Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, March 9, 2023

On March 14, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will attend the opening of the founding congress of the International Russophile Movement. Taking part in the event will be Russian officials, politicians, public activists, scientists and cultural figures, and foreign delegates from several dozen countries inspired by the shared idea of respect, preservation and the spread of Russian culture, traditions, and spirituality.

The International Russophile Movement is aimed at uniting friends of Russia who reject the frantic anti-Russia campaign unleashed by the West and the hysterical attempts to cancel Russian culture and to raise barriers to contacts in science, education, and people’s diplomacy.

The initiators of the movement intend to work in all regions and countries of the world using people’s diplomacy, organising conferences, seminars and competitions, and promoting literature in Russian.

We believe that this is an important and useful initiative in the current conditions that requires diverse support. It complies with international law, statements, resolutions, and agreements adopted at the UN and other world organisations to support direct communication between people, the Alliance of Civilisations, the dialogue of cultures, and ties between relevant agencies that unite representatives of civil society. This will become the foundation on which the activities of this emerging international congress will be built.

Date of the Congress: March 14, 2023, registration and assembly at 10:00; the congress begins at 11:00.

Venue: 12/2 Prechistenka Street, Moscow.

Contact for media: Russophiles@Tsargrad.TV, +79046357826 (Vladislav Yevpyatyev).

Update on Ukraine

On March 5, Ukraine marked another anniversary of the death of Nazi collaborator Roman Shukhevich. To mark the occasion, a group of nationalists got together in the village of Belogorshcha outside Lvov where Shukhevich was killed by Soviet security forces. They chanted under the flag of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) and even held a prayer service.

Thus, the Ukrainian heirs to Nazi organisations have once again demonstrated their desire to continue the cause of their “heroes,” who are knee deep in the blood of thousands of Ukrainians, Russians, Jews, Poles and people of other ethnicities. Clearly, they fully agree with the punitive methods professed by Shukhevich who called for the mass extermination of people and cynically declared the following: “We should not be afraid of the people cursing us for being cruel. Even if only half of the 40 million Ukrainians remain alive, there is nothing terrible about that.” It appears that the Zelensky-led regime is guided by this cannibalistic “message” as it continues to sacrifice the lives of tens of thousands of Ukrainians in pursuit of its selfish interests.

We found out that the relatives of some Russian POWs have of late been receiving calls from unidentified callers in Ukraine who demand that they commit acts of sabotage or terrorist attacks in Russia. In case they refuse to comply, the callers threatened to use violence against the POWs.

How should this be qualified? Certainly, it’s a crime. We strongly condemn these egregious criminal methods used by Kiev. We call on the relevant international organisations to not just acknowledge this, but to give a principled assessment of it. We keep hearing about them collecting information about crimes and endlessly attributing all kinds of things to us. We are now sharing facts that international specialised bodies can take advantage of, since they are keeping this record.

We note the creeping development of Ukraine’s territory by Poland in several ways. According to the Ukrainian media, the Polish company Lubawa, which specialises in building hangars, will build a military field training centre in the Volyn region supposedly for 600 servicemen of the Ukrainian forces. The construction site will be handed over to the Polish embassy in Ukraine with all the ensuing legal implications. All of that is being done with the knowledge of the Kiev regime.

Clearly, in reality, we are talking about Warsaw’s plans to deploy its infrastructure in order to increase the number of Polish military, previously announced as the Polish Volunteer Legion, at the above centre. If and when you hear someone say that Zelensky has “everything under control,” and “has nothing against it,” and has “approved” it, be mindful that he has not been representing Ukraine’s interests for a long time now. He is acting to achieve the opposite goals. Everything that is good, beneficial and necessary for that country has been thrown into the furnace of his personal morbid ambitions or instructions coming from the West. It’s the same with this. In fact, this legion is being created to form commandant units to control the government bodies and law enforcement agencies in western Ukraine. No one in Warsaw, much less in Kiev, seems to be worried by the fact that this is fraught with Poland’s direct involvement in the Ukraine conflict. As a reminder, military sites in Ukraine are legitimate targets for our Armed Forces.

But this is not enough for Poland. Videos on the internet show the Kiev regime’s Polish allies moving Ukrainian chernozem (fertile black soil) by trucks. Does this remind you of anything? The only difference is that before, Poland was on the other side of history while chernozem was taken out by fascists and Nazi criminals during World War II and the Great Patriotic War. The Hitlerites were doing the same thing. I don’t know how this happens, but we are seeing the events of those years being repeated, and not only with nationalist logos, literature and ritual gestures but even with looting on a grand scale. It is hard to believe that this is happening. I am convinced that just a year ago this would have been dubbed “Russian propaganda.” They would have claimed that this could never have happened. But this is happening before our eyes now. There is only one goal – to take as much profit from the conflict as possible. Vladimir Zelensky, with his Western patrons, is pursuing the same goal. They are using residents of Ukraine as cannon fodder and are staging Ukraine’s global clearance sale. This is not even a clearance sale because someone must be reimbursed for a sale; this is just marauding and pillaging.

Figures graphically prove that the West is striving to make as much money as possible from the conflict in Ukraine. This week, Prime Minister of Ukraine Denis Shmygal admitted that Ukraine is receiving most its aid from the West in the form of loans. Last year, its national debt increased by $13 billion to $111 billion. This is bestiality. Ukrainian citizens have been told all along that the West was helping them and upholding their statehood. So much was said about gratis aid that is a “manifestation of love and caring” for their future, democracy and freedom in Ukraine. What kind of freedom is this? This is real slavery. This is hopeless servitude.

Even the most advanced country with a prosperous economy and industry and rapid growth rates would not be able to pay off $111 billion. For today’s Ukraine this amount is an excuse to take everything that remains of the Zelensky rule, and it will be done on a large scale. This year, Ukraine must repay loans for $18 billion. What do you think will happen? The answer is clear. The only free cheese is in a mousetrap. Those who prepared it must be given credit. It took them a long time to prepare this mousetrap. It looked beautiful like a wallpaper photo of the sea, sun and mountains, and led by Zelensky, many people in Ukraine rushed towards it. But it turned out to be a concrete wall rather than wallpaper and they crashed their heads into it. Ukrainians will have to pay for the policy of the West and the current Ukrainian authorities.

The Anglo-Saxons continue to demand increasingly active offensive operations from Ukraine to let the Kiev regime claim Western weapons (based on loans) despite tremendous losses. In this context, we noted one of Zelensky’s recent news conferences where he said the United States would have to send its sons and daughters to the zone of hostility. These words caused an uproar in American society. It only leaked out recently. Everything he said before this was thoroughly prepared for the US establishment and society to be presented in the best possible light and not to awaken wild irritation with some monstrous logic. We see what filters the US media has for its own people. Not a single word can reach an American without very strict censorship (self-censorship) in the US media.

What do Zelensky’s words mean? The Kiev regime has gone from begging to outright blackmail. Not just money and weapons but human lives are at stake now. It is interesting that he spoke about a zone of hostilities. This was well done in terms of the Kiev regime’s logic. Zelensky didn’t specify where this zone was and where, in his opinion, the sons and daughters of US citizens will die. I will explain why. This is terrorist logic. Militants, terrorists and extremists launch hostilities where they see fit, where they can get the biggest number of bloody dividends and not in a zone of hostility between armed forces. This is what terrorist logic is all about.

Pro-Ukrainian influence groups in the West are trying their best to maintain interest in the events in Ukraine. In this regard, a recent article in the British newspaper The Guardian is indicative. It reported that US lobbying firms had made millions in fees from local defence industry manufacturers for promoting their interests to the US leadership. The arms business in Washington is also counting on a lavish “piece of the pie” in the Ukrainian conflict.

In addition, Western countries continue to send their mercenaries to Ukraine under the guise of humanitarian missions. Not only are they taking part in the hostilities alongside Ukrainian armed groups, but they have also been caught committing atrocities against civilians. It is noteworthy that in many countries supplying “soldiers of fortune” mercenarism is a criminal offence. But who cares? There is big money and geopolitical gain at stake. Apparently, when it comes to the military development of Ukrainian territory, they can turn a blind eye to violations of their own legal rules. They do it best when they cover their eyes with banknotes.

It is telling that against the backdrop of confident statements by the Ukrainian military and political leadership declaring a victorious end to the war inevitable in 2023, Zelensky’s Western masters think differently. US Under Secretary of Defence for Policy Colin Kahl recently admitted that the conflict in Ukraine could drag on for another two or three years.

All these facts show who is really in charge of the ongoing hostilities in Ukraine and who is the true master. There is no disputing what we say about how the Kiev regime has moved to direct blackmail. The United States and other Western NATO-centric countries have a large number of political forces, people and civilians who do not support their regimes in this adventure. For them, these facts are obvious. You can see what protests are taking place all over Europe, how carefully experts with a different point of view are being weeded out of the information space. Their articles do not appear in newspapers and are blocked on the internet. It shows the growing number of those who see the destructiveness of the West’s global adventure in the context of Ukraine. There is no disputing the fact that certain forces are pressuring Vladimir Zelensky, including to blackmail their own fellow citizens into continuing the tragedy.

Wild statements and aggressive rhetoric continue to be released by representatives of the Kiev regime. The other day, the Head of the National Security and Defence Council of Ukraine Alexey Danilov, said on Ukrainian television Channel 24 that Crimea can be returned only through military means. He also admitted that Kiev started preparing for war with Russia back in December 2019. As a reminder, that all the statements, promises and assurances made at the Normandy Four summit in Paris then, pointed to implementing the Minsk agreements and to a political solution to the crisis in Ukraine.

Now it turns out that military preparations had begun even before that summit. Apparently, those in the West responsible for the implementation of the Minsk agreements were well aware of the path they would take. That path involved not only a failure to implement the agreements, but also an armed conflict. The Ukrainian authorities have once again confirmed that they fraudulently deceived the world community and were not really going to fulfil their obligations under the Minsk Package of Measures as endorsed by UN Security Council Resolution 2202.

A photograph has been circulated on the internet showing a "memo" of Ukraine's "defender," drawn up by the schismatic church. In particular, it contains calls to fight the Russian world and states that "killing Russians is not a sin." Such calls by Ukrainian schismatics, who enjoy the patronage of the Kiev regime and its Western curators, once again prove that they are a political project that has nothing to do with religion and profess not Christian values, but Nazi misanthropic attitude. There are many examples of this in history, including collaboration with Hitlerites, Nazis and fascists during the Second World War by representatives of one of the world's religions. Everyone has seen this. One can look at and read the relevant documents. So, we cannot say this is some kind of true, religious, spiritual life. No. It is part of a political plan and project to turn Ukraine into an "anti-Russia."

As the leadership of the Russian Federation has repeatedly said, despite the efforts of the "collective West" to harm our country at any cost, no one will retreat from the intended course. We are talking about vitally important issues.

The West’s double standards on Ukraine and Kosovo

We hear many accusations that we are not observing international law. We are being blamed for being on the wrong side of history, unlike the West that is on the right side.

Hypocrisy and duplicity are part of Western diplomacy. We have not forgotten the unilateral declaration of “independence” of Kosovo in 2008, when the US and the EU unanimously claimed that the creation of the Republic of Kosovo, without Belgrade’s consent, did not contradict the standards of international law. Let me recall that nobody asked Serbia about this. Belgrade clearly explained its position – it was against this action and could not support it. There were no referendums in 2008 (either formal or staged). At that time, the West provided a questionable explanation for this action and insisted on it.

Now, 15 years after, the Western countries are refusing to follow their own much publicised standards as regards the situation in Ukraine. They are rejecting as illegal the results of the referendums on accession to Russia, which were held in Crimea and Sevastopol, and in the DPR, the LPR, and the Zaporozhye and Kherson regions. There was not a single referendum on Kosovo in 2008. The Western countries – the US and the EU (including Britain then) – announced that this was how it needed to be and that it was normal. So, what has changed since then? Why was this considered normal without a referendum then but abnormal with a referendum now?

I’d like to recall once again because this is part of speculation in the information space. Self-proclaimed “deputies” in Pristina simply announced February 17, 2008 Independence Day in the territory without prior arrangement and contrary to UN Security Council Resolution 1244, which is a fundamental international legal instrument in the Kosovo settlement. This is all about an expression of will, international law, legality, etc.

Today, the West is using its favourite method once again. The Belgrade-Pristina dialogue under EU aegis has every likelihood of following the destiny of the Normandy format. I urge all experts, political scientists, journalists and the public to think about the role of agreements with the West. After all, there were signatures of global significance under those documents as well. They were signed by people that did not just represent certain political forces but had absolute power in verifying these legal documents. I am referring to Western countries. I would like to mention that the UN Security Council legalised the Minsk agreements. What did the Western countries do with them? They didn’t even sever them. They didn’t even talk about a revision of the Minsk agreements or adjusting them in some way. One day, they simply admitted that they never intended to fulfil them. Isn’t this a good lesson of the NATO-centric countries for other states, especially for Serbia?

The 2013 and 2015 agreements that offered a path to a compromise solution were also buttressed by European guarantees. Do you remember what happened in 2013, 2014 and 2015? Everything followed the same scenario and was done on the record with representatives from the foreign ministries of the EU countries. The presidents of several NATO states approved and applauded all this. Everything was on camera and can be watched now. But it was all tossed aside in just one day. However, the problem is that they never intended to fulfil the Minsk agreements when they were signing them.

Thus, the signature of the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy has been present under a commitment to create a Community of Serb Municipalities of Kosovo for ten years now. This structure was designed to ensure the survival of the Serbs in Kosovo. But the Kosovo authorities are subverting it in every possible way with the connivance of Brussels and Washington even though the signature is there and the documents are valid. Years later, the US and the EU decided to impose a retailored plan of settlement on Belgrade where similar mechanisms for protecting the interests of Kosovo’s Serb population are not mentioned at all.

Earlier, we asked our foreign “non-partners” (as it turns out) at which point they were sincere. Were they sincere when they signed this document, or later, when they renounced their signatures? Now it is pointless to ask this question because the answer is common knowledge – they were never sincere in either case. This suggests only one conclusion: there is no trust and there will be no trust as long as they stick to this approach.

Of course, this kind of “evolution” does not promote trust because it emasculates the very idea that is vital to the Serbs and to Belgrade. As for trust in the Western “peacekeepers,” I made that clear at the beginning of my comment.

New EU sanctions for violating women's rights

This is the first time the European Union has agreed on sanctions for violating women's rights. Citizens of Russia – a non-EU member state – are on the list of sanctioned persons.

This adds to the questions about the new sanctions. We have had a lot of questions sent in by various media outlets. Summing up all the questions, I can say that this is happening for the first time. This is not the first time we have seen this approach from the West, in particular from the European Union. However, this time, they have managed to invent a new pretext.

By imposing new unilateral restrictions that undermine the international legal prerogatives of the UN Security Council, the European Union has once again demonstrated double standards, ignored the presumption of innocence principle and presented no evidence, while hypocritically hushing up the obvious offences committed by Ukrainian militants in Donbass and in the Zaporozhye and Kherson regions of the Russian Federation.

They make many of their decisions relying solely on the information provided by the Kiev regime. Everyone is perfectly aware of their ability to falsify and distort facts. Therefore, these illegitimate verdicts aren’t worth the paper they’re written on, and neither is the entire human rights policy of the EU.

It is noteworthy that EU officials decided to mark International Women's Day by imposing sanctions against men, instead of providing any tangible support to women. By the way, in Russia, women are protected much better than in EU member states. I can cite an example, and few people in the EU probably even know about this. Women in Russia can take advantage of a three-year paid maternity leave.

It would be better if the European Union spent more time studying our positive experience in protecting women's rights, rather than doing what they are doing – dismantling international law, mocking legal norms and writing their far-fetched reports, stop lists or restrictions. They have much to work on to even get close to such standards. Such decisions are absolutely anti-legal in their nature.

Tatyana Andriets’ arrest in Latvia

We have already spoken about the situation around Latvian citizen Tatyana Andriets. I would like to return to this topic again.

A St Petersburg University student known for her public activity to support Russian-language education in Latvia and protect the Soviet memorial heritage, she was arrested in Riga on February 6, 2023, on politically motivated charges of “violating the sanctions regime” and “providing assistance to a foreign state”). On February 28, a court in Riga rejected the appeal for her release from custody. The European Union does not consider this a violation of women's rights by Latvia, does it? But Latvia is an EU member state. That's what Brussels should have taken care of long ago. Riga certainly needs to fix some things.

We continue to provide assistance to Tatyana Andriets. She is not a Russian citizen, but we are doing everything we can for her as our compatriot. There is little hope that relevant international organisations will step in, but let's not lose all hope anyway. Double standards have become a common practice in multilateral diplomacy. Nevertheless, I believe that they cannot remain so deaf and blind to such high-profile cases. We call for giving a principled assessment of police oppression in Latvia. This is especially relevant in the context of how women are “taken care of” in the European Union.

The National Consensus promoted by the Ariel Henry provisional government in Haiti

I would like to draw your attention to domestic political developments in Haiti. We consider the signing of the “National consensus for an inclusive transition and transparent elections” Agreement on December 21, 2022, and the establishment of a High Council for the Transition as a limited step in the right direction, which, with the due approach by Port-au-Prince and the international community, could contribute to the normalization of the situation in the country.

Worryingly, a considerable part of the local political forces has refused to sign the said agreements. At the same time, instead of seeking contact points with the opposition, the government is actually squeezing the recalcitrants out of the political process under the cover of unilateral sanctions implied by Western countries.

Taking into account the absolutely unseemly history of outside interference in that country’s internal affairs, which took the form of both direct interventions and political engineering, it appears that the current spiral of unilateral restrictive measures imposed by a number of countries in circumvention of Committee 2653 on Haiti sanctions and a possible military operation in the country under the consideration by the United States and its allies are aimed not so much at stabilising – as declared – the security situation in Haiti as at mopping up the political landscape in the interests of certain leaders who have received a “wholesale indulgence” and a “right to power” from their western patrons.

Russia does not give preference to either party. Neither is it superinducing a conflict potential in relations between the incumbent authorities and the opposition. In our view, it is patently clear that without reaching a truly broad consensus on determining ways out of the crisis, it will be impossible to achieve any of the goals of peace and stability, rectify the socio-economic situation, and generally return the country to an institutionalized path of development.

Renouncing a constructive and inclusive dialogue in favour of confrontation scenarios promoted under plausible pretexts is yet another criminal manifestation of double standards fraught with a new surge of violence and suffering for the local people.

US cybersecurity strategy

We have taken note of the US National Cybersecurity Strategy released by the White House last week. It is an odious document that includes a package of hackneyed and unsubstantiated accusations against Russia. Russia is not the only country it is spearheaded against. Several other countries have been accused of allegedly using ICT for interfering in the internal affairs of “democratic” states. Of course, these “democratic” states do not interfere anywhere, as if there are no examples of the United States and NATO countries interfering in the affairs of other states around the world, as if it is only Russia and a few other “authoritarian” states, as they are referred to in the documents of the US foreign policy service, that are doing this.

We have issued many comments on such allegations regarding cybersecurity and other areas. Hard facts are necessary to hold any country accountable for malicious activities in the information space. This is what I mean. Did anyone in the United States bother to provide any proof or facts over the past years? They sent Colin Powell with a tiny vial of white substance to the UN Security Council and put on an act of having some “proof.” And nobody deemed it necessary to apologise to the international community, let alone Iraq, for their hoax.

It appears that this encouraged them to forget about presenting any proof as unnecessary and ineffective, possibly to avoid landing themselves in a mess again. In other words, they have no proof, and this also concerns the new US strategy.

Accusations of violating the cyberlaw must be backed with hard facts. Meanwhile, we have offered the United States on numerous occasions to make use of the bilateral channels, which had been created for this purpose, to clear up concerns and exchange information about potential threats. That is, we offered them to save time by using the bilateral channels we created rather than the relevant committees at international platforms, which would take more time. But they preferred to make public accusations instead, without providing any proof to anyone.

A notable part of the recent developments is that the US National Cybersecurity Strategy has attempted to steal the credit for formulating the UN norms of responsible state behaviour in cyberspace. Moreover, they have declared the intention to punish the countries that, according to Washington, violate these norms. In other words, the White House has laid claim, as it infers in its cybersecurity strategy, to the roles of the “judge” and “policeman” in cyberspace.

In this context, I would like to remind our “non-partners” that it was not the US but Russia who initiated the discussion of the norms of responsible state behaviour in cyberspace at the UN. It was at our initiative that fundamental discussion formats, including the Open-ended Working Group on security of and in the use of information and communications technologies, have been launched at the UN and relevant resolutions have been adopted at the UN General Assembly. I would like to emphasise that assigning police functions in cyberspace to any one state, let alone the United States, has never been on the agenda. In short, we would like to recommend the United States to scale down its ambitions, in particular in this area, and to check what they write for domestic consumption against facts. Because there are facts.

We have taken note of the traditional deliberations by the authors of the strategy about human rights in the context of the Biden administration’s efforts to renew Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). This notorious document gives US intelligence agencies almost unlimited wiretapping powers around the world, including in the United States itself, that is against its own citizens.

It is revealing that White House officials have openly said that they not so much need the law to fight terrorism as to counter their geopolitical rivals. They claim that gathering intelligence about Russia, North Korea, Iran and China can help, among other things, to prevent cyberattacks on infrastructure in the United States and allied countries.

I would like to repeat that Russia and the United States have an operational bilateral channel for exchanging communication on questionable cyberspace issues. However, the United States is not using it, but it claims that it needs FISA to prevent problems in cyberspace. This is illogical, foolish and imprudent.

In essence, the US authorities continue unashamedly the misguided practice of total surveillance and interception of personal data of people using cyber forms of communication. Edward Snowden revealed the truth about it. In fact, this is a gross violation of fundamental human rights, which highlights the hypocrisy of Washington’s moralising on human rights and internet freedom.

Offensive remarks by US Ambassador to Norway

We have taken note of the annual Kirkenes Conference, held on March 1-2, an event that had provided a useful and interesting platform for years, including in the context of Russian-Norwegian cooperation in neighbouring regions. But in 2023, its original meaning was hollowed out and replaced by the aggressive Western anti-Russia agenda. The Kirkenes Conference used to focus on socioeconomic and industrial development of the Far North; this time, these matters were last on their list. This discussion was replaced by the “Russian threat” rhetoric. The organisers refused to send official invitations to Russia. At the same time, the overseas “non-partner” has become increasingly active on this platform.

One of such representatives is the US Ambassador to Norway, Marc Nathanson. He made absolutely abominable and insulting remarks about Russia and the leadership of our country on the sidelines of the Kirkenes Conference, comparing Russia's special military operation in Ukraine with (I understand that it is impossible to believe, but he did it) “Hitler's invasion of Norway in 1940.” Can you imagine that? It was done by a representative of Washington. This was an example of more than just political arrogance, extreme ignorance and blasphemy. Unfortunately, all of these things are becoming the new normal in Western diplomacy, with the United States setting the tone.

But I would like to highlight the abominable thing he said. His words, spoken on Northern Norwegian soil, were an insult to the memory of Soviet soldiers. In fact, they were also and insult to Norway as a country, to that country’s citizens, its public and naturally, historians.

But more on that later. I would like to remind you that on October 18, 1944, parts of the Karelian Front and the Northern Fleet crossed the Norwegian border during the Petsamo-Kirkenes operation, and on October 25, they liberated Kirkenes. On November 1, they drove the enemy out of Vardø, completing the liberation of the eastern part of the northern Norwegian province of Finnmark. The losses among the Soviet troops amounted to 6,048 people. During WWII, there were 212 Soviet POW camps (212 camps, not 212 people) in Norway. Most of them were in the north of the country. They held (just think about this figure) 100,000 people. During the war, 12,678 Soviet prisoners of war died and were buried in Norway.

When he insults our country, US ambassador Nathanson also insults every Norwegian who honours the feat of Soviet soldiers, and every Norwegian who contributed to the Great Victory along with the Red Army soldiers, who were part of the Norwegian resistance movement and risked their lives to help Soviet prisoners of war, or who were prisoners of German concentration camps themselves. Norwegian Foreign Minister Anniken Huitfeldt’s grandfather was among them. He was a prisoner in a camp with Soviet soldiers, where he learned to speak Russian and remembered quotes from Russian poetry until the end of his days. She talked about it herself. It is important that Anniken Huitfeldt has distanced herself from the odious statements made by the American ambassador, saying that such parallels should not be drawn.

In general, the conference clearly demonstrated Oslo's policy to abandon multifaceted ties and mutually beneficial cooperation with our country, including in the Far North. Due to Norway’s political leadership, this stage will go down in the history of bilateral relations as a period of regression and direct damage to the neighbourly traditions and mutual understanding.

Desecration of Russian and Soviet monuments in Bulgaria

New acts of vandalism have been committed in Bulgaria against the monuments commemorating our common history.

In the early hours of February 23, the monument to the Soviet Army in Sofia was seriously damaged. Confident that this outrageous savagery was certain to go unpunished, as it had happened many times in the past, the perpetrator ostentatiously surrendered to the police.

In the early hours of March 4, after the 145th anniversary of Bulgaria’s liberation from the Ottoman Oppression following the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878, a monument in Varna to Count Nikolay Ignatyev, Ambassador of the Russian Empire to Constantinople in 1864-1877, a statesman honoured for his tremendous contribution to protecting the Bulgarian people and restoring Bulgaria’s statehood, was desecrated.

It is regrettable that this barbaric behaviour is becoming (or has already become) systemic in some European countries, a part of war against Russian monuments seeking to inflate Russophobia and falsify history while the perpetrators remain unpunished.

In the same context, I must also mention that during the anniversary events, there were attempts to bury Russia’s decisive role in liberating Bulgaria from foreign oppression. We consider this to be neglect of the country’s own past and its citizens, descendants of the heroic fighters who fought shoulder to shoulder with the Russian troops at Shipka and Pleven.

We believe that this path will never be accepted by Bulgarian patriots who genuinely value and cherish their history and the traditions of friendship between our nations. Our belief was confirmed by the abundance of flowers at the memorials to the heroes of the 1877-1878 Russo-Turkish War all over Bulgaria and the multiple messages of gratitude that the Russian Embassy received from the people of Bulgaria.

The anniversary of the bombing of Tokyo

At a recent briefing, we talked about the long-standing strategy used by the Anglo-Saxons which is to suppress the enemy with carpet bombing and cited the anniversary of the annihilation of Dresden and the air raid on Prague in 1945. Today, we will talk about the most devastating air raid in the history of World War II.

In the early hours of March 10, 1945, 78 years ago, 325 American B-29 heavy bombers took off from air bases in the Marianas and headed for Tokyo.

As the Historical Materials section on our website says, the US Air Force dropped 1,665 tonnes of bombs and napalm on the Japanese capital, killing 83,000 people and wounding another 41,000. According to other sources, the death toll exceeded 100,000 people. As a result, 16.5 square miles of the city, or more than 40 percent of the housing stock, were burned down, and 180,000 families were left homeless. From a military point of view, the rationale for bombing Tokyo is debatable. It was an act of intimidation and retribution. Napalm destroyed the predominantly wooden city and led to a fire tornado.

The Soviet correspondent Nikolai Bogdanov was in Japan to cover the surrender of Japan on August 31, 1945. He had the following to say: “What does Tokyo look like after the war? It turned out that we had been driving through the city for several kilometres without seeing the city. Our car was running on asphalt and we could see rusty tram rails. There were no other signs that would tell us it was a city street. All we could see on both sides of the road was a brown wasteland strewn with ashes. Then there was a wide asphalted square amid a barren area with a police officer directing traffic. The square and the traffic were there, but there were no traces of buildings. It was as if we were driving across the bottom of an invisible city that had been washed away by an otherworldly flood.”

... No more than 15 percent of buildings survived in Tokyo, mostly European-style buildings such as ministries, embassies and banks... The Americans dropped incendiary bombs using a special technique to create fire rings. Wherever the Japanese ran, they ran into a wall of fire. To get away from the fire, the people jumped into the water. There are many canals and even community swimming pools in Tokyo. But the heat was so strong that the water was boiling in the small water bodies, and people died from stuffy heat in larger ones. The Japanese were thus reminded of their barbaric bombardment of defenceless Chinese cities.”

The atrocities committed by the Japanese military in China and other Asian countries, as well as the military-biological crimes directed against our country, among others, are known well. There is no doubt that the Japanese regime shed rivers, if not seas, of blood. But I have a different point to make. These crimes must be punished on the basis of law. Back then, there were no more terrible people than the ones on the dock in the city of Nuremberg. Those people were the embodiment of absolute evil on planet Earth, but they were on trial according to the law. Those monsters were treated as required by law. What I said above, quoting the Soviet journalist who saw Tokyo after the American bombing, affected mostly the civilians. Which aspect of this bombing was in line with international law? The people and forces implicated in crimes must be held accountable. Later, this happened at the Tokyo and Khabarovsk trials, and the true culprits from among the Japanese leadership were there. But before that, the civilians were made a target of the retribution attacks. Isn't that blasphemous?

The Soviet journalist was surprised to note that “the Mitsui aircraft factories and the Mitsubishi cannon factories sitting on the outskirts of the city remained unaffected by the bombing.”

Of the 206 Japanese cities, 98 were air bombed and shelled by naval artillery. As a result of the raids, 2,210,000 buildings, about a quarter of Japan's housing stock, were turned into rubble or burned. Civilian losses from aerial bombardments and artillery shelling vary among sources and stand at anywhere from 500,000 to 900,000 people.

However, as we know from history, the cold-blooded devastation caused by the carpet bombing and the US nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not make the Japanese government surrender. The decision to stop resistance was made only after the Red Army joined the war.

The bombings of Tokyo, Dresden, and other peaceful cities are part and parcel of the American historical traditions of warfare. The mass killings of civilians in the enemy country are considered acceptable if they pay off in military terms and intimidate the enemy. Then, they came up with a name for it: collateral damage. They have such a special term. In the same way, the Germans did not consider their atrocities to be war crimes, in fact the genocide of the Soviet people.

Unfortunately, Japan, the official Tokyo, has not yet fully realised or admitted its responsibility for unleashing World War II, which, as you know, began not on September 1, 1939, but on July 7, 1937, the date of the Japanese aggression in Manchuria. Just like in the case of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the current leadership of Japan is cautious not to hurt its ally’s feelings by mentioning the Tokyo bombing in March 1945. The official statement by the Cabinet of Ministers dated May 7, 2013, shyly stated that “although it did not comply with the principle of humanism, it did not contradict the norms of international law of that time, either.” What is there to say? The country is occupied by the United States. The US troops and the US bases are deployed there. I don’t think I should even mention the hidden American hand in ongoing manipulations within Japan’s political establishment. It is being micromanaged. Is there any need for more comments? I think that would be superfluous.

Donation of Russian firefighting equipment to Kyrgyzstan

On March 1, 2023, Russia donated, as part of technical assistance, 40 fire engines to the Emergency Situations Ministry of the Kyrgyz Republic in a ceremony held in Bishkek. There also plans to deliver one Mil Mi-8MTV-1 helicopter before the end of the year. Prime Minister of the Kyrgyz Republic Akylbek Japarov and Russian Minister for Civil Defence, Emergency Situations and Disaster Relief Alexander Kurenkov attended the ceremony.

This event highlights the Russian Federation’s commitment to the principles of strategic partnership and its readiness to provide assistance of various kinds to its allies.

Conference on climate change and permafrost melting

On March 22-24, 2023, Yakutsk will be the venue for a scientific conference on climate change and permafrost melting, held as part of Russia’s Arctic Council chairmanship. The event participants will search for joint practical and scientific solutions for adapting the economy to climate change.

Permafrost melting is a serious challenge facing the Arctic economy and ecosystem. Sixty-five percent of Russia’s territory is located in northern latitudes. As President of Russia Vladimir Putin said, Russia is warming up 2.5 times faster than the rest of the world. Consequently, degrading soils present a potential risk to buildings and utility infrastructure located on permafrost layers.

The Arctic is becoming more accessible due to climate change. New navigation opportunities will open up in the region in the next few decades, and the production of minerals will become more profitable. More and more countries and associations are becoming interested in polar regions. At the same time, we are concerned about the attempts of Western countries to transform regional cooperation into its antipode based on containment and a struggle for access to natural resources.

Yakutia has not been chosen as the conference venue by sheer coincidence. This is the largest region in the world, with an area of 3.1 million square kilometres. About 40 percent of the republic’s territory is located north of the Arctic Circle. Yakutsk is the world’s largest city located on permafrost. All of its buildings rest on cast-in-place piles. In 2018, the republic enacted the regional Law on Permafrost Protection in the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia). A federal law on the rational use of permafrost and its protection was also drafted. The region is home to the world’s only Institute of Permafrost Studies, and its specialists have accumulated substantial experience of studying the storage of seeds inside a cryogenic compound. Their findings can be used for establishing a reserve Russian seed storage facility.

Over 200 experts from Russia, the People’s Republic of China, India, Kazakhstan and other countries are expected to attend.

So far, full-fledged Arctic Council activities have been suspended at the initiative of its Western Arctic members. Consequently, the upcoming conference in Yakutia is called on to confirm the fact that climate change issues will remain a high priority area of Russia’s Arctic activities.

Cancelling Russian culture

Despite the continuous scheming against Russian culture and our outstanding performers in some Western countries, including the cancellation of exhibitions and concerts, arbitrary declaration of world-renowned Russian artists and poets Ukrainians, passion for Russian culture in its modern and historical dimension does not subside in the world.

The birth anniversaries of Feodor Chaliapin, Sergey Rachmaninov and Alexander Ostrovsky, announced this year by the Russian Ministry of Culture and included in the UNESCO calendar, as well as the 125th anniversary of the Moscow Art Public Theatre and the 250th anniversary of the Moscow State Academy of Choreography, have not gone unnoticed abroad.

One hundred and fifty years since the birth of Feodor Chaliapin, “the genius son of the Russian land,” is widely celebrated in Russia and abroad, where anniversary events are supported by the Russian Ministry of Culture, the Russian Foreign Ministry and Russian foreign diplomatic missions.

On February 16, 2023, a series of anniversary events were held dedicated to Feodor Chaliapin in Italy, including a concert by performers of the Bolshoi Theatre and the Mariinsky Theatre and a roundtable meeting on Feodor Chaliapin’s life and legacy in Russia and Italy. An incredibly interesting exhibition, “Bravo, Chaliapin!”, was organised by the Russian National Museum of Music in Rome, with enthusiastic assistance from the Rome Opera House and La Scala in Milan. The theatres not only provided rare photographs and archive publications about Chaliapin’s roles in the Apennines for this exhibition but also praised the unique and unforgettable contribution of the Russian genius to the Italian and European opera and the world musical heritage.

Answers to media questions:

Remark: Congratulations on International Women’s Day.

Maria Zakharova: Thank you for the greetings. And I want to share them with all the female employees of the Foreign Ministry and our foreign missions.

Der Spiegel recently published a blatantly deceitful piece that made me feel embarrassed for this magazine. I don’t usually have an emotional reaction to German media outlets. For many of them, their agenda is clear but nevertheless, there must be some boundaries.

In this article, the Russian Foreign Ministry was described as the most sexist organisation that has no female senior managers. I don’t know what sort of data these claims are based on. But our staff includes 47 percent women, which is almost half. If we look at the diplomatic corps alone, there are 35 percent women. Bear in mind that until the mid-1980s, diplomatic schools rarely accepted female students. Forty years later, the Foreign Ministry has 35 percent women on staff.

If Western countries believe that we will race to fill artificially imposed quotas, don’t worry, we won’t. We understand a bit about professionalism.

Yesterday, Komsomolskaya Pravda released an article based on interviews with the Ministry’s female employees, senior officials (consuls general, deputy heads of departments and heads of divisions). Answering journalists’ questions, the women diplomats primarily noted professionalism as the main criterion for moving up the career ladder. They never mentioned gender or quotas or any other ‘modern’ trends. There is no doubt that we as women working at the Ministry have the right to our own opinion and truly believe so.

It is not a dictated concept or an artificially created trend. It is how we genuinely feel after our years-long career journeys at the Ministry. No quotas or genders will make an unprofessional worker professional or will create respect for workers. Only hard work, professionalism and constant development will.

Question: The United States has denied visas to the Russian diplomats who were to attend a session of the UN Open-ended Working Group on cybersecurity. How would you comment on that US decision?

Maria Zakharova: It is true that the United States has denied visas to several Russian delegates to the session of the UN OEWG on security of and in the use of ICT. Russia’s Permanent Mission to the UN in New York has reported on this in detail.

I would like to repeat that the United States has once again defiantly denied visas to several members of the Russian interdepartmental delegation without any reason. They previously did the same with regard to the head of our delegation. This is a gross violation of Washington’s obligations to accommodate and ensure the operation of the UN Headquarters.

Creating obstacles to the participation of our delegation in the session of the UN OEWG amounts to undermining the principle of the sovereign equality of states, which is a fundamental provision of the UN Charter. As far as we know, the United States has also denied visas to delegations from other countries, which places UN member states in a position of inequality in the negotiating process.

There are no legal grounds for such US decisions. They are illegal, violate the United States’ obligations to the UN and shows that the United States is operating outside the law.

Question: Will you comment on the recent statement by Deputy Foreign Minister of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea Kim Son Gyong that halting US-South Korean joint military drills “will be the first step for promoting the sustainable détente in the Korean peninsula and the region?” He added that in this case the DPRK will not need to “give a counterdemonstration in the same way” and military-political tensions will not reach “a very critical and uncontrollable phase.”

Maria Zakharova: We closely follow and are always interested in the statements made by our North Korean colleagues. Their essence is clear if you don’t take them out of context but follow their logic.

The North Korean authorities have stated more than once that their military-technical measures are defensive and are taken in response to the actions of Washington and its regional allies. We believe that the statement made by Kim Son Gyong, a high-ranking official at the North Korean Foreign Ministry, reflects this approach. In fact, North Korea has offered a simple and understandable way out of the current explosive situation on the peninsula: a mutual pledge to halt military operations that are of concern for the other side and the military rhetoric which can stymie the chances of creating the atmosphere of trust needed for the resumption of dialogue.

We call on the United States to respond to Pyongyang’s signals constructively. We believe that extremely dangerous developments in the region can only be prevented by concrete and immediate steps to scale down military activity there, including large military drills.

For our part, we will continue doing everything in our power to strengthen peace and stability in Northeast Asia.

Question: Have Belgrade and Moscow solved the problem (and if they have, then how) related to media reports about ammunition supplies to Ukraine? Are Western forces involved in exploiting this matter in order to damage relations between our two countries, given that Serbia is refusing to introduce sanctions against Russia?

Maria Zakharova: Belgrade is withstanding unrelenting US and EU pressure and refusing to join the illegal and illegitimate sanctions directed against our country. In refusing to apply them, Belgrade not only demonstrates its own outlook on international relations and displays its own will, which is an inalienable part of any country’s national sovereignty, but also prevents the United States from involving itself in illegal and criminal activities. This is not only about its unwillingness to support anything anti-Russian but also about keeping Serbia immune to attempts aimed at drawing it into American NATO-centric, illegal schemes. It is important to understand that these sanctions are illegitimate and that joining them means participating in unlawful activities rather than in something neutral.

Speaking about the West’s role in this situation, we understand how hard it is on those who are exposed to pressure and what problems all of this is creating for the world at large. It seems to me that one of likely solutions is to speak up and admit that the pressure is on, and possibly demonstrate these facts to the public. This is an important containing factor.

As for the media reports about ammunition supplies to the Kiev regime, Moscow contacted its Serbian partners as soon as this was reported and President Aleksandar Vucic went on record as saying that Serbia was supplying military products in strict conformity with international law under contracts containing an obligation not to provide them to a third party. He underscored that Serbia had not exported arms and military equipment either to Ukraine, or to Russia.

We believe that in this matter it is necessary to be based on facts and avoid interpretations that constantly keep cropping up. The countries that profit from fanning the conflict want to use them in some way or other. There is no doubt about it.

As for the fate of the supplies in question, specialists and experts are investigating this matter.

Question: On February 27, 2023, Belgrade did not sign the French-German plan on Kosovo. The media are being tipped off that a new round of talks will be held on March 18. How many times should Serbia turn the West down and does the West have any constraints so that it could eventually leave the issue of Serbia’s territorial integrity alone?

Maria Zakharova: This question ought to be addressed to Serbia and its official authorities. Today, a lot was said about the etymology of this crisis and all the excesses the West committed with regard to Serbia on the Kosovo track.

By resorting to unseemly manoeuvring on the Kosovo issue, the United States and the EU are trying to whitewash themselves from the disgrace of NATO’s aggression against Yugoslavia in 1999 and the military crimes committed in its course, crimes for which no one has been held accountable up till now. They are trying to do this by forcing Serbia somehow or other to accept the notorious Kosovo “statehood.” There are no constraints, including moral constraints, left in the West, be it in this context or others.

We invariably advocate a peaceful solution to the Kosovo problem, based on UN Security Council Resolution 1244. We continue assisting our Serbian partners in their effort to defend their legitimate interests, sovereignty and territorial integrity with respect to Kosovo.

As for how many times you turn the West down, the important thing is whether you have the will to defend your own sovereignty and national interests and work for the future of your nation, not the number of refusals.

Question: To what extent is Russia ready to help Serbia and the Republic of Srpska to fight the Western pressure aimed at making them introduce sanctions and join the anti-Russia hysteria?

Maria Zakharova: I spoke about this earlier, in part. We are aware of the unprecedented pressure that the Western decision-making centres are bringing to bear on our partners in the Balkans (this concerns not only Serbia but also other countries) in order to make them go against the interests of their own people. This attack is not against Russia alone, nor is it just an attempt, in an anti-Russia craze, to demonstratively turn these countries away from our country. Among other things, this is an attempt to make them go against their own people (because the national interests of states are being violated), against conscience and historical truth. They are forcing them to join the Russophobic hysteria, rewrite history textbooks, allow vandals to wreak havoc and pull down monuments in their countries, and incite the media to tell tall tales, as if it were a matter of course, about Russia, the Soviet Union, the Soviet people, the Red Army being something other than liberators in World War II (for us, the Great Patriotic War), about our role being quite different. This is what they are going to do to them. So far, some countries, specifically Serbia, are holding their ground. We see that thus far they have enough strength and patience (which is also important) to withstand this pressure.

We are building our relations with Serbia on an age-old foundation of friendship and spiritual affinity between the peoples of the two countries and with account taken of the economic benefit. No one is giving this up. I think this goes without saying. For some reason, many people believe that this is purely ideological cooperation or a politically motivated affinity. Nothing of the kind! This has taken shape historically. And moreover, this is now benefitting Serbia economically.

We work honestly and openly. People in Serbia know that they can always count on our support. We continue implementing large-scale joint projects in the economy, energy, infrastructure and high-tech sectors. We are confident that this meets the national interests of both Russia and Serbia. We are not just promising to do something, or thinking up some outlandish ideas, or issuing crazy loans with unrealistic repayment parameters, etc. We have implemented a considerable number of large-scale projects that are working for Serbia’s benefit.

We highly appreciate the fundamental choice in favour of comprehensively developing mutually beneficial cooperation with Russia, made by the Republic of Srpska. I have no doubt that our glorious traditions will help us overcome common challenges this time as well. For our part, we consistently participate in implementing all existing initiatives and agreements designed to improve our bilateral partnership. We are confident that strong friendship is a guarantee of equitable collaboration that no amount of external threats is able to break.

Cooperation with our Serbian partners is not directed against third countries. It strengthens security and serves the goals of development.

Question: Orlen, Poland’s state energy company, has announced plans to sue Moscow for cutting off oil supplies to Poland via the Druzhba (Friendship) pipeline. At the same time, we have heard statements by European politicians that Europe has got rid of its dependence on Russian hydrocarbons. Do the Europeans’ actions make sense? And how does Moscow manage to reconcile such contradictory approaches in Europe while working with European counterparties?

Maria Zakharova: This is a medical case. You are absolutely right in trying to make sense of the two statements, the two quotes. These are not just separate phrases taken out of context. This is an absolutely clearly articulated ideology, and Poland is not where it originated. This ideology has been imposed on Poland by the region’s Western bosses who have been trying to dominate from year to year, from century to century. It boils down to shutting Russia out of managing its own resources and transferring that privilege to those who they believe are entitled to these resources for being “exceptional.” They have been trying to take these resources away from us in different ways, including invasions, genocides, or infiltrating governments to take these resources under control, etc. Attempts have been made to build normal relations. We traded our resources on mutually beneficial terms, while making a profit. We have been supplying high-quality goods for decades, showing our reliability as equal suppliers. But they weren’t happy with that. Why? First, because we made a profit; second, because this speaks of equality; and third, because the possibility of using Russian resources for mutual benefit, as a commodity, became a thing. For them, these resources had always represented a goal for capture, a prize to take and divide – not among everyone, but among a group of self-appointed chosen ones.

In this case, it can be translated as follows: our country must give everything that the Western regimes need for development, security, economic prosperity and fast growth. In return, however, we do not get any money, any funds or even guarantees – what we get is destabilisation along the perimeter of our own borders and the escalation of conflicts. This is the new concept the West is now promoting in various regions.

The EU has made a purely political and non-independent decision to stop using Russian hydrocarbons. This runs counter to the European Union’s needs. What they really need is something we can give them, and that something is resources. They have paid us a fair price for them, making the deal mutually beneficial. We supplied them with high-quality and highly competitive goods. It was not just primitive trade in resources; it involved an extensive development in science, engineering, technology, the economy and finance because all these industries were involved in our energy cooperation. I have not even mentioned education, which involved internships, academic exchanges, etc. Those, too, were certainly a part of the bigger picture of energy cooperation between Russia and the European continent as a whole.

When we began hearing statements about Europe “needing” to abandon Russian hydrocarbons, it was clear that the United States was behind this. They didn’t make a secret of it. On the contrary, they stressed that the European continent has no need for a common energy agenda and that Europe should not be a space with a single energy system. They said that system should not be just “diluted” with American resources. They insisted that only US resources had the right to dominate the region that America is not even a part of. We wouldn’t have objected to America’s competitive participation in the EU or European energy market. By all means, offer better deals, bargain, improve quality, which is something buyers would be interested in. But no. Again, equal participation was replaced by force, barbarism and the like.

The European Union resisted to the last. It finally got to the point where they got tired of waiting for the EU’s political leadership to grow into a suicidal decision to give up Russian resources and began acting. And no one seems to know who committed the terrorist attack [that destroyed the Nord Stream pipelines]. They keep planting various absurd versions.

The European Union is experiencing serious economic problems – spiraling inflation, shrinking GDP, and the threat of de-industrialisation. Things are not going as Brussels has expected. Now Warsaw – amid the recent backdrop of triumphant statements made in a rather mocking tone, some of them concerning our energy resources – has in fact decided to demand the resumption of Russian oil supplies via the Druzhba pipeline.

Question: Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said during a news conference in Baku that the trilateral statement says nothing about checkpoints that are to be set up in the Lachin Corridor, but “it is possible to use technical means to eliminate any suspicions concerning the corridor being used for the intended purposes.” Such suspicions provoked an armed clash between the Azerbaijani and Armenian military last week. What “technical means” was the foreign minister referring to, and can they be used in the near future? Overall, what does Moscow plan to do to prevent such incidents?

Maria Zakharova: I have nothing to add to what Sergey Lavrov said. I can only say that relevant communication is underway and involves the command of the Russian peacekeeping forces and the Foreign Ministry. We continue to look for solutions to the problem of the Lachin Corridor and Nagorno-Karabakh as a whole. It would be unwise to talk about this delicate matter publicly.

Question: Reuters has announced, citing a senior Ukrainian government source, that Kiev is holding talks with partners on extending the Black Sea Grain Initiative, and that Russia is not involved in them. Is this true? What is Moscow’s current stand on extending the grain deal?

Maria Zakharova: I cannot tell you exactly about the contacts we maintain because there are very many of them. I can only tell you that the next round of consultations is scheduled for March 13 in Geneva, and that it will be attended by a Russian interdepartmental delegation and senior UN representatives, including Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator Martin Griffiths and Secretary-General of the Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) Rebeca Grynspan. The grain initiative you have mentioned is on the agenda.

Question: Director of the UN World Food Programme David Beasley has said that the Black Sea Grain Initiative “must be renewed at all costs,” because the world will face “global destabilisation and starvation” otherwise. What are your forecasts regarding the deal’s extension, considering that the Russian Foreign Ministry says that the obligations to unblock Russia’s grain and fertiliser exports under the package deal have not been fulfilled?

Maria Zakharova: This is not like a weather forecast, which does not depend on those who make it. This is a negotiating process that involves delegations. We pointed out repeatedly that this is a package deal. Foreign Minister Lavrov has said this many times. It is not our initiative; the format was proposed by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. This package deal consists of two tracks, both of which must be implemented.

We are doing our best to ensure the implementation of both tracks of the deal. If both tracks are implemented, our forecast is optimistic. But if the second part of the deal continues to nosedive, the forecast is pessimistic. I have not said anything new. I have only repeated what Russia has more than once explained to all sides, to all parties to the deal, UN representatives and the UN Secretary-General, which we did publicly and unofficially, in detail and in short.

Question: US Representatives Jason Crow and Adam Smith told Reuters on March 6 that Ukraine had asked the United States for cluster bombs that can be dropped on the Russian forces from drones. Can you comment on that initiative? How do you assess the probability of such deliveries?

Maria Zakharova: The initiative of Kiev or the US Representatives?

Question: The initiative has come from Ukraine. How would you assess the probability of such deliveries?

Maria Zakharova: I cannot and do not need to comment on the quality of your question. You can ask any question you wish. As for how we would comment on that initiative, we first of all would like to see it acknowledged by those who made that initiative, request or demand. The answer should come from Kiev, the Kiev regime and its representatives. They should say if this is true or not, who they have sent their request to, and so on.

We have recently heard senior Kiev officials say publicly that they did not plan to use military aid provided to Ukraine to deliver strikes on Russian territory. We know why the Kiev regime cannot be trusted in anything. Everyone has seen the worth of its promises.

Regarding the latest initiative, we do not have any facts at our disposal. But I think that you can ask Ukrainian representatives about it. If they confirm this information, we will react accordingly, and our response will be predictable. We have stated more than once that we will regard weapons delivered to the Kiev-controlled territory as legitimate targets.

We have also commented on the delivery of weapons that would be used against Russian territory. This will make the sender countries accomplices to the ongoing events and will bring them closer to confrontation with Russia.

If you manage to get a reply from Ukrainian officials or can at least tell us what they said, even if without a concrete quote, we will be happy to comment.

Question: Beijing is hosting the sessions of the PRC National People’s Congress, the supreme body of state and legislative authority in the People’s Republic of China. One of the important issues on the two-session agenda is the promotion of Chinese modernisation. China is dismantling the stereotype that modernisaton always means westernisation and offers the world an alternative development model. How do you assess the importance of the two sessions and China’s stance which, amid the growing protectionism, continues to adhere to a policy of openness?

Maria Zakharova: Naturally, this is China’s domestic matter. We wish our Chinese friends a successful holding of these most important domestic political events where crucial state-building decisions are being made, including appointments of high-ranking personnel.

The results of the modernisation effort in China are obvious. The country’s economic achievements over the past decades are impressive and highly commendable. We look at it this way. We note that the West sees it differently, perceiving it as a challenge, a (potential and almost direct) threat, which causes irritation and undisguised hostility. We are happy for our Chinese partners and their achievements. We see in them additional opportunities for the development of mutually beneficial cooperation.

Russia is definitely interested in a stable and prosperous China, and China is interested in a strong and successful Russia, in the development of bilateral relations. We are doing this to our mutual benefit and without detriment to our neighbours and other countries in the region. On the contrary, this process is an obvious advantage for the stability of the continent.

In keeping with this logic, we are going to continue to boost practical cooperation with the People’s Republic of China in the interests of our countries and peoples. As part of Russian-Chinese cooperation mechanisms, we will exchange positive experience of state administration and national development.

We have said repeatedly that any process can have its national features, from democracy to modernisation of their education systems, scientific and technical progress, development, and others. There must be no imposed templates, stereotypes or views. That must become a thing of the past, along with the logic of colonialism and imperialism.

At the UN platform, it was collectively agreed that the process of decolonisation has been completed. Thinking practically, we understand that it is not quite complete yet. But at least at the political and ideological level, it has been stated as a fait accompli. There must be no more colonial logic which dominates everything that happens inside countries.

Question: European Commission spokesman Christian Wiegand said at a briefing in Brussels that The Hague International Centre will not investigate the Nord Stream explosions. According to him, the incident with the gas pipelines is not within the purview of this department. Has the West come up with other platforms for conducting a joint investigation, including investigation into Seymour Hersh’s findings? And also, what do you think about the potential involvement of a pro-Ukrainian group in this act of sabotage?

Maria Zakharova: That’s the million-dollar question that could have a million answers. There’s a lot to it. Let’s look into it.

We see (we mentioned this today) the complete helplessness of the European Union and the European countries that were affected by this terrorist attack. We are talking about the damage done to the economy, finance, infrastructure, security and the environment. A lot has been disrupted, not just energy security. This terrorist attack impacted a vast number of issues. The countries that are directly affected by this incident, in whose territorial waters this happened, neighbouring states, the recipients of energy, and members of the Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 consortium cannot speak out, make assumptions, or answer the questions that came up after Seymour Hersh published his article, given that these countries and entities are part of a NATO-centric model. The Europeans did not make us part of the investigation and tried to accuse us. They come up with all sorts of excuses. They went as far as saying they couldn’t talk about it until the investigation was over. Meanwhile, all their lives (I mean the most recent history) they have been the first to grab a microphone, not only to comment, but also to accuse and to pronounce a verdict on things that they themselves provoked in many ways, such as Salisbury, Amesbury and all other Novichok-related poisonings. And now they say they cannot say anything. They are coming up with increasing numbers of excuses not to be interested in the future of their own countries, economy, finance, or energy security, which have now become interconnected things.

If we think back to the first reaction of the European Commission’s leadership to what happened, they did not call it a spec ops act, but sabotage, fearing to say the word “terrorist attack.” Meanwhile, as you may remember, any lorry that crashed into some obstacle somewhere in Europe (sometimes even without casualties) was immediately passed off as a terrorist attack. As a reminder, a pipeline was blown up. Not one, but several. It was a professional job which obviously involved the special services, because, clearly, simple sea divers or pearl hunters would not be able to accomplish this. It is absolutely clear that this was a planned operation that used corresponding combat explosives. Suddenly, we see absolute helplessness in their comments. They didn’t even call it a terrorist attack. They avoided saying this and talked about sabotage, and so on.

As you may remember, the European Commission was more outspoken early on in the incident. They said they were determined to protect critical EU infrastructure. Then they alluded that it may be Russia; who else. Then it all fizzled out. Apparently, facts were uncovered after the initial inspection of the crime scene. Then there were journalists who began to conduct their own investigations. That’s it. And most likely their “big brother,” the curator of everything that is happening under the NATO umbrella, told them not to conduct any alternative investigations while they assumed control of everything.

Judging by what Brussels did next, they are ready to defend their security and any energy infrastructure unless it’s with the involvement of the Russian Federation. Based on what I see, their resolve has decreased many times over.

Investigations by journalists who provide facts are ignored in the West. Seymour Hersh, the Pulitzer Prize winner whom you mentioned, presented an investigation based on data that must be commented on. What we see instead is absolute silence, which seems strange. Could this be an active process? In this case, yes. The sound, light and broadcasts are turned off in order to keep this investigation away from the public eye and the information field. How do they do this? It’s total control of the media. What did the EU do in response? It remains completely apathetic with regard to this issue. Apparently, in order not to irritate Washington, they ignore any mention of the investigation. This does not look like them at all.

However, the templates for managing information distribution look similar. The reaction of the EU and NATO to events that affect them does not look familiar. Moreover, if you remember, there was no evidence in Salisbury, Amesbury or the entire Novichok-related story. Whether it was, or wasn’t, what happened to the Skripals, where they are now, and what condition they are in… There was no direct speech. At one point, they showed a recording made not by journalists, but by Skripal’s daughter, who read a text off the teleprompter, and that’s it. There’s no communication with them. No one knows what happened. The same thing happened around the “poisoning” of Alexey Navalny. Zero information from primary sources, zero facts.

Here, we have the facts. There is the body of the crime, an explosion, data, and footage. There is a great deal of equipment that recorded all that, including what happened and what was in that region some time before the incident. Everything is there. All you need to do is analyse it and make the findings public. Instead, complete silence.

Remember when dead ducks allegedly made President Trump (his daughter showed him the ducks) emotional and he expelled Russia’s diplomats? They told a story about the ducks. What are you talking about? Ducks? Pipelines were blown up at the bottom of the Baltic Sea which led to the release of an enormous amount of substances into the air which is seen by scientists as an environmental disaster. Zero reaction. Maybe because ducks can say a word or two, whereas fish are always silent. It’s hard to imagine, but it’s like a joke we have to live through.

The requests that Russia earlier sent to the governments of the Federal Republic of Germany, Sweden and Denmark to conduct an independent and comprehensive investigation with Russian participation were ignored. The West avoids contact with Russia on this matter. The question about an alternative platform for a joint investigation was never even raised by the West.

Without a doubt, we are in favour of conducting a full-scale law-based investigation. Again, this is not a far-fetched threat or story, or some obscure event that did or did not happen. This was a terrorist attack that has every attribute of a mass-scale environmental, energy, etc., disaster, that affected the lives of a huge number of people, countries and ecosystems, and that was committed using specialised means that cannot be accessed by ordinary citizens, but can be owned exclusively by a government’s special services.

Question: On February 27, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said in his remarks at the 52nd session of the Human Rights Council in Geneva: “This is a moment to stand on the right side of history. A moment to stand up for the human rights of everyone, everywhere. We must revitalise the Universal Declaration and ensure its full implementation to face the new challenges of today and tomorrow.” Which side do you think he was describing as the “right” one?

Maria Zakharova: We have read the UN Secretary-General’s remarks at the high-level segment of the 52nd session of the UN Human Rights Council currently taking place in Geneva.

The Secretary-General rightly stressed that this year, the international community marks the 75th anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a key international human rights document in which states “reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and the equal rights of big and small nations.”

At the same time, Antonio Guterres said that the provisions and ideals of the Declaration are threatened, and one of the many threats, according to the UN Secretary-General, is Russia’s special military operation. This is a superficial and, most importantly, irresponsible approach as well as complete disregard for the Kiev regime’s violations of the rights and freedoms of the Russian-speaking population in Ukraine, and the aggression against the residents of Donbass. Let me also remind you of disregard for the legal component of the matter – the referendums, etc.

In our view, a return to the implementation by all governments of the basic human rights instruments, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, respect for international law, the rejection of pressure and blackmail, and the equality of all states, will help restore peace and prosperity on our planet. Even as stated goals and opportunities for their implementation, not necessarily as the ultimate reality. That’s when we will all be on “the right side of history.” Speaking about the “right” and “wrong” sides of history, we must remember that history is something longer than one day, one week, or one year. History is a process and the current state in which we are now. It would have been nice of him to mention other challenges and threats to human rights, and discuss who had been on which side of history of late. Why were we the only ones he granted such a dubious honor? Why was the UN Secretary-General silent about the “exceptional ones”? What about the US and Britain and their reckless actions in Iraq? What about interference in the internal affairs of dozens of countries around the world? What about the “Arab Spring,” the riots orchestrated from the outside, which led to disastrous consequences for the region? What about Libya or Syria? It would have been nice if he remembered Yugoslavia and the consequences of that tragedy that are still being felt.

We would recommend that the UN Secretary-General not only remember history, but also carefully reread it again. If he had done so, then many of the events taking place in Ukraine today, as well as those that preceded them, would have been clear to him.

If he had done so, we would not be hearing arguments such as “there are no and cannot be manifestations of Nazism and neo-Nazism in Ukraine.” Why can’t they? Have they bought an indulgence? I understand that buying rights to moral superiority comes from the Western ideology book. It’s in their mentality and culture. When it comes to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that document actually propels humanity in a different direction, where you can’t buy the right to moral superiority. It can only be earned by your deeds and your own ideology and philosophy applied in practice. That is the only way.

Question: Dozens of people left the room when Foreign Minister of Iran Hossein Amir-Abdollahian gave his statement at the 52nd Session of the UN Human Rights Council. How would you explain this behaviour by Western diplomats? Is this lack of diplomatic skills or an attempt to accommodate their Washington masters?

Maria Zakharova: It was a provocation. Such behaviour by Western diplomats is destroying diplomacy as a profession. This is regrettable and deplorable. Western diplomacy is in a precarious state as it is. This is fresh evidence of their inability to accept a different opinion. As you know, this has already aggravated the politicking and confrontation during the discussion of current issues of human rights promotion and protection.

The countries of the “collective West” have lost the ability to listen to alternative views from sovereign states.

To put pressure on legitimate governments, they widely use unilateral coercive sanctions and other forms of punishment for pursuing an independent policy.

Nevertheless, our country continues to call for dialogue and to protest the enforcement of neoliberal human rights standards disguised as international norms and against the refusal to recognise the diversity of cultures, traditions and specifics of civilisational, historical, social and economic development paths.

Regarding Iran, it is the Western countries that have for years been interfering in the internal affairs of that sovereign and democratic state. The West has for some reason assumed the right to label states by their degree of democratic progress. They simply don’t know Iran’s history. It is a democratic state with its own freedom and pluralism of opinions, traditions and culture. This deserves respect because it is part of international law. Maybe they left the room because they couldn’t look this high Iranian representative in the eye. The West is aware of the wrong they are doing to Iran.

Question: In his opening remarks, High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Turk spoke about “wars of aggression” like “the Russian invasion of Ukraine.” Why does the UN refuse to see the human rights violations committed by the Kiev regime? Where have these people, who are denouncing Russia now, been for the last eight years as civilians were killed in Donbass?

Maria Zakharova: The thing is that they are only expressing the opinions they are told to express. We were talking about this just now. Regrettably, such statements are not just surprising but actually outrageous. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and his Office have repeatedly abused their mandate. The commissioner and other representatives of UN human rights bodies must fulfil their mandate, uphold it and implement it in accordance with all the rules and standards. But we see that they cannot, or rather, do not want to go beyond the Western view of global development. As for why, this is an open question that implies pressure, blackmail, threats, or an internal feeling of loyalty to their master. They translate the dominant instructions, which do not include objective coverage of the human rights situation in Ukraine or the crimes committed by the post-Maidan authorities.

As I have said, this stand does no credit to Volker Turk himself or his views.

Question: We are seeing a new wave of terrorist attacks by the Kiev regime: the horrific attack in the Bryansk Region and the recent (fortunately, failed) assassination attempt on Konstantin Malofeyev. To what extent, in our country’s opinion, are these actions independent? Or, as it happened often in the past, is Western endorsement behind them?

Maria Zakharova: Not just the West’s endorsement, but instigation: they are publicly silent, but it is obvious given the absence of a negative response to the Kiev regime’s extremist and terrorist actions, urges to punish it, investigate, etc. You got that right.

More on independence. If you have been instilling in people extremist logic for decades and manually installing alleged politicians in Ukraine (I am talking about the West), who are in fact political diversionists who adhere to extremism as a norm (we already saw that: the Trade Unions House in Odessa, the Maidan, shooting their own citizens, burning tires, destroying civil infrastructure, mining the power lines in Crimea), this pet project will develop by itself and live on. An engine has been already planted there in addition to external supervision. They have created a monster. Many monsters were created by the US-led West. You know this perfectly well. Osama bin Laden was their thought incarnate, celebrated by the Western media. He received money, weapons and political support, and then suddenly became an enemy to democracy and was subject to annihilation. They have created yet another monster. His fate and the fate of the entire provocation is clear.

Question: The West continues to put pressure on Russian sports. Among the latest examples is the blatant suspension of Irina Viner. How does Russia plan to respond to these provocations? Is it even worth fighting for participation in international federations that pursue non-sports related goals?

Maria Zakharova: We see two trends. The first is a total crackdown by the Westerners on everything that prevents them from dominating international affairs, especially, sports. Everything that they consider as unbearable competition for themselves, which they cannot win at the rink, tatami, stock exchange, etc., is subject to destruction. Exactly this way. They destroy everything. It doesn’t matter – morally or physically – in different ways. The Nord Stream pipelines are a story of competition, right? The two pipelines were bombed because the Americans lost the competition to Russia to supply energy to the European continent. The same thing happens in sports.

The second trend is the complete “reshaping” of world sports. There are several aspects and nuances here. They are trying to fit world sports into their own standards, to destroy the principles that underlie the Olympic movement, and to completely privatise (the most amazing thing – for free) world sports so that it serves them as the exceptional ones. We see these trends. They are obvious.

In their wake lies the recent decision of the International Gymnastics Federation to ban the president of the Russian Rhythmic Gymnastics Federation, the head coach of the Russian national team, world legend, Irina Viner, from international competitions.

We regard this step by the International Federation as another example of discrimination against domestic sports figures and the encroachment of Western political functionaries on the independence of sports. This is an element of the destruction of world sports, and it applies not only to rhythmic gymnastics, but to all world sports. This applies to everything: gymnastics, refereeing, international institutions that regulate sports, and much more.

It is no coincidence that I said that she is a legend. This is not just a coach, but a person who in many ways created the current world of rhythmic gymnastics, starting with the elements, complexity, technique, even the presentation of this sport and introducing it into the minds of a huge number of people, as a way to give hope to children, as a path to personal development. When she is hit, the world of sports is hit, nothing less.

It looks especially cynical that this “punishment” will come into force the day after the abolition of the so-called protective measures against the Russian team, linked by the Westerners with the Ukraine story.

At the same time, as you know, not all international sports federations blindly follow the biased Russophobic guidelines of the West. They try to analyse and assess the situation in sport. Another question is that the sane part of the world sports community is under unprecedented pressure for any calls for returning Russians to international sports life and, in general, for returning things to normal. This is very important. It is not only about Russia, but about everyone who creates obstacles to non-competitive dominance, simply because they want to own the whole world in every aspect imaginable.

We proceed from the understanding that only the development of equal sports cooperation, excluding politicisation and bias, only fair and just competitions, as well as providing all countries without exception with equal access to full participation in the Olympic and Paralympic movements can meet the true principles of Olympism and the independence of sports. We intend to defend this approach together with all sane representatives of the international sports community.

Question: Relations between Russia and the African countries are now developing rapidly. There are examples of local private initiatives, for example, a large Russian restaurant chain has opened in Nigeria. The business appears to be doing well. How does the state plan to support this initiative? What other economic projects involving our African partners are being developed?

Maria Zakharova: We are working to methodically develop Russian-African relations in various fields. In addition to the political dialogue, we are now focusing on economic, cultural, humanitarian and scientific cooperation.

Regarding the economic component, it is important that, apart from traditional areas of interaction, like geological prospecting, the oil, gas and chemical industries, mineral extraction, agriculture and fishing, we are now moving towards high technology projects. Russia is opening assembly facilities in some African countries, and we are working together in space exploration, information and communications technologies, and the civilian nuclear power industry. The Russian services sector has also started developing this promising market.

We are convinced that cooperation with the African region has great potential. The first Russia-Africa Summit, held in Sochi in 2019, and the simultaneous economic forum, promoted this process.

The second Russia-Africa Summit and the Economic and Humanitarian Forum, scheduled for July 2023 in St Petersburg, will continue to promote this effort. We are expecting this full-scale event to bring together anyone interested in expanding all-inclusive dialogue and anyone who is ready to help promote initiatives that can increase socio-economic development between Russia and the African states and raise the well-being of their citizens.

Question: The Russian Defence Ministry released a statement on a recent gunfire incident between Azerbaijan and Armenia in the Karabakh region. In response, the Azerbaijani Defence Ministry issued its own statement Monday night, noting that the Russian Defence Ministry had distorted the facts and spread information that does not correspond to reality. Has Moscow and Baku held any diplomatic discussion on this incident? Can you comment on this development?

Maria Zakharova: Regarding the armed incident of March 5, 2023 in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict zone, the Foreign Ministry released a statement on this on March 6, 2023.

I repeat, all parties need to show restraint and try to de-escalate the situation.

Question: What is Russia’s position on extending “the deal?”

Maria Zakharova: The Russian position is that this is a two-part deal, a package deal, and that it is necessary to complete both parts. We say this every time; I cannot put it simpler, it’s clear and to the point. Both parts have to be fulfilled. We have noted that they are not fulfilling the second part. It is necessary to rectify this situation and to make sure that the entire agreement is fulfilled.

Question: French President Emmanuel Macron recently completed a tour of Africa where he had talks in the Democratic Rrepublic of the Congo, the Republic of the Congo, Angola and Gabon. Macron's visit to the continent is viewed as a reaction to concerns over the growing influence of Russia and China in Africa, especially by the French media, although during the visit, he personally stated that the “Françafrique era” was over. How does Moscow see his comment about the end of Françafrique?

Maria Zakharova: We have heard what you’re talking about, but in reality, we see what’s behind these big statements. This is a half-hearted attempt to disguise their old consumerist approach to the region and reformat their work on the ground in such a way as to achieve the same results with better methods of “persuasion.”

They are still dreaming of keeping their privileged position in Africa and keeping other players, primarily Russia and China, out. Paris still has a few chosen African countries where it is ready to turn a blind eye to military coups and violations of human rights, but only if they blindly follow the official policy proposed by France. States that pursue an independent policy without following orders from the Elysee Palace, that protect their own interests, try to diversify their partners for economic, security and even cultural cooperation, and would like to abandon the dubious honour of being members of France’s African Club – the backyard of the Fifth Republic, are being condemned as violators of free democracy and the notorious rules-based international order, and are subjected to enormous pressure.

However, the African public, its modern youth and the political elite in most African countries, are increasingly aware of how contradictory and arrogant Paris's attitude to this continent remains. Most proponents of neocolonial approaches find it hard to realise that the peoples of Africa, by their distinctive history and struggle for independence, have long earned the right to be friends with whatever country and civilisation they want, to defend their national interests as they see them, to develop and modernise their societies without anyone's prompting. They have clearly shown their interest in genuine sovereignty to President Emmanuel Macron by participating in massive anti-French protests along the route of his African tour. This was revealing.

Question: You briefly commented on the Nord Stream investigation on your Telegram channel yesterday. Can you give a more detailed comment?

Maria Zakharova: I have already commented on this today. If you have a specific question, please send it, and I will answer it.

Question: The Russian Defence Ministry bluntly accused Azerbaijan of attacking the Artsakh police and escalating tensions on March 5 of this year. Unlike the Defence Ministry, the Russian Foreign Ministry refrained from directly naming the perpetrator of this escalation. This creates the impression that Baku takes the lack of criticism of Azerbaijan for repeated violations of the November 9, 2022 agreement as a licence for impunity. This leads to new and crude violations of the trilateral agreements, such as the continuing blockade of Artsakh or Baku’s subversive act on March 5 of this year. Can you please comment on this? What can you tell us about Azerbaijan’s statements, for example, its Defence Ministry, which criticised the Russian Defence Ministry and the peacekeepers?

Maria Zakharova: The Russian Defence Ministry statement provides detailed information on this incident including an account of the presence of the Russian peacekeeping contingent on the ground.

The Russian Foreign Ministry gave a political assessment of what happened in its statement. It mainly appealed to both sides to show restraint, to take steps to reduce tensions, and to return to the talks within the framework of the trilateral agreements between the leaders of Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia.

I can express our position very clearly and understandably. As for the other parties’ positions, you should ask them.

Question: Azerbaijan has expressed new threats with respect to Artsakh. The threats are crude violations of the trilateral agreements and demonstrate Baku’s intention to continue the Artsakh blockade thereby further escalating the situation. How is Russia planning to react to these threats by Baku and to ensure its commitments in the trilateral agreement?

Maria Zakharova: Bellicose rhetoric by either side is counterproductive. It doesn’t help promote the peace agenda. We believe both Baku and Yerevan must strictly abide by the provisions of the top-level trilateral agreements, including ensuring security in Nagorno-Karabakh and the opening of the Lachin corridor. We also believe that Yerevan’s active involvement in the search for mutually acceptable approaches would help reduce the current tensions.

Question: At his meeting with President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said this about other countries as mediators: “As President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly said, we welcome all efforts aiming to stabilise the situation and to create favourable conditions allowing the countries in this region to cooperate in the interests of their states and on the basis of mutual respect and mutual benefit.” But then, also in Baku, Sergey Lavrov and you in an interview with Sputnik, were fairly negative about the West’s mediation efforts. So what is Russia’s position on mediating for other parties in the region, including the US and the EU?

Maria Zakharova: And what is it that you don’t understand?

Question: It was somewhat different at the meeting with your colleagues.

Maria Zakharova: What was different? We keep urging both sides to rely on the trilateral agreements between the Russian, Azerbaijani and Armenian leaders (of November 9, 2020, and January 11 and November 26, 2021, and October 31, 2022). These agreements determined the roadmap for settling the relations between Baku and Yerevan. This mediation is useful and ensures mutually beneficial and respectful cooperation between all countries in the region. We believe that the goals pursued by the US and the EU are not aimed at reaching peace and security in the South Caucasus but at getting involved in the peace process. Using our ideas, they want to feign their presence in the peace process rather than play a constructive role in it (and this is the best-case scenario in our opinion), and they could even play a destructive role in it.

Why do you think we haven’t formulated or said this? We have described this clearly in very definite terms. We deemed it necessary to point out that in our view these actions are not only unhelpful but can increase the threat to the peace process. What sounds unclear or vague to you? I don’t agree with your premise.

Question: The Foreign Ministry said earlier that Russia was ready to extend the grain deal on beneficial terms. What is Russia’s benefit from this deal? President of Russia Vladimir Putin said earlier that the bulk of exported grain was landing in EU states rather than the world’s poorest countries. Is this still the situation?

Maria Zakharova: Yes, it is. This situation continues. I have already commented on our approach to “the deal.” I would like to draw your attention once again to the detailed commentary by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

Question: Several Armenian servicemen were shot in an incident in Nagorno-Karabakh several days ago. Is there any progress in the investigation of this incident? Are the sides willing to cooperate on this? It is common knowledge that Armenia and Azerbaijan have completely different interpretations of what happened.

Maria Zakharova: The Foreign Ministry provided its evaluation of the March 5 armed incident in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict zone in its March 6 statement. I would like to emphasise again that both parties need to de-escalate tensions and return to the negotiating table as soon as possible.

Question: The 14th International Economic Forum “Russia-Islamic World: Kazanforum” is scheduled to take place in Kazan on May 18-19 of this year. In its tentative programme, the Foreign Ministry is listed as the organiser of several panels and roundtable discussions, such as a meeting of the extraordinary and plenipotentiary ambassadors of foreign countries (Türkiye, Bahrain and Indonesia). It will include the opening of the 7th Forum of Young Diplomats of the OIC Countries and a meeting of the Diplomacy of the Multi-Polar World Kazan Club. Can we say that the Russian Federation is creating conditions for equitable partnership and mutual respect between Russia and the Islamic World? Is this international forum a serious venue for a multi-polar world?

Maria Zakharova: The Russian Federation and the Islamic countries have long established friendly, partner-like relations based on full equality and mutual respect. These relations are free of any attempt to impose a policy, or a decision or philosophy on our partners.

In today’s difficult conditions, where the collective West is trying to subordinate all countries to its own tough dictate, in part, to compel them to curtail their relations with Russia, the Muslim states are continuing their desire to maintain and even intensify their versatile cooperation with our country.

There is every reason for the Russia-Islamic World: KazanForum to become a leading venue for discussing the problems of the emerging multi-polar world and one of the centres for drafting efficient and scientifically substantiated solutions. The Islamic World can become one of the centres of the multi-polar world.

Question: The theme “The Kindness Boomerang in Islam” will be the subject in a separate roundtable discussion. The goal of this project is to bring women from different social strata together in an effort to resolve global problems and reach sustainable development goals. The “first ladies” from Bahrain, the Kingdom of Jordan, Qatar, the UAE, Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan and Türkiye will take part in the roundtable discussion as speakers. Who will represent the Russian Federation in this?

Maria Zakharova: As for the personal invitations for the participants in this part of the programme, we are working on them. Once we have specific names, we will share them with you.

The Russia-Islamic World: KazanForum programme includes many events that are of interest to women – entrepreneurship, women’s products, charity in Islam, and international cooperation between the women of Russia and the Muslim World.

We are just compiling this list but will definitely share it with you as soon as we get more information.

Table of contents

Дополнительные материалы

Видео

Фото

Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, March 9, 2023

Table of contents

Дополнительные материалы

Видео

Фото

Поделиться ссылкой на выделенное