Briefing with Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, October 4, 2023
- Sergey Lavrov’s participation in CIS Foreign Ministers Council Meeting
- Ukraine update
- Presidential Executive Order on visa-free travel for Ukrainian citizens
- 82nd anniversary of the Baby Yar tragedy
- Nazi monuments and campaigning in the United States and Canada
- Registry of Soviet memorials demolished in unfriendly countries
- Decision by IPC General Assembly to partially suspend NPC Russia
- EU ban on cars with Russian licence plates
- Lodging a protest with the Japanese Embassy in Russia
- Results of the Fifth International Conference on Chemicals Management
- The 7th International Film Festival “Eurasian Bridge”
- The 80th anniversary of diplomatic relations between
- The 217th session of the UNESCO Executive Board
- CSTO Founding Day
- October 9 marks 80 years since Soviet troops defeated the Nazis in the
- 1653 Zemsky Sobor
- Presentation of the Sirius Federal Territory
- Mentors' Neighbourhood mural art festival in Tambov
- Kosovo update
- Accusations against the Serbian Orthodox Church
- EU’s involvement in settling the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict
- Russia-EU-US consultations on Nagorno-Karabakh
- Blocking Russian TV networks in Armenia
- Expulsions of diplomats
- Statements by White House press secretary
- Water release from Fukushima 1
- IAEA experts at the Zaporozhye NPP
- Russia-Armenia relations
- Russia’s participation in the APEC meeting in San Francisco
- Visa-free travel for Russian nationals to Latin America and the Caribbean
- Meeting between heads of Azerbaijan and Armenia in Granada
- Accountability of senior Ukrainian military commanders for perpetrating terrorist attacks
- Deployment of a Russian peacekeeping force in Nagorno-Karabakh
- Developing transport infrastructure in the South Caucasus
- Russia’s military base in Armenia
- Statements by Foreign Minister of France
- Humanitarian crisis in Nagorno-Karabakh
- Russian peacekeeping force’s role in Nagorno-Karabakh
- Military presence of the United States on German territory
- New citizenship law of the Russian Federation
Sergey Lavrov’s participation in CIS Foreign Ministers Council Meeting
On October 12, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will take part in a regular meeting of the CIS Foreign Ministers Council in Bishkek, [Kyrgyzstan]. The Kyrgyz Republic holds the chairmanship of the CIS throughout 2023.
The foreign ministers will exchange opinions on topical international and regional issues. They will discuss prospects for expanding diverse intra-CIS cooperation, including in the context of Russia’s upcoming chairmanship of the CIS from January 1, 2024.
In an effort to strengthen foreign policy coordination, the ministers will approve draft joint statements on a number of important international issues. On October 13, 2023, the documents will be submitted to the leaders of CIS countries for examination. Additionally, the ministers will approve a plan for consultations between national foreign ministries in 2024.
It is expected that the ministers will focus on improving cooperation in law enforcement, and in cultural and humanitarian spheres, as well as on expanding CIS international ties.
CIS countries have declared 2023 as the Year of the Russian Language as a Language of Interethnic Communication. In this context, the ministers will adopt decisions aimed at popularising the Russian language in the CIS and the world.
The Kiev regime continues to cold-bloodedly shell civilians, cities and villages. Ukrainian fighters have no qualms about using Western heavy weaponry, cluster bombs and attack drones against civilians.
Their cynical actions result not only in the death of innocent people but also in the destruction of civilian infrastructure, including residential buildings, schools, hospitals and kindergartens. On October 1, 2023, Ukrainians shelled the central market area in Shebekino, Belgorod Region, wounding three people and damaging the facades of shopping units, local garages and three cars. On the night of October 2, 2023, they opened fire at the residential districts of Novaya Kakhovka, killing one person.
The neo-Nazis often attack religious sites. On September 30, 2023, Ukrainian forces attacked the St Nicholas Monastery in the Donetsk People’s Republic, wounding two people.
The Russian law enforcement authorities register the crimes of the Kiev regime every day. The courts of the Russian Federation, using evidence collected by the Investigative Committee of Russia, continue to pass sentences on Ukrainian fighters found guilty of serious crimes against civilians.
Last week, D. Skorlupov and Artyom Pukhalsky were sentenced to 28 years and 19 years in a maximum-security facility, respectively, for killing civilians and shelling residential districts in the Donetsk People’s Republic in the spring of 2022. Eduard Verbansky, a member of the neo-Nazi Azov organisation, has been sentenced to 22 years in prison for mortar attacks on the residential districts of Mariupol in March 2022.
Ukrainian serviceman Alexey Lozovik has been given a 28-year sentence for killing a wounded prisoner of the Donetsk armed forces in Mariupol in March 2022. Three other neo-Nazis – Vladislav Bondar, Dmitry Ivashchenko and Sergey Yaremkevich – will spend 20 years in prison each for targeting civilian vehicles in Mariupol in the spring of 2022.
Each crime of the Kiev regime, no matter who committed it personally, will be investigated and the culprits will be severely punished.
The other day, the Investigative Committee of Russia reported on the completion of the investigation into the case of Verkhovna Rada Deputy Vladimir Parasyuk, who illegally entered the premises of the Russian Consulate General in Lvov in March 2016, during an action staged by radical organisations, tore the Russian flag from the flagpole, took it out to the protesters and trampled on it. He also called on the rally participants to commit criminal acts against the Russian diplomatic mission and its staff. The criminal case of Vladimir Parasyuk is ready for submission to the court. Parasyuk has been placed on the international wanted list.
In addition, the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation brought terrorism charges in absentia against the head of Ukraine’s Main Intelligence Directorate, Kirill Budanov, Air Force Commander Nikolay Oleshchuk, Commander of the Ukrainian Navy Alexey Neizhpapa, and Commander of the 383rd Separate UAV Regiment of the Ukrainian Air Force Sergey Budenyuk. They are to be put on the wanted list for committing UAV attacks on Russian territory.
On October 2, EU foreign ministers met in Kiev. The informal meeting was chaired by EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell (they had better change that to Insecurity Policy). According to Borrell, the idea of their get-together was to “brainstorm” (I would rather say “storming the EU’s brain”) amid the unclear prospects for further financing the Kiev regime, something the Europeans promised to continue doing, if only in words. It is noteworthy that the foreign ministers of Hungary and Poland never showed up in the Ukrainian capital for various reasons. Both Budapest and Warsaw have a lot of complaints about Vladimir Zelensky's policies.
Apparently, this attempt to “storm the EU’s brain” did not lead to any significant results. The European diplomats failed to reach agreement on the next allocation of military aid to Ukraine in the amount of 5 billion euros in 2024; the new plan is to agree on the amount by the end of the year. But let’s be honest; this is not really 5-billion-euros in assistance for Ukraine; it is the West giving money to the Kiev regime to murder Ukrainian citizens. Was this the reason the European ministers failed to reach an agreement on the amount to be provided? Is this why Washington has left its Kiev puppet without funding, even if for a short time, only 45 days? Many political scientists answer in the affirmative. The US Congress adopted a short-term spending bill on September 30, which does not include a cent for Ukraine. This seriously alarmed Brussels. Josep Borrell has already promised that the European Union will ask the Biden administration not to cut funding for Ukraine. He should have phrased the request more accurately. This is not funding for Ukraine – this is financing the massacre that the Kiev regime is waging with Western money.
We have repeatedly said that the EU has long lost its independence, autonomy and sovereignty. Clearly, the people living in the European Union don’t have a say even in their own countries, because not everyone, even in the EU, wants to continue to blindly spend money on the maintenance of a Kiev junta mired in corruption, especially given that, despite the efforts of its Western sponsors, the Ukrainian budget deficit is growing rapidly.
The Collective West will not renounce its objective to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia, as they formulate it. As stated by Chair of the Defence Committee Marie-Agnes Stark-Zimmermann, speakers in the German Bundestag are urging the government to send Taurus cruise missiles to Kiev as soon as possible. She stressed that, in her opinion, potential Ukrainian Taurus attacks on Russian territory were justified.
This Russophobic and revenge-seeking statement makes it clear that Berlin is still unaware of what their thoughtless rushing of weapons to the criminal Kiev regime can lead to. In addition, the German government, in a recent reaction to the opposition party’s request to comment in public on the WWII activities of the Waffen-SS Division “Galicia” manned by Ukrainian OUN-UPA militants, declared that they were not prepared to describe the Bandera supporters as anti-Semites, and generally, Nazis.
I have this question for Ms Marie-Agnes Stark-Zimmermann: What is your personal attitude towards the Waffen-SS Division “Galicia”? It is simple to answer this uncomplicated question. All of us will then understand why she advocates the continuation of weapon supplies to the Kiev regime and thinks it justified that the Ukrainian armed forces will fire German missiles at Russia’s territory. Well? It’s easy to answer the question about your personal attitude towards the Waffen-SS Division “Galicia” and the OUN-UPA as a whole, isn’t it?
What is the meaning of what I have presented as direct quotes and facts? This means that German leadership seems to have forgotten the lessons of history, although one would think they must remember them better than anyone else and be more sensitive to and intolerant of any manifestation of that misanthropic ideology, no matter where it surfaces. But we see the opposite. Berlin is denying the generally recognised fact that Ukrainian nationalists cooperated with the Third Reich. Hence the legitimate conclusion: the rehabilitation of Nazism is in full swing in the Federal Republic of Germany.
There are even more cynical people - the Anglo-Saxons. They are ready to exterminate all Ukrainians to achieve their goals, to rehabilitate anything: Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists - Ukrainian Insurgent Army and SS-Division "Galicia." Soon it will come directly to the "heroes" of the Third Reich. Former UK Secretary of State for Defence Ben Wallace has complained that the average age of Ukrainian soldiers is 40 years old and urged Vladimr Zelensky to be more active in mobilising the young. Does this remind you of anything? It reminds me the story of the Hitler Youth. London does not care about the future of Ukraine. After all, what is at stake is the realisation of its cherished dream - this time, to inflict a "strategic defeat" on Russia, using someone else’s hands. And for this purpose it is necessary to throw Ukrainians into battle, without considering losses, down to the last inhabitant of this once populous republic. If the goal is not achieved this way, the British do not rule out the transfer of their regular military units to Ukraine. I'm not making this up now. We are talking about the fact that Grant Shapps, the current Secretary of State for Defence, has suggested such a scenario. That's the kind of people they appoint. It remains a big mystery how this man got into this position, given his previous record. Then either he gave it some thought, or someone did it for him, and hastened to deny his own words. We know, don't we, that the language of British defence ministers often reflects what is on the minds of many in the British government.
Against this background, the New York Times reported on September 29 that the Pentagon hospital in Landstuhl, Germany, had begun accepting wounded American mercenaries. According to the newspaper, 14 US citizens who fought on the side of the Ukrainian armed forces are currently being treated there. Is it only The New York Times that has unearthed this information? What does the official Pentagon or the US State Department say? They care about everything that happens in the world and in the most remote regions of our planet. We're talking about American citizens. Maybe we will finally see an official statement from the State Department about what concerns them directly?
We see how the West inadequately formulates its policy with regard to world events, on what Russophobic foundations it is built, how they seek to "help" Ukraine, but in fact kill it. We see that every day the relevance of all those goals and tasks that formed the basis of the special military operation is being confirmed.
Presidential Executive Order on visa-free travel for Ukrainian citizens
On September 29, the President of Russia signed Executive Order On Regulating the Entry to and the Exit from the Russian Federation for the citizens of Ukraine.
As you know, in the summer of 2022 summer, the Kiev regime decided to introduce a visa regime for Russian citizens, unilaterally terminating the bilateral intergovernmental agreement on visa-free travel. Prior to this, there had never been visa-based travel between Russia and Ukraine. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, our citizens moved freely between the two countries. Kiev's decision to dismantle this practice was aimed at making people-to-people contacts as difficult as possible.
Russia has repeatedly stated that it would not follow the same path and resort to the Kiev regime’s practice of retaliating against ordinary people who are interested in maintaining family and friendship ties. It is in line with this humane thinking that Russia decided to keep travel visa-free for the citizens of Ukraine.
The new Presidential Executive Order, adopted following thorough interdepartmental consultations, legally enshrined the former procedure even though the agreement had been terminated by the Kiev regime. Ukrainians can continue to enter Russia without visas. Moreover, they can use their internal passports or other documents, even if they have expired.
The possibility of coming to and staying in Russia is critically important for numerous Ukrainian refugees, residents of our new regions who have not yet obtained Russian passports, as well as Russian citizens who have family and friends in Ukraine.
82nd anniversary of the Baby Yar tragedy
Last week marked the 82nd anniversary of the Baby Yar tragedy. The Nazi invaders, aided by militants from the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists, killed more than 30,000 Jews, or about 20 percent of Kiev’s Jewish population in just two days, September 29 and 30, 1941.
That massacre was only the beginning, a bloody prologue that preceded more mass executions of the elderly, women, children, Soviet POWs and underground fighters regardless of their ethnic background. From 1941 to 1943, more than 100,000 people were executed, and Baby Yar became a multinational mass grave and an ominous symbol of the inhuman cruelty of the Nazis.
This year, the President of Ukraine said at a Baby Yar commemorative event in Kiev on September 29 that it was very important to always remember history. That statement was as correct as a broken mechanical clock that shows the right time twice a day. One cannot disagree with this. The only problem is that the clock is broken. Vladimir Zelensky, who said this, is stubbornly trying to forget everything connected with his nation’s past, the past of the people he identifies with, and even his own family. On September 22, a video of Zelensky applauding Waffen SS Galicia veteran Yaroslav Hunka in the Canadian parliament went viral online; it was as if he forgot for a second that his own grandfather fought in the ranks of the Red Army during the Great Patriotic War. He actually fought against such traitors and collaborators as Hunka. Or was it not just for a second? Judging by all the steps the Kiev regime has been taken, it was not a momentary lapse. It is persistent amnesia.
Sadly, this is not at all surprising. The glorification of Nazi and Bandera thugs has long been commonplace in Ukraine, underlying the country’s state policy under the Kiev regime. This government is trying to erase from people's memory the heroism of the Red Army soldiers, their decisive contribution to the victory over Nazism. At the same time, Hitler's henchmen are being whitewashed, their role in the deaths among civilians not only hushed up, but purposefully distorted. Festive processions are held in their honour; streets and stadiums are renamed, and monuments erected. What is this? Just historical amnesia? No. I think that this is not a particular person’s problem (even if that person is fully controlled from the outside), but a betrayal of the ancestral memory and a desecration of the history of his own people and country.
Nazi monuments and campaigning in the United States and Canada
The scandal caused by the warm reception given to an SS Galicia division veteran at the Canadian parliament continues unabated. However, besides all those who were able to discern the neo-Nazi substance of the Anglo-Saxon elites in this, there are others seeking to ride this wave. There are also those seeking to exploit this hot topic to declare their allegiance to the ideals of the collaborationist units which had to be sent to the ash-heap of history a long time ago. You may say that this impossible.
Hasn’t Prime Minister of Canada Justin Trudeau issued an apology only recently, with all those who took part in this devilish meeting to honour a Nazi trying to hide their faces from their compatriots and descendants of Nazi victims, and even shunning their own media? Only recently, they put all the blame on the Speaker of the Canadian parliament saying that it was all his fault, while they were all squeaky clean. The problem is that this tragedy runs much deeper than the fact that there are people in the Canadian government preaching neo-Nazi ideology. We are not talking about this being confined to specific public figures, or Canada’s former Foreign Minister and current Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland who played a central role in shaping Ottawa’s anti-Russian policy, while incidentally being a granddaughter of Mikhail Khomyak, a Nazi.
Just the other day, Canadian neo-Nazis from Active Club Canada, a racist association, said that they shared SS Galicia’s DNA. They declared that they viewed their fellow Nazi as a “war hero” while shaming journalists for harassing him. How normal is that? We all remember the scandals, including in Canada, when NGOs searching for Nazis or investigative journalists discovered the past of Third Reich-era murderers, who had settled somewhere in Canada. These scandals invariably disgraced those who tried to hide these neo-Nazis. I am not even talking about the neo-Nazis per se. They were handed their guilty verdicts and served prison time, with the public rejoicing at the fact that justice was served, even if decades later, but still.
But what is going on now? With this scandal, we have seen organisations coming forward to applaud all this and publicly campaigning to support this person. Photos showing the club members laying flowers at the monument of the 1st Ukrainian Division in Oakville, Canada, have been circulating on social media. What kind of division was that? This was SS Galicia under a new name, adopted in 1945. In fact, the inscription on the monument reads that it was erected in memory of “those who fought in defence of Brody.”
Activist clubs of this kind are currently popping up like mushrooms after rain all across the West. There are currently more than a hundred of them in the United States, Canada and the EU, and I am talking about those operating in perfect legality. Investigative reporting has exposed their restructuring efforts designed to attract new members and recruits. Under their statutory documents or rules of procedures they are not allowed to talk about history or Jews. They have adopted a somewhat different approach. They focus in their outreach efforts on brotherhood, togetherness, sports and self-defence as their values, while seeking to tune down some of the core tenets for their organisations that would alienate people or cause resentment or even panic and fear. They take all this out of the equation by focusing on brotherhood and togetherness. We have seen this before. They simply do not hide who they are anymore and want to be seen for what they are. Why? They know that all this will go unpunished. This has shaped the ideological thinking for entire nations. People receive international awards for that and can find themselves at the centre of the Western political agenda on a positive note rather than as villains. This now serves as a reason for giving away grants, supplying weapons and arms despite the existing bans prohibiting their shipments to conflict zones. They feel empowered and morally superior believing that Nazism is about to rise from the ashes in a new form, just as their predecessors had promised. They want to ride this wave to legitimise themselves as the fighting fist against the Russians. This is more than just momentary considerations for them. They see the green light and remember how it all happened during World War II. In fact, they know their history quite well. At the time, there were also voluntary units from almost all European countries within Wehrmacht and SS troops on the Eastern front.
There are dozens of monuments to Nazi accomplices, collaborators and even Nazis in the United States and Canada. There are streets bearing the names of prominent collaborationists. Monuments to the Galicia Division stand in Elkins Park near Philadelphia and in Warren, Michigan. In Baraboo, Wisconsin, there is a Banderite memorial celebrating OUN/UPA at a summer camp for Ukrainian nationalists. It is just as bombastic as the one in Canada. There are busts of Simon Petlyura, Yevgeny Konovalets, Roman Shukhevich and Stepan Bandera. Can it be that no one in the United States and Canada knows this? Does the OSCE ignore this? Can it be that the United Nations is unable to verify this information? Everyone knows everything, but just as in the 1930s and the 1940s, everyone opted not just to keep their mouths shut but to welcome these developments, waiting for Russia to give in. In your dreams.
Just the other day, Antony Blinken made a statement claiming that the USSR tried to silence the Baby Yar tragedy. Not only did the Soviet Union live through and experience the horror of the Baby Yar tragedy, but it decided to perpetuate its memory in 1945 before the end of World War II, which we call the Great Patriotic War. There were films during and after the war, as well as monuments, and poetry was published nationwide – these were not underground publications. Antony Blinken professes terrifying falsehoods, and they are everywhere. He would be better off explaining why the United States is home to memorials honouring those who played a role in the Holocaust, and why the American authorities allow extremist youths to be trained for new Nachtigall Battalions on their soil and in satellite countries? Why and who is paying for this? What kind of moral and ethical norms of liberal democracy can justify this? This is not the way we live.
Registry of Soviet memorials demolished in unfriendly countries
Since last March, at the initiative of Chairman of the Russian Historical Society and Director of the Foreign Intelligence Service Sergey Naryshkin, a registry has been kept of cases where monuments, glorifying the feat of our soldiers or dedicated to historical figures, have been demolished in unfriendly countries. This registry is based on materials from the Russian Military Historical Society and the Memory Site portal, which was created in 2017 at the initiative of, among others, the Russian Foreign Ministry and our Information and Press Department. Currently, this large electronic map contains information about nearly 90,000 monuments put up in our country and abroad. Russian diplomatic missions abroad, including embassies and consulates general, as well as our diplomats see to it that new information is added to this list. This work not only involves the performance of one’s duties – currently, indeed, it is the duty of Russian diplomats to carry out this work – but it is also work that our diplomats, my colleagues feel strongly about and are engaged in not only during working hours.
The list of memorial sites demolished in unfriendly countries brings together data from the Foreign Ministry and the Defence Ministry, and historical materials collected by volunteers and our thoughtful compatriots. I would like to note that we receive a lot of letters with descriptions of burial sites, monuments and graves that our compatriots find, for example, at private cemeteries in EU countries where permits or birth certificates are required for admission. They tell us about their findings, helping restore historical continuity and filling the gaps in family histories. We are immensely grateful to them for this.
One of the main sources of information are the Foreign Ministry’s annual reports on the situation regarding the glorification of Nazism and the spread of neo-Nazism and other practices that promote contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. These reports give detailed accounts of acts of vandalism against Soviet monuments.
Unfortunately, attacks on the remembrance of Soviet soldiers who saved the world from Nazism have long since become the new normal in a number of East European countries, including Bulgaria, the Baltic States, Poland, Ukraine and the Czech Republic. We do not allow a single act of vandalism to go unheeded. Now criminal actions by Russophobic regimes are also entered in the electronic map.
With a view to promoting the Memory Site portal, banners pointing to the project’s website are posted on the home pages of the websites of the Foreign Ministry and Russian diplomatic missions abroad. We recommend that all those interested in the history of our country and the world add this resource to their Favourites, so that when they obtain new information they can add it to the registry.
Decision by IPC General Assembly to partially suspend NPC Russia
We would like to comment on the decision of the General Assembly of the International Paralympic Committee, which was held in Manama, Bahrain on September 27‑29, 2023, to partially suspend the membership rights of the National Paralympic Committee of Russia, which means that Russian para athletes can compete only as neutral athletes.
It is obviously a politically biased decision, which has reaffirmed that the IPC has become a platform for settling scores and preventing strong rivals from participating in competitions. Ideologically, this is nothing other than segregation based on national origin. It is especially regrettable that the rights of athletes with disabilities are being used as a bargaining chip in a geopolitical game. Para athletes are people who overcome the laws of physics, laziness, pain and the inclination towards personal comfort. They have proved that they are masters of their own destiny who have found a way to turn over a new leaf. These people, who seemed to have no possibility of changing their lives, have found a way to do it. They did not do it thanks to connections, money or a miracle, but thanks to their mental strength, strong will, and the assistance of their loved ones and the state.
I would like to remind you that in November 2022 the IPC suspended the membership of NPC Russia, which means that Russian para athletes could not attend competitions, including the Paralympic Games. That unsubstantiated decision, which was prompted by pro-Western leanings, was reversed by the IPC’s Independent Appeals Tribunal in April 2023. The tribunal did not find any evidence of violations of membership obligations by NPC Russia and dismissed the claims that NPC Russia violated the Olympic Truce. The tribunal noted that, since the Olympic Truce has no formal legal status, neither NPC Russia nor any other national committee is obliged to comply with it.
Regrettably, that decision by the IPC’s appeals tribunal has not stopped die-hard sports functionaries, who regard themselves as bureaucrats, from suggesting that the IPC’s General Assembly should reconsider the issue of suspending NPC Russia and banning Russian para athletes from competitions. This is shameful, and not only because they are acting contrary to the decision of a legal authority. There are such things as conscience and understanding of the path these people with disabilities have covered, showing others that life must go on no matter what. Their example has encouraged very many people to live on and to move forward, overcoming any difficulties.
NPC Russia’s active stand, its prestige among its foreign partners and support by the majority of IPC members have prevented the adoption of а decision to fully suspend NPC Russia. Russian para athletes have been allowed to compete in a neutral capacity.
Nevertheless, we believe that the decision taken by the NPC General Assembly is absolutely illegal and unsubstantiated, that it violates the basic principles of an honest, equal and non-politicised sports movement, and that it contradicts the ban on discrimination on any grounds, which is a fundamental paralympic value. NPC Russia continues to hold a neutral and unbiased position when it comes to politics, choosing sports over politics. NPC Russia is focused on fulfilling its charter mission, which is to represent para athletes on the basis of paralympic standards.
At the same time, it is notable that the voting results at the IPC General Assembly show convincingly that the overwhelming majority of member states are tired of the political games being played by Russophobic international sports officials and support the idea of Russia’s return to global sports.
Russia will continue to use international law to protect the rights of Russian athletes and sports as a unique instrument for developing and strengthening interpersonal ties based on mutual respect and rapprochement among nations.
I do not just believe but know that this is how matters stand now. I won’t offer empty promises or say that I have foresight. My confidence is based on many factors, such as knowledge of history and understanding that there were such situations in human history before. I have no doubt that the bigotry of the collective West against Russia and other counties will backfire soon. As you know, Russian means both nationality and affiliation with the Russian world, culture and history. Their future generations will feel shame for what the collective West is doing in a frenzy of nationalism now, just like the post-war generations of Germans felt shame for what their fathers did in the Third Reich. You may ask why. The answer is that they acted in the same way. The forms may differ and may include hybrid scenarios, but the essence is the same.
EU ban on cars with Russian licence plates
Several members of the European Union (Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Finland, Germany and Estonia) as well as Norway announced a ban on the entry of cars with Russian registration, even for tourist purposes.
When it was first reported, few people in either Russia or foreign countries believed it. It cannot be possible for people to be so blatantly segregated on the basis of nationality, without even any attempt at an explanation or logical reasoning. But not only has it turned out to be true, these countries are moving, full steam ahead, in this direction.
We consider this an illegitimate measure against Russian nationals, based on nationalism and neo-Nazi logic. You can call it whatever you like, a modern form of racism, neo-Nazism – the essence will be the same. Similarly absurd arguments were given to substantiate the decisions by these European countries – including the EU sanctions against our country in general, as stated in the clarification by the European Commission on the applications of the embargo on importing certain goods from Russia into the EU that bring substantial profits to our country.
Brainstorms in the European Union will eventually cause a complete collapse. When people exit our country by car and enter the territory of their countries, it only brings substantial profits to their countries, not Russia. People travelling by car spend money in the country this car passes through, on petrol, hotels, groceries, social services and tourist attractions.
We know how everything is misinterpreted these days. In the past, heroes of WWII and the Great Patriotic War were honoured, with monuments and celebrations, including in Eastern Europe as it used to be called. Now it is the western edge of Europe. Now all monuments are being demolished, to be replaced by monuments to Nazi collaborators. The reasoning is the same. Indeed, why bother to make up arguments that could be more or less grounded in facts when you can simply say that the entry of Russian cars to several EU countries is now prohibited because it allegedly brings profit to Russia. What is supposed to be done?
As the fiasco of the EU’s anti-Russia sanctions policy becomes increasingly apparent, the EU members, prompted by this failure, are no longer hiding their intention of taking it out on all Russians. They speak about it openly. This intention is what dictates more prohibitive measures that violate the fundamentals of international law. It is evident that previously made statements by European politicians and Brussels officials who claimed that the sanctions were not targeting ordinary Russians, were deceitful. Now they say the sanctions are targeting ordinary Russians. As of late, the intention to cause harm to the entire Russian nation has been openly stated by European capitals. The EU fails to realise that, with this straightforward discrimination, it is shutting the door on the entire social, humanitarian and human rights policy that it has been implementing at the legislative level.
The EU started by intimidating Russian politicians, prominent public figures and then businesspeople with its sanctions. Then journalists became a target. The required effect was not achieved. Their sanctions lists were extended to include public officials, the military, judicial officials, representatives of election commissions and human rights envoys. It was all in vain. Then they terrorised residents of the new Russian regions, for many years. Since 2014, residents of Crimea have been unable to obtain visas to the European Union – the very union that insists on observing human rights and preventing discrimination. Now, it is the turn of all Russians without exception.
Initially, there were people who believed that the most important thing was to pledge allegiance to the Kiev regime, put up a flag and declare that they were “against Russia” and stood with the West – and that would make them heroes of the Western Russophobic rage. Again, they failed. The same people are being stigmatised within the EU. All the gimmicks invented to pressure the entire Russian nation are doomed to fail.
We consider the ban on the entry of cars with Russian licence plates to the EU as yet another attempt to not only reinstate the Iron Curtain in Europe but as an actual revival of Nazism in various new forms.
This measure is intended to narrow down the few remaining opportunities for contacts between people on the European continent we all share, and to force the logic of nationality-based segregation upon those who have been taught, for decades, to think it is impossible even hypothetically.
Competent authorities are currently discussing a response to this act. We will notify you when these decisions are approved. As always, the actions of the said EU countries will not remain without an adequate response.
There was so much talk about the grain deal and other discriminatory steps, actions and measures on behalf of the West targeting our country. They claimed we would not react or that we would be unable to respond. But we can and we are. And we respond not in the manner that many wish to see but with thoroughly developed actions that will primarily benefit ourselves. This case will be no exception.
Lodging a protest with the Japanese Embassy in Russia
On October 2, 2023, a resolute protest was lodged with the Japanese Embassy in Russia over the large-scale Japanese-US military exercises on Hokkaido Island, held from September 14 to September 23 of this year in the direct vicinity of the Russian Federation’s border, as well as over the plans to stage a number of similar exercises in late October – December of this year.
It was pointed out to Japan that Tokyo’s demonstrative military activities near the Russian Far Eastern borders, carried out jointly with NATO countries, among others, were categorically inadmissible.
The protest contained a warning that the Fumio Kishida administration’s irresponsible policy was putting Japan on a path towards a dangerous escalation of tensions in North-East Asia and the Asia Pacific Region as a whole.
Results of the Fifth International Conference on Chemicals Management
On September 25-29 of this year, Bonn, Germany, hosted the Fifth International Conference on Chemicals Management.
A High-Level Segment, organised by the German presidency on the sidelines of the event, adopted a Ministerial Declaration dedicated to strategic issues involved in the development of the world chemical industry in the context of efforts to safeguard human health and the environment, sustainable chemicals management, and principles and mechanisms of international cooperation on this agenda.
Russia was not represented at the High-Level Segment by reason of Germany’s failure to issue a visa to the representative of the Ministry of Industry and Trade of the Russian Federation, who headed the Russian delegation. In this connection, the Russian delegation made a statement on its disagreement with certain provisions of the Ministerial Declaration at the closing ceremony, with a focus on the host country’s inadequate implementation of its obligations to carry out an international event held under the aegis of the UN. We hope that the United Nations will pay attention to this. I think that journalists will ask questions about the UN’s reaction to the fact that countries hosting UN events treat their commitments with so much disdain.
We regard the German authorities’ behaviour as unacceptable and we believe that it calls into question Berlin’s ability to adequately prepare for future multilateral events.
We will take this fact into account when deciding on venues for UN conferences.
The 7th International Film Festival “Eurasian Bridge”
On October 2-6, Yalta is hosting the 7th International Film Festival “Eurasian Bridge.” Held since 2016, the festival is sponsored by the Ministry of Culture of Russia, the Government of the Republic of Crimea, and the Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Crimea.
The festival programme includes both feature films and documentaries by film-makers from Armenia, Bulgaria, China, France, India, Iran, Israel, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, Thailand, Tunisia, and Türkiye.
The entries are judged by an international jury.
Two special features are a retrospective show dedicated to the 100th birth anniversary of film director Leonid Gaidai and a non-competition programme of short animated cartoons contributed by VGIK students.
We welcome the event as a whole, considering its international status, as well as its foreign participants. The festival will provide graphic proof of the expansion of creative contacts in filmmaking and will create conditions for the further development of inter-cultural dialogue and for strengthening trust between nations.
The 80th anniversary of diplomatic relations between
Eighty years ago, on October 4, 1943, the Soviet Union became one of the first countries to recognise the independence of
We are marking this anniversary against the backdrop of a serious crisis in Russian-Icelandic relations, provoked by
The 217th session of the UNESCO Executive Board
On October 4, the 217th session of the UNESCO Executive Board is opening in
The participants are to review the implementation of the resolutions adopted by the Executive Board and the General Conference at earlier sessions, as well as issues of preparing for the 42nd session of the UNESCO General Conference. The UNESCO Director-General will present the draft programme and budget for 2024-
In addition, the Executive Board’s member states will discuss issues linked with the fulfilment of conventions and recommendations, including the 1960 Convention against Discrimination in Education, the 2021 Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence and other issues and efforts to achieve the 4th Sustainable Development Goal (Education). They will discuss efforts to promote literacy, to prepare UNESCO’s global report on cultural policies following the UNESCO-MONDIACULT 2022 World Conference, and they will develop a new record-keeping system in the sphere of culture. Moreover, they will review an upgraded strategic policy framework for multilingualism, the implementation of the Information for All (IFAP) programme, as well as UNESCO’s involvement in the UN Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development (2021-2030). They will also discuss administrative and financial issues, the themes of UNESCO awards, celebrations of commemorative dates and proposals on granting UNESCO status to institutions and centres.
The 217th session will continue until October 18. We will certainly share the results of UNESCO’s performance during the period under review and
On October 7, 2023, the Collective Security Treaty Organisation marks its 21st anniversary.
The formation of the alliance began in 2002 when the six member states agreed to create an international regional organisation and subsequently approved the CSTO Charter.
In a relatively short period of time, by historical standards, the organisation has come a long way. Today, it is an alliance of six brotherly countries –
Thanks to the joint efforts of the allies, the CSTO has emerged as a reputable multifunctional body and has demonstrated its maturity and efficacy in ensuring security in its area of responsibility.
The CSTO upholds three major aspects of cooperation – political cooperation, military cooperation and countering new challenges and threats. Its activity is regulated by the Collective Security Strategy until
The CSTO member States harmonise and coordinate their approaches to key international and regional security issues and consolidate their efforts in combating international terrorism and extremism, illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, organised transnational crime, illegal migration and other threats to stability in the CSTO area.
The CSTO collective security system includes a military component, the CSTO Collective Rapid Reaction Force. The member states continue to improve this allied combined arms task force through annual training and exercises aimed at perfecting the combat skills of personnel and cohesion among units. Next week, on October 9-13,
The necessary conditions are being formed to integrate the CSTO's peacekeeping potential into United Nations peacekeeping activities.
The CSTO is open to cooperation with third countries and international organisations active in the field of security. The member states recently ratified documents on granting CSTO observer or partner status, opening up more opportunities for interested parties to expand their cooperation with the CSTO.
Further building up allied interaction with the CSTO member states, strengthening its potential and enhancing its international role remains a priority of our country's foreign policy.
October 9 marks 80 years since Soviet troops defeated the Nazis in the
On October 9,
The
This battle took place in an extremely complicated context. In the spring of 1942, Hitler ordered his troops to cut off the
The
During the 1943 offensive in the
During those operations, the Red Army liberated the
Soviet leadership highly appreciated the heroism of the defenders of the
The peoples of the North and
At that fateful time, the unity of all the peoples living in the
October 11 marks the 370th anniversary of the adoption of the historic decision on reuniting the lands of the previously consolidated old Russian state, Kievan Rus, by the Zemsky Sobor (legislative assembly) in
The reunion of Little Russia with
However, even in these hardest conditions, the Old Russian people never accepted assimilation due to their high level of economic and cultural development and resilience. Ethnic, economic, cultural and political ties were preserved and continued to develop. The striving to be united and independent, formed during the feudal disunity of Kievan Rus and proven by the
Resistance to Polish overlords and the fight against common enemies – Turks and Crimean Tatars – helped expand and strengthen military and political ties between the peoples of Little Russia and Great Russia, especially Cossacks from the Zaporozhian Sich and the
Rus could not remain on the sidelines of Little Russia’s struggle and helped the uprising with “bread and cannons,” as well as with diplomatic means.
In the 17th century, the representatives of Little Russia repeatedly asked Russian rulers to take them under their protection. These sentiments often appeared among Cossacks.
In February 1651, Tsar Alexis of
On January 8 (18), 1654, the Pereyaslavl Rada unanimously resolved to reunite Southwest Rus with
The decisions by the Zemsky Sobor and the Pereyaslavl Rada made it abundantly clear that the people, divided during the Mongol-Tatar invasion, desired to live in a united state. Then, in accordance with the expressed will of all people in Little and Great Russia, their reunion began.
The 370th anniversary of this Zemsky Sobor resolution has a special and symbolic meaning today. One year ago, Donbass, the Cis-Azov and the
Presentation of the Sirius Federal Territory
At 4 pm on October 10, 2023, a presentation of promising cooperation areas between the Sirius Federal Territory and our foreign partners in education, science, sport and arts will begin at the Cultural Centre of GlavUpDK under the Foreign Ministry of Russia.
The Sirius Federal Territory is a unique complex that uses Russia’s Olympic heritage sites. It is aimed at helping talented young people realise their intellectual and personal potential in the interests of promoting development in Russia and the world and overcoming global challenges. Every month, 800 talented children go there from all regions of Russia regardless of their social or financial backgrounds.
Invitations to the presentation have been sent to the heads of diplomatic missions and international organisations, federal authorities, the business community and representatives of Russian and foreign media.
The agenda includes statements by Foreign Ministry officials and Chair of the Sirius Council, Head of the educational Talent and Success Foundation, Yelena Shmeleva.
The presentation's cultural programme includes a concert by talented Russian piano player and winner of many international contests Ivan Bessonov.
Maria Zakharova: There were rock paintings in the past. Now we have murals.
People create different images. Some can offend public morals, while others bring joy and are known as murals.
As you know, 2023 was declared the Year of Teachers and Mentors in Russia. The Mentors’ District mural art festival in Tambov is a contribution by Russian creative industry to this programme of the year.
When I first heard about the project, I thought we didn’t get it right. But it turned out that we understood everything correctly.
The festival is dedicated to mentorship, which is a traditional part of Russian culture, as an invaluable method of sharing a world outlook and professional experience, knowledge and skills in many areas. The people in the murals in Tambov are scientists, military personnel, statesmen, athletes and art figures who, according to the artists who created the murals, can inspire young people.
The murals created during the festival include the portraits of Yevgeny Primakov and Sergey Lavrov. I would like to remind you that Sergey Lavrov is a member of the League of Lecturers at the Znaniye society.
I believe this project was a great success. Now it is your turn to evaluate it and to express your opinion.
I would like to emphasise that the Foreign Ministry learned about that initiative when it was nearly over. Nobody asked our permission or consulted us. It was the sovereign decision by non-governmental agencies and civil society. They only asked for our opinion regarding details and nuances when the festival was in its final stage. We did our part. As I said, the idea for the festival came from civil society.
Maria Zakharova: The Serbian leadership has firmly refuted Pristina’s accusations in a well-argued manner. Moreover, the provided arguments do not leave any doubt as to the groundless nature of Pristina’s accusations. I have nothing to add in this regard.
If the Brussels dialogue on Kosovo for all these years is any guide, Belgrade remains the only constructive force seeking a civilised, peaceful and legal resolution, that is prepared to take everyone’s interests into consideration, as well as the historical context, the latest developments, etc. Meanwhile, the European Union has completely discredited itself in its mediating role. And this goes beyond the Balkans, in fact. I expect to get questions on the situation in Armenia today. This is all the same. They made all these promises but delivered nothing but provocations which blew up the whole situation. However, it could and should have been settled through a political approach with consideration for all the historical aspects in their complexity.
Any attempts to cast Serbia as a warmonger or using any other labels or accusations against the country are manifestly absurd. These falsehoods are designed to discredit Belgrade and divert public attention from the anti-Serbian ethnic cleansing unfolding in this territory.
Albin Kurti, the so-called Prime Minister, has made intimidating and humiliating non-Albanians the new normal. Can the willingness of Serbs in Kosovo to defend themselves, their families, homes, children, culture and traditions from being annihilated surprise us after Kurti’s horrendous, unacceptable and terrifying words that the Serbs in Kosovo must suffer and pay. All the Serbs want is to defend the true values shared by all normal people.
As for the international presence in Kosovo under NATO and EU auspices, they never wanted, nor do they want, nor do they intend to deliver on their mandates, as you can clearly see. All they do is play this card and do Pristina’s bidding. This is what they have been doing all along.
Maria Zakharova: This is more than just a trend for the West, it’s a policy line. They are out to destroy Orthodoxy around the world, doing everything they can to attack Orthodoxy. I would not tend to characterise these attacks as simply part of a hybrid war. This is a frontal assault by the West against Orthodoxy. They used to act covertly before but are now operating in broad daylight by expelling Orthodox priests, and detaining, arresting and interrogating them. They stage provocations from the inside by starting conflicts using methods defying not only their laws but their moral and ethical norms. They hound Orthodox followers and are writing a new history of world religions.
If the collective West starts focusing more closely on the Serbian Orthodox Church, which basically means an aggressive attitude towards it, it would not come as a surprise to me.
People in the Balkans know better than anyone else that the Serbs have lived there for centuries, and the Orthodox church was present there for centuries too. This has always been an eye sore for the Western sponsors of Kosovar Albanian separatism, which is also an important factor. Here, we need to consider the specific regional context while seeing the overall global trend in terms of the aggression by the collective West against Orthodoxy and its believers.
Maria Zakharova: The recent events in Karabakh, including the fighting on September 19 and 20, have clearly shown that European observers have taken a despicable stance. At first, they focused on persuading Armenia and eventually lured official Yerevan into another trap with their promises. Then they stepped aside as silent witnesses as the situation unfolded. It was the Western community, the European Union and the United States, that pushed Armenia off track and dissuaded Yerevan from implementing the agreements that had been reached through Moscow’s mediation. Brussels was among the first and primary instigators, telling [the parties] they did not have to fulfill what Moscow, Yerevan, and Baku had agreed on, that they should go a different way. Unfortunately, we can see now where that special way has led them.
Russian peacekeepers have mediated the ceasefire while the European Union watched from the sidelines, without even trying to help or offer any practical assistance. Representatives of our country organised the delivery of humanitarian aid to Karabakh when the Lachin Corridor was unblocked, and accompanied the Karabakh residents leaving for Armenia. But Brussels, the European Union (except Paris playing a more active role) continued to watch from the sidelines, silently, but not quite: they were instigating and telling Armenians tall tales about Russia allegedly betraying them. No, it was not Russia that betrayed them. Russia has always been there for them, always working to stop the bloodshed in the region, helping financially and economically, and providing humanitarian aid. It was the EU that dissuaded Yerevan from implementing the Moscow-brokered agreements. They betrayed the Armenians.
On September 21, 2023, our military used helicopters to evacuate more than 100 victims of a gas station explosion near Stepanakert. Where were all those well-wishers from the European Union?
The EU has become an agent provocateur in the region. EU observers were never hit by the shelling that tragically killed Russian peacekeepers. All they did was inflame the region because that’s all they have been good at in the last decades.
Let me say this bluntly: the EU mission in Armenia is not ensuring any stability or de-escalation. If fact, it is neither focusing on Armenia’s security nor normalising relations between Baku and Yerevan; it is monitoring the situation and providing Brussels with intelligence and provoking tensions. There have been plenty of statements on their part, which were as loud as they were false. In yesterday’s interview with Euronews, European Council President Charles Michel started speculating that Russia had allegedly betrayed the Armenian people by not reacting to Azerbaijan's military operation in Nagorno-Karabakh.
I would like to remind Charles Michel and anyone who thinks like him: it was the European Union that convened the summits in Prague and Brussels, where the Armenian leadership recognised Nagorno-Karabakh as Azerbaijan’s territory. Or was this not so? Before those summits, the Armenian leadership declared exactly the opposite. What was it? I will remind you: they said that Nagorno-Karabakh was part of Armenia.
Why did Charles Michel lose sight of the rights and security of the Karabakh Armenians when he signed off on those agreements? Why didn’t the European Union, the handler of official Yerevan, offer to ensure their security during those meetings in Prague and Brussels?
Because their main concern was provocation. The European Union, European Council President Charles Michel, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen were doing just that. The European Union and the United States never cared. What happens to the inhabitants of Nagorno-Karabakh was none of their concern. This was only a part of their political game. But our country was their concern, the anti-Russia, Russophobic approach underlying every move they made. Now they are trying to denigrate Russia and absolve themselves. But Brussels is responsible for those summits held in EU countries effectively overriding all the agreements reached (the three agreements between Moscow, Yerevan and Baku). Yerevan’s recently announced policy was shaped under the EU’s influence just a few months ago. Until then, Armenia had taken the opposite stance. Shaping their own policy is the sovereign right of the country’s authorities of course. But it should be at least consistent and openly spelled out.
We will wait for the outcome of the next EU-sponsored Armenia-Azerbaijan summit, which will take place on October 5 in Granada.
There is something else. French Foreign Minister Catherine Colonna, visiting Yerevan, made a few pretty loud statements yesterday about Russia failing to fulfill some “obligations” on reaching a settlement between Armenia and Azerbaijan. It is not up to France to talk about obligations. Let me remind you that Paris was a cosponsor and guarantor of the implementation of the Minsk agreements. What did François Hollande reveal later? He admitted that they were not going to fulfill them. If I were Ms Colonna, I would keep silent about guarantees or obligations to regulate relations between countries where France calls itself, or considers itself, a mediator. It might be a good idea to hear her explanations about the Minsk agreements first. As a reminder, that was a UN Security Council resolution.
Back to her statements on this track: more lies, and a half-hearted attempt by French diplomacy to exploit the Karabakh issue and the difficult humanitarian situation of the Armenian population that has fled the region.
Now here’s a list of what Russia actually did. Russia stopped the bloodshed on November 9, 2020. Russia mediated a package of trilateral statements in 2020-2022 (1,2,3,4) – a roadmap for reconciliation between Baku and Yerevan. The EU and the US later shamelessly copied what had been drawn up with Russia’s help and then distorted that content to suit their interests without caring about the region’s population.
Russia negotiated a ceasefire in Karabakh on September 20, 2023. Russian peacekeepers have been helping to resolve humanitarian problems in the region. In doing so, they have been losing their comrades-in-arms, whom we are deeply mourning.
I would like to ask a counter-question: what has France done? What has Brussels and the entire European Union done? Asking Washington on this track is predictably useless. Have they taken any specific steps? Do they have anything to present to the international public, except words in this endless, protracted global PR campaign on a global scale? As I said, they have persuaded the Armenian leadership in Prague and Brussels to “forget” about the rights and security of the Armenians living in Nagorno-Karabakh, which resulted in the current crisis.
When the Armenian leaders were making new commitments in Prague and Brussels – sponsored by the European Union and probably also on Washington’s instructions, I think – they never documented the status, security, or guarantees for the inhabitants of Nagorno-Karabakh. There were no written or verbal stipulations on that score.
Those events have again confirmed what we already knew: Western interference always leads to chaos and suffering of ordinary people.
Maria Zakharova: I don’t know about secrecy. We were approached by the United States and the European Union. The meeting was their initiative. I’d rather call it contacts. The purpose of the meeting was conveyed. The parties exchanged views on the situation. That is all.
If now Western media pick up the story about this meeting as provocative, then it means the goal of the United States and the EU was to create another provocation. There is nothing secretive about it. It was an ordinary exchange of opinions.
We will take note of how the West will present it. Then we will know their original goals.
Maria Zakharova: We have no problem with the brotherly people in Armenia. We have helped, we are helping now, and we will continue to help them. I have just told you about Russian peacekeepers, who are not sitting in warm offices, but rather actually doing things on the ground. They are shedding their own blood and providing Armenians with humanitarian, social, financial, and economic help. We haven’t lost any friends there.
On the other hand, we have seen a colossal number of provocations. We know what the 2,000 American diplomats there are up to. Can you imagine that? Two thousand people make up the US Embassy in Yerevan. We understand very well what they are doing: mainly spreading fake news and misinformation. It is surprising that officials in Yerevan are unaware of this. This number of people could be justified if they distributed humanitarian aid rather than fake news every day, or if they built human chains to distribute food, essentials, clothing, etc. But no. In the past years, 2,000 American diplomats have showed up there to take part in misinformation campaigns.
With 2,000 American diplomats stationed in Armenia, the Yerevan officials do not seem to consider that information flows somehow need to be regulated. And now, MPs from the ruling party are coming out and declaring that it is necessary to block the Russian media – in addition to the fact that Russian journalists have already been banned from Armenia and included in stop lists.
I want to remind you that the current officials in Armenia came to power with freedom of speech as their main promise. Everything else was secondary. But freedom of speech as a fundamental principle of democracy does not work in one direction, when they are the only side allowed to speak. Everybody is allowed to speak. Broadcasting alternative sources of information is also necessary. Depriving people of what they consider a truly important source (and only these people can decide that it is), while these media outlets operate legally, is nothing but a strike at democracy. I would not call it anything else. It is a strike at the foundation of the current Armenian officials’ political platform. To what degree this decision correlates with Yerevan’s official stance is a question for Armenian officials. But these sorts of statements indicate that democratic principles are being pushed aside.
I think that those who want to block Russian channels, officially or not, (again, this decision should be commented by the official Yerevan), but if such ideas are occurring, then these people should realise that with their statements they are literally pulling the plug on the democratic principles that they themselves declared as their priority.
Maria Zakharova: I would refrain from commenting on this particular case. I think that it is for New Delhi and Ottawa to comment on.
If you are asking me about the principle of expelling diplomats, I can say the following: Yes, it is true that the expulsion of diplomats (fortunately or unfortunately, I will not weigh in either way) have been part of maybe not diplomatic routine, but practice. When some state had questions in relation to a diplomat or an employee of the diplomatic or consular mission being engaged in actions that this country considers inappropriate for a diplomat, expulsions were made. It has been a common practice since diplomatic relations existed, that is, always.
The relevant legalisation of the practice happened after the adoption of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which provided a clear explanation. Such things happened, as a rule, by informing the other party through the relevant private channels. News in the media could have emerged years later or even not emerge at all. That is, these are common reshuffles because the principle of reciprocal actions and reciprocity ran like clockwork in this area. These swaps happened due to the fact that some countries were not satisfied with the activity of certain people in concrete situations. Not because it was part of a public rhetoric or polemic. There have been various cases. Some were notorious or flagrant from the point of view of some states and related to some domestic events in these countries. Therefore, these facts became public. But in most such cases, there was no news about them.
The current concept is different. It has become part of the public (as the West believes) work, or in other words, public diplomacy. They believe that this should provide an additional boost to the anti-Russia Russophobic hysteria in some countries that do not agree with Washington’s course. You can see that it all relates to Russia, China, and other countries. Such expulsions happen within the NATO bloc as well. You will not believe it probably, but they do. It is just that nobody speaks about them for some reason. Nobody steps up to the microphone at the US Department of State or the White House, or in Brussels, or in other Western capitals and tells the public which diplomats are to be expelled. But they do expel them. Why? Because these are the issues that need to be resolved in a calm, mutually respectful tone. It is a different matter when they believe that only they deserve respect, and the rest are part of the “wild jungle” which cannot claim parity with the “beautiful garden.”
I want to reiterate that the concrete case that you mentioned should be commented on by the countries involved.
Maria Zakharova: Look, you are from Reuters. You should know that the United States said openly that this should be a protracted conflict. You can see that NATO has announced a strategy for converting this conflict into a long-term one. Why are you asking me about the preparedness of the parties, whether this conflict will be protracted and how prepared the parties are? NATO, the United States, the United Kingdom, and the entire community that swears its allegiance to the Anglo-Saxon duo have said this. They said that this is their strategy. They are opting for a protracted conflict, now that their blitzkrieg has failed. They have said this. The West does not care what Vladimir Zelensky thinks, it does not care that the Ukrainian nation has been depleted, that they no longer know whom to mobilise and recruit. Most important, they care about their own goal. They have formulated this goal, which is to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia. They are moving to wage a protracted conflict, after failing to accomplish their objective in one or two months, as planned. They are openly saying this.
We can hear paltry statements from the speakers mentioned by you. I cannot say that Josep Borrell heads any European or EU diplomacy, and it appears that he has become some kind of deficient speaker, rather than a diplomat. However, these are not our problems.
Try to find out what they mean. This is hard to understand. We are trying to decipher every quotation and to understand its meaning.
This reminds me of statements by the Obama administration, whose members account for the majority of the Biden administration. Joe Biden had served as Vice President under Barack Obama who “ruled” for eight years. Joe Biden has now become President himself. This entire liberal-democratic throng has now moved into the While House under the guise of a new administration, although essentially it is the old one.
All these years, they said that Assad must go. Indeed, they said this, and this was one of their main policy goals. You can see the situation in Syria, that it is re-joining the world of Arab politics, and that it is being rebuilt. It would be nice if the incumbent White House administration invented and introduced a new slogan saying that the USA must go from Syria finally. Syria is a sovereign country being occupied by the United States. This reminds me of a manic concept that they imposed all the time. You can see the ultimate result. Try to ask Karine Jean-Pierre what she wanted to say.
Maria Zakharova: How we assess the reaction of other countries is a matter of secondary importance. I think we have estimated the situation correctly right from the start. Together with our Chinese partners, we repeatedly urged Japan to practice transparency (that is, to make all its actions transparent) and give all concerned countries full access to all the information of interest to them as regards its moves to release radioactive water from Fukushima-1 into the ocean. You know well that Japan has done nothing of the kind. It made many PR and advertising steps, including the eating of seafood and the spreading of tales about well-nigh wholesomeness of that “magic” water. But it could do a simple, logical and legitimate thing by just providing the world community with the entire amount of information and access to that information. There are still questions to ask. Japan has failed to answer them in an appropriate manner and to guarantee the absence of threats, including in the long term.
The concerns would be at once removed on many issues, if Tokyo stops the release of waste water into the World Ocean. To reiterate: I think our Chinese colleagues have come with a fine idea suggesting that Tokyo use this water for domestic needs – to water plants, cook, wash, etc. – rather than pour it into the World Ocean. We know that Japan suffers from water shortages. They could use it this way, if they say that it is absolutely safe. But, as we understand, Tokyo does not intend to give up its idea of releasing the water into the World Ocean. They argue (this is the IAEA’s opinion) that the released Fukushima water will not be much of an environmental threat. Give them some more rope and they will claim that it is wholesome. But, as we know, the Japanese themselves did not want to take a sip from the “Fukushima mug,” whereas this could have been a practical demonstration of the fact that the method of its disposal and solving all problems chosen by Tokyo and approved by the IAEA Secretariat is safe.
It should be taken into consideration that the IAEA is not a global nuclear security regulator. It made its conclusions at a preliminary stage, that is, before the actual start of water release. In addition, the IAEA, at Japan’s insistence, studied just one water disposal method known as the Advanced Liquid Processing System (ALPS). Other possible options were not even considered. Specialists do not rule out that Tokyo’s plans can have long-term consequences that are yet to be explored.
On September 23 of this year, Rospotrebnadzor Head Anna Popova commented in detail on this topic in an interview with RIA Novosti. We suggest that you take a close look at this data.
Maria Zakharova: It is the first issue that consists of four sub-issues. The other four issues consist of four sub-issues as well. Let’s proceed.
The resolution on nuclear safety, security and safeguards in Ukraine adopted at the 67th IAEA General Conference is a non-binding document. It has also presented a greatly distorted reality. Therefore, we regard it as legally and politically void.
Our arguments are as follows. Considering that very many countries did not vote for and, in one way or another, refused to support the document, resisting Western pressure and threats, we can say confidently that this odious document will not be effective. Russia does not intend to implement its provisions.
The resolution will have no effect on the work of IAEA experts at the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant or our joint efforts with the IAEA Secretariat to prevent threats to the plant’s safety created by the Zelensky regime.
As for the rotation of IAEA experts at the plant, Russia provides the necessary recommendations and does everything in its power to ensure their safety and to create comfortable conditions for them to fulfil their duties as per the IAEA mandate.
The Kiev regime has staged numerous provocations to disrupt the rotation and to create threats to the lives of IAEA experts. You may remember how many times the plant has been shelled. We provided the information. It is thanks entirely to Russia’s actions that these provocations have not led to tragic consequences.
Of course, the safest rotation method would be to arrive at the plant from the territory of Russia. We proposed the idea to the IAEA administration many times. However, the Secretariat decided that part of the route to the station should go via the territory of Ukraine and the contact line.
We have taken note of this choice by the IAEA administration and continue to closely cooperate with the agency on the matter of rotations and operation of IAEA experts at the plant. This is important in light of our efforts to alleviate the threats to the plant’s safety created by the Kiev regime.
Everybody, including IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi, understand that the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant is operating under Russian laws. It is being managed in accordance with our national legislation and the standards of nuclear safety and security. Russia is not creating and cannot by definition create any threats to the safety of the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant. The only source of threats to it is the Kiev regime, which continues its attempts to seize the plant and intimidate its personnel and the residents of Energodar.
We hope that the IAEA administration will act objectively and without any bias when it comes to ensuring the safety of the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant.
Maria Zakharova: Interpreting from Russian back to Russian has become part of the job, as I can see. Temporary means that nothing lasts forever. An administration is a body of government. This is all there is to it.
Maria Zakharova: Once again, it all comes down to petty politics by the United States.
I suggest that we try to single out what matters while putting all the secondary considerations aside.
What matters the most here is that Russia has been proactively contributing to APEC’s work since joining this forum in 1998. This is one of the core elements in our multilateral diplomacy and an important platform for promoting practical cooperation in Asia-Pacific. Almost all Russian sectoral agencies are involved in the APEC process, with specific tracks for businesses, civil society, academic institutions and NGOs.
Russia views APEC as a central platform within the Asia-Pacific Region for enabling regional economies to devise common approaches to promoting economic integration, trade and investment, as well as addressing the many challenges our planet faces in this regard. We work closely with our partners on the APEC Putrajaya Vision 2040 in all its aspects and support its commitment to digital transformation and innovation, greater connectivity, and inclusive human resource development.
As for the secondary matters that divert our attention, the West has been increasingly seeking to undermine APEC’s constructive efforts through political sabotage and confrontational initiatives by trying to inject into APEC’s agenda matters that have no place there but can further promote anti-Russia sentiments while reinforcing Western aspirations to hegemony and plunging the world into manageable chaos forever. The shameless abuse by the United States of its obligations as APEC Chair follows the same pattern.
We have said many times already that we will take Washington’s position into consideration when deciding on the level of our representation at the high-level meetings in San Francisco in November 2023. In any case, we have to intention to scale down our efforts within this forum. Next year, Peru will assume the rotating chairmanship. We have already established constructive contacts with our colleagues and expect APEC to revive its positive efforts despite all the trouble caused by Washington.
Maria Zakharova: I can say that as of today, agreements on visa-free travel have been signed with 27 countries in Latin America.
As for similar agreements with Barbados, Haiti, Mexico, Trinidad and Tobago, and Saint Lucia, we will inform you when they are signed and come into force.
Maria Zakharova: It is the sovereign right of each country to outline their course and politics. In this case, as I see it, this is a meeting we did not participate in. I do not consider it necessary to comment on the decisions by the parties. Baku regularly explains its position and provides information about all of its steps. I think the Azerbaijani party should be asked such questions, or you can wait for them to comment.
As for the process in general, our mediation role had practical results in the agreements that were large-scale, detailed and based on everything: history, reality and the future in all meanings of this word.
It is another matter that our Western partners stepped in seeking to benefit from the situation. And their benefit always lies in disrupting the harmony reached by others. This is the main problem. Everything was possible when everyone’s interests were taken into account. Nobody can ever be 100-percent satisfied. But diplomacy is called on to help here. This is the main principle of correct, competent communication: to minimise the costs and help the parties bring their positions closer to each other in as many ways as possible, and create the right atmosphere for mutual respect for each other’s interests. All of this has been done with our country’s mediation. As for everything else where the West serves as a mediator, please address the co-sponsors of these meetings, processes, talks, etc.
Maria Zakharova: Today we have already talked about court decisions and about responsibility. We collect data every day. Russian courts, based on evidence collected by the Investigative Committee of Russia, continue to pass sentences on Ukrainian neo-Nazis who have committed serious crimes against the civilian population. We say that this work is underway and will continue. Nobody will set it aside. Some things will be implemented now, and some in the more distant future.
Yaroslav Khunka from SS division Galicia has found his moment of glory. It is amazing. He lived until he is ninety-eight and considered this is the right age to reach the climax of his pseudo-heroic past, and instead received worldwide contempt. Not everything happens at once in the historical process. Something is postponed for various reasons: history, fate, providence. But you can see when crimes, covered by decades of recent history, still await their fair verdict: moral, ethical, social, and legal.
Maria Zakharova: I think your question has an obvious answer. We spoke about this more than once. The timing and other issues regarding the deployment of Russian peacekeepers in the region will be addressed together with our colleagues. If you are talking about the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh, then together with the Azerbaijani side, considering the situation on the ground.
Maria Zakharova: We have already spoken about unblocking transport links between Azerbaijan and Armenia at the previous briefing. These efforts continue within the trilateral working group co-chaired by deputy prime ministers.
In particular, a project is being considered to restore the transport route connecting Azerbaijan with the Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic through the Syunik region of Armenia. If implemented, this project boasts significant potential for progress towards normalising relations between Yerevan and Baku. Everything depends on the political will of the countries’ leaders and their willingness to reach specific agreements.
Maria Zakharova: First, we proceed from our agreements, which are in formalised documents.
Second, we will respond to every step and decision. It is the job of the analysts to consider potential events. We provide comments on the events that have already taken place or are about to happen. As to Russia’s stance, it is formalised in the relevant documents.
You know our position; it is legally formalised. I do not think I should engage in the matters you raise. All scenarios can and should be considered, but in that case we could comment on possible developments indefinitely because there are many possible scenarios. Let’s not go there.
Maria Zakharova: She mentioned a lot of things. I have already commented on some of her statements. I think the most essential thing is to rely on actual experience. A number of African nations can share a great deal about France’s military presence in their countries. Today, due to Paris’ absolutely inappropriate behaviour, French ambassadors have been expelled from African states, which had received security guarantees on the ground in the form of military bases, private military companies, and others. The African continent and a number of countries said no thank you to these ‘efforts’: apparently, they were literally left by France to the mercy of fate to face security problems – simply because Paris decided at some point it no longer made sense to engage in the relevant efforts. These were actual events that should be referred to.
There are my and experts’ comments, and then there is actual experience that you should look into, as simple as that.
Most importantly, I believe this is yet another obvious example of the ways France fulfils its obligations. Once again, I’ll refer to the Minsk agreements: there was no need to sacrifice lives, deploy French military bases, and expand NATO. Resolving issues under the Minsk agreements simply required executing them, carrying out political work with the Kiev regime, and ensuring legitimate rights for Donbass residents – that is, doing things that Paris had signed up for. But they did nothing. No safety guarantees were ensured for Donbass residents, no efforts made to stop their persecution based on ethnicity and language, and no efforts made to bring the laws of Ukraine, which was ruled by the Kiev regime, in line with general EU standards with which official Kiev was associated. Paris failed to engage in or implement any of this; they could not even return money transfers and payments that the Kiev regime blocked for Donbass residents, although they had promised to do so. They failed to find the nerve to listen to political and public figures and civilians in these regions. All their lives they blocked the voices of the people there, of those who made attempts to convey the truth and actual facts to Paris and the EU. They did not even want to hear them. What are you talking about, what guarantees?
If the official Yerevan views this as a successful example, it should be admitted that they consider France’s mediating role in the implementation of the Minsk agreements as successful and acceptable to all, that’s it. So, this is not about our comments but about Paris’ experience. We should assess these facts in an honest manner, without hushing them up.
Maria Zakharova: Are you sure you are addressing this question to the right person?
Question: I am, because you have mentioned that the rest of the population was withdrawn...
Maria Zakharova: They were. Should they be withdrawn or not? But wait a second, you got it all confused. If you are asking what Armenia and the official Yerevan are doing to help the citizens that you just mentioned, you should contact the official representative of the Armenian Foreign Ministry.
If you are asking what Russia is doing to provide assistance, first you need to remember that those you mentioned are citizens of Armenia. Some of them renounced Russian citizenship, while others initially had Armenian citizenship.
As of today, none of the people you mentioned have Russian citizenship. Nobody has approached us, either with formal or informal requests on their part (I am not talking about news reports, which claim many different things). We should carry on an honest dialogue on this matter.
Question: In the past few days, we can hear Russian authorities justify the actions of Azerbaijan with regard to the peaceful population of Artsakh …
Maria Zakharova: Let us not make any assertions. If you are making an assertion, you should provide a specific example. What do you mean? It is incorrect and dishonest to make declarations in the form of a question.
Question: The Russian side, Russian officials are stating that Azerbaijan is de jure operating on its own territory …
Maria Zakharova: Wait a moment; let us start from here. Please tell me, it would be interesting to know, do you recognise the territory of Nagorno Karabakh as the territory of Azerbaijan?
Question: I personally do not.
Maria Zakharova: Then I can understand where this wording comes from. What do you think of the fact that Yerevan has officially recognised this?
Question: I have a very negative opinion.
Maria Zakharova: I believe that you should resolve this issue all by yourself or with authorities in Yerevan. You should conduct dialogue with them, not us. We proceed from official statements, made by Yerevan. Do you recognise authorities in Yerevan as legitimate? I want to understand exactly where you stand.
Question: No, I do not recognise.
Maria Zakharova: I therefore believe it would be pointless to answer these questions. Our positions are different. I find it hard to reply to your subsequent questions, if you do not recognise the legitimacy of authorities in Yerevan and the territorial sovereignty of Azerbaijan over Nagorno Karabakh (that Armenian authorities have recognised) because we voice different positions on basic aspects. It is pointless to conduct any dialogue and to reply to questions. What kind of dialogue can take place in the future, if you and I disagree today, on October 4, 2023?
Question: If you accept an explanation that this is de jure Azerbaijani territory, then it turns out that Kiev is also right in killing the peaceful population of Donbass. Are all these crimes of the Kiev regime also justified because this is de jure Ukrainian territory?
Maria Zakharova: I understood the gist of your question before I said “simply interesting.” I accept all previous statements made prior to these words, but I reject everything else. You and I have different positions.
We will find no points of contact. I hear Armenian media representatives say that they do not recognise the legitimacy of the incumbent authorities in Yerevan. How can I reply to your questions? This your point of view.
You have replied to my clarifying questions. I understand everything here. You and I can hold historical debates or spend our free time arguing profusely with a polemical ardour. However, we should not be doing this during regular business hours stipulated by our employer.
Maria Zakharova: During the EU summits in Prague in October 2022 and in Brussels in May, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan agreed that Nagorno-Karabakh was part of Azerbaijan.
I heard you saying today that you refuse to accept this as a legitimate move. However, this decision was made by a person who, from the perspective of international relations, is the legitimate leader of the state. Moreover, the Armenian leader simply forgot or failed to mention the need to ensure the rights and security of the local Armenian population. It was not included in the agenda of the talks. This is a fact. It is not included in any document, and no oral statement was made to that effect. It was not mentioned in any way.
These steps have dramatically impacted the Russian peacekeeping contingent staying in Nagorno-Karabakh. Now, after official Yerevan made its decision publicly and whether it was accepted by anyone or not, it was nevertheless enshrined in legal international documents, we will address and discuss the key issues concerning our peacekeepers’ presence in Nagorno-Karabakh with Baku.
Please note the material that we published in the media yesterday. It contains detailed information about Russia’s humanitarian aid to the Armenian population. Please review it if you haven’t done so already. We are committed to expanding this aid.
According to our information, some residents of Nagorno-Karabakh are thinking about returning to their homes, provided proper conditions are created and their safety is ensured. We will facilitate these processes in our contacts with Azerbaijan.
Our journalists are denied entry into Armenia even for less serious rhetoric. They have been blacklisted. You have just questioned the legitimacy of the Armenian government.
You can see Russian channels being threatened with closure, and Russian journalists being told that they would never be able to set foot on the territory of their historical homeland and cannot perform their professional duties. Just like other people, I can see all of that. This is deeply regrettable, to put it mildly.
We confronted Yerevan with these questions. I understand the level of the unfolding drama. Frankly, your remarks are fairly disquieting. I have nothing to add to that.
Maria Zakharova: We are the only one to raise this issue. We called a spade a spade when talking about the American base. This is not just an American base, but occupation forces, that’s what they are. This is an occupation. Another thing is that all this is supported by those pro-American authorities who have come to lead Germany. But it is true, and only Russia called it that. After us, other voices began to be heard. But we were the first to talk about this.
Which troops can do what on the territory of Germany? This question should be addressed to German politicians, public figures, and journalists. This is their topic and their question. In addition, I will not tire of saying and recalling what Russia has done. This is surprising, but the Europeans do not realise that US nuclear weapons are located on their territory, in many countries, which cannot be controlled by the leadership of European countries. This is a question for the people living in these countries. Let their politicians answer these questions.
Maria Zakharova: In accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, a citizen of the Russian Federation cannot be stripped of his or her citizenship or of the right to change it.
The new Federal Law of April 28, 2023 No 138-FZ On Citizenship of the Russian Federation, which comes into force on October 26, 2023, provides grounds for terminating one’s citizenship of the Russian Federation, which are in many ways similar to the provisions of the current legislation on citizenship.
For example, Russian citizenship can be revoked upon the voluntary expression of the will of a citizen of the Russian Federation when applying to renounce his or her citizenship of the Russian Federation by decision of the authorised body in charge of citizenship matters (the President of the Russian Federation, a territorial body of the Interior Ministry, a Russian foreign mission). An example of this can be drawn from what we talked about at this briefing: Ruben Vardanyan exercised his right and renounced Russian citizenship.
Citizenship of the Russian Federation can also be withdrawn if an applicant for Russian citizenship reports knowingly false information regarding his or her obligation to comply with the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the legislation of the Russian Federation, including the following:
а) crimes (preparation for a crime or attempted crime), as envisaged in the relevant articles of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, including those associated with the implementation of terrorist or extremist activities (the decision on termination of citizenship in this case will be made by the authorised body in charge of citizenship issues, which previously made a decision on admission to Russian citizenship);
b) actions that pose a threat to the national security of the Russian Federation (the decision to revoke citizenship will be made by the Russian Interior Ministry and its territorial bodies based on the relevant conclusion of the Russian Federal Security Service).
In addition, Russian citizenship will be revoked if it can be proven that a person has submitted forged, fake, or invalid documents, or knowingly false information, on the basis of which the decision was made to grant citizenship of the Russian Federation or the decision on recognising him or her as a citizen of the Russian Federation was made (the decision on terminating citizenship will be made by the authorised body that previously made the decision on granting citizenship, on the basis of a corresponding Russian court decision that established the mentioned facts).
I have always admired lawyers, because it is difficult just to read it aloud, much less to develop and monitor the legality of these norms. I think it is a great accomplishment. But we will always be happy to prepare background information based on your requests.
Дополнительные материалы
-
Фото
