Excerpts from the briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, November 22, 2023
- Sergey Lavrov’s participation in the opening ceremony of the exhibition dedicated to the 195th anniversary of Russia-Brazil diplomatic relations
- Sergey Lavrov’s participation in the Primakov Readings
- Ukraine crisis update
- Svyatoshin district court of Kiev rules on criminal case involving Independence Square shooting
- Reunification of children evacuated from the new Russian regions and Ukraine to Russia with their natural relatives
- Deal on releasing hostages from the Gaza Strip and Palestinian inmates of Israeli prisons
- Lithuanian Interior Minister Agne Bilotaite’s comments on the Russian initiative
- The adoption of the Olympic Truce resolution by the UN General Assembly
- US interference in the internal affairs of Bangladesh
- Anti-Russia sanctions’ impact on global food security
- German authorities’ response to a public appeal by defenders and residents of besieged Leningrad to the German Government
- Results of the Russian delegation's participation in the APEC CEO Summit
- The origin of the Road of Life on Lake Ladoga during the Great Patriotic War
- 50th anniversary of Russia’s participation in the UN peacekeeping activity
- The 55th anniversary of the Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity
- 80th anniversary of Tehran Conference of three Allied leaders
Answers to media questions:
- Results of the Polar Summit
- Finnish authorities’ Russophobic actions
- The war on monuments in the Baltics
- Attempts to “cancel” Russia
- The assassination of John F. Kennedy and Russia-US relations today
- The role of BRICS in the Palestinian-Israeli settlement
- Water discharge from the Fukushima 1 Nuclear Power Plant
- Unilateral actions by the Finnish authorities
- Relations between Russia and G20 countries
- Western attempts to build a new iron curtain
- France’s activities in the South Caucasus
- Possible restrictions on Russian diplomats’ movement within EU countries
- Russian de-escalation efforts in Gaza
- The Middle East Weapons of Mass Destruction-Free Zone
- The status of the EU mission in Armenia
- Russia’s stand on North Korea’s satellite launch
- Russia-North Korea cooperation
- Malicious Western activities
- Russia-Argentina relations
- Humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza
- Russia’s efforts towards a Palestinian-Israeli settlement
On November 27, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will attend a ceremony to open an exhibition of archival materials and photographs dedicated to the 195th anniversary of diplomatic relations between Russia and Brazil. It will be a major part in a series of events scheduled to be held in Moscow and Brasilia for this memorable date.
The exhibition includes materials about the history of bilateral relations since October 3, 1828, when an executive order appointing Franz Borel Russia’s first envoy to Brazil.
Modern-day relations between Russia and Brazil are developing in the spirit of strategic partnership. Their multifaceted cooperation is growing stronger in the bilateral format and on the international stage, as well as within multilateral associations where our countries are working together productively.
Sergey Lavrov’s participation in the Primakov Readings
On November 27, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will take part in the Primakov Readings International Forum, dedicated to the memory of outstanding Russian statesman, diplomat and academic Yevgeny Primakov.
The annual Primakov Readings forum of experts and academics, initiated in 2015, and has evolved into a major international platform for discussions on global politics, security and the economy. Respected Russian and international academics, politicians, diplomats, journalists and experts are regularly invited to take part in the event.
The main theme of the forum this year, Postglobalisation Horizons, is especially important amid the tectonic shifts taking place in the global geopolitical landscape.
The forum’s agenda includes a broad range of issues, such as Political Risks for Global Energy Markets, The Middle East. The Tragedy and Challenges of the Unresolved Conflict, China-US: Competition, Interdependence, Global Context, Central Asia, South Caucasus and Russia in Search of New Development Models, Russia-Africa: From Programme Guidelines to Practical Results, and many other issues of great importance for humanity.
Taking part in the Readings this year will be delegates from Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Egypt, Finland, India, Iran, China, Cuba, Kazakhstan, Nigeria, Oman, Syria, South Africa, Türkiye, Uganda, the United States and Uzbekistan.
Sergey Lavrov will speak about Russia’s views on fundamental global development trends, specifically the ongoing rise of a farer multipolar world and will answer questions from participants.
November 21 marked the 10th anniversary of the start of anti-government protests on the square of the so-called Independence in Kiev. It was indeed a grotesque event of outlandish proportions which caused a tragic ripple effect, leading to the ongoing disaster in Ukraine.
A detailed commentary dedicated to this anniversary was recently posted on the Foreign Ministry website, delving to the origins of the Euromaidan, revealing the figures behind this tragicomedy, and examining how it transformed into a genuine tragedy for the people of Ukraine.
Today, I would like to address an important aspect: the sentiments of the Ukrainian people regarding those developments. Remember, people took to the streets because they wanted positive change. It was a natural aspiration, considering the challenging path travelled by that young state. As you may remember, Ukraine was undergoing a democratic transition at that time. However, today the question needs to be rephrased. Ukrainian citizens ask themselves this question almost daily. Did they achieve what they wanted? The answer is clear – no, they did not.
The point is that Anglo-Saxon intelligence agencies and their collaborators in Kiev used Ukrainian citizens as a means to achieve their selfish goals. The Euromaidan, alongside other factors, resulted in the division of society, a surge in nationalism, social upheavals, and the substitution of a state based on solid foundations for legal nihilism, causing profound disruption in Ukraine. These developments led to the persecution of the Russian language and history, deterioration of the socioeconomic situation, the emergence of a repressive dictatorship, and civil war. Over the past decade, the people of Ukraine openly admitted, as confirmed by opinion polls, that the country was headed in the wrong direction. However, the authorities acted against the interests of their own people, further pushing them into a state of subjugation to foreign interests.
As you know, the decision by President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovich to postpone the signing of the Association Agreement with the EU in November 2013 served as the formal trigger for the anti-government protests. This document was later signed by the Western-backed authorities who seized power in Kiev. Why did Yanukovich want to delay the signing? The expert community believed it would destroy the Ukrainian economy. Indeed, millions of Ukrainians are now living in the EU, mostly as refugees, though, with the local authorities willing to pay them to have them go back home. Ukrainian agricultural exports, subject to EU quotas, which received extensive coverage 10 years ago, are now stopped at the border, ironically not by Russia, but by eastern EU members. Meanwhile, valuable cultural artefacts and works of art belonging to the Ukrainian people are being exported to Europe en masse. Shocking as it may sound, unaccompanied children and teenagers from Ukraine are being shipped to Europe as well. Their fate remains unknown. However, we understand what this is all about. Today the official EU authorities and EU journalists, as well as ourselves, write about the places where these children end up.
Corruption, which protesters opposed a decade ago, has now reached unprecedented proportions, particularly under Zelensky and prior to that under Poroshenko. Military, financial, and humanitarian aid provided by Western countries, not to mention loans or economic transactions, is being shamelessly stolen. Despite demands for financial transparency from the Kiev regime sponsors, these efforts seem more for show, intended to create an illusion of accountability, so that later, during audits, they could report that they were fighting corruption in Ukraine and pretend that they were directing funds for a good cause rather than into a black hole. All of this is in vain. Even European officials were forced to admit that Ukraine is a country plagued by corruption at all levels of society.
I don't think this is the future that the Ukrainians dreamed of in November 2013. Had they seen this kind of future 10 years ago, they would have recoiled in horror from the prospects of Maidan and gone back to work. Back then, many of them mindlessly chanted slogans about Ukraine rejoining the “European family.” For the vast majority of Ukrainians, the Euromaidan has become a tragic shift away from peaceful life, eroding their sense of security regarding their future and self-respect. The current Kiev regime cynically distorts the aspirations of its citizens.
Ukrainian neo-Nazis continue to ruthlessly target civilians in Donbass and the Sea of Azov region, as well as the Kherson, Belgorod, Bryansk, and Kursk regions. They extensively use NATO-supplied MLRS, artillery, shells, including those with cassette warheads, and drones.
Over the past week, three people died, and 11, including a four-month-old baby, were injured as a result of brutal shelling by the Ukrainian Armed Forces of the Donetsk People's Republic. The Kiev regime launches these bloody attacks to show its sponsors some results amid the bleak situation on the contact line.
A brief update on legal actions. Russian courts continue to adopt verdicts, based on the evidence collected by the Investigative Committee of Russia, holding the neo-Nazis accountable for grave crimes against civilians.
The neo-Nazi members of the Azov forces, Sergey Rogozny and Sergey Ivankov, have been given a 25-year prison term for murdering civilians in Mariupol in the spring of 2022.
Ukrainian soldier Andrey Savchuk has been sentenced to 16 years for providing the coordinates of two private houses in Nikolayevka, Lugansk People’s Republic, which were subsequently hit from Grad multiple launch rocket systems and destroyed.
Ukrainian soldier Vladimir Orel received a 12-year sentence for cruelty against civilians in Mariupol in March 2022.
Charges have been brought against several high-ranking Ukrainian servicemen for crimes against people in the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics, including Vladislav Lishchinsky, deputy head of the so-called counterterrorist operation in April to August 2016; Oleg Vishnevsky, commander of the Vostok tactical group of forces in April to December 2018; and Sergey Sirchenko, commander of the 56th Detached Mechanised Brigade in 2022. Their criminal actions left 645 people dead or wounded, including 43 children. Efforts are underway to locate and detain them.
According to the Investigative Committee of Russia, criminal proceedings have been initiated against 523 citizens of 44 countries, 39 people have been put on the international wanted list, and 16 have been arrested in absentia.
Efforts will continue to bring charges against persons involved in such crimes. We have no doubt that none of the
Over the past week, several high guests from the
The November 13-15 visit to
It appears that
As I have said, the West should know that these actions are leading it into a trap, entangling it further in the conflict and boosting its escalation, the growth of civilian casualties while damaging their own economies and even societies, considering the processes that are gaining momentum in
No matter how much the collective West tries to arm the Ukrainian armed forces and encourage
Svyatoshin district court of
I would now like to discuss the most important issue that Western sponsors of the 2013 Maidan Uprising (that, in reality, marked the beginning of a coup d’état) do not want to recall nowadays. However, I will talk about this.
On October 18, 2023, the Svyatoshin district court of
The verdict speaks volumes because the facts were so obvious that even a contemporary Ukrainian court affiliated with the Kiev regime had to admit that many activists of the Maidan uprising were killed by accurate gunfire from Hotel Ukraina where armed Right Sector militants were entrenched. The Ukrainian court noted openly that police officers did not control the hotel. Many of those wounded on
The
I would like to remind you that the Western rhetoric of that period, as well as that by liberal communities worldwide, blamed the shooters for everything. This is exactly what they said. When
Let me cite a few facts. Our Western non-partners have a very short memory. As far back as December 2013, during the opposition protests in Kiev, when Maidan supporters began attacking law enforcement officers with Molotov cocktails for the whole world to see, Pentagon chief Charles Hagel “strongly warned” the Ukrainian government – the legal one, elected by the people – against the use of armed forces against the civilian population in any form. The EU kept reiterating that violence on the part of the authorities was unacceptable.
[They were warning] the legitimate authorities, who had to watch lawless actions nfold before their eyes. At the same time – and this is another well-known fact – US and EU officials openly supported and sponsored the anti-government rallies. NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen demanded that President Yanukovich refrain from using the army against his own people, against the protesters on Maidan or anywhere else. They said, “you can't kill democracy.” Yanukovich did not use the army. He used the police and Berkut special units, but they were attacked more often than they tried to restore order, although they were unarmed. They were confronted by young men with Molotov cocktails and pioneer spades. They had surprisingly procured hundreds, if not thousands of tyres, and combustible mixtures.
When the new government in Kiev, which came to power unconstitutionally a few months later, was opposed by a number of Ukrainian regions, the US and the EU did exactly the opposite. Without thinking twice, they approved a forceful “antiterrorist” – in fact, punitive – operation against the dissenters. But who were those dissenters? Not rioters trying to overthrow the government and thinking that reform and coup were the same thing – those people defended the legitimate government, legality and constitutional order. And when a force was sent to suppress several regions in
I would like to cite one more quote: “There are productive ways of responding and expressing those frustrations, and there are destructive ways of responding. Burning buildings, torching cars, destroying property, putting people at risk. That’s destructive and there’s no excuse for it. Those are criminal acts and people should be prosecuted if they engage in criminal acts.” Who do you think said this? Perhaps it was President Yanukovich during the December 2013-February 2014 Maidan riots? Wrong. Maybe it was the President of the
Let me reiterate. The
Where and when are they right? When do they speak truth? I am interested. Let me remind you that it is the very same person who watched the 2014 events in the Maidan and the developments in southeastern
The
The
The verdict of
Where are these EU officials who in those months of 2013-2014 said that the one who opened fire was the instigator and must be doomed for all time? These were the words of the collective
The verdict of the
Reunification of children evacuated from the new Russian regions and
Since the start of the special military operation,
These included about 2,000 children from orphanages (orphans and children left without parental care whose legal representatives were the directors and other staff of these establishments).
Children from the
There are several methods for children to be reunited with their natural relatives. First, families make the choice independently or with the help of volunteer organisations, a method which does not require any administrative assistance. Second, families or volunteer organisations appeal to the Russian Federation Presidential Commissioner for Children's Rights Maria Lvova-Belova. Third, parents and other natural relatives can send applications to the Ukrainian authorities, which will forward their applications to the office of Maria Lvova-Belova.
As of November 21, 2023, the office has helped 40 children from 29 families reunite with their relatives in
As per the President’s instructions No. Pr-986 of May 16, 2023, on measures to assist the reunification of families divided during the special military operation, an interdepartmental working group has been established to implement the package of measures for the reunification of underage children with their families. It is chaired by Maria Lvova-Belova and includes representatives from the concerned establishments.
The office of the presidential commissioner is open to cooperation with representatives of international organisations and foreign state officials. If and when necessary, intermediaries have contributed to this process, namely Qatari representatives and Papal envoy Cardinal Zuppi, the Archbishop of Bologna and president of the Episcopal Conference of Italy.
In the majority of cases, children are reunited with their parents or natural relatives through contacts with Ukrainian counterparts. It involves the collection and verification of information, including by forwarding requests to authorised agencies, the compiling of the necessary package of documents, and the coordination of the transportation of the reunified families to their places of residence. The regional delegation of the International Committee of the Red Cross in
Therefore, we have created an efficient mechanism for children’s reunification with their parents or natural relatives. It is accessible, effective and transparent and involves an individual approach to each particular situation.
I would like to remind you what President Putin said on this issue: “We were never against the reunion of children with their families, if, of course, their relatives turn up. There have never been any obstacles to this and never will be.”
I would like to emphasise this information primarily for foreign correspondents, who often write on this issue but somehow refuse to acknowledge these facts. Moreover, we have held two special briefings by Presidential Commissioner for Children's Rights Maria Lvova-Belova at the ministry’s press centre alone, which foreign journalists attended. They can also attend any other relevant events if they wish. There is a surprising trend: when we send invitations to those who have recently posted items and who claim to specialise on this issue, they gladly accept them. But they inform us at the last possible moment that they can’t attend these events, not even via videoconference, due to “unforeseen complications.” Do you know why they don’t attend these events? Because if they do, the fake stories about
Deal on releasing hostages from the
We are receiving reports that Israeli authorities and the Hamas movement have reached a deal to swap some of the women and children held hostage in the Gaza Strip for Palestinian inmates in Israeli prisons. Under the deal, a four-day humanitarian pause should be declared in the Palestinian enclave, and hostilities should also cease. This will make it possible to deliver more food, fuel and medications for Gaza Strip residents.
Effective mediatory efforts by
In turn, we are determined to facilitate this process in every way in close coordination with our regional partners. We will continue to encourage all the parties involved to search for essential compromise solutions to end the crisis situation as soon as possible and find a comprehensive solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in accordance with the well-known international legal foundation.
We welcome the agreements reached. We would like to emphasise that that
Lithuanian Interior Minister Agne Bilotaite’s comments on the Russian initiative
We have noted a commentary by Lithuanian Interior Minister Agne Bilotaite, published by the Western media. It calls for an expansion of the alliance of democratic states against Russian and Belarusian initiatives, due to be reviewed at the 91st Interpol General Assembly Session in
This implies the obvious politicisation of the format’s work. We can see that the West has imposed this politicisation, and it has reached such a level that any proposals, submitted during the General Assembly, are rejected for purely national reasons, rather than in terms of their content.
We consider this statement as obvious bloc pressure on Interpol member states; this pressure undermines the countries’ sovereign capability to independently uphold national interests at the Interpol General Assembly, the Organisation’s top decision-making body.
The introduction of a Russophobic agenda into professional activity and the creation of a political coalition run counter to Interpol’s principles because Article 3 of the Constitution of the International Criminal Police Organisation Interpol states expressly that “it is strictly forbidden for the Organisation to undertake any intervention or activities of a political, military, religious or racial character.”
We can see the results of timeserving political interests when they become more important than intra-Interpol obligations. Western countries are therefore grossly violating the unshakeable pillars of international cooperation in this sphere.
The adoption of the Olympic Truce resolution by the UN General Assembly
The UN General Assembly has adopted a resolution titled “Building a peaceful and better world through sport and the Olympic ideal.” This resolution is customarily adopted prior to the Olympic Games to reflect the unifying and reconciliatory role of sports. This year, France, as the host of the 2024 Summer Olympic Games in Paris, sponsored this resolution.
Russia aligns itself with the fundamental principles outlined in this resolution, and has consistently supported such initiatives in the past.
However, let us delve into the developments surrounding the draft document this year. Unfortunately, its authors have, once again, opted for a confrontational approach. They have incorporated openly discriminatory language into the resolution, a departure from the universally accepted views of sports as an effective means to foster unity, uphold universal values, break down racial and political barriers, and counteract prejudice, bias, and discrimination.
We strongly believe that the genuine role of the Olympic Games is to foster unity among nations and peoples, reducing tensions, especially during periods of conflicts in international relations. This underscores the importance of maintaining the Olympic Games platform as open and accessible for all, irrespective of nationality, ethnic background, gender, political beliefs, religion, and other factors.
The international legal framework safeguards the universal right to participate in cultural life, encompassing the right to engage in sports.
Now, let's look at the essence of what has been done. The authors of the resolution seem to hold a different opinion. They have included a provision that, in effect, endorses illegal and discriminatory decisions made by the International Olympic Committee and the International Paralympic Committee regarding the exclusion of Russian athletes from international sports competitions.
We have made it clear before that the onset of double standards marks the end of genuine standards. The actions of the IOC’s top officials, leading the charge on anti-Russia sports sanctions, amount to a form of nationality-based segregation. All of this constitutes an egregious violation of basic human rights. It is imperative for the international Olympic community to adhere to the Olympic Charter and international human rights, which explicitly prohibit discrimination, including in terms of access to sports, as laid out in Principle 4 of the Olympic Charter.
Our country has consistently taken a constructive approach on this matter. We proposed the inclusion of a general provision prohibiting discrimination in sports. This provision called on states and organisations to champion equal opportunities for all athletes to participate in sports competitions, free from discrimination based on race, language, religion, political or other views, national or social background, birthplace, or any other status. Regrettably, this amendment was ignored.
As a result, the resolution neglects to incorporate the principles of equal and non-politicised access to sports and the prohibition of discrimination. Consequently, it fails to reflect the fundamental values of the Olympic and Paralympic movements. We cannot align ourselves with this approach.
I would like to emphasise once again that our country is open to sports cooperation based on the principles of equality and non-discrimination, in keeping with the Olympic spirit and principles. We strongly advocate for fair and just competitions and ensuring equal access for all countries to fully participate in the Olympic and Paralympic movements.
We remain dedicated to organising and participating in international competitions that are based on these principles. Next year, our country will host a series of major competitions, such as the Games of the Future, the BRICS Games, and the World Friendship Games. Importantly, these sports events will be based on Olympic principles, a commitment we invariably uphold.
This stands as yet another example of how politicisation, effectively amounting to nationality-based segregation, disrupts the professional sports environment and erodes standards.
US interference in the internal affairs of Bangladesh
We have spoken repeatedly about the attempts by the United States and its allies to influence internal political processes in Bangladesh, ostensibly under the banner of ensuring “transparency and inclusiveness” in the upcoming parliamentary elections there. Do you understand where the United States is and where Bangladesh is? Today I would like to return to this topic once again.
Information has come to light regarding a meeting at the end of October between US Ambassador to Bangladesh Peter Haas and a high-ranking representative of the local opposition. They reportedly discussed plans to organise mass anti-government protests in the country during the meeting. In particular, the American Ambassador promised his interlocutor to provide information support in the event that the authorities used force against participants in “peaceful demonstrations.” These assurances were purportedly made on behalf of the embassies of the United States, Britain, Australia and several other countries.
We witnessed a similar scenario ten years ago. And it worked. We remember how Victoria Nuland, the US Senior Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, handed out buns. Nothing other than buns. The meme was about cookies, but in fact they were buns, as well as leaflets, T-shirts, scarves, flags and other symbols, millions of copies of which materialised out of nowhere. Large quantities of food were provided for free, as long as people stayed in the squares and took part in what they labelled as illegal protests, but which is fact was an anti-constitutional coup. Someone did all this during the first and second Maidan. Where did these funds come from? Now it has become clear how it all works if we look at the example of Bangladesh.
How can these actions of the American Ambassador to Bangladesh be regarded? They can be seen as nothing less than gross interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign state on the part of Washington and its satellites, demonstrating open disregard for the norms and rules enshrined in the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.
On our part, we have not doubts regarding the ability of the Bangladeshi authorities to hold the parliamentary elections scheduled for January 7, 2024, in full compliance with national legislation, independently, without the help of overseas well-wishers.
Anti-Russia sanctions’ impact on global food security
We’ve been hearing words like “food security,” “threatens the entire world,” and “something needs to be done” for about 18 months now amid a media campaign that has swept the West. But what is the true threat to food security? The EU is deliberately undermining Russia's position as a leading producer of agricultural products and fertiliser for global markets. Mass anti-Russia restrictions directly affect the production of these items in Russia, creating a series of export constraints, even though these products are essential for global food security.
One of their primary goals is to isolate Russia’s economy and to inflict maximum damage on it, without considering the inevitable consequences for the global economy or the price to be paid by other countries. But who needs global food security when Russophobia is at stake?
These restrictions have caused international market-related shipment and sales difficulties for major Russian exporters. Notably, major Russian banks, including Rosselkhozbank, are under sanctions or have been disconnected from SWIFT, disrupting international payments. Additionally, EU companies were forced to “voluntarily” stop exporting agricultural equipment to Russia. The list of items that cannot be imported into Russia includes parts, components and agricultural equipment. Surprisingly, tractors are classified as dual-use goods, whereas gasoline engines (don’t laugh) are categorised as “luxury items.”
As a result, anti-Russia sanctions have created even greater risks for global food security. However, in response to our calls, the EU continues to tighten the sanctions. The ban on transit of EU agricultural output for third countries through Russia directly affects the agro-industrial sector of other states. Under the European Commission’s requirements, economic operators should exercise “over-compliance” to make sure Russia does not circumvent export restrictions. This goes to show that food security of other countries is not something the EU cares about. What the European Union is doing by imposing food-related sanctions on Russia is none other than sabotage of global proportions.
In fact, Brussels continues to cause harm not only to the agricultural sector of third countries, but the EU member states as well. In 2023, food price inflation in the EU hit its historical high, and the purchasing power of households went down. According to Eurostat, food prices in March were 19 percent higher than in March 2022, and some EU countries are experiencing a 40-percent inflation, as reported by the European Parliament.
At the meeting of the EU Council on Agriculture in Luxembourg on October 23-24, the European Commission acknowledged the overall decline in economic growth and productivity in the agricultural sector of the European Union, smaller volumes and lower quality of agricultural products, the negative dynamics of fertiliser production, and the potential negative impact of the EU's strategic plans within the Common Agricultural Policy on the EU's agricultural sector as a whole. It is expected that there will be a decline in the production of cereals (especially maize, down 13 percent and barley, down 7 percent), livestock products, olive oil, wine and fruit, as well as reduced exports of these products in the 2023-2024 agricultural year.
This raises concerns that the Ukrainian food exports by Brussels do not benefit millions of people in need around the world (we have heard and seen so many stories to that effect). Instead, these exports are seen as a means for obtaining cheap agricultural source materials for the EU’s own needs to offset the deficit of certain products (sunflower oil, wheat, soybeans, etc.). It is also seen as an attempt to combat record-high food inflation within the EU, and to generate more profits from processed product exports (flour and other milling products).
However, even this plan isn’t working. EU farmers are teetering on the edge of bankruptcy due to the higher costs of agricultural production and a surge in cheap food imports from Ukraine. According to the European Commission, in late October, the volumes of EU exports of soft wheat to third countries decreased by 24 percent (from 12.56 to 9.61 million tonnes), and hard wheat by 84 percent (from 250,600 to 39,600 tonnes).
But for them, this is merely the cost of doing business, because their ultimate goal is to prevent the export of Russian agricultural products and fertiliser to global markets. That is what is at stake. It’s not about making their countries stronger or turning a profit, but inflicting on us a “strategic defeat” (as they say) on all fronts. They are prepared to do more than shoot themselves in the foot in order to make this happen.
EU officials claim the agricultural sector is problem-free and diligently try to showcase the “numerous efforts” by Brussels to overcome the global food crisis. However, this data comes from them. You don't need to be an expert to run a comparison.
On September 8, 2023, the media published a public address from the defenders and residents of besieged Leningrad to the Government of Germany. They urged the German government to extend the humanitarian compensation payments, which currently only cover Jewish residents of besieged Leningrad, to all surviving city residents regardless of their ethnicity. Additionally, the text was sent to the Office of the German Federal Chancellor through diplomatic channels.
Just think about it: the survivors of the siege are stating that the German Government should provide compensation or additional reparations in order to stop the division of people based on ethnicity, as it was done in the past. The act of segregation was supposedly condemned. We have already moved past a point where there should be any doubts. Ethnic segregation is a monstrous act that has led to the bloodiest events in the history of our civilisation.
How did the German side respond? They informed the Russian Embassy in Berlin that they had no intention of meeting the morally justified (from our perspective) request made by non-Jewish residents of besieged Leningrad. We find the excuses of the German authorities and their claims that the issue was resolved by paying German reparations to the Soviet Union after World War II to be completely unacceptable and unconvincing. In principle, there can be no legal connection between post-war reparations and the desire of surviving residents of besieged Leningrad to achieve justice. The Russian Foreign Ministry fully supports their position.
The position of German authorities regarding non-Jewish residents of besieged Leningrad is completely outrageous, especially considering that the German state has been paying German citizens who served with Waffen SS units during World War II for decades. German authorities also pay citizens of other states who collaborated with the Nazi Third Reich, including members of collaborationist military units involved in the siege of Leningrad.
The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, Politico, Reuters and Bloomberg, where are you? Why do you fail to see this? This is a glaring example of deviating from and trampling upon everything related to human rights, ethics, and morality.
The siege of Leningrad stands out as one of the most brutal and heinous acts of the Third Reich’s purposeful genocide policy against the multi-ethnic Soviet nation. We insistently demand that German authorities display a responsible approach and basic decency. It is imperative that they adhere to universally accepted moral norms, acknowledging this indisputable historical fact. The appeals of the few surviving residents of besieged Leningrad deserve worthy attention and response. This is a real disgrace.
We have persistently raised this issue, publishing information and commentaries. For a long time, we sought to address this matter without attracting public attention and opting for private dialogues with the German side. We believed it was a misunderstanding. When we engage in discussions on these matters, we are perplexed by their apparent disregard. How can they act this way? How does the entire international press fail to notice this? It seems they have no options. Acknowledging these issues could potentially shatter the carefully cultivated image of the “enlightened West” that had been upheld for many years.
Results of the Russian delegation's participation in the APEC CEO Summit
On November 15-17, San Francisco hosted the regular summit of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum. On the instructions of President of Russia Vladimir Putin, the official delegation was headed by Deputy Prime Minister Alexey Overchuk.
The leaders' event marked the conclusion of a year-long negotiation process that involved about 10 ministerial meetings, various specialised conferences and regular consultations among senior officials.
The discussions focused on the most pressing contemporary challenges that could undermine sustainable economic growth and lead to fragmentation of the global economic system. Key agenda items included opportunities to accelerate digital transformation, improve energy prospects, and combat poverty, hunger and unemployment. These efforts were envisioned through the development of small and medium-sized enterprises, uplifting remote areas and the introduction of new technologies.
Despite isolated attempts to introduce confrontational subjects into the discourse, such efforts were widely rejected. While we have previously addressed this issue, it's worth noting that many economies, particularly Russia and its friendly partners, emphasised the imperative to bring an end to the suffering and conflicts in the Middle East. Regrettably, these concerns seemed unheard or disregarded by the United States and its allies.
For our part, we provided a comprehensive overview of our plans and ongoing accomplishments in developing trade, investment, and economic ties with Asia-Pacific economies. Notable highlights included our GDP growth of 2.8 percent in the first nine months of the current year, our commitment to achieving climate neutrality by 2060, and a significant increase in trade with relevant partners to approximately $300 billion. We described in detail Russia's extensive efforts to enhance its transport and logistics potential, build up its technological capabilities, and expand high-value-added production capacities. We once again drew attention to building the Greater Eurasian Partnership.
The summit concluded with the adoption of a consensus declaration. Unlike the previous year, this declaration is strictly focused on economic matters and delineates specific practical tasks, avoiding the inclusion of geopolitical subjects that fall outside the purview of APEC’s mandate. Our commitment to the APEC platform remains unwavering. We will actively continue our work, collaborating with friendly partners to solidify the forum’s stature as a pivotal platform for deliberating on modalities and innovative ideas for fostering economic cooperation and integration in the Asia-Pacific region.
The origin of the Road of Life on Lake Ladoga during the Great Patriotic War
The order On Organising a Road Across Lake Ladoga to supply Leningrad besieged by the Nazis was issued on November 19, 1941, and as already on November 22, the first trucks crossed the ice of Lake Ladoga.
The successful operation of the Road of Life during the Great Patriotic War involved coordinated efforts from various sectors of the armed forces, including army units, aviation, and the navy. Scientists from the Leningrad Institute of Physics and Technology played a crucial role by formulating rules for cargo columns based on scientific developments. Meteorologists from Leningrad regularly analysed the condition of the road, with Naum Reinov, an institute employee, inventing a special device to record fluctuations in the ice surface. This collective effort of the army, navy, and science aimed to ensure regular traffic along the ice route, even when the ice thickness was as low as 10 cm. We are not just talking about people walking across the ice: the operation involved organised convoys.
In total, 361,000 tonnes of cargo, including military supplies, were transported to Leningrad, and half a million people were evacuated during the harsh winter of the siege in 1941-1942. Despite the challenging circumstances, the city continued to contribute to the war effort by producing defence products, including mortars, artillery pieces, shells, and even heavy KV tanks that were transported across the ice.
In January 1943, as a result of Operation Iskra, Soviet forces regained control of Shlisselburg and a portion of the southern shoreline of Lake Ladoga. Rail and road connections were promptly established in the liberated territory, but the Road of Life continued to operate, making a significant contribution to the final breakthrough of the siege of Leningrad.
Given all this, is the German government attempting to fabricate an argument and claim that Russians and individuals of other non-Jewish ethnicities are undeserving of compensation?
50th anniversary of Russia’s participation in the UN peacekeeping activity
November 25 marks the 50th anniversary of the participation of the Soviet Union and its legal successor, the Russian Federation, in the peacekeeping operations of the UN. Exactly 50 years ago, 36 Soviet officers were despatched to the United Nations Truce Supervision Organisation in Palestine as military observers.
UN peace operations is a unique tool to resolve crises that threaten international peace and security, the most tangible and noble manifestation of the collective will of the global community to reconcile conflicts. The dedicated service of the ‘blue helmets’ has played a pivotal role in halting hostilities during critical moments and paving the way to peace processes, ultimately saving human lives.
Russia currently plays a significant role in the UN’s peace efforts, ranking among the top ten major contributors to the UN peace operation budgets. Over 70 Russian peacekeepers serve as military observers, staff officers and policemen in seven missions: in the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Cyprus, South Sudan, Western Sahara, the Middle East and the Abyei Area. Both Russian and foreign peacekeepers undergo training in specialised centres operated by the Russian Ministry of Defence and the Interior Ministry, with programmes certified by the UN Secretariat.
As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, Russia actively participates in the formulation of resolutions on the initiation, extension and termination of peacekeeping missions, and makes sure that the legal concerns of host states are taken into account and that the mandates are achievable and correspond to the changing situation on the ground.
We take an active stance in the UN General Assembly Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations, which makes decisions on the general development of this UN activity on the basis of consensus.
To mark the 50th anniversary of Russia’s participation in the UN peacekeeping activity, the exhibition, Soviet and Russian Peacekeepers: 50 Years on Guard for Peace, 1973 – 2023, will take place in the Military Uniform Museum between November 22 and December 28, 2023. The exhibition will feature articles of uniform, gear, awards and photos of Soviet and Russian peacekeepers both from private collections and those belonging to former UN military observers.
The exhibition will open today, at 5 pm. We invite the media and everyone interested to visit it.
In addition, the documentary The Note of Trust is scheduled to premiere at the International Relations Department of St Petersburg State University in early December. This film explores the lives of Soviet and Russian women serving in UN peace missions.
November 26 marks 55 years since the UN General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity. This international treaty is based on the advanced practices obtained during the Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals (which we have discussed during previous briefings), and provides accurate definitions of these crimes and obligations for the signatory states.
The development and adoption of this document were motivated by the fact that a significant number of Nazi and fascist criminals went unpunished by fleeing to various countries around the world. Many of them collaborated with the Western countries and their intelligence agencies after the war. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of such instances. One such individual is the SS officer Werner von Braun who is considered a founder of the US space programme. To this day, he has remained a “respected” figure in the United States.
In light of the rise of neo-Nazi manifestations around the world and the open support provided by the collective West for the crimes committed by the Kiev-based neo-Nazis, we would like to provide a list of the countries which did not vote or which abstained from voting on the above convention during the UN General Assembly session in 1968. These countries − the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Germany − are the main sponsors of the criminal Kiev regime. To this day, they shelter and openly pay tribute to surviving Nazi war criminals, as was recently the case with SS officer Yaroslav Hunka in the Canadian Parliament.
Instead of taking practical steps, these countries which, one might think, should be interested more than others in condemning the atrocities of the Nazis in keeping the memory of their compatriots who died fighting Nazism, are breeding meaningless initiatives to fill imaginary “legal gaps.” Germany, for example, did not joined the convention and has, in fact, waited for the Nazis to die naturally. Now, it is on the forefront of the lobbying efforts at the UN to launch a comprehensive negotiating process to draft a convention on crimes against humanity. (Where have you been for the past 80 years?) Only this time they are doing it without a historical reference to crimes committed by the Nazis. Today, all the materials are in one way or another connected to the hypocrisy that permeates international relations.
In the spirit of the rules-based world order imposed on everyone by the West, countries around the world are being compelled to cooperate with international investigative and judicial mechanisms, the legitimacy of which is, at the very least, questionable, and their professional reputations, just like those of the International Criminal Court, are non-existent. Such purposeful moves which, in reality, are a case of outlandish hypocrisy elevated to the level of politics, have devalued the principle underlying international justice, which is the fight against impunity for the most heinous crimes under international law, by imparting it a politicised, biased, and often corrupt dimension.
Our country was among the first to ratify the convention. We believe that criminal prosecution and punishment of Nazi criminals and their accomplices is our sacred duty. In doing so, we commemorate the millions of Soviet people who were killed and tortured by Nazi executioners.
As you may recall, legal proceedings against Nazis began in the Soviet Union during the 1941-1945 Great Patriotic War and continued after the Nuremberg Tribunal had concluded its work. This work continues today, particularly as part of the Without the Statute of Limitations project, which aims to preserve the memory and uncover previously unknown circumstances of Nazi war crimes committed within the borders of the Soviet Union.
We will continue this work concerning the Nazis from the Second World War era and with regard to Ukrainian neo-Nazis and everyone who supports them. We want them to know that not a single executioner from the past or today, not a single Nazi or neo-Nazi, will escape fair punishment or retribution for their crimes.
80th anniversary of Tehran Conference of three Allied leaders
In late 1943, the Soviet Union continued to endure the worst of the war. The repeated promises by the United States and Great Britain to open a second front in Europe were never fulfilled.
Following a long correspondence, the heads of the three great powers in the anti-Hitler coalition, Joseph Stalin, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, reached an agreement to hold a face-to-face meeting in Tehran from November 28 to December 1, 1943. This year, these days will mark the 80th anniversary of that meeting.
Through the Soviet side’s consistent and persistent efforts, the final document, Military Conclusions of the Tehran Conference, included a decision to launch the landing of Allied troops in Normandy (Operation Overlord) in May 1944, simultaneously with an operation in southern France. The document also addressed the coordination of military operations between the three countries, Türkiye’s entering the war, and support for Yugoslav Partisans.
The war in Europe was still in full swing; Germany continued to offer stubborn resistance to the advancing Red Army, but the leaders of the anti-Hitler coalition were already considering arrangements for the post-war international system and global security. In the Declaration of the Three Powers adopted at the conference, they expressed their “determination that our nations shall work together in war and in the peace that will follow,” and confidence that their “concord will win an enduring Peace.” They also recognised the “supreme responsibility” resting upon them and all the United Nations to make a peace that would “banish the scourge and terror of war for many generations.”
The conference outlined the contours of the post-war world order. The leaders exchanged views on the future of Germany and on the Polish question.
True to its allied duty, the Soviet side reaffirmed its readiness to enter the war in the Far East three months after Germany’s surrender.
The outcome of the Tehran Conference confirmed that the military and political cooperation of the great powers in the anti-Hitler coalition had been instrumental in achieving the victorious conclusion of WWII and the establishment of enduring peace.
Answers to media questions:
Maria Zakharova: We do not know much about this conference in Paris. Russia did not take part in it.
The role of the Arctic and Antarctic in international politics, science and economy is steadily increasing. The problems of preserving the Earth's cryosphere seem urgent indeed. This is evidenced by a noticeable increase in the number of dedicated events at different levels. However, the key question that we should ask all those interested in this agenda has to do with the added value of each of the respective meetings.
These problems are being addressed by several major forums. One of them is certainly the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), a comprehensive and universal mechanism of international cooperation. This platform coordinates the efforts of governments as well as the expert community, business circles and NGOs. Russia has prepared a draft declaration on cooperation in addressing climate change and mountain glacier degradation, which is planned to be adopted at the 28th session of the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC, which will be held in Dubai on November 30 − December 12, 2023. A number of countries have already confirmed their intention to join this initiative. Our country also participates in working out ways to prevent the melting of glaciers as part of other international formats with well-established standing.
Unfortunately, we see France artificially duplicating discussions on high-profile international issues. We believe that this approach – holding a conference on polar issues in this case – is counterproductive. There are specialised platforms for effective discussions and decision-making on this issue.
As near as we can tell, the scope of participants in the Paris event was limited to a certain group of cronies. A limited group addressing a global problem? How can this be? Or is it segregation again, where some “worthies” will decide the fate of the world without being delegated by anyone? This is an attempt by non-Arctic states, in particular France, to substitute the ad hoc forum for genuine multilateral international cooperation within the UN framework, cynically wrapped in multilateralism rhetoric.
As we see it, the true idea behind France’s initiative is not to protect the unique natural environment, but to promote the Western states’ narrow and selfish approaches and boost their status among the Arctic countries. All this has nothing to do with resolving global problems. These problems should be addressed by the whole world through specialised institutions.
Maria Zakharova: Odd news is coming from Helsinki, one piece of which you mentioned. A Russian-made tank allegedly knocked out by the Ukrainian Armed Forces was put on display in front of the Finnish parliament. On November 21, the Russian Embassy to Finland sent a protest note to the Finnish foreign ministry. It is unclear why Finland did this. I understand why the Kiev regime needs it. They have done something like that in several European cities such as Amsterdam, Berlin, and Tallinn. Now, apparently, it's Finland's turn. But what would the Finns want it for?
Perhaps, the Finnish government is so strongly afflicted by Russophobia that it is not only willing to provide extensive financial, economic, and military assistance to the neo-Nazi regime in Kiev, but is also ready to blindly follow those already blinded by neo-Nazism. No one can explain why Finland would be part of this. It seems that Finland’s top officials are unable to understand how inappropriate it looks in a square that is located just minutes from Finlandia Hall, where the foundations of pan-European security and cooperation were laid in 1975. Or, they no longer represent a value? It's hard to say.
Take a look at what’s happening on the Russian-Finnish border because of what Helsinki is doing. As you may be aware, a number of Finnish ministers stated on November 13-14 that Finland has documented a significant increase in the number of migrants crossing the border from Russia without proper entry papers. They claimed it was an “organised” flow and that “Russia had changed its previous practice of border control and no longer prevents individuals without the proper paperwork from entering Finland.” According to Finnish border guard information, 50 to 100 asylum seekers entered the country daily.
On November 16, the Finnish government announced the closure of four border crossing points on the southern part of the Russian-Finnish border, specifically, Vaalimaa, Nuijamaa, Imatra, and Niirala (on the Russian side it’s Torfyanovka, Brusnichnoye, Svetogorsk, and Vyartsilya). Asylum applications are still accepted at the Vartius (Lutya) and Salla (Salla) crossing points. These restrictions imposed by the Finnish side will remain valid until February 18, 2024.
According to the Finnish Border Guard service, about 20 asylum applications are processed daily at the Vartius crossing point, and approximately 30-40 at the Salla crossing. As a result, these crossing points were temporarily suspended on several occasions.
Finnish media reported that, given these circumstances, the Finnish government drafted a resolution to bring traffic across the Russian-Finnish border to a complete stop starting midnight (Finnish time) on November 21. However, the Ministry of Justice blocked it and made it clear that such a resolution would violate the constitutional right of Finns in Russia to return to Finland and the country's international obligations to provide protection to asylum seekers.
This is a brief summary of what happened. Now, the upshot. They could have resolved this issue by initiating consultations, or a negotiating process, with their Russian colleagues, who also stand guard at the shared border. Everything I mentioned has been done without consulting Russian border guards or contacting the Russian side at all. What has this led to? How much time has elapsed since November 13? Has anything improved? The only thing that has happened is the condition of the people who were forced to spend nights literally in the fields has worsened. One can hardly call this an act of self-promotion given the subzero temperatures, and Finnish society has already risen against such policies. So why did they do it? Is it because of the pressure exerted by the West, or is it due to some unknown reason? Everything has a practical solution and an underlying reason. What that might be in this particular case is entirely unclear. Perhaps, it is about the pressure being exerted on Helsinki.
We are open to a dialogue on this border-related issue. We have not closed it; we have not severed any communication channels with Helsinki. We have made it known not only to Finnish representatives directly (Ambassador of Finland to Russia Antti Helantera was summoned to the Foreign Ministry), but we have spoken publicly about this many times. I hope the Finnish media will be able to convey Russia’s position to the Finnish state and public.
Maria Zakharova: The OSCE was supposed to not only conduct discussions but also to make consensus decisions based on common approaches with due account for mutual concerns, interests and goals.
You are correct that all this has turned into a venue for discussions (that many countries are conducting in an obviously aggressive manner without any mutual respect). At OSCE Permanent Council meetings, Russia regularly initiates the issue of the continuing violations by Latvia and Estonia of their commitments on cultural and historical heritage. We consider attempts by the authorities of these countries to justify Nazi war crimes and distort the results of World War II, to humiliate veterans and insult those who are no longer with us, as unacceptable. We demand close attention and due response to these ugly manifestations by OSCE functionaries, including High Commissioner on National Minorities (HCNM) Kairat Abdrakhmanov (Kazakhstan). We are citing facts.
In response, our opponents just snap back and fling insults at us. They try to whitewash contempt for Soviet memorial heritage with pseudo-historical fabrications. In effect, there is no response. This shows that they are wrong, to put it mildly, and are revelling in their impunity. They feel support and maybe even follow direct instructions from the EU and NATO in Brussels.
Let’s recall that every year this group of countries votes against the UN General Assembly resolution (rarely abstains from voting) on “Combating glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.” They do this without success. The world’s majority adopts these resolutions and denounces those that pursue a state policy of “fighting monuments” in contrast to history and by violating the historical truth.
The authorities in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia are pursuing a state policy of rewriting history, glorifying former Waffen-SS legionnaires, national guerrillas (gangs of “forest brothers”) and other Nazi accomplices. They raze to the ground any Soviet memorial heritage under the pretext that they are democracies and that they reject totalitarian practices. But in reality, the Baltic regimes are enforcing totalitarian practices, considering their attitude towards national minorities in these states.
Last year, over 120 memorials to Soviet soldiers were demolished in Latvia in violation of Article 13 of the 1994 bilateral intergovernmental agreement on social protection of military pensioners. It has nothing to do with their preferences, it is a commitment under this agreement. Now the Latvian Saeima is considering a draft agreement on demolishing all monuments, including those on military burials. Over 60 memorials have been eliminated in Estonia. Estonia has announced a decision to transfer the remains in 18 graves of Soviet army servicemen that died in 1969-1980 without the consent of their relatives. About 30 monuments have been destroyed in Lithuania. I can only qualify this as revanchist by Vilnius, Riga and Tallinn. They insult the memory of the victims of World War II and humiliate Russian-speaking compatriots living in the Baltics.
In addition, as part of its policy of renouncing their Soviet past, the authorities in the Baltic countries are destroying monuments and renaming streets that are associated not only with the USSR but with tsarist Russia as well. Our cultural heritage has also come under threat. This is sacrilegious, immoral and illegal.
Maria Zakharova: I see what you mean. In mid-November, an article was published in the Belgian media about Russian aristocrats openly defending “Putin’s war.” I will be ready to speak in detail about this later, but first I will speak about the root causes.
They are the devastation of the values that were promoted within the framework of a “liberal democratic community,” including in Belgium. They include attempts to prevent people from expressing, voicing and upholding their positions. People have a right to freedom of speech, which Belgium and their local journalists pledged to do. They should adhere to this principle. But we see that they are doing the opposite.
It is also part of the attempts to cancel Russia and our culture. I regard this as an attempt to continue to pressure our compatriots, who have decided to devote their lives to promoting the achievements of Russian literature, science and the arts. These are the root causes.
Maria Zakharova: Speaking about the assassination of the 35th US president, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, it went down in the history of journalism as the most infamous crime of the 20th century. Many horrible crimes were committed in the last century, so why does that assassination carry such a negative connotation? The reason is that it has not been solved to this day. And it was broadcast live by many television networks. Many photographers captured the grisly image, and thousands of people witnessed the crime. However, nobody knows the truth to this day for a simple reason: over 14,000 documents related to the assassination of President Kennedy are kept secret or partly confidential in the US National Archive. This is a clear violation of the spirit of the fundamental US Transparency Act (1992), under which nearly all the documents that had remained classified for years were to be made public. But this has not happened.
The United States likes to preach to others that information must be made public, claiming to know everything that happens around the world, and blaming others groundlessly. At the same time, the most infamous crime, which was committed against President Kennedy in the United States, has not been solved.
As for bilateral relations, on November 16, 2023, we marked the 90th anniversary of the resumption of diplomatic relations with the United States. The relevant comment has been posted on our website.
Our relations have seen their ups and downs, followed Cold War logic and even balanced on the edge of a nuclear conflict during the Cuban Missile Crisis. There have been many different approaches, including allied relations during WWII. In that period, US officials had enough common sense to talk about peaceful coexistence and arms control with the Soviet Union.
Regrettably, the US political elite that held the reins in the 1990s and 2000s, when they thought they had won the Cold War, did not take a pragmatic view of reality. They thought that they, as the winners, could do anything. This is when they succumbed to their darkest instincts. An illusory belief in “the end of history” and the “golden age of American hegemony” has become their fundamental world outlook. Moreover, today’s US politicians and analysts were unable to appropriately assess the processes that took place in Russia after 1991. These US communities are pointlessly and absurdly focused on orchestrating a regime change and domestic unrest in Russia, and they continue investing huge sums into that endeavour. They sometimes say how much they have invested in that. Despite the tectonic geopolitical shifts, which are changing the lineup of forces on the global stage, Washington is desperately working towards the global containment of Moscow and Beijing and, ultimately, the global majority, which has rejected the rules-based world order that Washington is forcing on the world.
This is the root cause of the deep crisis in Russian-US relations. And the blame for this rests with Washington, which uses brazen Russophobia as a weapon. They do not understand that the fabric of Russian-US relations has been worn thin through Washington’s fault and could tear apart at any time. This is not Russia’s choice but Washington’s irresponsible actions towards escalation, including the doctrinal task of delivering a “strategic defeat” to Moscow. This can only lead to catastrophe.
We are doing everything we can to prevent this. Your question should also be addressed to the United States.
Maria Zakharova: The meeting confirmed the determination of BRICS to address vital issues on the global agenda collectively and the commitment of all member states and non-members who hold the same views to respect international law. At the end of the meeting, the South African Presidency issued a statement reflecting the participants’ stance on the situation in the Gaza Strip.
The meeting was further evidence of the growing role of BRICS in addressing complex international issues and of the association’s focus on true multilateralism, taking into account the interests of the global majority. BRICS has long had a reputation as a democratic platform where everyone speaks their mind and respects their partners’ opinions.
When it comes to the interaction between Russia and China, something you have been regularly asking about, we keep in close touch on the settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. We coordinate our steps, both in the interministerial format and at the UN, as well as in other international organisations and associations.
We hold similar approaches to this problem and fully agree that the resolution of the Middle East crisis should be based exclusively on the two-state formula approved by the UN Security Council and on its resolutions providing for the establishment of an independent Palestinian State.
Maria Zakharova: Together with our Chinese partners at the IAEA, we are insisting on a higher level of transparency, requiring Japan to provide interested states with access to all relevant information regarding the discharge of ALPS-treated water from the Fukushima nuclear power plant into the ocean.
Russia has provided the IAEA Secretariat with a list of laboratories that could be involved in analysing samples taken in the area of the discharge. The IAEA has confirmed its willingness to engage Russian laboratories for this purpose starting in 2024.
Maria Zakharova: I will begin with the second question. There will be a reaction. It will be worked out according to our ministry’s internal procedure.
As for the first question, I answered it twice this morning. I spoke about it a third time at the briefing. It seems that I have to repeat it for the fourth time today.
I confirm once again that there were no preliminary consultations with the Russian side regarding the closure of checkpoints on the Finnish side. We were simply confronted with the fact. We have brought all these considerations to the attention of the Finnish Ambassador in Moscow and have lodged a protest in this connection.
This is another attempt by Helsinki to shift the responsibility for the situation onto us (and maybe onto someone else). I do not think such actions will lead to a proper result. To resolve this situation, the Finnish side needs to work with their Russian colleagues and border guards. This is obvious. They used to have a dialog and it was not closed. It has never been interrupted by our side.
Perhaps you could ask the Finnish Prime Minister or the Finnish Government to cite the date of the talks they had and the position of the official they talked to. If they claim to have negotiated with us, when did they do it, and with whom? If they insist on it. Who did they negotiate with? Prankers maybe?
Maria Zakharova: I will describe our general attitude to this venue. We are an active participant in the G20. We invariably make a tangible contribution to its work. An important advantage of this global economic forum is its leader character. I don’t know why and how I should justify our attitude or participation in it. I don’t think this is necessary. This is a completely wrong tone. We are and will be an active participant in the G20.
The Press Service of the President of the Russian Federation has provided everything about Vladimir Putin’s participation in the summit.
We hope that this event chaired by Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi will allow the leaders to compare their positions on current international events, sum up the results of the Indian G20 Presidency that we consider very positive, and build on the achievements made at the G20 summit in New Delhi on September 9-10 of this year. They primarily include the increasing role of the global South, the forum’s confirmed orientation to the needs of the developing economies and the recognition of Africa’s new important role, in part, in the context of the African Union’s admission to the G20 club as a permanent member.
We facilitated the success of India’s Presidency, and the search for sensible mutually acceptable decisions during this period. We consider useful the mechanism of the Voice of the Global South summits launched by India, which could broadcast its aspirations to the G20. In cooperation with our associates from among the countries with emerging markets we were purposefully enhancing our coordination and pooling efforts to prevent politicisation of this dialogue format. It should restore the practical conversation on the essence of the global socio-economic agenda.
Together we drew the main conclusion – there are no common patterns that the international community should follow in building up its economic base. We should never face a false choice – should we alleviate poverty or deal with climate change? It is necessary to preserve the openness of the global economy, the market character of cross-border trade, and step up investment and technological cooperation with emphasis on transferring digital and green developments.
We hope that this extraordinary G20 summit will allow the participants to discuss the group’s priorities in perspective. We also hope that our BRICS partners – Brazil and South Africa, which will hold its presidency in 2024 and 2025 – will be as active as India in facilitating the democratisation of global governance and the consolidation of a multilateral and polycentric world order.
In turn, Russia will continue working consistently to depoliticise the G20, better consolidate states with emerging markets and launch a truly equitable and mutually respectful dialogue between the G7 and the developing economies at the G20 platform.
Maria Zakharova: I would not just look at the situation on the Finnish border. It seems to me that recent trends indicate that NATO’s "big brother" (the Anglo-Saxon duo) is doing everything it can to isolate the other members (particularly the EU) from a normal, mutually beneficial form of cooperation and communication with its obvious and natural partners, one of which is Russia.
Let me remind you that for ten years we have been grieving over the date when the Maidan started, which led to irreversible consequences in Europe. Nine and a half years ago, the first EU sanctions against our country were adopted, not at the will of any country or people, but under pressure from Washington. Joe Biden (then US Vice President) personally boasted that he forced the leaders of the EU countries to accept the bondage of the sanctions, which hit the European Union itself first. That's where it all started. It is not just a thin or a dividing line, or building a fence, but a global separation of the EU countries from favourable resource centres, channels of economic interaction and cooperation, and financial and technological interaction. Why are Washington and London doing this? They are the ones who developed and are implementing this concept. I think that you also understand this very well. Here, perhaps, Rudyard Kipling can help us all with the story of how equals behave. The Anglo-Saxon world is incapable of winning a competition on the basis of equality, equal rules and rights. They only know how to act by force, or underhandedly even against their closest partners. This is an example of everything that is happening with northern Europe, which has always received benefits from interacting with our country in recent history.
The most interesting thing is that nobody even wants to think where these people who want asylum in Finland come from and what provoked the conflicts and problems in their countries. Among other things, it was provoked by Western ideologists by interfering in other’s internal affairs and initiating processes that led to civil confrontation and to a hot phase in the conflict.
Maria Zakharova: I have already spoken at length on this today. I spoke about our efforts in recent years. A bilateral treaty implies two parties. We must wait for a response from the second capital.
Maria Zakharova: For now, this is a presumption. And it is not at all surprising given everything that is going on in the unfriendly regimes camp. Just another Russophobic motion. Let's see if it is actually implemented. We respond to every step they take.
If you’re asking how necessary this measure is and what it will do – you had better ask those who instill such outlandish ideas in the minds of their local public.
Maria Zakharova: We will do everything in our power, on international platforms as well as through contacts with representatives of the region or other interested and concerned countries, to promote de-escalation and future stability in the region.
We will keep you informed of the progress. Yesterday, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a detailed conversation with the foreign ministers of Arab and Muslim countries on the implementation of the Riyadh summit resolutions.
Maria Zakharova: We have seen signals from Ankara suggesting Türkiye is going to initiate the establishment of some kind of mechanism to verify whether Israel has nuclear weapons, and that the country is interested in greater cooperation with other states on this matter. We have not received any official proposal or request in this regard. It is premature to evaluate this yet.
Countries have been making real efforts to free the Middle East from nuclear weapons for years as part of a multilateral dialogue on establishing a Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction (MENWFZ) Free Zone in the region. Russia is a consistent supporter of MENWFZ, as this would benefit the interests of all regional states and other nations without exception.
The fourth session of the MENWFZ conference recently took place in New York under the auspices of the United Nations. It is important that the participants have displayed a constructive intention to create favourable conditions for including the states that remain outside this process at this stage.
We believe that sooner or later, the countries in the region will be able to achieve their goal voluntarily and by adopting consensus decisions. Russia is ready to continue to assist them in this endeavour.
Maria Zakharova: We can see that this mission has nothing to do with ensuring the security of the republic or the region. It does nothing to normalise relations between Baku and Yerevan on the basis of the trilateral agreements between the leaders of Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia signed in 2020-2022; in fact, it is achieving exactly the opposite.
Maria Zakharova: On November 21, North Korea carried out a pre-announced launch of a satellite, which provoked an extremely painful reaction from Seoul, Japan, and the United States.
As a response, the government of South Korea decided to partially suspend the 2018 inter-Korean military agreement, which plays an important role in maintaining stability and preventing armed incidents near the military demarcation line that could escalate into a large conflict.
South Korea’s steps cannot but cause regret. The escalating tension on the peninsula is a direct consequence of the aggressive military activity of the United States and its allies, who carry out military exercises almost non-stop and pump the subregion with weapons.
Russia has always advocated a peaceful settlement to the entire range of problems on the Korean Peninsula exclusively through political and diplomatic means, without external pressure and blackmail.
Maria Zakharova: Russia’s position is stated in an article published on our website on November 11.
Let me repeat that the accusations of illegal military and technical cooperation between Russia and the DPRK made by the collective West are unfounded and unproven, and were made in their favourite style of “highly likely.” Instead of evidence, a form of probability is used. Among other things, we would like to ask who gave Washington, Tokyo or other countries the authority to be investigators (sometimes even judges) of other countries’ bilateral relations?
Russia responsibly fulfills its international obligations, including UN Security Council resolutions. This does not prevent us from developing traditional relations of friendship and cooperation with our neighbours, including the DPRK, which have deep historical roots.
There is no need to look for hidden reasons here and blame us for things that are not our fault. We need to see the root causes of instability in the region. They are connected with the geopolitical ambitions of the United States.
Maria Zakharova: We will provide you with the schedule of upcoming contacts as they become available.
Maria Zakharova: We regularly inform the international community about the Kiev regime’s terrorist activities against our country, civilians, and diplomats. This includes not only the Kiev regime, but intelligence agencies from NATO countries as well.
I cannot give you the list the security measures to protect staff, since this is a matter of security. It is more appropriate to say that all proper measures are being taken in cooperation with our relevant services.
Question: Could Javier Milei's anti-Russia rhetoric affect Russia-Argentina relations?
Maria Zakharova: There is election rhetoric and there are specific actions by candidates who have won elections and taken office. We will focus on specific actions.
Question: CSTO Secretary General Imangali Tasmagambetov informed President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko that Yerevan had asked its CSTO partners to remove the document on providing assistance to Armenia from the agenda. What can you tell us about this?
Maria Zakharova: I have already commented on that. Perhaps, they no longer need assistance. But it's better to ask Yerevan.
Maria Zakharova: I want to make it clear that there are no individuals holding exclusively Russian citizenship among the hostages. There are people – Israeli citizens who permanently reside in that country but have retained citizenship of other countries, including Russia. This presented us with the task of being involved in the negotiating process with the parties regarding their future.
Due to security concerns, I would rather not comment on specific figures or information related to releasing the hostages. This is the top priority for negotiators and those who implement the relevant agreements. In this case, the “do no harm” principle applies.
Question: What specific efforts is Moscow deploying to end the Israel-Hamas conflict?
Maria Zakharova: We are focusing our public rhetoric and diplomatic efforts on this issue. A temporary ceasefire should not be treated as something trivial. It is important to emphasise our efforts to support it in every possible way. At this point, it is important to avoid phrases like “only” and the like. It is essential to highlight the efforts of everyone who managed to bring this situation, albeit temporarily (for a variety of reasons), to a ceasefire.
We have drawn attention to the root causes of the crisis that have led to this flare-up. It is important to not just achieve a temporary or partial de-escalation but, in the long run, to resolve this issue completely.
On November 21, speaking at a meeting with the foreign ministers of Arab and Muslim countries, Foreign Minister Lavrov spoke about returning to a settlement based on an international legal framework, the implementation of agreements reached by the UN Security Council resolution, and the importance of creating a diplomatic collective tool for implementing the international legal framework. Previously, there was a quartet of international mediators which did not include representatives from regional countries who should be part of it.
Whether there will be a reset, a reformatting, or the creation of something new is a matter for future consideration. But these issues should be discussed now. This is what Russia’s proposal is all about.
Дополнительные материалы
-
Фото
