Republic of Crimea, 96.77 percent of the voters were in favour of becoming part of Russia, while in Sevastopol the number stood at 95.6 percent. This was a fair and long-awaited decision for the Crimeans as well as for all citizens of our country.
Over the past 11 years, our enemies have made numerous attempts to punish the Crimeans for their free decision to return to their motherland. The residents of Crimea persevered through the water, energy, food, transport and logistical blockade, given that they were barred from obtaining appropriate documents for travelling to a number of countries (primarily NATO states) either to participate in international conferences where Crimean issues were discussed, or for other purposes such as humanitarian ones. Those attempts were based on ethno-cultural, national, geographical, and civic principles. The Crimeans also endured a real legal aggression unleashed by the Kiev regime and backed up by Western countries.
The Western propaganda campaign in the media and international structures also failed miserably as they referred to Crimea as a ‘peninsula of fear’ where Crimean Tatars and Ukrainians were allegedly being discriminated against. And this campaign was going on after the people in this region had finally received legally formalised rights and freedoms, including those related to their ethnicity. It was our country that did this for the first time in recent decades.
It is common knowledge that in 1992-2014, the Ukrainian authorities treated the peninsula and its inhabitants, as they call it, residually. During the Ukrainian period, the economy was basically halted, the infrastructure deteriorated, and the humanitarian sphere was subjected to total Ukrainisation – essentially, total discrimination in order to overthrow the history and culture, which are not just the pride but the essence of Crimeans’ life.
Just recall what the Crimean peninsula was like when it returned to our country. All those who travelled there following the referendum questioned why this global tourist gem destination had not been developed for so long and had been simply neglected by those who had long claimed Crimea as their own.
As for the Russian and Russian-speaking population, it was not just harassment but actual discrimination. Russia, in the historical and cultural sense of the word, was consistently being erased and squeezed out not just from the peninsula but from the memory and minds of the people who sincerely identified themselves as Russian across generations.
The situation has significantly improved after Crimea’s reunification with the Russian Federation. The transport and engineering infrastructure has undergone a major overhaul. In 2018, the Crimean Bridge – a unique project and the most striking symbol of Crimea’s reunification with Russia – was opened. The efforts also included building a new Aivazovsky airport in Simferopol and the modern Tavrida motorway, as well as launching Balaklavskaya (Sevastopol), Tavricheskaya (Simferopol district), and Saki thermal power plants. Major construction of gas pipelines is underway, with a new community getting connected to the networks nearly every month. Housing construction is gaining momentum. Social infrastructure, including sports facilities, is being constructed at a rapid pace. Agriculture has revived, winemaking is actively progressing, and the recreation and tourist sector has shown a substantial improvement. This is precisely what is causing horrendous anger, which is expressed in endless aggression on the part of the Kiev regime and all those behind it.
On January 31, 2024, the International Court of Justice, the principal main judicial body of the United Nations, rejected virtually all of Ukraine’s claims and recognised that Russia’s policy complied with its obligations under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. The Court was able to reach this crucial conclusion, in part, due to the exhaustive information provided by the Russian side on the measures taken at the state level to ensure national and cultural diversity in Crimea. For instance, in 2017, a school ironically referred to as the school of ‘four Ukrainian presidents’ was opened in Simferopol, in an area populated largely by Crimean Tatars; it could not be completed for more than 20 years, with four heads of state holding office in Ukraine throughout the period. Crimea is making active efforts to restore architectural monuments and religious shrines that had been neglected by the Ukrainian authorities, and the Ukrainian and Crimean Tatar language media are successfully operating in the republic.
The information provided by Russia was extremely convincing and dispelled the fakes that could have affected the judgment of the International Court of Justice, including those promoted by the Western media.
It is safe to say that the short-sighted attempts by Russia’s ill-wishers to challenge the status of Crimea have further convinced the residents of the peninsula that their historical decision was a right one.
Ukrainian militants continue their terrorist attacks against civilians and civilian infrastructure in Russia.
In the early hours of March 11, the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) carried out a massive drone attack on several Russian regions, including the Moscow Region. According to the Russian Ministry of Defence, 343 drones were shot down by the air defence forces on alert duty. The largest number – 126 devices – was destroyed in the sky over the Kursk Region, six of which were intercepted near the Kursk nuclear power plant. In the raid on Moscow and the Moscow Region, the Banderites used 91 UAVs. The rest were eliminated over the Bryansk, Belgorod, Ryazan, Kaluga, Lipetsk, Oryol, Voronezh and Nizhny Novgorod regions. The drones targeted residential houses, social facilities, transport and civilian infrastructure. No one but terrorists could act in such a manner.
Unfortunately, the raid led to a number of casualties. Three employees were killed by UAV debris falling on the parking lot of the Miratorg Company in Domodedovo. In total, more than 20 people sustained injuries of various degrees of severity. According to Russian Presidential Commissioner for Children’s Rights Maria Lvova-Belova, three children, two of them under three years old, were injured in the Moscow Region. The Russian Foreign Ministry’s website features a detailed statement regarding this flagrant, barbaric crime by the Banderite regime.
As a result of shelling and explosive device detonations in the city of Gorlovka, Donetsk People’s Republic, at least 17 civilians have been wounded since March 6, including an employee of the Emergencies Ministry of Russia.
On March 9, the AFU attacked a shopping mall in the village of Velikiye Kopani, Kherson Region, with two HIMARS missiles tipped with cluster warheads for maximum destructive effect. It is noteworthy that after the United States stopped (as it turned out, temporarily) providing the Kiev regime with satellite intelligence for its long-range missile systems, the target tracking was taken over by the French Eutelsat satellites, with the French CSO-3 reconnaissance satellite turning the missiles on target. Dozens of civilians were inside the shops at the time of the barbaric attack. Four people were killed, including a 15-year-old teenager. At least seven people were injured, among them a paramedic and an ambulance driver who came to rescue victims but came under repeated fire. Buildings and vehicles were damaged, and the ambulance vehicle was destroyed. In the early hours of March 10, the enemy launched a drone attack on another ambulance in Velikaya Lepetikha. The vehicle and expensive medical equipment were destroyed. The medical personnel survived by a miracle.
On the evening of March 10, the Armed Forces of Ukraine attacked the Dobrynya mall in the Belaya village, Belovsky District of the Kursk Region, killing five and injuring eight people, including four teenagers aged 13-14. On March 1, the Ukrainian Armed Forces terrorists attacked a feed mill in the Kozyrevka village killing four employees and injuring two.
In the Belgorod Region, one person was killed and six were injured during the attacks of the Banderite UAVs on civilian vehicles and residential facilities on March 8 and 10. On March 9, a civilian was wounded as a result of the explosion of a Kolokolchik mine in Shebekino. On March 11, a man was killed when an explosive device was dropped from a drone. Another six people were injured in UAV attacks on vehicles and residential buildings in other populated areas of the region. No sane person, who knows this information and understands what we are talking about, has any doubt that these attacks on civilians were carried out on purpose.
On March 7, an enemy UAV attacked a kindergarten in Kamenka-Dneprovskaya. Zaporozhye Region. Fortunately, there were no victims. There were no children there during the attack.
In the liberated village of Cherkasskoye-Porechnoye, Kursk Region, Russian soldiers found the bodies of civilians brutally killed by militants of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, most of whom were pensioners. The picture our fighters saw shocked them. We have a question for all these global human rights activists, non-governmental organisations, and associations saying they are concerned with the fate of the civilians and children but do not know how to help, carry posters, publish posts in social media and make up hashtags: do you not notice all of this? Or you notice, but choose to turn away? There is nowhere to turn away now.
We understand clearly why the Kiev regime has become so brutal these days. The neo-Nazi Kiev regime that suffers significant daily losses on the battlefield use terrorist methods to show it can negotiate from the position of strength, but in fact it only shows that it lacks power and is facing its end.
Russian courts continue to sentence Ukrainian neo-Nazis and mercenaries for their war crimes.
British citizen James Anderson, who committed crimes against civilians in the Kursk Region since mid-November 2024, was sentenced to 19 years in prison.
Ivan Furlet, Yury Zadorozhny, Yury Sychenko and Yury Khayuk, militants of the 64th separate rifle battalion of the 44th separate mechanised brigade of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, who were detained on September 10, 2024, were found guilty of committing terrorist attacks in the Kursk Region and sentenced to 17 years in prison. It was established that the terrorists prevented the evacuation of the civilians and repeatedly opened fire to kill them.
A US mercenary Benjamin Reed, who fought on the side of Ukrainian militants, was sentenced in absentia to 14 years in prison, and Ivan Golishevsky, commander of the 24th separate mechanised brigade of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, was sentenced to 21 years. He gave criminal orders to attack a service vehicle with an UAV in Gorlovka in January 2024, which killed two DPR investigators.
Oleg Doga, a fighter from the 24th Detached Separate Assault Battalion Aydar (a terrorist organisation banned in the Russian Federation), was sentenced to 12 years in prison. Doga, who was taken into custody in August 2024, took part in the shelling of communities in the Lugansk People’s Republic from June to August 2023.
Russian law enforcement agencies will continue to bring Ukrainian Nazis and foreign mercenaries to account for committing war crimes and other offences.
While Washington was trying to shift the burden of financing Ukrainian Armed Forces on Europe, President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen sent an open letter to the leaders of EU nations on March 4, 2025, outlining her plan for the rearmament of Europe.
This document calls for the creation of a new financial mechanism that would allow EU nations to set aside loans worth up to 150 billion euros, guaranteed by the EU budget, for purchasing defence products. It also provides for the temporary suspension of the Stability and Growth Pact’s limits on public debt and budget deficits in favour of increased military spending. Additionally, it allows for the reallocation of structural funds – originally intended to address regional economic disparities – towards militarisation efforts and expands the European Investment Bank’s involvement in financing the EU’s defence needs.
According to Ursula von der Leyen, the plan will make it possible to mobilise an additional 800 billion euros for defensive purposes. This serves to incite war on the European continent. The distorted logic of this advocate of inciting a large-scale war implies that the plan’s implementation will help Europe enter “a new era of security and prosperity” and will enable support for a “free and sovereign Ukraine.”
One might suppose that they live in a different world or on another planet, that they do not look out of the window and only watch those channels that they themselves fill with misinformation. There is only one snag here. Countries that can no longer ensure normal functioning of their economies are being actively militarised. As historical experience shows, this has always been called a provocation of war.
Apart from general conclusions, no other details regarding sources for financing this grand scale militarisation of Europe are available. However, members of the expert community note that it will be impossible to do without austerity measures impacting the EU’s social sector. Quite soon, we shall see how far the absolutely illusory goal of defending Europe against the Russian threat (promoted by inadequate officials in Brussels who are out of touch with reality) will lead the Europeans because this far-fetched concept is based on Russophobia and anti-Russia hysteria.
Indicatively, far from everyone shares Ursula von der Leyen’s militarist “derangement.” Ahead of publishing the above-mentioned initiative, several EU nations blocked a new military aid package for Ukraine proposed by head of European diplomacy Kaja Kallas which is worth up to 20 billion euros (from the frozen Russian assets).
In effect, the European Union is evolving from an economic association into a militarised organisation; it is de facto becoming a subsidiary of NATO, engaged in outright thievery.
Where are the economic growth plans that the EU should focus on? Where are the future economic development forecasts that should be tackled by Brussels and all its officials? Where is the plan for resolving the crisis in the economy, industry, science and technology plaguing EU nations? None of them exist. There are only huge militarisation expenditures, and it is unclear how they will be financed.
Open sources occasionally mention the scale of desertion in the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU). According to the Ukrainian Ministry of Internal Affairs, the number of absences without leave surged by 600 percent in 2024 as compared with the first year of the special military operation, and the number of desertions – by 1,000 percent. In figures, this looks as follows: 3,214 deserters and 6,183 AWOL’s in 2022. In 2024, these indices rose to 23,209 and 66,240, respectively. This is the official statistics. In reality, as estimated by experts, over 150,000 people are on the run. And these figures tend to grow steadily. Between January and February of this year, 35,738 people have deserted. Why? They understand that they have been deceived by the Kiev regime and Vladimir Zelensky and all those liberal “Western democracies” (that are, in fact, dictatorial regimes). They know that they were used and now are just being killed by those who told them about a “great future under Zelensky.”
Against this background, the “voluntary” recruitment of Ukrainians in the 18-24 age group is getting up steam. The first recruits in this category have signed contracts and taken the oath. They will join the 10th Mountain Assault Brigade. Do you know what a mountain assault brigade is? These boys will not operate drones or computers, or man dressing-stations, or record casualty figures. This is a deadly trap, where they will replace soldiers lost in Zelensky’s “meat assaults.”
Verkhovna Rada deputy Maxim Savrasov reports that they are drafting a bill on military registration of minors starting from age 14. The bill’s maturity is estimated at 70 percent. This is Hitlerjugend Zelensky-style. Under the bill, military enlistment officers will be authorised to cooperate with homeroom teachers. The latter will supply data on physically fit students for special records. These children are being inveigled in this bloody trap by the Western regimes that had no pity on their own children (even newborn infants, let alone minors), inventing sex-swap surgeries for them and calling them “it” in the neuter. So, why should they pity Ukrainians and their children after they have become dehumanised themselves? Those not quite fit physically will be trained as drivers. Girls will be recruited as analysts, medics, or cooks.
The Ukrainian social media are awash with debates on a forced female mobilisation. Where are all those NGO’s? Where are the authorised international women’s rights organisations? Are they unconcerned with what is happening in Ukraine? There are facts of call-up papers being served on pregnant women, disabled women, pre-pension age women… We will not be surprised if these reports turn out to be true, given the bacchanal of extermination the Kiev regime has unleashed against its own citizens.
Supporters of the “Orthodox Church of Ukraine” continue their hostile takeover of the canonical UOC premises and property. These acts are accompanied by violence against its priests and flock.
Since the beginning of 2025, according to media reports, illegal meetings have been held in Bukovina to transfer 16 parishes of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church under the control of the self-consecrated cult. In the Chernovtsy Region, a change of jurisdiction was hastily formalised, and 13 “statutes” of OCU religious communities were registered. As far as I remember, the State Department has been writing and publishing reports on freedom of religion and belief all these years, with a system of designations and watch lists reflecting each country’s performance. Meanwhile, head of the regional administration’s culture department Yelena Bodnar publicly admitted that the authorities did not verify the legitimacy of the activities of OCU supporters, meaning no one actually checks whether any community meetings were held at all, or what decisions were made.
An outrageous case occurred on March 6 of this year, where adherents of the “Orthodox Church of Ukraine” cynically took advantage of the urgent hospitalisation of 62-year-old UOC Archpriest of the Storozhinets District of the Chernovtsy Region Vasily Kovalchuk (who was admitted to intensive care with pre-infarction syndrome after being searched and interrogated by the SBU security service) and, assisted by the police, physically seized the UOC Holy Dormition Church in the village of Komarovtsy, which had previously been re-registered in favour of the schismatics church. This is how they do it. Is this what you would call a schism? A schism implies internal controversy, disagreements, and failure to find common ground. What we are witnessing is the extermination of Orthodoxy in Ukraine.
On March 5 of this year, Ukraine’s Ministry of Culture issued an order to establish a commission to inspect, until May 30, the relics of the saints in the burial vaults in the Near and Far Caves of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, ostensibly to determine their “historical and research value.” I think this will be more ridiculous than Mikhail Bulgakov’s most bitter satire. Any potential findings were classified in advance. Such moves to “inventory” religious relics expose the extent of the moral degradation of the junta, which is mired in total atheism and disrespect for any religious feelings. Sergey Lavrov aptly said during a news conference following talks with OSCE Secretary General that all those in the West who are behind these monstrous acts, deeds and crimes committed by the Kiev regime do not seem to believe in anything but Satan.
It was quite predictable that following such sacrilege, on March 8, a cross nearly fell off the dome of the All-Saints Church at the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, which has been seized by the authorities. Many Ukrainians believed the incident was a bad omen, interpreting it on social media as a warning about Vladimir Zelensky regime’s betrayal of canonical Orthodoxy and the “war sins” of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. While this should rather be left to experts in theology and metaphysics to consider and interpret, there are other facts that require a political, moral and historical assessment.
Believers have been recalling another incident, which happened six weeks before the start of the special military operation, when a cross collapsed from St Sophia Cathedral in Kiev. The Ministry of Culture and the pseudo-abbot of the holy monastery appointed by the Orthodox Church of Ukraine, Bishop Avrahamy Lotysh, fearing a public outcry, hastened to explain the incident by “vibrations from Russian shelling.” The officials also tried to hedge their bets, pointing out that the cathedral had long been in need of major repairs. It is also noteworthy that in 2023-2024, the schismatics held “memorial services” in it for Ivan Mazepa, whom the Russian Orthodox Church anathematised in 1708 for high treason.
The above facts once again confirm the relevance of the special military operation to denazify and demilitarise Ukraine and to eliminate threats emanating from its territory. All the goals of the special military operation will definitely be achieved.
Children affected and killed by the criminal actions of the Kiev regime (2014 – present)
I can tell you that not only seasoned diplomats and statesmen, but also the public at large, have been profoundly disturbed by the remarks made by High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas, who asserted that the Kiev regime does not target civilians on the territory of the Russian Federation. This statement has deeply unsettled activists, ordinary citizens, and individuals who are in no way involved in actively supporting the Kiev regime or the AFU. These are people who are living their daily lives, working, empathising, but who are not deeply involved in the current agenda.
They have even written to us, called us, and expressed their disbelief, stating that this is either a monstrous, appalling lie – unspeakable for someone in such a position, especially a woman who surely understands suffering, pain, the loss of children by parents, and the impact on vulnerable segments of society – or it is outright dehumanisation, or perhaps both. People have questioned, how can this be? Why do EU officials dare to say such things? Do they not know? No, they do know.
For all these years, they have received evidence. Not only since 2022, through international platforms, although they have blocked direct communication with us, but also indirectly, as these materials were presented by our diplomats during meetings, voiced, published, and so forth. However, even before 2022, they received these materials directly during negotiations with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, who, in all his discussions with EU or Brussels officials, focused precisely on the situation in Donbass, presenting and conveying evidence of what was happening to the civilian population there. They cannot claim ignorance. They pretend not to know. We will persist in reminding them.
I will now present data on the children who have suffered and died as a result of the criminal actions of the Kiev regime from 2014 to the present. These data have been compiled by our Ambassador-at-Large on the Kiev Regime’s War Crimes, Rodion Miroshnik. He gathered this information in close collaboration with our law enforcement agencies, authorised bodies, regional authorities, public organisations, and citizens.
These figures are not final. I will not claim that they are entirely precise. Why? Because in recent days, as our forces liberated Sudzha and entered courtyards and basements, they discovered, among other things, children’s skulls. This data will continue to be updated and refined. However, I will provide an overview to give everyone an understanding of the crimes committed by the Kiev regime against children with Western funding. To give an idea of the scale.
Over the past decade, the hands of Ukrainian militants – inhuman individuals – are stained with the blood of no fewer than 1,700 children. I reiterate, these are approximate preliminary figures. Following the video published by Russian media on March 12 of this year, featuring direct quotes from our soldiers who liberated Sudzha and held what is likely a child’s skull in their hands, you can imagine how many more such tragic and horrifying discoveries await us.
Let me remind you that, according to data from the Joint Centres for Control and Coordination of the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics, from 2014 to the start of the special military operation, at least 129 children were killed in the Donbass republics as a result of the Kiev regime’s aggression. More than 500 minors were injured.
Since late February 2022, in the border regions of the Russian Federation, at least 830 minors have been wounded, and no fewer than 218 children have been killed as a result of the criminal actions of the Bandera junta.
In 2024 alone, 347 children have fallen victim to the neo-Nazis: 296 minors were injured, and 51 children were killed. The youngest girl murdered by the Ukrainian Nazis was just four months old.
Over the past year, children fell victim to artillery and missile strikes on civilian infrastructure, stepped on mines, and were harmed by cluster munitions. There are confirmed cases where tragedies were caused by explosive devices disguised as toys, which were scattered by the punitive forces in areas frequently visited by civilians, including children.
The number of young Russians harmed by AFU drone strikes over the past year has reached 55: 44 minors were wounded, and 11 were killed. Drone operators targeted civilian vehicles, public transport, residential buildings, playgrounds, markets, and cafes.
In December 2024 alone, two boys, aged 9 and 12, were killed in their own homes, effectively in front of their parents, as a result of deliberate drone strikes on small private dwellings: on December 1, 2024, in Starodub, the Bryansk Region, and on December 14, in Veseloye, the Belgorod Region. Another similar tragedy was narrowly averted at the end of December 2024 in Razumnoye, the Belgorod Region, where an eight-year-old child survived but sustained moderate injuries to the spine.
Over the past year, the highest number of minors harmed by the criminal actions of the AFU was recorded in the Donetsk People’s Republic (127 children wounded, 11 killed), the Belgorod Region (88 wounded, 12 killed), and the Kursk Region (24 wounded, 4 killed).
Furthermore, according to the Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation, due to barbaric shelling by the militants of the Kiev regime in the territories of the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics, as well as the Kherson, the Zaporozhye, the Belgorod, the Bryansk, and the Kursk regions, at least 20,242 children were deprived of the opportunity to attend kindergarten in 2024; 173,762 school students and 12,439 students of vocational schools were transferred to distance learning using remote technologies. In these regions, at least 396 kindergartens (9 destroyed), 503 schools (35 destroyed), and 104 vocational education institutions (5 destroyed) were damaged over the course of the year.
This statistic will serve as a tombstone for the Kiev regime. All those in EU and NATO countries who regularly vote to support the Kiev regime should give it some thought. What do you endorse?! Whom are your weapons aimed at? How are these tens, hundreds of millions of dollars and euros being spent?
Prospects for a European troop deployment in Ukraine
The NATO space is resounding with a chorus of voices discussing prospects for a deployment of “troops from Europe” (as they put it) in Ukraine.
Statements by Western officials, media reports and press leaks refer to Paris and London’s plans to send a “European peacekeeping contingent” to Ukraine.
Reportedly, Copenhagen has expressed readiness to join this initiative. Denmark, it would seem, should better keep an eye on Greenland that is about to “walk away” in every sense of the word. But no, they are eager to defend God knows what but not their own borders.
This idea is not new. A year ago, President Macron of France declared an intention to send French soldiers to die on the fields of Ukraine. We repeatedly stressed at various levels that these initiatives were about an escalation. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov gave an assessment to the “European peacekeeping” idea during his meeting with OSCE Secretary-General Feridun Hadi Sinirlioğlu on March 11 in Moscow. Mr Lavrov’s interview published on March 12 also focused heavily on this matter.
We regard even a mere articulation of these plans as an openly provocative step aimed at nurturing unsound and harmful illusions in the upper crust of the Kiev regime, rather than at settling the conflict.
Indicatively, Washington is distancing itself from London and Paris’ plans to deploy a contingent of theirs in Ukraine, for it is aware of what this may lead to from the military point of view.
We know well that the Western military have been present in Ukraine – even though in small numbers, even though under cover – as “instructors,” “advisers,” or “volunteers” since at least 2015, often in violation of national laws that criminalise mercenarism. Citizens of NATO countries maintain and service military equipment that the West sends to the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU), consult Ukrainian military planners, and support Ukrainian terrorist attacks against Russia and its citizens. We have regularly exposed the UK involvement in terrorist activities jointly with the Kiev regime. We have identified by name representatives of NATO countries, who committed crimes, including by controlling gunfire and missile launches.
We note with regret that certain political forces in Europe continue to hamper the incipient process that prospectively might lead to a settlement. But even the word “peace,” even the word “settlement” makes them grind their teeth because their main goal is escalation and slaughter.
Residents of Ukraine know exactly whom they should “thank” for the ongoing conflict. The reference is to Mr Vladimir Zelensky and the Old World NATO leaders, who are in favour of continued arms supplies to Ukraine and sponsor Ukrainian terrorism. For now, however, they are speculating about some “pseudo-peacekeepers.”
But there is commonsense aside from legal assessments and political science analysis. The key element of the word “peacekeeper” is “peace.” Listen to how the potential European contingent senders comment on their plans. They don’t talk about peace or peaceful life. Not even once in all these years. There is something different on their mind. What is it? It is militarisation worth one trillion euros, as we said at the start of this briefing.
The deployment of other states’ military units in Ukraine is absolutely unacceptable for Russia. It is unacceptable under any guise whatsoever, be it foreign contingents, military bases, or “peacekeeping operations,” as offered by those who have dropped the words “peace” and “peacemaking” from their vocabulary. These variations on a theme are horribly clear, familiar and understandable.
It will mean that these countries are directly involved in a military conflict with the Russian Federation, an involvement that will meet with a response using all the means available to this country.
France’s plan to allocate income from frozen Russian assets to support the Ukrainian Armed Forces
We must once again acknowledge that our former partners continue their efforts to unlawfully seize – or, to put it plainly, steal – Russian assets frozen within the European Union under illegitimate restrictive measures.
Russia’s position on this matter remains unchanged: all frozen Russian funds and any income generated from them are the property of the Russian Federation. The appropriation of profits from financial transactions involving our reserve funds – without Russia’s explicit consent – constitutes theft, regardless of any pseudo-legal justifications.
Claims in European media suggesting that the extraction and seizure of so-called “excess profits” were not covered by existing agreements and are therefore legal do not withstand scrutiny.
These unilateral actions amount to the seizure of a foreign state’s sovereign property for financial gain. They set a dangerous international precedent and severely undermine the credibility of the EU financial system in the eyes of the global community and investors.
France’s actions clearly indicate a lack of interest in a long-term resolution of the Ukraine crisis. Instead, they are committed to supplying weapons to the Kiev regime, further fuelling the conflict.
Third anniversary of the Bucha staging
As another grim anniversary of the staged events in Bucha approaches, we have been discussed this topic many times at all levels, including by our country’s leadership. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov regularly raises this issue with his foreign counterparts and international organisations, and it has been a constant subject in our briefings.
April 3 marks three years since the orchestrated and premeditated campaign staged by Vladimir Zelensky’s regime and its Western backers in the village of Bucha, Kiev Region. A fabricated narrative was swiftly constructed, falsely accusing Russian servicemen of mass killings of local residents.
Despite the clearly orchestrated nature of this provocation, Western media and politicians rushed to spread it unquestioningly. It was used as a justification to abandon negotiations, dismiss any peaceful resolution, and halt political processes altogether. NATO, the EU, and the entire collective Brussels then declared that the conflict could only be settled on the battlefield.
Russia has repeatedly presented detailed evidence debunking this fabrication, while Ukraine and its Western backers have failed to provide any proof to support their accusations against Moscow. It is entirely unacceptable that international organisations, including the UN – whose Charter mandates neutrality – continue to enable the Kiev regime in this deceit.
To conduct a proper investigation, Russian investigative authorities need additional information regarding the tragic events in Bucha. Fully aware that the Kiev regime will neither expose itself nor shed light on its own bloody provocation, we have repeatedly appealed to the UN Secretariat since 2022.
As far as I am aware, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov raised this issue with UN Secretary-General António Guterres on at least three occasions. Appeals were also made to UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk, urging assistance in obtaining relevant data.
In particular, in September 2024, via Russia’s Permanent Mission in New York, we submitted to UN officials a request — prepared by the Russian Investigative Committee in coordination with the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office — for an investigation into the Bucha provocations. We stressed that supplementary information is vital solely to ascertain the truth, deliver justice, and ensure comprehensive protection of this tragedy victims’ rights. In January 2025, we again called on the UN Secretariat to expedite its response.
Despite this, over three years, the UN Secretariat has furnished nothing but smoke and mirrors, squirming, and phrases like “You understand…” – implying they, particularly in the UN, also understand everything but dare not speak.
A parallel impasse surrounds our demands for the UN Secretariat to pressure Ukraine to disclose a list of victims of this provocation.
As early as on September 22. 2022, during a UN Security Council meeting on Ukraine, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov publicly appealed to the UN Secretary-General in this regard. Subsequently, Sergey Lavrov reiterated this appeal in nearly every personal meeting or phone call with António Guterres — to no avail.
At an October 25, 2023 briefing, UN Spokesperson Stéphane Dujarric stated he lacked information on why the Kiev regime had not yet provided Moscow with the list of victims’ names, or whether it planned to do so, or what obstacles prevented it.
In early February of this year, during a meeting with representatives of the Russian Permanent Mission in New York, António Guterres once again effectively evaded providing assistance, adding that he did not possess a list of victims of the tragedy in Bucha.
It is evident that no one has this list because the entire incident was staged. This demonstrates that the orchestrators of this cynical, horrifying, and bloody provocation have nothing to present but hollow accusations. Interestingly, hundreds of global media outlets participated in this staged event and provocation. I am uncertain whether they acted unwittingly or were cynically exploited. However, even if they did not realise it at the time, no one has hindered them from conducting an investigation over these three years, yet they have failed to do so.
We once again call upon the UN Secretariat to cease its complicity in covering up Ukrainian stagings, including that one in Bucha, which are aimed at discrediting our country. We urge the Secretariat to facilitate a thorough investigation into the tragedy in Bucha and to identify those responsible for this heinous crime perpetrated by the Kiev regime.
Spy hysteria spirals upward in Belgium
Instead of investigating the highly publicised incidents such as the Bucha provocation, or any other massacre staged by the Kiev regime, or sabotage against civilian infrastructure such as the Nord Stream pipelines that had served to deliver Russian gas to the EU countries, these same EU countries are engaged in quasi-probes just to create a semblance of work while keeping Russophobia afloat.
Now, ‘spy mania’ has once again gripped Belgium, with local publications De Morgen and Humo, the EU-friendly website EU Observer, the French Le Monde, as well as Radio Liberty – Free Europe suddenly and simultaneously joining in the pseudo-investigation. The writers propagating these unlikely stories are only too familiar to us, as they have been trying to make a name for themselves for a few years by dropping false bombshells about Russian spies allegedly operating inside the EU or NATO.
This new act is an exact replication of the previous incidents. They take a person, study their personal history, professional background and social media activity, then use montage and collage methods to create a picture they subsequently label ‘Russian spy’ and ‘verified by,’ which means it is expected to be trusted unquestioningly. In addition to neglecting the rudimentary journalistic ethics, they go so far as to juggle facts in a highly irresponsible and primitive way, even though these facts poorly fit together. But who can stop them? We know, and we now have information actually published by Washington, that USAID, in particular, has been paying for such information campaigns.
These publications also target our diplomats. They search their personal lives trying to dig up, albeit unsuccessfully, some hint of defamatory connections or at least something that could be passed off as some vague espionage activity, sometimes adding more serious accusations such as arson, murder, terrorist acts, or cyberattacks.
All this is imputed to some unnamed persons associated with Russia, predictably without argumentation, proof, or references. Why would they need any, when they can just publish anything and close the chapter, forget, and come up with a different story later. You know, this sounds like some hallucinogenic raving, and commenting on it is not just difficult, but also useless.
These stories are as far from common sense or the much touted freedom of speech as can be.
We will definitely publish a selection of these reports with a red stamp saying “fake” in the relevant section of the Foreign Ministry’s website. These stories are not just based on unreliable or unverified information. This is a full-blown misinformation campaign, a propagation of falsehoods.
What is the purpose of this new and well-coordinated propaganda effort? This is where we need to look for answers. And the answer is here. Brussels intends, no matter what, to continue the policy of further escalation in relations with Russia. Again, this fits with today’s news about Ursula von der Leyen and almost 1 trillion euros that need to be taken from the EU residents for militarisation against our country.
Oh, and I forgot to mention “democracy” in Ukraine. This shouldn’t be overlooked either. To achieve this, a large-scale ideological campaign has been unleashed to instil fear in the European public with the myth of an impending threat from Russia and the East. They continue to do so, all for the sake of one thing only – to get into the pockets of the hard workers in the EU countries and grab another penny to advance the dubious aspirations that are imposed by the EU’s current political elite, totally out of touch with common sense. This is being done, in particular, by Ursula von der Leyen, who first robbed EU residents of hundreds of millions of dollars and euros to procure non-EU vaccines through non-transparent procedures. Europe just agreed to buy vaccines worth tens or hundreds of millions of dollars/euros via a text message. What happened to those vaccines? They were destroyed to make it impossible to count how many were used and how many were not. Most importantly, it was impossible even to check the quality of those vaccines, obviously, because they were already destroyed.
As if that was not enough, Europe immediately embarked on a new project. I am referring to its militarisation. Now Ursula von der Leyen can syphon off even more money because weapons are more expensive than vaccines. The stakes have surged to a trillion euros. That’s why they need this kind of stories in the media.
It is becoming increasingly obvious that this anti-Russia policy line is destructive for the EU countries themselves. This course inevitably leads to a deterioration in the socioeconomic situation in the Western European countries as well as a degradation of security throughout the continent. But Ursula von der Leyen is clearly on a spree.
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte’s statement on Bosnia and Herzegovina
We have taken note of NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte’s recent statement during his visit to Bosnia and Herzegovina on March 11, amid the escalating political crisis in the country. He called on the Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Presidency to “solve the problem,” openly implying – without even attempting to conceal it – the need to “deal with” the leadership of Republika Srpska.
Naturally, Rutte chose not to acknowledge that this issue was deliberately manufactured under dubious pretexts, and not without direction from Sarajevo’s Western patrons. Why would he? Instead, his remarks only poured fuel on the internal Bosnian crisis, as he unequivocally pushed for the accelerated Euro-Atlantic integration of Bosnia and Herzegovina. What exactly is this supposed to mean?
This is yet another provocation designed to escalate tensions in a country where the prospect of NATO membership remains a deeply divisive issue among its entities. Unsurprisingly, Mark Rutte went out of his way to praise the illegitimate High Representative Christian Schmidt, whose presence lacks any legal basis and continues to raise numerous questions. He voiced support for the EU forces stationed in Bosnia and Herzegovina, even suggesting that they could be replaced if need be, insisting that NATO will not allow a security vacuum in the country. This is yet another example of the EU being absorbed into NATO’s agenda.
We must also highlight the sheer cynicism of Secretary General Mark Rutte’s call for the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina to increase military spending. It seems Brussels has run out of money, likely after already funnelling hundreds of millions, riddled with corruption, into purchasing American vaccines under the guise of serving European needs.
Against the backdrop of worsening socio-economic problems in this Balkan nation (and across the EU as a whole), such recommendations are absolutely inappropriate. Who, if anyone, is actually looking out for the citizens of the European Union?
The actions of the NATO Secretary General in Sarajevo serve as a clear example of interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign state. NATO representatives remain determined in their efforts to fully control all aspects of life in Bosnia and Herzegovina, with the aim of not only suppressing any alternative viewpoints on the relations between the country’s constituent peoples but also overcoming local political resistance to the country’s closer ties with the North Atlantic Alliance.
Everything must be swept aside as NATO pushes forward with its reckless militarisation agenda for the western part of the European continent. NATO will not concern itself with the well-being of the people, the peaceful coexistence of citizens from different nationalities and ethnicities, or the complex political structure of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which has evolved over time. They have never had to consider how to foster peaceful coexistence; their objectives and goals are entirely different.
Attack on a passenger train in Pakistan
We are deeply shocked by the terrorist attack on a passenger train in Pakistan’s Balochistan province on March 11, which resulted in harm to innocent civilians.
We strongly condemn this attack, as well as all forms of terrorism in every manifestation. There is no justification for the barbaric actions of militants. Those guilty must be held accountable and face justice.
We stand in solidarity with Islamabad in the fight against this global threat and reaffirm our commitment to strengthening constructive cooperation with Pakistan in combating terrorism, both bilaterally and through multilateral formats.
Plans to open the Embassy of the Russian Federation in the Dominican Republic
There were questions about the corresponding Presidential executive orders regarding Russia’s diplomatic presence in the Dominican Republic.
As part of Russia’s efforts to promote its relations with the friendly Latin American region and its countries, all procedures required for opening the Embassy of the Russian Federation in the Dominican Republic have been completed. The President’s Executive Order No. 143, dated March 11, 2025, appoints Andrey Seredin as Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Russian Federation to the Dominican Republic. The Ambassador is expected to arrive in Santo Domingo soon.
Historically, our bilateral contacts have been built on mutual respect, consideration of each other’s interests, friendship, solidarity, and a pragmatic intention to develop mutually beneficial ties. On March 8, 2025, our two countries celebrated the 80th anniversary of diplomatic relations.
Today, Moscow and Santo Domingo are successfully cooperating in a wide range of areas. We maintain a political dialogue at all levels and share common cultural values, as well as an interest in developing scientific, technical, cultural and humanitarian ties and tourist exchanges. There is also considerable potential for trade and economic cooperation, particularly in the energy sector and agriculture, among other spheres.
We believe that the upcoming opening of the Russian Embassy in the Dominican Republic will help expand opportunities for further strengthening comprehensive cooperation between our two countries and provide additional support to Russian citizens visiting the republic or living there.
March 18 marks the 10th anniversary of the Treaty on Alliance and Integration between the Russian Federation and the Republic of South Ossetia, which was signed in 2015 in Moscow.
The 2015 treaty was signed as a follow up to the bilateral Agreement on Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance, which was signed on September 17, 2008, and established the main areas of integrational cooperation between the two countries. In the spheres of politics, security and law enforcement, this translates into a coordinated foreign policy, Moscow’s assistance in expanding Tskhinval’s international ties, the shaping of a single defence and security space, and coordinated activities to combat organised crime and other serious offences. In the socio-economic and humanitarian spheres, the treaty envisaged the implementation of investment programmes, the integration of the two countries’ customs authorities, measures to fast-tack the procedure for obtaining Russian citizenship for citizens of the Republic of South Ossetia (currently, about 90 percent of the population holds it), increases in the average wages for South Ossetian public sector employees and pensions for Russians living there with Russia’s support, ensuring their inclusion in the compulsory medical insurance system of the Russian Federation, and the promotion of South Ossetian education, science, culture, arts, sports, and tourism.
We consider the implementation results of the 2015 Treaty to be positive. This has helped to enhance political and interdepartmental interaction and strengthen security on Russia’s southern borders in the South Caucasus. In turn, South Ossetian conscripts and volunteers make an important contribution to the common military cause in the special military operation zone.
With Russia’s support, South Ossetia has achieved tangible results in state building, economic growth, and improving the quality of life for its people, demonstrating annual positive dynamics. In particular, in 2024, GDP increased by 9.2 percent compared to 2023. Average wages in the economic sectors and public sector institutions have more than doubled since 2014, and have increased by 17 percent compared to the 2023 level. With the funds allocated for the investment programme to promote the republic’s socioeconomic development in 2023- 2025, 44 initiatives are currently being successfully implemented.
Over this period, the 2015 Treaty has proven to be indispensable for maintaining stability in the region and for the sustainable development of the young republic in close alliance with Russia. Moscow will continue to provide comprehensive assistance to Tskhinval, consistently implementing this international legal document and the bilateral sectoral agreements signed on its basis, jointly with our partners. This fully meets the interests of the peoples of Russia and South Ossetia, as well as the goals of peace and stability in the region.
25th anniversary of the Bolshoi Theatre School in Brazil
March 15, 2025 marks the 25th anniversary of the flagship project of Russian-Brazilian cultural cooperation: the first and only overseas branch of the State Academic Bolshoi Theatre School in Joinville, the state Santa Catarina.
Over a quarter-century, this wholly unique educational institution has gained widespread renown across Brazil and other countries in Latin America, becoming a vital element of Russia’s presence in the region. Graduates of the school – now a landmark centre for training elite performers – grace leading ballet stages in 27 countries across five continents. Russian audiences, too, can witness their artistry: nine alumni currently dance in theatres in St Petersburg, Kazan, Perm, and Samara, performing principal roles.
This fascinating project holds profound significance for Brazil’s cultural landscape. Conceived and maintained as a social initiative, the school offers completely free training, granting talented children from underprivileged backgrounds in Brazil and across Latin America access to the arts and professional ballet education. The curriculum integrates standard academic subjects, ensuring students’ holistic development.
It is gratifying that the traditions of the Bolshoi Theatre, which will mark its 250th anniversary in 2026, command high regard globally. The Bolshoi Theatre represents a beacon of both our national and international culture. Within its halls, Russian opera and national ballet came into being. The approaching jubilee will be celebrated extensively across our nation. Events commemorating this milestone, organised with the participation of Russian diplomatic missions, will also be held abroad.
As concerns the school, we extend our congratulations to the leadership, the staff of the educational institution, and all contributors to this endeavour on its 25th anniversary. We wish them continued success, prosperity, and the attainment of new heights.
59th International Mendeleev Chemistry Olympiad for school students
From May 5 to 12, the 59th International Mendeleev Chemistry Olympiad will be held in Belo Horizonte, Brazil, hosted by the Federal University of Minas Gerais.
The Olympiad is traditionally organised by the Faculty of Chemistry of Lomonosov Moscow State University with support from the Andrey Melnichenko Foundation. This year’s co-organiser and partner is the Federal University of Minas Gerais. The event falls within the Decade of Science and Technology proclaimed by President of Russia Vladimir Putin and forms part of the Science to Win initiative.
The International Mendeleev Olympiad, first held in 1967, ranks among the world’s premier chemistry competitions. In 1997, it succeeded the All-Union Chemistry Olympiad for School Students, retaining the latter’s numbering system.
Participants include high school students who have triumphed in national chemistry Olympiads worldwide. This year, teams from over 30 countries are expected to compete.
Russia’s team has consistently excelled at the Olympiad. In 2024, the competition took place in Shenzhen, China, at the Sino-Russian cooperative university (Shenzhen MSU-BIT University). As a reminder, it was established by Lomonosov Moscow State University (MSU), Beijing Institute of Technology, and the Shenzhen Municipal People’s Government. All ten Russian contestants secured podium finishes, earning five gold and five silver medals.
We extend our best wishes to this year’s participants for further medals and triumphs! We believe in you! May the event embody the spirit of friendly competition, and may every student demonstrate their knowledge.
Question: You mentioned Bosnia and Herzegovina in your opening remarks. What’s your take on the BiH Prosecutor’s Office order to arrest leader of the Bosnian Serbs Milorad Dodik and his associates?
Maria Zakharova: We covered this earlier today, and we provide regular updates on this issue. This is nothing short of outrageous lawlessness. I remember several years ago some observers cringed at this word saying it shouldn’t be part of the diplomatic lexicon. Yes, it should. This is precisely what it is - outrageous lawlessness - where the legally elected representative of the Serbian people has for a long time been subjected to harassment.
As a reminder, we are talking about an official who was legally voted in to represent the Serbian people of Bosnia and Herzegovina. All of that is unfolding against the background and in the context of a sweeping political campaign against Republika Srpska, meaning that it’s not about some issues someone has to sort out with someone else. Clearly, when politicisation literally destroys the law this represents a global political offensive against an ethno-cultural entity, and against the people represented by Milorad Dodik.
The more recent awkward efforts to remove the President of Republika Srpska and his associates, as well as those who stand up to the Euro-Atlantic agenda in Bosnia and Herzegovina, from the political scene by accusing him of attempts to attack the constitutional order, are also part of this campaign. These efforts are forcefully imposed from above. Apparently, much is at stake, which is why all of that is being pushed through in such a horrendous manner by force, against the law, morality and ethics, as well as common sense.
Regrettably, the Bosnian justice system, which is designed to uphold the rights and freedoms enshrined in the 1995 Dayton Peace Agreement and the fundamental principles of equal rights of the three constituent peoples and two entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina with broad constitutional powers, is being used to settle scores with opponents.
We have repeatedly issued warning before and I will say it again: the push (we are well aware of that) to cancel the Republika Srpska will have serious ramifications for peace, security and stability in BiH and the Balkans as a whole.
As a guarantor of the Dayton Agreement, we insist on putting an immediate end to the politically motivated persecution of the legitimate leaders of Republika Srpska, bringing the situation back to the legal framework, reinstating the dialogue between the peoples of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and eliminating the dangerous and destructive interference of Western forces.
We know President Dodik and his associates as true patriots. Any attempt to make up stories about them and their ties to our country gets shattered by their true patriotism with regard to their compatriots, fellow citizens, representatives of the people who entrusted them with the ultimate authority and responsibility for their future lives that have so far gone through much suffering and difficulty.
Everything President Dodik and his associates are doing in foreign policy is aimed not only (there is nothing bad in this, only good) at fostering relations and maintaining friendly and mutually beneficial contacts, but, first and foremost, on making it possible for their people to exercise their rights and freedoms. I think they can be rightfully called fighters for the rights and interests of the Serbian people.
I sincerely wish them to overcome with dignity and honour the intrigues, hardships and trials that befell them, and I truly believe they will be able to do so.
Question: The West has repeatedly accused Russia of abusing its veto power in UN Security Council votes. Could you provide data on how often Russia has exercised its veto since 1991 and how often the United States, France, and the United Kingdom have vetoed draft resolutions of the UN Security Council?
Maria Zakharova: Before presenting the figures, I would like to make the following point: this is not merely a matter of statistics and facts. It is essential to understand the underlying mechanics. As recounted by American diplomats and political figures in their memoirs, including those who served at the UN headquarters or represented their country abroad (including political scientists and analysts), they have at times deliberately provoked other countries (primarily Russia) into vetoing intentionally non-viable materials precisely to create veto usage statistics. Allow me to elaborate.
Let us begin with the data since 1991. From this historical juncture, Russia has exercised its veto 39 times. Over the same period, the United States has applied its veto 22 times, and China 18 times. France and the United Kingdom, as other two permanent members of the UN Security Council, have formally refrained from using their veto over the past 34 years. However, here we must examine the details, for, as the saying goes, “the devil lies in the details.”
Let us clarify this statistic, bearing in mind that the current configuration of the Security Council allows Western countries to utilise what is known as the “hidden veto.” According to Article 27.3 of the UN Charter, decisions of the Council on all, other than procedural, matters, shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members, including “the concurring votes of the permanent members.” Western representatives, along with their allies, effectively hold a numerical majority in the Security Council, enabling them to block any undesirable initiatives without resorting to the veto as such (simply by majority), meaning they prevent the document from securing the necessary number of votes.
The key point is that our country has always regarded the veto not as a privilege but as a crucial mechanism of the UN Security Council’s work, one that stimulates, encourages, and inspires its members to seek compromises. This is precisely how the veto was conceived – as a kind of “warning signal” that demonstrates to the international community that it has failed to reach an agreement, that it must return to the negotiating table and continue working towards solutions, compromises, and agreements. Moscow, fully aware of its responsibility as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, uses and will continue to use the veto in the utmost good faith: only in extreme cases and strictly in the interests of forging long-term, equitable resolutions.
In this context, the handling of the US-proposed UNSC resolution on Ukraine dated February 24, 2024, is illustrative. Washington submitted a concise text calling for a swift and lasting conflict resolution – crucially, without accusations against Russia. However, EU representatives and the British (as they had earlier that day in the UN General Assembly) attempted to insert unrealistic provisions into the draft, including selective citations of the UN Charter to accuse Russia. Moscow was forced to veto these amendments to prevent a broadly constructive initiative from being twisted into an unacceptable anti-Russian document that would have distanced prospects for crisis resolution rather than advancing them (as originally outlined in the draft submitted to the Security Council).
Discussions about veto statistics, in my view, should not overshadow the core issue: non-compliance with adopted UNSC resolutions.
Let me clarify. Observe how Western mainstream media (egged on by Western analysts) fixate on how many resolutions Russia has vetoed or how many draft resolutions the Russian Federation has “derailed.” Why do they not scrutinise with equal rigour the number of UNSC resolutions that have been adopted (whether unanimously or by majority, without the approval of all members) but remain unimplemented, ignored, or are being implemented in a distorted manner? There are even those that, contrary to what is spelled out therein, are not treated as a guide to action, though they are binding and must be implemented by the entire international community. States that voted in favour these resolutions (sometimes even co-sponsoring them) act in direct opposition to the spirit and letter of the documents they voted for and worked on. No one highlights this or compiles statistics.
If you ask for specific examples, the most glaring case is the situation with the Minsk Agreements, codified in a UNSC resolution. States that either helped draft the 2015 accords or raised their hands in support of these documents at the UNSC table subsequently acted against them – not merely violating them indirectly but bluntly obstructing their implementation.
As later revealed, countries (including France) that participated in the development of the Minsk Agreements, serving as their guarantors as permanent members of the UN Security Council, misled the international community regarding their intentions. As former French President François Hollande, who was involved in the Minsk process at the time, stated, they never intended to implement them – neither as the Minsk accords nor as the Minsk Agreements enshrined in the Security Council resolution. This is the crux of the problem.
If an investigation is to be conducted, it must holistic: not merely as a matter of statistics or the nuances of international law, procedural manoeuvres, or the evident need for reforming UN institutions. The issue requires a comprehensive approach, addressing today’s intractable situations that neither UNSC reform nor statistical adjustments can resolve. It is a matter of a destructive mentality, driven by false premises of those who view the UN and international law not as tools for seeking peaceful settlements but as instruments to realise not merely their narrow self-interests but to indeed inflict “strategic defeat” on global peace.
Question: The US State Department recently updated the fact sheet on Taiwan on its official website. The previous wording stating that the United States does not support Taiwan's independence has been deleted. How would you comment on this as the Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman?
Maria Zakharova: In my capacity as the official spokeswoman of the Russian Foreign Ministry, I would like first of all to draw attention to the fact that Russia's principled position on the Taiwan issue is well known, unchanged and has been repeatedly reaffirmed at the highest level. I will reiterate it.
Taiwan is an integral part of China, and the Chinese Government is its only legitimate government. In addition, I would like to recall that Moscow and Beijing consistently support each other in matters related to the defence of sovereignty and territorial integrity, and cooperate closely in the field of security.
Regarding the actions you mentioned, they represent nothing more than an overt breach of international law, including by the Americans themselves. They violate the “one China” principle. The United States and its allies are concluding new arms contracts with Taiwan and strengthening political contacts with the island at various levels. However, their aim is not to promote cooperation, but to create an atmosphere of tension in the region, and an instrument of pressure on China and the Chinese people. Such actions and ideology contradict Washington's earlier commitments to this region, thereby fuelling separatist sentiments.
Question: Given the resumed Russian-US dialogue and changes in US rhetoric under President Trump with respect to Russia, what is the likelihood, in your opinion, that interaction between Moscow and Washington will shift from confrontation to an equal and mutually beneficial partnership? Can we already accept signals that anticipate such a development on Washington's part?
Maria Zakharova: It is certainly necessary to consider all signals and to be guided by deeds, specific steps and actions. This is not because we don't want to believe in the best, but because we have already seen how words can fail to match deeds, or how the meanings embedded in them can later be distorted.
I will reiterate, we do perceive the signals, we note the positive rhetoric, and we support a favourable and constructive attitude aimed at achieving peace, cooperation and mutual understanding from both the current United States Administration and any other party, wherever that may come from. However, we also rely on specific steps and actions. And this is what guides us when we shape our policies, be it foreign policy, two-way track policy, or others.
Question: US Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated that the US intends to prevent the use of hostile anti-Russia rhetoric at the G7 Foreign Minsters’ Meeting. Has Moscow taken note of this step? Can it be said that Washington is now assessing the situation in Ukraine more realistically?
Maria Zakharova: I suggest dividing your question into two parts.
First, we have already observed that, even within the G20 framework, US representatives – although they did not send the Secretary of State and were instead represented at the ambassadorial level – spoke in a notably different tone compared to previous administrations. Their rhetoric lacked the usual aggression and Russophobia and reflected a shift in approach. These changes are now evident. We have observed them, as well as the statements made by US representatives. These constructive remarks aim to maintain dialogue, contacts and relations. Our country acknowledged this at the highest level.
The second part of your question concerns whether Washington has begun to assess the situation in Ukraine in a more realistic and sober manner. I believe that members of the team currently in the White House are well aware of the real developments in Ukraine. Members of the previous administration also had a good understanding of the situation. The aims of the teams under Barack Obama and Joe Biden differed from their officially stated objectives. This is the problem. They spoke of supporting the so-called democracy in Ukraine, but they undermined that democracy. They distorted and mangled everything, including the electoral system and the political processes that were supposed to reflect the views of the Ukrainian people. However, this ultimately turned into a geopolitical chess game largely dictated by NATO countries.
They talked about the economic prosperity of Ukraine; in reality, they pushed it towards militarisation and regional confrontation. They claimed to respect the law, but eventually compelled Ukrainians to rewrite national legislation to suit their demands. They said that they respected Ukraine's sovereignty; in reality, they completely subordinated the Kiev regime to their will and eroded Ukrainian independence in every possible way.
The Biden administration was also well aware of what was happening in Ukraine. It largely pursued its own agenda there, just as previous administrations have done repeatedly across the world throughout various historical periods.
Members of the incumbent and previous White House teams are aware of what is taking place there. They hold differing opinions on the matter and are even discussing it openly. I would like to reiterate that the previous White House team concealed its true intentions. It needed a tool for implementing its corrupt schemes, as well as a means to address domestic economic problems. To achieve this, they promoted Russophobia and exploited the conflict around Ukraine. They needed the Kiev regime as a tool for enforcing their geopolitical doctrines, all while portraying their actions as support for the allegedly resurgent Ukrainian economy and democracy.
The current administration is revealing the true approaches of the previous administration, discussing corruption, and acknowledging that many past initiatives were not what they claimed to be. However, this does not mean that previous administrations were unaware of the real situation – they knew exactly what was happening.Consider the USAID documents that expose corruption cases and funding for specific projects that undermined democratic processes, including those in Ukraine. These documents were signed, approved and implemented under the previous administration, whose members were aware of this. Now, under the current administration, some of this information is coming to light and being shared with the international community.
So yes, both past and present US administrations have understood the realities in Ukraine. The difference lies in how they have chosen to engage with and present that reality. In that sense, I agree with you – there is indeed a noticeable shift.
Question: Does Russia find acceptable the outcome of US-Ukraine talks in Jeddah, in particular the 30-day ceasefire proposal? What counter-conditions can Russia come up with?
Maria Zakharova: I mentioned earlier that we are not guided by public statements in our assessments. We analyse them, but we mostly view them as just that, public rhetoric.
Things that they are willing to offer us should be said not into a microphone, but privately during contacts regarding this matter. This hasn’t happened so far.
I mentioned it earlier during the briefing today and I will say it again that we have not yet been officially notified about the outcome of this event or any other developments on this track. We do not rule out - and I would even say that we can confirm - that such contacts are planned to be held very soon, maybe even today. We will then be able to comment on what we heard, saw, read, or got familiar with.
The Kiev regime is using media landscape to launch military operations against our country, among other things. You are very well aware of this. They are using it to plant fake claims and to unleash cyber attacks, and everything in between.
The flags that were raised yesterday in the liberated towns and villages of the Kursk Region are cast by the Kiev regime as a sign of the Ukrainian forces’ redeployment to improve “maneuverability” and the like. Even in matters that are obvious to everyone, they never stop to use all sorts of tricks and ploys to mount a disinformation operation.
We see, hear, analyse, and take under advisement everything. However, as I earlier said, we will be guided by their official statements. I’m not talking about the Kiev regime now, but those who will represent the US side.
Question: What efforts is Russia making to achieve settlement in Syria? What countries and parties is it talking with, if any? Does Russia allow the possibility of it ever intervening in the intra-Syria conflict other than political and diplomatic, including, possibly, in cooperation with other countries such as the United States, Israel (which says it would like to see Russian military bases stay in Syria) and Türkiye?
Maria Zakharova: We consistently advocate for consolidating international efforts in the interests of achieving a comprehensive settlement in Syria.
However, we have invariably emphasised the importance of ensuring strict respect for the sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity of that country. The urgency of these complex and challenging goals has become even greater in light of the recent tragic events in western Syria, which have been assessed as well.
We maintain active contacts with the Arab States, Türkiye and Iran, who are our partners in the region, with a view to achieving enduring stabilisation in Syria.
The Syrian agenda was discussed in detail during Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s February 24-26 visit to Ankara, Tehran and Doha. We are open to establishing cooperation on Syria with all constructively-minded countries.
As far as the United States is concerned, we have recently co-initiated urgent UNSC consultations on Syria. The discussion showed that most of the UNSC members have similar views on the latest deterioration of the situation in western Syria. This shared approach gives hope that common sense and understanding of the importance of joint efforts to resolve the Syria crisis and other pressing issues in the Middle East will prevail in the West. Work is under way.
Question: European countries, in particular Britain, France and the EU, have supported the proposal for a 30-day ceasefire in Ukraine following the US-Ukraine talks in Saudi Arabia. Considering these countries’ positions...
Maria Zakharova: May I interrupt you for a second? You said “Considering these countries’ positions.” Do we really need to do that?
What have the countries you just mentioned - Britain, France, and most other EU countries - done for us to be mindful of their position? They - France and Germany (an EU member) - had their chance to prevent escalation.
For seven years they were not just observers or advisers, they were guarantors. Guarantors of what? The Minsk process, the Minsk agreements. But earlier they were also guarantors of the internal political process in Ukraine. They also guaranteed a “transitional” state of transferring power from the then existing government to those whom they supported, presenting it as democratic reforms. They failed everywhere, including during all sorts of Maidan protests with their efforts allegedly designed to promote all things that are good, and as guarantors of the Minsk Agreements.
Following up on your colleague’s previous question, they have failed at implementing the UN Security Council resolution that is binding on the international community.
Why do we need to listen to or, as you said, take into account these countries’ positions? Have they come up with anything to back up their approaches? Have they done anything to promote peaceful settlement?
We have discussed France, Germany, and EU countries. And what has Britain done to earn our trust on this track? Was it then Prime Minister of Britain Boris Johnson’s visit to Ukraine in the midst of negotiations that had every chance of achieving the settlement when he talked the Kiev regime out of pursuing these talks? What has official London done over the years to ensure that we take into account their position on this issue?
I believe that there is no point in continuing this discussion, because the point is about their principled approaches. If they wanted to put up another staged performance, or they needed more information noise, they failed. We are well aware of their principled approaches.
If they change them - notably, these approaches are based on escalation, Russophobia, and anti-Russia rhetoric - we will take their opinion into account. So far, there is nothing that would have us take their irrational opinion into account.
Question: Even without account of their positions, isn’t that running counter, isn’t that what European countries are seeking? It’s about a truce.
Maria Zakharova: Aren’t these the same Britain, France and EU representatives who claim every day that they are supplying weapons to the Kiev regime and should do so in greater amounts? Are they these same countries? What are you talking about? Where is the word “peace” in the militaristic aspirations of the European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen? Where is the word “peace” in the paramilitary statements by representatives of some EU countries? Where is this word in the nuclear “umbrella” of French President Emmanuel Macron? I haven’t seen or heard it. There is no mention of peace there. Where is there a single document, a single statement, a single conference devoted to peace?
I have heard about conferences on some “victory/defeat plan” by Vladimir Zelensky, about some “peace formulas,” which were just formulas for war. But I have not heard about real peace, a sustainable peace process that takes into account the root causes of the crisis, human rights (which they care so much about), as well as a huge number of problems created by these countries themselves.
Question: An active information campaign is under way to claim that Russia now needs a ceasefire in Ukraine, but not peace. Do you think the Americans and Europeans want to deceive us in the same way as they did with the Minsk agreements in order to rearm Ukraine for a subsequent more active, hotter phase of war with Russia? Why is US President Donald Trump so actively pushing for a ceasefire? Why does Trump need a ceasefire in Ukraine?
Maria Zakharova: You have three tracks that I can answer to.
First, I follow the news and I want to share them with you. The Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation has reported the liberation of the town of Sudzha in the Kursk Region, the village of Malovoy and the village of Podol. This, I think, is a good answer to many of the questions that have been asked today. We are doing what we have stated as our goals and objectives. Our country is fulfilling them.
I would like to draw your attention to the statements made on March 12 by President of Russia Vladimir Putin in the Kursk Region. Our people live by these statements, words and theses. And you say: will deceive / will not deceive, we listen / do not listen, we take into account / do not take into account. This is what we do take into account, what we expect, what we all seek. This is the first thing.
What does the Trump administration want? What does the President of the United States want? He has repeatedly said that this is a “massacre,” which was organised by his predecessors, among others. Remember the quotes: “unnecessary,” “insane,” “no one needs it,” “pointless.” He has explained this repeatedly. What do they want now? We will listen to them when they come to our country and share their thoughts following the Jeddah storyline.
Question: The EU’s Kaja Kallas, President of France Emmanuel Macron, and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer welcomed the US-Ukrainian ceasefire talks in Jeddah, saying that “the ball is, as usual, in Russia’s court.” What is your comment?
Maria Zakharova: This is yet another misplaced attempt to create a distorted picture of the situation by PR methods. I would put it this way. I don’t even want to be ironic about it.
We are facing a severe crisis that they – those who came up with this statement – have led the way in engineering. They have decided to take Ukraine under their wing. They have decided to toy with inventing a political model for a young burgeoning democracy. They have decided to scoff at the Ukrainian people.
Now they see (as does the whole world) that their project has fallen flat, throwing an entire nation into an abyss of insanity, with no positive outlook for the future. (As for the Kiev regime, it is absolutely clear that they are dead stuck in a blind alley.)
They are inventing some formulas and stopgaps that would help them look not so ugly. The EU is not very good at it because they simultaneously escalate the Ukraine crisis, approve unrealistic military budgets, stoke up aggressive anti-Russian rhetoric, and adopt ever new packages of sanctions against Russia.
They should not play with or in words. The Brussels minority has been carried away with its playing. They must look at things realistically and admit that this years-long crisis has been stirred up and modeled by them. They must recognise their criminal mistakes in this regard. If they do, they will talk business. But if the West and the EU limit themselves to inventing just another set of formulas… Well, we know the worth of it.
Do they have to repeat these memes? What they should do is to organise an exhibition of photographs of babies, children, mothers, and old people killed with NATO weapons they have supplied, all those people who fell victim to their greed, insanity and criminal logic that divides mankind into those living in a “garden” and the rest destined to live in a “jungle.” They should make an inventory of their mistakes and seek to correct them rather than engage in another bout of information engineering.
For a long period, they had a chance to excel at peace settlement. This chance was a gift from Russia that proposed the Minsk agreements. Not only did they lose it, they have acknowledged their deceit of global proportions. In fact, they have deceived themselves because they will have to live with this seal. To live as bluffs, as individuals that have scoffed at the people of Ukraine and deceived the world. They said that they were going to implement the Minsk agreements but actually they violated whatever they could – the said agreements, international law (because there was a UN Security Council resolution on implementing the package), and all norms of morality and ethics in international relations. The same goes for the civilisational level, given the scale of tragedy they have caused to the world by haranguing the “maidans,” encouraging nationalist feelings, resuscitating Nazism, and converting it to neo-Nazism. This is what they should do.
Question: You have already said in the introductory part on the negotiations between the US and Ukrainian delegations, that you have not yet been officially informed of their results, as far as I understand. How does the Russian side view the prospects for reaching a final peace agreement in the context of recent developments? Do you think there are certain ways or conditions at this point that must be met for Russia and Ukraine to return to the negotiating table?
Maria Zakharova: As you have said, I have already commented on most of this today.
You have put the question so broadly and globally that it would probably be better to wait for the news conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin announced by the President’s Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov. I think these issues will be touched upon, based on journalistic interest in this topic.
Question: Is there a chance that, following the re-launch of a dialogue between Russia and the US, representatives of American business will attend the St Petersburg Economic Forum in 2025? Is any work being done in this direction through the Foreign Ministry?
Maria Zakharova: It seems that I have a day of discoveries today. A day of questioning questions.
You know that American businesspeople attended the St Petersburg Economic Forum during the previous administration with its anti-Russia hysterics. In recent years, regardless of the geopolitical situation, American business circles have taken part in the SPIEF. This fact must be recorded.
We have never discriminated businesses. We have always said and stressed that we consider regimes unfriendly, and sometimes even hostile, if the corresponding policy is pursued, corresponding statements are made, and the laws of our country are violated.
We imposed sanctions against unfriendly regimes, mostly retaliatory, placed them on stop lists, also retaliatory ones, and opened criminal cases for their crimes. We have often spoken about this. But we have never discriminated against business representatives based on their affiliation with a particular country, or representatives of the humanitarian sphere, or cultural figures, or scientists. You know this very well.
We have always been against “cancel culture” or cancellation of culture. We have always said that this was crazy. This fully applies to economic forums as well. We are open for cooperation with businesspeople from all countries. It is up to them whether to come or not.
You will never find a single example of someone being denied attendance based on their nationality or citizenship. We strongly oppose this approach. The answer is obvious.
Question: Regarding the killings of religious minorities in Syria, is there any information about Russian citizens among the victims? Are there any additional measures needed from the Foreign Ministry to ensure the safety of our citizens and diplomatic personnel remaining in Syria?
Maria Zakharova: The situation is highly challenging. I would like to remind you that Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov addressed this matter in detail during a news conference on March 11. We continue to closely monitor the situation.
We are shocked by the tragic events in Syria, where innocent civilians became victims. The use of violence against civilians is completely unacceptable and cannot be justified under any circumstances.
As for our assessments, they are principled. We can only reiterate them and, depending on how the situation unfolds, make adjustments based on specific facts. We are deeply concerned about the events unfolding in Syria, and strongly condemn these mass killings. Our condolences go out to the families of the victims.
You are absolutely right to raise the issue of Russian citizens. We are receiving numerous inquiries from our citizens, compatriots, and people from other countries (primarily from Syrian citizens and concerned individuals from around the world), with questions and appeals for assistance.
We receive hundreds of letters, both through our embassies abroad and at the Central Office. These appeals have already been addressed. The Russian Khmeimim airbase opened its doors to local residents seeking refuge from the violence, recognising that this was a matter of life and death. Our military sheltered over 8,000 people as of yesterday, and the number is now closer to 9,000 Syrians. The majority are women and children. I believe this is the most concrete demonstration of our true contribution to the well-being of the Syrian people.
We assume that the current authorities in Damascus are fully aware of their responsibility to ensure the protection and legal rights of all Syrian citizens, regardless of their religious background. We are closely monitoring their efforts to improve the situation regarding law and order.
The Syrian leadership has publicly reaffirmed its commitment to preserving national unity, which encompasses not only issues related to different nationalities but also the country’s multi-confessional nature. A special commission has been established to investigate the circumstances of the incident.
We hope that through an impartial investigation, those responsible will be identified and held accountable for their actions. Ensuring civil peace and harmony is the most crucial task for the Syrian authorities during this challenging transitional period. The future of the Syrian Arab Republic largely depends on how effectively they address this issue (and we are certain there will be many more challenges ahead, as there are already numerous ones).
We firmly believe that the path to a sustainable resolution of the Syrian crisis lies in establishing an inclusive political process with the participation of all political forces and ethnic and religious groups in the country. For our part, we will continue to support Syria’s sovereignty, unity, and territorial integrity.
Given the deteriorating military and political situation in the country, our top priority is to ensure the safety of Russian citizens and facilities. To achieve this, we maintain the necessary communication with the current Syrian authorities. I do not have information on any specific incidents regarding Russian citizens being victims, but I want to emphasise that this issue remains a top priority for us. We are taking all necessary measures to protect both our citizens and Russian facilities.
Question: In Italy, a petition created by our colleague Vincenzo Lorusso has sparked major controversy. Some politicians have even urged police action against Vincenzo Lorusso. The President of Italy claims Russia threatens Europe with nuclear weapons. How would you comment?
Maria Zakharova: So you are saying the President of Italy alleged that Russia threatens Europe with nuclear weapons?
Question: Yes.
Maria Zakharova: That is falsehood, lies, untruth, fake, disinformation. I have given you several descriptors – choose the most fitting or use them all. This is my first point.
Second: Accountability is imperative. As a journalist representing a news agency, you may ask the President of Italy on what basis he propagated such falsehoods. Perhaps he might deign to substantiate his claims?
I can state unequivocally: he will fail. He will find no statement by any official representative of the Russian Federation that could be construed in such manner.
Third, the Russian leadership – President of Russia Vladimir Putin, authorised ministers, and statesmen of – have repeatedly addressed this issue and have taken all necessary measures to debunk such fakes (1, 2, 3, 4).
The next point. I find this perplexing. Has the President of Italy confused us with another nation? Although I understand that we are unmistakable. Perhaps he intended to suggest that it is France that is threatening Europe with nuclear weapons, as this would align with President of France Emmanuel Macron’s remarks days ago about deploying a nuclear “umbrella” over Europe. I recall a French film Le Coup du Parapluie (The Umbrella Coup). This is a “coup” of a nuclear “umbrella,” which many interpreted precisely in this way following President Macron’s statements.
Why did the statements of a neighbouring country, made at an official level regarding nuclear weapons, fail to provoke any outcry among neighbouring nations or among members of the European Union? These statements were delivered with an overtly aggressive undertone. Yet, once again, we witness fantasies about alleged threats from Russia regarding the use of nuclear weapons (which is false).
I will tell you why this occurs: it is precisely because facts are needed to sustain the narrative of Russophobia and the anti-Russian agenda. These facts do not exist. Such facts do not exist.
How else to convince Western European populations that Russia is supposedly evil? One must invent narratives alleging that our country threatens them.
What does Russia threaten the EU with? Our affordable, high-quality energy resources, sold to EU nations for years? Our economic and humanitarian projects with these countries? What does Russia threaten Italy with, specifically? The fact that we collaborate with Italian businesses, that Italian companies operate here with offices and profit from our country? Is this a threat? No. But to sustain the illusion of a “phantom menace,” this topic must be endlessly reiterated.
This pattern is evident not only among our Western neighbours but also Eastern ones. Observe the rhetoric and statements from official Tokyo, which — while constantly invoking the US nuclear aggression against its own cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki – weaves in references to Russia. What does Russia have to do with this? It was the United States, not the Soviet Union or the Russian Federation, that dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Yet to absolve the truly guilty party (the USA) from the historical narrative of the first use of nuclear weapons against civilian populations and frame “innocent” Russia as culpable, they engage in semantic juggling. The same applies here.
Question: Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel has called for a dialogue with Russia on the conflict in Ukraine. In her opinion, Europe should use diplomacy to settle the conflict and discuss a number of issues with Moscow for this purpose. But in 2022, Merkel admitted that the Minsk agreements were concluded only to buy time to strengthen the Ukrainian army. Should we now trust the diplomatic efforts of the former chancellor?
Maria Zakharova: I believe that we should proceed from specific deeds. We do not believe words, especially from those who have deceived.
I think, we should proceed from specific deeds and steps made by political and government leaders and be guided by them.
I think it is obvious. I am certainly not revealing a big secret here. This position has been voiced many times.
Question: As you have already said the OSCE delegation that arrived in Moscow has been shown the consequences of an attack by Ukrainian drones against residential buildings in the Moscow Region. Could you comment on the reaction of the delegation and the OSCE Secretary General Feridun Sinirlioglu to what they saw?
Maria Zakharova: It seems to me that he responded to this question himself during the news conference. We found it important to show this so that the OSCE Secretariat would not have any pretexts to say that they are unaware of anything. Now they know a lot. There is such a thing as “field research.” It is directly within their “field research” that they have been given this opportunity.
It seems to me that we need to put the question differently here. What is important here is not only and not so much the reaction of the OSCE Secretary General. He is a completely new person. He has only been in the office for a month. It seems to me that he is trying somehow to adapt to his new function. The other thing is important. The main problem is the deep crisis into which NATO and, consequently, the European Union have driven the OSCE by grossly violating and ignoring all the original goals of this institution and simply destroying the consensually agreed principles underpinning its work.
This is what is important and predominant. He is the Secretary-General, but it is the member states, this very “aggressive global minority” that distorts the Organisation, simply destroying it from within.
Question: Every year on March 16, a march of veterans from the Latvian Legion of the Waffen-SS and their supporters takes place in the Latvian capital. What tools can Russia employ to counter the glorification of Nazism in the Baltic states? Why do you think the EU and the UN fail to take decisive measures to prohibit such actions?
Maria Zakharova: It seems to me that we have inscribed an entire chapter in the textbook of world history (I refer to the one composed of the pages of daily efforts) dedicated to the fight against neo-Nazism.
It is our country, the Foreign Ministry, and our diplomats on international platforms and in the countries of their accreditation who, for decades (not one, two, three, five, or ten years), have drawn attention to this issue and done everything to make it a subject of international relations and a priority for international organisations.
Russia has employed a broad arsenal of political and diplomatic tools to counter the revisionist policies of Latvia, whose authorities continue, year after year, to condone the March 16 processions of former Waffen-SS legionnaires in the centre of Riga and the aggressive propagation of ideology by admirers of these marches from among right-wing radical organisations.
We systematically highlight this phenomenon to the global community through public statements by the leadership of the Russian Foreign Ministry, reports, and raising the issue in international organisations. We consistently emphasise that Riga’s cynical glorification of Nazi criminals violates the fundamental norms of international law, blatantly contradicts the Nuremberg Trials rulings, and breaches Latvia’s international legal obligations to counter racist and xenophobic tendencies.
Active efforts are underway through relevant international organisations, including the UN and the OSCE.
At the UN, Russia’s annually submitted resolution on combating glorification of Nazism receives broad international support. It expresses deep concern over the glorification of the Nazi movement, neo-Nazism, and former members of the Waffen-SS, including through public demonstrations. This document always highlights the recommendation of the UN Human Rights Council’s Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, urging states to prohibit “any commemorative celebration of the Nazi regime, its allies and related organisations, whether official or unofficial...” The resolution also mandates that states take measures to counter any commemoration of the Nazi SS and its components, including the Waffen-SS.
Furthermore, the Special Rapporteur is tasked annually with preparing reports for the UN General Assembly and Human Rights Council on the resolution’s implementation. Russia, alongside other states, contributes to the content of this document.
Russia regularly raises objections with Latvia bilaterally, though as you know, full-fledged relations have long been absent. Diplomatic contacts remain, albeit limited, and they cannot be considered comprehensive due to the position of the Latvian authorities.
No revisionist provocation by Riga goes without an appropriate response from our side. In particular, Russia has submitted diplomatic notes to all three Baltic states under pre-trial claims regarding their violations of obligations under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Who else has done this? No one. Not because they do not exist (I refer to the problems), but because proactive efforts are required – efforts Russia demonstrates, including in countering the glorification of Nazism and Waffen-SS veterans.
As for the European Union, there is indeed no intention to address the appalling situation of glorifying Nazism in the Baltic states. This is not a matter of avoiding “airing dirty laundry” or resolving it behind closed doors to minimise efforts. Far from it. That is not the case at all.
The crux lies in the “new normal,” the “new ethics” that prevail there, namely, “tolerance” towards Nazism. Why does this happen? It stems from Brussels’ deliberate policy of rewriting history, primarily revising the causes and outcomes of the Second World War – the Great Patriotic War for us.
Why? Because the principles that, unfortunately, took root and bore fruit in the Third Reich have not disappeared from the North Atlantic bloc. What are these principles? The division of humanity into those “entitled” and those “entitled to nothing.” Today, this formula is rebranded through Josep Borrell’s “beautiful garden” and “wild jungles” – an ideology asserting a “golden billion” for whom the rest must toil. It is the ideology of colonialism, which presumes the existence of “first-class” people and all others who must work and surrender everything they have for the benefit of the so-called first-class. Therefore, they do not intend to combat this. For them, these are uncomfortable yet familiar manifestations of their traditional philosophical views. Hence, they choose to silence these unpleasant, dreadful, and horrific pages of the past. They seek to rewrite history to “retouch” these historical realities.
The unleashed revisionist war is dictated by Brussels’ ideological agenda. They attempt to distort Russia’s image, portraying it as an aggressor state, considering our country’s role as the successor to the USSR. They erase any mention of the Red Army’s heroism in the fight against Nazism and fascism, which made the decisive and greatest contribution to the liberation of concentration camps and the cessation of mass extermination in many Western European countries. Equating Stalinism with Nazism – a narrative they invented and articulated – is presented as a pillar of EU unity. A monstrous logic. Historical concepts are being substituted. Read NATO and EU documents – they no longer speak directly of “Nazism” but of “authoritarianism.”
It was not historians who characterised the era of the Third Reich as Nazism. It was these countries themselves, which banded together into this “clique of misanthropes,” who invented these terms. Fascism originated in Italy. But Nazism was glorified in the state ideology of the Third Reich. Why then pretend it did not exist and invent terms like “authoritarianism,” a wholly distinct concept?
Yet we see that some European nations still resist the forced erasure of historical memory. We see the cynical attitude of EU bureaucracy towards Latvia. They even turn a blind eye to the blatant manifestations of neo-Nazism, such as torchlight Waffen-SS processions and the use of Nazi symbols. All to avoid raising the issue, doing anything, or drawing attention to the problem.
They are obliged to notice the numerous instances of desecration of the memory of fascism’s victims and the resurgence of neo-Nazi sentiments. In fact (let us speak plainly), they only embolden the Baltic states (I refer to their regimes) and, in particular, the Latvian authorities to continue this vile practice of glorifying SS criminals.
Question (retranslated from English): Students and opposition groups in Serbia are organising a protest in Belgrade this Saturday, which they have already dubbed a new October 5 – the date marking the overthrow of Slobodan Milošević’s government. Meanwhile, authorities claim to possess information indicating protesters plan to seize the National Assembly, National Television headquarters, and Constitutional Court. In your view, is such an outcome feasible? What repercussions might this have for regional stability?
Maria Zakharova: We are closely monitoring developments in Serbia. This is not merely a country on our continent; it is a friendly nation and a kindred people, with whom we have endured many trials.
We reiterate our call for restraint among all political forces involved in the current events. It is critical to recognise the potentially grave cost of rash and possibly incited actions driven by transient emotions.
We anticipate the situation to normalise as soon as possible through mutually respectful dialogue.
Question: It is known that a significant number of foreign mercenaries are fighting on the side of Vladimir Zelensky’s nationalists. In the Kherson Region, there is confirmed participation of French and Polish mercenaries on the side of the AFU. In the DPR, LPR, and the Kursk Region, mercenaries from Latin America are frequently reported. Is there an international mechanism to hold mercenaries accountable? Is the Foreign Ministry working with the countries from which these mercenaries travel to the territory of Russia’s new regions to locate and prosecute them?
Maria Zakharova: First, I would like to draw your attention to the remarks made yesterday by President of Russia Vladimir Putin regarding foreign mercenaries and how our country categorises them. This is a very important statement.
Second, we have consistently warned that nothing good awaits foreign mercenaries in the Ukrainian conflict. We cautioned them about their inevitable fate: becoming hostages to their own regimes’ ambitions and the deception of the Kiev regime. They were lured and dispatched under various pretexts – some as mercenaries, though in reality they were intelligence operatives of their respective states; others were sold tales of “Ukraine’s democracy under threat.”
We have candidly explained why they were enticed or sent there and, most importantly, what awaits them. We warned that no leniency would be shown for their crimes simply because they hold foreign passports.
We repeatedly highlighted actions by certain states that allowed Ukrainian embassies to blatantly violate the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations by recruiting not just mercenaries but militants on “one-way tickets.” Naturally, the responses from these states – which we classify as unfriendly – ranged from dismissive smirks to outright silence. Some pretended not to understand our concerns; others feigned optimism about normalisation. Behind this, many concealed their own intelligence operatives’ deployment to Ukraine.
The situation has evolved. Observe how they scrambled after us once it became evident that everything we had cautioned against was indeed true. This will persist. These very mercenaries, or those who claimed to be mercenaries but were, in fact, agents of relevant state intelligence services, did not respond to the calls of their loved ones – either when it was apparent they would never respond again or when they found themselves in the dock, in pre-trial detention centres, confronted with entirely justified criminal charges.
Consider the shift in stance from those who, in 2022, within various NATO or NATO-aligned nations, were unwilling to heed our warnings. Observe how they scrambled, fidgeted, commenced knocking, calling, writing, sending notes, or even dispatching envoys with pleas on how to retrieve certain individuals, or how to provide assistance. Where were they previously? Why did they not hear, or choose not to hear, what was communicated to them? Allow me to elucidate. It was because they were absolutely confident in the blitzkrieg they had orchestrated. They were utterly convinced, yet they miscalculated.
Let us revisit the initial point. Listen to what the President of the Russian Federation articulated yesterday concerning the mercenaries. It would be highly beneficial (and I believe we will undertake this) for this specific excerpt to be translated into as many languages as possible and made accessible to all those abroad who are observing this situation.
Our law enforcement agencies are undertaking the necessary actions based on the mercenaries’ purchased “tickets.” For some, it is a “one-way ticket,” while others, spared by fate, face criminal probes that, it appears, sober many of them. We have also witnessed interviews with these mercenaries, their “tears,” which few believe. We warned that their hands are stained with the blood of innocents, including civilians. Frankly, one can believe sincere remorse when it is genuine – when they assert that they have fully realised and understood that they were victims of deception. Then, indeed, one can believe them.
However, I wish to reiterate that we have repeatedly addressed this issue, providing full clarity and undertaking relevant work. For an extended period now, the Ambassador-at-Large on the Kiev Regime’s War Crimes, Rodion Miroshnik, has been daily consolidating all incoming information regarding the Kiev regime’s crimes into reports. These reports are then publicly and directly disseminated by our representatives at international organisations and our embassies. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov shares these documents with his counterparts and international organisations. They are published for the wider public. Among other sections, there are dedicated parts addressing the issue of mercenaries.
Question: The Kurdistan Workers’ Party announced a ceasefire with Turkiye from March 1, 2025. This happened in the context of a call by the party’s imprisoned leader, Abdullah Ocalan who urged the organisation’s members to lay down their weapons and to stop the armed standoff with Turkiye. Abdullah Ocalan also noted that the Kurdistan Workers’ Party should be disbanded.
What does Moscow think about this step? How, in your opinion, can this decision influence the region and Turkiye itself?
Maria Zakharova: We assume that any steps and efforts aimed at de-escalating violence in the country and the entire region, creating an atmosphere of trust to address existing issues by political methods are only welcome. We hope that these developments will help achieve peace and enhance stability and security.
Question: On March 10, the Syrian Government and the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces signed an agreement recognising the Kurdish people’s rights in the Syrian state. The agreement aims to integrate key institutions and stipulates a framework for joint security cooperation.
Do you think the new agreement will facilitate long-term stability in Syria, in the context of the latest political developments in western Syria?
Maria Zakharova: We are guided by the principle that we have repeatedly mentioned: We respect the territorial integrity, sovereignty and unity of Syria.
Russia welcomes an agreement on returning the Trans-Euphrates region under Syrian jurisdiction, with due consideration for the legitimate rights and interests of all ethnic groups and religious communities living in the region.
On the whole, we assume that the people of Syria themselves should decide the destiny of their country during an all-out nationwide dialogue without any outside interference.
We perceive the signing of the relevant agreement between the authorities of the Syrian Arab Republic and the leadership of the Syrian Democratic Forces as an important step towards reinstating the unity of Syria and enhancing its security and stability.
We realise that efforts to guarantee the practical implementation of these agreements will be linked with diverse problems and difficulties. The concerned parties should retain a constructive spirit and readiness to compromise for the sake of overcoming them. We hope that they will be able to accomplish this.
Question: Last week, a chargé d’affaires of the Chinese Embassy in Moscow noted that Russia and China are striving to further optimise the visa regime. How fast is the work progressing, according to the Russian Foreign Ministry? Are there any obstacles for creating more favourable conditions for mutual travel between the two countries? Can Russian tourists count on visa-free travel to China in the foreseeable future?
Maria Zakharova: Let’s start with the second part of your question.
As of today, Russian and Chinese tourists can travel visa free between our countries as part of tourist groups under the relevant intergovernmental agreement dated February 29, 2000. In 2024, more than 1 million people took advantage of this opportunity, including 567,000 Chinese tourists and 468,000 Russians. Almost 50 to 50 percent, probably with a marginal advantage in favour of Chinese tourists. But in any case, these figures speak volumes.
At present, the relevant agencies are working to amend this agreement to create even more favourable conditions for mutual travel. The expansion of bilateral cooperation in this area is invariably in the focus of attention at the Subcommittee on Tourism Cooperation of the Russian-Chinese Commission on Humanitarian Cooperation.
This issue is always on the agenda of the country’s leadership. Apart from the Russian and Chinese people’s interest in travelling and visiting the other country, it is both governments’ priority to pave the way for the people to get to know each other, because our countries are neighbours (Russia shares the second longest border with China), and have enormous potential and opportunities for doing business, cooperation and interaction.
Russia maintains ongoing dialogue with our Chinese partners on progressive liberalisation of the mutual travel regime.
The two countries are successfully implementing their 2013 agreement to facilitate travel, which stipulates a simplified procedure for issuing visas, as well as agreements on the mutual abolition of visa requirements with the special administrative regions of Hong Kong (2009) and Macau (2012).
China is on the list of states whose citizens are granted multiple-entry tourist visas for a period of up to 6 months upon presenting proof of accommodation such as a hotel reservation or confirmation from another facility from the unified register of certified hotels, ski slopes, and beaches.
In addition, Chinese nationals are entitled to use the Unified Electronic Visa, which is a single-entry visa with a validity period of 60 days from the date of issue. Foreign nationals can use e-visas to stay in the territory of the Russian Federation for 16 days on a guest or business visit, as a tourist, as well as to participate in scientific, cultural, public policy, economic and sporting events. In the near future, the relevant laws will be amended to increase e-visa validity from 60 to 120 days, and the permitted period of stay in Russia, from 16 to 30 days.
We are working on this with our Chinese partners, relying on the current practices and results of implementing the existing agreements. This work is far from completed; we continue to pursue this effort with dedication on a daily basis.
Question: On March 10, 2025, the website of the Author I editorial office was subjected to a massive cyberattack. Our IT specialists saw it, and they were surprised not only by the high professionalism, but also by the scale of this attack. Several countries took part in it, including the United States, Great Britain, Belgium, Turkiye, Ukraine, and Poland. It is surprising that the Baltics were not part of it...
Maria Zakharova: Their official authorities seem to be preparing for the Waffen-SS march. They are planning a torchlight procession there now. They have no time.
Question: We believe it is connected with the publication of an article revealing machinations of the Limaton Russian financial group. It was founded by citizens of NATO countries: Latvia, Spain and the Principality of Monaco. We received threats.
What measures is the Russian Foreign Ministry taking in cooperation with Russian law enforcement agencies to protect Russian journalists from cyber threats from outside? Do you think it is possible to start a discussion about cybercrimes committed against Russian media from the territory of foreign states on international platforms such as the UN Security Council and BRICS?
Maria Zakharova: There are two dimensions to this question.
The first one is Russian competent and law enforcement agencies that investigate cybercrimes. They do everything they can to prevent and curb any possible cybercrime. This is a question to be addressed to competent and law enforcement agencies. They have such experience. They caught criminals, identified crime chains and brought all of this to court. There is an official Doctrine of Information Security of the Russian Federation and a set of measures are applied. This is the first block.
The second is what you are talking about: raising this issue on international platforms. The Foreign Ministry is responsible for international cooperation in the sphere of cybersecurity. We are engaged in systematic efforts to promote Russia’s approaches and their practical implementation in documents adopted by international organisations. One of the goals is to prevent impunity in the actions of malefactors (both criminals in their individual capacity and states) commit in the digital environment by developing uniform “rules of the game” for the entire world. This is primarily about developing universal legally binding agreements that would ensure effective and transparent regulation of the global cyberspace.
The adoption of the Convention against Cybercrime, agreed upon at the initiative of Russia, by the UN General Assembly was the first step in this direction. After entering into force, the document will make it possible to establish practical cooperation between the member states’ law enforcement agencies in fighting cybercrime, including in relation to Russian journalists. Concurrently, we are seeking to adopt similar agreements on other aspects of international information security (IIS), including in the area of preventing/settling interstate conflicts.
Russia, with the support of like-minded states, has been advocating such approaches in various multilateral formats, in particular at specialised UN platforms such as the Open-Ended Working Group on IIS and the Ad Hoc Committee on the Development of a Comprehensive Convention on Combating Information Crime.
As for Russia initiating discussion of the issues you have mentioned at relevant international platforms, including the UN and BRICS, as I have already said, this is what the Russian Foreign Ministry is doing systematically in a variety of formats in accordance with their mandate. The Convention on Combating Cybercrime, recently approved for signing, is an example of the result of such initiatives.
As for cyberattacks in general, we are facing them daily. We publish statistics from time to time, when the attacks are unprecedented in scale and our information resources fail to operate. We systematically inform about the willful acts of those who pretend they do not have hackers of their own, and hence they lash out at others’. Our federal, regional and municipal authorities know first-hand what cyberattacks are. Our companies, businesses, mobile operators, banking institutions, and websites are constantly attacked. This amounts to ongoing cyber aggression against Russia and its people, coordinated from the outside and aimed at destabilising the situation in Russia, damaging our economy and government system, and provoking various emergency incidents and even man-made disasters.
In this sense, it would be wrong to adopt a special set of measures with respect to one particular area. It is necessary to approach the protection of cyberspace as a whole, comprehensively and systematically.
Question: Can we say now that the United States has capitulated to the Russian Federation? What are they afraid of? And moving forward, will we “put the squeeze on them” and make them influence Europe and Ukraine the way we need it, to stop the aggression?
Maria Zakharova: This is not a fiction enthusiasts’ club, a thriller symposium, or the set of a detective series. This is the official briefing of the Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson.
I comment on facts, trends and events, answering questions based on the actual agenda. How you choose to shape your worldview or express your philosophy in a more artistic manner is entirely up to you, that’s your prerogative.
I carry out my duties within the scope of my authority. If you have specific questions – whether about a particular event or of a more general nature but within my area of competence – I will always provide an answer. Artistic imagery has its place, but it should be used appropriately when evaluating specific matters. I’ve mentioned this many times before, and I’ll say it again.
Many believe that your questions are intentionally provocative, not just towards me. I would prefer not to share that view, but please don’t give me a reason to. What’s the purpose of this approach?
We are engaged in practical work. A dialogue is currently being established with the American side. What kind of far-reaching assessments, especially of this nature, can and should we talk about? What for? What are you after? What exactly is your goal? I don’t quite understand.
If this is meant to be a thing of imagination, then I’m not the right person for it. Many people wonder why you frame things this way, and I share their confusion. I am always open to all questions, and if you have one related to my specific area of work, I am more than willing to answer. But I would ask you to refrain from this approach.
Question: What is the current status of negotiations with the United States?
Maria Zakharova: Regarding the recent contacts, Yury Ushakov, Aide to the Russian President, has already provided a comment. These contacts have taken place, and you can refer to his comments for details. As for upcoming contacts, they have not yet occurred, though they may happen as soon as today. Once they do, we will provide relevant updates.
We maintain diplomatic contacts through our embassy, which have become more active compared to the previous administration. Many issues are on the agenda, and we are awaiting the start of our ambassador’s work in Washington. At the same time, our embassy has already observed a certain trend toward more engagement with the US Department of State.
For our part, as you know, we have never unilaterally blocked such contacts. However, we came up with a tit-for-tat response when faced with unfair attitude from the other side. Additionally, we are in communication with the US embassy in Moscow, as several issues have already been identified not just for discussion but for concrete follow-up. At the level of our embassies and diplomats, communication is no longer obstructed and is gradually becoming more active.
Дополнительные материалы
-
Фото
 Выход к прессе.mp4)