Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, July 2, 2025

 

Sergey Lavrov’s participation in the 17th BRICS summit

 

On July 6–7, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will attend the 17th BRICS Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, held under the motto “Strengthening Global South Cooperation for More Inclusive and Sustainable Governance.”

The summit will assess the group’s work since the start of the year across three primary cooperation domains: politics and security, economy and finance, and cultural-humanitarian affairs. The meeting will also address current issues on the global and regional agendas.

Special focus will be placed on reforming the global governance system and maintaining peace and security, particularly in light of the escalating situation in the Middle East.

During BRICS Plus/ outreach sessions, discussions will centre on improving the international monetary and financial system, as well as advancing BRICS initiatives, including the New Investment Platform, an independent settlement and depository infrastructure, and the BRICS Grain Exchange. Debates will also encompass artificial intelligence, environmental protection, cooperation in preparation for the 30th Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, and collaboration in healthcare.

Invited participants include partner states (Belarus, Bolivia, Vietnam, Kazakhstan, Cuba, Malaysia, Nigeria, Thailand, Uganda, Uzbekistan), like-minded nations – particularly those chairing regional cooperation mechanisms – alongside international organisations and multilateral development banks.

 

Sergey Lavrov’s participation in the ASEAN-Russia and EAS Foreign Ministers’ Meetings

 

On July 10–11, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will participate in the upcoming ASEAN foreign ministers’ meetings in Kuala Lumpur, held under the auspices of the Russia-ASEAN dialogue, the East Asia Summit (EAS), and the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) on security.

These platforms – bringing together representatives of leading Asian states alongside ASEAN members – will provide an opportunity for the exchange of assessments on global and Asia-Pacific developments. Given the current global turbulence, a challenging discussion is anticipated on the key geopolitical flashpoints of today.

For our part, we intend to emphasise the increasing risks linked to the militarisation of the Asia-Pacific region, the expansion of bloc-based Indo-Pacific mechanisms, attempts by Euro-Atlantic actors to entrench NATO’s military presence in Asia, destabilise the established ASEAN-centred security and development architecture, and redirect practical cooperation towards alternative formats that serve Western agendas.

At the Russia-ASEAN ministerial meeting, we expect substantive dialogue across a broad spectrum of political and security, trade and economic, and social and cultural cooperation. We will reaffirm ASEAN’s central role in ensuring regional stability and fostering inclusive collaboration. The focus will be on preparing a new joint action programme for 2026–2030, prioritising high-tech and knowledge-intensive sectors, smart cities, digitalisation, energy, and other forward-looking fields.

We will also discuss with ASEAN partners the prospects for deepening ties between the ten member states and the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO). Their growing interest in these associations is evident – more ASEAN nations are keen to follow Vietnam and Singapore in concluding free trade agreements with the EAEU, while also intensifying engagement with the SCO.

Within the EAS framework, we advocate expanding practical cooperation in line with its thematic mandate. In recent years, Russia has introduced several applied initiatives on this platform, such as the creation of a region-wide mechanism for rapid response to epidemic threats, the promotion of economic growth through enhanced tourism cooperation, and the development of remote territories. This year, we propose adopting an EAS leaders’ statement on social and cultural interconnectedness.

The ARF session is expected to approve next year’s work programme, which will include events on critical topics, such as international information security, maritime threat mitigation, counter-terrorism, and combating transnational crime. Special attention will be given to preventing the criminal use of information and communications technologies. We believe that revitalising broad, depoliticised cooperation in these areas serves the interests of all forum participants.

A series of bilateral meetings between the Minister and Asian counterparts are planned on the sidelines of the ASEAN events.

 

Sergey Lavrov to attend SCO Council of Ministers of Foreign Affairs meeting

 

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will take part in the meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation’s Council of Ministers of Foreign Affairs in Tianjin, People’s Republic of China on July 14-15.

The meeting will be the key stage in preparing the SCO summit scheduled for August 30 – September 1 in Tianjin. Foreign ministers will discuss the current condition and prospects for the organisation’s further development and improvement and consider details for the SCO Heads of State Council meeting, including draft final documents.

Special attention will be given to the relevant international and regional agenda, including some aspects of the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II and the establishment of the United Nations.

Sergey Lavrov is also to hold a number of bilateral meetings.

 

Russia-Azerbaijan relations

 

We are receiving a significant number of inquiries from citizens, civil society representatives, members of the business community, and, of course, from journalists regarding the current state of Russian-Azerbaijani relations.

The Ministry’s position was articulated in the statement released yesterday, following the summoning of Azerbaijani Ambassador Rahman Mustafayev to Smolenskaya Square, where he met with Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Galuzin.

A strong protest was made in response to Azerbaijan’s conscious steps to undermine our bilateral relations, including the cancellation – announced unilaterally by Baku – of high-level interstate dialogue events.

We can see fake stories in the media. It remains unclear whether this is a coordinated information campaign or just a reaction driven by heightened emotions. Some of these reports have already been formally rebutted by Azerbaijan’s own official bodies.

Yesterday’s discussion revolved around this topic, too. Ambassador Rahman Mustafayev was handed a diplomatic note expressing our grave concern over the unacceptable actions taken by Azerbaijani law enforcement agencies against the Russian news outlet Sputnik Azerbaijan and its employees.

Let me remind you that during the incident against Rossiya Segodnya’s branch in Baku – Sputnik Azerbaijan News Agency – on June 30, Russian citizens Igor Kartavykh and Yevgeny Belousov – the head and deputy head of Sputnik Azerbaijan – were detained. Russia demanded their immediate release. Nonetheless, the pressure on the agency and its staff has persisted.

On July 1, the Khatai District Court imposed a four-month pre-trial detention order on both of them.

It is important to highlight that these journalists have worked in Azerbaijan for many years without a single formal complaint regarding either the nature or content of their reporting. It would be strange to question their reports if there were no mistakes. But nothing of the sort happened. They have always been professional journalists adhering to journalistic ethics and complying with Azerbaijan’s laws.

We have repeatedly raised this issue with the Azerbaijani authorities, including formal requests for consular access to the detained Russian citizens. All this time, we have been maintaining close coordination with the Russian Embassy in Baku and Ambassador Mikhail Yevdokimov. Regrettably, consular access has not yet been granted: neither to journalists, nor to other Russian citizens.

We hope that all actors refrain from further steps that risk exacerbating tensions and damaging bilateral relations.

It must be noted that these steps have significantly undermined our bilateral relations. We call on the Azerbaijani side to take urgent measures to restore bilateral engagement to the level defined by our official agreements - namely, that of allied cooperation.

We believe that all emerging issues must be addressed in the spirit of partnership using established diplomatic channels. Artificially constructed escalation does not serve the interests of the peoples of Russia and Azerbaijan.

Let me emphasise that we began with this topic today because we are flooded with questions from concerned citizens of the two countries, business leaders, and corporations – many of whom do not recognise themselves in the fake stories being circulated, unfortunately, in the Azerbaijani press.

 

Situation with Russian citizens in Azerbaijan

 

Our Embassy has been receiving phone calls and is ready to provide available information to the families and friends of those Russian citizens who have been detained in Azerbaijan. Please contact our Embassy. See the telephone numbers on the Embassy site.

As of now, we have received 11 appeals from friends and families of those, who were detained and arrested in Azerbaijan and were identified on the video disseminated in that country’s mass media. Our Embassy is in contact with them and will continue to be so.

We are asked if it is worth planning any travels and what should be done under the current situation being shown by Azerbaijani TV channels and reported by that country’s news agencies. Of course, if our citizens are in Azerbaijan, if they are planning a trip, then they should carefully consider the current situation.

We will certainly share further information. Yet, I want to draw your attention to our appeal to the Azerbaijani side which we have just sent to Baku.

 

Ukraine crisis update

 

The Kiev regime continues to perpetrate terrorist attacks against Russia’s civilian population and infrastructure.

Over the past week, approximately 100 individuals have sustained injuries due to strikes by Nazi forces. Seven of the victims lost their lives, while more than 90 others were wounded, including four minors. Allow me to present several facts. Beyond the stark, albeit harrowing, statistics, I wish to draw attention to specific incidents.

Belgorod Region. On June 24, in the village of Baytsury, a civilian died at the scene from wounds inflicted in a drone strike. His wife was also injured. On June 25, in the vicinity of the Oktyabrsky residential area, a UAV attack left the driver of a freight vehicle wounded. On June 27, in the village of Borisovka, the Ukrainian Armed Forces caused damage to the Church of the Annunciation of the Most Holy Mother of God.

On June 30, a drone attack targeted a civilian vehicle in Shebekino, resulting in injuries to two women.

Bryansk Region. Between June 26 and 29, enemy drone strikes on Bryansk resulted in nine injuries, including that of a child.

Kursk Region. On June 23, Ukrainian UAVs attacked an agricultural enterprise in the village of Durovo. Six pieces of machinery were damaged, along with the roofs and walls of two grain storage facilities. That same night, in the village of Kudintsevo, a strike hit a first-aid station. On June 24, in the village of Belitsa, a 29-year-old man sustained shrapnel wounds from a Ukrainian FPV drone attack. On June 25, a UAV of the same type hit a truck on the Bobrava–Belaya highway, injuring the driver. Between June 28 and 29, enemy drones targeted the residential area of Glushkovo, as well as the villages of Sukhaya and Kekino, resulting in shrapnel wounds to three men.

Zaporozhye Region. On June 27, during maintenance work on the hydraulic structures of the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant, the AFU launched a drone attack on a group of employees cleaning a channel. The drones struck approximately 350–400 metres from the reactor units. A service vehicle was damaged; however, the personnel were able to take shelter in time.

Kherson Region. On June 23, four civilians were injured in the village of Novaya Zburyevka and the town of Alyoshki due to a UAV attack by the AFU. In the town of Golaya Pristan, Kiev’s militants struck an ambulance. We have consistently underscored this: medical workers, hospitals – and now, everything related to maternity care, maternity wards – remain primary targets of the Kiev regime.

On June 24, three civilians – including a child born in 2019 – were wounded in Alyoshki and the settlement of Dnepryany after shelling by the Bandera followers. On June 26, the enemy opened fire on a cemetery in the town of Kakhovka, damaging gravestones. Between June 27 and 29, AFU strikes on Alyoshki and the residential area of Novaya Mayachka resulted in one fatality and four injured. On June 30, Ukrainian armed forces’ attacks in the village of Radensk claimed the life of a woman and left a man injured.

Donetsk People’s Republic. Between June 23 and 28, at least 15 civilians were affected by the Kiev regime’s aggression. On the evening of June 30, the AFU launched a precision strike – likely using Franco-British Storm Shadow/SCALP missiles – targeting central districts of Donetsk. Major fires erupted in market stalls near the Sokol market and in a residential building. The attack resulted in the death of a young woman and injuries to three people, including a teenager. That same day, the Ukrainian Nazis conducted a drone raid on residential areas and civilian infrastructure in Gorlovka. One house was destroyed, and 12 others were damaged. A clinic, a pharmacy, and boiler houses were also impacted.

Lugansk People’s Republic. On June 26, at least 15 Ukrainian drones carried out a mass strike on the administration building of the Troitskoye municipal district. A fire broke out, one person was wounded, and approximately 30 administrative staff were evacuated to a shelter. On June 29, a Ukrainian armed forces’ drone attack on residential buildings in Vakhruchevo killed one woman and injured another. During the night of July 1, the enemy launched a mass drone assault on the region – 35 UAVs were intercepted, though a woman was wounded by falling debris. A clinic in the town of Svatovo was hit, though thankfully no casualties were reported.

The Russian courts continue to hand down sentences to Ukrainian neo-Nazis and mercenaries who committed war and other crimes. 

The commander of the 19th Separate Missile Brigade of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, Rostislav Karpusha, has been sentenced to life in prison for issuing illegal orders to carry out missile strikes using MGM-140/ATACMS tactical missiles on the population centres in the Kursk Region killing and wounding Russian civilians. 

The following members of the Ukrainian Armed Forces received various prison terms for crimes committed in the Kursk Region: Igor Snizhko (17 years), Andrey Bakalov, Alexander Petrechenko, Vyacheslav Grabina, and Sergey Rukavitsa (16 years each), and Alexander Zagrebelny and Alexander Grigoryev (15 years each). 

German mercenary Philip Lichs was sentenced to 14 years in prison in absentia. 

Ukrainian citizen Maria Savosta and Russian citizen Yelena Popova were given lengthy prison sentences - 18 years in absentia and 24 years, respectively - for carrying out a terrorist attack in Shuya, Ivanovo Region, in January 2025 on orders from Ukraine’s Defence Intelligence Directorate. They sent a parcel with an explosive device that killed a Russian serviceman.

Now, about NATO that stands behind this. 

Following a meeting with Zelensky on the sidelines of the NATO summit in The Hague on June 24-25, US Democratic Senator Chris Coons revealed an open secret to the media saying Ukraine had proposed a new approach to its allies whereby it would purchase US-made weapons with European money and make them available to the Kiev regime. As a popular saying goes, make a wish and it will be granted provided you paid for it, but this time Ukraine’s European sponsors are supposed to cover the cost, though, who, by the way, are on track to go broke soon.

The European sponsors continue to siphon billions off from the pockets of ordinary Europeans to fund military aid to the neo-Nazi regime and their own militarisation effort. Apparently, they need more. The unrelenting efforts to arm the Ukrainian Armed Forces are being fueled by Euro-bureaucrats’ vociferous claims about “growing Russian threat.” This approach is reminiscent of an otherworldly narrative where, out of spite - or rather out of sheer stupidity - they are about to defeat themselves strategically. They are delivering a strategic blow to themselves, their own citizens, the people of Germany. 

For instance, during his unannounced June 30 visit to Kiev, German Federal Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul opined about Moscow’s “expansionist ambitions,” claiming it plans to “conquer Ukraine” and “sow fear across Europe.” To boost the “morale of Ukrainians,” the German minister announced Berlin’s plans to establish new joint military ventures with Kiev to “benefit both sides.” What kind of benefit? The benefit of increasing the number of casualties among Ukrainians, mostly civilians? The benefit of bankrupting Germany? He went on to insist that Germans would spare no expense for Ukraine. “We advocate putting pressure on Russia in all formats and during all talks, even if it comes at a high cost to Germany. This is the necessary price to pay if we want to support Ukraine and defend Europe’s freedom,” Wadephul said. 

As reported by Bild, to prevent the collapse of Zelensky’s regime, Wadephul was even prepared to visit the front lines to better understand what else the Ukrainian Armed Forces may need. What a hypocritical self-sacrificing move. The Ukrainian Armed Forces are in the process of being defeated. You don’t need to go to the front line to see that. All it takes is to have a look at the battlefield map and see that the Russian Armed Forces are advancing on all fronts liberating Donbass and Novorossiya towns in the process. 

Sure enough, he can go to the front lines. I think, before doing so, it wouldn’t hurt for them to revisit the history of their Nazi predecessors in order to see that they were defeated over 80 years ago on that very soil they plan to visit. That land remembers everything. No matter how many monuments they tear down, no matter how much they re-invent history that land still remembers.

Many instances of terrible dehumanisation have been cited, of what is happening in Ukraine in terms of rewriting history, the fight against the Russian language, Russophobia, nationalism and neo-Nazism. But, of course, there is also some “spice.”

We have paid attention to the reports about the change of management in the Ukrainian Institute of National Memory (INM). It is now headed by former employee of the Institute of History of Ukraine and retired (you won’t believe it and probably think about some academic community leader or head of a historical research institute, but no) former combatant of the Azov Brigade (I’m not sure they can ever be former) Alexander Alfyorov, who headed the derussification expert group in Kiev until recent time. Now he will be in charge of history issues in Ukraine. No sooner had he taken the chief's chair in the INM, he immediately made statements in the form of a praise ode to Adolf Hitler (not even to Stepan Bandera). He called him “a brilliant painter," “educated and brought up on the basis of Germany’s high culture and philosophy” and a man with “a powerful Christian ethics.”

I'll remind you again, this is what Chief of the Ukrainian Institute of National Memory Alexander Alfyorov said about Adolf Hitler. Everybody is silent, the entire world is silent, nobody has anything to do with this, but we do.

Do you know why he is praising him? Because it is important to him what Hitler is “famous” for, i.e. xenophobia, misanthropy, racism and nationalism, which today have turned into neo-Nazism. It looks like the new Ukrainian INM Director is going to follow just these principles.

This is actually not surprising. We consistently exposed their neo-Nazism. Having raised the current generation of neo-Banderites, the Kiev regime frequently resorts to their service. Neo-Nazis are employed in military recruitment raids as part of the forced mobilisation in Ukraine, are part of barrier troops on the front line, and are involved in raiding churches of the canonical Orthodox Church. Recently, they have increasingly begun to declare their independence and have turned their sights on government authorities. Evidently, this is the reason why Bankovaya Street has farmed out the INM. What further? Everyone knows from Adolf Hitler’s example how the Nazis’ march to power ends.

All these heinous and terrible facts prove once again the relevance of the special military operation to denazify and demilitarize Ukraine and remove the threats emanating from its territory. All these goals will be achieved.

 

AFU’s attack on Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant

 

June 27, 2025, marked yet another instance of the Kiev regime’s reckless contempt for the safety and integrity of nuclear infrastructure. On this occasion, it perpetrated a further criminal drone strike targeting Russia’s Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant. As a result of this egregious assault by the AFU, personnel engaged in operations near the plant’s hydraulic structures narrowly avoided injury – a result that can only be described as nothing short of miraculous.

We express profound dismay at the absence of any reaction from the IAEA Secretariat to these actions by the Kiev regime, despite the Agency’s leadership possessing full knowledge not only of the attack itself but also of the identity of the state – or, more accurately, the regime – responsible for orchestrating it.

Russia will continue to pursue resolute international condemnation of these criminal acts by the Kiev regime through the appropriate multilateral bodies, first and foremost the IAEA and the United Nations. We remain unwavering in our belief that failure to respond decisively to such audacious provocations by the Kiev junta will only reinforce its sense of impunity, thereby emboldening it to mount further dangerous attacks and provocations against nuclear facilities.

 

Discovery of a chemical weapons cache in the Donetsk People’s Republic

 

The Russian Foreign Ministry continues to closely monitor Kiev regime’s systematic violations of its obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).

On July 1, the Federal Security Service (FSB) of Russia, acting in coordination with the Ministry of Defence, uncovered a cache belonging to the AFU in the village of Ilyinka, Kurakhovsky district of the Donetsk People’s Republic. This storage site contained improvised explosive devices equipped with the toxic chemical chloropicrin, prepared for dispersal using UAVs. In response to this discovery, the FSB Investigative Directorate has opened criminal proceedings under Article 355 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (Development, Production, Stockpiling, Acquisition, or Sale of Weapons of Mass Destruction Prohibited under a Treaty of the Russian Federation).

In this context, it must be underscored that the military use of such chemicals constitutes a direct violation of Article I of the CWC, which explicitly prohibits the employment of toxic chemicals as instruments of warfare.

Russian military and law enforcement authorities have consistently recorded incidents in which Ukrainian militants have resorted to the use of various toxic agents – including riot control substances – in breach of the CWC. The Russian side has repeatedly submitted to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in The Hague extensive documentary evidence, including certified laboratory analyses conducted by OPCW-accredited Russian laboratories, pertaining to chemical samples recovered from the scenes of such incidents. Regrettably, the leadership of the OPCW Technical Secretariat has thus far failed to produce any substantive response to the Kiev regime’s criminal conduct. The Russian Federation will continue to insist that the OPCW not remain inert or turn a blind eye to these flagrant breaches of one of the cornerstone instruments of international law on disarmament, the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and arms control.

 

Proposal by UN Secretary-General António Guterres to limit the veto power in the UN Security Council

 

We regret to note that UN Secretary-General António Guterres has once again overstepped his mandate by making politically ambiguous statements – in the mildest terms – in an area clearly defined by the UN Charter. He has exceeded his authority and made remarks that have left many astounded. Let me remind you that the issue of Security Council reform does not fall within the purview of the UN Secretariat; it is addressed within the framework of the Intergovernmental Negotiations, which remain the sole platform for seeking common ground on this matter.

As for the veto power specifically, we regard it as a unique mechanism that prevents Western members of the UN Security Council from blindly pushing through decisions favourable to them by leveraging their nominal numerical advantage. Why nominal? Historically, certain figures in France have demonstrated that it operates as a “floating” player. In other words, the veto serves as a stabiliser, lending the Council’s resolutions a truly collegial character. We view the veto not as a privilege, but as a special responsibility, a unique instrument for harmonising international relations. We resort to it only in exceptional cases and strictly in the interests of formulating long-term and equitable solutions to the most acute crises, naturally within the framework and in the interests of international law.

We are convinced that criticism should be directed not at the veto power itself, nor at the institution of the veto, but at the stance of the collective West, which refuses to seek compromise and remains captive to illusions of its own dominance and exceptionalism. Moreover, discussions on the veto must not overshadow the core issue – the conscientious compliance by all with existing Security Council resolutions, which, under the UN Charter, are binding. Substantial problems persist in this regard – again, due to the dismissive attitude of Western nations towards the authority of the Council and international law as a whole.

As for the legitimacy of the UN Security Council – which António Guterres has unequivocally called into doubt – high-ranking official ought to understand that the Security Council is the principal UN body responsible for maintaining international peace and security. Any state that signs the founding document automatically assumes its stipulated obligations and recognises the Council’s legitimacy. Thus, the current Secretary-General’s remarks amount, in essence, to mere demagoguery. Needless to say, under existing procedures, it is the Council itself that recommends the appointment of the Secretary-General, something that would do well to be remembered. To put it simply, this is irresponsible rhetoric devoid of any grounding in international law.

 

Unfounded criticism of Russia in the FATF Report on combating WMD proliferation financing in the context of Russia-DPRK strategic partnership

 

We have duly noted the report published on June 23, 2024, by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) concerning efforts to counter the financing of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) proliferation. This initiative falls within FATF’s mandate to oversee compliance with the relevant United Nations sanctions, primarily concerning the DPRK and Iran. Although the document does not primarily focus on Russia, our nation is mentioned regarding collaboration with Pyongyang.

The attempts by the report’s authors to vilify Russia and fabricate allegations are contrived and politically expedient. They bear no relevance to FATF’s mandate or the objectives of combating WMD proliferation financing, which our country takes exceedingly seriously. Once again, the West demonstrates its readiness to resort to any manner of falsification and outright falsehoods to advance its Russophobic agenda.

The accusations levelled against Russia regarding cooperation with the DPRK are entirely baseless. Their authors have cynically exploited disinformation propagated by Western media or deliberate leaks orchestrated by Western intelligence agencies. Needless to say, no one has taken the trouble to verify, fact-check, or substantiate these claims with evidence.

It is difficult to take seriously such blatantly biased approaches and insinuations – as if economic cooperation between Moscow and Pyongyang, collaboration in other spheres, or the assistance of DPRK servicemen in liberating the Kursk Region from Ukrainian Nazi forces could pose risks of nuclear proliferation. Yet this is precisely the narrative being advanced. Such attacks are, to put it mildly, absurd, but in fact, they carry implications under international law. They far exceed FATF’s scope of responsibility and, in essence, undermine the functioning of this institution.

Russia’s cooperation with the DPRK is conducted in strict compliance with international law, including fundamental legal instruments on WMD non-proliferation – the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the Chemical Weapons Convention, and the Biological Weapons Convention. It is not directed against any third countries and is implemented under the Russia-DPRK Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Treaty, which entered into force on December 4, 2024.

Overall, we regard this Western “report” as an attempt to exploit FATF, its mechanisms, and prestige to legitimise unilateral sanctions devised in circumvention of the United Nations Security Council, with the aim of exerting pressure on Russia, the DPRK, and other nations that refuse to act at the behest of Washington and its satellites.

The Russian Federation – along with those members of the international community who retain an independent voice – will never endorse such an approach.

 

Closure of the Russian Consulate General in Krakow

 

The Consulate General of the Russian Federation in Krakow stopped its operation on June 27, 2025, as a result of Poland’s hostile actions. Warsaw continues to dismantle bilateral relations in order to keep in line with the current political situation. The initiators of the Russophobic line will suffer the consequences of their policy. We are considering reply measures that will involve the adjustment of Poland’s consular presence in Russia.

Consular services in Poland will be provided to Russian citizens at the Russian Embassy in Warsaw and the Consulate General in Gdansk. Russian citizens can also request consular services at any other Russian embassy or consular office abroad.

The documents which have been requested at the Consulate General in Krakow, such as passports and other requested documents, will  be issued at the consular department of the Russian Embassy in Warsaw.

 

Denunciation of Soviet-Swedish agreement on the early notification of nuclear accidents and the exchange of information about nuclear facilities

 

On June 24, 2025, the Government of the Russian Federation published a resolution on the denunciation of the agreement between the USSR Government and the Swedish Government on the early notification of nuclear accidents and the exchange of information about nuclear facilities. This decision has in part been taken by Russia due to Sweden’s systematic violations of obligations under that agreement.

Under the agreement, the parties were to provide information about their nuclear installations at least once a year. Stockholm stopped providing such information in 2021 unilaterally. Nevertheless, Russia continued to comply with the agreement’s provisions in good faith and forwarded the relevant information for 2022 to Sweden. In March 2024, Sweden disregarded Russia’s request for information about Swedish nuclear installations as stipulated in the agreement.

When considering the decision to denounce the agreement, we took into account the fact that Sweden, blindly following the line for reckless confrontation with Russia, justified the terrorist attacks carried out by the Kiev regime on Russian nuclear energy facilities.

A notification on the denunciation of the agreement will be forwarded to Stockholm in the near future and in strict compliance with the provisions of the said agreement.

 

Belarus’ Independence Day

 

On July 3, the allied Republic of Belarus marks a national holiday, Independence Day. We wholeheartedly congratulate our Belarusian friends. As per tradition, greetings will be sent to our Belarusian colleagues by the Russian leadership, including the Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation.

It is notable that Belarus’ Independence Day was timed to coincide with the liberation of the Hero City of Minsk from the Nazi invaders, the 81st anniversary of which we will celebrate this year. It was a key phase of the Great Patriotic War that predetermined the liberation of the Soviet Union and the final Victory in confrontation against Hitler’s Germany and its allies.

The careful and responsible attitude to the preservation of historical memory and the patriotic education of young people in Belarus commands profound respect. We are strengthening interaction with our Belarusian allies in this sphere.

There is no doubt that the inviolable fraternal ties between the people of Russia and Belarus, which were forged in the fierce battles for Minsk and other battles of the Second World War, will continue to serve as a firm foundation for consistently building up comprehensive cooperation and developing our Union State based on the increased integration of our countries.

 

Memory Train patriotic project

 

The Memory Train patriotic, cultural and educational campaign is being held on June 21-July 5, dedicated to one of the most tragic events in the history of all former Soviet republics: the start of the Great Patriotic War on June 22, 1941. In our country, it is commemorated as the Day of Memory and Sorrow.

The idea of the project belongs to Valentina Matviyenko, Speaker of the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, and Natalya Kochanova, Chair of the Council of the Republic of the National Assembly of the Republic of Belarus. The first Memory Train was held in 2022, sponsored by Russian Railways. In 2022, more than 100 Russian and Belarusian schoolchildren travelled in a special train through 14 cities of Russia and Belarus.

In 2023, the presidents of the two countries issued a resolution to grant Memory Train the status of a Union State event. The CIS Heads of State Council also supported a proposal to expand the project in 2023, first to the level of EAEU member states and then further to the entire CIS.

Every year, the geographical reach of the campaign has grown. In 2023, students from Armenia and Kyrgyzstan have joined Russian and Belarusian schoolchildren. In 2024, students from other four CIS states joined. And this year, as we celebrate the Great Victory, descendants of the representatives of the nations from all 15 former republics of the Soviet Union, sharing the victory over Nazism in 1945, took part in the Memory Train campaign.

A total of 200 young participants have set off on the journey. Of course, there were many more children wishing to join. In Russia alone, 9,500 applications were submitted, which indicates that this sort of campaigns is extremely popular among youth.

The selected students of senior years with no mandatory exams scheduled will visit eight cities in Belarus and seven in Russia. The campaign was officially launched in the early hours of June 22 at its usual starting point, the Brest Fortress.

Now, every time I pronounce the name of the Brest Fortress, I also recall the trip I made with my family to this place in 2024 – not as a member of an official delegation as it is often the case, when there is a busy programme and you literally transit through places, bowing your head during official events. But that time, we made a special trip and stood at the brick walls of the Brest Fortress for as long as we needed to fully feel what the heroes of the fortress felt, and to read, listen, take in the sites, browse, talk and then observe in silence.

The campaign’s journey invariably passes through Minsk, Moscow, Volgograd (Stalingrad) and St Petersburg (Leningrad under siege). Students can honour the memory of Great Patriotic War heroes, learn about the heroism of the Soviet people and the ordeal they had to overcome for the sake of Great Victory.

This year, campaign organisers have prepared information booklets on each Soviet republic’s contribution to Victory, as well as an exclusive edition of literary works about the Great Patriotic War by Soviet authors from Russia and Belarus, for campaign participants. The children will also receive limited Memory Train stamps and envelopes that were cancelled by speakers of the upper houses of parliament of Russia and Belarus on April 18, 2025, during a ceremonial meeting of the CIS Interparliamentary Assembly marking the 80th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War.

 

65th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between the Russian Federation and the Democratic Republic of the Congo

 

July 7 marks the 65th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between the Russian Federation and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).

Russian-Congolese relations have consistently been grounded in the principles of mutual respect, trust, and reciprocal consideration of interests.

Moscow and Kinshasa maintain a trust-based political dialogue at the highest and high levels. In October 2019, a distinguished DRC delegation led by President Félix Tshisekedi participated in the inaugural Russia-Africa Partnership Forum Summit in Sochi, where a meeting with President of Russia Vladimir Putin was held on the sidelines. At the second such summit in St Petersburg in 2023, the DRC was represented by Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Defence Jean-Pierre Bemba. The DRC’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Thérèse Kayikwamba Wagner, attended the first ministerial conference of the Russia-Africa Partnership Forum in Sochi in November 2024. Most recently, on June 24 this year, further Russian-Congolese interministerial consultations were held in Kinshasa. Interparliamentary cooperation is advancing, and the legal framework for bilateral relations continues to expand.

We highly value the achievements of 65 years of joint work with our Congolese partners and are committed to deepening collaboration with the DRC across trade, economic, cultural, and educational spheres. This undeniably serves the fundamental interests of our peoples and aligns with the objectives of fostering regional stability and security on the African continent.

 

50th anniversary of the proclamation of independence of the Comoro Islands

 

The Union of the Comoros celebrates the 50th anniversary of its independence proclamation on July 6.

Russia and the Comoros share a longstanding relationship of friendship and mutual understanding. On January 6, 2026, we will commemorate the 50th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations.

Mutual commitment to enhancing multifaceted cooperation was demonstrated through meetings and engagements between President of Russia Vladimir Putin and President of the Comoros Azali Assoumani, including on the sidelines of the first and second Russia-Africa summits in Sochi (October 2019) and St Petersburg (July 2023).

We note with satisfaction the Comorian leadership’s resolve to strengthen ties with Russia. For our part, we remain open to cooperation across all areas of shared interest and steadfastly support Moroni in matters pertaining to the completion of the decolonisation process and the restoration of Comorian sovereignty over the island of Mayotte.

We extend warm congratulations to our Comorian friends on this auspicious occasion!

 

Cancelling the rehabilitation of Japanese war criminals

 

In this year marking the 80th anniversary of the Great Victory and the end of the Second World War, we persistently revisit the imperative to disclose the crimes of Japanese militarism. We have unequivocally emphasised that these crimes are not subject to any statute of limitations, and judicial efforts to hold all perpetrators accountable continue unabated.

During February–March this year, the Prosecutor-General’s Office of the Russian Federation annulled 1990s-era rehabilitation rulings concerning ten Japanese nationals: Kyujiro Sugiyama, Kookichi Hayashishita, Shigeru Hayashishita, Tamokichi Kajiura, Sukenori Umesato, Sotoo Hamanaka, Norihiro Yasue, Masakazu Kojima, Minoru Hisatomi (Morooka), and Shigeto Sakai (Namio Yokota). During the war – and even after Japan’s 1945 capitulation – they engaged in subversive and espionage activities against the Soviet Union, alongside perpetrating crimes against humanity.

 

RT television channel goes live in Chile

 

On June 16, RT’s Spanish-language television channel began broadcasting in Chile. Chilean viewers can now watch it via free-to-air terrestrial broadcasting, not just cable networks.

As of today, Spanish-language RT holds leading broadcasting positions in the region compared to other international Spanish-language news channels. In ten Latin American countries, the channel broadcasts on a dedicated television frequency within the national free digital multiplex system on par with major national media outlets in Cuba, Argentina, Venezuela, Mexico, Peru, Panama, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, and Chile.

The emergence of Russian media on Chilean television was marred by an anti-Russia campaign spearheaded by pro-Western politicians and media which was designed to discredit RT.

Nonetheless, it is evident that the Russian channel is already gaining popularity in Chile, and its viewership continues to expand. This comes as no surprise, since objectivity and professionalism distinguish Russia Today, and its broadcasting has earned it a well-deserved reputation in many parts of the world.

A key feature of the channel is that it is not a one-way broadcaster, but a dynamic platform for communicating with its audiences. It responds to viewer and subscriber questions on social media and other online resources.

It is open to discussing sensitive issues, which has become RT’s hallmark. It is a channel for the people who want to learn and to know more, and to ask questions which the channel gladly provides answers to.

 

Answers to media questions:

Question: What can you share about the outcomes of the EU summit in Brussels on June 26?

Maria Zakharova: The June 26 European Council meeting confirmed that despite massive economic and domestic political costs it is incurring, the EU is determined to pursue a path of self-destruction. They call it a “policy directed against Russia,” but, in fact, they engage in self-annihilation.

The statement on Ukraine, which was supposed to be adopted at the meeting, once again failed to reach consensus due to persisting intra-EU differences (as a result, it was approved by just 26 member states). For the same reason, the much-vaunted new package of anti-Russia sanctions announced by the European Commission was not approved, either. Nevertheless, the EU majority continues to brazenly support the continuation of military action by pumping ever more weapons into the Kiev regime. Considering this, the EU’s calls for Russia to “show political will to end the war” sound blatantly disingenuous and absurd.

You cannot, on the one hand, supply weapons without contractual obligations, make and churn out these decisions in front of the cameras, and, on the other hand, call for peace or, as they put it, “show political will to end the war.” In fact, they are the ones who have prolonged this bloodshed.

On one side, the hysteria surrounding the so-called “Russian threat” is being used as a pretext for the accelerated militarisation of the EU to the detriment of the socioeconomic development of its member states.

On the other, it’s self-accusatory. You just can’t keep feeding this nonsense to your own base. They deliberately silence the fact that the “party of war” within the EU is pushing for defence funding through massive borrowing, which will place a heavy burden on future generations of Western Europeans, a rock that will drag them to the bottom. The European Council’s “findings” also included readiness to effectively work towards strengthening NATO’s potential which shows that the EU has finally turned into a dependent entity serving the interests of specific political circles and the defence industry corporations.

Where is the economy, the humanitarian sphere, the idea of a “union” if they are merely serving the bloc? They should switch the abbreviation from EU to EB, because they are less of a union and more of a NATO-aligned bloc. They themselves have effectively said so.

This event was quite telling in terms of the EU’s condition. One thing is what we say, another is what the media say, and a third is how they presented themselves to the whole world revealing the condition to which liberal-globalist elites have effectively reduced them.

I can back it up. The “unity” once justifiably boasted of by those who integrated countries on economic and humanitarian platforms in Europe is, in reality, nowhere to be seen. If you dive deeper, it’s not unity, but a command-administrative system, which some are no longer obeying.

To keep the appearances of “unity,” they resort to twisting arms, barking orders, and abusing judicial power as they crack down on dissenting political forces, as well as outright blackmail. They intimidate their own people and impose total censorship just to be able to maintain an illusion of unity and solidarity, but in fact, to sustain high levels of Russophobia.

Having thrown all their resources into confrontation with Russia, Brussels operates on a “residual principle” in other foreign policy areas. They have nothing to show for it. Hence, the disarray and confusion in the EU on top international priorities. The vagueness of their positions, at times even sheer spinelessness, has become the hallmark of EU diplomacy. For example, the European Council’s “findings” completely ignored causal links behind the armed escalation in the Middle East.

The adopted language once again demonstrated the EU’s inability to coordinate a reasonable stance on the situation in the region, one that would match its ambitions to be a “notable international player.”

With regard to the economy, energy-intensive industries are on the brink of collapse, and some are already beyond it. Competitiveness is severely lacking. The European Commission’s stubbornly imposed energy experiments baffle experts and are rejected by member states, because they lead towards disaster. The situation has reached the point where the militarisation of the economy by pumping borrowed funds into the defence industry complex is presented by Brussels as a cure-all for its financial and economic woes. These are the same people who once criticised non-EU countries for far less. They issued opinions about such things. What are they doing now? Let them criticise themselves. But of course, they won’t.

For some reason, their declarations, findings, and statements have completely lost terms such as “human rights,” “democracy,” “ ethnic minority discrimination,” or “freedom of speech.” These terms are used increasingly less frequently, and these people take no issue with the above developments in Ukraine or Moldova. Why would that be their concern? The answer is because they act as patrons of these countries. Brussels is ready to turn a blind eye to anything that is in the way of not even democracy, but its own geopolitical or geostrategic agenda.

Question: Reports have emerged regarding the closure of Russian-language schools in Azerbaijan. Is there any information on this matter and, if so, what will be Russia’s response and when?

Maria Zakharova: We have seen reports circulating across various media outlets claiming that Russian-language schools in Azerbaijan are set to be closed. However, in response to the considerable number of inquiries this has elicited, the Azerbaijani Ministry of Education has refuted this information.

We are vigilantly monitoring the situation and maintaining ongoing communication with our Azerbaijani counterparts on this issue. I believe it was highly timely for our Azerbaijani colleagues to dispel this misinformation, as it pertains not merely to a political or philosophical abstraction, but to the real lives of real people. We will continue to coordinate closely with our partners to mitigate the damage caused by such fake news and disinformation campaigns.

That said, whenever issues arise, there are always those eager to exploit the situation for their own gain. It is therefore imperative that we clarify the circumstances and restore a stable environment, preventing unscrupulous media actors from exacerbating the matter further.

We have been inundated with inquiries – from institutions, government bodies, and private citizens alike. Regrettably, in such circumstances, there is no shortage of media charlatans eager to indulge in such provocations.

Question: Reports indicate that Ahmed Hajiyev, head of Lukoil’s production association in the Urals, has been detained. How would you comment on this?

Maria Zakharova: This is part of the same pattern. I observed this on certain Azerbaijani outlets, and our own media swiftly picked it up. To the best of my knowledge, Lukoil does not even have such a division, nor a position or appointee in that capacity. A classic example of fake news.

Question: The Mayor of Odessa, Gennady Trukhanov, has claimed that Odessa is not a Russian city and has never belonged to Russia. How does the Foreign Ministry assess this statement, and how do such declarations affect the attitude towards Russian-speaking residents of Odessa, who make up a significant portion of the population?

Maria Zakharova: It could be said that such statements ought to be assessed by the relevant Ukrainian law enforcement agencies – yet, regrettably, there has long been no law to speak of in that territory; it has all been eradicated. Such rhetoric incites ethnic hatred, which is being fomented daily by the Kiev regime.

On the other hand, it would be more appropriate for this matter to be addressed by medical professionals. To deny the legacy of the people who founded this city, dissecting them through their DNA or measuring the value of their contributions in grams – despite the fact that they poured their heart and soul into it – is a form of insanity, a mental aberration of the highest order.

What else can one expect from those who dismantled, condoned, approved, and certainly did not resist the destruction of the monument to Catherine the Great, the founder of that city, and the obliteration of any trace of her comrades-in-arms? This occurred as part of the broader campaign of de-Russification – or, more accurately, Russophobic pogroms – with the monument being demolished in December 2022. It stood as a symbol of Odessa, enduring much over the years, yet it could not withstand those who profess to fight for “historical identity” while engaging in acts of historical vandalism. This is historical barbarism, pure neo-Nazism, and utter absurdity.

The most absurd aspect of this is that Gennady Trukhanov makes this statement in the Russian language itself. One wonders how the language ombudsman will respond – will he impose a fine on the Mayor of Odessa for speaking in Russian? I find myself uncertain which is worse: ignorance of history (I find it difficult to believe that a mayor could be unaware of the history of his own city, even in broad strokes), or the Russophobic line of thinking – if, indeed, one can even call it thinking. Catherine II was the Russian Empress, and it was she who founded this very city. Had anyone told her that she did not, or that someone else did, or that she had no connection to the Russian Empire, I believe she would not have simply laughed but would have taken decisive action.

This also reflects a disregard for the Odessites themselves, who are being force-fed a pseudo-history of their own city. Odessa is a unique city with a distinctive cultural code, where the traditions and heritage of various nationalities, ethnicities, and religious groups have interwoven. Many have played a pivotal role in shaping the city's development, culture, and history. Russians, Jews, French, Greeks, Ukrainians, and representatives of numerous other nationalities coexisted in harmony before the Kiev regime, communicating among themselves in Russian. To attempt to erase one particular group from the city’s history is an insult to both the city and its residents – an attempt to strip the city of its irreplaceable character and identity.

They have even now set their sights on the monument to Alexander Pushkin. The monument, which was erected with funds donated by Odessa’s citizens, is now in danger. Whom will the Kiev regime rob this time? Whom will they insult and degrade? The people.

As noted by Odessa native and State Duma Deputy Anatoly Wasserman: “If monuments bother you, if language bothers you, if history bothers you, if the names of cities and streets bother you – then you are building your state on someone else’s territory.” It could not have been stated more aptly.

Question: What is the Russian Foreign Ministry’s assessment of Estonia’s stated readiness to host NATO jets capable of carrying nuclear weapons?

Maria Zakharova: Such statements are entirely consistent with the destructive policies of the most hard-line European NATO countries, including the Estonian regime. This hostile approach is clearly aimed at exacerbating confrontation with Russia. They can’t seem to stop fuelling the tensions and exacerbating the confrontation, hardly even bothering to conceal their malice and aggression. This would have long since faded into white noise for us, but the level of threat varies – especially now that they’ve reached a nuclear deal.

Essentially, this is just another example of the North Atlantic bloc’s deliberate and ongoing pursuit of so-called joint nuclear missions – a deeply destabilising practice involving the forward deployment of US nuclear weapons in Europe. Recently, there have been growing signs that NATO members intend to expand this arrangement significantly, as well as the geographic scope of US nuclear presence on European soil. This is particularly evident in London’s decision to reintroduce American nuclear bombs to British territory and to acquire aircraft capable of delivering them to their targets – which, naturally, are located on Russian territory and that of its allies.

This is yet another element of the West’s deeply hostile and reckless policy, which fuels tensions, heightens strategic risks, and escalates the threat of nuclear danger.

To counter these threats, Russia factors in NATO’s aforementioned actions when shaping its defence strategy and planning.

Question: The 17th BRICS summit will be held in Rio de Janeiro on July 6-7 under the motto Strengthening Global South Cooperation for More Inclusive and Sustainable Governance. China and Russia, as the founding countries of BRICS, have played a key role in developing this mechanism. What is your assessment of their contributions to transforming BRICS into a broader coalition and a more influential Global South cooperation platform?

Maria Zakharova: Russia and China were among the founding nations of BRICS (originally established as RIC, then BRIC). Together with our Chinese friends, we have played a key role in the association’s development. Our collaboration has helped create favourable conditions for sustained economic growth across all BRICS states and has contributed to shaping a more equitable and balanced multipolar world order – one that truly reflects the interests and needs of all nations and peoples without exception.

In matters of further deepening cooperation within BRICS, our countries are looking in the same direction.

Moscow remains committed to working closely and consistently with Beijing to strengthen BRICS’ role as a cornerstone of global governance. We consider expanding the influence of developing countries and emerging markets within multilateral institutions to be among our top priorities.

Question: US President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Monday to lift the sanctions regime against Syria effective July 1. However, personal sanctions against former President Bashar Assad, his close entourage and family members remain in force. The executive order published by the White House notes that the US State Department should not only review Syria’s status as a state sponsor of terrorism, but also “explore avenues for sanctions relief at the United Nations to support stability in Syria.” Is the move truly aimed at ensuring regional security and prosperity, as claimed, or is there another purpose? What is Russia’s assessment of the true intention behind it?

Maria Zakharova: It would be more appropriate to address this question to the United States, as it was their decision. Why don’t you ask them about their true intentions? You are familiar with our stance on sanctions (including those imposed on Syria). We have spelled it out repeatedly, in particular during our briefings.

What struck me most was why these sanctions remained in place even during crises like the pandemic or the catastrophic earthquake – a tragedy that devastated not just Syria, but also other countries in the region. At such moments, the right thing to do was help the Syrian people. I’m aware that the sanctions were imposed and maintained by previous US administrations – but the people haven’t changed. When Syrians desperately needed aid, medicine, or funds, the sanctions only tightened. This is all you need to know about their true intentions.

For its part, Russia has consistently stated its attitude to this policy in the international legal context and demonstrated through action that such illegitimate sanctions cannot cripple our growth or stop us from aiding those suffering under the West’s lawless policies when they need help.

Question: The 14th Dalai Lama has announced plans to deliver a speech on the topic of reincarnation on his birthday, July 6. The Chinese authorities consistently regard him as a political exile engaged in anti-Chinese separatist activity under the guise of religion, and assert that he has no right to represent the people of Xinjiang. How does Russia view the Dalai Lama’s attempt to split China and destabilise Xinjiang through the concept of “reincarnation?” Does Russia support China’s sovereign position on Xinjiang?

Maria Zakharova: Rather than focusing on the individual in question, I would emphasise our principled position regarding national unity and territorial integrity, an approach that forms the bedrock of Russian-Chinese relations. Mutual support is one of the key pillars of our bilateral relations. This is clearly set out in the Treaty of Good-Neighbourliness, Friendship and Cooperation signed on July 16, 2001, a foundational document for our interstate partnership. Moscow and Beijing have firmly agreed not to allow any activities on their respective territories that could harm each other’s sovereignty and security. This shared understanding was reaffirmed in the Joint Statement adopted by the two leaders following the talks between President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin and President of the People’s Republic of China Xi Jinping in Moscow on May 8 this year.

This approach underpins the long-term stability of our comprehensive strategic partnership and serves the fundamental interests of our nations in all their regional and ethnic diversity.

Question: According to The Financial Times, Ukrainian officials are increasingly calling for a ceasefire in private conversations with Western leaders. The newspaper reports that “a sense of despair is looming over Ukraine.” What tools does the Russian Foreign Ministry have at its disposal to move closer to negotiations? And who in Europe could influence Vladimir Zelensky to shift from confrontation to meaningful dialogue?

Maria Zakharova: Russia has two allies – its Army and Navy. Of course, that’s not the full list of what we have, especially given advances in science and technology.  These allies move the negotiation process forward more effectively than anything else, but only in the format that suits us. I spoke about this earlier today.

Negotiations are not something abstract or disconnected from reality. They are directly tied to the situation on the ground and to the objectives that have been clearly defined. Our toolkit reflects that.

It’s also important not to separate the Foreign Ministry’s position from that of the country as a whole. Our diplomatic tools include negotiations and political efforts. But we, like all state institutions, act under the leadership of the President of Russia to fulfil the goals set in this field. Each agency employs the tools appropriate to its role.

As for who in Europe might influence Vladimir Zelensky, we’ve spoken about that today as well. Perhaps those who visit him with sugar spoons and paper napkins can sway him. The real question is: what do they want? Do they want peace and security in Europe? Or endless confrontation, with all the predictable consequences? Let’s not forget that the Kiev regime is shelling nuclear power plants, weapons are being distributed without any control, and there is no functioning system of law and order in Ukraine. Everyone influences him in their own way: some provide weapons, others hand over cash, while others still use him to launder that same money.

Question: The New START Treaty is set to expire in 2026. Is there any possibility of its extension or the conclusion of a new agreement?

Maria Zakharova: You ask this question frequently, and we have addressed it on multiple occasions, including during our briefings. I would refer you to the statements made by Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov in his interviews with TASS (June 9, 2025) and Izvestia (June 24, 2025), which clearly outline our position. At this time, I have nothing further to add.

The core message is that, under current circumstances, there are no grounds for a full-scale resumption of the Strategic Offensive Arms Reduction Treaty.

Russia has repeatedly outlined the necessary conditions for potentially restarting the treaty process. The primary obstacle remains the current state of Russian-American relations, which must see significant improvement. Furthermore, Washington must return to the practical implementation of the fundamental principles of the START framework, namely, the indivisibility of security, equality and mutual benefit in cooperation, and the recognition of the inherent link between strategic offensive and defensive weapons.

As for the prospects of a new agreement to succeed the START Treaty, Russia’s position will be shaped by a thorough assessment of developments in international security and strategic stability. At this stage, it would be premature to speculate.

Question: How would you respond to reports that media outlets and Telegram channels affiliated with the Armenian authorities are attempting to justify the persecution of opposition figures, the clergy, and even Catholicos of All Armenians Garegin II by portraying them as allegedly linked to Russia or as “agents of the Kremlin” and the FSB?

Maria Zakharova: These narratives are being promoted, but they are met with a sense of shame by many. This information campaign is deeply damaging to the Armenian people, as it is dividing society. Core values that have historically united Armenians – faith, religion, the church – values that have helped the nation endure profound and sometimes tragic challenges are now being artificially turned into points of contention.

For reasons that are unclear, these developments are being linked to Russia, yet our country has no involvement in the matter. On the one hand, accusations are directed at representatives of the Armenian Church; on the other, Russia is continuously and unjustifiably associated with the situation. This appears to be an artificial attempt to sow discord among the people in Armenia and within the global Armenian community, those who share a common cultural and historical identity.

Russia genuinely supports the stability of Armenia, a nation we regard as fraternal. This support is rooted not only in shared values but also in our mutual interest in a stable, prosperous, and forward-looking Armenia.

We stand for upholding the rule of law as enshrined in Armenia’s Constitution, and for protecting the rights and freedoms of all citizens, including religious freedoms, especially given that the Armenian authorities themselves have publicly emphasised these principles on numerous occasions, making it part of their election platform.

Question: What would be your comment on the statements by Emmanuel Macron and Kaja Kallas who essentially supported the recent actions by Armenian authorities, including the detention of opposition activists, the clergy, and the actions against the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin, expressing support “in the face of attempts to destabilise Armenian democracy?” Kaja Kallas also said that the values promoted by the Armenian government must be defended, especially amidst hybrid threats, misinformation and attempts to interfere with the country’s domestic affairs. Possibly, she referred to Russia’s alleged interference with Armenia’s internal affairs, an issue mentioned by Armenian Foreign Minister Ararat Mirzoyan during his joint news briefing with Kaja Kallas.

Maria Zakharova: Let me remind you that EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas is from Estonia. She currently holds a post in the European Union but she is from Estonia. She was and, apparently, remains a statesperson and a politician.

Emmanuel Macron is from France. Both Estonia and France have plenty of unresolved issues. It appears to me it is time they finally toured their own countries. They should begin with the Baltics and continue in France. During the journey, they should call for observing democracy, human rights, the freedom of speech, and audit the human rights situation. Next, they should tour other EU countries (based on their areas of responsibility) unless the people there want to throw things at them. Only after that, they should be allowed to visit all the other countries with their advice – and this advice should be wise and correct rather than founded on yet another false agenda. They should be able to talk about developing democracy with reference to successful examples rather than only based on theoretical knowledge.

The Baltic states are probably the worst part of the European Union when it comes to democracy and human rights. There are things that could be improved in France as well. I would do well to mention them.

As for the endless references to Moscow, Russia and the Kremlin that they allow themselves, it is clearly a solid trend. They have already pushed their own nations over the edge with their slogans about alleged confrontation with Moscow. Now they have set to do the same to others. They should be realistic.

The situation in Armenia is barely the first instance when the understanding of democracy is fitted by the West to align with momentary political needs. Georgia is an example of how “democratic institutions” can be exploited against those who dare to defend their national interests and go, for example, against Brussels’ will that runs contrary to Georgia’s national interests.

Therefore, if you refer to the statements that accuse us or Russia of attempts to interfere with the domestic affairs of a sovereign state, can you please provide examples? Where are these examples? If you are talking about the help that Russia has repeatedly offered to stop violence, appealing to the parties during an escalation of long-standing conflicts, is this interference in domestic affairs? Or humanitarian aid, when Russia sent trucks, vehicles and trains full of humanitarian cargos and support to Armenia, including to people who were leaving the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh? Is this interference in domestic affairs? Or are they referring to our help with energy resources and respective energy cooperation? All these efforts were made at Armenia’s request. Our energy cooperation is built on mutually beneficial terms. What can they present against our country? Think about it. This is a question to those who like getting on their hobby horse now and again.

Question: Given Baku’s harsh reaction to the detention of Russian citizens of Azerbaijanian origin in Yekaterinburg on criminal charges, I would like to ask about a Russian citizen, Zakhireddin Ibraghimov, a Talysh activist, who was reportedly kidnapped in Yekaterinburg in late March and turned up in Azerbaijan, where he was detained. Is it known how he has disappeared from Russia and found himself in Azerbaijan?

Maria Zakharova: If you, for some unknown reasons, are concerned with the fate of this citizen, let me remind you that the Foreign Ministry already commented on this topic on May 15. Russian laws stipulate that citizens of the Russian Federation are not subject to extradition. Mr Ibraghimov is a citizen of Azerbaijan and he has been extradited at Baku’s request. Earlier, he was stripped of his Russian citizenship for a wrongdoing.

As for the recent detention of Russian citizens in Yekaterinburg, Russian law enforcement agencies have reported that the persons in question have an extensive criminal record. This does not mean, however, that someone has the right to accuse them of that, if they got what was coming to them and were punished. The thing is that they are suspected of committing grave crimes, including murders. Please note that this information has been provided by the Investigative Committee of Russia.

Question: Azerbaijan goes on with a series of unfriendly steps in respect of Russia. An AzTV announcer was particularly outspoken, claiming that Moscow allegedly was used to “dominating other nations” and always looked upon them as “second-rate people.”  The Foreign Ministry of Russia recently summoned the Ambassador of Azerbaijan. How does Azerbaijan explain its actions?

Maria Zakharova: I think this question should be addressed to those you have mentioned. We have no relation to this matter.

As for these remarks, I haven’t heard them. Quite likely, I do not watch all the broadcasts, or maybe far from all stuff is translated into Russian. I believe it is the most hateful lie that our country at some point had a state policy that distinguished between “first-rate,” “second-rate,” etc., people.

Many things happened in Russian history, but it is certain that Russia has always fought against judging people by their ethnic origin, skin colour, or whether they qualify for being segregated. It abhors the situation where some group is entitled to everything on earth, while others have no rights whatsoever for reasons that no one can understand.  We have always fought this. If some journalists, public figures, or historians are prone to stretch a point or two, the same yardsticks should be applied to former “empires” that enslaved people and segregated them, people who could be bought and sold and had no right even to their own life.  But there were states and empires that never did anything of the kind.

Britain belongs to the former category. Our country, Russia, never did such things. We never had colonies, like Britain. We never trafficked in people or engaged in slave trade. We never enslaved anyone. This sort of thing never existed. It is part of our history that we are particularly proud of. This is really Gospel truth.

The oddest thing is that it is jointly with our colleagues and friends from Azerbaijan that we fought against this disgraceful phenomenon, the dividing of people into haves and have-nots based on skin colour, shape of the skull, and so on, during the Great Patriotic War (World War II). We were at one in this regard.

Today, we cherish the memory of those times. I hope this was just a figure of speech torn out of the context or an “ordered fudge.” I am certain that people who know the history of our and their own country do not think this way. Let us not judge the whole nation based on this quote. I do not want even to think that someone may preach this.

Question: How would you comment on European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen being accused of “democratic disregard,” as well as the no confidence vote she’s facing over Pfizergate?

Maria Zakharova: We have heard the news of a number of MEPs initiating a no confidence vote against President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen. From what I have seen in the news, about 10 percent of MEPs have signed the motion at this point. The signatories represent 13 (or almost half) of the EU member states, including Germany, France, Poland, Spain, even the Czech Republic and Estonia. I am not sure who they are going to blame to explain this – the hand of Moscow or the intrigues of the Kremlin. I do not think they will be convincing. This time around, it is really their own initiative.

Meanwhile, MEPs’ outrage extends far beyond Pfizergate. As you’ll recall, Ursula von der Leyen greenlit a multi-billion-euro COVID vaccine deal through highly obscure channels such as text messages without proper authorisation, then ordered the destruction of remaining doses to prevent anyone from knowing how many were actually procured or used.

The complaints highlight how the deal’s exorbitant cost and the number of unused vaccines call the European Commission’s financial oversight into question. Now, she faces legal action for alleged misuse of public funds.

But the scandal doesn’t end there. A separate complaint accuses the Commission of approving 150 billion euros in military loans under the ReArm Europe Plan while ignoring the European Parliament’s Legal Affairs Committee. According to the signatories, the Commission flouted its mandate – a move many call not just institutional overreach, but a serious abuse of its mandate that “erodes public trust” and “undermines the legal foundations of EU policymaking.”

In a second argument, the MEPs accused the Commission of unlawful interference in national elections in member states such as Romania and Germany through the misuse of the EU’s digital services law, which represented disrespect for national sovereignty.

The MEPs emphasised that instead of protecting consumer rights and ensuring freedom of speech, the European Commission has been using EU legal norms to unlawfully restrict those rights or even cancel election results.

In the past, accusations like these alone would have forced a European Commissioner to resign. I distinctly remember cases where officials were publicly shamed for using an official vehicle to move personal belongings – just one inappropriate car ride was sufficient reason to end a career in disgrace.

Remember when an entire Austrian political party resigned after a video surfaced of their leader chatting with someone over tea in a downtown café? They were forced to leave the political stage. There were plenty of other stories too – politicians yanked off the campaign trail mid-election for far less.

In this case, we’ve seen every rule broken and billions of euros squandered – with no explanations where and why, and no consequences. How far the standards have fallen – into outright anti-values. That famed “tolerance” they have been promoting now seems to extend to financial misconduct, granting the Commission and EU institutions total impunity. Maybe that’s why they cling to the myth of a Russian threat – to justify whatever the European Commission does under the banner of “countering Moscow.” What’s any of that got to do with us, might I ask?

My bet? This case gets dismissed with the usual excuse: “Nothing’s off the table against Russia.” But in a sane world, different principles would matter – rule of law, ethnic minority rights. Even if the EU has reduced these true values to export commodities, they would still need a path back to legality. Yet while preaching “values” to the world, they can’t even follow their own simplest rules, laws and procedures, which they are now trying to enforce through MEPs.

Question: American senator Lindsey Graham said Donald Trump is ready to greenlight a bill that toughens anti-Russia sanctions and imposes a 500 percent tariff on Russia’s trade partners’ products. How does the Russian Foreign Ministry evaluate this statement and what will be the response to this initiative should it be approved?

Maria Zakharova: I think this is already political “folklore” because it is unclear how this is related to the sanctions imposed by the United States on everything Russian, including companies, banks, and goods. He did not explain. Perhaps he wanted to create some sort of media effect around his own persona. So, his statement must be treated accordingly.

They are constantly churning out new measures. It is a conveyor. It is time they realised that Russia has adapted to the sanction pressure, to all their “packages”, and sanction regimes.

Experience shows that such measures primarily hit those who initiated such anti-Russia policies. Therefore, to avoid going too deep, in this case one should be guided by statements, figures and facts presented by Russian leaders, President Vladimir Putin and Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin, as well as competent agencies, rather than mere clarifications.

Question: Please tell us about Russia’s upcoming initiatives in the UN Security Council. What is the Foreign Ministry’s assessment of the UN’s effectiveness with respect to the ongoing crises in Ukraine and the Middle East? Are there plans to present new documents similar to a Ukrainian dossier?

Maria Zakharova: What do you mean by new documents?

Question: Documents presenting facts per se as it was done with respect to Ukraine when all facts were systematised.

Maria Zakharova: We present facts regularly. Allow me to remind you that we present all data across all areas, including civilian infrastructure attacks, civilian casualties, the Kiev regime’s attacks on the Zaporozhskaya NPP, the destruction of Christianity, Orthodox Christianity, and persecution against believers, to name a few. Overall, the entire scope of facts regarding the Kiev regime’s crimes is not only presented verbally in remarks but also submitted to competent international organisations, primarily the UN and its agencies such as UNESCO, UNCHR, etc., as well as to the other bodies within the framework of this international organisation, both bilaterally and publicly. We have established an office of the Russian Foreign Ministry’s Ambassador-at-Large on War Crimes of the Kiev Regime.

I am talking only about Ukraine now. Yours is a specific question. What aspects and details exactly are you interested in? Could you guide me a little? I will try to give you a relevant answer.

Question: Ukraine has been covered thoroughly enough. But perhaps Russia is preparing something else on crimes for the UN?  

Maria Zakharova: Not “something else.” It is a “conveyor belt” that never stands still. You may take a look at the UN Security Council’s working schedule. Russia participates in drafting the Security Council’s timetable for one month ahead, initiates various events, such as Arria-formula meetings on Ukraine, holds individual country events at the UN, and invites experts. Russia’s Permanent Mission to the UN engages in a wide range of work: there is a dedicated website and social media accounts covering all the events and accompanied by live broadcasts. So, do use this information.

Question: How can you assess the efficiency of the UN? Is the UN still an authoritative organisation or are its recommendations totally disregarded? We often see violations but no one seems to care. 

Maria Zakharova: You see, it’s like asking a question about life. For example: Do you think life is an effective thing or are there violations? Something like that. Life is an interesting thing, an effective one, and the battle between good and evil is being waged every second. That said, we must go for this challenge and head for the “light.” The same is with the UN.  

Today, we discussed the crisis created by the Western partners, who block the work at UN institutions. Somewhere they prevail numerically, somewhere they diffuse misinformation, and somewhere they are not ready for a constructive dialogue.  I have quoted UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, who began speculating about the veto right, which is outside of his jurisdiction. It is like a bone in their throat, because the right of veto prevents them from establishing a world order based on their “rules”, rather than on international law. Otherwise, they would have let themselves go. This is the reason why problems exist. 

At the same time, the UN remains a venue, where countries have a right to vote and the right to submit their initiatives and uphold them. Moreover, our country, having as it does the veto right, high authority, and a large number of opinion allies, is able to insist on approving decisions, press for these decisions, or remove them from the agenda.