Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, December 12, 2023
- The upcoming joint meeting of the Boards of the Foreign Ministries of Russia and Belarus
- The Ukraine crisis
- UN Security Council meeting on Western arms deliveries to Ukraine
- International Day of Neutrality
- Sweden’s assistance to Nazi Germany and Ukraine: Historical parallels
- President of Finland’s statements
- Danish Ambassador Jacob Henningsen’s interview
- Denmark’s refusal to provide legal assistance to investigation into Nord Stream 1 and 2 gas pipeline attacks
- Nazi marches and the glorification of Nazis in Europe
- Dismantling the Soviet Army monument in Sofia
- Second anniversary of handing over draft security assurances agreements to the United States and NATO
- Day of Remembrance of Journalists Killed in the Line of Duty
- Kiev regime’s repression against Gonzalo Lira Lopez, an American journalist
- The 30th anniversary of the Russian Constitution
- The UNESCO-Russia Mendeleev International Prize in the Basic Sciences awards ceremony
- The 65th anniversary of the UN Office for Outer Space Affairs
- The 28th anniversary of signing the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina (the Dayton Agreement)
- Spy scandal involving US secret services
- EU plans to block gas imports from Russia
- US politicians’ statements on talks with Ukraine
- Russia-Serbia cooperation
- The destructive role of the US in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict
- Prospects for a Middle East settlement
- The new Turkish format of the grain deal
- The Black Sea export corridor
- Denunciation by Estonia of legal assistance treaty with Russia
- The UK’s plans to clamp down on sanctions evaders
- The evacuation of Russians from Gaza
- The Czech initiative to restrict Russian diplomats’ movements in the Schengen zone
- Iran’s statements
- Development of the North-South international corridor
- Lithuania’s criticism of Hungary
- European countries mount pressure on Hungary
- Russia-West relations
The upcoming joint meeting of the Boards of the Foreign Ministries of Russia and Belarus
Foreign Minister of the Republic of Belarus Sergey Aleinik will pay a working visit to Moscow on December 14-15 as per an invitation from Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to take part in the annual joint meeting of the Boards of the Foreign Ministries of Russia and Belarus.
The programme of his visit will include talks between the two foreign ministers to discuss current matters related to bilateral interaction between the two foreign ministries and an exchange of views on issues on the international and regional agenda.
On December 15, the Boards will consider political, trade and economic interaction between Moscow and Minsk, on the one hand, and Asian, African, Latin American and Caribbean countries, on the other. They will also analyse Eurasian security problems. Following the meeting, it is planned to sign a number of joint documents, including the Programme of Coordinated Foreign Policy Action by States Parties to the Agreement on the Establishment of the Union State for 2024-2026.
The Kiev regime’s neo-Nazis continue delivering barbarous strikes on houses and social infrastructure in Russian regions.
Artillery attacks on cities in the Donetsk People’s Republic continue unabated, with dozens of munitions fired at them every day. Regrettably, there are civilian casualties. On December 6 of this year, two Emergencies Ministry employees were killed and another 11 taken to hospital after a follow-up Ukrainian artillery strike that caught them in the process of extinguishing a fire in the Budyonnovsky District of Donetsk. In the early hours of December 8 of this year, a Grad multiple rocket launcher missile killed an 11-year-old boy in Gorlovka. On December 11 of this year, an artillery strike damaged the roof and smashed the windows of School No.71 in the Kuibyshevsky District of Donetsk.
Russia’s Belgorod Region has been exposed to regular shelling since early December. On December 9, seven of its border municipalities were attacked with 42 munitions, including five drone-dropped explosive devices. On December 10 of this year, Ukrainian tanks were firing at areas in the Belgorod and Bryansk regions. On December 11 of this year, two villages in the Kursk Region were left without electricity following a Ukrainian artillery attack.
The Ukrainian nationalists’ misanthropic behaviour meets with an appropriate tough response and is given a legal assessment. Based on evidence collected by the Investigative Committee of Russia, courts in the Russian Federation continue passing sentences on Ukrainian nationalists implicated in grievous crimes against civilians.
Three militants from the Azov Regiment – Vladislav Chuzha, Bogdan Beznosko, and Svyatoslav Zdorovenko – were sentenced to 25 years imprisonment at a maximum security prison camp in the DPR.
The same sentence was passed on Ruslan Shmidt of the 36th Marine Brigade, who gunned down an unarmed man suspected of pro-Russian sympathies in Mariupol on May 2, 2022, after receiving a criminal order to that effect from his superiors.
The investigation of crimes committed by Ukrainian nationalists will continue and none of them will avoid shouldering the responsibility and receiving punishment.
Now let us talk about their sponsors. The United States is attempting to find the means to keep its Ukrainian charges afloat. On December 6, Secretary of State Antony Blinken reported the allocation of another $175 million in military aid to the Armed Forces of Ukraine. The package will include ammunition for air defence and artillery systems, as well as for HIMARS multiple rocket launchers. Since the start of the special military operation, Washington has extended to Kiev nearly $113 billion in financial assistance. According to official US information, half of that amount was spent on military needs and the rest was used to support the Ukrainian Government and the economy. But, in fact, this is a criminal money laundering arrangement, as the entire world is well aware.
However, even this arrangement, although it has been practically legalised by the Biden administration, cannot work ad infinitum. This killing extravaganza is already beyond Washington’s means. On December 10 of this year, the White House administrative and budget chief, Shalanda Young, said in an interview with the CBS network that the United States had about $1 billion left to replenish its own arms and ammunition stocks. The Kiel Institute for the World Economy has calculated that Ukraine received €2.11 billion between August and October of this year, the smallest amount since January 2022.
Officials in Washington have gone to great lengths in their disingenuous and cynical attempts to persuade taxpayers that the money served a purpose and did not just vanish. Antony Blinken said that 90 percent of the funds allocated to Kiev were invested in the United States to expand defence manufacturing, offering an economic growth driver for the US economy. He had no qualms about saying this. Similarly, he elaborated on the idea that, as it turns out, the Ukraine aid has been “a win-win that we need to continue.” If investing these funds in the United States is so effective, why not spend the entire 100 percent “inside the United States” and forget about Ukraine altogether? After all, the purpose of these allocations is to develop the US economy through direct investment.
This shows that they are not just being hypocritical or seeking to mislead others, but that they have gone so far in their lies that they are now ready to use any pretext to keep their political, financial and strategic manipulations afloat. They are ready to put up with any nonsense as long as they get the money.
In fact, Washington has once again shamelessly admitted that it views Ukraine as nothing more than a tool for making a hefty profit. No one in the capital aspiring to leadership among the world’s democracies ever cared about the fact that this investment came at the cost of hundreds of thousands of human lives, shattered destinies, the destruction of the Ukrainian state and contamination of its soil with depleted uranium.
As a result, I have a question for Antony Blinken. How does this effective investment inside the United States – the Secretary of State said that 90 percent goes towards defence manufacturing – relate to food security which has been such a grave concern for the United States? How did it become part of manipulations involving Ukraine? Countries cannot pay for fertilisers or perform money transfers. All these games by Washington slowed down global economics, finances and logistics. Turns out, all this boils down to investing inside the United States. Why didn’t they said so at the outset when setting all this in motion – that it was an effort to redistribute US taxpayer money among US state corporations, financial institutions, Ponzi schemes and business associations with close ties to the White House? They should have said it outright back when Under Secretary of State Victoria Nuland was handing out cookies on Kiev’s Maidan Square.
Today, on December 12, Vladimir Zelensky once again heads to Washington with his hat in hand to beg for more money. President Joe Biden knows what is going on. The stated objective consists of demonstrating the unwavering commitment by the United States to the people of Ukraine. Does this refer to the 90 percent of funds to be invested inside the United States or to the remaining 10 percent? In other words, nothing to write home about. Vladimir Zelensky will once again beg his masters and producers of the horrific and tragic show he animates to keep generously sponsoring the Kiev regime, but this will be happening against the backdrop of fierce debates and division within the US Congress. In fact, Zelensky will try to persuade the White House to prioritise Ukraine over the Americans. It would be interesting to hear the way he frames Antony Blinken’s statement.
There is one more factor explaining this trip. According to Ukrainian Telegram channels, there was a need to settle matters related to transferring all Ukrainian strategic enterprises, subsoil resources and land to be managed by BlackRock, a transnational corporation, in exchange for securing its assistance to get a new major military and financial aid package. Why does the Zelensky regime need this? Ukraine will never return to the way it was. All he cares about is his survival, in political terms and otherwise. This would be impossible for him without this money or the American assistance. I think that it is obvious how this new package will be used in a country with its pervasive corruption. Everyone understands this.
During our previous briefing, we mentioned the draft law on European integration titled “Amending certain laws of Ukraine based on the expert opinion of the Council of Europe and its bodies regarding the rights of ethnic minorities (communities) in certain areas.” The Ukrainian Government submitted it to the Verkhovna Rada on November 24, 2023.
Despite the openly racist and discriminatory way it treats the Russian language, it sparked vocal opposition among nationalists and other activists just because the draft did set forth some rudimentary rights for the Russian language, even if would not be effective until five years after the lifting of martial law. There was no way today’s neo-Nazi Ukraine could adopt this law.
This far-fetched effort to support the Russian language scared neo-Nazi MPs to the extent that they drafted an even harsher law targeting the Russian language, and the Verkhovna Rada approved it on December 8, 2023. Vladimir Zelensky signed it the same day. They have demonstrated all this haste in their legislative efforts not because they care for ethnic minority rights so much but because of their misguided belief that this document will create a pathway for the Kiev regime to achieve its coveted goal of joining the European Union.
It is for this reason that the approved law enables ethnic minorities who speak official EU languages to receive secondary education and vocational training in their mother tongue, and to use it in private higher education institutions. The law also reduces the share of programming in the state language for television and radio broadcasters offering content in the languages of EU countries from 90 down to 30 percent. It provides for distributing election campaign materials, as well as indoor and outdoor advertising in the relevant languages, etc.
Russian is the only language not covered by this new law, despite the fact that it is the mother tongue for millions of people in Ukraine. The original draft law, as drawn up by the Government, did grant it some rights that were supposed to come into force five years after the lifting of martial law, but the adopted version made these restrictions permanent. Ukraine has passed legislation to deprive the Russian language of the right to exist.
If the European Union does not object to the adoption of this law in Ukraine that is not only discriminatory but is designed to eliminate the mother tongue used by millions of people, and an official UN language, it will show its true face, demonstrating that it could not care less about the democratic principles, humanitarian values, fundamental rights and freedoms of ethnic minorities. We have been talking a great deal on this matter. It is now that they will show their ugly face.
Not only is Vladimir Zelensky’s regime intent on destroying the Russian language, but it continues waging its uncompromising struggle against history by seeking to purge any notion of a shared past with Russia from the collective memory of the Ukrainian people. On December 9, 2023, the municipal authorities in Kiev committed a barbaric act by demolishing a monument to Nikolay Shchors, a Civil War hero who commanded a Red Army Division.
The Nazis acted along the same lines in 1941 when they blew up a monument to this outstanding military commander in Zhitomir. In fact, the neo-Nazis of the 21st century do what the Nazis did in the 20th century. They have the same heroes, and the same enemies too. The Kiev Junta carries out these perfidious acts not only to erase the historical memory of its people, but also to distract its attention from urgent challenges.
At the same time, there are still people in Ukraine trying to honour the history of their ancestors. They know where they come from. People from two villages in the Ivano-Frankovsk Region spoke out against demolishing monuments to Soviet soldiers who died there, including at the hands of OUN/UPA members.
No matter what the West and its underlings in Kiev do to harm Russia, or to set people in Ukraine, those bewildered by this nationalist frenzy, against those who know their history, or to erase our history, culture and language from the popular consciousness, they will never succeed. These are not empty words. This is the historical truth. Nazis used the same methods to change the way people think – by burning books, changing printing fonts, banning poets, writers, philosophers, exterminating millions of people in gas chambers, by firing squad or burying them alive. They wanted to force people to reject what mattered to them and what they viewed as sacred. They wanted to rewire European nations, or to subject them to a mental adjustment, as Mikhail Saakashvili has said recently.
But they failed. And the world had to pay dearly for that. This lesson came at a great cost and we learned it, just like many others around the world. We remember and we know where these experiments end. Ukraine will not be an exception. This is why the special military operation will carry on until it delivers on all of its objectives as set forth by the Russian leadership.
I would like to draw your attention to the fact that Foreign Ministry’s Ambassador-at-Large on the Kiev Regime’s War Crimes, Rodion Miroshnik, held a briefing session today to present new evidence regarding the targeted actions by Vladimir Zelensky’s regime against civilians. As usual, a recording is available in several languages – English, French and Spanish, as well as on the Foreign Ministry’s official social media accounts.
UN Security Council meeting on Western arms deliveries to Ukraine
On December 11, 2023, members of the UN Security Council met, on the initiative of Russia, to discuss arms deliveries to Ukraine.
Adedeji Ebo, Director and Deputy to the High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, and Ann Wright, a retired United States Army colonel and retired US State Department official, delivered reports at the event. According to Adedeji Ebo, arms deliveries to hot spots can contribute to escalation. And in case of Ukraine conflict, they also contribute to diversion and proliferation of weapons. In this connection, he underscored the need for transferring arms in accordance with existing international instruments and urged member states to join in.
International Day of Neutrality
On February 2, 2017, members of the UN General Assembly passed a resolution proclaiming December 12 as the International Day of Neutrality.
Russia deeply respects the genuine policy of neutrality that helps strengthen international peace and security and develop friendly relations between states. Since 2020, Russia has been a member of the Group of Friends of Neutrality for Peace, Security and Sustainable Development, established at the initiative of Ashgabat. The group is called on to promote multilateral cooperation on the basis of mutual respect and understanding.
Neutral states have good chances of acting as mediators, facilitating the resolution of conflicts and helping strengthen confidence-building measures, with the consent of the parties. This requires due authority, an impeccable reputation and professionalism. These countries are the exact opposite of the warmongers who pay lip service to peace-making efforts, but who, in reality, are interested in continuing conflicts in accordance with the famous divide-and-rule formula.
We regret the fact that such countries as Austria and Switzerland have forgotten the glorious traditions of neutrality in favour of not so obvious and misunderstood timeserving interests in the context of the Ukraine crisis. They have voluntarily deprived themselves of the chance to act as mediators in the search for solutions to acute contemporary challenges.
The policy of neutrality fully conforms to the goals and principles of the UN Charter and aims to strengthen the central coordinating role of the UN contrary to destructive attempts to build a certain rules-based world order, as defined by a narrow group of states. However, even the members of this narrow group do not understand the gist of these rules. We are convinced that neutral states have an impressive potential to strengthen multilateral principles in global politics.
Sweden’s assistance to Nazi Germany and Ukraine: Historical parallels
Swedish Foreign Minister Tobias Billström has said that the EU should donate at least 50 billion euros or even more to the Nazis in Kiev. It is necessary to unhesitatingly allocate this sum without any preconditions and approvals. According to Tobias Billström, Sweden will reject any compromise package proposals linked with greater cracks in the European budget. It is necessary to quickly transfer the funding to Vladimir Zelensky, no matter what.
On December 8, 2023, an exhibition of historical documents opened at the Russian Federal Archival Agency. These documents show that Sweden displayed similar zeal during World War II (known as the Great Patriotic War in Russia), though Sweden remained officially neutral at the time. Documents that have now been declassified attest to this. The exhibition, Great Patriotic War: November 19, 1942 – November 7, 1944, mentioned by me on December 8, 2023, features some of them.
I would like to quote excerpts from a memorandum by People’s Commissar (Minister) of the Soviet Navy Nikolay Kuznetsov to People’s Commissar (Minister) of Foreign Affairs Vyacheslav Molotov on Sweden’s violations of high-seas neutrality (At that time, Sweden covertly supported the Third Reich, while publicly stating its neutrality):
– Sweden’s violation of its neutrality is expressed in failure to honour specific obligations, assumed as a neutral state under norms of positive international law, and unilateral benevolent actions in favour of Nazi Germany and the provision of services to Germany and Finland;
– According to available reports, Germany and Sweden have concluded an agreement on guaranteeing the safe navigation of German vessels along the eastern Swedish coast.
There is a certain topicality to the phrase noting that Sweden’s violation of its neutrality was making combat operations of the Order of the Red Banner Soviet Baltic Fleet more difficult and helping prolong hostilities. We sincerely advise all employees of the Swedish Embassy in Moscow to visit this exhibition and to gain an insight into their country’s position at a time when humankind was expected to unite in fighting Nazism and fascism in the mid-20th century. Quite possibly, Swedish diplomats (who can invite their colleagues from Switzerland and Austria) will realise that it is necessary to unite in order to counter Nazism, rather than support it. They will probably realise the gist of genuine neutrality, and that it is quite dangerous to renounce it. They will probably see that their countries are renouncing neutrality in order to support Nazism. This is what happened in the 20th century, and this is also happening today.
Let us go back to Tobias Billström’s interview. The Swedish Foreign Minister devotes considerable attention to the Kingdom’s future NATO membership. Actually, Sweden already has one foot in NATO, if not full-fledged membership. Swedish leaders at different levels have repeatedly noted that they have aligned with the bloc’s policies, one way or another.
If we compare documents dating to the Great Patriotic War and those of the special military operation, we will see that Stockholm harbours fond memories of its collaborationist past (when it sided with the Nazis), and now aims to join NATO in the future.
I do not envy the position that Sweden and its Foreign Minister Tobias Billström have found themselves in.
President of Finland’s statements
We have taken note of the recent interview by President of Finland Sauli Niinistö with the German media in which he called for Moscow to be addressed from a position of power, in a clear and tough manner, and also revealed his long-term belief that it was always necessary to be vigilant regarding Russia.
Throughout President Niinistö's presidency, Russia-Finland relations have been based on principles of constructive and mutually beneficial cooperation in which the interests of both parties are taken into consideration. Our countries have enjoyed high levels of bilateral trade and extensive cultural and humanitarian exchanges.
This cooperation has been based on regular bilateral political dialogue, including with Sauli Niinistö’s participation. This was the case when Finland pursued its national course in international affairs and politics. When Helsinki slacked under pressure from the United States, problems emerged immediately – but not because of Russia or because Russia requires vigilance. We guaranteed mutually respectful and beneficial bilateral cooperation that existed for decades.
Judging from his past statements (before he joined the other side), Sauli Niinistö made particular note of the trusted relationship he built with the highest leadership of Russia and assured us of his friendship. It is becoming obvious that all these years, the Finnish President has been misleading his voters and the international public. He pretended to be interested in being our good neighbour and waited for the moment to drop his disguise. It is he who should answer questions about this.
Apparently, this long-awaited moment has come. Finland joined NATO and, under the umbrella of this aggressive anti-Russia military bloc, there is no need to pretend anymore. Masks can be dropped. I have the feeling that, along with the masks, Helsinki dropped everything it was wearing.
Danish Ambassador Jacob Henningsen’s interview
Yesterday on our website, we published a comment on Danish Ambassador to Russia Jacob Henningsen having been summoned to the Russian Foreign Ministry. We immediately started receiving questions about the reasons for this.
I will gladly answer. The Danish Ambassador was recently interviewed by the Berlingske newspaper. In the interview, he stated that “nobody can feel safe in Russia” and “the principles of the rule of law do not work here.” Let’s leave out the complete lack of respect for the country he is in. Europeans have long forgotten about the rules of diplomatic courtesy. This is more than traditional etiquette; there are rules of conduct for a person accredited in a state. But let’s look at a specific case that Mr Henningsen mentions as proof: the Carlsberg case.
The Danish Ambassador forgot to mention one thing. According to investigators, the detained top managers of the company affiliated with Carlsberg committed a serious violation of the Russian Criminal Code, causing multi-million damage to this country. They were also driven by vested interests of the Danish legal entity. Isn’t legality and rule of law something that the European Union encourages and something in which Western society takes pride? We cannot allow such violations. Therefore, any similar attempts will also be prevented and the perpetrators will be held accountable to the fullest extent of Russian law that is rather liberal in this area. Or does Denmark do it differently?
For a better understanding of the current status of Carlsberg’s Russian assets, we recommend that the Danish side carefully read the President of Russia’s Executive Orders, 302 of April 25, 2023, and 520 of July 16, 2023, according to which the shares in Baltika’s registered capital were placed under the temporary administration by the Federal Agency for State Property Management. The Danish group’s subsidiary, Baltika, is not a state property and the Foreign Ministry has already commented on this matter.
The ambassador forgot to mention that in Russia, despite pressure from the authorities, dozens of major Danish companies continue to operate because they have chosen their own interests and the interests of their clients, along with Denmark as a state, considering that it is where they pay taxes. Or does the ambassador represent the United States instead of Copenhagen? The Danish companies operating in Russia have owners and shareholders. Did the ambassador ask about their interests before giving the interview?
The ambassador also failed to mention how complicated the operations of their own companies have become because of the EU’s anti-Russia sanctions and the destructive actions of the United States, which Denmark joined politically and substantially, applauding and fully justifying them.
He could have said something about the fact that one of the most terrible terrorist attacks against international infrastructure (involving capital from Russia and EU countries) was committed in Denmark’s exclusive economic zone. It was the biggest, most horrendous and outrageous terrorist attack against civilian infrastructure in world history. This act contaminated the Baltic Sea and left the European Union without energy.
I would like to address the Ambassador of Denmark and his superiors. Will we ever find out what happened in your “safe” country? We are talking about a special economic zone. Will anybody ever call perpetrators to account for the Nord Stream explosions? Will the discussion return to a reasonable track? Will there be anything besides endless milling the air at microphones? Will somebody tell us what actually happened? Or do they only have strength and courage to yet again insult our country in the Western media? Denmark’s official representatives seem to have no strength or courage to tell us what happened to the Nord Stream pipelines. Then, I will tell you.
In December 2023, we received the Danish Prosecution Service’s refusal to a request by the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation for legal assistance in the investigation into the terrorist attacks on the Nord Stream 1 and 2 gas pipelines. We were not surprised. We expected something like this. It has only confirmed the Danish authorities’ policy of covering up the truth about the real masterminds and perpetrators of the terrorist attacks.
As in March 2023, the Danish party again cited an absurd idea that granting the Russian request would allegedly damage Denmark’s security. My goodness! Does this mean that explosions on gas pipelines in Denmark’s economic zone are a normal element of security, nothing out of the ordinary, but questions about the incident could harm security? This is a theatre of the absurd.
Despite the obstacles arising, Russia will continue to demand an effective, transparent and depoliticised investigation into these terrorist attacks with the participation of the relevant Russian agencies and Gazprom, alongside international organisations.
Nazi marches and the glorification of Nazis in Europe
I would like to say a few words about the conclusions, which come to mind increasingly often when we compare the history of the 20th century and WWII with the current situation. During the December 6 briefing, we spoke about the latest Foreign Ministry report on the glorification and proliferation of Nazism and other practices that are fostering modern-day forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.
We will speak about this today again, because the report mentioned a lot of shameful annual events held in Europe. We continue to draw attention to this, whereas Europe remains silent. We mostly condemn these events after they are held, adding that the “host” countries hardly ever take notice of them. However, international public attention should be drawn to the problem before these “events” are held. Maybe this will force their organisers and the authorities of the countries to become aware of the anger and outrage of the global majority.
Let us begin with Bulgaria. The Lukov March is held there every February to mark the death of Hristo Lukov, leader of the fascist Union of Bulgarian National Legions, in 1943.
Latvia: The marches of Waffen SS veterans and commemoration services for the deceased Latvian members of these units are held annually on March 16.
Poland: Every November 11, Polish neo-Nazis hold “independence marches” attended by hundreds of thousands of people. Warsaw Mayor Rafal Trzaskowski more than once spoke out against them, pointing out “the hallmarks of Nazism” in the organisations that arrange them. But the Polish government blocked his protest. According to media reports, the march has become one of the largest events of the European far-right forces in the past few years. Mind you, not just Polish but also European far-right forces. The investigation into the actions of the police officers who did not stop the marchers from shouting anti-Semitic slogans, namely, “Death to Jews,” was terminated in December 2022. In July 2021, when the media reported that the Polish government granted funds to the Independence March Association, over 160 Polish public figures supported an open letter to the Polish minister of culture to “stop financing fascism.”
An annual march commemorating Polish war criminal Romuald Rajs is held every year in Hajnowka, a Polish city with a large Belarusian Orthodox community. In 1946, Rajs led attacks on the Belarusian residents of the region. Even the Polish authorities have admitted that these attacks, in which dozens of Belarusians were killed, contained elements of genocide.
Italy: This could be interesting for Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, who so passionately supported the new “heroes” of Ukraine. On October 30, 2022, a memorial march was held in Predappio, the town where Benito Mussolini was born, to mark the 100th anniversary of the March on Rome organised by Mussolini’s National Fascist Party. The participants used fascist slogans and symbols, which can be easily bought online in Italy. The organisers said the march was attended by about 4,000 people (2,000, according to official information), but only eight of them were detained by the police. The march is held every year and is attended by several thousand far-right extremists.
Spain: Since February 2007, far-right organisations have held an annual march with fascist symbols in Madrid to commemorate the deceased members of the Blue Division. That unit of volunteers was incorporated into the German Army (Wehrmacht) as the 250th Division and took part in fighting in the Soviet Union in 1941-1943, including in the siege of Leningrad. It is especially cynical that the commemoration march for these “heroes” is held so soon after the widely known Day of breaking the siege of Leningrad is celebrated on January 27.
Those whom the Spanish and Anglo-Saxon media increasingly often praise as “courageous and fearless fighters” were responsible, alongside the German and Finnish forces, for the siege and the horrible tragedy of Leningrad. Therefore, praising their “heroic actions” in Russia is nothing other than blasphemy and an insult to the memory of the hundreds of thousands of Leningrad residents who starved to death or were killed in bomb attacks. The Blue Division extended the tragic siege, which claimed an enormous number of lives of civilians in Leningrad. We will never forget this.
I have mentioned some of the annual neo-Nazi and far-right events held in EU countries. There are many more such events. I have only mentioned the largest of them. What do people in the EU think about them? Are any relevant reports, reviews and analytical materials published there? Nothing of the kind. It is very seldom that anti-fascist organisations speak out against this because they know what would happen to them if they became “too active.” Some of them dare to do this, and persecution campaigns are immediately launched against them. What are Brussels officials doing in this regard? Are they not aware of these events? The task of anti-fascist and intelligent people, organisations, media outlets, governments and everyone else who understand what this could lead to is to take all possible legitimate measures to condemn the organisers and participants and to prevent these marches and similar events. It is our global task to create a situation in which such horrible events become inconceivable in Europe.
Dismantling the Soviet Army monument in Sofia
Today, the authorities in Sofia have moved on to the practical realisation of long-standing disgraceful plans to dismantle the Monument to the Soviet Army. The majestic sculptural composition, erected as a sign of victory over Nazism, has long been hostage to local political games and the personal ambitions of certain representatives of the Establishment. With a helping hand from fascist Euro-Atlantists, the monument is being consigned to the dustbin of history.
The barbaric actions undertaken by the Bulgarian side are beyond any justification or forgiveness. They look particularly cynical in the context of the galloping growth of neo-Nazi sentiment in Europe itself (as I have just mentioned), the deteriorating human rights situation and the monstrous falsification of history. Things are catastrophic both in Europe and in the world as a whole.
Without noticing it, Bulgaria has long been on the path of rehabilitating Nazism. Far-right organisations openly promoting racial hatred and intolerance are getting out of control (we have just talked about such events). Aggressive Russophobia, which in its essence is no different from racism, is encouraged at the state level. Against this background, our insistent proposals that consultations be held on the future fate of the monument, as stipulated in Article 14 of the bilateral Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation, have been shamelessly ignored by the “partners.”
We regard the destruction of the monument to our common past as yet another hostile step by official Sofia, aggravating the situation on the bilateral track that has already reached a stalemate. Bulgaria is once again choosing the wrong side of history, as it has done many times before. It will have to pay in full for the consequences of this disgraceful decision.
Ask the Bulgarian veterans who cannot stand up for themselves now. How would they react to the demolition of this monument? Who gave official Sofia the right to do this to its own history? What did Bulgarians fight for during the Second World War, what did they give their lives for, shed blood for? They did not demand anything and did not ask for these monuments. They were erected by the Bulgarian people, by the European community that survived the horrors of Nazism and fascism. Now that they cannot stand up for themselves - the veterans, the volunteers, the anti-fascists of Bulgaria – when they are no longer with us, they are being treated like this. By whom? It is clear – by the followers and direct descendants of fascist remnants.
I should like to recall that over the past few years, the United States and its European allies have been consistently destroying the system of international security, understood as a set of treaties and institutions. They have not supported any of our substantive initiatives. They refused to ratify the adapted CFE Treaty, froze the Treaty on European Security (2008), did not discuss the draft Agreement on the Principles of Security Relations between the Member States of the NATO-Russia Council (2009), and evaded providing guarantees that the air defence system would not be directed against the Russian Nuclear Deterrent Forces. The Americans withdrew from the bilateral T Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty under far-fetched pretexts, repeatedly violated the Treaty on Open Skies and then withdrew from it, and by their confrontational actions made it impossible to extend the Treaty on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms between Russia and the United States.
In order to prevent further degradation of the European security situation caused by the irresponsible actions of the West, we proposed to sign the Treaty on Security Guarantees with the United States and the Agreement on Security Measures with NATO on December 17, 2021. These documents clearly set out legally binding elements for ensuring the principles of security indivisibility: non-expansion of NATO, non-deployment of threatening weapons systems near our borders, imposing a moratorium on the deployment of intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles, returning the configuration of the alliance’s forces to their position at the time of signing the NATO-Russia Founding Act in 1997.
There was no movement towards it. The indivisibility of security as a key principle determining the behaviour of states in the political-military sphere was essentially rejected by the United States and its allies. The result is well-known.
We will determine how we will further develop relations with our European neighbours after the goals and tasks of the special military operation have been accomplished.
Day of Remembrance of Journalists Killed in the Line of Duty
On December 15, we mark the Remembrance Day of Journalists Killed in the Line of Duty. This is a special date on Russia's calendar of memorial days. It was established in 1991 by the Union of Journalists of Russia as a tribute to the memory of those who sacrificed their lives, honourably fulfilling their official duty as a media employee.
Few professions entail as many risks to life and well-being as journalism; it can be dangerous, and some reporters never come back from their missions. That's why we deeply appreciate the honest and selfless work of journalists and frontline reporters, television reporters, cameramen, and photographers who willingly immerse themselves in the midst of events to provide their audience with accurate and timely information, offering a comprehensive and unbiased portrayal of what is happening. Often this dedication comes at the ultimate cost – their lives.
This year, we are saddened to announce that Russian journalism has once again suffered irreplaceable losses. Alongside their families, friends, colleagues, and associates, we mourn the loss of Vladlen Tatarsky (Maxim Fomin), Rostislav Zhuravlev, and Boris Maksudov, who fell victim to the criminal Kiev regime, its militants and terrorists. Many others have stared death in the face–they have been targeted or come under fire when the Armed Forces of Ukraine attacked the civilian population and infrastructure using drones and other means. The Nazi regime in Kiev views Russian frontline reporters as high-priority targets, hunting them down because their reports expose the true brutal nature of the entrenched neo-Nazism and its violent crimes, debunking the myths propagated by Ukrainian and Western propaganda.
We will always remember the names of Darya Dugina, Oleg Klokov, Igor Kornelyuk, Anton Voloshin, Andrey Stenin, Anatoly Klyan and numerous other media professionals who sacrificed their lives for their calling. We will do everything in our power to ensure that those responsible for their deaths receive the punishment they deserve.
We firmly believe that the responsibility for these heinous crimes lies with the Kiev puppets and their handlers in the collective West, led by Washington, who have essentially given the Zelensky regime carte blanche, granting them indulgence for any atrocities committed, including those against journalists. These deaths also burden the consciences — assuming they possess one — of those international officials entrusted with ensuring a safe working environment for all media professionals, without exception. Yet, they have wilfully turned a blind eye to the gross violations of journalists' rights in Ukraine for years. Now, they even choose to avert their gaze from brutal murders.
Speaking of which, Ms Ribeiro, the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, receives a salary funded by all of us. What is the purpose of our contribution? Shouldn't she be held accountable? In the past, at the very least, they used to share a few lines on social media, include paragraphs in reports, or speak at conferences. But now, we don't even have that. What do they tell us? That they are working behind the scenes because "quiet diplomacy" is their preferred method.
However, this is not "quiet diplomacy." Rather, it is their conscience remaining silent, numbed by the complete indifference and hypocrisy displayed by international officials, particularly the OSCE, regarding the mass deaths of journalists in hot spots. These deaths were not caused by stray bullets, or journalists being present where they shouldn't be, but by deliberate and targeted attacks on civilians and even directly on journalists.
As we approach this memorial day, and on any other day, I want to extend my sincerest gratitude to all members of the media community who courageously follow their calling, placing themselves at risk day after day to carry out their work faithfully. Thank you. You are true heroes.
Kiev regime’s repression against Gonzalo Lira Lopez, an American journalist
I would like to add a few words. It was Russia who instituted the Remembrance Day of Journalists Killed in the Line of Duty, and we are talking about Russian journalists. Still, I would like to fill you in on the context in which we will be marking this day. Allow me to update you on what is actually going on in terms of ensuring security and guaranteeing freedom of expression and media pluralism for journalists in the civilised West, as these countries call themselves, as well as in Nazi Ukraine, which they have taken under their wing.
This case came into the spotlight after several civil society activists pointed it out to their million-plus audiences in the United States. I am talking about Gonzalo Angel Quintilio Lira Lopez, an American video blogger. We do not know what happened to him, whether he is well and how he is being treated.
Why? Because Ukrainian law enforcement agencies detained him in early May 2023. Let me emphasise that we are talking here about the Government of Ukraine which gets millions and billions in tranches from the White House. Once again, he is an American video blogger. I have a question. When we stand up to defend our journalists, political or ideological differences do not matter to us, to our country or society. We have done this many times. We have so-called opposition media outlets in Russia which have been very critical of us, but whenever they reach out to us asking to get their team members out of harm’s way or help them, we are there for them. We always instantly respond to defend journalists regardless of their views, opinion or political beliefs.
Look at Evan Gershkovich’s case. It is not a microphone, but a megaphone that the US government has turned on to mount his defence and show that it is doing everything to counter what it refers to as Russian aggression against a journalist. Truth be said, this would-be journalist has been caught red-handed trying to pass on or maybe receive classified documents – I suggest you refer to law enforcement agencies for more details since they regularly provide updates on this matter. This goes to say that he was involved in illegal activity on Russia territory. There was an official statement to this effect with the relevant evidence and materials for everyone to see. Still, the US government persists in pretending that he is a journalist and did nothing but practice his trade, while ignoring all the evidence presented to the public, including to the United States, demonstrating in all clarity that he must be held liable for spying or gathering intelligence instead of working as a journalist.
But here is another American journalist. Once again, we have not heard from him since May 2023. Have you heard anything about him from US President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, or any American human rights organisations? Have US ambassadors around the world weighed in? Did the US Ambassador to the OSCE say anything? What about the US Permanent Representative in the UN Security Council? Did she make any statements on this topic or did we miss something here? Nothing.
The Kiev regime has crossed all the possible red lines, but this starts causing serious concern in Western society, indoctrinated as it is by propaganda and censorship, only when a person with millions of subscribers raises this issue with the American government. If this does not happen, the authorities will continue pretending that everything is all right. How can that be? Or does this prove that Evan Gershkovich actually worked for the relevant US institutions, law enforcement and intelligence services? This would explain all the attention he has been getting, while the White House ignores other journalists. This is not an exaggeration, but the actual state of affairs. Everyone in the United States now knows who Evan Gershkovich is. But does anyone know this video blogger in the United States? They would have never heard about it if not for American civil activists.
First, this demonstrates that the United States does not have any standard for dealing with fundamental values in terms of freedom of expression, all while declaring its adherence to them. There are no standards here except their momentary considerations and a determination to use human rights as a tool for pushing its political agenda, punishing or shaming others by putting them in a pillory, attaching them with duct tape and spraying paint all over them. This is when their human rights tools kick in.
My second point is that, unfortunately, this kind of attitude on Washington’s part has had a very negative bearing on Evan Gershkovich’s public image.
So what has Gonzalo Lira Lopez done to the Kiev regime to deserve its ire? He dared share his personal views about the true causes of the Ukraine crisis and how it has been unfolding with his audience, and did so without omitting the atrocities perpetrated by the Ukrainian Nazis. Nothing could save him, even his American passport. He was not allowed to leave the country and was thrown in jail under far-fetched accusations, which basically amounted to dissenting views.
How many local journalists, bloggers, opinion leaders, clerics, and ordinary people are there, who have their own views on what’s happening in Ukraine that are at odds with what the Nazi propaganda is seeking to impose on them? Some of them have already had to sacrifice their freedom and health, and even their lives for their beliefs. Some of them will never leave Ukrainian prisons because nobody knows that these people exist. How many people have been isolated this way and lost contact with the outside world? They weren’t able to run, and an American civil society activist will never know that they exist and will not write three lines about them on social media.
There are legions of people like that in Ukraine. I think it will take years to realise the true scale of the crimes perpetrated by Vladimir Zelensky’s bloody regime. But they will never succeed in concealing the truth. You cannot hide crimes when they are committed at this scale.
We learn about Nazi crimes even decades after they were committed, sometimes in ways we hardly expect. The round of applause for Yaroslav Hunka, a Nazi, in the Canadian parliament is a case in point. It was by encouraging and honouring him that the world woke up to his crimes. This may be a surprising and twisted way of bringing the issue into the spotlight, akin to a miracle, but it did happen. This is how justice was served in that particular case.
It will be impossible to hide the scale of the tragedy which is currently unfolding in today’s Ukraine at the initiative of the United States and with its generous sponsorship and backed by an endless flow of political statements supporting Vladimir Zelensky. This will be impossible. People like Gonzalo Lira Lopez and all those who suffer from the Vladimir Zelensky regime as it sinks into all-permissiveness help reveal the monster nurtured by the pseudo-enlightened Western liberal dictatorship in its true magnitude. We have raised this issue on several occasions during our briefings and have shared evidence. This is just one more specific example.
The 30th anniversary of the Russian Constitution
December 12 marks the 30th anniversary of adopting the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the country’s fundamental law, in a national referendum.
The Constitution ended a dramatic period in the history of the Fatherland and laid the foundations for contemporary Russian statehood hinging on genuine popular rule, human rights, federalism and the division of the legislative, executive and judicial functions of government among separate and independent bodies. The fundamental law sets forth the structure of supreme institutions of state authority, facilitates their well-coordinated work to ensure a quality life for individuals and free personal development.
Apart from these and other important principles of the state’s internal organisation, the Constitution contains key provisions that form the foundation of national foreign policy. The Preamble states expressly that the multi-ethnic Russian nation sees itself as part of the international community. The Constitution notes that federal agencies alone have the authority to deal with foreign policy issues, international relations, and matters of war and peace. It also authorises the President of the Russian Federation to determine foreign policy guidelines and to oversee implementation. Standards on the place of international law in the Russian legal system, the role of the President, the Federal Assembly, the Government and the Constitutional Court in concluding, fulfilling and terminating international treaties are among high-priority constitutional provisions.
Constitutional amendments, passed in a national referendum in 2020, expanded these provisions further. At that time, the fundamental law included provisions on the generally recognised international-law status of Russia as a legal successor to the Soviet Union, defending the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and supporting compatriots abroad. Under the new Article 79.1, the Russian Federation shall take action to maintain and strengthen international peace and security, to facilitate peaceful coexistence between states and nations and to prevent interference in the state’s domestic affairs. A ban on applying decisions by international agencies, based on unconstitutional interpretations of international-law norms, serve as an additional guarantee of sovereignty and independence.
Approved by the President, fundamental documents, including the Foreign Policy Concept of the Russian Federation, specified the above-mentioned principles still further. Acting under the Constitution, members of the Federal Assembly passed legislation aiming to create a comprehensive legal framework for our foreign policy activities.
Day after day, acting under the guidance of the President and in close coordination with other state agencies, the Russian Foreign Ministry accomplishes various objectives stemming from the Constitution and the Foreign Policy Concept. Russia implements an independent foreign policy line, motivated by its national interests and the comprehension of its special responsibility for maintaining peace and security at the global and regional levels.
Russia implements a peaceful, open, predictable, consistent and pragmatic foreign policy, based on respect for international law and a striving for equitable cooperation to address common objectives and advance common interests.
The UNESCO-Russia Mendeleev International Prize in the Basic Sciences awards ceremony
On December 13, 2023, the Russian Academy of Sciences will host the second UNESCO-Russia Mendeleev International Prize in the Basic Sciences awards ceremony.
The first ceremony took place in 2020 at UNESCO Headquarters in Paris, on the sidelines of the 41st session of the UNESCO General Conference. This is a most prestigious prize, with $500,000 in prize money.
The prize is conferred for landmark discoveries that promote socio-economic transformation and encourage achievements in the field of the basic sciences, as well as specialised education, the popularisation of fundamental scientific knowledge, international and regional cooperation.
This year’s prize goes to Professor Irina Beletskaya from the Chemistry Faculty of Lomonosov Moscow State University and Professor Klaus Müllen, Director Emeritus and Scientific Member at the Max Planck Institute for Polymer Research in Germany. The recipients are selected from recommendations by an international jury of seven renowned scientists.
Lidia Brito, the Assistant Director-General of UNESCO for Natural Sciences, will present the awards.
The Russian Foreign Ministry’s social media networks will live stream the awards ceremony.
The 65th anniversary of the UN Office for Outer Space Affairs
On December 13, 1958, members of the UN General Assembly established the UN Office for Outer Space Affairs as a permanent secretariat of the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space. Today, the UN Office for Outer Space Affairs functions at the UN Office in Vienna, and the sphere of its responsibility has expanded appreciably.
We note with satisfaction that, 65 years since its inception, the UN Office for Outer Space Affairs continues to play a key role in ensuring equitable and mutually beneficial cooperation between space powers and the developing states who strive to join the peaceful space exploration process.
It is necessary to make sure that the highly professional work of the UN Office for Outer Space Affairs, needed by the international community, should continue to hinge on politically unbiased principles and respect for all parties to space activities without exception. It is important to thwart attempts to create artificial ideologically motivated demarcation lines in civilian space cooperation projects.
Twenty-eight years ago, on December 14, 1995, the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina, also known as the Dayton Agreement (because the parties had earlier initialed the draft in Dayton, Ohio), was signed in Paris. The Russian Federation was among the states that witnessed that historic event.
The agreement put an end to a violent interethnic conflict that shook the Balkans between 1992 and 1995. The new Bosnia and Herzegovina, its entities (the Republika Srpska and the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina) as well as the ethnicities populating the country (Serbs, Bosniaks and Croats) that were granted the status of state-forming ethnicities, and other citizens of the country were able to start building a peaceful life and mutual understanding.
Through the peace agreement, dialogue between the equal ethnicities of the state, compromise and consensus shaped the foundation of the post-conflict order.
In the almost 30 years since the peace agreement was signed, Bosnia and Herzegovina has come a long way. At the same time, the genuine interethnic peace that everybody wanted when signing the Dayton Agreement remains elusive. It is not surprising, considering the amount of coordinated attempts by external and internal parties to torpedo the foundations of the peace.
As a state that bore witness to the signing of the agreement, we cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that, with the support and “assistance” of Western society, efforts are made to erode the principles of equality of the three peoples and two entities; or to the fact that the country’s multinationality is being broken, and Bosnia and Herzegovina is being subjected to unitarisation based on neo-liberal concepts, against the principles of the Dayton Agreement.
It is apparent that the formula of checks and balances stipulated by the agreement no longer suits those who seek to violently ensnare Bosnia and Herzegovina in Euro-Atlantic nets.
It is nothing less than direct violence against the peace agreement when we see that the Office of the High Representative has turned from a mechanism of careful external encouragement of Bosnian-Herzegovinian independence into a tool for strangling any manifestation of the sovereign rights of the country’s peoples. It is beyond comprehension that in the 21st century Europe, through the efforts of Brussels, Washington and London, a system of colonial power could be created in independent Bosnia and Herzegovina, and a puppet pretending to be a shaper of destinies could be put in charge by a willful decision of the same colonial powers.
But it is true. The principles of the peace agreement have been discarded and blatantly trampled. It is subjectively interpreted to support an external agenda that has nothing to do with the interests and needs of the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
We have repeatedly warned about the danger of such attitudes to the Dayton Agreement that may destroy the fragile balance. Consequences may be catastrophic.
On the anniversary of signing the peace agreement, we call, once again, for taking a responsible approach in order to maintain stability and security in the Balkans, in strict compliance with the principles of international law.
For our part, we continue our policy of protecting them without question and we are ready for constructive and equal cooperation with all partners.
Question: The Spanish media have been reporting on the court case against two employees of the National Intelligence Centre of Spain detained in September for regularly selling data to the CIA. A protest was lodged with the US ambassador to Madrid. As a result, three employees of the American diplomatic mission, officially accredited to the NIC as representatives of intelligence services, were expelled from Spain. What can you say about this?
Maria Zakharova: These are all contrasting elements to diversify this landscape, well fertilised by American propaganda. Meaning that all accusations are always aimed only at our country. Stories are made up about hackers and spies. They have come to the point of accusing our ambassadors of espionage. What have we not read over the years?
With every accusation (be it the expulsion of diplomats or other anti-Russia actions), I asked how many American intelligence services’ representatives were deployed abroad, or seconded to the American, British embassies or from other NATO countries. We have not heard that any of their law enforcement agencies or special services were shut down. To the contrary, more funds are allocated every year. Judging by the advertisements, there are regular personnel recruitments. This means that they work somewhere, including abroad, and are engaged in some kind of activity. Although no one ever talks about this, from time to time, accidents happen even in the best families. This is one of them.
The US does not differentiate between their enemies and allies. It uses the same measures of influence to both, illegally interferes in internal affairs, and openly tries to control the national elite. This is the same as the scandal that unfolded several years ago with American intelligence services wiretapping the mobile phone of German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Moreover, not only Angela Merkel but other high-ranking European politicians were under the strict monitoring of the American intelligence services. This was wide-covering electronic espionage by the US NSA, carried out in NATO and the EU countries. How did it all end then? No one even apologised or said it wouldn’t happen again or that it was wrong. No. Everyone on all sides remained silent. Maybe there were a couple of publications, and that was it. This subject was completely shut down, focusing again on Russian hackers and Russian spies.
We can see the very “rules-based world order” that many European capitals are advocating at the behest of Washington, without understanding where this will all lead. These rules are not envisaged or formulated anywhere. They will be formed by order of the Anglo-Saxon duet. These rules will be followed by their satellites, whom they call allies, but in fact they treat them worse than they treated their slaves in the past.
You can see that one of the basic rules of this world order is “a reliable ally is a well-hindered ally.” The second rule is that “there is a hegemon, then there is everyone else. “What is permitted to Jupiter, is not permitted to oxen.”
Question: Can you comment on reports of a bill developed by the European Union that would permit EU members to block the import of gas from Russia on their own?
Maria Zakharova: We are aware of what is published on official EU websites. For now, they are talking about plans to soon complete work on a draft regulation of the domestic gas market, which, as noted, would give the member countries the right to impose restrictions on importing natural gas, including liquefied natural gas, from Russia and Belarus, at the national level.
This is another discriminatory measure against our country used to destroy the economies of the European Union countries. At the same time, all this corresponds to the European Union’s policy of politically biased rejection of Russian energy resources, and also damages the EU itself, because it undermines the economy and the development of its member countries. This is another attempt to create a pseudo-legal scheme aimed at damaging the competitiveness of the Russian economy. They will not be able to achieve this. They have not been able to do this before, and they won’t be able to do it now.
Most of the anti-Russia measures adopted in the European Union, including in the energy sector, boomerang on the initiators. The socioeconomic situation in the EU member countries suffers the most; and sometimes, in third countries, above all developing countries, that can find themselves under stricter competition with the EU for gas supplies. Of course, European officials do not want to be responsible for these unpopular decisions, so they leave them to the European capitals. Those where Russophobia has become a cult have already completely suspended energy imports from Russia. But apparently, this is not enough. The order is even larger. The more pragmatic EU countries must also be forced to take this step. Classic mutual responsibility. Some of them still have the audacity to be guided by their economic interests, to buy Russian gas and to develop. Those who have already abandoned this envy them in anger, but cannot do anything, since they have already sworn allegiance to this “deep state” in Washington.
In general, the European Union is once again showing a total lack of principle and its servility to Washington. They have initiated and signed various agreements and declared free trade, competition and a liberal market as principles. Now everything is being cut back. The proposal to suspend Russian gas is presented as a measure for decarbonisation and the “greening” of the economy. They have already gone there; at the same time, they are supplying weapons to the Kiev regime. Can you see where this greening of the economy is, and where decarbonisation and the environment are? I mean this in the context of the endless supply of not only warehouses or arsenals, but specifically the use of munitions, including those with depleted uranium, on the battlefield.
Of course, this measure does not affect the supply of American liquefied natural gas, which has become a true molecule of unfreedom for the EU members. This is what the US was striving for. It failed to do it through legal means. They first tried to convince their NATO and EU satellites to give up Russian gas voluntarily, and then the United States turned to political pressure. There is a lot of evidence: statements, interviews, articles American ambassadors write in EU countries threating the governments of those countries. When that didn’t work out, they moved on to global provocation in the zone of the internal Ukraine crisis. And this did not work, as well as establishing a pro-American regime on the territory of Ukraine, which for many years did everything to complicate gas transit to Europe and make them unstable, while placing all the blame on Russia.
At the same time, Russia was proving to be the most stable supplier of energy resources in history. It did not work out, so they moved on to their plan to impose their LNG through a direct statement by the US president that the Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 infrastructure projects would be destroyed. Six months later, this happened in a terrorist attack.
In conditions when the supply of energy resources, including LNG, is limited, and the demand for hydrocarbons in the Asia-Pacific region is growing at an accelerated pace, any bans in the EU countries on importing Russian gas will only lead to a geographical reorientation of Russian exports to new, rapidly developing markets. This scenario seems to be the most realistic in the case of liquefied natural gas, due to its mobility.
Russia will not abandon its large-scale LNG plans. The development of appropriate infrastructure is among the main priorities in the energy sector. We intend to increase annual LNG production from the current 33 million tonnes to 100 million tonnes per year, and the planned volume of investment in the industry exceeds 6 trillion roubles.
Question: US Deputy National Security Adviser Jonathan Finer has announced that the United States wanted Russia to come to the negotiating table on terms that would be acceptable to Ukraine in 2024. What do you make of such statements?
Maria Zakharova: Nonsense. Mr Finer has probably forgotten that he spoke only recently about continuing the war until a victorious end or until the last Ukrainian, as we say, because this is the situation the United States has created in Ukraine.
We also remember that it was the Anglo-Saxon duo which prohibited Zelensky from holding talks with Russia. The first to say this, according to representatives of the Kiev regime, was UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who convinced the Ukrainian delegation to walk out of the talks, which derailed the negotiating process. After that, the Biden administration inspired Zelensky to adopt a law prohibiting negotiations.
Nobody understands what “terms that would be acceptable to Ukraine” Mr Finer has in mind. Actually, nobody understands what he is talking about. I believe they themselves need a reassessment. The Americans should take a closer look at their position and articulate it more clearly. So far, we only heard them mumbling about [Russia’s defeat] “on the battlefield,” “victory around the corner,” “the strategic defeat of Russia,” and all the ensuing consequences. Today, they are musing about something else.
They should decide what they really want in the current situation, look at how many people Ukraine has and how much money their voters have, and then formulate a concept.
I would like to draw your attention to the latest statements made in Washington and Brussels. They continue to say that they are not interested in looking for a truly fair, lasting and comprehensive political and diplomatic solution to the Ukrainian crisis. They continue to take Russia’s “strategic defeat” as their starting point. And they think that anyone here will take them seriously when they continue to speak about Russia’s “strategic defeat?”
I think they need to do an inventory of their position and drop all the elements that not only don’t support the logic of their actions but actually contradict it. They should abandon all these “peace formulas,” which are actually “war formulas” they invented to deceive the international community, primarily the Global South.
This inventory should bring them to a rational and realistic assessment of the current situation, which is different from the tall tales they invented and forced on their own media and which they themselves came to believe when they were retold by American journalists and political analysts.
Question: Early parliamentary elections will be held in Serbia on December 17. Serbia is still focused on joining the EU, but it also wants to cooperate with Russia and China. What are the prospects of this multidirectional cooperation?
Maria Zakharova: Let’s take a look at facts. They show that Russia-Serbia cooperation is progressing despite the increasing obstacles created by the US and the EU on the international stage, specifically, for Serbia and its government. This is a useless attempt to achieve total Western domination, including in the Balkans, and to force Belgrade to accept it.
Washington refuses to admit that the situation is changing dramatically, and the world is changing too. The situation is changing globally (the rise of multipolarity) and in the “zone” of the hybrid anti-Russia war instigated by the West. They should take a realistic view and stop forcing ineffective “prescriptions” on Belgrade.
As for cooperation outside the EU perimeter, any truly sovereign country wants to have diversified foreign relations. It is a self-evident principle of international relations. But the West has been especially active now in trying to eliminate foreign policy multilateralism among a large group of countries. It is forcing an artificial “with us or against us” and “us and them” dilemma on them. They don’t want them to cooperate with all sides; they want them to make a choice, threatening them with “fatal consequences” if they refuse to do so. They are using various unseemly methods to put pressure on members of the international community.
There must be no place for such methods and practices in the rising multipolar world, in which all countries, despite their different geography and social and political principles, will be able to pursue normal cooperation based on equal rights and mutual respect.
We see that the Serbian government has been resisting external attempts to disrupt its interaction with some countries, in particular, Russia, and that they are resolved to protect their national interests. This position can serve as an example of a responsible and balanced policy.
Question: The Economist reports: The United States has unofficially told Israel that the Gaza operation must end before the New Year. This was unofficially stated by US Secretary of State Antony Blinken during his visit to Israel. Meanwhile, the other day Antony Blinken said that there is a gap between the stated intentions of the Israeli government to protect civilians and the growing casualties observed on the ground. At the same time, Washington has not only failed to abandon the idea of providing military aid to Israel, it was the only country in the UN Security Council that, on December 8, vetoed a draft resolution demanding an immediate ceasefire in the Gaza Strip. So how do you assess this mercurial behaviour by the United States?
Maria Zakharova: We have already commented on all this many times.
I will remind you of the drama developing in the UN Security Council. In less than 24 hours, the draft resolution prepared by the UAE received the support of the overwhelming majority of UN member states: 102 countries co-sponsored it. On December 8, 13 delegations voted in favour, and the UK abstained. Who brought all this work to naught?
The United States again, as on October 18 on the Brazilian draft, used its right of veto. This means the continuation of monstrous bloodshed, catastrophic destruction, which will happen and is happening, in the words of the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the UN Riyad Mansour, “not by mistake, but by decision.” This is the decision of one country – the United States.
You talked about The Economist citing unofficial sources. I would like officials to comment on this.
We hear so many different statements from the United States with accusations of an aggressive plan; they stick their noses into other people's affairs so much, they can comment on their own affairs without any problem.
I think this is a good occasion. Indeed, we hear (I just spoke about the situation in Ukraine) diametrically opposed statements by the United States on the inconsistency and absurdity of the provisions that are embedded in them. All this was in the context of Ukraine: to achieve a Russian defeat “on the battlefield,” then negotiations on terms favourable to the Kiev regime, then negotiations should be forgotten again and fall into oblivion, then again the negotiation process, but on terms that will be dictated “not by Russia.” These swings are common. It is the same with this.
You are absolutely right. It seems to me that this is a good occasion to make the United States speak very openly on all those issues that concern the international community, considering that the United States is (as it presents itself and insists that it is) the main defender of democracy and its champion. All this should be not only in a domestic format, but also in the international arena. After all, 102 countries are the very democracy that the United States is so concerned about. I would like to hear their views on this issue.
Question: Last week Vladimir Putin visited the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia. The day after that, Sergey Lavrov travelled there. Over the weekend, the Russian President had a telephone conversation with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Today Sergey Lavrov spoke with his Iranian counterpart. All of this creates a sense of powerful diplomatic work aimed at resolving the conflict. Have they reached any progress, despite the position of the United States, which is blocking the resolution? Have the parties involved in the negotiation process managed to bring their positions closer? What differences remain?
Maria Zakharova: You mean the rapprochement of what positions? Russia, the UAE and Saudi Arabia?
Question: Yes, in the peace settlement process in the Middle East.
Maria Zakharova: I have just shown that we are unanimous on fundamental issues, when I talked about our work on the resolution. Let us call it the Global Majority: 102 states were ready not only to support, but also to become co-sponsors of this resolution. Of course, they are the majority! Even assuming there would be a margin of error, we can safely say that this is a reflection of the will of the global majority. We were ready to assert, together with those countries, including the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, a shared approach that should have been enshrined as binding on everyone in a UN Security Council resolution, and we did. I do not see any reason to comment on any disagreements.
Your question concerns the ongoing crisis in the Palestine-Israel conflict zone. We have minor differences concerning our bilateral relations, and the status of these bilateral relations, with countries that are part of, or parties to the conflict. They also have something to do with Russia being a permanent member of the UN Security Council, and other factors.
However, we certainly hold shared approaches on fundamental issues such as the vision of the current situation and the root causes that need to be addressed in order to resolve this crisis. There is no need to play games or cavil at specific words to find discrepancies. This is not what we should do now. It is essential to show the will and determination to act in the interests of the people who are facing an unprecedented increase in aggression, escalation of the conflict, etc. This is the basic thing that draws us together and unites us with these countries. There may be subtleties in certain aspects, but in the global context, we are on the same side.
You pointed out that these visits reflect considerable diplomatic efforts. We are forging an excellent dialogue with these countries across the board, from politics, the economy, and finance to the regional and international agenda. That dialogue never stopped. Thank you for your appreciation. I do not want to refuse such praise for Russian diplomacy. Neither do I want you to conclude that making these meetings and negotiations happen is such a grueling job. No way. It is the steady and progressive advancement of our relations with these countries, which has already become a good tradition. This quality of our relations specifically characterises the dialogue at the highest level, as well as at the government and agency levels. This includes coordination at international platforms, including when it comes to promoting multipolarity – not so much in the applied and practical sense, but as a vision and philosophy for the future. We have well-established dialogue platforms.
A few days ago, Sergey Lavrov made a long speech as part of political discussions in the region. This was further confirmation of our active presence there. It is important that we do not have any misunderstandings on this matter.
During these visits, the discussion focused on ways to resolve the severe crisis in the Palestine-Israel conflict zone. Russia’s efforts have been focused on achieving an immediate ceasefire. That should help avoid further casualties and provide the necessary assistance to the people in the Gaza Strip who have been suffering from this dire humanitarian disaster for more than two months.
I would like to emphasise once again that Russia and the Arab countries hold coinciding fundamental approaches to this matter. We are closely cooperating, including at the UN platforms, in order to promote our common vision of ways to de-escalate the conflict.
We are discussing these issues in an open and confidential manner with the Israeli side, too. You can see our contacts at the highest level. Our embassies are functioning. We have a number of practical tasks that are on Russia and Israel’s agenda. We are grateful to the Israeli side for their help in organising the evacuation of Russians and their families from Gaza. These are Russian citizens and their family members who are ethnic Palestinians. We are providing assistance to our compatriots. Israel is also grateful to Russia for its contribution to the release of hostages and its continuing efforts.
Russia is working closely with everyone who can help in resolving this issue. We continue to coordinate efforts with all interested parties, including Israel, in order to provide urgent humanitarian assistance to the residents of this Palestinian enclave.
Question: Türkiye reportedly is promoting a new grain deal format with Russia’s participation. Are any talks in progress? What are the parties’ terms?
Maria Zakharova: I have no information in this regard. I will double-check. You ask this question every time. But I have no information to share.
Question: Ukraine reported that 200 ships with more than 7 million tonnes of freight on board, including 5 million tonnes of food, had used the Black Sea export corridor since August 8, when it started to function. How did it manage to do that without Russia’s participation? Is Moscow considering options to block this corridor? Are there any reasons why Russia is not obstructing these deliveries?
Maria Zakharova: It is interesting how you word your question. Previously people asked why Russia was not involved in the deal. Today, they inquire why Russia is not preventing others from implementing their deals. I do not want to suspect you of having an intention or an ulterior motive to find some other evidence of our “aggressiveness.” Let’s address this matter point by point.
Ukraine exports grain and agricultural products by the coastal trade method through the territorial waters of Romania, Bulgaria, and Türkiye in the direction of the Black Sea straits. We are not involved in this scheme. At the same time, we have repeatedly stated that Ukraine uses the humanitarian corridors leading to the Black Sea for military purposes, among other things. We know that these were used as a cover for arms supplies to the Kiev regime while the “grain deal” was still running as well as for UK-instigated terrorist attacks against Russian Crimea and generally the territory of Russia. We are absolutely opposed to this.
I understand that our failure to resist the grain and other agricultural or food deals does not fit into the concept that is being imposed in some way or other on the international community. Those behind this concept allege that Russia is undermining food security. But do we have any choice? We supply all we have pledged in time and with good quality. We are prepared to trade our agricultural commodities. We also provide some products, such as fertilisers, free of charge. We say that all of this is extremely hard-going because the United States has clamped down on payment and financial instruments. The EU countries also engage in unending intrigues while going on and on about food security. But blaming us for failing to interfere with someone else’s grain supplies verges on black humor.
To reiterate: I don’t want even to think that your question contained any ulterior motive.
Question: Oh no. Please don’t think that I meant anything like that.
Maria Zakharova: Of course, you just wanted a clarification.
Question: I just wanted a clarification at my colleagues’ request. They are working on a history and need some comments.
Maria Zakharova: Hello to your colleagues.
Question: The Estonian foreign minister, Margus Tsahna, announced that they were withdrawing from the agreement on legal assistance with Russia. “Our aim is to dissolve the legal assistance agreement at the earliest opportunity,” he said. Mr Tsahna explained that Estonia’s motive in so doing was that it regarded Russia as an aggressor state. What is your comment on these utterances?
Maria Zakharova: On December 7 of this year, Estonian Foreign Minister Magnus Tsahna informed us of the Government of his country’s intention to terminate the Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Estonia on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil, Family, and Criminal Cases of January 26, 1993. The foreign ministry has been instructed to draft a bill to this effect and introduce it to Parliament.
This document is still the basis of practical cooperation between the justice ministries and the prosecutor’s offices in both countries in the area of civil, family and criminal law. It also facilitates the solution of a number of related problems.
Estonia’s withdrawal from the Agreement is unlikely to have much influence on the already frozen cooperation between the duly authorised agencies. But it is sure to complicate the existence of Russian compatriots residing in Estonia, who will have to go through additional procedures as they apply to the Russian diplomatic mission. We are well aware that the Estonian authorities are targeting them.
We will continue to follow closely the developments with account taken of our current effort to draw up a set of retaliatory measures against unfriendly countries, including Estonia.
Question: No specific steps taken so far?
Maria Zakharova: They have not taken any steps as yet, just made the announcement. Our own approach will match what they do in practice.
Question: How would you comment on the UK Cabinet’s plans to establish a new unit that will monitor private companies’ compliance with the sanctions against Russia?
Maria Zakharova: It would be funny if it were not so sad.
We read this statement by the British Minister of State at the Department for Business and Trade Nusrat Ghani about the creation of a new unit.
What is the essence of this tragicomedy? Let’s look at the UK’s indicators. This country is facing increasing economic stagnation. These are IMF data, not Russian state or independent sources. In 2023, Britain’s GDP growth was only 0.5 percent. This is about the current situation. Now about the forecasts. For 2024, the forecast is 0.6 percent. This puts London (disastrous data for them) last in terms of development rates compared to other members of the G7. The UK’s attractiveness to foreign direct investment continues to decline. In 2022, their total inflow amounted to only $15 billion. I can cite for comparison – $58 billion – these were the data and indicators for 2020.
Aggression towards other people’s property, other people's financial assets, including real property, an aggressive and illegal approach to the possibility of direct confiscation from citizens, companies, or some indirect influence on the companies owned by citizens, in order to encourage them, force them to transfer their assets to London, the UK. The same applies to countries (not just our country), as well as to the assets of other countries that were kept in British banks. This all shows the world the risks involved in engaging with Britain. This “creation” of the Office of Trade Sanctions Implementation is another confirmation of London’s commitment to a confrontational policy towards Russia. For us, this does not come as a surprise.
I would like to draw your attention to the fact that in trying to “smother” our economy, they are administering a painful blow on themselves. Another thing is that in one way or another in the public space and in our personal attitude, we are accustomed to giving the word “Britain” some meaning related to national interests.
In this case, it is about the narrow selfish interests of a certain group of forces within the political establishment, which is ready to take advantage of this situation in order to benefit themselves (their companies, lobbyists, or themselves being lobbyists for some companies). They do not care about the interests of the people or the country at all. Now they will make all these transactions to seize property and redistribute funds by seizing assets in various areas. Then they will leave either a political Olympus or pedestal. And they will leave their people with all these expenses. This has happened several times already. Then there will be investigations, hearings in the parliament, commissions. Then they will say they are sorry. Then maybe someone will go to prison, but this will all happen later.
Now it is important for them to do what they declare under the guise of fighting for democracy in Ukraine. In fact, there is a redistribution of funds in favour of a certain part of the political establishment in the UK. We see the same kinds of actions in Washington. Instead of overcoming the crisis in the British economy, the Conservative government is inventing repressive mechanisms for its own business, which seems to pragmatically assess the situation and understands the futility of the sanctions mechanism being promoted by the collective West. Over the past decades, they have seen only investment and people from Russia interested in developing bilateral relations, the opportunity to implement various kinds of interesting and mutually beneficial projects. Why didn’t London appreciate this? Probably because at one time the UK was the only country that legalised piracy. They probably still practice this logic.
Question: Russia’s Ambassador to Israel Anatoly Viktorov noted that several dozen Russians and their relatives have not yet left the Palestinian enclave. Can you tell us what has been done as of December 12?
Maria Zakharova: First, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that our website has a section on Evacuation from the Gaza Strip. We publish this information with photographs, dates, numbers, etc., on literally every evacuation flight.
Second. The last flight to date (and I want to draw the media’s attention to this fact, the “last” to date, not the last one as the final one) took place on December 10, 2023. We wrote about this in the appropriate section and on social media. Some 100 Russians and Palestinians (family members) were taken out. At Domodedovo Airport, a visiting team from the Foreign Ministry provided the necessary assistance for border, migration and passport control.
In total, more than 1,050 compatriots (again, to date) have been evacuated from the conflict zone into Egypt through the Rafah border crossing and safely brought to Russia.
This work will continue. We will update you on the website, via the news feed, in the appropriate section, and of course, on social media.
Question: The Czech Republic suggested restricting Russian diplomats in their ability to move around the Schengen space. How has Russia restricted the movement of diplomats from unfriendly countries on its territory?
Maria Zakharova: It would be wrong to make a comparison of this kind. You cannot compare diplomats travelling between several dozen countries with their ability to travel within a single state, even if it is a big country like Russia.
As of today, based on the reciprocity principle, Russia introduced a notification regime with the United States, the United Kingdom and Japan. Their embassies must notify the Foreign Ministry in advance whenever their staff members intend to visit Russian regions. In some cases, they need to receive permission to do that.
If the EU adopts the Czech proposal – and I have to remind you that on many matters the American authorities have final say – this will be regretful, nothing more. However, we will respond accordingly.
I would like to emphasise that being able to travel around Russia means, as President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin said on December 4, 2023, during the ceremony to receive the letters of credence from foreign ambassadors, to “be able to literally feel what our country lives and breathes, what our multi-faith power, with its rich and diverse culture, lives and breathes. You will feel Russia’s beating pulse and connect with its rich culture.”
We are keeping a close eye on how the situation with this monstrous and terrible Czech initiative unfolds. It will backfire against everyone who becomes involved in it within the EU. We will retaliate. We are also examining these possible EU measures in terms of their compliance with the international obligations by the EU and its member states. Any hostile acts violating the rights, privileges, immunity or compromising the security of our diplomats abroad will not be left without a response.
Question: Can you comment on the Iranian Foreign Ministry statement regarding the UN Security Council’s inefficiency and failure “to fulfil its duty to ensure international peace and security” and “to help stop the Gaza war in the wake of the recent US veto of the ceasefire resolution”?
Maria Zakharova: I believe it would be best to start answering your question with an example. If you have a working watch which somebody strikes with a hammer, this doesn’t mean that the mechanism was inefficient. It means that somebody was behaving inappropriately. In this case, it was the United States, which has acted as it usually does. In this particular instance, it has once again struck a blow at a mechanism.
This cannot be described as the United States’ debate with countries that don’t share its opinion. It is not even disregard for the opinion of their UNSC colleagues. It is a blow delivered by the United States at the UN mechanism. Exactly so. It did not hit UN walls or UN prestige, but its mechanism. The resolution was co-authored by over a hundred states in the region. They expressed their united opinion in writing, set it on record and asked the international community to make it binding on everything, which they had a right to do. Nobody must dare – yes, nobody must dare – to contravene this without good reason, but only to suit its own opportunistic view of the situation, and to do this so blatantly and aggressively.
The UN Security Council and its mechanism are efficient. But we understand very well who is blocking its operation and distorting the underlying principles of international relations formulated by the designer of that unique mechanism.
I will point out the essential elements of an organisation’s efficiency, such as constructive interaction by all its members and a balance of interests based on mutual respect, which is set out in the UN Charter. You can find the complete list there. I won’t read them now. You can read the UN Charter again, if you want, to see what fundamental principles underlie the functions of the UNSC and other UN bodies. The causes of problems that the UNSC regularly comes up against are not rooted in the “shortcomings” of is operating methods but in the unwillingness of the collective West led by the United States and Britain to abandon the logic of zero-sum games.
We are perfectly aware of their unwillingness to look for compromise. They have no desire whatsoever to think about making compromises that could damage them. Compromises that will not damage their national interests but would infringe on their interests. This goes against the principle of their exceptionalism. It is what they keep saying when they talk about global domination.
They continue to exploit their numerical advantage at the UNSC to ensure decisions that suite them and to block unacceptable initiatives. They say that it is not a numerical advantage but democracy, that the majority shares their view. But this is not true. The thing is that they create this majority by rallying NATO countries, where a certain geopolitical and military-political ideology is the only correct, acceptable and approved one. No deviation is possible. The only option is to abstain or be absent from the vote on issues with optional attendance.
It is obvious that the vote at the UNSC is not cast by individual [Western] countries but by NATO ideology. They don’t articulate their policies, let alone the will of their nations. They articulate the ideology which was formulated and conceptualised at NATO headquarters in Brussels and issued to them as a guide to action. They have no right to say that they have the support of the majority in light of the bloc subordination of the NATO countries to a single ideology.
But this scenario doesn’t always work. You saw what happened on December 8, 2023, which I mentioned. We know very well that the UN Security Council needs a reform, which would make its operation more efficient. We talked about the under-representation of whole continents, which must be taken into account and should help make the council’s operation more efficient. We have identified the main obstacle to the council’s efficiency. You can describe it as the collective West or the United States, but it is not so much the countries or blocs of countries that are the main obstacle as it is the exceptionalist ideology of global domination and its implementation at all costs. This is the main obstacle.
Question: Russian First Deputy Prime Minister Andrei Belousov discussed with Azerbaijani Deputy Prime Minister Shahin Mustafayev the development of the railway route along the North-South international transport corridor. What is the progress of the project's implementation? And what risks are there for it?
Maria Zakharova: You have correctly noted that this is still the Government's domain. I will be happy to check with them and pass this information on to you individually.
But comments on such negotiations are the responsibility of the Government of the Russian Federation.
Question: Lithuanian Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis accused Hungary of opposing Europe and everything that Europe stands for. In your opinion, can Hungary withstand such pressure from its neighbours? Where did the Europeans get the principle of “mutual protectionism”?
Maria Zakharova: As for their internal polemics, I've said today, I don't see our side of the story here. We are not mentioned here.
You are posing a global question: where does this ideology of mutual protectionism come from? It is embedded inside NATO institutions. What is the danger of the European Union's economic policy of integrating new members? Everything seems to be fine, economic projects, economic attractiveness, some profitability. But one should take into account the subordination of the EU to the NATO bloc itself and its transformation into a certain economic department, an economic office of the NATO bloc. The states that fall under the influence of the EU as members (or are moving towards closer integration) are literally given an ultimatum: ideological guidelines developed in the alliance (even if they are called Eurosolidarity or EU solidarity, but we understand perfectly well that they were developed in NATO) and one should express solidarity with them, sign up for them, swear an oath to them. Literally. Then countries are allowed on this path of integration.
That is what is happening in Serbia in many ways. They are trying to break them by forcing them to act against Serbian interests in cooperation with Russia. This is an example of exactly this kind of mutual protectionism. You are asking why? We have talked about this. Dominance, this very imperial logic that does not provide for compromise. Why? Compromise is equality, the ability to discuss problems on an equal footing, to find some common ground. This would shatter the idea of the exceptional nature of some, dominance over all, and the idea of (as they have now coined it) a “typology of democracy.” That is, ranking democracies as enlightened, advanced, proper, backward, hybrid, etc. This classism still dominates. Classism not in terms of professional diversification or some natural distinction, but precisely in terms of who is in charge, who should obey whom on the basis of the principle of exceptionalism. Unfortunately, this is the same classic Western discrimination, which has had different names and manifested itself in different ways since time immemorial.
You will be surprised, but even with their allies (we have already talked about this today) they practice the same principle. Dividing them into those who are allowed more, those who are allowed nothing or less, etc. It's a complicated system. It's simple enough if you get to the heart of it, but there's a lot of stuff ideologically threaded in there. I think the principle is that any conversation on equal footing, any manifestation of real democracy within their own communities will deal a crushing blow to the concept that a particular country within the Western community is exceptional. That's it.
The mutual protectionism is some mechanism for them to keep afloat this “story” they call unity, solidarity, etc. They don't even vote anymore. Internally, there is no voting of any kind, they just make the same decisions contrary to their national interests. They make up a story that everyone is in solidarity, that they support each other, that they approach the same issues in the same way. But you can see from the reaction of the population in these countries that this is not the case. The population is not asked, the states do not have the opportunity to show the will or exercise the will of the people when making decisions within these blocs. Hence such methods of literal mutual protectionism.
Question: What about Hungary? How long will it be able to withstand such pressure from its neighbours?
Maria Zakharova: I think Hungary has excellent speakers who can answer this question themselves.
Speaking of which, Hungary is fighting for its national interests. And they’re not the only ones. Do not assume that I am saying this about Hungary because it shows less solidarity with anti-Russia statements, even opposes them in many respects, and continues to expand relations with our country in the previous formats. In the same way, Poland and a few other EU and NATO countries are trying to counteract the erosion of national interests.
This question is not for me, but for them. As long as they have the strength and the opportunities to do so. Some countries are not given any chance at all. Their governments and ruling parties are removed for trying. This is often done by influencing voter sentiment through the media, by publishing some compromising material, some incriminating information, and that's it. We have seen this many times.
Question: President Vladimir Putin pointed out that we are fighting a battle for sovereignty, which amounts to a national liberation struggle. At the last briefing, you mentioned the signs of colonial dependence in the economy and other spheres. Can you be a little more specific about when we became so dependent, and how?
Maria Zakharova: Are you sure it is up to me to specify this? I would say chronology is up to historians. This is explicated in many studies. We have talked about this at length as a trend that has characterised the West’s attitude towards our country over the centuries. History shows how we try to resist this. The respective historical events should not be considered separately in isolation, but as a chain of confrontations with the predatory essence of the West and its policy towards our country.
Why? I just said, in my previous answer, that colonial aspirations have not been eradicated to this day. The West is still using the same methods from the slave system era, the time of its imperial domination and hegemony, when Western nations considered themselves privileged to rule the world. And they achieved success, unfortunately, in Africa, in Asia, and in Latin America. But Russia resisted for centuries, never succumbing to colonialism or even semi-colonialism. We were never conquered, never accepted even a soft colonisation by delegating controls to the West. We constantly resisted this. We were in favour of cooperation and interaction on an equal footing. But first, this equality has always been a problem for the West (I explained why in the previous answer). And second, they are not ready to interact and cooperate on an equal basis. All they want is to dominate, without considering their counterparties’ interests.
As to your question, I would not single out one specific date or one specific era or event. I would say there is a whole lot of them. Take the most recent stage, the period we discussed a lot today. That includes the Cold War, World War II (for us, the Great Patriotic War), the early 20th century, and the war with Napoleon (for us, the Patriotic War). And before that, there were campaigns against Russia, all with the same goal – to make us dependent, either by force, or by cunning, or by posing as partners for cooperation, but in fact to subjugate us. Each time, we resisted.
Дополнительные материалы
-
Фото
