Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, January 16, 2025
- Upcoming meeting of the Government Commission on Compatriots Living Abroad
- Sergey Lavrov’s upcoming talks with Kyrgyz Foreign Minister Jeenbek Kulubayev
- Upcoming meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Foundation for Supporting and Protecting the Rights of Compatriots Living Abroad
- Ukrainian crisis
- Implementation of the Rome Statute of the ICC in Ukraine
- Recommendations of the European Aviation Safety Agency not to operate within part of Russia’s airspace at all flight levels
- Operations of the Observatory on History Teaching at the Council of Europe
- Moldova update
- Ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas on ending hostilities in the Gaza Strip and exchanging detainees
- Anglo-Saxon war crimes in Afghanistan
- NATO and EU’s stake in escalating the anti-Russia campaign fuelled by Baltic Sea submarine cable disruptions
- The Biden administration’s decision to remove Cuba from the US list of state sponsors of terrorism
- The duplicity of US IT corporations
- Russia provides food aid to Southeast Asian countries through UN WFP
- Exhibition on the genocide of besieged Leningrad population opens at UN Headquarters
- 230th birthday anniversary of Alexander Griboyedov
- The 80th anniversary of Soviet forces liberating Warsaw from German Nazi invaders
- The centenary of diplomatic relations between Russia and Japan
- Celebration of the Lunar New Year in Moscow
- Statements by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte
- Settlement in the South Caucasus
- 80th anniversary of the UN Charter
- Ukraine’s attack on Turk Stream
- New US chip export restrictions
- New anti-Russia sanctions
- Discussions on Eurasian security guarantees
- Greenland situation
- Australian mercenaries fighting in Ukraine
- 50th anniversary of the OSCE
- Situation of Askar Kubanychbek
- Sri Lankan authorities’ attitude to Russians
- The Cyprus settlement
- The possibility of the EU’s enlargement
- Donald Trump’s statements on US expansion
- The EU’s “monitoring” mission in Armenia
- Investigation into the AZAL flight’s crash
- Russia’s stance on the Ukrainian settlement
- Security measures for TurkStream
- The persecution of the Orthodox Church in the West
- The EU-Japan strategic partnership agreement
- Sexual abuse of children in Britain
- Russia-Georgia relations
- Italy’s initiative on remembering fallen journalists
Upcoming meeting of the Government Commission on Compatriots Living Abroad
A meeting of the Government Commission on Compatriots Living Abroad chaired by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will be held at the Foreign Ministry on January 20.
This event will be attended by the Federation Council members and State Duma deputies, representatives of federal and regional executive authorities, and leaders of civil society organisations and foundations.
The participants will focus on discussing the outcomes of the 8th World Congress of Compatriots Living Abroad, which was held in Moscow on October 30–31, 2024, and exploring promising areas of interaction with the Russian diaspora. They will also review cooperation between foreign-based parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church and Russian-speaking communities in other countries, a list of nominees for 2024 Commission awards, and several other matters.
Sergey Lavrov’s upcoming talks with Kyrgyz Foreign Minister Jeenbek Kulubayev
On January 22, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will hold talks with Kyrgyz Foreign Minister Jeenbek Kulubayev in Moscow as part of Kulubayev’s official visit to the Russian Federation.
The ministers will discuss pressing bilateral political, trade, economic, cultural, and humanitarian, as well as other issues. They are also expected to exchange views on Eurasian integration, global and regional security, and coordination of joint steps on international platforms. They will focus particularly on collaboration within the CSTO considering Kyrgyzstan’s chairmanship of the organisation this year.
A 2025-2027 cooperation programme between the Russian Foreign Ministry and the Kyrgyz Foreign Ministry will be signed during talks.
We are confident that the Kyrgyz Foreign Minister’s visit to Russia will further strengthen the strategic partnership and alliance between the two countries.
On January 23, the Board of Trustees of the Foundation for Supporting and Protecting the Rights of Compatriots Living Abroad, established in 2011, will meet under the chairmanship of Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.
The Board of Trustees includes representatives of federal executive authorities, parliamentarians, and leaders of civil society organisations, bar associations, and business entities that cooperate with the Foundation.
The participants will focus on the Foundation’s activities in the context of aggressive discrimination against Russian compatriots living in Western countries.
The Board will draft recommendations on the Foundation’s priorities in the near term, particularly in expanding assistance to compatriots who have been targeted by politically-drive discrimination in Western countries.
We expect the decisions of the Board of Trustees to strengthen the Foundation’s role as an effective human rights mechanism in the best interests of the Russian diaspora.
The Banderites persist in their campaign of terror against the civilian populace of Russia. The Kiev regime, through its actions, demonstrates a total disregard for the lives of its own citizens.
A heinous crime has again been perpetrated against Russian journalists. On January 4, in the DPR, a drone from the Ukrainian armed forces targeted a civilian vehicle on the road from Gorlovka to Donetsk, resulting in the death of Izvestia freelance correspondent Alexander Martemyanov and injuries to four other Russian media members, including RIA Novosti journalists Mikhail Kevkhiev and Maxim Romanenko. A corresponding commentary was published on our website on January 5 this year.
The intentional murder of Russian journalists, as part of the terror unleashed by the Banderites against Russia’s civilian population, demands an appropriate response from the global community and relevant international agencies. The silence from these institutions is becoming conspicuous, revealing their complete discrediting of the foundational principles upon which their operations and very existence are based. It is evident that through their silence and inaction, they are not merely condoning but are becoming complicit in the Kiev regime’s crimes.
On the same day, January 4, a 10-year-old boy was killed, and his parents were injured when a Ukrainian drone targeted a civilian car on a highway in the Zaporozhye Region.
On the night of January 5, an attempted attack by a UAV of the Ukrainian armed forces on the Novovoronezh Nuclear Power Plant was thwarted, as the drone was shot down during its approach.
On January 8, Ukro-Nazis shelled a petrol station in Novaya Kakhovka, Kherson Region, resulting in the death of its operator and injuries to four individuals, including a pregnant woman. Another attack impacted the village of Staraya Zburyevka, where a woman born in 1941 was killed. She survived the Nazis, but as recent events reveal, she did not survive the neo-Nazis. On January 12, the Ukrainian military again opened fire on Novaya Kakhovka, destroying another petrol station and damaging a nearby grocery shop.
On January 9, the Ukrainian artillery fire killed two women in the town of Kamenka-Dneprovskaya in the Zaporozhye Region.
On the morning of January 10, American HIMARS missiles were fired by the Ukrainian armed forces at Donetsk and Svetlodarsk (DPR). In the capital of the republic, the target was a shopping centre in Shakhtyorskaya Square, where two people were killed and four were injured. In Svetlodarsk, the strike hit a residential building, killing two women and wounding eight other residents, including a girl born in 2008.
On January 9, Russia’s Commissioner for Human Rights, Tatyana Moskalkova, released a list of 517 Kursk residents who have been missing since the onset of the barbaric invasion of the Kursk Region by the Ukrainian armed forces. We remain hopeful for their safety, yet we are acutely aware of the Banderites’ actions on our territory. This is further confirmed by the confession of a captured militant, who admitted to receiving explicit “instructions” from his commanders regarding the interrogation and subsequent liquidation of civilians.
Alexander Khinshtein, Governor of the Kursk Region, has assumed personal oversight of the efforts to consolidate these lists into a comprehensive register of those seized or captured by the invading bandits in the Kursk Region.
All these crimes warrant punishment. Russian courts continue to hand down sentences to Ukrainian neo-Nazis and mercenaries for their war crimes.
Denis Prokopenko, commander of the neo-Nazi Azov regiment, who ordered the targeted shelling of residential homes in the village of Stary Krym in the DPR in March 2022, has been sentenced in absentia to 24 years’ imprisonment.
Belgian and American mercenaries, Jetmir Hussein and Alexander Grant Tobiassen, have been sentenced in absentia to 6 and 13 years, respectively, for their participation in hostilities on the side of Ukraine. Both are listed on the international wanted register.
The investigation into the terrorist attacks committed by Ukrainian militants Nikolay Tyazhkorob, Alexander Plaksiv, Sergey Pogromsky, and Vladimir Odnoochko in the Kursk Region has been concluded, with all accused currently in custody.
Court has received a criminal case against four militants of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, Pavel Oleksyuk, Sergey Gorbachenko, Yury Andreychenko and Grigory Lyashenko, charged with committing terrorist attacks in the Kursk Region against the Russian military and civilians. All the perpetrators have been detained and placed in custody.
A case against Latvian national Zigmars Ronis, charged with participating in combat activities on behalf of Ukraine’s Karpatskaya Sech group, has also been submitted to court.
Charges have been pressed against former Ukrainian high-ranking officials Igor Raynin and Andrey Bogdan, who served as Chief of Staff of the Ukrainian Presidential Executive Office in 2016-2019 and 2019-2020, respectively, and were members of the Ukrainian National Security and Defence Council. Investigators found that the two individuals were involved in the decision to order the Ukrainian Armed Forces to shell residential areas in Donbass, resulting in 123 people killed or wounded, including 11 children, and 390 civilian infrastructure facilities destroyed. The Russian Investigative Committee is taking measures to identify the location of and arrest the perpetrators.
Mayor of Dnepropetrovsk Boris Filatov has been sentenced to nine years in absentia for encouraging murder of Russians.
According to the Russian Investigative Committee, 6,125 criminal cases have been opened since 2014 against senior officials, members of nationalist organisations and security bodies of Ukraine, and militants of the Ukrainian Armed Forces. As many as 481 people have been sentenced to different terms of imprisonment, including 60 to life sentences in view of the gravity of their crimes and public response.
Russian law enforcement agencies continue to hold Ukrainian Nazis and foreign mercenaries accountable for war crimes and other crimes.
In December 2024, the administration of the departing US President Joe Biden significantly boosted arms supplies to Ukraine, to ensure that the $61 billion package approved by Congress in April 2024 be fully used up before Donald Trump’s inauguration. The White House was open about its intention to guarantee arms supplies for the combat activities in the incoming year. At the beginning of January, Washington proudly reported delivering “hundreds of thousands of artillery rounds, thousands of rockets, hundreds of armored vehicles” to the Kiev regime.
Meanwhile, on January 9, 2025, the 25th meeting of the Ukraine Defence Contact Group took place at the Ramstein US Air Base in Germany, chaired by Pentagon chief Lloyd Austin and attended by Vladimir Zelensky who flew in specifically for the event. The atmosphere was nowhere near festive; instead, it felt more like a farewell event. After the meeting, the US Secretary of Defence questioned whether the Ramstein Contact Group should continue.
The results of the event seemingly disappointed the head of the Kiev regime who did not hide his annoyance. Apparently, Mr Zelensky hoped his ever-growing appetites in the military sphere would be fully satisfied. But this did not happen. The “allies” on both sides of the Atlantic has grown tired of Ukraine’s endless requests. It is evident that their stockpiles of weaponry were not endless either. Now we can hear the NATO members complaining that they do not have enough weapons and need to think about themselves. In the Old World, noticeable tension is caused by Donald Trump’s intention to shift the costs of the needs of the Ukrainian Armed Forces to the Europeans. The US could not even please their Kiev puppets, allocating only a “modest” arms package worth $500 million.
According to American media, Washington failed to “use up” another $3.8 billion until Joe Biden leaves. Now this money will be at the disposal of the new US President’s team. It is noteworthy that Pentagon’s many-year coordinator for arms supplies to Ukraine, Laura Cooper, resigned on the eve of the Ramstein meeting.
However, Americans are not concerned about “hiccups” in military aid to Kiev but only about their own profits. This is what US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin told journalists on January 9, noting that the conflict in Ukraine allowed the United States to invest $70 billion in the development of its own military-industrial complex. Are ordinary Ukrainians aware of this or not? The priorities of the overseas masters of the Kiev regime are set clearly and unambiguously. The Ukrainian people and the country as a whole have been sacrificed only for someone in the United States to line their pockets.
Western officials’ statements about the Russian threat are taking on a new tone. The statement EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas made on January 10, about the EU’s readiness to take the lead in supporting Kiev if the US stops providing it with military assistance, apparently did not reassure anyone in Brussels.
Moreover, some officials in Euro-Atlantic agencies have started invoking phantoms of the Cold War. They have once again started talking about Russia’s “inevitable expansion,” because it wants to conquer the entire continent of Europe. On January 13, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte went so far as saying that residents of EU member states will be forced to study Russian in a few years’ time if they do not increase their defence spending to 10 percent of GDP. Let me read an exact quote: “If you don’t do it, in four or five years you will have to get out your Russian language courses or go to New Zealand.”
Is it not an offence to New Zealand to be spoken about so dismissively? I do not know what is more disgusting about Mr Rutte’s statement: his lying about imminent Russia’s expansion or nationalism, not just towards Russia but towards New Zealand as well. Mr Rutte would be better off saying that the Europeans are already totally controlled from across the ocean. There are American military bases and nuclear weapons on the territory of the European countries, to which the Europeans have no access and do not control in any way. There are also American instructions regarding whose gas to buy or not to buy, and which civilian infrastructure projects to be destroyed. The tune for the EU countries has long been called in the United States, and not by the Europeans, but by Washington.
Russia wants to accomplish only one objective, specifically, to eliminate threats to its national security. On January 14, 2025, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said at a news conference on the performance of Russian diplomacy in 2024 that “we are ready to discuss security guarantees for a country that is now called Ukraine, or for the part of this country that remains undecided in terms of self-determination – unlike Crimea, Donbass and Novorossiya.
Let us now see what is happening on the ruins of a formerly affluent state that had fantastic prospects, that seceded from the Soviet Union in sound health, and which is now facing its own collapse, while dancing to the Anglo-Saxon tune.
The Kiev regime continues to fight the sacred memory of the heroic feat of Soviet soldiers-liberators. On December 27, 2024, Ukraine’s pro-Bandera supporters knocked gold stars of hero cities of Moscow and Minsk from memorials on the Hero Cities Alley at the National Museum of the History of Ukraine in World War II in Kiev. Those same days, local authorities decided to dismantle the bas-relief of the Order of the Great Patriotic War (that was issued to many thousands of Ukrainians who fought against Nazi invaders) in the city of Kagarlyk in the Kiev Region.
On January 9, Ukrainian media outlets reported that the neo-Nazis had destroyed a monument to a war-time female radio operator, Lyubov Lebedeva, who was killed by Gestapo operatives in 1942 in the city of Akhtyrka in the Sumy Region, as well as a monument to the personnel of the Kantemirovskaya Tank Division that liberated Akhtyrka from Nazi occupation. At that time, they liberated the city from Nazi occupation, and today the city is under neo-Nazi occupation. According to social media accounts, gravestones have been barbarically removed from the graves of the Great Patriotic War’s heroes in Vinnitsa and transported to an area outside the city where Adolf Hitler’s Werewolf headquarters was located during the years of Nazi German occupation.
What is this? Does this amount to blasphemy and sacrilege? I believe that this can no longer be called so. Blasphemy and sacrilege are human traits, and it is still possible to exonerate people and to make them repent. The Zelensky regime is doing these deeply inhuman things with the approval of its Western handlers. These actions are something beyond human comprehension and morals, and it is impossible to justify them.
We understand perfectly well that there have been such attempts in the history of mankind – to abolish humanity and everything human. But just as before, the new generation of Banderites will not succeed. They cannot erase the historical truth from the memory of the Ukrainian people.
Look at how they are trying to do it. They demolish monuments and memorials to the true heroes of Ukraine and the world who fought against Nazism, and they do it for a reason. They have to put monuments to their “new heroes” in these places. But who are they?
On January 1, the Ukro-Nazis hung posters in the still-occupied city of Slavyansk (Donetsk People’s Republic) on the occasion of the birthday of Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera. In Lvov, a torchlight procession was timed to this event. The participants just walked around with torches, and of course nobody, nowhere, and not in any international organisation noticed it. In addition, a street named after Irina Farion, known for her misanthropic and Russophobic calls to “banderise the bio waste” of East Ukraine, was inaugurated in a ceremonial setting. Now she is a new Ukrainian “female hero.”
The mayor of Ivano-Frankovsk announced a contest for the best poem or song about Stepan Bandera. I think this is the right thing to do. We also want to participate. Please evaluate:
“Fans of Bandera,
They’re Bandera-logs,
Blasphemers of Faith and Russia,
Sold their souls for wrongs.”
I urge all our compatriots, citizens, to participate in the contest for the best poem about Stepan Bandera, announced by the mayor of Ivano-Frankovsk. Write everything you think of him – from elevated verses to ditties about Stepan Bandera, about Hitler’s accomplices, about Roman Shukhevich and all that scum. This is a unique opportunity. We will also take note of the best and will definitely present it to you.
We hear “caring” words from various world capitals, mostly with unfriendly regimes, which suddenly discover that their citizens are on the battlefields somewhere in Ukraine. They start asking us how it happened. Where have you been all these years when we were calling on your countries to stop the recruitment of your citizens, which was being done mainly through Ukrainian embassies? You thought it was all right at the time.
On January 10, 2025, the British newspaper The Guardian, citing the commander of the neo-Nazi Azov regiment – recognised as a terrorist organisation in Russia – reported on efforts by its fighters to recruit English-speaking mercenaries. The article also mentioned the deaths of 15 British legionnaires since the conflict began. However, British officials have remained silent on the matter. But why should this issue be only addressed by the British press?
A similar fate awaits the majority of foreign soldiers of fortune. According to the Russian Defence Ministry, over 15,000 mercenaries from 115 countries have arrived in Ukraine since February 2022. Of these, approximately 1,900 remain in service, while more than 6,800 have been eliminated, and up to 6,400 have fled back to their home countries.
These facts once again underscore the necessity of the special military operation aimed at the denazification and demilitarisation of Ukraine, as well as the elimination of threats emanating from its territory. As the Russian leadership has consistently stated, all objectives of the operation will undoubtedly be achieved.
Implementation of the Rome Statute of the ICC in Ukraine
The Kiev regime proudly announces that, as of January 1, Ukraine has become a full member of the so-called International Criminal Court (ICC). They claim this will enable them to nominate candidates for ICC judges. But who could they possibly nominate? A country that has lost all legitimacy, where laws are rewritten haphazardly multiple times a day? A place where its own citizens are left in the dark about the legal framework they live under, while people-catchers seize people daily to feed the meat grinder of Vladimir Zelensky’s ambitions and those of his Western curators. This is the country that intends to put forward candidates for the so-called International Criminal Court? They can’t even staff their diplomatic service properly.
They also plan to take part in the allocation of this organisation’s budget. That, I can believe, wherever there are budgets, representatives of the Kiev regime are sure to appear. Moreover, they claim this membership grants Kiev greater moral authority to demand that this court hold Russian citizens accountable. However, there is one small detail that Bankovaya Street has conveniently overlooked. Allow me to point it out.
When Ukraine ratified the Rome Statute, a declaration was made to not recognise the ICC’s jurisdiction over war crimes “likely committed by Ukrainian citizens” for a period of seven years. This is a chaotic double standard. Essentially, Bankovaya aims to exploit the Hague’s pseudo-court for the politically motivated prosecution of Russians on fabricated charges, while simultaneously exempting Ukrainian military personnel and their commanders from the jurisdiction of this body, despite it being heavily ordered around by the collective West. Do you know why? These same militants are killing the same Westerners: journalists and others who were there (there are also Western victims of the Kiev regime). God forbid they ever come to the ICC to seek justice. No, the goal is to protect themselves from this.
We view this as a blatant attempt by the Nazi regime to grant its military a free pass to commit serious war crimes. What is particularly significant is that The Hague itself has ignored the fact that Ukraine’s manipulations violate both the spirit and the letter of the Rome Statute, as well as the 2015 decision by the Assembly of States Parties of the ICC, which called for the prevention of such manipulative actions.
Let us reiterate that all attempts by the Banderite regime to evade accountability are destined to fail. Ukrainian criminals responsible for grave international crimes against their own people and Russian citizens, along with their collaborators, will be held accountable in court and will face the punishment they deserve. Justice in these cases is already being served.
On January 9, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) issued recommendations concerning flights to Russia. This document is undeniably part of Brussels’ policy of exerting pressure on our nation. We concur with the assessment provided by the Federal Air Transport Agency, as detailed in the remarks by its spokesperson on January 10 of this year.
We would further assert that the EASA’s professed “concern” for the safety of flights over Russian territory epitomises cynicism. It was, after all, the European Union that enacted a ban on the supply of spare parts and components for Russian airlines, endeavouring to diminish our air fleet by any conceivable means. EU officials have candidly expressed their intention to “destroy” our domestic aviation. This ambition has not materialised, nor have they been successful in addressing other challenges stemming from the EU’s anti-Russian sanctions policy. Instead, they have undermined their own economy, industry, and aviation sector.
It is evident that one of the primary aims of the EASA’s recommendations is to re-establish, through unlawful and inequitable measures, the competitive advantage of their own airlines, which, owing to the EU’s sanctions policy, are compelled to bypass Russian airspace. Meanwhile, Asian carriers, which continue to utilise Russian airspace safely, expend significantly less time, fuel, and other resources on their flights to EU nations via the Trans-Siberian route.
Moreover, the rationale underpinning the EASA’s decision fails to address the principal concern – that the threat to civil aviation over certain regions of Russia is posed by the terrorist tactics of the Kiev regime, which deliberately targets civilian infrastructure, employing weaponry either financed by European money or supplied by the European Union.
Operations of the Observatory on History Teaching at the Council of Europe
The Observatory on History Teaching in Europe (OHTE) was established at the Council of Europe several years ago to “provide a clear picture of the state of history teaching in its member states, based on reliable data and facts on how history is taught, through general and thematic reports.” The project was aimed at “enhancing innovation in history education through co-operation” and “strengthening resilience against the manipulation and distortion of history and promoting peace and dialogue.” Since 2022, that organisation has been working consistently to add a Ukrainian angle to everything that is connected with Russia in Europe. This policy assumed its final shape with the admission of Ukraine in June 2024 at France’s initiative.
The OHTE has become the main instrument used by the Council of Europe to falsify history and pander to the Kiev regime’s efforts to create a myth of Ukraine’s “great past” that allegedly has no connection to Russia. This is becoming increasingly absurd, although the member states are probably unaware of it. This is most clearly manifested at its annual conferences.
The 4th OHTE Annual Conference held in December 2024 was titled History in Crisi(e)s? What crisis? They have torn down all monuments in Western Europe, presumably thinking that this would settle the problem. Kiev has again demanded that the EU countries rewrite their history textbooks to include information about Kievan Rus and “outstanding Ukrainians who contributed to the development of the European civilisation.” The list of these individuals provided by Deputy Education Minister of Ukraine Mikhail Vinnitsky included aircraft designer Igor Sikorsky and Soviet rocket designer Sergey Korolev. Eager to become a part of European history, Zelensky’s regime has presented the Russian aviation pioneer and the Soviet designer of long-range ballistic missiles as the “outstanding sons of Ukraine.” This is unacceptable, as we pointed out long ago. Today, this narrative has acquired a truly grotesque form.
An even more shocking statement has been made by Yaroslav Gritsak, director of the Institute for Historical Studies at the Ivan Franko National University in Lvov. He said that the special military operation was Russia’s attempt to regain the superpower status, that Russia with Ukraine is the United States of America and without it, it is Canada. I am not going to speak about geography and history now, and say just a few words about the modern period.
I wonder if Canada knows that it is Russia. Didn’t Ukraine say that the US is its ultimate idol? Didn’t it want to become something like the United States? That historian from Lvov has inadvertently provided a wonderful recipe for turning Ukraine into America. Everything is in confusion in their sick heads. This is a result of their manipulations with history. The demolition of monuments, the rewriting of history and nationalism distort their view of the world, reality and themselves. We would have shrugged if such heresy had been published by a crazy freak in his social account. But these statements are made at events held under the auspices of the Council of Europe’s Observatory on History Teaching in Europe.
We will continue to monitor the anti-historical activities of that European “observatory” aimed at revising historical science and education and planting Russophobic ideas. We might create a new page on the Foreign Ministry’s website and social media accounts to regularly share such cringeworthy facts and memes with you. I don’t like loanwords, but I have used them now to show the Western audiences our attitude towards the pseudoscientific efforts of such “history labs.”
Slovakia, whose current leaders commemorate the heroism of Soviet liberators, joined the OHTE on January 1, 2025. Maybe it will use its proactive stance to change the anti-Russia chorus of history rewriters. What they are doing is not only dangerous because it is spearheaded against a certain country, but because this is “historical alchemy” presented as “advanced science.” This could have horrible results.
Everything I will say regarding this matter today is in response to yet another portion of Chisinau’s blatant anti-Russia attacks.
The already dire socioeconomic situation in Moldova has been exacerbated by the energy crisis caused by the end of Russian gas transit through Ukraine. The real reasons for this are clear: Kiev’s refusal to extend the contract on gas transit and Chisinau’s failure to settle its debt to Gazprom.
However, Moldovan authorities prefer to ignore this (although they understand the situation very well) and live in an alternative reality of their own invention. True to form, they are trying to blame our country for provoking the energy crisis. In their narrative, if something goes wrong, Russia is to blame. On January 9, the Moldovan government’s press office said that Russia was using the people of Transnistria in a geopolitical game, and described the Russian world using such words as “cold,” “hunger,” “abyss” and “dark.”
In fact, as Moldovan experts note, cold, hunger, abyss and darkness are what the residents of Moldova and Transnistria received as the promised result of the criminal policy directed against their own people pursued by the Chisinau authorities. Power outages have affected all segments of the population, with the exception of government functionaries, who continue to enjoy uninterrupted supply. Regular people are increasingly resorting to wood heating, and the incidence of diseases caused by hypothermia has soared in the country. This is happening in Europe in the 21st century!
There is an outcry on Moldovan social media over household utility bills. On January 9, Moldovan Prime Minister Dorin Recean assured the nation that the government had no reason to raise utility prices. As it turned out, he was cynically lying as usual (he couldn’t have been so badly misinformed, could he?). As soon as the next day, updated electricity and heating prices were published, hiked by as much as 75 percent. Did Russia do that too? No, it was Maia Sandu’s policy that did.
Inflation is rampant and consumer prices are surging, while people’s incomes have remained unchanged or decreased. This is confirmed by official Moldovan statistics. The media report non-payments of salaries to employees at state companies, primarily railway workers.
Against this backdrop, on January 9, President Maia Sandu visited a number of communities in Moldova, apparently to self-promote and put on a show of solidarity with the Moldovan people during this difficult time, and talk about the European agenda. But something went wrong, as it often happens with her. Local residents confronted the head of state with criticism over meagre benefits and pensions, high utility prices and sparce jobs. After that, she was bluntly told to go back to Chisinau, in rather strong language.
Have the Moldovan authorities learned their lesson? No. At any cost, they continue to forcibly squeeze the country into the Procrustean European project.
Moldova continues to purge its information landscape. On December 19, 2024, the authorities decided to revoke the broadcasting licences of three television networks and two radio stations. Democracy is marching triumphantly across Moldova.
Under the pretext of bringing national legislation in line with EU standards, on December 30, Moldova’s Ministry of Infrastructure and Regional Development introduced a bill for public discussion that will clearly hold back regional development. The new legislation will ban airlines from 22 countries, including Russia, from operating on the territory of Moldova. As a reminder, due to the suspension of direct flights with Russia in 2022, many Moldovan nationals and tourists are forced to use connecting flights via Yerevan or Istanbul to reach Moldova.
It is only logical that the frankly disastrous results of the Chisinau Euro-integrators’ policies look like nationwide protests. One can only bring well-being to a nation if you respect and love your people, and feel a sense of unity with them. In Moldova, we see the opposite – the people are being re-identified in an attempt to erase all things Moldovan: their language, nationality, history, cultural identity, and sense of national dignity. The authorities in Chisinau are not interested in their people’s feelings or aspirations. They are on a mission; they have received advanced payment on an order and are fulfilling it. Only the payment went to the regime in Chisinau, not to the Moldovan people.
When one blindly follows their Western handlers’ instructions and spends most of their time in the lobbies of European institutions, prostrating themselves before European bureaucrats, the result can be even more disheartening. This is exactly what we are witnessing in Moldova today. They are not the first, and they are not the last.
On January 15, 2025, Israeli authorities and the Hamas movement announced that they had reached an agreement on releasing 33 hostages detained in the Gaza Strip in exchange for a group of Palestinians serving prison sentences in Israel. Under the terms of the deal, due to be implemented from January 19, hostilities are to cease across the entire Palestinian enclave, and a stage-by-stage withdrawal of Israeli forces will be launched. Additionally, there are plans to deliver much more food, fuel and medications to Gaza residents.
The painstaking and persistent work of Qatari and Egyptian mediators made it possible to reach these important agreements. Their diplomatic efforts undoubtedly deserve the highest praise. Representatives of the incoming US administration joined the negotiation marathon at the final stage.
Since the crisis in and around Gaza flared up in the autumn of 2023, we have called for establishing a long-term ceasefire regime and providing essential humanitarian assistance to all those in need. Unfortunately, the United States, which voiced a one-sided and a priori unconstructive position on this issue, blocked all our attempts and those of our supporters to pass a UN Security Council resolution containing these demands.
We hope that the fulfilment of the current agreement will facilitate the long-term stabilisation in the Gaza Strip and create favourable conditions for the return of all temporarily displaced persons and the rebuilding of facilities damaged or destroyed during hostilities. Israeli hostages and Palestinian prisoners being released under the deal will reunite with their families. We hope that their list will include Russian citizen Alexander Trufanov, who is currently in the Gaza Strip. We have persistently raised the issue of returning him home as soon as possible during our regular contacts with representatives of the Hamas leadership.
We hope that the implementation of these agreements will represent an important practical step towards the long-term normalisation of the situation in the zone of the Palestinian-Israeli confrontation and will create the prerequisites for improving the situation in the entire Middle East region, including Lebanon, Syria and Yemen.
We hope that this agreement will help create essential conditions for launching the process of a comprehensive political settlement to resolve the Palestinian issue in accordance with a generally recognised international law framework. The establishment of an independent Palestinian state within the 1967 borders is its ultimate goal. The state’s capital would be located in East Jerusalem, and this state would co-exist in peace and security with Israel. We are deeply convinced that there is no reasonable alternative to this approach. Only the implementation of this “two-state” formula, approved by UN General Assembly and UN Security Council resolutions, will help Middle Eastern nations break the vicious circle of violence and establish lasting peace.
I would also like to draw attention to a press release posted on the Foreign Ministry’s website, stating that on January 15, 2025, Special Representative of the President of the Russian Federation for the Middle East and Africa and Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov spoke by telephone with Deputy Head of the Hamas Political Bureau Mousa Abu Marzook. Several days earlier, Mikhail Bogdanov had a telephone conversation with Head of the HAMAS Political Bureau Abroad Khaled Meshaal.
During the conversations, the Palestinians thanked the Russian side for its consistent efforts to uphold the Palestinian nation’s legitimate rights, for our principled position in favour of equitably resolving the Palestinian issue, and shared their expectations regarding the agreement with Israel, reached in Doha and Cairo, to resolve the crisis in the Gaza Strip.
The Russian side reiterated its interest in the release of Russian citizen Alexander Trufanov, detained in the enclave, on a top-priority basis. We expect that other requests of a humanitarian nature we have submitted to the Hamas leadership will also be taken into account.
We will closely follow these developments.
Anglo-Saxon war crimes in Afghanistan
New facts about the savage atrocities committed against civilians by NATO forces during their occupation of Afghanistan in 2001-2021 continue to come to light. Specifically, a number of UK media outlets report that a former SAS officer confessed to a non-public investigation that they had a free hand to kill Afghans. Teens under 16 years of age often became victims of extrajudicial executions. Sounds familiar? This is the same thing the Kiev regime is doing using the Anglo-Saxon money. Such terror tactics were used not only to intimidate the Afghan population engaged in a liberation struggle against the occupation forces but also for amusement.
Brutality characterised US and British air raids that deliberately targeted civilian facilities rather than military installations or rebel camps. You may remember the recurrent reports of US or British aircraft attacking weddings and funerals. Later, NATO command claimed they had mistaken these gatherings for groups of terrorists. Today, however, it transpires that they did not make a mistake and fired simply for fun. The US and NATO war crimes in Afghanistan were, in fact, replicas of the Anglo-Saxon atrocities committed in the course of their aggressions against Iraq and Libya.
We commend the reporters, including those from the West, who are striving to keep the topic of war crimes committed by the United States and its satellites in the public eye. We also welcome the intent of the Afghan authorities to expose the facts and data regarding the behaviour of the “defenders of democracy” in Afghanistan and prevent these issues from being hushed up.
Many may ask whether these are isolated incidents. While it is possible that some isolated incidents occurred, the difference lies in the response of the authorities in Western countries that ordered these “foreign missions.” They either admit to these crimes, assume responsibility and punish the perpetrators, or continue to claim that they “brought democracy on the wings of their bomber aircraft.” They either draw the right conclusions, apologise and repent, or persist in their vision of totalitarian righteousness, US- and British-style.
We once again urge Washington, London and their NATO allies to refrain from covering up for war criminals. We demand that all those guilty of crimes against the Afghan people be brought to justice.
The “highly likely” style groundless accusations targeting our country have long become the West’s tactic and strategy of choice. However, the Westerners have long ceased to burden themselves with any perceptible effort to be creative. Not a single piece of evidence has been presented to the international community to prove Russia’s involvement in any incident that has, directly or indirectly, affected EU member states.
The West was in a hurry to find the “Russian trace” in the recent damage to underwater telecommunications and power cables in the Baltic Sea. Authorities in Finland, Estonia, and other EU countries eagerly call the incidents “sabotage” and are primarily developing a theory that allegedly involves Russia’s “shadow fleet.” These “phantom” claims against our country are customarily voiced even before the circumstances of the incident have been clarified. We have seen this before as well. The speed is enviably remarkable, especially since it is in stark contrast with the unrelenting disregard for conducting any investigation into the terrorist attacks on the Nord Stream pipelines. The hypocrisy is astounding. More than two years have passed without any investigation into the terrorist attack on the absolutely civilian Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines. Yet, instructions were issued immediately to identify the culprit behind the current situation with the telecommunications and power cables in the Baltic Sea.
The European Commission quickly became involved in the December incident with the Eagle S tanker that sails under the flag of the Cook Islands. As a reminder, just like the European Union, it made a point of distancing itself from any involvement in identifying those responsible for blowing up the Nord Stream pipelines. This time, however, Brussels has chosen to step up. The European Commission and the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy immediately stated that the incident calls for taking extra measures against Russia’s “shadow fleet” and ratcheting up security at the EU critical infrastructure. But isn’t the Nord Stream part of the EU’s critical infrastructure? Or, is that a “different” matter? And since Joe Biden said he would destroy this project, shouldn’t the EU have complied and proceeded in that manner?
NATO also joined the EU and took advantage of the situation to increase its military presence in the Baltic Sea.
All of that would be reminiscent of the theatre of the absurd if it were not for the clear signs of a long and meticulously designed plan, to which unrelated maritime incidents are being painstakingly linked. The West is systematically imposing on the international community “myths” about “dangerous” vessels roaming European seas, which serve Moscow’s interests. Numerous speculations are being used to establish the allegedly “correct” causal links, on the basis of which and in the absence of reliable facts, all “necessary conclusions” are made.
Their real goal is more than obvious. By any means, they strive to put a cap on Russian oil exports, and at the same time, they attempt to create grounds for arbitrary restrictions on international shipping in the Baltic Sea in light of the notorious speculations about it becoming a “NATO internal sea.” Western countries claim to care about the interests of energy consumers only in words, while, in reality, they continue to undermine global energy security.
The West is using its all-too-familiar double standards in the situation with the Kiev regime’s attacks on the compressor plant in the Krasnodar Territory, which pumps gas through the TurkStream pipeline. Does the EU realise what is unfolding before the eyes of the international community? Will they, perhaps, call out the Kiev regime and themselves? After all, the attacks threaten the functioning of the infrastructure that supplies Russian gas to certain EU member states. However, Brussels is in no hurry to do that. It finds it far more interesting to “reel out” and “reel up” the telecommunications cable narrative, since it can showcase its might in this regard. Instead of a principled assessment of the Kiev regime’s attempts to target the TurkStream infrastructure, Brussels is getting away with vague rhetoric about how any attack on energy infrastructure is, of course, concerning, but Kiev supposedly did not inform the EU about any such actions. In fact, they claim, it is not an attack on energy infrastructure, but something different.
On the one hand, this suits some of the EU members that have been acting against their own citizens for years now. On the other hand, the rest of the EU population remains in the dark and has no clue about what’s going on. They were immediately shown newspapers with images of telecommunications equipment on the bottom of the Baltic Sea, their attention was diverted from pressing issues, and they were handed some media “gum” to chew on. “Enjoy,” they were told. They are not supposed to know, though, what is really going on. As has been customary for the EU in recent years, the public is not informed about the consequences that will affect private citizens and the economy. These issues are not addressed globally during EU summits or foreign ministers’ councils. Why do so? European countries have long become victims of the Kiev regime’s reckless adventures, backed by Anglo-Saxons. This is just another such adventure.
This poses extreme danger for the EU citizens, because the issue is no longer about the double standards practiced by Brussels bureaucracy, but methods of dirty and unscrupulous media manipulation, elevated by the EU to an absolute level in order to achieve specific goals, not in the best interests of their population, but at the behest of Washington and London.
The Biden administration’s decision to remove Cuba from the US list of state sponsors of terrorism
The recent breaking news was that the Biden administration published a decision on January 14 to remove Cuba from the notorious unilateral US list of state sponsors of terrorism. It will come into force on March 2, 45 days later. It also suspends (in ten days’ time) Title III of the 1996 Helms-Burton Act for six months, a Title that authorises US and foreign nationals to file suits in US courts demanding the return of property allegedly confiscated by the Cuban authorities. Additionally, it cancels the 2017 presidential memorandum envisioning restrictions on financial transactions with Cuban organisations.
To be sure, these are steps in the right direction. The only question is: Why so late? There are just four days left before Joe Biden’s final departure from the White House. Why did he make this decision several days before the end of his presidency? There are clear and recognisable similarities to Barak Obama’s actions regarding Cuba, as he sought to etch his name into history before his own final curtain at the White House. True, things reverted to the old status quo later.
To reiterate: these are steps in the right direction. However, they are absolutely insufficient. What I mean is that the bulk of the restrictions and measures imposed on Cuba are extraterritorial in nature. They were adopted as part of the US illegal and inhumane economic and financial embargo against Cuba, which Washington has exacerbated to an unprecedented degree in recent years. All of that remains in force.
The aforementioned US administration’s decisions reflect the obvious fact that Cuba has an irreproachable reputation as a proactive participant in international cooperation aimed at preventing and combatting terrorism. Notably, the White House has admitted that there is no evidence of Havana sponsoring international terrorism. This would be funny if it were not so tragically true. We hope that Washington will not renounce this statement of fact to appease political forces insisting on even harsher sanctions to stifle Cuba economically and engineer a regime change in that country.
Russia, for its part, will continue to display firm solidarity with the Cuban people and leaders in their efforts to protect Cuba’s state sovereignty and will advocate for an immediate and total end to the US embargo against Cuba. It is imperative to lift this blockade. Almost the entire international community shares this demand addressed to the US authorities.
We hope that these steps, announced by the outgoing Biden administration just days before their final departure from the White House, mark the beginning of an advance towards the right side of history, rather than yet another political manipulation.
The duplicity of US IT corporations
The next issue didn’t just please me; it confirmed something we have been saying for the past decade: everything hidden will eventually come to light. We are bound to eventually see evidence supporting our statements about collusion between US digital platforms, tech giants and US intelligence agencies. We’ve discussed this at length on numerous occasions, presenting facts and asking questions. It is notable that Russia, which has initiated a number of documents and appeals to the international community, has turned out to be right again.
The heads of US IT corporations, tech giants and monopolies have started giving mind-boggling interviews with hair-raising revelations.
A striking trend has been encouraged in the past weeks by the nascent changes in US domestic policies as a result of Donald Trump’s election. The largest US IT corporations, which fully control the digital space at home, hold monopoly sway over the global market and partially control the media environment, that information technology empire known as the Big Tech, is declaring allegiance to the future US administration ahead of Trump’s inauguration and revealing incredible facts about their past operations.
If those interviews had been published two, four or five years ago, the world could have avoided many tragedies because the world would have known how the US formulates its information policy, which influences the adoption of decisions of momentous significance for the world in Washington, London, Brussels and other capitals.
I am not impressed by the fact that Meta (which owns Facebook, Instagram, and Threads and has been declared an extremist organisation and banned in Russia), as well as Microsoft, Google, Apple, Amazon, OpenAI et al. have each donated $1 million to Trump’s inauguration fund. I have no interest in these political trifles. Anyone would say that this is hypocrisy, but it is a fact of life in the United States.
Google has announced that it “is pleased to support the 2025 inauguration,” with a livestream on YouTube and a direct link on its homepage. They will gladly pay more, and will overhaul their policy towards Trump, so that everyone is happy and pleased. But it’s just a trifle. There are much more interesting and important things.
These are the same IT giants which aggressively imposed neo-liberal values throughout the world only yesterday and “protected” the vocabular of their users. Demanding respect for the rules of the online community based on neo-liberal “principles,” they blocked everyone who refused to embrace information extremism. All these IT giants have announced cardinal changes in their policies. They are not doing this because they have suddenly seen the light but because the liberal narrative is ceding its positions. It has reached a dead end. Who said that ultraliberalism is a blind alley? Right, it was our country that was the first to start talking about this years ago.
And now the curtain has been raised over the inner mechanisms of censorship and manipulation of information and public opinion, with direct meddling by the White House administration. We have been speaking about this for the past ten years or more. But the United States ridiculed and questioned our arguments. Only very few American researchers, and not a single US newspaper or television channel lifted a finger to investigate that information.
We spoke about digital dictatorship, the segregation of internet users, and collusion between US IT corporations and intelligence agencies. It’s not a secret. Every barber knows that. We spoke about it publicly at international organisations.
What the Western media denounced as “fake news” and “Russian propaganda” for years has turned out to be true, the “routine” operations of US IT companies and the daily practice of the US political and media establishment.
The latest interview with Mark Zuckerberg, the owner and chief executive of Meta Platforms Inc, is not just a statement but solid evidence of that. Why has he exposed himself and the American intelligence agencies, the deep state and politicians? The obvious goal is to deflect blame from himself and to play along with the new narrative. In other words, he is pledging loyalty to those who he has been pessimising for years, regarded as a target worthy of harassment, was paid to harass and pointed out as a victim.
According to the Facebook founder, US intelligence agencies, in particular, the CIA, have access to users’ messages on WhatsApp. When we said the same for the first time, the Americans had a fit in refuting it.
Mark Zuckerberg has admitted the encryption used in the messenger does not protect against interference by intelligence agencies, adding that his company had no access to users’ messages. In other words, he is doing everything possible to shift the blame away from himself and his company, placing it squarely on US intelligence agencies.
He has also publicly admitted that the Biden administration forced his platforms to block publications that discussed potential side effects of COVID vaccines. The people wanted to know what the American government was planning to inject them with, but they were denied that information.
It gets worse from there. The American digital magnate has confessed that censorship on American social networks began to be implemented at a rapid pace following the 2016 US presidential election and the United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union, i.e., well before the pandemic, when US authorities decided to censor their IT platforms under the pretext of COVID-19. This censorship on social media was specifically related to political and ideological matters.
During the pandemic, this practice became all-encompassing. The Biden administration, emboldened, began to demand even more: the removal from public access of memes and satirical materials, which were abundant during his presidency. This is how far they went. It is emphasised that the company’s ostensibly timid attempts to refuse compliance with such demands were swiftly quashed – Biden himself publicly accused the social network of “killing people” for spreading COVID misinformation.
Following this badge of dishonour, the company realised its position and began to “clean up” after itself. Although, apparently, not after itself, but within itself – to “clean up,” it seems, after Joe Biden.
As always, who was to blame? Correct, the Russians. Consistently (both before and after 2016, during and after COVID-19) they accused Russia of allegedly disrupting everyone’s lives on social networks through “troll factories” and other technological capabilities.
What Mark Zuckerberg disclosed is merely the tip of the iceberg regarding the state of the American media landscape.
Zuckerberg’s crocodile tears did not convince anyone. A cursory glance at the comments left by Americans themselves on the interview suffices.
It is perfectly clear that American digital platforms were willingly and enthusiastic participants of cooperation with the intelligence services and the Biden administration.
The role of Facebook and Twitter in orchestrating “colour revolutions” by the CIA and other agencies cannot be overstated. They were also referred to as “Twitter revolutions” and “social media revolutions.”
We remember vividly who (first and foremost, Facebook itself) disseminated fabrications about alleged Russian interference in the American elections – “Russiagate,” which turned out to be fiction, a political manoeuvre from start to finish. I am pleased that we spoke about the fact that, in a short time, we would uncover the truth. And we have indeed uncovered it. It is an irrefutable truth that emanates directly from the participants of those events, from those who executed and received orders, implemented them, and perhaps even developed them in concert.
Now everyone is aware of it. We have consistently stated that US digital platforms and the large corporations controlling them faithfully serve US foreign policy interests, and not the people of the United States. This is significant: the people were told they were independent, but Russia was interfering with their operations. In fact, they were serving the interests of narrow groups – political and financial – that are connected with the American intelligence agencies.
These IT platforms are instruments of Washington’s expansionist policy and the intelligence agencies, which have direct access to any content posted and to the personal correspondence of users, widely utilising these operational capabilities to achieve their objectives. As a reminder, as far back as 2013, Edward Snowden revealed that the NSA systematically intercepted phone calls and emails of billions of individuals from numerous countries. Digital platforms remain systems for controlling users.
What did Edward Snowden face in his country? You are all well aware. What actions did they take against Russia for granting him the opportunity to be free, not proactively, but due to circumstances and upon request? In fact, that is when they began announcing all these sanctions against us, calling us names, proclaiming they would devastate our economy, etc. This is when it all began. And now, it transpires that Edward Snowden was absolutely right. The digital platforms themselves are speaking about it. And we were absolutely correct.
Nor have we forgotten about the policy of discrimination against our country and people adopted by Mark Zuckerberg and the top management of the extremist Meta, about how, in 2022, this digital platform openly allowed calls for violence against Russian citizens and servicemen, and in general, how they condoned efforts to “cancel” Russia and everything Russian. We have not forgotten about it. We remember. As well as the fact that we spoke openly about it. We also remember how the same Mark Zuckerberg and his associates claimed they never allowed themselves anything of the sort.
However, fact-checkers, including those from Ukrainian “outfits” with ties to right-wing radicals and outright neo-Nazis, are now being replaced with “community notes” – they claim that users themselves will determine what is true and what is false. We can observe how this operates on the X platform, where this system can be easily manipulated and tailored to suit Washington’s desired narratives. Let me remind you that our English-language account ranks among the leaders in terms of the number of these notes simply for telling the truth about the situation around Ukraine, providing facts about the staging of the Bucha incident, the terrorist attacks by the Kiev regime, and the sabotage of the Nord Streams.
Incidentally, the situation with the removal of photos featuring the Victory Banner flying over the Reichstag on Facebook has not improved: just as the historical truth was erased in 2019-2020, it continues to be erased today. Or perhaps something will change?
We are well aware of how Meta and other American IT corporations openly participated and continue to participate in the information aggression of Washington and its satellites against our country, creating and fuelling an alternative (to common sense and facts) emasculated reality – a “meta-universe” of lies.
And what about “freedom of speech” (upon which the United States is purportedly founded, as this fundamental principle was the bedrock, the cornerstone in the creation of the state), “freedom of access to information” and “fair and open competition of ideas?”
All the eternal American values have in reality turned out to be nothing more than a facade for global elites to deceive the public and a tool to influence and interfere in the internal affairs of sovereign countries worldwide. The cynical prohibitions of Russian media outlets (RT and Sputnik were the first victims of this American hypocrisy), ignoring the Kiev regime’s terrorist acts against journalists, purging unwanted opinions in the digital space – these are all examples and evidence of the same.
These values, proclaimed in the elaborate rhetoric of American politicians, have once again been trampled upon, having been extinguished along with the dreams of overseas taxpayers of a beautiful life in Malibu.
All this is a monstrous facade, propped up with no real foundation. The first reaction to these interviews, which are now circulating, and particularly to Mark Zuckerberg’s statements, was to wonder whether this is a derivative of deep fakes, most likely something generated, something that really can’t be true, because just one or two years ago and for decades, they had been asserting precisely the opposite. It turns out that it can be true.
Russia provides food aid to Southeast Asian countries through UN WFP
The UN World Food Programme is the key multilateral channel for providing Russian food aid to foreign populations in need. In the Southeast Asian region, we are helping Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar through this agency.
In 2021, our country made a voluntary targeted contribution of $10.3 million to the UN WFP for the implementation of sustainable school meals programmes in Cambodia, Laos and Sri Lanka.
For example, the programme component for Cambodia with a budget of $2.8 million focused on ensuring a healthy diet for Cambodian schoolchildren. In 2022-2024, the programme included food supplies to schools, modern equipment purchases for school canteens, and training sessions for school cooks. In Laos, $2 million went to improve the existing school meals system, with an emphasis on maintaining balanced diets and involving local farmers to supply schools, as well as developing optimal school menus based on the local farmers’ produce.
In addition, also through the World Food Programme, we have been sending food directly to Laos ($1 million worth of food in 2018, and $2 million in 2024). Furthermore, under a Food for Assets project worth $73,000, food vouchers were issued to local residents in exchange for urgent construction work to restore irrigation systems, build granaries and flood control structures.
In 2023, Russia allocated $2 million to the World Food Programme to meet the food needs of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar. Part of these funds were used to pay Russian suppliers for delivering a total of 680 tonnes of fortified sunflower oil to Myanmar in September 2024.
At the end of last year, a further $1.5 million was allocated to the World Food Programme’s food operations in Myanmar.
These contributions to international humanitarian organisations were made in addition to the assistance the Russian Federation provides to the needy states in Southeast Asia through bilateral channels.
Exhibition on the genocide of besieged Leningrad population opens at UN Headquarters
On January 13, 2025, an exhibition dedicated to the 81st anniversary of the complete liberation of Leningrad from the Nazi siege opened at UN headquarters.
The display, dedicated to one of the most tragic chapters of the Great Patriotic War, was compiled by Russia’s Permanent Mission to the United Nations and the National Presidential Centre for Historical Memory.
More than 15 display stands feature archival materials and documents testifying to numerous cases of the Nazis’ atrocities against Leningraders. The materials were prepared following the October 20, 2022 decision of the St Petersburg City Court to recognise the siege of Leningrad by the Nazis and their accomplices as genocide of the Soviet people. According to the city prosecutor’s office, the total number of victims of this tragedy was at least 1,093,842, while the amount of damage caused to the city and its residents exceeded 35 trillion roubles in modern Russian currency.
The siege of Leningrad, which lasted 872 days (from September 8, 1941 until it was finally lifted on January 27, 1944), has been qualified as genocide of the Soviet people by a court decision. It is not subject to revision. This is the truth that underpins the historical memory of the Great Patriotic War: it was a deliberate extermination of the population through starvation. The exhibition now on display at the UN is unique because the designers emphasised a progression of items with a rising impact: the places of memory, reflected on fifteen stands, go all the way from crimes against childhood, bombing, starvation, and destruction of cultural heritage to finally arrive to a merciless, but very accurate and concise conclusion: The siege of Leningrad amounted to genocide.
We must never forget those crimes. Today, it is still extremely important to continue identifying Nazi criminals and their victims. This work must continue until each name is brought to light. It is not only a matter of remembrance, but also of establishing true justice for the victims. The work to identify the criminals and the acts perpetrated by them did not stop with the completion of the Nuremberg trials. A number of Russian regional courts continue to confirm cases of horrific crimes. The verdicts they pass are a logical continuation of the Nuremberg Tribunal verdicts and unequivocally qualify the criminal acts committed by the Nazis and their accomplices – including the siege of Leningrad – as genocide of the peoples of the Soviet Union.
The opening of the exhibition brought together several dozen people, including representatives of foreign diplomatic missions and journalists accredited to the UN. The display is available to all visitors to the UN headquarters until January 17.
As far as we know, versions of this exhibition in Russian and English will soon open in Moscow (on Arbat Street and near the Lenkom Theater) and St Petersburg. The opening is scheduled for January 27, the day the siege of Leningrad was fully lifted.
230th birthday anniversary of Alexander Griboyedov
Alexander Griboyedov is an outstanding Russian writer, poet, Orientalist and diplomat. He had an extensive education and versatile knowledge in many spheres. He spoke many languages, was a good officer, a talented musician and a remarkable diplomat who could become an outstanding politician. Griboyedov played the key role in the signing of the Treaty of Turkmenchay (1828), which strengthened Russia’s positions in the South Caucasus. His comedy in verse Woe from Wit placed him on a par with the greatest Russian writers.
Alexander Griboyedov was born on January 15, 1795, into a noble family in Moscow and received an excellent education at Moscow University. A real patriot, he joined the army at the start of the 1812 Patriotic War. In 1817, he entered diplomatic service at the Collegium (ministry) of Foreign Affairs.
Since he spoke Persian, he was dispatched to Tabriz as a secretary of the head of the Russian mission in Persia. He used his position to improve his knowledge of the Persian language, culture and traditions. In 1822, Griboyedov was transferred to Tiflis (Tbilisi) as a foreign policy secretary of General Alexey Yermolov, commander-in-chief of the Russian forces in Georgia. That was where he started working on his immortal comedy, Woe from Wit, which made him famous around the world. Historian Vasily Klyuchevsky described it as “the most serious political work of the 19th century.”
During the Russian-Persian War of 1826-1827, Alexander Griboyedov was given a crucial mission of conducting diplomatic negotiations with the Persian government and coordinating favourable conditions in the Treaty of Turkmenchay (1828), which formalised Russian military victories in the Caucasus. He personally brought the news of the much-anticipated peace to St Petersburg, where he was received as a hero. He was awarded the title of Councillor of State and the Order of St Anna, 2nd Class, with diamonds.
In 1828, he was appointed Russia’s Minister Plenipotentiary to Persia where he took an active part in the implementation of the peace treaty and ensured Persia’s neutrality during the Russian-Turkish war of 1828-1829. The outstanding diplomat died tragically on January 30, 1829, when a mob of religious fanatics stormed the Russian diplomatic mission in Tehran.
Griboyedov was buried in the monastery of St David (Mtatsminda Pantheon) in Tbilisi. The inscription made on his grave by his young widow, Nino Chavchavadze, has a special meaning for the fans of his talent. It is a cry from her heart written in stone: “Your mind and deeds are immortal in Russian memory, but why has my love outlived you?”
Russia is proud of its citizen, a patriot and a symbol of Russian diplomacy. The memory of this outstanding person is perpetuated in his family mansion now known as the Khmelita History, Culture and Nature Museum Reserve of Alexander Griboyedov. A monument to Griboyedov, a writer and ambassador to Persia, has been unveiled at the Russian Embassy in Tehran. In 2020, a square in Moscow’s Basmanny District was named after him.
There are monuments to him in Moscow, St Petersburg, Veliky Novgorod and Volgograd, as well as in Tbilisi (Georgia) and Yerevan (Armenia), where his comedy Woe from Wit was premiered in the Erivan (Yerevan) Fortress in 1827.
The 80th anniversary of Soviet forces liberating Warsaw from German Nazi invaders
January 17, 2025 marks that special day 80 years ago, when Red Army units entered the Polish capital, Warsaw, as liberators. The 23-day Vistula-Oder strategic offensive operation enshrined in manuals of military art resulted in the liberation of a considerable part of what is today’s Republic of Poland, with the Soviet forces advancing 500 kilometres in a frontline measuring nearly 1,000 kilometres. Fighting alongside the Red Army was the People’s Army of Poland (LWP), which, after a baptism of fire near Lenino in the Mogilev Region of Byelorussia in 1943, went as far as Berlin in the spring of 1945.
There are documents testifying to the atmosphere in Poland in winter 1945. Officers and men of the Red Army, along with inhabitants of the liberated Polish lands, rejoiced at the expulsion of the German occupying force and commiserated with the victims of Nazi terror and the sufferings of Polish survivors of Hitler’s enslavement.
The liberation of Warsaw was an event symbolising the revival of Polish statehood. The Soviet Union helped to rebuild the Polish capital that had been reduced to ruins. The people of both countries created the postwar Polish economy in the spirit of friendship and mutual respect, this ensuring the growth of national wellbeing and the country’s modernisation. No matter how much this may wound the ear of current Polish politicians, it was the country’s liberation by the Red Army in 1945 that was the historic landmark on the way of the Republic of Poland’s emergence as a national state of the Polish people within its currently existing borders. There would have been no Polish state without this happening.
Today, these memories of the Red Army’s victories and Poland’s salvation from the Nazi yoke, memories sacred for Russians and Poles alike, are being darkened by the efforts to rewrite history and the forget-all policy, in which Warsaw has reached the height of cynicism. Poland pulls down monuments to Soviet liberator soldiers and desecrates their graves. Polish officials and propagandists turn history upside down, accusing the USSR of having unleashed the Second World War… and keeping mum about the liberation.
As is obvious, all of this is being done in order to commit yet another outrage against the memory of our ancestors. But they will fail. Our duty is to preserve the memory about the tragic and heroic events of the 20th century and do our best to prevent the East European states from sliding into the abyss of neo-Nazism following the example of the Maidan-happy Ukraine. We remember the common past shared by Russia and Poland and call on others to do the same. To quote the Russian historian Vasily Klyuchevsky, history would mete out a severe punishment to those who ignore its lessons.
The centenary of diplomatic relations between Russia and Japan
January 20 marks the centenary of diplomatic relations between the USSR and Japan. We will publish a separate detailed comment on this anniversary.
Celebration of the Lunar New Year in Moscow
On the eve of our briefing, we learned that Ms. Mao Ning, who was the Spokesperson of the Foreign Ministry of the People’s Republic of China since September 2022, was appointed the director of the Foreign Ministry Information Department. I would like to congratulate my colleague and wish her success in her new office on behalf of the Foreign Ministry of Russia and myself.
According to the classical calendar, 2025 has already begun, but this is not so for the eastern countries – there will be an entire parade of New Year celebrations according to the traditional lunar calendar.
On January 28 – February 9, Moscow will host the second large-scale New Year festival devoted to the eastern Lunar Festival. In Moscow, these festivities are named “Chinese New Year Celebration.” They will continue the events that have already been held as part of the Cross Years of Culture of Russia and China in 2024-2025 announced by the two countries’ leaders and timed to coincide with the 75th anniversary of diplomatic relations.
The colourful Chinese New Year festival in Moscow is organised by the Moscow Government and held with the support of the Russian Foreign Ministry and the Chinese Embassy in the Russian Federation. These fantastic events are aimed at ensuring that Russians and Chinese get to know each other’s customs and traditions better. In March 2024, people of two Chinese cities, Beijing and Xi'an, celebrated Maslenitsa, a Russian folk festival, for the first time: a large cultural and entertainment event named “Farewell to the Russian Winter in China” was held there. So, our events are also held both ways: we celebrate the Chinese New Year in Moscow and learn about the culture and traditions of China, and they learn about Russian traditions during Maslenitsa festival in China. These two festivals largely showcase our culture, diversity, and history of our nations, so they are representative.
In Moscow, the festival’s opening ceremony will take place on January 28 on Manezhnaya Square.
Nine central venues in Moscow, including Zaryadye Park, VDNKh and the Moscow Zoo, will host performances by Russian and Chinese artists, themed quizzes and prize draws, as well as workshops and lectures. Festival-goers will also be able to try exquisite Chinese cuisine. The central streets of the city such as Kamergersky Lane, Novy Arbat, and Tverskoy Boulevard will be decorated in traditional Chinese style.
Visitors will be able to enjoy a rich programme that will be on for 13 days. On Manezhnaya Square, people of Moscow and tourists will see performances of Chinese theatres, a drum show, and a dragon dance. Thematic workshops will also be held there: you can learn how to make Chinese lanterns and fans, and also play xiangqi, or Chinese chess. Special festival pavilions styled like Chinese pagodas will offer traditional dishes, from Hong Kong waffles to Peking duck. Chinese souvenirs will be on sale.
Tverskaya Square will host thematic performances and dragon dances. Traditional Chinese music in a modern arrangement will be played there. On the weekends, the Tea Lovers Club will also host lectures and creative workshops.
Moscow is looking forward to receiving a lot of tourists during these days basing on last year’s practice. In 2024, this event was held for the first time, and it was visited by over 700,000 people. I believe this year a new record will be set.
We would like to invite you to Moscow to celebrate the Chinese New Year. We are looking forward to meeting tourists from China, and we are happy to make new friends.
Question: NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has warned that EU countries will need to learn Russian in 4-5 years if they do not substantially increase their military spending beyond the current 2 percent of GDP. What is your response to this statement?
Maria Zakharova: As you have aptly noted and I have already mentioned, it is difficult to discern which is more astonishing – the falsehoods or the nationalism. Clearly, the remark was not intended to be complimentary and carries a tone of contempt.
I would recommend that the EU and NATO start learning Russian now. They can do so without any cost. A fraction of their GDP could be dedicated to this endeavour. Russian is a beautiful language. It has produced an array of fantastic, remarkable, and artistically invaluable works, rendering it an essential part of the world’s artistic heritage. Russian is one of the six official languages of the United Nations. I see no reason for it not to be learned.
People from thousands of kilometres away from Europe are beginning to learn Russian to comprehend our culture and identity, and to appreciate the masterpieces that have become universal civilisational treasures. Why should the residents of Russia’s neighbouring countries or European nations not learn Russian?
Our cultures are intertwined – the culture of the West and Europe permeates our own. When you look at the Kremlin, you might think of Milan. At the same time, regardless of any “machinations,” it is impossible to imagine European culture without the music of Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky and the Russian art school.
Hence, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, much like a “broken clock” that, despite being non-functional, is correct twice a day, has uttered something worthwhile – learn Russian. But do so not out of fear, but for self-enrichment, because it is a beautiful language. Learn it because distinguished individuals throughout history have spoken it, made ground-breaking discoveries in it, and created literary and poetic masterpieces that are, I repeat, an integral part of global culture. Learn Russian!
We are ready to assist you. Many online courses are available, and the Federal Agency for the Commonwealth of Independent States Affairs, Compatriots Living Abroad and International Humanitarian Cooperation is actively working in this area. There are opportunities for distance learning. We remain open and willing to help.
Regarding NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte’s “troubling” threats, these are not without purpose. It is necessary to urge the EU and NATO countries to engage in anti-Russian mobilisation. They have received the “signal” from the United States that the burden of “sustaining” Ukraine and the conflict therein should now lie with Western Europe. How might they rally their resolve, realising the adverse effects on their own economies? How can they justify to their citizens that Western Europe will now have to face the consequences of what the Anglo-Saxons have done to Ukraine?
A new narrative begins with Russia’s alleged expansion and threats, among others. Let me remind Mark Rutte and all such “ideologues” that expansion has historically originated from the West towards Russia. Consider the Napoleonic Wars and beyond. Napoleon indeed had (as a now proverbial phrase suggests) “Napoleonic plans.”
Twentieth-century world wars: Adolf Hitler. All these were directed against our country, with the threat coming from the West. I cannot recall a time when Russia posed a threat to Western Europe, or when such a threat emanated from Russia, from the East. When was that? Are there any examples? We have only ever defended ourselves and “seen them off” each time they returned home, whence they came.
If Mark Rutte claims that they have “such a scenario” in their plans, let him not forget our capability to “see off.” It is high time for NATO, and all these ideologues, to transition from perilous rhetoric to reality. The reality for them is grim – economic, ideological collapse, and absolute moral disarray and shakiness within their nations and alliances.
The planet has not witnessed a reduction in crises due to their “leadership,” but rather an increase. Enormous problems persist. They must move from reckless words and baseless Russophobic rhetoric (for which we provide no cause – all causes have been instigated or provoked by the West) to realism.
Question: On January 12, the Vesti Nedeli programme made comments about the Zangezur Corridor, which drew a rather harsh response in the Armenian media landscape. How would you comment on this?
Maria Zakharova: That reaction is puzzling, because it came in response to a journalist’s comments. We have always heard from Yerevan that Armenia is committed to freedom of speech, and the current Armenian leadership has made this an imperative.
Our official approach is well known to Yerevan. We have aired it on multiple occasions, including during our briefings.
We are consistently calling for all transport and economic ties in the South Caucasus to be unblocked pursuant to the 2020-2022 trilateral agreements at the highest level (1, 2, 3, 4), primarily the joint statements made by the leaders of Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia of November 9, 2020 and January 11, 2021.
These documents state very clearly: “All economic and transport connections in the region shall be unblocked. The Republic of Armenia shall guarantee the security of transport connections between the western regions of the Republic of Azerbaijan and the Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic in order to arrange unobstructed movement of persons, vehicles and cargo in both directions. The Border Guard Service of the Russian Federal Security Service shall be responsible for overseeing the transport connections. Subject to agreement between the Parties, the construction of new transport communications to link the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic with the western regions of Azerbaijan will be ensured.”
This is the logic behind the activities of the Trilateral Working Group co-chaired by the deputy prime ministers of Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia. The group has achieved significant practical results, paving the way for the restoration and arrangement of railway service between Azerbaijan and Armenia. The Trilateral Working Group has never called for creating any extraterritorial corridors in Armenia. On the contrary, it was agreed that the countries have sovereignty and jurisdiction over the routes passing through their territory.
Unfortunately, due to the destructive influence of the West and the decision made by the Armenian side, the work in the Trilateral Working Group has stalled. We have talked about this more than once. We are confident that the early resumption of full-fledged cooperation within the group will not only directly contribute to the restoration of the transport and communication system in the South Caucasus, but will also ensure the further social progress and economic growth in the region.
For our part, we reaffirm our readiness to provide the necessary assistance to our Azerbaijani and Armenian partners in resolving this issue.
Question: The UN Charter entered into force 80 years ago, after the Soviet Union submitted its ratification instrument in October 1945. What can you say about the role of this organisation in upholding Russia’s security interests during the post-war period?
Maria Zakharova: Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov discussed this issue in great detail at his news conference on January 14, 2025. Now that you have asked this question, we will certainly post an additional commentary.
Question: The Armed Forces of Ukraine tried to attack a compressor station of the Turk Stream gas pipeline. What goals did Kiev want to achieve? Is it possible that the Kiev regime was thus trying to pressure European countries that depend on these gas transits? Is it possible to say that the attack was coordinated with Washington?
Maria Zakharova: I have already discussed part of this issue today. It is true that Washington and Kiev are acting in tandem and are doing everything possible to stop deliveries of stable, reasonably priced and high-quality Russian gas to Europe and to clear the market for expensive LNG shipments from the United States. The Kiev regime and the White House have been working together in this field for many years.
There is reason to believe that the January 11, 2025 terrorist attack on a compressor station of the Turk Stream gas pipeline in the Krasnodar Territory was carried out at the behest of Washington. All this fits into the logic of the White House’s long-term official statements that the United States does not need Russian gas in Europe, that it will destroy the civilian infrastructure transporting Russian gas to European consumers, and that it will hamper energy cooperation between our country and Western Europe in every way.
It is also common knowledge that Washington has been coordinating the Kiev regime’s attacks all these years because respective US services provide data and coordinates for attacking specific targets.
The United Kingdom is also actively involved in destabilising the situation on the Black Sea coast. The British are organising various terrorist attacks and acts of sabotage. We have repeatedly discussed this.
We are expecting all concerned parties who have a seriously influence on the Kiev regime, primarily Turkiye, to exert maximum efforts for preventing similar attempts which flagrantly violate the immunity of the civilian infrastructure in the future.
I believe that all those who, on the one hand, are involved in such infrastructure projects, and who, on the other hand, are providing the Kiev regime with weapons, drones and other “lethal” and “non-lethal” equipment, should realise that these two processes can eventually merge. Consequently, the weapons, supplied by them, might be used to attack their own projects.
This completely lacks any common sense. On the one hand, they are building the Turk Stream gas pipeline. On the other hand, they are supplying the Kiev regime with weapons that can be used to destroy the pipeline. Or they are using gas, pumped via the Turk Stream pipeline, while saturating the Kiev regime with weapons, used against the pipeline.
Apart from weakening the European economic potential still further, the deprivation of European countries of profitable Russian hydrocarbons deliveries also undermines Europe’s competitive advantages, and this will greatly impact the living standards of ordinary European citizens. The people of Austria, Hungary, Italy, Slovakia, Turkiye, Moldova and Transnistria will be hit the hardest. This can also backfire against Ukraine, but Vladimir Zelensky stopped thinking about his fellow citizens long ago because he and the Anglo-Saxons have reached their own “secret collusion,” and they are now using this method to implement various corruption schemes.
Question: On January 13, 2025, the Biden administration announced new chip export restrictions on the export of advanced computer chips used to power artificial intelligence (AI) to the majority of countries. Some high-tech US companies and related organisations regard this as overregulation in the AI sphere. China has issued a statement saying that the abuse of export control measures is seriously undermining market rules and international economic and trade regulations, and might also affect global research and technological innovations. What can you say about US export control measures? How would this decision affect the global chip market and the technology innovation ecosystem?
Maria Zakharova: There is a logical contradiction here. Here is what I mean.
We know and see that China has scored impressive achievements in advanced technologies over the past years, including in AI. This is fully in keeping with the Chinese development strategy. We are actively cooperating with Beijing in science and innovations, including AI-associated projects.
The latest high-tech restrictions introduced by the Biden administration are part of Washington’s destructive policy aimed at curbing China’s development. They are using it against all countries, as Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov pointed out at his news conference on January 14, 2025.
There is nothing new about this. Instead of fair competition and mutually beneficial cooperation based on universal economic laws, norms and basic principles of international financial institutions and trade organisations, the United States and its client countries are using protectionism, illegal sanctions and other politicised, unfair and illegal restrictions. This makes me think about the law of the boomerang, which is believed to strike back. The chip export restrictions will have a negative effect on the global economy and trade and the global system of technological innovations. While cutting connections with the powerful and dynamically growing centres of the multipolar world, Washington risks becoming isolated and wasting its resources on useless confrontation, instead of joining forces to tackle current problems, primarily in its own country.
There is an interesting contradiction. It not only has to do with unfair competition but is evidence of neocolonial introspection: by creating obstacles to the development of AI technology, the United States is trying to preserve its role of the main if not only supplier of AI technology and products to the countries that need them. The Americans are ready to provide them exclusively on their conditions and in accordance with their traditional logic, this time the logic of digital enslavement of the recipient countries. Where is the contradiction, you might ask? The thing is that the US invariably tries to act as a pioneer, initiating discussions and formulating problems at various professional platforms on AI, advanced technologies and scientific achievements. The idea of closing the digital divide holds a significant place in the initiatives they advance or propose.
How do the principles of international legal documents relate to the US’s practice? There is a riveting contradiction in this. “Riveting” is the only word that describes it. This calls for deep research. How can such widely different and even incompatible things go together in the foreign policy and international activities of one state?
They keep talking about the digital divide between the developing and industrialised countries and ways to close it. Such statements should be backed with practical actions, but there is nothing like this in the United States. They regularly create non-market obstacles to the transfer of technologies and innovations to prevent advanced technologies, which are in earnest closing the digital divide, from reaching certain parts of the world.
Russia is advocating safe, innovative and inclusive uses of AI. All countries should have equal access to this novel technology, which will serve the interests of universal security, accelerate economic growth worldwide and close the digital divide. We believe that the use of illegal pseudo-economic methods in the sphere of AI is unacceptable.
AI is not just an innovation or a modern trend. It is an advanced technology or a combination of them that will shape the future of our planet, as many countries agree. It will be used in all spheres, and most of them – logistics, administration, and interaction between the people and the state, including in healthcare and social assistance – will depend on the introduction of advanced technologies, including AI.
The creation of artificial obstacles to hinder the development of technologies or the marketing of products based on these technologies amounts to the segregation of countries into those that are destined to remain developing, and those that will claim the status of economic leaders in the new technological conditions.
We see that some countries, in this case the United States, are trying to use their technological superiority to strengthen their global political domination. Technological monopolies are having an extremely negative effect on international development and the use of AI for addressing relevant global problems.
We urge all countries to take these factors into account when formulating their digital economy and trade policies.
Question: Starting January 10, the United States imposed another set of sanctions against the Russian oil sector and 183 tankers. The new measures also include blocking several energy-related entities and limiting Russia's ability to receive dollar revenues from energy exports. The Biden administration announced the ‘most significant’ sanctions against the Russian energy sector ever. How do you assess the new round of sanctions by the United States? What impact do you think the sanctions will have on the international energy market?
Maria Zakharova: All aspects of your question are reflected in the Russian Foreign Ministry statement of January 11, which is available on our website.
Question: At the annual news conference on January 14, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that Russia was ready to discuss security guarantees in the Eurasian context. What guarantees, other than Ukraine’s non-accession to NATO, would be acceptable for Russia? Which security guarantees would Russia want to obtain?
Maria Zakharova: One can talk on this subject endlessly. We are now speculating at a theoretical level. These guarantees stem from the preservation of international law as an absolute imperative for all, enshrined in the UN Charter and relevant UN agencies.
Speaking in practical terms, you mentioned the situation concerning Ukraine, the “endless” expansion of NATO, not only aggressive rhetoric but also actions, hybrid warfare against our country and the use of economic instruments as elements of such hybrid warfare. This is just one aspect of a practical conversation. Several hours won’t be enough for us to discuss all these issues.
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov spoke about this in detail at the news conference.
Question: In 2018, during discussions with French President Macron, Russian President Vladimir Putin extended an offer of security guarantees to the European Union instead of the United States. Recently, Karsten Hønge, a member of the Danish parliament from the Socialist People’s Party, suggested seeking assistance from Moscow. Could Moscow theoretically provide security guarantees to Denmark in the event of a hypothetical US invasion of Greenland? As is known, US President-elect Trump has not dismissed the possibility of using force to assert control over Greenland.
Maria Zakharova: Did you mention a Danish MP? I have observed that he has already disavowed the proposal attributed to him. I am uncertain whether it was a fabrication or if he has retracted his statement. Nonetheless, he has indeed distanced himself from it.
Regarding the substance of the matter, Greenland’s right to self-determination is enshrined in the UN Charter. It is acknowledged and legally established within Denmark. The future of Greenland should be determined by the Greenlanders themselves, free from external interference.
The island’s leadership and representatives of Greenlandic parties have consistently reiterated that “Greenland is not for sale” and they find such terminology unacceptable. They prioritise the establishment of an independent state and view sale-and-purchase discussions as either a gross disrespect towards the people of Greenland and their aspirations for genuine independence, or as interference in the people’s will (which I believe amounts to the same). It is noteworthy that official Copenhagen has been remarkably reticent in responding to the relevant statements of the American President-elect. This is surprising, as the Danish authorities, among others, frequently invoke the term “Russian threat” concerning Western Europe, European security, and Denmark. Russia has never made, suggested, or acted in such a manner towards Denmark or those for whom Denmark claims to care. Meanwhile, there are direct quotes from statements of prolonged intent (this issue has been raised multiple times by another country, and by individuals and political figures who are soon to be statesmen). These statements can only be characterised as threats to Denmark’s integrity and sovereignty.
Simultaneously, there seems to be a pathetic response, suggesting dissatisfaction but falling short of full discontent. What does this indicate? It reflects on who truly governs Denmark and how they permit themselves to be addressed in such a manner. If this is acceptable to them, they should not be surprised if others engage with them similarly. What is most astonishing is that, amidst a situation where Denmark confronts a genuine threat to its integrity, we are accused of posing some kind of “threat,” even though there has never been a single instance of such.
We have grown accustomed to Russian submarines supposedly surfacing in the heart of Copenhagen, Stockholm, and across Northern Europe, which invariably turn out to be either fishing vessels or buoys. They have been regularly sighted on the streets of Copenhagen, a phenomenon persisting since Soviet times. I have cited examples of Northern Europe perpetually pursuing this theme. How long must they remain ensnared by myths, oblivious to the actual sources of threats to at least their territorial integrity? Although in my view, national security is intrinsically linked to territorial integrity.
The second point of surprise is as follows. Denmark has made extensive declarations in defence of Ukraine and its territorial integrity. Now, we would appreciate hearing something from official Copenhagen in defence of its own territorial integrity. They have mastered defending others on paper. But what about defending themselves, at least on paper?
It seems to me that the situation with Greenland presents Denmark with a clear reason to reflect on its position within the coordinate system of its principal overseas ally. After all, they are allies! Copenhagen regards them as an indispensable guarantor of its security.
Let us wish official Copenhagen the courage to perhaps muster a few words in defence of their sovereignty.
Question: Could you comment on the statements made by Foreign Minister of Australia Penny Wong, who said on Tuesday that Australia was concerned about the fate of the Austrlian mercenary who participated in hostilities on the side of the Ukrainian Armed Forces and was presumably captured in December 2024. At the end of 2024, information emerged that he died in captivity. On December 25, 2024, you confirmed that Australia made a request regarding Oscar Jenkins. Are there any updates?
Maria Zakharova: As you correctly said, we commented on the situation on December 25, 2024. You should ask the Russian Defence Ministry for details.
I would like to note that Foreign Minister of Australia Penny Wong’s statement about their being concerned about the fate of their compatriots is not true.
If the Australian authorities were genuinely concerned about the fate of their citizens, they would do everything possible to prevent Australians from being recruited by the Ukrainian Armed Forces. However, the country has done the opposite: it has greenlighted the recruitment of Australians into the ranks of the nationalist armed formations of the Kiev regime. Clearly, this topic is now resurfacing, and is being propagated in the Australian media.
All these years we have been saying that recruitment is carried out through Ukrainian embassies, which is unacceptable from any standpoint: neither the Vienna Conventions, nor common sense condone this. We have highlighted and discussed these appeals. Now it is hypocritical for the Australian government, which so thoughtlessly supports the terrorist Kiev regime, to pretend that they are concerned about the fate of their citizens.
Question: Do you have any specific information?
Maria Zakharova: Please, ask the Russian Defence Ministry.
If we receive any information we are able to share, we will do so.
I would like to reiterate that (this applies to Australia to no lesser extent) they have taken steps to curtail normal dialogue with the Russian side through diplomatic channels. The Australians did their best to get engaged in unnecessary manipulations that Washington and the Western community pushing them to. There is a functional communication channel through diplomatic means that can be used. The Australians have an embassy here, and they not only can, but should address all the issues they have with the other side or with the host country through their embassy instead of feverishly running from microphone to microphone in an attempt to clarify details and resolve matters.
I fully understand why France-Presse is interested in this topic. You have the right to be, and so you pursue it. However, if we are talking about the interests of the Australian government, let me remind you that they have diplomats working here who must fulfil their mandate. Accordingly, the authorities in Canberra should treat Russian diplomats the same way providing them with opportunities to work instead of obstructing their activities, as they have been doing all these years. Perhaps, then there would be fewer questions and problems.
Question: This year marks the 50th anniversary of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). Also, 80 years ago, the UN Charter came into force after the Soviet Union ratified it in October 1945. What is your assessment of these organisations’ role in ensuring Russia’s security interests in the post-war period?
Maria Zakharova: There was a similar question about the UN Charter from the International Affairs magazine. We will publish detailed comments on this matter.
As for the OSCE, we have repeatedly stated that the two key words in that organisation’s name are Security and Cooperation. None of those can be found on the territory of the European continent today; there is neither security nor cooperation. They were not abducted by aliens; the truth is that those who were to guarantee their part of the work on the western end of our continent, never did it. They did exactly the opposite, shattering the balance and destroying security, blocking and destroying cooperation. Accordingly, the organisation you mentioned – the OSCE – has failed to serve as a guarantor of either security or cooperation and has been unable to prevent the monstrous negative scenario that includes the Ukrainian crisis. That crisis had been brewing for a long time. For years, the Russian delegation and Russian representatives have been pointing this out in Vienna, at the OSCE platform, at various OSCE institutions, in different formats, trying to prevent that and involve the OSCE institutions in doing so. Nevertheless, the OSCE institutions have not only failed to act, but have disqualified themselves. Do you remember what the OSCE mission and its observer missions are like now? They have been doing anything but actually monitoring the situation or providing reliable data. There are facts indicating that they have likely been working for the benefit of the Western special services or the Kiev regime. They could have gone this far.
As for cooperation, you can see that the overwhelming majority of projects, in energy, logistics, aviation, trade and humanitarian cooperation, have been blocked by the West. The Western countries are blocking the organisation’s work. Therefore, whether it will be needed after its 50th anniversary is a big question. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov spoke about this in his address at the OSCE Ministerial Council meeting in Valletta, which contained exhaustive assessments of the state of affairs in that organisation.
Question: Askar Kubanychbek, a national of Kyrgyzstan, participated in the special military operation and was granted Russian citizenship and asylum from criminal prosecution for mercenarism in his homeland. The Kyrgyz authorities maintain their claims against him, as he is now a citizen of Russia, and have imposed restrictions on his movement. Who, and through what means, on the side of the Russian authorities, can navigate a resolution to this conflict, considering that Kyrgyzstan is a member of the CSTO and the EAEU?
Maria Zakharova: This matter is not within the purview of the Foreign Ministry but rather falls to those who, as you rightly pointed out, handle such conflicts.
Question: Russian businessmen operating in Sri Lanka have expressed concerns about the tightening of the visa regime by the republic’s authorities and the inspections conducted on their companies, involving law enforcement and subsequent media coverage. How do you respond to this?
Maria Zakharova: Since the end of 2024, Sri Lanka’s law enforcement and fiscal authorities have been executing a series of measures to ensure that foreign nationals residing in the island state comply with local migration and tax regulations. Investigations into the legality of business activities are being conducted on individuals and small businesses owned by them.
Among the businessmen scrutinised by the Sri Lankan authorities are nationals from at least three foreign countries. The speculation that these measures target only companies associated with Russians is unfounded. The audits are being carried out on foreigners from various nations.
According to the Russian Embassy in Colombo, all audits are conducted strictly within the legal framework. Our diplomatic mission has not received any substantiated complaints regarding the violation of Russian businessmen’s rights. Should you have any appeals or letters from our citizens in Sri Lanka, please forward them to us, and we will relay them to our Embassy.
We operate under the assumption that this campaign is an internal affair of Sri Lanka and does not impact the traditionally friendly Russian-Lankan relations.
I reiterate that if you, as journalists, receive appeals from Russian citizens that we are unaware of, please forward them to the Russian Foreign Ministry. We will direct them to our diplomats.
Question: As you are aware, there have been recent efforts to revive dialogue within the framework of the Cyprus settlement. Russia, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, has consistently played a leading role in drafting and defending the resolutions that form the basis for a solution to the Cyprus problem. This stance is opposed by Turkiye. What is Russia’s position on this matter in light of initiatives to resume the negotiation process?
Maria Zakharova: This topic was addressed by the Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov during his news conference, where he articulated our position.
I can reaffirm that Nicosia is fully aware of Moscow’s commitment to international law, including the well-known UN Security Council resolutions concerning the Cyprus issue. The crucial role of Russia as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, a nation instrumental in the origination of these resolutions, was recently acknowledged by President of the Republic of Cyprus Nikos Christodoulides.
We have consistently emphasised that a compromise solution must be developed by the Cypriots themselves without external imposition, and with due consideration for the interests and concerns of both Greek and Turkish communities.
Russia is actively participating in the ongoing annual discussions in the UN Security Council concerning the reports of the UN Secretary-General’s good offices mission on Cyprus and the operations of the UN Peacekeeping Force on the island. We are also monitoring discussions regarding a potential extended meeting on this issue.
Question: European Commissioner for Enlargement Marta Kos has expressed hope that in the next five years, one to five prospective member countries will be able to join the European Union, and that EU accession talks with Ukraine and Moldova would commence by June 2025. On January 11, 2025, the European Commission’s officials said they would examine Armenia’s European integration initiative. What are the chances for the EU’s enlargement in the next few years? What do you think about the association’s prospects?
Maria Zakharova: To be frank, all this looks grotesque because one already wants to suggest that the EU think about its westward enlargement. Quite possibly, they could reach out to London once again and tell the British about opportunities for EU integration. Why should not they think of inviting Washington to join in or offering associated member status to it? Other countries, and not just those bordering on the EU, can claim the right to membership or some associated membership. They could offer themselves as an organisation to the United States that could also take part in EU activities. This may sound sarcastic, but the current situation with the EU’s expansion looks grotesque. I will explain why. This amounts to some endless “relay race” stipulating a permanent eastward enlargement, passed on to the EU from NATO. Enlargement is the most important thing, regardless of specific results, regardless of whether someone wants to take part in this process or not and regardless of referenda results. Most importantly, the consequences of this enlargement do not matter; nor does the EU care that everything will eventually be ruined there. They simply want to tick the box and to show that they have expanded.
Brussels no longer conceals the fact that the EU enlargement policy no longer highlights the association’s development; nor does it amount to natural economic interest and an economic process. All this has turned into a geopolitical weapon of Euro-Atlantic political elites during the hybrid war for dominating Europe and the world. We can see that the militarist objectives of the EU and NATO have de facto merged. By joining the European Pact for Integration, new members are supposed to prioritise military-political integration rather than economic one. Quite possibly, certain economic integration theses and slogans still exist. Naturally, they are offering the visa-free traffic narrative, but military-political aspects remain the prime objective.
The EU’s eastward expansion starkly highlights its double standards, particularly with regard to the candidate states from the Western Balkans, which have been knocking on the doors of the European Union for more than a decade, dutifully complying with every whim of the Euro bureaucrats’. These nations have gone so far as to jump through "fiery hoops" to meet yet another demand from official Brussels.
They might have considered joining other integration structures but they do not share borders with anyone but EU countries. Therefore, it is a natural opportunity for them, and they are trying to take advantage of it. For ten years they have been fulfilling all the regulations in order to meet the highest standards set by the EU. What do we see as a result? Nothing. They continue to be promised membership of the European Union. Why? Because when a country becomes a member of this association, it obtains not only obligations to comply with the unified standards, but also opportunities, primarily financial. It tightens up its economic sectors, conforms to standardisation, engages in its own production as required by the European Union, and receives financial assistance for this, and so on. It not only complies with orders but, as was the case in the past, participates equally in addressing issues on the EU agenda. That is why they are not admitted; there are issues, and there is no desire to grant these countries their rights. Obligations – yes. Rights – no.
Against this backdrop, the rushed accession process for Ukraine appears to be a blatant political move, particularly when contrasted with the treatment of Western Balkan countries. It flagrantly violates the EU’s foundational criteria. The Union turns a blind eye to Ukraine’s devastated economy, shrugging it off with a dismissive “it’s fine,” as well as to rampant corruption, a standard strictly enforced with others.
The dire humanitarian situation, especially regarding the Russian language and Russian-speaking population, is similarly ignored. Is the situation any better for Ukrainian or Ukrainian-speaking communities? People are tied to posts, and their homes are ransacked. The reality is horrifying, even to describe.
The EU has stringent requirements regarding religion, freedom of speech, thought and belief. Where is freedom of religion in Ukraine? Churches are seized and re-registered under different organisations without regard for law, logic or justice. The rule of law is entirely absent, dissent is suppressed, and censorship is rampant – supposedly justified by the war but long predating it.
None of these factors are taken into account. The agenda is driven entirely by political motives.
To no lesser extent, this applies to Moldova. I am referring to the Brussels authorities cherishing certain aspirations for Moldova’s European integration following the recent rigged referendum. In fact, it was boycotted by the majority of the population within the country. Why am I saying it was rigged? They say that no one understood how it worked. The results were manipulated, first through the cleansing of the information landscape with a clear political bias. Despite this, the overwhelming majority of people said during opinion polls that they were not going to vote. After that, [the authorities] began to manipulate the figures, with the European Union turning a blind eye to this, when normally, [European observers] meticulously follow all the subtleties of elections, as they did in Georgia. In Moldova, however, they suddenly put up with anything as long as it helped them achieve the desired result. Even so, they were unsuccessful. And still, they are harping on this course, because they have a political order.
The methods they use are worth mentioning. I am referring to their imperial ideas to expand the boundaries. There is a whole story to this. First, candidates who find themselves in the EU’s crosshairs are lured with Western subsidies and loans; subsequently, their sovereignty is suppressed and their national identity is eroded. Finally, Western-centric ideology and European neoliberal “values” are imposed. We put this word in quotation marks because now they are abandoning their own “values.” In recent years, candidates have been also required to swear allegiance to Russophobia, adopt an anti-Russia stance.
Potential visa-free travel is hailed as the greater good for third countries, but when push comes to shove, it is nothing short of leverage, a tool to impose onerous political and economic terms, to manipulate internal political processes and public sentiment. From the very first steps, candidates for EU membership are “groomed” for obedience under the rules-based order. Brussels and Washington have arrogated to themselves the right to arbitrarily change their conditions, to change the notorious rules on the fly to suit their current political and economic priorities. I think that many people realise how grotesque this situation is.
Question: On January 7, Donald Trump said that Greenland should become part of the United States. Prior to that, he proposed that Canada join the United States as the 51st state. Clearly, it will be appropriate to consider these statements only after Donald Trump’s inauguration, since he does not represent his country at the moment. Still, is Russia preparing a plan, or some response measures if America resorts to military force and start aggression against Greenland or Canada? What kind of measures could we use?
Maria Zakharova: I think that we will see a fierce fight between Canada and Ukraine for the status of a new state of the United States. I think Ukraine will not give up its place as an “American state” so easily.
As for Greenland, I have just commented on this. This is not about some private assessments of certain statements by a certain political or state figure. Let’s consider this in a more general sense. Once again, I would like to draw your attention to Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s principled assessments of our approach to international law he gave during the news conference on Russia’s foreign policy in 2024. It is not selective. [The international law] is not a lunch buffet. It is not a setting for the strong to push everyone else and take what they want, leaving behind what they don’t want. International law is the norm for everyone. There is no such law as “the law of the strongest” here. International law is a host of rights, opportunities and freedoms enshrined in relevant documents, primarily in the UN Charter, which makes it possible for countries to coexist without facing confrontations and crises every day. That is the point.
It is not some manna from heaven. It’s just that nothing better has been invented yet. It was an attempt (and a largely successful one at that) to create a unique system of interaction between states after World War II to resolve existing disagreements without resorting to force, and operate within a single system of coordinates. It does include the power component, too, enshrined in the respective articles of the UN Charter.
This is the answer to your question. We do not just support this, but insist that rejecting the international legal system will lead to disastrous consequences. Someone will inevitably want to buy Greenland, and before you know it, someone else is buying New Zealand, or selling Patagonia. The processes this will trigger will be so chaotic that we wouldn’t know how to bring the world back to harmony. The international community has been there before; in one way or another, countries have experienced this state of absolute uncontrollable chaos.
I have repeatedly mentioned Napoleonic and world wars today. Today’s situation is even more terrifying, because it includes factors like dirty nuclear bombs, as well as nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. We don’t know yet which is more terrible. We have seen deadly viruses spread across planet Earth at cosmic speed, when, despite all hopes, medicines were distributed at a much slower rate.
International law, as a common system of coordinates, gives the world a chance to exist without plunging into world wars and sliding into global chaos. This is your answer – this is what we want and how we will react. This is our system of coordinates. Remember the hashtag Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov proposed at the general debate of the 76th session of the UN General Assembly: #UNCharterIsOurRules. This is the answer to your question.
Question: At the very beginning of 2025, reports emerged that the EU mission on the border between Azerbaijan and Armenia would be extended for 2 years. Please, comment on this.
Maria Zakharova: I think you are fully aware about our very negative position on the observer mission of the European Union in Armenia.
We have talked about this regularly and commented in detail on the confrontational nature of the EU’s paramilitary presence on Armenian territory. The anti-Russia, anti-Azerbaijan, and anti-Iran goals of this mission are obvious. Moreover, NATO member countries are also joining it. It is absolutely obvious that this is a geopolitical project used to consolidate the presence of the collective West in the region. Its goals are also quite clear to everyone: to destabilise the situation, using the mission against the countries and nations of the region.
The EU’s initiatives like this will yield nothing but the destabilisation of the military-political situation and turning the South Caucasus into an arena of geopolitical rivalry. Sporadic exchanges of fire still continue on the border, during which the “observers” promptly leave the dangerous areas. We believe the EU mission is a foreign presence in the South Caucasus. We are confident that all the pressing issues facing the South Caucasus today should and can be resolved based on the collective efforts of the region’s nations without external interference.
I would like to ask a question: if the EU mission aims to promote the regional stability and trust between Armenia and Azerbaijan, as Brussels continues to assure us, then why the decision to extend its mandate was made, in fact, behind Baku’s back, like the decision to deploy it was made? Why is the opinion of a regional player – not an outside observer, but one in this region and vitally interested in stability – not taken into account?
We have repeatedly spoken about EU observers’ espionage activities in the region, which is clearly not in the interests of the regional countries or their people’s security. They serve the needs of specific Western countries and their associations. It is obvious that the interests of Armenia, as well as those of the other countries in the South Caucasus, do not concern the EU mission, which is gradually transforming into NATO.
The European Union does not care about people of Armenia but it does care about taking advantage of the situation. Turning yet another country into its tool is also advantageous. They are very good at fishing in troubled waters, too. If they wanted to help, there is an abundance of opportunities. They could provide economic, financial or humanitarian assistance, in various ways. For some reason, they do not do this.
Question: We know about a telephone conversation that our leaders held at Russia’s initiative on December 28, 2024. President Vladimir Putin apologised for the AZAL plane crash. Later that day, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a telephone conversation on that subject with his Azerbaijani counterpart, Jeyhun Bayramov. What is being done at the Foreign Ministry regarding that accident? We know about Lavrov’s fake letter to Bayramov that was circulated on January 13, 2025. What was it, and who do you think stands behind that letter?
Maria Zakharova: As you have correctly pointed out, we maintain active contacts at all levels regarding that tragedy. It is a tragedy for both our country and Azerbaijan. There were also citizens of other countries on board. Our presidents had two telephone conversations, on December 24 and 28, 2024, and our foreign ministers have done this, too. Our investigative agencies are closely cooperating on that accident.
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov noted at his news conference on January 14, 2025, that a thorough examination of all facts was underway.
Russia’s Investigative Committee issued a detailed statement yesterday on the investigation into this criminal case and the new factors that will be taken into account based on the traffic controllers’ communication and the information that has come to light during the decoding of the black boxes.
All of us want to know the truth. I know that not only those who are directly involved in that tragedy, in which they have lost their relatives, but every citizen of Azerbaijan wants to know the truth. I assure you that we want the truth as much as they do. I believe that everything possible must be done to jointly establish the truth, as our President and Foreign Minister have said.
Many attempts have been made to influence us through the media, messengers and social media networks for destructive purposes. They possibly want to deflect the investigation, sow discord among our people, or set them against each other.
A recent example of such online activities is the fake letter from Foreign Minister Lavrov to Azerbaijani diplomats. We have already published a refutation. I would like to reiterate that it was a fake letter. Incidentally, it was written in good English. Who stands behind it? Who will gain from this? I believe that it is somebody who wants to deliver a blow at the allied Russia-Azerbaijan relations, those who have been working for years to destroy the European aviation logistics, and who are hindering flights in the Russian and regional air space. Many parties like to fish in troubled waters.
This tragedy has claimed the lives of our citizens and people from Azerbaijan and other countries. Our leaders have formulated the task of conducting a thorough investigation to establish the truth about the crash and to find the guilty parties. This is what our concerned agencies are doing.
Let’s wish them patience and utmost professionalism in finding answers to all these questions.
Question: US President-elect Donald Trump has announced his intention to end the conflict in Ukraine. Has Russia prepared any document detailing its negotiating position on this issue?
Maria Zakharova: Your question brings to mind the well-known song by Igor Nikolaev, “You are my first reason, all of your dreams are the second.” It seems this is the manner in which such a document should be composed.
The Russian stance on resolving the Ukrainian crisis (if we are discussing the situation from 2022 to the present) has been repeatedly, clearly and unequivocally articulated by President Vladimir Putin and further elaborated upon at international forums by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and our diplomats.
If we refer to Russia’s fundamental approaches to a settlement, they have long been documented and communicated. It was within the press centre of the Russian Foreign Ministry that the President outlined, on June 14, 2024, in a clear and detailed manner, Russia’s strategies for resolving the situation around Ukraine. His remarks have been translated into English. I believe our approaches are well known to all.
On another note, we recall the narrative of the Minsk agreements, which originated as an initiative from our nation. These agreements were subsequently documented and endorsed by the relevant group of countries, eventually becoming binding upon the entire international community as they were incorporated into a UN Security Council resolution. However, it later transpired that throughout these years, only Russia intended to adhere to them. The opposing side, the sponsors and main supporters of the Kiev regime, were not even planning to commence their implementation. When they signed the document and voted for it in the UN Security Council, they already understood that, for them, it was merely paper and empty words.
This is a matter of attitude. We have made our position clear. It has been expressed by our head of state, repeatedly reaffirmed, remains unchanged, and is available for review.
Question: Has Russia strengthened security measures for the TurkStream gas pipeline in connection with the threats mentioned by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov at his news conference on January 14?
Maria Zakharova: As you have noted, the attempt by the Kiev regime on January 11 to attack the infrastructure of the Russkaya compressor station in Gai-Kodzor, located in the Krasnodar Territory and supplying gas to the TurkStream pipeline, was unsuccessful. According to the Russian Defence Ministry, all nine UAVs deployed by the adversary were intercepted by Russian air defence forces. There were no casualties among the compressor station’s personnel, nor was there any significant damage. This indicates that the security of this facility and other components of the gas transmission infrastructure is adequately assured.
However, this does not dispel our questions to those who provide the Kiev regime with weapons and incentivise it to carry out terrorist attacks, particularly to the participants in the TurkStream project.
Question: On December 19, 2024, Latvian anti-fascist Jury Zaitsev organised a picket in defence of Orthodox unity throughout the world near the US Embassy in Dublin. He managed to pass a letter to the ambassador so that he could pass the appeal on to Donald Trump. After that, the Latvian State Security Service summoned him for a “preventive conversation”. The date was not chosen by chance: it was on Orthodox Christmas, January 7. Do you think Donald Trump could at least take note of Orthodoxy being openly persecuted and suppressed in the West? What is the reason for this, and who is behind it? We wondered what was happening with the Latvian State Security Service. Perhaps they ran out of human rights defenders, activists, journalists, taxi drivers and Russian spies, so they decided to shift to Orthodoxy and Orthodox people.
Maria Zakharova: This is clearly another case of politically biased prosecution of activists from the Russian movement of compatriots who are making justified, hard-won, and legitimate criticism of the Baltic authorities’ Russophobic policy.
Hatred and systematical cynical pressure on the Russian Orthodox Church is a pillar of Russophobia in the West. It started long ago. Parishes and believers are pressurised. This is part of Russophobia. This is happening in the Baltic states and in other countries as well. As for Ukraine, they have a particular hatred for canonical Orthodoxy, thereby revealing their true nature.
We carry on our comprehensive efforts to protect the rights of compatriots living abroad. Not just our government agencies, Russian diplomatic and consular missions are working on this: public figures also play a considerable role, in particular those working under the auspices of our unique human rights mechanism, the Foundation for the Support and Protection of the Rights of Compatriots Living Abroad. I spoke about its next meeting with the participation of the Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in the introductory part of the briefing.
As for Donald Trump and Orthodoxy, he spoke a lot about traditional values that are associated with Christianity in one way or another that must be protected and preserved in his country. He also spoke about an overall crisis: the preservation of traditional religions and Christianity in the United States in particular. They would be better off to address this objective.
We can see certain parts of the American establishment, the deep state, using the Kiev regime and NATO mechanisms against the Russian Orthodox Church, and, accordingly, Orthodoxy in general. We can see what they are doing with canonical Orthodoxy in order to sow discord among Orthodox believers on the European continent, how they manipulate those who were called upon to stand guard over the Orthodox canons (I mean the Greek hierarchs) and everything connected with this. We have spoken on this topic repeatedly. Everything is clear.
If you are asking about his personal position, then as far as one can judge, he is more concerned with how to prevent anti-Christianity from dominating in the United States, not in terms of the presence of other religions, but the destruction of the basic tenets of Christianity in various intra-Christian denominations existing in the United States. I think this is what he is concerned with, what he is focused on. I am not sure that we should discuss this now, but since you asked, I will touch upon this.
Attacks are being made against Orthodoxy, and destructive activities are carried out against Orthodoxy in the world. There is no doubt about this. This is what representatives of Orthodox churches, people professing Orthodoxy, who are under colossal pressure in a number of countries, are saying.
We see and record all of this. We publish corresponding materials. By the way, another report on the persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church and Orthodoxy in Ukraine will soon be released (at least everything is ready, now the final stage of preparation is underway). The Russian Foreign Ministry’s first report on the illegal actions of the Kiev regime against the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC), its clergy and parishioners was released in July 2023. Now an updated version will be released with specific figures, facts, data, statistics, links, etc.
Question: On January 1 of this year, the EU-Japan Strategic Partnership Agreement entered into force. How does the Russian Foreign Ministry assess the impact of this agreement on Russia’s national interests and security in the Asia-Pacific region?
Maria Zakharova: We are observing with keen attention the steadfast strengthening of Tokyo’s military and political ties with West European countries, particularly with NATO member states. This was highlighted by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov at his news conference on January 14 this year: “Japan is part of the collective West and fully aligns itself with its strategy.” We are indeed concerned about this, as this strategy, at its core, possesses an anti-Russian angle. We are witnessing a swift expansion of Japanese naval activity in the Far Eastern waters, involving extra-regional European players.
In evaluating the European Union’s policy in the Asia-Pacific region, it is imperative to acknowledge that the current leadership of the association has embarked on an ill-advised course towards rapid militarisation, serving the agenda of global domination not for themselves, not for their own countries, not for the states of Western Europe, but for the United States and NATO. Brussels supports American efforts to escalate confrontation and dismantle the inclusive architecture of cooperation in the Asia-Pacific region, which took decades to emerge. In light of the increasingly aggravating security situation in the Asia-Pacific region, the EU is making consistent attempts to infiltrate regional security and defence frameworks, politicise and even “Ukrainianise” the regional agenda, and introduce confrontational anti-Russia and anti-China rhetoric into it.
The agreement between the EU and Japan aligns seamlessly with this political trajectory – Brussels is leveraging the notion of interconnectedness of security in Europe and the Asia-Pacific region as a pretext for extending its military and political influence in the region and asserting its geopolitical role there. It was impossible to expect otherwise.
Another pertinent question is why Japan’s citizens fail to grasp one simple reality: the EU could neither prevent nor halt the bloody progression of events surrounding the Ukrainian crisis? This is Europe’s ongoing shame, persisting for over a decade. In the heart of the European continent, a prosperous nation first instigated an internal civil confrontation under Western pressure (that is precisely what it did – it instigated it), thereby setting in motion forces that drove people, citizens who had been living in peace and harmony for decades, into conflict. Subsequently, it was Western Europe that precipitated the bloody confrontation with our country, using the Kiev regime as an instrument (as they no longer conceal) to inflict a “strategic defeat” on us.
Given this experience, the European Union is still attempting to impart wisdom to Asian countries and offer them some semblance of security, among other things, through its efforts. It seems reasonable to question what positive experience the EU can bring to this region. On what achievements do they base their claims to be the global authority for regions with which they have no real connection?
Another intriguing question arises, in my opinion. How can the European Union, while purporting to ensure security in the Asia-Pacific region, simultaneously continue to obstruct relations with our country on all fronts? Where, geographically speaking, do they expect us to disappear to? How can the Asia-Pacific be considered without Russia?
Russia is a Eurasian state. Our nation has always been an integral part of the Asia-Pacific region, both politically, geographically, and economically. Regardless of how they label the Asia-Pacific region – Indo-Pacific Partnership or otherwise – Russia has always been a part of it (and the largest entity therein). How can we discuss security in the Asia-Pacific without considering Russia’s security and interests?
Yet the European Union manages this. They have already propagated many contradictory, absurd narratives. All of this is unravelling before their eyes. But as the saying goes, they are still banging their head against a brick wall.
The military and political implications of the Japan-EU partnership, as envisaged in this context, are compounded by Tokyo’s accelerated remilitarisation, including an unprecedented increase in the defence budget, efforts to dismantle the constitution’s pacifist constraints, and the development of a combat strike capability – all of which pose clear risks to regional security and stability. The effect achieved is precisely the opposite of what is desired. At least, this translates to heightened tension and the stimulation of an arms race in the Asia-Pacific region.
This is duly considered in the formulation of our defence strategy and will inevitably necessitate the adoption of appropriate response measures.
Question: My question is about child rape in Great Britain. Is the official information about the scale of it consistent to what the media is promoting? If it’s true, and they are doing this on their territory, what can be said about whether this also happened in the occupied territories?
Maria Zakharova: If I am correct, you are talking about Elon Musk’s recent altrcation with the British authorities, after which the official authorities in London, in particular, through the Home Office, made a statement that they would allow for a national inquiry into the mass cases of sexual crimes against underage girls. This is what we are talking about but this is only the tip of this creepy “iceberg.”
Let me remind you that ICC prosecutor Karim Ahmad Khan’s brother was convicted of pedophilia but released from prison, although he was justly convicted. He was released after the ICC, which was run by his brother, made anti-Russia decisions.
This topic is relevant for Great Britain both historically and at the present stage. These scandals have constantly stirred up the public, and then were swept under the carpet. There are numerous examples. I talked about Afghanistan, and I can tell you about Iraq. There are many examples of monstrous cruelty to satisfy their inhuman passions and vices.
You also remember what happened in Iraq and the scandals in Afghanistan. This is a huge “iceberg” of what is being covered up and hidden there: pedophilia and many other things.
I believe that this should be handled by British law enforcement agencies. I am very well aware of the pressure they are under. Unfortunately, this is a tradition for Great Britain. Just recall the scandals that shook Buckingham Palace, what top members of the British royal family were involved in these scandals, and how these topics were regularly hushed in the information space. That is why I say that this topic is, alas, traditional for them. But their law enforcement agencies, which are apparently still looking for Russian spies or playing around with Novichok, should deal with them. They should rather deal with these issues.
Once they talk about it publicly, it is a good topic for international structures, which should carry out investigations where both names and surnames are known, instead of imaginary threats to Ukrainian children from Russian officials.
Question: Obviously, they do not see anything special or significant in that.
Is Georgia making any attempts to improve relations with Russia? Perhaps, steps were taken while relations with the West are deteriorating.
Maria Zakharova: Let me remind you that in 2023 the President of Russia decided to resume air traffic and abolish visas for Georgian citizens on short-term trips. This gave a boost to tourist exchanges. The frequency and geography of direct flights is expanding. In order to further encourage humanitarian and business ties, the visa-free regime was extended to Georgian citizens coming to Russia for study, work, and residence in October 2024. This is all happening gradually.
Let me remind you that it was not Russia that broke off diplomatic relations. It was Mikheil Saakashvili’s regime. We are restoring ties where possible. I have just made specific examples.
As for the aggravation, it is not because of us but because of the Western pressure on Georgia, because the Westerners - above all the US and the EU - are trying to impose their will on Georgia. We do not interfere in these processes. We can see that the people of Georgia can stand up for themselves. They do it in a way that many could learn from. We can see how the outgoing Washington administration and the EU are doing everything to change the sovereign choice of the Georgian people. They are confronting Tbilisi with a false choice: either with the West or with Russia. It seems to me that now they are demanding straight up Georgian citizens should live, work and be elected only on command coming from the West and not just with the West. There is no alternative.
This is not hope. We have all seen that the people of Georgia have enough endurance and wisdom not to become a puppet in someone else’s unscrupulous hands. We see that these hands are pushing the country towards economic and political instability.
Question: You began your briefing with information about our fallen Russian journalist. I would like to return to this topic. One of the activities of the Humanity Within War Association (Italy) is the preservation of the memory of fallen journalists worldwide. To date, this Association has erected a monument to fallen journalists in the town of Gorizia. The plan was to create a Golden Book of Memory.
They have started to create such Book of Memory to be kept in the Parish Church St. Maria Regina Mundi (Chiesa della Regina Mundi), dedicated to mothers who lost their sons in military events. Accordingly, the Italian side requests assistance in obtaining a list of Russian journalists who have died since 1990.
Maria Zakharova: We shall endeavour to provide you with such data, although they have been mentioned on several occasions already. However, I entirely understand the necessity for a comprehensive and consolidated list. We will certainly connect you with specialists who are focused on this subject, as well as with the Union of Journalists of Russia and of Moscow. Assistance will undoubtedly be rendered from our side.
Thank you for moderating this commendable, albeit sorrowful, but very significant initiative.
Question: It is being carried out as part of the international project Humanism. Information Accuracy through Journalists’ Perspective.
Maria Zakharova: It seems to me that our country has suffered more than others. Initially, we were perpetually criticised for having inappropriate working conditions for journalists, flawed legislation, and inadequate investigations into situations concerning the safety of journalists. Then, as if synchronised, they adopted the opposite stance towards our country – silence and oblivion regarding the deliberate annihilation in terrorist attacks and sabotage against Russian reporters and media representatives.
This represents the dual blow we have received from the collective West in a brief period. To endure both within twenty years is a revealing narrative. Future generations who read about it will scarcely believe such a thing could occur.
I distinctly recall how ten years ago, at international forums, Western representatives would vociferously berate Russian delegates: why was a domestic brawl involving a journalist not being investigated? Although he was not performing his journalistic duties at the time and was merely an ordinary citizen like everyone else. Concurrently, the reports enumerated cases of actual assaults on journalists, alongside domestic and administrative cases, which are typical of life in any society.
Yet, when the deliberate, targeted elimination of Russian journalists according to the list (I should remind you that I am referring to the extremist website Mirotvorets) commenced, with their deaths followed by a tick and the note “liquidated” beside their names, the West abruptly ceased to inquire about this matter altogether.
The report by UNESCO Director-General Audrey Azoulay, presented in 2024, was a disgrace to both the organisation and to her personally. The report, when enumerating the media representatives killed, failed to mention or list the Russian journalists killed, be they war correspondents or journalists. To prevent this from recurring, we will happily pass on the relevant information to you.
***
Congratulations on all the past holidays! Although, as I have already announced, even the New Year holidays will continue in this interesting traditional format.
Дополнительные материалы
-
Фото
