Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, March 30, 2023
- Kamchatka Territory presentation
- Sergey Lavrov’s visit to the Republic of Türkiye
- Ukraine crisis
- Food exports to the EU
- The trail of the International Criminal Court’s decisions
- Parliamentary elections in the Republic of Cuba
- Day of Unity between the Peoples of Russia and Belarus
- Outcomes of the International Olympic Committee’s Executive Board meeting
- Russia set to assume presidency of the UN Security Council in April 2023
- The Moscow International Education Show
- The completion of the 5th phase of humanitarian demining of the territory of Laos by Russian specialists
- Sergey Rachmaninoff’s 150th birth anniversary
- Tchaikovsky State Academic Symphony Orchestra Artistic Director and Chief Conductor Vladimir Fedoseyev tours Japan
- The Caspian Sea, the Sea of Friendship motorcycle race
- Russian Chamber of Commerce and Industry’s upcoming business trip to India
- Days of Russian Films in Azerbaijan
- News conference by Presidential Commissioner for Children's Rights Maria Lvova-Belova
Answers to media questions:
- Switzerland’s neutrality
- Belgrade-Pristina talks
- Chinese-Russian approaches to Kosovo
- Recognition of the ICC’s Rome Statute by Armenia
- EU mission’s involvement in the Armenia-Azerbaijan settlement
- Western reaction to Chinese President’s visit to Moscow
- US-Taiwan contacts
- Activities of the Europe Peace Foundation
- Investigation of the incidents with Nord Stream gas pipelines
- Detention of The Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich
- Russia-US interaction under New START
- The US Summit for Democracy
- Russia’s view of cooperation between Scandinavian countries and NATO
- Talks between Russia, Armenia and Azerbaijan on creating a border crossing at the end of the Lachin-Khankendi road
- Meeting of Iranian, Russian, Syrian and Turkish deputy foreign ministers
- Possible use of depleted uranium shells in Ukraine
- The Western anti-Russia policy
- Migration issues against the backdrop of the Libya crisis
- Russian-Pakistani cooperation in the energy sphere
- Pakistan-EU relations
- Iceland’s anti-Russia policy
- China’s role in settling the Ukraine crisis
- Video hosting services
Kamchatka Territory presentation
On April 4, the Cultural Centre of the Main Administration for Service to the Diplomatic Corps at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs will host a presentation of the economic, investment and tourism potential of the Kamchatka Territory. It will feature an exhibition showcasing Kamchatka's socio-economic achievements, as well as the region’s unique natural beauty and culture. The presentation will give an additional impetus to the expansion of international and foreign economic relations of this Russian region.
Representatives of the diplomatic corps, business community, Russian and foreign media have been invited to the event.
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Governor of the Kamchatka Territory Vladimir Solodov are scheduled to speak at the event.
Sergey Lavrov’s visit to the Republic of Türkiye
On April 6-7, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will visit Türkiye at the invitation of Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu.
The talks will focus on a wide range of issues, particularly the state and prospects of bilateral cooperation in areas of mutual interest, including trade, energy and tourism.
There will be a comprehensive exchange of views on topical issues of the regional and international agenda, including the current situation in Ukraine, the Syrian and Nagorno-Karabakh peace settlement processes, Central Asia and Afghanistan.
During the talks, the ministers also plan to draw up a schedule of bilateral contacts at various levels.
On March 29 a year ago, the third round of the Russia-Ukraine peace talks was held in Istanbul, as a result of which the sides reached an understanding on the parameters of possible agreements.
I would like to remind you that Kiev asked for talks very soon after the beginning of the special military operation, and Russia responded positively to that request. However, Kiev’s regime walked out of the talks when mutually acceptable agreements became possible, leaving unanswered our proposals on a draft peace agreement made on April 15, 2022. The possibility of peace obviously frightened the West, which ordered Vladimir Zelensky to derail the talks. After that, the rhetoric used by Kiev and its Western handlers became tougher. They became fixated on the idea of defeating Russia on the battlefield and categorically rejected any possibility of dialogue with Moscow. Five and a half months later, that stance was formalised on September 30, 2022, when Vladimir Zelensky signed the executive order stating that talks with the Russian authorities were “impossible.”
Immediately after the abovementioned meeting in Istanbul, Russia took measures on the ground to create favourable conditions for potential peace agreements. In response, the Ukrainian authorities staged a blatant and cynical provocation in Bucha.
I am reminding you about it for a reason. The Western media invariably mention the tragedy of Bucha when writing about the situation around Ukraine. It is the main illustration everybody uses, including public figures, journalists, political analysts and everyone else, when they want to emphasise the allegedly illegal nature of Russia’s actions. They mention Bucha every time. We will remind them about what happened there in reality, and we will keep doing this.
When Russian troops were in the town, its residents were free to move around and use their mobiles. It is a fact which any investigative journalist can easily establish. We have pointed out on numerous occasions that since mobile communications were freely available and their use was not disrupted, people could send messages or call their relatives, friends or the media and share their photos and videos. They could have texted messages about the situation in the town if anything distressing was happening there, something like we saw in the photos and videos that were posted online and broadcast by all television channels after the Ukrainian forces entered Bucha. But nothing like that was happening, and so there was nothing to report. There was no evidence of the tragedy which the West has been trying to blame on Russia for the past year. They have convinced themselves that it really happened. They regard that story as a hard fact, although it is not a fact at all. It was a frame-up, a fake story and manipulation of public opinion. And this story must be investigated.
The northward roads from Bucha to Belarus were not blocked. The Russian military delivered and distributed 452 tonnes of humanitarian aid in the Kiev Region. At the same time, the Ukrainian forces were methodically shelling the southern suburbs, including residential districts, from large-calibre guns, tanks and multiple launch rocket systems.
Next day, on March 30 a year ago, after the Istanbul round of the Russia-Ukraine talks, the Russian army pulled out of Bucha. On March 31, 2022, Bucha Mayor Anatoly Fedorchuk announced publicly that there were no Russian troops in the town. He did not mention any executed locals lying in the streets. Four days passed. What happened during that period? During those four days, they staged a cynical and brutal provocation that was very similar to what the Nazis did during WWII. It was their style. The Security Service staff and Ukrainian “journalists” started working there. It was at that time that dead bodies appeared in the streets, and it was immediately announced that they had been killed by the Russian military.
From that moment, Vladimir Zelensky’s regime and its Western patrons started spreading fake news on the mass civilian killings by the Russian army. These false allegations have been circulating ever since. Let me remind you what happened next. Bucha became an organised pilgrimage site for foreign visitors, offering a stage for boisterous propaganda campaigns. There was even an ‘assault landing’ by journalists. However, Kiev failed to make a Ukrainian Srebrenica out of Bucha. It is obvious that this provocation was engineered to pave the way to an anti-Russia sanctions package, prepared in advance, as well as to derail Russia-Ukraine talks and create a certain public narrative backed with geographical designations and these photomontages.
We reiterate that in order to get to the bottom of this issue, an honest, impartial and independent investigation must be carried out with a focus on finding answers to four questions: identification of the corpses, the time and cause of deaths, and the traces of possible movement of bodies. I would like to remind you that Russia submitted a request to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to provide us with a full list of Bucha residents who died during this period. We are still waiting for a reply. I have heard multiple members of the UN Secretariat saying that all this information is available online and on social media. All this has been published somewhere at a certain point. However, when it comes to Bucha and these facts, we would like to rely on official materials. Never before have we seen as many fakes as there are today online and unfortunately in the media, including mainstream titles which have been here for quite a while. Never before have we seen so many fakes spreading so rapidly. History has not witnessed anything of this kind in terms of the technological capabilities to manipulate public opinion so swiftly and extensively. Searching for and comparing some lists online is useless. The Kiev regime must submit them officially to the UN Secretariat, as long as this topic is still viewed as something that can be produced as evidence against us.
It is telling that as early as in late April 2022, The Guardian, a UK newspaper, reported that pathologists discovered metal flechettes, or metal darts, in the bodies found in Bucha. These flechettes are used to fill 122 mm shells. The newspaper wrote that Bucha came under artillery strikes when it was under Russia’s control. This begs a conclusion that the Russian military could not possibly have shelled themselves.
We have come across such discourse many times. Do you remember the story with the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant? When we asked who was shelling it, we heard that we were, of course. They wanted to tell us that we had the station under our control, while also shelling it. What an interesting logic. Unfortunately, this is not the first and not the last time when they resort to this distorted vision and present information this way.
It is not surprising that almost one year after all these events, and despite our calls, neither the official lists of the people whose bodies were shown lying on the streets, nor the forensic examination results were released. Vladimir Zelensky’s regime has something to hide. This is just one of the examples. There has been no progress in the investigation of the 2014 Maidan snipers’ case. I remember how the public opinion responded back then, including in Ukraine itself, let alone internationally. Everyone said: those who started shooting, those who commanded these snipers and managed them, those who acted, they are the ones who are guilty, they are the ones who must be held accountable, they are the ones who embody this evil. We remember this well. So where are the culprits, and was there an investigation of what caused Ukraine to find itself in its current state? Nothing. No one even tried to find them. They took all the evidence they could and buried it deep underground to make sure that the truth never resurfaces. However, by seeking to bury the facts these ideologues committed a grave mistake. History knows otherwise. The most terrible and complex mysteries and secrets, which seemed to be swept under the carpet for good, invariably re-emerge in broad daylight.
At the same time, there is also the flipside of the coin. The Kiev regime seeks to hide everything whenever documents or facts are involved, while proactively spreading the myth of the so-called heavenly hundred. They made a real cult out of it. It turns out, it includes people who died from natural causes and had nothing to do with what happened on Maidan. But who cares, as long as this myth lives on? They made a movie out of it, published a multitude of photos and videos, and wrote books, let alone all the infographics, slogans, memes, what-have-you, which appear on the fly.
I would like to recall the bloody provocation staged by the Ukrainian armed forces on April 8, 2022, in Kramatorsk, when a Tochka-U missile hit a railway station, killing dozens of civilians. Kiev and Western countries tried to blame Russia for this, as they always do, and many political observers and journalists still stick to this narrative. However, this incident quickly fell into oblivion. Once irrefutable evidence was presented showing that the Russian armed forces were not involved, they quickly switched on the silent mode. This has become a popular verb in the 21st century – it turns out you can silence topics at a global, extensive scale, as it happened with the Kramatorsk incident.
On March 26, 2018, the people’s tribunal set up to investigate the Ukrainian war crimes in the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics held its first meeting. Today, the Russian investigative authorities are working painstakingly to document the Kiev regime’s crimes. There is no doubt that all those implicated in these crimes will be called to account.
Now, the Kiev regime continues its attack on canonical Orthodoxy. Zelensky and other Ukrainian enemies of God have no interest in faith, values, morality or reality. They are guided exclusively by the interests of greed and personal enrichment and a desire to keep hold of everything they have stolen from the people. They will stop at nothing, including the use of force. In some regions of Ukraine, the clergy and believers have been locked out of the churches of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, and religious sites are set on fire. They use smoke canisters, spray chemical agents and use special substances, beat up, humiliate and intimidate people, record their names and demand IDs for entering churches. All of this is not being done for security reasons but to take revenge, intimidate and crack down on these people.
In addition to the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, the Ukrainian neo-Nazis want to take over the second largest monastery, the Pochayev Lavra. These lawless actions are supported by the United States and the Constantinople Patriarchate. They are pushing Ukraine further back into the Middle Ages, a period for which the Catholic Church expressed regret and repented. What we see happening now is incredible and shameful, but it has been approved by those whom the people gave the right to rule their country in the best interests of the state and the people.
This is a crime committed by the Kiev regime against its own people. We often speak about what it is doing against our country and its citizens. I believe that what the Kiev regime led by Zelensky has done to the citizens of Ukraine is the worst crime possible, because the people believed him and voted for him. They delegated their powers to him. Simply put, they allowed him to decide their future for them. The worst thing possible in terms of the law, morals and conscience is when you deceive those who put their trust in you.
It is notable that the report of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights about the Kiev regime’s discrimination against the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, published on March 24, 2023, has caused an extremely nervous reaction in Kiev. Zelensky and his team don’t like it when something goes against their grain. They only demand money, weapons and impunity, that is, an indulgence. Moreover, they want to be paid for it. According to the Western philosophic, religious and Catholic standards, an indulgence is the forgiveness of guilt, sin or any other action that calls for repentance. In other words, “indulgence” in Western culture is giving absolution of sins without repentance. Zelensky has gone a step further. He not only demands an indulgence but also money for everything he is doing. We are living in strange times when such things can happen.
We again call on the concerned international organisations and the global community, first of all Orthodox believers, to take an unbiased stance on Kiev’s actions against the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and to demand an end to this inhumane and soulless outrage and these criminal actions.
We have taken note of a petition published on the Ukrainian president’s website to prohibit the use of depleted uranium rounds by the Ukrainian armed forces. This is logical, because the Kiev regime has not told its citizens what would happen to those who live in the territory where such rounds will be used, regardless of the targets they are fired at or hit. The petition must be signed by at last 25,000 people to be considered by Zelensky, but we know that there is no guarantee that it will be acted upon even in this case. The Ukrainian authorities shelved public appeals against attacks on the Russian language and the media. We have seen such appeals, and many of them have been disregarded contrary to Ukrainian laws.
David Arakhamia, head of the Servant of the People political party in the Verkhovna Rada, has announced increased mobilisation. According to media reports, Kiev is considering an option and is drafting a law to almost by force return Ukrainian citizens from Europe in order to send them into battle. A former adviser to Zelensky’s office has said that a Ukrainian offensive will lead to a sea of blood and huge losses if the West does not send long-range missiles and aircraft to Ukraine. And what will happen if the West does? It is an absurd logic. Have they brainwashed their people to believe any nonsense they hear without pondering the possible consequences? There is no other explanation. Just think about it: if the West des not send weapons to Kiev, this will lead to a sea of blood. And what will happen if the West provides these weapons? Will this bring about peace, tranquillity and prosperity? All this goes to show that the Kiev authorities will not stop at anything but will pursue their criminal plans even if this calls for sacrificing the lives and future of their citizens. They did not, do not and will not care about the suffering of the people they represent simply because they voted for them.
Their Western handlers do not allow them to back down either, because they live according to the same criminal logic. They demand that Kiev act resolutely; they want to see that all the money they have invested in the Kiev regime has not been wasted, even though many people have died, and many Ukrainian citizens have fallen victim to this criminal gamble of the West and Zelensky. They can’t bear the thought of a ceasefire. I fear that people will be executed in Ukraine soon for considering this option. It will not come as a surprise if harsh punishment is approved in Ukraine and Washington for those who propose ending this bloodshed. The West and Zelensky are destroying the Ukrainian people. Isn’t it obvious? I think it is. On March 28, 2023, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken openly said that calls for a ceasefire could be “a very cynical trap.” According to Washington, sending weapons and allocating billions of dollars for the war is not a cynical trap but an effective plan. In fact, the Washington handlers are leading the Ukrainian army to the slaughter, and it will continue until the last Ukrainian soldier.
These actions by the Ukrainian authorities and their Western handlers show that all their goals and tasks have been formulated in the context of modern reality and must be achieved.
In light of numerous comments in the West on the critical importance of supplying Ukrainian foodstuffs to world markets, I would like to cite a few facts.
According to the statistics of the Joint Coordination Centre in Istanbul, as of March 22 of this year, more than 25 million tonnes of grain and related foodstuffs had been exported from Ukraine. Who was the main recipient of these products? Needy countries? In fact, those developing and starving countries were cited as the reason for this whole “grain deal” commotion, all this grandstanding in the West for the starving nations, and calls to the international community to facilitate the supply of Ukrainian foodstuffs to them. No, it’s not them. The biggest recipient of the goods is the European Union (41 percent of the total exports). The supply of wheat from Ukraine to the European market increased 10 times over in 2022, (to 2.8 million tonnes), and corn exports almost doubled (to 12 million tonnes). Now Ukrainian grains, which cost a fraction of the European price, have flooded the Eastern European markets. Why, when developing countries needed them so badly? Perhaps Brussels and Washington consider Eastern Europe a developing territory? I wonder how those countries have joined the EU, when they’re still “developing.” The “beautiful garden” didn’t seem to need any more development. Anyway, Ukrainian food supplies have flooded Eastern European markets putting local farmers on the brink of survival (some have actually gone bankrupt). Two months ago, they were asking the European Commission to stop the mayhem caused by uncontrolled grain imports from Ukraine. But who cares about Eastern European grain producers, or Ukrainian citizens, or fighters of the Ukrainian Armed Forces? They’re of no interest to anyone in the West. It’s not that no one needs them; but no one is interested. All petitions, requests and pleas go straight to waste. They aren’t being considered. The idea of this game is different.
Brussels prefers to pay millions in compensation to the affected European farmers. Naturally, not to everyone, but to a selected group, just those who deserve help, as was decided in Brussels. At the same time, they continue to turn a blind eye to the low quality of grain imported from Ukraine. Up to 70 percent of the total is fodder, or fodder corn, which nevertheless goes to the food industry for the production of flour.
By the way, we have been receiving signals from our African partners about the EU’s plans to take cheap local agricultural produce to Europe for processing and subsequently export finished products back to Africa with higher added value.
Just think about it. This whole food security hysteria began around a year ago with the West proclaiming that they intended to save Asia and Africa, which were starving. A show of unprecedented generosity on the part of the Western states, which usually rob everyone (especially Asia and Africa). But they were promoting it so zealously and hysterically, they almost made us believe it. It’s been a year, and nasty things have come out about their true intentions and how they have done it.
How could this happen, you might ask? Even if we assume that they are exporting all these agricultural products from Ukraine to Europe for themselves, and lining their own pockets, primarily American suppliers, contractors, and companies. But why take agricultural products from Africa? To export finished products back to the continent and make a profit. Surprisingly, they are covering up their intentions saying it’s easier to comply with environmental standards this way. You know that, once an issue requires discussion, explanations, facts, or statistics, the West immediately starts harping on about the environment, like a broken record. This is the case now.
In fact, Westerners will be using Africa the same way there are using Ukraine today – as a source of cheap raw materials to maintain the profitability of the European food industry. This is another way to reinstate colonial dependence. Only, it is unusual that we could see the whole cycle of deception that the West is committing in just a year. They usually do something to cover up what they are doing. At least they leave loopholes for their companies to pose as humanists, to avoid stealing things directly, but to compensate for this through intermediaries or something. This time, however, there has not been a single attempt in a year on the part of the West to return this situation to the plane of morality, legality and law.
They have planned to make money and enrich their companies from the start, to take others’ food. To take all the best things, as much as they could, and give back whatever they don’t need, and still make a profit. We have seen this full circle that they have gone this year. The Western countries and companies started with the high standards and lofty words about helping the needy and starving and have come all the way to downright stealing. This makes perfect sense for imperialists and the way they treat their colonies. Maybe this sounds even more cynical. They have never cited human rights, protection and high moral standards so often before. This has been accumulated over decades and has become part of Western countries’ national laws and international law.
The trail of the International Criminal Court’s decisions
Given the continuing inflow of questions about the activities of the International Criminal Court (ICC), we confirm our earlier assessments of its illegitimate operations that have nothing to do with justice.
To reiterate: we do not recognise the absurd decisions that the ICC made public recently. What is important to understand is that even the process of their approval was accompanied by internal machinations. It transpired from the ICC press release that the ICC Prosecutor submitted an application for arrest warrants to Pre-Trial Chamber II on February 22, 2023. But on February 21, a PTC judge from the Democratic Republic of the Congo was unexpectedly replaced with a representative of Costa Rica. Interestingly, British media report that this is not even the most outrageous thing of all that accompanied the passing of these decisions. As you may know, certain data has been made public and it has not been disproved. I am referring to the news that Prosecutor Karim A.A. Khan’s brother, Imran Ahmad Khan, was released from prison, where he was serving a sentence for sexually assaulting a minor. Moreover, he was released exactly the day before the Prosecutor applied to the PTC for the arrest warrants. So, what could we conclude from this? It is clear that this scenario was conceived in good time, with the entire combination and mechanism geared to implementing the plan at any cost.
In any case, it is clear that the ICC Prosecutor and judges obediently follow the line laid down by their Western sponsors. This body will never investigate real crimes. Its generous donors and providers of services I have mentioned today will use it as an information and political tool to manipulate public opinion in the world. We will wait in vain for an investigation into crimes committed in Iraq, where the death toll among peaceful civilians reached hundreds of thousands, and in Afghanistan, where a lot of civilians died as well. They were not even counted, although a NATO contingent was officially deployed in the country. They used a UN Security Council resolution as a justification [for their invasion], but they never reported to the international community and the UN on what they had been doing there for 20 years.
The UK, for one, has joined the Rome Statute to give the ICC formal grounds for winding down the proceedings against its military personnel. It chose to hold a bogey national investigation that left the culprits unidentified and unpunished. In this connection, the ICC Prosecutor (a UK national) came to the conclusion that justice had been served and the ICC had no further business on this track. So he upped and closed the case. One hand washes the other, as they say.
Washington’s attitude to the ICC is truly odd and depends entirely on the political situation. You should know this too.
In 2018, for example, the then US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, branded the ICC as “kangaroo court” for its attempts to start a full-scale investigation into events in Afghanistan. Pompeo said that Washington would take all the appropriate actions to ensure that American citizens are not hauled before this political body to settle a political vendetta.” John Bolton also made comments to the effect that “the ICC is already dead to us.” Try to remember this.
For a number of years, US officials said that the ICC was a political tool for settling a political vendetta and that to all intents and purposes it was “dead.” Now I would like to ask Joe Biden and others on his team: is the ICC alive and kicking again? You had to revive it for a while to use it against our country, didn’t you? Will you kill it again later? That’s the American way. Aggressive rhetoric was reinforced by sanctions imposed against the ICC Prosecutor and other staff. In 2021, as soon as the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute voted for a new ICC Prosecutor (Fatou Bensouda of Gambia was replaced with the UK’s Karim Khan), the new US administration lifted the sanctions. The ICC had been revived. How’s that? It is an organisation, not just an individual, who may be liked or disliked, sympathetic or antipathetic. It is an organisation. At first it was not just demonised but deprived of legitimacy. Later, however, they replaced a couple of officials and it can be used again… against others, not themselves.
Thus, the ICC begins to have value for the United States when certain geopolitical interests are involved. I would call it a concrete target. Now President Joe Biden says that the recent PTC decision (on the arrest warrants) is justified. But they are not a state party to the ICC. Accordingly, they do not recognise its jurisdiction. Were it a case of an individual – not a country or a regime – who once a year changed his opinion for an opposite one and gave reasons for this reversal, everyone would say that he is an inveterate liar or not quite sane. But how should we characterise actions by a country? A big and powerful country like the United States that manipulates the opinion in other countries and at home, juggles the facts, and regularly reverses its attitudes to directly opposite ones (once, twice, thrice a year)?
In conclusion, let me say that Russia does not and will not cooperate with the ICC, and its actions with regard to citizens of this country are nil and void from the legal point of view.
Parliamentary elections in the Republic of Cuba
On March 2023, Cuba held national parliamentary elections to the single-chamber National Assembly of People's Power. The direct secret ballot vote took place in strict accordance with the Cuban law in a peaceful atmosphere and at a high organisational level.
According to the official preliminary results published on March 27, 2023, over 75.9 percent of voters (over 6.1 million people) took part in the election. All 470 candidates for members of the National Assembly of People's Power were elected. We see this as clear proof that the Cuban people support the authorities’ efforts to resolve urgent tasks facing the country.
We welcome the successful completion of the election process in Cuba which showed the maturity of Cuban society and its consolidation based on Havana’s course to protect the country’s national interests and sovereignty.
We reaffirm our principal intent to further strengthen multifaceted strategic Russian-Cuban interaction.
In view of the elections, we are forced again to point out the United States’ blatant interference in Cuba’s domestic affairs. Before the election, high-ranking US officials found the time to tell the public which candidates they consider to be legitimate or illegitimate. Naturally, they said more about the process being illegitimate and undemocratic. This rhetoric is well-known.
Yet again we are seeing the United States impose “the right” prescriptions for the people’s vote while at the same the country’s legislation and traditions are totally ignored. At the same time, those voicing the criticism are not ready to reform their own archaic, tangled and non-transparent election system. What is going on with elections in the US when people vote at gas stations, when dead people vote, when they vote with hole punchers making holes in ballots – this, as the Americans say, is their domestic matter. They like it this way. And the fact that other states can have their own domestic matters, as you understand, is of no concern for the “exceptional ones.”
Day of Unity between the Peoples of Russia and Belarus
On April 2, we mark the Day of Unity between the Peoples of Russia and Belarus. On this day in 1996, our countries signed the Treaty Establishing the Community of Russia and Belarus, which opened a new stage of integration development in our modern history. During subsequent stages, Russia and Belarus signed the Treaty on the Union of Russia and Belarus on April 2, 1997, and, finally, the Treaty on Establishing the Union State on December 8, 1999. These documents legally formalised the intention of our countries to develop and expand mutually beneficial bilateral ties, set ambitious goals and tasks for expanding comprehensive cooperation in the interests of improving the socio-economic well-being of our citizens and their security.
On November 4, 2021, the Supreme State Council of the Union State approved a new package of integration documents that includes 28 sectoral programmes. This became an important milestone in Russian-Belarusian integration. These programmes aim to standardise Russian and Belarusian legislation in various spheres, and lay the foundation for implementing a common macro-economic and monetary policy and establishing common markets.
Moscow and Minsk effectively implement important joint projects in trade, economy, science, technology, culture and education. They consistently deepen industrial cooperation. The citizens of our countries enjoy equal rights in such spheres as freedom of movement and employment, educational opportunities, social security and pension support. The foreign policy agencies of our countries coordinate their actions to a high degree, and this makes it possible to jointly counter common challenges and threats on the international stage. Russia and Belarus devote considerable attention to strengthening the defence and security of the Union State and to deepening military and defence cooperation. This allied interaction is becoming particularly important in conditions of a drastically aggravated international situation and unprecedented sanctions imposed against Russia and Belarus by unfriendly countries.
Today, just like always, the people of Russia and Belarus remain the two closest, fraternal and friendly nations. They are linked by a common history, common spiritual and moral values, and close friendly and kindred ties. We are united by a great past and by joint plans for the future. Together, we can cope with any challenges, expand the legacy of our ancestors and create a solid foundation for the sustainable development of new generations of the Union State’s residents.
I know that it is not customary to congratulate anyone in advance, but I believe that this is a case when congratulations are appropriate. I think we will discuss this issue once again on April 2.
Outcomes of the International Olympic Committee’s Executive Board meeting
The Executive Board of the International Olympic Committee met just two days ago to discuss whether Russian and Belarusian athletes should be allowed to compete internationally.
I am sure you have all seen what came out of this, as announced by IOC President Thomas Bach. Of course, this begs some serious questions.
The reservations and criteria put forward by the IOC and the amendments it made are unacceptable, preventing Russia from making a full comeback to international competitions.
The approach whereby only athletes in individual sports disciplines will be allowed to compete is a typical example of segregation evoking the darkest historical parallels. Unfortunately, the IOC and other international institutions where US satellites and other officials controlled by Washington have entrenched themselves have had no qualms hiding behind their would-be commitment to ensuring that the 2024 Olympics are held in peace, all while seeking to divide athletes in terms of their political loyalties.
Can this be acceptable considering all the norms the international community has agreed to abide by? It committed itself to respect democracy and tolerate different points of view, while rejecting anything that divides people in terms of their ethnic background or political affiliations, especially when it comes to humanitarian affairs and sports.
The IOC professed to be committed to enabling Russian athletes to compete in the Olympics. For many years, they have been reassuring us that they are committed to certain goals, but unfortunately IOC’s actions run counter to these goals. There is no other way we can interpret this. We believe that the primary motivation behind the recommendation to allow Russian athletes to compete in a neutral status without their flag or anthem comes from a rather strange and savage logic imposed by the West to exclude Russia from international sports, as well as attempts to pressure us and implement a containment policy against our country.
You know, the framework documents governing international sports, including the IOC, their policy, actions, and development, remain in force. The same applies to the UN General Assembly resolutions on international sports and the Olympic movement, which stipulate in all clarity that segregation is unacceptable. If they signed all these instruments, if IOC representatives reassured us for so many years that they were committed to these documents, what is happening right now? We see the kind of treatment Russian athletes have been subjected to for many years now, including, unfortunately, by international sports officials. Of course, they are doing this under pressure, sometimes facing outright blackmail and even threats. There are also many other personal reasons, etc. However, they have been sticking to this policy and have not been able to reject it or to refrain from engaging in actions that run counter to international Olympic principles.
We oppose these and any other forms of discrimination. What makes them even more unacceptable is that they are presented under the guise of protecting human rights. At the same time, they distort the Olympic principles beyond recognition. This is double-talk.
Let me emphasise once again: the effort to harass Russian athletes, our teams and coaches for all these years can be lethal for the honest principles of the Olympic movement. This means that political considerations are unacceptable and all countries without exception must enjoy equal access and be able to fully participate in the Olympic and Paralympic movements.
We will return to the double standards several times during today’s briefing. We face them almost daily. We always provide an appropriate response.
Russia set to assume presidency of the UN Security Council in April 2023
In April, Russia will take charge of the UN Security Council, a body that has the primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security in accordance with the UN Charter.
One of the central events the Russian delegation has planned for this period is a Security Council meeting, scheduled for April 10, on the risks stemming from the violations of the agreements regulating the export of weapons and military equipment. It is our conviction that in the present circumstances, is of the essence to thoroughly analyse the consequences of non-compliance with contractual obligations on the “end-use control” of military-purpose products, as well as to discuss ways of countering such destructive steps.
Another key event to be held as part of the Russian presidency will be a high-level open debate on effective multilateralism through the protection of the principles of the UN Charter, chaired by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.
This subject is all the more relevant against the backdrop of increasing attempts by a number of countries to subjugate the UN exclusively to their own interests, eventually undermining the UN-centric system of international relations and replacing it with the odious “rules-based international order” concept. Let me remind you that no one has ever seen these “rules.” On the other hand, judging by the recent explanations by American representatives, the mysterious “rules” that the international order is based on are actually international law. If this is the case, why not use the proper denomination and invoke it properly? If you refer to “a world order based on international law,” no one will have any questions. Except one: “When are you going to abide by it yourself?"
Let me stress once again: no one has seen any rules spelled out anywhere. For all we know, it’s just empty talk primarily aimed at camouflaging the United States’ ambition to be exceptional without any binding norms, rules or laws.
In this regard, the purpose of the open debate Russia will chair is to reaffirm its strong commitment to the UN Charter and emphasise the principle of the sovereign equality of states, as well as to thoroughly consider the opportunities for strengthening the foundations of genuine multilateralism, which takes into account the opinions and concerns of all states.
A number of other events will take place in April as part of Russia’s mandate, including a quarterly open ministerial debate on the Middle East settlement scheduled for April 25, which will be chaired by Sergey Lavrov. We think it imperative to once again emphasise the need for a long-term and fair settlement of the region's long-standing problems on a well-known international legal basis.
We also intend to initiate an informal Arria-formula meeting of the Security Council members on the evacuation of children from the zone of Russia’s special military operation. We intend to inform our colleagues in detail about the measures our country has taken to protect minors from shelling by the Armed Forces of Ukraine, to prevent other violations against children and to ensure their evacuation to safety.
Other important issues on the UN Security Council agenda in April will include the political and humanitarian aspects of the situation in Syria, the situation in Yemen, Libya, Mali and the Great Lakes Region, Haiti and Colombia, and a settlement in Western Sahara.
Special attention should be paid to the semi-annual briefing on the situation in the area of the UN Interim Administration Mission mandate in Kosovo.
Russia, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council and a responsible member of the international community, will make every possible effort to ensure this body’s effective work in the interests of the political and diplomatic resolution of the most acute crises and the maintenance of global stability.
The Moscow International Education Show
The 10th anniversary Moscow International Education Show, which was held in Moscow on March 23-24, hosted a major exhibition of Russia’s leading education and expert organisations. The event was visited by over 20,000 guests with more than 100,000 viewers following the events online, including 15,000 participants from 82 foreign countries.
The business programme was held under the slogan “Glocalisation: A new reality,” which implies combining global trends in education with regional specifics. Experts from numerous panels used practical examples to demonstrate the domestic education system’s competitiveness in the global environment and discussed ways to promote mutually beneficial international cooperation.
We note the growing interest of foreign audiences in modern domestic achievements, solutions and approaches in education, as well as Russia-made training equipment which is indicative of the demand for advanced Russian expertise in general, higher and advanced professional education.
The 5th phase of the efforts carried out by a detachment of the International Mine Action Centre of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation to clear the territory of the Lao People's Democratic Republic of unexploded ordnance from the US and its satellites’ aggression in Indochina in the 1960s-1970s was completed in the Lao province of Khammouane on March 25. The ceremony was attended by Deputy Defence Minister of the Lao People's Democratic Republic and Chief of the General Staff of the Lao People's Army Major General Khamlieng Outhakaysone and senior officials from provincial and local government bodies. The Russian side was represented by the Ambassador to Laos and the military attaché.
During the most recent fifth phase of the demining effort in the Lao province of Khammouane, 124 explosives were defused. At the same time, Russian specialists assisted in the training of 120 Laotian servicemen from the engineering corps of the Lao People's Army. I would like to cite some statistics: from 2018 to 2022, Russian and Laotian sappers cleared more than 1,680 hectares of land and discovered and destroyed 2,342 pieces of ordnance, including aerial bombs, mines and artillery shells.
In their remarks, the Lao representatives expressed their deep gratitude to the Russian side for providing assistance in demining and training local sappers, as well as for donating special equipment. It was emphasised that the elimination of the mine threat is one of the priorities in Laos, as it allows thousands of Lao people to return to a safe life in areas that have been cleared of unexploded ordnance. They highlighted the invaluable contribution that has been made to this noble cause by the Russian specialists, who, at the risk of their lives, are demining the area and passing on experience to their Laotian colleagues.
The event was held in a friendly and respectful atmosphere and demonstrated high demand for our country’s broad and direct participation in removing the dangerous Western legacy left behind by some countries (primarily the United States) not only in Laos, but other countries of Indochina as well. As you may remember, Washington and its regional allies unleashed an undeclared war against them in the middle of the 20th century. This unprovoked and brutal aggression led to the loss of millions of lives back then and it still collects (there’s no other way to put it) “bloody tribute” through the use of indiscriminate weapons against civilians.
The Russian Federation will continue to carry out the humanitarian mission in Laos thereby contributing to creating an environment that is conducive to the socioeconomic development of that country with which we are bound by strategic partnership relations.
Sergey Rachmaninoff’s 150th birth anniversary
This year marks the 150th birth anniversary of the great Russian composer Sergey Rachmaninoff. This event is included in the UNESCO International Days and is widely celebrated in Russia and abroad. Moreover, it wins great acclaim among numerous admirers of Russian culture.
On March 21-26, 2023, Veliky Novgorod hosted the 1st Rachmaninoff International Youth Piano Competition. People’s Artist of Russia Denis Matsuyev, our great compatriot and a UNESCO Goodwill Ambassador, initiated the event. This project is part of the Rachmaninoff International Competition for Pianists, Composers and Conductors. The event’s organisers received 120 applications from eight countries, with participants from Russia and China winning awards and the Grand Prix.
An exhibition called Sergey Rachmaninoff: I am a Russian Composer, organised by the Russian National Museum of Music, opened at the Russian House in Rome on March 24, 2023, and later at the German-Russian Institute of Culture in Dresden (March 27, 2023) under a foreign programme of anniversary events. Its exhibits have been prepared using the immensely rich creative archive of the Russian composer, now stored at the museum’s depositories. Multimedia content became an inalienable part of the exhibition. It is possible to listen to recordings of famous works by Rachmaninoff, as performed by him and outstanding musicians, using QR codes.
On March 17-21, 2023, Tchaikovsky State Academic Symphony Orchestra Artistic Director and Chief Conductor Vladimir Fedoseyev toured Japan, together with the Symphony Orchestra of the NHK State Television and Radio Company, the oldest national orchestra. This became an outstanding cultural event.
The orchestra under the baton of Vladimir Fedoseyev performed in five Japanese cities, including Tokyo, Nishinomiya, Wakayama, Sakai and Kure. The musicians performed Rachmaninoff’s Piano Concerto No. 2 in C Minor and Symphony No. 5 by Pyotr Tchaikovsky. Famous Japanese pianist Michie Koyama, who played solo, has repeatedly performed with Vladimir Fedoseyev in Russia and abroad.
The Caspian Sea, the Sea of Friendship motorcycle race
On April 1-11, 2023, the Caspian Sea, the Sea of Friendship motorcycle race will take place, with the participants circling the sea’s shoreline. The bikers, activists of the Astrakhan Region’s motorcycle movement, will drive through all five Caspian littoral states, namely, Russia, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Iran and Azerbaijan. Astrakhan Region Governor Igor Babushkin will head the motorcycle team, and he will meet with the leaders of the Caspian littoral states en route.
We welcome such initiatives aimed at the further strengthening of regional ties and facilitating the overall development of international cultural and humanitarian cooperation. Moreover, we are ready to help, support and facilitate this and other similar events.
We are confident that the successful completion of the motorcycle race will once again prove convincingly that the Caspian Sea is a region of friendship and neighbourliness.
Russian Chamber of Commerce and Industry’s upcoming business trip to India
The Russian Chamber of Commerce and Industry will conduct a multisectoral business mission in India on April 3-7. The receiving party is the chamber’s partner organisation in India, the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce & Industry (FICCI).
The visit will become the Russian Chamber of Commerce and Industry’s most important business event in India in terms of scale, level of representation and the number of participants from Russian regions.
The size of the delegation and the practical focus of the business programme has evoked considerable interest within Indian business circles: over 400 Indian businesspeople will take part in the meetings with the Russian delegation.
The Russian delegation includes the management of the Expocentre Central Exhibition Complex, the World Trade Centre Moscow, local chambers of commerce and industry, membership organisations from various sectors (such as consumer goods manufacturing, the chemical industry, pharmaceuticals, IT, machine-building, automobile manufacturing, innovative technologies) that have potential in terms of developing bilateral relations.
The visit’s main objective is to strengthen relations with business associations in India, facilitate the establishment of direct contacts between the Russian and Indian business communities, and to discover new opportunities for interaction and cooperation. The business mission will feature a Russian-Indian business forum, visits to technology parks and special economic zones of industrial development, and the opening of the office of the honorary representative of the Russian Chamber of Commerce and Industry in India.
We hope that the Russian Chamber of Commerce and Industry’s business mission to India will give a powerful boost to the further expansion of Russian-Indian business cooperation.
Days of Russian Films in Azerbaijan
On April 5-8, the Days of Russian Films in Azerbaijan will he held, organised by the production centre Else Productions.
The event will take place in Baku at the Nizami Cinema Centre and the International Mugham Centre of Azerbaijan, with the support of the Russian Foreign Ministry, the Russian Embassy in Azerbaijan and the Russian House in Baku.
The programme will feature the screening of four new Russian feature films. The Russian House in Baku will host And the Word and a Song, a meeting with People’s Artist of Russia Yury Nazarov and stage and screen actress Polina Nechitailo.
We are sure that the event will become a spectacular experience in the cultural life of our countries, demonstrating the traditionally deep and multifaceted ties between Russia and Azerbaijan in cultural and humanitarian areas.
We hope that the Russian filmmakers will entertain and surprise the seasoned Azerbaijani audience.
News conference by Presidential Commissioner for Children's Rights Maria Lvova-Belova
I would like to draw your attention to the announcement posted on the Foreign Ministry’s website today about the upcoming news conference by Presidential Commissioner for Children’s Rights Maria Lvova-Belova on the main areas of activity of the Russia office of the commissioner for children’s rights and its current tasks, including in the new regions.
The news conference will held in person at 11 am on April 4, 2023. We invite media representatives to attend it.
Details about accreditation are available on the ministry’s website.
Answers to media questions:
Maria Zakharova: We have to note, as we have done on many occasions recently, that Switzerland is abandoning its principles of neutrality. We see that Bern is moving more rapidly and visibly towards NATO.
Defence Minister Viola Amherd held a “trial” meeting with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos in January 2023. Last week, she made a full-scale working visit to the bloc’s headquarters in Brussels. According to reports, they discussed adopting a new model of cooperation between Switzerland and NATO beyond the Partnership for Peace boundaries, up to and including Switzerland’s potential participation in collective defence exercises in accordance with Article 5 of the Washington Treaty. It has nothing to do with neutrality.
All sovereign states have the right to pursue their internal and external policies. We respect this principle but why has there been no announcement by the Swiss authorities that there has been this change in their policy? The matter concerns communication with the public.
The alarming issue is that Switzerland’s neutrality, which it has declared and is upholding in word, is increasingly at variance with its actions. Switzerland should summon up courage to make a choice and act on its words. Considering what we see, it should probably abandon its stories about neutral status.
By adopting a policy of rapprochement with NATO, Switzerland has taken one more step towards discrediting its neutrality. The history of its neutrality is quite long. The country has been neutral for nearly 200 years.
Many people ask what neutrality means. Is it non-involvement in international affairs? Not at all. Switzerland’s neutrality has been crucial for maintaining its peaceable role and for its development and prosperity on many occasions. This format gave many advantages to Bern, was a constructive element and led to effective results in the interests of the country itself and also peoples of the region and the world as a whole.
I would like to point out that we do not tell any country how it should ensure its national security. As I have said, every country has a sovereign right to determine the theoretical and practical contours of its security.
However, we believe that if the aforementioned model of cooperation with NATO is implemented, Bern will cease to be a neutral state and will lose the status of “an honest broker” and its potential to mediate the settlement of international conflicts.
Russia will certainly take this into account when developing bilateral relations with it and will revise its views on Geneva as an international diplomatic platform.
Maria Zakharova: A comment on the outcomes of the Ohrid talks was provided at the March 23 briefing.
Kosovo’s international legal status remains unchanged. The UN Security Council is the only body that is authorised to review the status of this autonomous Serbian province. No new decisions have been made in this regard. Kosovo remains an integral part of the Republic of Serbia.
We are interacting closely with our Serbian partners to uphold Belgrade’s legitimate rights and interests in multilateral entities. UN Security Council Resolution 1244 does not provide for Pristina's membership in international organisations. It can only join regional formats, with mandatory designation of a link to UN documents, as agreed by the parties, including the above Security Council resolution.
Maria Zakharova: I cannot offer detailed information on that matter (in the context of the top-level contacts). There is our country’s principled position. China’s principled position regarding compliance with international law and UN Security Council resolutions is known as well.
Russia and China are closely coordinating their actions on all foreign policy priorities as part of the regular foreign policy consultation mechanism and the routine work of the respective foreign ministries.
With regard to the situation in the Balkan Peninsula, I would like to note that UN Security Council Resolution 1244 provides the only international legal basis for settling the status of Kosovo, which does not provide for the region’s separation and shall remain in force until the UN Security Council adopts another resolution on this issue. Respect for the sovereignty and inviolability of Serbia's borders is legally binding on all UN member states.
I will not reiterate our principled position on Kosovo, since I have just made it known.
Maria Zakharova: This issue is being discussed during high-level contacts in Moscow and Yerevan. We believe the details should not be disclosed. We expect the issue to be settled in an allied and mutually acceptable manner.
Maria Zakharova: My answer will consist of two parts. It is not important to listen to those who have never been an intermediary in the settlement process, never brought added value or received practical results. It is important to listen to Baku and Yerevan. This is key to the problem. It is necessary to listen to and hear both sides and act in their interests.
We understand that the two countries have different points of view, sometimes polar opposite. There have been periods of tension and escalation. At the same time, we note the parties’ ability to come to agreement. The most important thing is to create a favourable environment for that, a foundation for such agreements and mutual understanding, and to promote them, not the other way around.
Speaking of “the other way around.” These statements only confirm the fairness of the conclusions we drew regarding the EU’s destructive intentions and efforts in this region. Brussels is not interested in building trust and rapprochement between Azerbaijan and Armenia. With their clumsy, compulsive, unprofessional, ill-conceived and dishonest activities they are stirring up disputes between Baku and Yerevan. It cannot be concealed.
We were asked what we thought about the EU’s mediation attempts. We said that we shall know them by their fruits. Here are the fruits. It has begun. There’s nothing new. It isn’t the forgotten but the well-remembered history. They are doing it here as well. The West and the EU in particular do not have any examples of successful mediation, not only in complex and the most difficult conflicts, but in relatively ordinary situations.
They cannot even show reasonable professional ethics. So, there is no point in discussing the difficult old problem we are talking about now.
It is unfortunate that the EU does not pause to consider the unpredictable consequences for the peace and stability in the South Caucasus this irresponsible policy could have. Our advice is to refrain from such confrontational scenarios.
Let us remind you that it was Russia’s efforts that succeeded in putting an end to the armed conflicts between Azerbaijan and Armenia in the autumn of 2020 and September 2022. The complete implementation of the trilateral agreements between the leaders of Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia of November 9, 2020, January 11, 2021, November 26, 2021 and October 31, 2022 are the only way to normalise relations between Baku and Yerevan.
Maria Zakharova: Western pseudo-political scientists and people who call themselves politicians are such a nuisance with their endless passion for squabbles, intrigues, and incitement of conflicts. I have already commented on a similar topic. You have mentioned a different region, but I can repeat the same thing here.
They have spared no effort in slamming the Russian-Chinese summit, sticking labels, calling names, and throwing mud at the constructive talks that have just taken place in Moscow, a meeting that promoted not only the parties’ own interests, but also the stability, security and prosperity of the region and the whole world.
Russia and China are brought together by their coinciding approaches to a wide scope of issues and mutual respect for the other’s interests – not friendship against someone else. We have always emphasised and demonstrated this approach. You have noticed that Western “interpretists” (dedicated staff who “interpret” things) are trying to highlight a nascent military-political threat [to the West] (Russia and China). But then they switched to highlighting “gaps” in Russia and China’s policies and approaches, assuring everyone that the “threat” was not so threatening after all. First create a myth, and then start fighting it. They are doing this all the time. They have people promoting such obsessive conspiracy theories to deliver a different result to the public. Only they do not want to show their audience what really matters: Russia and China have never been friends against anyone.
Based on the proximity of their approaches to most of the processes taking place in the world, Moscow and Beijing are closely coordinating their actions on the world stage, jointly advocating the formation of a more open, democratic, fair and multicentric system of international relations. We oppose manifestations of hegemonism and restraint of the development of countries pursuing an independent foreign policy.
Although we do not have a military-political alliance, Russian-Chinese ties surpass that form of interstate interaction. Unlike the collective West, we don’t seek to form a confrontational bloc, and our cooperation isn’t directed against third countries.
The principles that underpin our relations are enshrined in the July 16, 2001 Treaty of Good-Neighbourliness, Friendship and Cooperation, which provides a framework for Russian-Chinese relations. It’s been over 20 years, two decades – more than enough time for the West to read this document and tell its audience what it is about. References to this document are constantly incorporated into joint statements and declarations. President of Russia Vladimir Putin and President of China Xi Jinping once again reaffirmed this fundamental framework during the recent talks in Moscow.
The consolidation of Russian-Iranian relations is not a move towards a coalition against someone else either. I consider it necessary to emphasise this once again in answering your question. These questions keep popping up because of fake publications, planted stories and attempts to manipulate the situation on the Russian-Iranian track. For us, the strengthening of bilateral relations is a natural process relying on long-standing historical ties and the geographical proximity of our states.
Unlike Westerners, we strive to build cooperation with external partners exclusively on the principles of equality and mutual consideration of interests, rather than to establish coalitions or exclusive clubs with an “anti-” prefix.
On the other hand, given the current geopolitical conditions, Moscow and Tehran are forced to take steps to protect the positive reserve of multifaceted cooperation accumulated over many years from the damaging effects of the illegal unilateral sanctions.
Maria Zakharova: We have noted that, in late March and early April 2023, the head of the Taiwan administration, Tsai Ing-wen, is to travel to Central America via the United States. According to the available information, there are plans to organise her meetings with high-ranking US politicians.
We see this as yet another provocation in the context of the US policy to comprehensively contain China. This policy runs counter to Washington’s obligations under joint Chinese-US communiques and is a crude violation of the One China principle.
We continue to emphasise our position, which I think is well-known. I will take advantage of your question and revisit it once again. We proceed the belief that there is only one China. The Government of the People’s Republic of China is the only legitimate government representing the whole of China, and Taiwan is an inalienable part of China.
We believe that relations between two sides of the Taiwan Strait are a purely domestic Chinese affair. China has the right to take action to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity in the context of the Taiwan issue.
At the same time, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that this is yet another example of a US provocation in global affairs. The United States knows no other method except endless provocations, instigations, efforts to exacerbate the international situation and to invent new pretexts for interfering in other countries’ domestic affairs. I can’t recall a single positive US experience in helping parties resolve complicated issues.
Maria Zakharova: I have seen these reports. There is nothing new here; we always said that this notorious European Peace Facility was engaged only in stirring bloodshed and taking it to a new level, its activities being totally at odds with its name and its declared objectives. We have repeatedly mentioned the fact that the conflict unleashed by the West in Ukraine is benefitting the NATO-centric community. We have also talked about the reason why NATO and the EU were dragging this conflict out.
Obviously, the key beneficiary of the Ukraine crisis is the United States, which is enriching its military corporations and boosting its military, financial, economic and political control over the European Union. In other words, this is done at the expense of the European states’ finances and security. After all, the American “island of stability” is located thousands of kilometres from Europe. Thereby Washington resolves several strategic internal and external problems at once. At its bidding, the European economy is being put on a war footing to encourage purchases of US weapons and defence products. Under the pretext of transatlantic solidarity, Washington is actually depriving the European Union of its political identity as well as of the right to an independent foreign policy in order to contain Russia, China and other countries with the help of its European proxies. They view our development as a deterrent to their own hegemony.
It is not surprising that the most rabid supporters of the Kiev regime in the EU are among those who do not hesitate to profit from the conflict in Ukraine and who monetise their involvement in it. For instance, Estonia handed over its outmoded Strela portable surface-to-air missile system to the Armed Forces of Ukraine, but demanded a compensation from the European Peace Facility as if for the new, more expensive Stinger systems. This is some appalling logic. These are today’s EU scammers.
I have given you just one example. But in fact, there are lots of them, including money syphoning, non-delivery of the promised weapons to the Kiev regime, and the like. Vladimir Zelensky himself mentioned this. The equipment supplied to the Kiev regime as high-quality units fail to meet the proper requirements.
This is being done under the cover of pompous speeches about the future of Ukraine. Allegedly, the purpose of all this is to benefit the citizens of Ukraine and bring them freedom and democracy but, in fact, it is a bloody corruption-ridden alliance between the West and the Kiev regime. As time goes on, we will see more related reports.
The US is already talking about internal investigations at home, in the EU and Ukraine, investigations into what is going on there in reality.
Maria Zakharova: Despite the fact that our draft resolution at the UN Security Council on the establishment of an independent international commission by the UN Secretary-General to investigate the circumstances of the explosions on the Nord Stream gas pipelines did not get enough votes, no one will allow this issue to fade away, be hushed up, pushed aside, or swept under the carpet.
During the UN Security Council meeting on March 27, which considered this document, a number of Member States from Asia, Africa and Latin America called on Germany, Denmark and Sweden to present to the council the results of their investigations as soon as possible. No one argued with the thesis on the need to bring to justice the perpetrators of this unprecedented act of sabotage, a terrorist attack that entailed severe environmental and economic consequences.
Until Berlin, Copenhagen and Stockholm are ready to fully cooperate in the investigation with the states directly affected, including Russia, we cannot talk about any transparency or openness. We must talk about the opposite: their desire to interfere with the investigation as much as possible.
We will continue to raise this issue. It is certainly inconvenient for the West. We will continue to return to it and return these countries and their regimes to it and demand reports on their national investigations. Avoiding the repetition of such attacks in the future and protecting the global energy infrastructure is possible only by establishing the truth and holding those behind this terrorist attack and those who carried it out accountable.
Question: Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich was reportedly detained today. The FSB accuses him of espionage. You have already written in your Telegram Channel that Evan Gershkovich’s affairs in Ekaterinburg have nothing to do with journalism. Why did you draw such a conclusion? He was accredited and worked in Russia for many years.
Maria Zakharova: Related statements have been made through our security services. As far as I know, the relevant information as to what this person was doing there should have been made available to the general public.
I would be happy to answer any questions on this subject. I have received a lot of enquiries on this since this morning. Many people said he was accredited, which means he is a journalist. Let us get to the bottom of what is really going on.
First of all, in order to work as a journalist in our country, a representative of the media has to obtain the appropriate journalist visa, for which he or she has to provide the documents. There is a certain list of documents for obtaining a Russian journalist visa.
Second, upon arriving in our country, one must obtain accreditation from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The foreign journalist would then have rights equal to a Russian one and would have the full opportunity to work as a journalist. Is this a guarantee that a person will not be engaged in some other business?
It is neither a guarantee nor a certainty. It is the journalist’s own statement of goals and intentions about his activities in our country. If a person starts engaging in other activities (we know of many examples: some start businesses, some start joint ventures, some do more serious things, including these kinds of activities), it is a violation of the declared status.
Alas, such things happened to Western (and not only Western) journalists. Relevant measures as well as decisions by the Russian courts have been taken against fairly well-known writers, when their activities did not tally with their declared status.
It is not the visa and accreditation that determine whether a person will comply with them or not. It is the person who confirms the type of activity and status declared for receiving the visa and accreditation, or who calls it into question and disproves it.
There are many cases where people, when applying for a visa, imply that they will be engaged in a completely different activity. This is called “going undercover.” Under the cover of a journalist visa and accreditation, this person, judging by the events, was engaged in completely different activities.
I have read numerous articles in the Western press. They write that he was accredited by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which means he is a journalist. No, he applied in this capacity. What happened in Yekaterinburg shows that he was not engaged in journalism.
The grievances presented today by our special services refer, not to his journalistic activities but to activities, which are unrelated to journalism. This is simple and obvious.
Question: Surely, before receiving accreditation, journalists go through some kind of check. Were there any claims against him before?
Maria Zakharova: People are checked when they receive a visa, as in any other country. An applicant submits documents within the established timeframe, which are then reviewed and verified. Then a visa is issued. Upon arrival in the country, a person receives accreditation as soon as possible. Documents arechecked after he or she applies for a journalist visa.
If you declare your intention to visit a country and receive a visa or simply cross the border under a visa-free regime, your documents are checked at customs, and you are asked questions. This is an integral part of the modern world. All countries do this. This is standard today.
He submitted his documents, based on which he was issued a visa. His documents were verified. But his activities (in Yekaterinburg) were at variance with his declared journalist status. His activity could not be called journalism. The Federal Security Service made charges in relation to these actions.
Question: I noticed that there are many posts on social media saying that this is the first criminal case against an accredited journalist since 1986. After this, foreign journalists cannot feel safe in Russia. I would like you to comment on this.
Maria Zakharova: I understand that a global PR campaign is about to begin. It arises from ignorance.
As I wrote and said earlier, there were many stories where journalists, either under the guise of a journalism certificate, or contrary to their declared status, were engaged in various types of activities. There was data collection, which was not and could not be considered journalism; it was clear that it was about sensitive matters related to the country’s security. There was also the opening and running of a large-scale business. So, there are a number of things. This is not just our opinion and view on this matter. There were criminal and administrative cases. Court decisions were issued, accreditation and visas were annulled, a person received a court order to leave the country and, by a court ruling, a person was banned from entering Russia. There were such cases. Some of them were painful. Including for the journalism community, which at first said that this was a “biased” attitude. And then they “forgot” this topic.
As for safety, it turns out to be quite “interesting.” All these journalists do not want to pay attention to the actual cases of the “safety” of journalists, do they? In Ukraine, journalists, including Western ones, have been killed, blown up and shot for many years. Why was the journalism community, including those accredited in Russia, regularly travelling to Ukraine and covering developments there, silent?
No one asks a question about the safety of journalists in the US, or the UK. None of them cares about the safety of Julian Assange. How much did they write about the tragedy that happened to Russian publicist, journalist, and active media figure Darya Dugina? Did they think about her much? This is all hypocrisy. On the one hand, it may be a contract, or an opportunity to “make some noise” in some way, or just a direct order to form a “propaganda team.”
If these people spoke out in defence of every journalist, then their current statements would be regarded as a real position and sincere concern for a colleague and journalism in general. But this is not the case. This is a selective approach, and it is not about facts, but about who is from what country and which media is represented. That’s all.
When Russian journalist Leonid Sviridov was harassed in Poland (an EU country, by the way) and accused almost of espionage, did anyone care? On the contrary, Western journalists supported the harassment. They said this person was allegedly an employee of some security service. But he never was. He fell victim to Western arbitrariness with regard to Russian journalists.
They, and those who work for the Russian media, are detained and incarcerated. No reaction. Where is the concern for safety? There is none. What is being done to Russian journalists in the Baltic states? Latvia, Lithuania – our journalists, compatriots working for Russian media – does anyone care? No! I am talking about those who are now showing “care.” Either a single standard (I am for this), a single attitude towards the profession, towards its representatives, then I will believe. But now, this is all absolute hypocrisy.
Question: Did the Russian Foreign Ministry contact the US Embassy in Moscow about the arrest because Evan Gershkovich is an American citizen? Have you maintained diplomatic contact in connection with his arrest?
Maria Zakharova: Ahead of this briefing, I had no information about any contact. We will clarify this issue. You and I have been talking for about two hours. Maybe, something has changed, and certain contacts have taken place.
Does a person’s affiliation with any specific career imply an automatic indulgence when a crime is committed? I have never heard or seen anything like this. I know that there is diplomatic immunity, and I know how it works. A person may have this security, but I know nothing about other careers. The legal mechanisms take effect when someone violates the law. Suspects’ actions are thwarted, and they are brought to account. To the best of my knowledge, this is standard practice all over the world.
I have already said everything about the response of the professional community. People may respond in support and defence of someone; however, this should be a consolidated response. It should not hinge on segregation or a selective approach. Otherwise, this borders on xenophobia.
I understand and believe in a consistent response, and I support this. I have repeatedly confirmed this. However, we are seeing a selective approach here, an effort to dissociate themselves from the problems of journalists in other countries, and we see that they are involved in this persecution. Russian correspondents have faced many difficulties in Germany and France. No one there supported them. They have also faced many problems in the United States. All this is seen as normal behaviour because these people are Russian journalists and citizens. This is unacceptable.
Question: Washington said on March 29 that Russia had refused to inform the United States about its nuclear arms under the START-3 Treaty. In response, the US noted that it would also stop exchanging information on nuclear arms until Moscow changed its position. Does this mean that the START-3 Treaty is no longer current? Is Russia expecting a new arms race with the United States, and is Russia prepared for it?
Maria Zakharova: In the context of implementing the START-3 Treaty and its future prospects, reports that the sides have failed to exchange quantitative data on their strategic offensive arms over a six-month period contain nothing new. It is common knowledge that, in the context of new circumstances that have arisen through the fault of Washington, Russia suspended the implementation of the START-3 Treaty. This also includes a decision to stop exchanging information under the treaty. Washington’s refusal to provide this data highlights a US decision that does not influence our decisions in any way.
Regarding an arms race, I would like to note that the officially stated US policy has been aiming to achieve decisive military superiority for some time. But at the same time, Washington easily and unhesitatingly discards contractual frameworks that hamper the implementation of their ambitions in any way. We have many examples of this. Speaking of the military-technical sphere, we invariably assume that it is important to organically combine criteria of strict sufficiency, defensive advisability and economic substantiation.
Question: The Biden administration has convened the leaders from over 100 countries for the second Summit for Democracy. This time it is attended by a large number of countries from Asia, Africa and Latin America. Pakistan declined the invitation, and Türkiye and Hungary were not invited this time, either. Meanwhile, on March 27, the American think tank Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft noted in its article that the summit is unlikely to lead to anything useful, “The US would be better served if our leaders devoted their attention to shoring up and repairing our own dilapidated political system.” What do you think are the goals of this summit? Will the United States be able to reach its goals?
Maria Zakharova: We have repeatedly conveyed our negative attitude towards this toxic initiative advanced by the Biden administration. Anyone who would like to learn more about Russia’s position on this issue should check out our comment dated March 28 and Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev’s recent interview with Rossiyskaya Gazeta.
The gathering orchestrated by the Americans ends today. What we have seen so far leaves an impression of a depressing, uptight and lifeless bureaucratic function. It is artificial through and through. Our assessments to the effect that the main goal of the “summit” was to draw dividing lines, to artificially consolidate the Western community in order to oppose the “autocratic regimes,” to bring onboard more supporters, if any, and to come up with another division of the world into “right” and “wrong” have been corroborated. There was once an axis of evil. Then there were different sides of history, right and wrong. Now we are seeing groupings in the form of “right democracies” which also have their own divisions and “autocratic regimes.” This is something new, a new stratagem.
Approximately once every five years, a new concept is born in the United States. It’s not an idea, not a philosophy, but a meme that they are trying to float. It has been made part of the political lingo, but is already becoming outworn. I am talking about the rules-based world order. Recently US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said these rules were indeed international law. See how this narrative has begun to change. This is the same meme, the same attempt to force an ideology that has nothing to build upon.
Nothing will change if the US does not hold this summit next year. Even if they do, nothing will change, either. This is a perfunctory event, which will be followed by endless discussions in the media, published reports, infographics, photos and videos. Not a single thing will change as a result in the world. The problem of overcoming diseases will not go away. There will be no more food in the countries that need it. Hot conflicts around the world will not end and will not become more predictable. Overall, people will be no better or worse. Nothing will change.
This is a story about a push to take credit for at least something and to consolidate things on a basis that does not have the word “anti” in it, because everyone is tired of endless attempts to use NATO to promote their dominance within the rules-based world order. No one can take it in any longer. Everyone is tired. This is not an achievement, there are only anti-achievements. This is an attempt to somehow change the course of the political discussion. If you just talk, make some noise and come up with a new theoretical toy to discuss at political science forums, then, probably, we should agree that they are running another PR campaign. If we talk about reality, I have already covered that. It has nothing to do with building or reflecting reality. Catchy slogans about protecting and promoting democracy are being used. Everyone is well aware that financial promises, blackmail and diktat are behind the scenes. This is what the Americans are good at, perhaps better than anyone else.
As far as we can tell, it is not working out too well this time, because the idea was a nonstarter. If someone on Biden’s team were to face the truth, they would have to admit that these kinds of divisive initiatives are doomed from the get-go in the era of multipolarity that we are living in.
The United States remains unprepared to working with multipolarity as an ideologeme. The world at large has recognised that the world is multipolar and polycentric. Earlier, the West did not know these centres existed, but they are here today. But in order to say this, Washington either needs to rein in its arrogance, or come up with a stratagem about who they are in the multipolar world. If they were to say they are the main centre of multipolarity that would be a ridiculous statement. Therefore, a new lay of the land and a new division of the world are being invented, in which they appear to be capable of becoming leaders for one portion of the world and include the second portion into other charts. Clearly, the hegemony of one centre is no longer possible either in theory or in practice. I would describe this as a second useless pseudo-summit. If they continue down that path, the result will be the same: nil.
Gatherings like this clearly show that the era of Western dominance is coming to an end. It is being replaced by a more just world order based on sovereign equality of states, the right to self-determination and independent choice of the path to follow as a nation. The “summits for democracy” will sink into oblivion along with “the rules-based order” just like the civil forums that roared across the world at some point. I remember the civil summits and forums for civil liberties held in central Paris to discuss freedom of the media. Look at the freedom of the media in the EU now. Where did all the Paris summit speakers from the United States, the United Kingdom and so on go? They have closed down so many accounts and media outlets in the two years that have elapsed since they took part in those events. Many journalists, bloggers and media outlets have been banned or cut out from online space. Now they are persecuting platforms. Remember, a few years ago, Twitter was the guru in promoting everything that is beautiful, liberal and democratic. It has now become an outcast in many countries. Everyone is asking it to leave. Until recently, they enjoyed TikTok and dressed it up as “new media,” did broadcasts and recorded videos from the forums about freedom and democracy. Today, they demand that their officials who are behind these forums do not participate, watch or register, in particular, with the TikTok platform. Time will pass and nothing will be left of this summit but a bitter smile.
Maria Zakharova: We have heard and read about these plans to create a united air defence system according to NATO standards in these northern European countries and further plans to incorporate it into NATO’s military capabilities.
Russia has repeatedly said that with Finland and Sweden joining NATO, they will inevitably lose their foreign policy sovereignty, and in many respects domestic sovereignty too, given the way things are done in NATO. The same has already happened in Denmark and Norway. It is quite obvious that the Finnish and Swedish air forces and air defence, as well as their armed forces as a whole, will become an integral part of the bloc's military potential after Finland and Sweden join NATO and will be used in its interests with all the ensuing consequences. They will not be controlled by their governments and their people anymore.
This is another step towards the militarisation of Northern Europe and the destruction of the remnants of stability, security and the systems that guarantee them. We have seen how the region has been demonstrating over the years that it can be a zone of stability, and how this zone has been shaken, loosened and destroyed. These Nordic countries and NATO should be aware that such actions will result in an escalation in military-political tension in this region, in Europe and the world.
If we talk about our traditional approach, then I will say it again: any hostile steps against our country will not go unanswered.
Maria Zakharova: None.
Maria Zakharova: I can say that preparations for such a meeting are underway. As soon as they are completed, we will definitely share all the logistical details with you.
Question: Ukrainian residents filed a petition demanding to ban the use of munitions with depleted uranium, because they trail along radioactive dust and contaminate the soil. In your opinion, will Vladimir Zelensky take into consideration the apprehensions of his country’s citizens or will he continue the war against Russia to the last Ukrainian?
Maria Zakharova: I answered this question in my opening remarks. I said that far from all petitions, even those signed by the required 25,000 petitioners, were given the green light. Many of them were scrapped despite their importance. I even cited some examples.
Vladimir Zelensky is not an independent player. He is part of the “scheme of things.” He will do whatever the UK says about the DU shells. His inner circle is teeming with British “advisers” and “instructors,” who actually run the show. London is one of the sources of funding. The political, military-political and military support is a major segment of this scheme. They will count how much in terms of financial bonuses they are likely to get after supplying the munitions and the Ukrainians will do whatever they order them to.
No one in the West or Bankovaya Street [in Kiev] is thinking about the health, fate and life of Ukrainian citizens or people in the territories where DU munitions could be used. A case in point is the entire previous history. Neither the Kiev regime nor its Western patrons are concerned with the human factor and the health of individuals or society as a whole. It is not their history. Neither are they thinking about the much discussed food security. Today, we gave you numerous examples. Here is another one related to depleted uranium munitions. I don’t want to divide countries on any principle. I simply want to draw your attention to the fact that Ukraine is an agricultural country. And this has always been the case. It accounted for (or reserved) a considerable share of the world economy precisely as an agricultural supplier.
The following question is so obvious that it does not need to be answered. What agricultural products will Ukraine (whether under the present regime or its successors) supply to the world markets for decades if DU is used in its territory? Or is it part of the West’s cynical plan to kill Ukraine? At first, they allowed a number of countries and regimes, specifically Poland, to haul away fertile soils from Ukraine, and now they will codify what they really feel towards Ukraine (don’t be misled by their declarations!) with depleted Uranium 238.
Maria Zakharova: We had absolutely no clue about many of the things that they were doing in Ukraine. Do you remember reports on the network of biolabs whose goals and plans were uncovered only after the start of the special military operation? Around 30 laboratories were operating under the guidance of and sponsored by the Pentagon, conducting experiments with the use of everything they could lay their hands on. This was done in secret, covertly, and not in the interests of the Ukrainian people. The United States initially refuted this; then they admitted to being involved but later denied their involvement once again. But facts are facts. Our colleagues at the Russian Ministry of Defence hold regular briefings, mentioning this biological activity and presenting actual facts. This has all been revealed. Documents have been found and data has been confirmed. What else could be uncovered? You can make as many wild guesses as you like. Nothing can be ruled out. We realise this now.
Question: Vladimir Zelensky is trying to frighten the entire world by saying Russia will attack European countries if Ukraine falls. Recently, Czech General Jiri Sedivy expressed confidence that there will be no world war if Ukraine loses. What do you think are the prospects as seen by the Russian Foreign Ministry?
Maria Zakharova: If this was only about Russia and Ukraine, we could speculate about what could happen if Ukraine were defeated. But this is much bigger and more complicated.
The West is waging a war against our country through a proxy conflict in Ukraine. Previously, it had pursued a policy of containing Russia taking every effort to do us harm through economic, political and humanitarian measures. Then they proceeded to the active stage. In December 2021, the Summit for Democracy announced 2022 as the Year of Action. It was not something we came up with – no, they announced it themselves. Now we can see these actions for what they are.
This is not so much about Ukraine, which is one of the first and biggest victims of this terrible criminal logic of Washington and London.
The European Union countries are its second victim; they experienced all the experiments made by their “big brothers”. This is not about the Kiev regime opposing someone or something; it is simply being used. Vladimir Zelensky cannot admit that he is a tool. He considers himself to be a personality; they were making him believe that for many years. Every month he is shown a new magazine cover, a new film, a new video, a newspaper, an article, a platform, a song contest, and award ceremonies where he will speak.
Question: Sounds like he is carrying on with his acting career...
Maria Zakharova: Exactly. That’s him being convinced that he is a strong personality – but he is actually a dirty and bloody tool in the hands of those who think in appalling terms and conduct experiments on our planet.
Maria Zakharova: The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol enshrine the principle of non-refoulement as basic and fundamental to their international protection. The practice in the European Union is the opposite.
In this connection, we share our concern about cases of the forcible expulsion of asylum seekers across European Union borders. The deaths of migrants on their way to Europe in the Mediterranean Sea are particularly worrying and disturbing. We have been seeing this for many years. We have seen how the EU itself conceals facts on this matter. It is only through investigations by supranational control bodies that the truth and the true facts are revealed. Many things are still not revealed. According to the International Organisation for Migration, 2,400 people died or went missing on the Mediterranean route in 2022 alone. In one year and on one route alone.
I would like to repeat that there is nothing new and surprising for us here. The European Union has once again shown itself to be absolutely two-faced. They criticise other countries for human rights violations while brutally cracking down on migrants at their borders. This is not an accident, not a mistake, not a coincidence, but a deliberate policy of killing people.
Here are some examples. In 2021, the EU violated international legal obligations, regulations on the protection of migrants as well as domestic legislation and moral principles with its inhumane treatment of people who tried to cross the border from Belarus into Poland and Lithuania. Remember, gas was sprayed in the direction of these people, just to prevent them from crossing the border. Here's more. There are facts in the media and the internet about “pushing” migrants into the Mediterranean Sea, which resulted in their deaths. There are a huge number of such examples.
According to the statistics given by the EU officials themselves, 13 percent of the 12,000 km of the EU's external borders have already been fenced. Billions are allocated for this. The construction of a wall between Bulgaria and Turkey is being discussed. Remember the ultimatums of the Turkish side, which was denied the right to let migrants transit through its territory? Remember Ankara's difficult negotiations with the European Union? The EU even forgot about the “green agenda” by building fences on the border with Belarus and artificially dividing the Belovezhskaya Pushcha. What does it mean? It is not just cutting down trees, but a much scarier story. It is disruption of the ecosystem. There have been statements by scientists, environmentalists about this. Who is interested in this in the EU?
Maria Zakharova: The concerned Russian and Pakistani companies are discussing the possibility of Russian oil deliveries to Pakistan. They have tentatively coordinated prices and are discussing the delivery of a pilot batch of oil with a view to subsequently increasing its volume. We hope to settle all the technical issues soon and to launch a stable export of fuel to your country.
For details about this deal, you can file a request with the Russian Energy Ministry or send any additional questions you have to it via us.
Question: The European Commission has excluded Pakistan from the list of high-risk third countries that can endanger the EU’s financial system. Could you comment on this decision?
Maria Zakharova: It is a matter of relations between Pakistan and the European Union. I would rather leave it for them to decide and for the sides’ representatives to comment on.
Maria Zakharova: It is for Iceland to decide whether it is satisfied with the level of international debate set by its foreign minister. The decision rests with the people and authorities of Iceland.
What standards of debate do they want? Will they stoop lower still? I would like to draw your attention to a comment issued by the Russian Embassy in Iceland, which mentioned the Icelandic diplomats’ inability to pursue a reasonable policy. As for commenting on the cultural and educational standards or the level of cultural dysfunction of a member of Iceland’s government, it is not my purview.
But everything is clear without any scrutiny. It is for Iceland to decide if this suits it.
Question: Not all Icelanders have this cultural level and not everyone has this upbringing. Excuse me. I'm not asking on my own behalf, but on hers.
Maria Zakharova: Unfortunately, we live in a world where good news doesn’t sell well. I'm sure there are a lot of interesting things going on in Iceland. There are probably a lot of interesting ideas, initiatives, proposals every day, people read poems, sing songs (I'm sure good, interesting, artistic ones). Tell me something from this sphere.
Let's rejoice in the fact that there are people of high culture in Iceland. Why pay attention to those who are incapable of expressing themselves in any way other than rudeness.
Let's not be hypocritical. We are all not without human frailties. There is a time and a place for everything. Especially when you have an international discussion on difficult topics related to foreign policy, international relations. There are many words to describe it all, even when you want to do it in a concentrated form. There are always a couple of good phrases to avoid descending to this level of polemics. Perhaps one simply has such an outlook. I don't want to think of Iceland looking at such examples. I believe there are better examples out there.
Maria Zakharova: Firstly, this is a question either for Beijing or for the people capable of transcribing Zelensky's “condition.” Secondly, China itself announced its own peacekeeping capabilities and mediation efforts by publishing a relevant initiative (it can be variously called, for example, a “peace plan”).
There was hysteria and screaming in the western media that anything was possible but peace. They yelled that it was not the “right time” and that war was needed, more fighting.
That is the answer to your question. Nobody doubts that Beijing and Moscow hold firm to international law, respect the UN Charter and treat peace and security accordingly. They have repeatedly shown themselves to be moderators, mediators, reliable friends and partners who have helped resolve difficult situations. Beijing has demonstrated its goodwill and willingness to mediate.
Russia expressed thanks and once again noted this attitude of Beijing. The West began to insult, denigrate, ridicule the Chinese initiative, and behave inappropriately.
The way this whole story unfolded provides a direct explanation of this Western attitude.
Maria Zakharova: First, the Foreign Ministry of Russia is not a body authorised to block web resources. There are relevant decision-making authorities. A mechanism for this has been created. I mean decisions by the judicial authority and actions by the executive authorities. The legislature is also active in this regard.
Second, the Foreign Ministry of Russia provides political assessments of web content and the activities of digital platforms and video hosting. It also analyses trends in the international media sphere, their influence and whether they are used for constructive purposes or otherwise.
Third, we proceed from the premise that it is necessary to carry out what has been agreed on. There are domestic laws (including US acts) that ban censorship, promote diffusion of information, and proclaim freedom of expression. The United States has international commitments (you mentioned YouTube, which is a US platform) within the framework of the OSCE and the UN, which reaffirms the above parameters of information activity. The United States has signed them as a state.
In recent years, many US digital platforms have shown a commitment to freedom of expression at home. But as international operators they deny people in foreign countries and local journalists the opportunity to freely distribute data and information products. This is a clear contradiction.
The main contradiction regards the obligations the United States has assumed as a state, which should apply to the activities of its private operators. Yet, what began later could not even be described as violations. It was ethnic, political and ideological segregation based on belonging to a certain country. This is over the line. The number of violations committed by the US and its private operators is off the scale.
YouTube is a case in point. They practice segregation based on political or ethnic motives, content, channels, authors, etc. Occasionally the platform deletes entire archives owned by a channel, a journalist or an association. Unmotivated blockings also occur. They send warnings and delete even our weekly briefings.
This suggests the question on how to further behave in the information sphere. We were (and are) active as an executive body in tandem with the legislators (the Federation Council and the State Duma), and reacted by sending the relevant content to international organisations, including the UN. We attempted to formalise this correctly at the legislative level.
But this does not solve the problem. The United States is unlikely to restrain itself by the national laws of other countries, even though it operates there through the medium of its private companies. The US is even less willing to restrain itself by international standards because of its self-styled “exceptionalism.” Accordingly, international law is the first thing the US takes exception to.
We see an absolutely apocalyptic trend that involves savage, dirty, horrible and destructive intrigues around American digital platforms inside the United States itself. The situation with Twitter is one of the manifestations of these dirty internal struggles. Now it is a media market leader, then a rogue… The same is happening with TikTok and a number of other platforms.
As an agency representing this country, we favour developing general rules for digital platforms and restricting the monopoly of these digital giants. If these monopolies must regulate their operations through domestic laws (the US and Europe have strong anti-monopoly laws), why do they think it possible to act without restraint as monopolies or with the help of digital giants on a global scale?
The first solution is to develop standards that impose restraints on the monopolies based on the existing US-signed provisions implying unlimited access to information, freedom of expression, and so on.
The second solution is developing our own national media that can functionally deliver on the same goals. I’m talking about our own video platforms. This is a separate story. We do need platforms protected from the point of view of information security and sovereignty in terms of obeying Russian laws. They should make it possible to archive content and freely diffuse current information on easily understood grounds.
Today, we can’t even understand what requirements these various US hosting sites or platforms put on content. Instead of explaining what precisely violates community regulations, they say, “You are in violation and are banned.”
Some people in a country that sympathises with their Western liberal dictators told us a fantastic story. I never knew this was technically feasible. A hosting platform can moderate content at its own decision, which means that it can cut sections from a video that it deems “unnecessary,” that violates its rules, or is irrelevant.
It is within their power to ban content, restrict distribution (promote or withdraw from certain blocks), apply markings, send warnings, and the like. But I never knew that a platform could delete a section from a video without asking the rights holder or the channel for permission. I heard this from people whom I regard as our opponents. Even they were lamenting and asking how this could be. It turns out that even this is possible.
Where are the guarantees that this system will not start rewriting content, either maliciously or deliberately or because of an AI setting failure, or that it will not use neural networks to build up or insert elements of fake misinformation in your content?
In this connection, we are developing and promoting as fast as we possibly can our own digital platforms and encouraging Russian information, cinema, video and musical industry producers as well as government agencies to participate in these platforms.
We were one of the first agencies to access RuTube. We work with them, and we are in contact with them. And we will continue to do this.
Дополнительные материалы
-
Видео
-
Фото
-
Скачать файл
en.vtt
