Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, March 27, 2025
Table of Contents
- Foreign Minister of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam Bui Thanh Son’s visit
- Kiev regime targets Russian media professionals with terrorist attacks
- The Ukraine crisis
- Untruthful statements by Western politicians regarding Minsk agreements
- Continuing the topic of the third anniversary of the staging in Bucha
- France’s plans to build another naval base on the island of Mayotte
- War museum opened in Leusden
- Humanitarian aid for Pakistan
- Anniversary of the UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific
- 6th Arctic: Territory of Dialogue forum
- Artek’s upcoming centenary and presentation of a book titled Artek Turns 100 Years!
- The situation involving Italian International Reporters Editor-in-Chief Andrea Lucidi
- Russian-Chinese humanitarian cooperation
- The Russian-US talks in Riyadh
- Discussions on a “successor” to New START
- A new agreement on the Black Sea Initiatives
- Russian-Armenian relations
- Joe Biden administration’s harassment of Russian media outlets
- Freedom of expression in the US
- No UNESCO response to the killing of Russian journalists
- Russian-Armenian relations
- The killings of journalists as terrorist attacks by the Kiev regime
- The level of Russian-US contacts
- Media reports on the recruitment of mercenaries in Germany
- The meeting on the Black Sea
- Participation by a number of countries in the Russian-US talks
- The Black Sea Initiative
- The extremist forum The Black Sea: Frontier of the Future for a Secure and Stable Europe
- The OSCE response to the Ukrainian drone attack on Moscow
- Unblocking transport communications in the South Caucasus
- Certain comments by the Armenian Speaker of Parliament
- Developments around Armenia’s accession to the EU
- Ukrainian failure to comply with generally recognised dress code rules
- Killing of Russian journalists in Ukraine from Western weapons
- The Russian President’s powers
- International reaction to the killing of Russian journalists
Foreign Minister of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam Bui Thanh Son’s visit
On April 1-4, Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, Bui Thanh Son, will visit the Russian Federation.
During his talks with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, the two officials are expected to exchange views on a wide range of bilateral matters, including the upcoming highest-level and high-level contacts. They also intend to review the key international and regional issues.
We will provide further details on the Minister’s schedule soon.
Kiev regime targets Russian media professionals with terrorist attacks
I would like to begin with the developments dealing with the way Vladimir Zelensky’s regime has been terrorising the informational space. Let me say a few words following the killing of Russian journalists, a topic that dominated the news cycle yesterday.
We have been compelled on multiple occasions to comment on the terrorist tactics the Kiev regime uses against Russian media, frontline correspondents, and people working in the media industry in general. In these comments, we have been claiming that the neo-Nazis have been seeking to hunt down people working for Russian media outlets in and around the special military operation zone.
We know perfectly well that these attacks started long before the special military operation with the creation of the Myrotvorets (Peacemaker) website, an extremist platform for listing media professionals and journalists, above all others, whom the Kiev regime wanted to be exterminated. And exterminate it did by carrying out these assassinations in central city neighbourhoods, bombing journalists and continuing to kill them in and around the special military operation zone.
But what are these people doing there? They are not there because they serve in the military or are uniformed men and women. They are there as civilians, journalists covering these developments. Kiev’s terrorist regime has been seeking to eliminate journalists regardless of their location, whether on the frontline or in the rear. The neo-Nazis kill journalists for telling the truth.
I cannot fail to mention that these enraged terrorists from Vladimir Zelensky’s clique have literally succumbed to madness in their effort to find unarmed correspondents and their camera crews and teams in order to target them with all kinds of weapons at their disposal, which they get from the West, of course. This goes beyond any reasonable limits.
Over the past few days alone, four people who worked for Russian media outlets lost their lives in targeted strikes, including with the use of high-precision long-range munitions, and three more were severely wounded, in addition to other civilian casualties.
On March 24, Izvestiya’s frontline correspondent Alexander Fedorchak, Zvezda TV channel cameraman Andrey Panov, and Alexander Sirkeli, the crew’s driver, were killed in the Lugansk People’s Republic following a targeted artillery strike carried out by the Ukrainian Armed Forces. Zvezda correspondent, Nikita Goldin, who was with them, miraculously survived the strike, while suffering severe fragment wounds.
On the same day, TASS correspondent Mikhail Skuratov was on an editorial assignment in the Kursk Region’s Sudzha District where the Ukrainian Banderites wounded him.
On March 26, 2025, Channel One’s car with a camera crew in it ran up against a landmine planted by the Ukrainian Armed Forces in the Belgorod Region. This terrorist attack claimed the life of Anna Prokofyeva, who was a young talented journalist, while cameraman Dmitry Volkov suffered severe wounds. Doctors are now fighting for his life.
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, and all the ministry staff, as well as our diplomats have expressed their sincere condolences to the families and friends of the journalists who have lost their lives. We pay tribute to the memory of the media professionals whose lives were cut short while they were performing their professional duties.
The entire Foreign Ministry team wishes the wounded a speedy recovery.
It is clear as daylight that the Kiev regime has shrank into an ugly lump of hatred and venom as it strives to offset its losses on the battlefield by targeting civilians, since people working for media outlets must be treated as civilians as per international humanitarian law.
This year marks the 80th anniversary of Victory. Let us recall history: on May 9, 1945, our nation – our great multinational people – triumphed over Nazism and fascism. Yet after May 9, already on May10, many victors tragically could not return home, as remnants of Nazi forces, driven by impotent rage, continued to ambush and kill them from the ruins, from the underbrush and debris. The same is happening today with the Kiev regime.
The authorities on Bankova Street are intent on amplifying the resonance of these bloody crimes in a bid to convince their sponsors and their (not yet fully eradicated) populace that not all is allegedly lost. To ensure the targeting of a group of Russian journalists, who carried nothing but cameras and microphones, they did not hesitate to deploy costly high-precision MLRS munitions – indicating full awareness of whom they were striking.
While the Kiev regime continues to brazenly and boastfully flout the aforementioned norms of international law, relevant multilateral institutions – including UNESCO and its Director-General Audrey Azoulay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, other multilateral bodies, and countless human rights NGOs – persist in turning a blind eye. It is upon their years of deliberate silence and inaction that this regime-sponsored monstrosity in Kiev has thrived. Their so-called “strategic silence,” as articulated in one Western playbook, has emboldened the criminals on Bankova Street with a sense of absolute impunity and licence, now further inciting Ukrainian nationalists to commit fresh atrocities.
We will engage with international organisations. We have noted comments issued via OSCE channels. One point, however, stands out: the Organisation’s assertion (per the statement by the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media) that it always condemns the killing of all journalists. A question arises: why, then, does such a specialised institution exist? This phrase could be inscribed once – even etched onto a plaque at the OSCE’s entrance – declaring the Organisation’s perpetual opposition to journalists’ murder.
To this end, perhaps no salary need be paid to a special representative on media freedom. No conferences, of which hundreds, if not thousands, have already been convened, need be held. No costly OSCE bureaucratic apparatus, social media accounts, or globe-trotting lectures on how others ought to live are required. A single statement, displayed as a poster, stand, or digital screen, would suffice. If member states (and by extension, their citizens) fund this alms-house, they must duly acknowledge the source of these attacks and those responsible.
It is remarkable that the United Nations, headquartered in New York, yesterday claimed that it lacks a specific mandate to conduct investigations. No mandate. How, then, do you investigate other instances – those for which you find ample words to accuse our country? In such cases, recall your lack of mandate.
Secondly, no mandate is needed to conclude that the Kiev regime revels in the murder of Russian journalists. One needs only examine their explicit statements – a task requiring no mandate, as the inadmissibility of killing civilians, including journalists, is enshrined in UN General Assembly and Security Council resolutions.
Our delegations and permanent missions to the United Nations in New York, Geneva, and UNESCO in Paris will insist on comprehensive comments and statements from authorised figures within these bodies regarding the Kiev regime’s bloody assassination of Russian journalists.
Atrocities perpetrated by Ukrainian neo-Nazis against the peaceful population and civilian infrastructure of our country confirm the fact that Russian service personnel are fighting a neo-Nazi and man-hating ideology.
The International Public Tribunal on the Crimes of Ukrainian Neo-Nazis, chaired by Maxim Grigoryev, collects and systematises detailed information about the crimes committed by pro-Bandera supporters. The Tribunal’s report Atrocities of the Kiev Regime against Captive Russian Service Personnel was published recently. We discussed the presentation of this document at our previous briefing. It contains terrifying evidence highlighting the sadistic mistreatment of prisoners of war. Their limbs were chopped off, and holes were drilled in them. They shot at their bodies and mistreated the prisoners in such ways that one even shudders to talk about this. They were tortured by electric shockers, beaten by metal pipes, cables, sticks, hammers and baseball bats. Parts of their bodies were cut off at hospitals without anaesthetic. The followers of the sadistic Nazi doctor Josef Mengele will not escape retribution and will be punished in the severest manner possible. One is surprised that all those human rights commissioners of all international organisations, interstate entities, and NGOs fail to even notice this.
The Investigative Committee of Russia reports that 167 peaceful residents were killed and 500 more injured in the Kursk Region from 2022 until 2025. The crimes of the Armed Forces of Ukraine have impacted 43,000 people. Several thousand civilian infrastructure facilities have been destroyed and damaged. The latest facts underscoring the dreadful essence of Ukrainian neo-Nazis include the issue of passes resembling Nazi-style Ausweis documents to the residents of Sudzha to move around the city. Those lacking such passes were rounded up, taken to a commandant’s office, interrogated, threatened and accused of espionage. At the same time, the Armed Forces of Ukraine looted the region during incursions from the Sumy Region.
According to the Foreign Ministry’s Ambassador at large Rodion Miroshnik, in the past seven days, from March 17 to 23, 16 peaceful Russian citizens were killed in the zone of contact, and 134 more injured, including four minors, following attacks by the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
The Kiev regime continues to attack energy infrastructure facilities. On March 25-26, Ukrainian unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) hit energy facilities in the Bryansk and Kursk regions. An attempted attack on a gas reservoir was thwarted in Crimea.
On March 24, Russian and US representatives reached agreements during their talks in Riyadh on stopping attacks on civilian energy infrastructure facilities. Vladimir Zelensky openly said that he accepted these agreements. The above-mentioned attacks prove once again that it is impossible to strike a deal with the Kiev regime.
Now, regarding the spread of weapons from Ukraine. Supplying Kiev with weapons is not just a financial black hole for the West or a strategy of fighting to the last Ukrainian – it also means cultivating a security threat in the West’s own backyard. Even British media have begun to acknowledge this. Thus, The Times reports that the uncontrolled circulation of weapons in Ukraine, with no precise record of their quantity, is becoming a growing security concern. Journalists conclude that, over time, hundreds of thousands of these weapons could end up not only in Africa and the Middle East – where they are already in circulation – but also in Europe.
Let’s give British journalists a little help. These weapons have already made their way to Western Europe. We have repeatedly highlighted cases of military equipment from Ukraine ending up in the hands of terrorist groups in Asia and Africa. Now, it seems that Vladimir Zelensky’s black-market clientele has expanded to include Latin American drug cartels, with whom Bankova Street seems to be operating on a barter basis.
Mexican media report that militants from the Gulf Cartel (Cartel del Golfo) have obtained American Javelin anti-tank missile systems that were originally supplied to Kiev. Additionally, it has been confirmed that the terrorists responsible for the March 21 attack in southwestern Niger, which claimed the lives of 44 people, used Ukrainian M120 Molot mortars to target the country’s army.
A few words on what the West calls a “peace mission” – in reality, it is a military intervention in Ukraine under the guise of peacekeeping.
London and Paris continue to push plans for deploying troops to Ukraine, masking it as a peacekeeping effort. On March 21, 2025, a meeting of the Chiefs of General Staff from around 30 countries in the so-called “coalition of the willing” was held in Northwood, initiated by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. The discussion, conducted in a hybrid format, centred on sending troops to Ukraine. Further talks on this matter are set to continue today (March 27, 2025) in Paris, this time at the leadership level. Once again, we emphasise our firm opposition to this scenario, which risks a direct confrontation between Russia and NATO.
It is telling that the British fully understand the risks of the geopolitical game they are playing. That’s why they are now floating the idea of stripping “peacekeepers” of any identifying insignia: no chevrons, no distinguishing marks, making them untraceable. We see exactly why they are doing this. Their goal is to drag Europe into a bloodbath. Having left the EU themselves, they now seek to sow division on the continent. Meanwhile, they plan to align themselves with the Anglo-Saxon alliance.
Regarding the Kiev regime’s latest mobilisation “innovations”, it continues to dutifully send young Ukrainian men, aged 18-24, who signed so-called “million- hryvnia contracts,” straight to their deaths. All 17 brigades available for selection are deployed directly on the front lines, making a tragic outcome inevitable.
According to Ukrainian Telegram channels, new innovations in mobilisation are being proposed. One such initiative is to change the age range for conscription from the current 25-60 years to 20-55 years. Here’s what this actually means. On the one hand, the lower age limit would be reduced from 25 to 20 years, which is a feasible change in Ukraine. As for the upper age limit being lowered from 60 to 55 years, it’s because there are now very few people left in Ukraine who are capable of military service in the higher age bracket.
In this way, the Kiev leadership confirms its commitment to continuing hostilities, viewing them as essential to its survival. Those in power on Bankova Street are effectively sacrificing the citizens of Ukraine. Concurrently, Vladimir Zelensky is consistently following the infamous misanthropic directive of American Russophobic geostrategist Zbigniew Brzezinski, which asserts that by the 2030s, Ukraine’s population should not exceed 20 million.
A few words should also be said about the Ukrainian authorities preparing to hold onto power by force. Sensing the growing discontent among the people and understanding the inevitable consequences of their actions against their own citizens, the so-called Ukrainian upper crust (lacking legitimacy) are bracing to maintain control through violence. This is reflected in the approval of Draft Law No 10311 by the Verkhovna Rada Committee on Law Enforcement on March 21 of this year, which grants the National Guard the authority to use firearms, tear gas, and drones against civilians during “mass riots”. It appears the Kiev regime is planning a scenario even more brutal than the sniper shootings on the Maidan.
Let me stress once again, this is all being done against their own citizens. Where is the Council of Europe? It claims to be so involved in everything related to Ukraine. Where are the statements, the resolutions? Why hasn’t there been a special committee meeting to address how the Kiev regime plans to use drones against its own civilians?
The assault on historical memory continues in Ukraine. In Dnepropetrovsk, local authorities, with the backing of radical nationalists, removed a memorial plaque from the monument dedicated to the heroes of the Kaidaki anti-Nazi underground.
In Poltava, a memorial plaque in Ukrainian, honouring volunteers who fought against the Nazis, was removed from the building of School No 39. At this point, it is no longer possible to claim this is about a war with the Russian language, or derussification, which they made part of state policy despite international commitments. This is pure neo-Nazism. Fighting against anti-Nazism is, in itself, neo-Nazism.
The facts outlined once again highlight the necessity of the special military operation to de-Nazify and demilitarise Ukraine, as well as to eliminate the threats originating from its territory. As repeatedly stated, all the objectives set by the leadership of our country will be accomplished.
Untruthful statements by Western politicians regarding Minsk agreements
Vladimir Zelensky came up with an outlandish statement in an interview with a US television channel. Commenting on his conversation with President Trump, he said as follows, “If you can bring President Vladimir Putin to stop the war, it will be great, but know that he can deceive you as he deceived me after the Minsk ceasefire.” All of that, as it is, was reprinted by the Western media. They failed to remind their audiences of the fact that their leaders, Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande, deceived not only the citizens of Ukraine, but the entire international community s well by not acting on the Minsk agreements, because they knew going in that they would do nothing to get them implemented.
During our briefings and other public appearances, we make it clear that the collective West has always stood for disrupting all peace initiatives regarding Ukraine, starting with the February 2014 bloody coup and onwards.
For a long time, the “guarantors” of the Minsk agreements (primarily Germany and France, Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande, respectively) declared their commitment to peace. Some time later February 2022 happened. The governments in those countries changed, and there was nothing to hold the former leaders back.
On December 7, 2022, former German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who was in office for more than 16 years (anyone out there who enjoy talking about democratic processes has anything to say about that?) and who was directly involved in the Normandy format meetings and in the process for working out the Minsk agreements, was completely open in an interview with the German media. Let me refresh your memory, “The Minsk agreements were an attempt to buy some time for Ukraine. They used this time to get stronger. The way Ukraine was in 2014-2015 is not the same Ukraine it is today. I doubt that NATO countries then could have been in a position to do as much as they are doing now to help Ukraine. Everyone was clear it was a frozen conflict and that the problem hadn’t been resolved. That’s what provided Ukraine with precious time.” Why didn’t the Western media mention specifically who deceived him when they cite Zelensky saying that he had been deceived?
Another former guarantor, French President Francois Hollande, backed up what Angela Merkel had to say, “The fuss around the Minsk agreements has led to Ukraine strengthening its military capability since 2014.... It’s got better... The upside of the Minsk agreements lies in the fact that Kiev has been given time to beef up its army, because in 2014 NATO was unable to provide Kiev with as many weapons as now, and the agreements paused the Russian offensive.” He used the word “fuss” to refer to the Security Council resolution, the Normandy format meetings, and endless efforts of various representatives and special representatives in charge of implementing and monitoring the implementation of the Minsk agreements. This is what former French President Francois Hollande, the “guarantor” of the Minsk agreements, said.
This goes beyond someone opening up on things or going down memory lane. It’s an admission of guilt and a confession, but without repentance. They knew already then, in 2015, when they held hours-long talks, that they would never act on anything and that they would flood the Kiev regime with weapons in order to keep the carnage going. They forget to mention one other important thing. They know now and they knew back then that the Kiev regime was doomed. They have never felt anything for anyone, be it women, children, or the civilians of Donbass, or, more generally, Ukraine. All they needed were hostilities.
Blaming, after their have come clean about their true motives, Russia for whatever they are trying to blame it for is just passing the buck. What we have here are the countries and the leaders who were part of the Normandy format and were directly involved in many political processes, including the change of power in Ukraine. The most important part of these acknowledgments is that, from the point of view of the West, all of that was a bogus show and dallying with international law with the sole purpose of flooding the Kiev regime with weapons and politically preparing it for hostilities, which we witnessed in early 2022, when the Kiev regime escalated tensions in Donbass by ratcheting up the shelling of civilians by orders of magnitude. Now, the Westerners are hell bent on setting Western Europe ablaze.
Back then, when the Minsk agreements were on the table, they saw it as a way to divert the attention of the international community from what was actually unfolding in Ukraine, i.e., the humanitarian disaster and endless killings leading up to what happened in 2022. Remember, what Europe ended up with in late 2021? There were over 13,000 casualties on all sides. This is the outcome of the Western fiddling with the Minsk agreements which left no room for anything other than what the Russian Federation did. First, it recognised these territories as sovereign, and then incorporated them into the Russian Federation to give them protection in order to save lives and preserve people’s dignity.
This mass-scale provocation sought to create a hotbed of tension on the border with the Russian Federation. This was followed by an illegal regime change in the face of the choice made by the people of Ukraine. The West swept away all legally elected presidents and brought its puppets - Viktor Yushchenko, Petr Poroshenko and, finally, the “bloody bunker dweller” Vladimir Zelensky to the helm. That’s how they started readying for a major conflict.
Let’s go back to what the third signatory to the Minsk agreements - then President of Ukraine Petr Poroshenko - had to say. This, also a has-been, had the following to say in a BBC documentary, “You know, the key benefit of the Minsk agreements, even though Russia hasn’t complied with a single clause, was that this document gave Ukraine eight years to build an army, an economy and a global pro-Ukrainian coalition.”
Do you think it’s all a thing of the past, and everyone has forgotten about it? Rest assured that they haven’t. The Western media is rolling the whole thing out, but is doing so from their perspective and logic which are opposite to ours.
Efforts are being made to make these quotes go away and Vladimir Zelensky and other officials from Bankovaya Street or Western regimes come forward and start talking about the deception of the Minsk agreements. However, in order to make Merkel and Hollande’s admissions disappear, they are blaming Moscow for it.
At the news conference titled “Ukraine: Year 2024,” Zelensky said that President Vladimir Putin “constantly raised the issue of ceasefire” in Donbass during a one-on-one meeting in 2019. According to Zelensky, he warned Putin that the Minsk agreements wouldn’t work, because the idea of withdrawing troops from the line of contact had no future. When Zelensky was asked about the details of the meeting, he said he didn’t remember them, and the meeting itself appeared to have taken place in a different life. An excellent excuse, isn’t it?
Let’s go back a year before that. In 2023, in an interview with the German Spiegel, Zelensky was even more open, “I did not see in the [Minsk] agreements a desire to preserve Ukraine’s independence. I understand their [Western countries’] point of view: first of all, they wanted to appease Russia’s appetites at the expense of Ukraine. A delay tactic is a perfectly acceptable diplomatic move. You never know when a decision-maker dies, and everything suddenly becomes easier. <...> I told Emmanuel Macron and Angela Merkel that we cannot implement them [the Minsk agreements] ... I jumped on this train, which, frankly, was on its way down the cliff. By “train” I mean these agreements as a whole. Each clause is a train car, and when you look into it, you see that things are made up in such a way that one side is unable to fulfill something, and the other side freezes the conflict.” Remarks of that kind abound.
I will give you one more quote to back up what I just said, “We don’t need military force with foreign flags on our territory. We are not asking for that. Otherwise, the whole world will lose stability. We don’t want to give the Russians another pretext to say that we have bases here, and that they need to defend themselves.” Do you know who said that? It was Vladimir Zelensky in February 2022. That’s a point to ponder when speaking about peacekeeping efforts promoted by the Westerners.
Continuing the topic of the third anniversary of the staging in Bucha
We have discussed how they manipulated the topic of the Minsk agreements, and now let's talk about how they manipulate the topic of Bucha.
At the briefing on March 13, we recalled that April 3 marked the third anniversary of the day when Vladimir Zelensky’s regime and its Western curators staged a bloody provocation in Bucha, the Kiev Region, and the world was shown evidence of the alleged murders of innocent civilians, designed to denigrate the actions of the Russian Armed Forces in the eyes of the international community. It is obvious why this was done: to disrupt peace talks and turn everything upside down.
It was in plain view that this hastily organised provocation was staged. The Western propaganda machine was launched at full capacity, and immediately began to spin this story. The Westerners were actively promoting the lie they spun throwing in staged photos and videos as well as testimonies of fake eyewitnesses. The main goal of the war party campaign was clear: to torpedo the understandings reached during the negotiations in Istanbul, aimed at a peaceful settlement of the Ukrainian crisis.
Russia has provided numerous and reasoned refutations of numerous fakes about Bucha. We constantly recall that while this settlement was controlled by the Russian military, the civilians were allowed to move around freely, use mobile communications, and receive humanitarian aid. Our units left Bucha on March 30, 2022. It was confirmed by City Mayor Anatoly Fedoruk, who said in a video address on March 31 that there were no Russian Armed Forces in Bucha without mentioning victims of mass shootings on the streets, which he could not help but notice. Only after Ukrainian armed formations, accompanied by foreign journalists, entered the town, “irrefutable evidence of crimes” in Bucha surfaced. In fact, this was a real bloody frame-up staged by the Kiev regime with its Western curators. The organisers behind it are doing everything to ensure that there is no unbiased investigation. They brush off these arguments, continue to lie, and do everything to avoid answering obvious questions: “Where is the list of victims? What are their names? Who are these people?”
Russia understands that the Kiev regime and its patrons will not expose their own crimes, or this house of cards would collapse, and makes active efforts to inform the world community of the real state of affairs, identify the true culprits, and bring them to justice. We are trying to get assistance from the UN. In particular, repeated requests have been sent to Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk to investigate the circumstances of the incident and publish a reliable list of people whose bodies were found in Bucha. All these requests remained unanswered. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov personally approached Mr Guterres with these same questions several times but received no answer.
In September 2024, Russia sent a request to the UN Secretariat via Russia’s Permanent Mission in New York, which was prepared by the Investigative Committee jointly with the Prosecutor General's Office of Russia, to investigate the circumstances of the provocation in Bucha. Afterwards, we repeatedly called for faster responses to our appeal. However, there was no detailed response either. This behaviour proves that the organisers of the staging in Bucha are the Kiev regime and its Western curators. They have something to hide, and officials at international organisations, who have taken an unambiguously pro-Ukrainian stance, are covering up these crimes.
We know that the Kiev regime is preparing an international conference on Bucha this May with the assistance of Great Britain. We are certain that this provocation is yet another attempt to dust off old narratives and repackage false claims about the alleged involvement of the Russian Armed Forces in the events in Bucha. The goal remains the same: to torpedo efforts for a peaceful settlement.
So many people, political analysts, and officials are talking about peace, but the scenario is well-known. As soon as talks about peace begin, you can expect a provocation from the Kiev regime supervised by its Western patrons. All these talks have to be to be hindered. That is why these conferences are held.
France’s plans to build another naval base on the island of Mayotte
We have taken note of the statement made by French Minister of the Overseas Manuel Valls in the National Assembly on March 12 regarding the plans to submit a draft law to Parliament on the construction of a second French naval base on the island of Mayotte. Let me remind you that its territorial status under international law is assigned to the Union of the Comoros, in accordance with UN General Assembly Resolutions 3385 of November 12, 1975, and 3469 of December 6, 1979.
However, the militaristic aspirations of the Emmanuel Macron administration extend far beyond the European Union.
Russia has consistently opposed the unjustified militarisation of any territories, recognising the dangerous consequences this poses for peace and security in certain regions. This also fully applies to the highly sensitive area of the Indian Ocean.
We believe that the existing military base in Dzaoudzi on the island of Mayotte is intended not as much for defence against hypothetical external threats (as Paris tries to convince everyone), but rather for control over the illegally held overseas territory – one of the last remnants of the colonial era. Everyone remembers the Operation Wuambushu carried out by the French authorities in 2023 to forcibly evict Comorians, whom the French authorities consider illegal migrants, from the island. It is well known that this resulted in a humanitarian crisis in the archipelago.
We view the possible construction of another French Navy base on the island of Mayotte as a relapse of Paris’ neocolonial instincts and a clear sign of its reluctance to respect the territorial integrity of the Union of the Comoros, as well as its selective approach to UN General Assembly resolutions.
The opening ceremonies of a museum of the Second World War and the 865 Red Army soldiers who perished in Nazi death camps and were interred in the Soviet War Cemetery in the Field of Honour near Leusden, the Netherlands, were held on March 8 and 13, 2025.
This project was launched five years ago through the joint efforts of Russia, the Netherlands, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan to commemorate the victims of Nazism. The museum display includes the documented evidence by the witnesses of Nazi atrocities towards Soviet prisoners of war in the Netherlands. The multimedia part of the exhibition offers a documentary about the fate of a Red Army soldier in the Nazi camp.
The idea of the museum was proposed by Dutch journalist and social activist Remco Reiding, the founder of the Soviet War Cemetery Foundation, who has been working since 1998 to establish the victims’ names and trace their relatives, as well as to improve the cemetery. Thanks to him, over 200 families in Russia and other CIS countries have learned about the final resting place of their loved ones.
We would like to express gratitude to Remco Reiding and all those who actively contributed to the implementation of this landmark project worthy of our outmost respect.
It is especially important that the museum opened ahead of the 80th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War.
I would like to point out that despite the useless efforts of some Western forces to rewrite and falsify history, to diminish, distort or even obliterate the Soviet Union’s role in victory over Nazism, there are people in the Kingdom of the Netherlands who remember Soviet heroes and are aware of the importance of preserving the historical memory of our country’s contribution to defeating Nazi Germany. We have sensed this in the statements made by some Dutch officials and in the cordial words said by museum visitors, the ordinary people who were deeply impressed by the tragic history of the Soviet servicemen, who fell liberating Europe from the Nazi plague.
On March 27, 2025, an aircraft of the Russian Emergencies Ministry delivered over 31 tonnes of Russian humanitarian aid for Pakistani people to Islamabad. These supplies will be provided to the people in need with the assistance of the Pakistan Red Crescent Society.
Humanitarian cooperation between Russia and Pakistan will continue in the interests of both nations.
Anniversary of the UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific
On March 28, the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) will mark its 78th anniversary. It was established in 1947 by decision of the 4th session of the UN Economic and Social Council (Resolution 37/IV).
Since then, ESCAP has become a respected regional platform for coordinating collective approaches to the socioeconomic development of the Asian-Pacific region.
Russia joined the Commission upon its established (as an associate member until 1995 and as a member state since 1995) and is involved in its programmes in all spheres of ESCAP’s operation, such as energy, transport, trade, and environmental protection and others. Major international legal documents have been drafted with our expert and financial assistance, in particular the Intergovernmental Agreement on Dry Ports (2013), the Framework Agreement on Facilitation of Cross-border Paperless Trade in Asia and the Pacific (2016), and the trilateral (Russia-Mongolia-China) Intergovernmental Agreement on International Road Transport along the Asian Highway Network (2016).
ESCAP has become Russia’s reliable partner for the provision of technical assistance to regional countries, including in Central Asia and the South Caucasus. We appreciate the Commission’s assistance to development of our own competencies in the socioeconomic areas of concern for us.
We intend to continue to provide political, expert and financial assistance to ESCAP.
6th Arctic: Territory of Dialogue forum
The 6th Arctic: Territory of Dialogue International Arctic Forum kicked off in Murmansk yesterday. The two-day event is themed To Live in the North.
Established in 2010, The Arctic: Territory of Dialogue forum is the largest platform for discussion on current issues and development prospects for the Arctic with our foreign partners.
The forum’s business programme includes 20 sessions, which will address the prospects of the Northern Sea Route in the face of competition from global routes and plans to modernise it, support for investment and business in the Arctic, the improvement and modernisation of northern cities, HR projects, environmental issues and new national projects.
The forum will bring together representatives of the authorities, prominent academics and experts to discuss, in a comprehensive and substantive manner, the opportunities of ensuring security and cooperation in the region, supporting breakthrough energy, infrastructure and environmental projects. The participants will exchange views on the prospects for implementing popular research and cultural programmes.
This year’s theme, To Live in the North, fully reflects one of our key priorities for the development of the Russian Arctic: the comprehensive modernisation and provision of public amenities in cities and towns, and higher quality of life. This will be achieved primarily through the creation of modern jobs, further economic revival and social progress, improving the region’s transport network, and establishing year‑round navigation along the Northern Sea Route.
The Russian Arctic offers a wealth of opportunities for working and creating; it is a place where the skills and talents of young people can be put to use along with the expertise offered by professionals across various specialisations, and bold entrepreneurial, research, and creative initiatives can be brought to life. And we are committed to cooperating with all interested partner nations and supranational associations in this major endeavour.
The cultural programme of the forum focuses on showcasing the Arctic regions’ achievements and their unique features, as well as Russia’s leading role in the development of the Arctic. It combines a historical retrospect, modern trends and a vision of the future of the Far North, with an emphasis on the culture and traditions of the indigenous peoples.
During the Taste of the Arctic gastro festival, a joint team of restaurateurs and chefs from Russia’s Arctic regions will present a local cuisine menu featuring produce from the northern seas as well as offerings from local companies.
A 25-metre tunnel built at the festival venue houses a series of ice engravings dedicated to the 500th anniversary of the Northern Sea Route development.
Artek’s upcoming centenary and presentation of a book titled Artek Turns 100 Years!
Artek International Children’s Centre will be marking its 100th anniversary in June 2025. With its nine camps stretching across 218 hectares of land and over 40,000 youngsters from Russia and other countries, it is currently the biggest youth education centre in the world. It is here that they build character and unveil their talent. Artek is a capital of youth, and it lives in its own interesting and inspiring way and at its own pace every day and year-round.
Over the course of this anniversary year, every shift at Artek will focus on reminding the world that future generations need our care and attention, and that we must create a favourable environment for them. The topics for these shifts include the 80th anniversary of the Great Victory, Artek’s centenary, the Our Heroes projects, and the Movement of the First. Team leaders and the educational programmes they offer will focus on nurturing among children staying at Artek a sense of civic duty, patriotism, respect for the elderly, mutual understanding and assistance. Preserving and consolidating traditional spiritual and moral values lies at the core of all these initiatives.
Today, Artek has been actively involved in national projects dealing with education, culture and the digital economy. It has also been seeking to empower young people to fulfil their potential and offer them career guidance, while also perfecting educational programmes and sharing its best practices with other regions. There has also been a major international element in Artek’s operations.
In fact, located in Russia, Artek has established itself as a centre for youth diplomacy. It hosted over 10,000 youngsters from 105 countries between 2014 and 2023.
It is a pleasure, joy and honour for me to recall 2016 when the Foreign Ministry’s Information and Press Department worked closely with Artek. A new tradition was born there at that time, called a Celebrity Team Leader. We came there, bringing along a group of foreign correspondents as part of a press tour. We took on the roles of team leaders at Camp Khrustalny – Crystal, since it had journalism as its main topic. This was a fantastic experience for the kids there, as well as for us. We forged very close ties and developed a true sense of togetherness.
Over the past 100 years, Artek has not only built a solid track record of achievement and success in education, guidance and mentoring, but also promoted heroism and resilience. It had to endure occupation during the Great Patriotic War. It started on November 7, 1941, and lasted for two and a half years. Fighters from the Detached Primorye Army liberated Artek on April 15, 1944. A period of recovery and rebuilding followed, and as early as in August 1944 Artek reopened by welcoming 500 children of Crimean guerilla fighters. Artek unveiled a monument to its liberators in May 1985 to mark the 40th anniversary of the Victory by the Soviet people in the Great Patriotic War.
That said, World War II and the Great Patriotic War was not the only time when Artek had to be rebuilt and restored. You cannot imagine the devastation it faced when Russian experts and teachers stepped in following Crimea’s reunification with Russia. To be honest, when we came there in 2016, we were amazed, if not shocked, when they showed us the photos – in just 18 months Artek recovered its true face. Under the Kiev regime, considering that it was still at least trying to pretend to follow the democratic process at that time, Artek was anything but a children’s educational and recreational centre. There were all kinds of restaurants, adult venues, and hotels there. People came and went as they pleased. Sports courts morphed into vacated lots, or simply accumulated waste. Can you imagine that? But Russia stepped in, with the state working in tandem with the private sector and the civil society, and it did not take long before Artek could breathe a sigh of relief and resume its operations in full.
Otkritiy Tekst – Open Text – publications released a book to mark Artek’s centenary, titled Artek Turns 100 Years! Revisiting Every Shift. 1925-2025. Nadezhda Pronina, who used to work at Artek as a team leader back in the 1970s and went on to obtain a PhD in philosophy and now serves as become an associate professor at the Moscow State Teachers’ Training Institute, worked on this book for more than 10 years.
This volume presents important historical documents telling the story of how this national recreational and health centre was created in the Soviet Union, and how this camp on the Black Sea coast started to attract children from across the world. It tells the story of children’s diplomacy – how it all started and developed, and demonstrates what true Artek-style friendship means. Those who get to stay at Artek hold on to these values throughout their lives. This book offers us a vivid account of an entire era and offers us a glimpse into the world of childhood, friendship and unforgettable discoveries by the younger generation.
The author went to great lengths to list all the shifts from 1925 to 2025 and count the children who stayed at Artek. She has also highlighted the key events it hosted every year. All in all, this book presents an outstanding chronicle of Artek’s history.
This massive volume also includes all these photos so that readers can get an even better feel of Artek’s past. Its cutting-edge layout includes QR codes. Readers can use them to listen to Artek songs and watch documentaries online.
Artek has done a great job in preparing its anniversary celebrations. Apart from holding various ceremonies, it will also offer special projects which are designed to preserve the memory and knowledge about this unique place.
Question: Recently, the editor-in-chief of the Italian edition of International Reporters and war correspondent Andrea Lucidi, who regularly reports on the true state of affairs and the reality in Donbass in his publications, was not allowed to leave Estonia for Russia. How would you comment on this situation, considering the anti-Russian stance of the Estonian authorities?
Maria Zakharova: It would have been surprising if the current Estonian authorities had acted any differently. Did you expect something else from them? Indeed, Andrea Lucidi, editor-in-chief of International Reporters and a war correspondent, is practically seen as an enemy by all neo-Nazi Russophobic regimes. He is well known for his criticism of neo-Nazism in the Baltic states. Yes, he was not allowed to leave Estonia and return to Russia.
Since 2022, he has lived in Russia, covering the special military operation. During this time, he has come to see himself as a Russian. In November 2024, he appealed to President of Russia Vladimir Putin with a request for Russian citizenship due to persecution in his homeland, Italy. On January 29, 2025, he became a Russian citizen.
On March 18, the Estonian border guards detained Andrea Lucidi and refused him permission to cross the border, claiming that he was allegedly illegally bringing money and a drone for filming into the Russian Federation. However, these items had been with him since his entry into Estonia. It seems they weren’t even embarrassed by the fact that these items had been with him when he entered Estonia. As they say, if the Estonian authorities are going to disgrace themselves, they might as well do it thoroughly.
There’s no doubt that the actions against Andrea Lucidi are driven by the reflexive urge and obsessive desire of the Estonian authorities to complicate life for anyone who holds a different view of world events. In essence, it feels like they are starting a real hunt for anti-Nazi people. The Estonian regime (and I’m not talking about ordinary people) has long become accustomed to the idea that with ideological opponents, it is not a matter of discussion to determine who is right, who is at fault, or who is stronger in an argument. Estonia has resorted to thoroughly unscrupulous, monstrous methods, ranging from petty harassment to unlawful criminal prosecution. It is evident that all Russian-speaking people in Estonia, especially those holding Russian passports, are considered targets by the authorities.
And of course, this is not the first time that the authorities in Estonia, and other Baltic countries, have obstructed Russians in their return home, to Russia. This is exactly the kind of discrimination based on ethnicity, blatant Russophobia, and a manifestation of neo-Nazism.
What is neo-Nazism? It’s not just what happened in the 1930s and 1940s. It is a certain philosophy that preaches hatred against countries and peoples. This has a distinctly nationalist tint, which is reflected in the state authorities of Estonia.
In the context of the Western-led campaign against our citizens, including representatives of Russian media, fundamental human rights and freedoms are being grossly violated, including the right to unhindered access to information and freedom of expression.
Unlike the European Union, we genuinely adhere to the principles of freedom of speech. We don’t hide behind bans and we are not afraid of differing opinions. Despite the so-called horrors attributed to Russia, foreign correspondents in our country, including those from states with unfriendly governments, have the opportunity to work in accordance with the laws of our country and carry out their professional duties. Visas are issued, accreditations are granted and journalists are invited to official events.
Moreover, alongside others, they are given full opportunities to work at information and media events. For example, journalists were invited to the United Kingdom and accredited in France, but eventually, they were not allowed to attend the event under the pretext of not bringing indoor shoes. Journalists from all countries are invited to the Russian Foreign Ministry. I saw that today we have accredited media representatives from different countries, including those with unfriendly regimes. We respond to written inquiries, just like other authorities. No one avoids communication.
When Russian legislation or accreditation rules for foreign correspondents are violated, that’s another matter. We always state when retaliatory measures are taken. We emphasise that it is not our choice, but merely a retaliatory response. Therefore, it seems to me that this is yet another manifestation of Nazism, nationalism and Russophobia from the Estonian regime.
Question: China has continuously upgraded its visa policy in recent years. In December 2024, for example, the PRC authorities announced that they were relaxing their visa-free transit policy by extending the allowed period of stay for duly authorised tourists from 54 foreign countries to 240 hours. This applies to Russian nationals as well. What opportunity, in your opinion, will this policy provide in terms of facilitating movement by people from different countries, including between China and Russia? What is your comment on the current state and prospects for humanitarian exchanges between our two countries, including in the area of tourism?
Maria Zakharova: Please, what is your name?
Question: My name is Jiang Youlin.
Maria Zakharova: I would like to ask Xinhua Agency to publish the news that their correspondent Jiang Youlin has conquered the Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman’s heart with his fantastic Russian. This is your second question and again it is being asked in a pure, unaccented Russian. I take off my hat to you and thank you for your highly respectful attitude to the Russian language. It is a great pleasure indeed to see people who are keen to learn Russian and speak it wonderfully, in a situation where it is neither their native nor second language.
Now let us go back to your question. Russian-Chinese humanitarian cooperation is an essential component of the multifaceted complex of bilateral relations known as a comprehensive partnership and strategic cooperation. Every time, we are pleased to state that it is advancing in all areas. The number of participants in academic exchanges grows, inter-university ties are expanding, contacts in healthcare, sports, and information area are on the upturn, and reciprocal tourist flows swell. Last year, over 1.2 million Chinese tourists visited Russia and 1.6 million Russians traveled to the PRC with tourism purposes.
President of Russia Vladimir Putin and President of China Xi Jinping have approved the decision to declare 2024 and 2025 Years of Russian and Chinese Culture. The packed and diverse programme of this thematic project will leave no one indifferent. This is just impossible, considering the highly interesting events that are being held. All of this finds a lively resonance both in Russia and China.
This project has made it possible to boost the dynamism of bilateral cultural exchanges, something that facilitates close people-to-people contacts and friendly ties between our countries. We prioritise the further expansion and strengthening of these relations. We want future generations to inherit their present level and the amount of our current knowledge about each other. These are the most important tasks that will strengthen the social foundation of Russian-Chinese relations and improve mutual understanding between people. All of this is of huge importance. Therefore, the work to create a comfortable environment for reciprocal travel has much significance. Issues of this kind are invariably in the focus of attention of our countries’ related agencies. Our Chinese partners and we will continue to promote cooperation in this area.
Question: How do you evaluate the progress of the ongoing Russian-American talks? What key demands is Russia likely to put forward in the future? What challenges, if any, are present in the discussions? Additionally, would Russia consider altering the negotiation format, such as expanding participation for a multilateral dialogue or pursuing a comprehensive peace agreement?
Maria Zakharova: We have received an overwhelming number of questions on this topic.
Honestly, I was surprised, given that the Presidential Executive Office has already provided extensive explanations.
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov dedicated 18 minutes to addressing this issue in an interview with Channel One. Additionally, our negotiators have offered on-the-spot comments, ensuring the topic has been thoroughly covered. However, since we have received around a dozen questions, I will provide a comprehensive response. I am also prepared to continue addressing any new questions that may arise.
On March 24, 2025, in Riyadh, a meeting of experts from Russia and the United States took place as part of the ongoing implementation of an agreement between the presidents of both nations. The discussions centred on resolving the Ukrainian crisis. Leading the Russian delegation were Grigory Karasin, Chair of the Federation Council Committee on Foreign Affairs, and Sergey Beseda, Advisor to the Director of the Russian Federal Security Service. Key topics included navigation safety in the Black Sea and the unblocking of Russian agricultural exports.
A key outcome of the meeting was the United States’ commitment to facilitating the restoration of access for Russian agricultural and fertiliser exports to global markets. This includes lowering insurance costs for maritime transportation, improving access for Russian vessels to foreign ports, and ensuring the functionality of payment systems for transactions. We appreciate this commitment and anticipate the lifting of sanctions imposed on Rosselkhozbank and other financial institutions involved in international trade, food, and fertiliser transactions, as well as the expected reconnection to the SWIFT system.
Sanctions on Russian-flagged vessels must be lifted, and restrictions on their servicing in foreign ports must be removed. Additionally, it is crucial to eliminate restrictions on the supply to Russia of agricultural machinery and goods essential for food and fertiliser production. Once these measures are implemented, work will begin on enforcing agreements related to security in the Black Sea. These agreements include ensuring safe navigation, refraining from the use of force, and preventing commercial vessels from being used for military purposes. The Russian side emphasised the need to inspect such vessels for weapons and military equipment. It is also essential to extend security guarantees to facilities in Crimea, including the Kerch Strait and the Crimean Bridge.
The experts also explored measures to implement the agreement between the presidents of Russia and the United States on a 30-day ban on strikes against energy facilities in in Russia and Ukraine, effective from March 18. Discussions addressed the potential extension of the moratorium and the conditions for withdrawal if either party failed to comply. The categories of facilities protected under the ban were agreed upon. Additionally, a mutual understanding was reached with the American side regarding the need for mediation by third countries in agreements related to the energy and maritime sectors.
We expect all agreements reached to be fully implemented and, with US assistance, for Russian agricultural exports to be unblocked. Additionally, we anticipate that the Kiev regime will cease its violations of the 30-day ban on strikes against energy facilities.
I can also confirm that consultations between experts from the Russian and US delegations will continue.
Question: In the context of the ongoing and increasingly active contacts with the United States, has Russia received any positive signals from Washington regarding discussions on a new strategic arms reduction agreement to succeed the new START Treaty, which is set to expire next year?
Maria Zakharova: This question has been addressed multiple times, and I have answered it on several occasions. I have nothing to add at this time.
You may want to direct a similar question to our colleagues at the State Department, as it pertains to the American position. They would be better suited to provide insight. As for us, there are no updates on this matter.
Question: The “Black Sea initiatives” (safe shipping, agricultural exports) were discussed in Riyadh. Will this be a new, separate agreement, or could it involve an extension of the UN memorandum on food supplies, which expires in July?
Maria Zakharova: It will be a new agreement, the details of which are currently under discussion.
Question: Word is that Armenia has stepped up its activities in international organisations in which Russia is also a member, perhaps in an effort to mitigate geopolitical risks following changes in the US Administration. How are Russia’s relations with Yerevan doing today?
Maria Zakharova: That’s a weird way to put a question, “Word is that Armenia has stepped up its activities in international organisations in which Russia is also a member.” What are you saying? I’d like to know. If you can articulate your “approach” more accurately, I would find it easier to make sense of it.
Speaking about our relations in general, we maintain a multifaceted political dialogue. The leaders of the two countries remain in contact at all times. Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan accepted the invitation to visit Moscow to participate in the solemn event dedicated to the 80th anniversary of Victory. Our respective foreign ministers had constructive talks. Consultations of the deputy foreign ministers were held not long ago. Intergovernmental and inter-parliamentary mechanisms are fully operational. Interagency cooperation is underway. A round table discussion on agriculture was held. A Russian-Armenian Business Council meeting was hosted by the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Russia.
Cultural and humanitarian, as well as educational initiatives are underway as well. Next month, the Armenian delegation will visit the Sirius Educational Centre to speed up the opening of a Russian educational centre for gifted children in Jermuk, Armenia. We provide regular updates on all of the above.
Economic ties are making strides as well with trade at a record-high of almost $12 billion. Relevant economic agencies are working out measures to step up investment cooperation. I think Yerevan senses practical benefits of its active participation in the Eurasian integration project and realises its importance for Armenia’s socioeconomic stability and security. That is if you are talking about these joint international organisations and mechanisms. We cooperate on other international venues as well, in particular, the UN.
On most issues, our approaches on international matters overlap or are close. Yerevan has traditionally supported and has traditionally co-sponsored most Russian resolutions, in particular, the one concerning combatting the glorification of Nazism. However, we also see that more can be done in this regard. There are issues that have not yet been resolved or need to be fine-tuned for them not to impact bilateral relations adversely. We are discussing these issues, and I hope solutions will be identified.
Question: Has the Biden Administration tried to censor information from Russia and Russia’s views on ongoing developments?
Maria Zakharova: No, the Biden Administration has been destroying Russian information sources. Online sources, Russian media outlets, our journalists’ personal pages on social media apps were blocked or taken down. They were labeled and blocked. There was this and more, you fill in the blank.
Russian journalists found it extremely difficult to obtain US long-term work visas. Unfortunately, visas have remained an issue to this day. Obtaining short-term visas is a problem, too. Unfortunately, the Biden Administration went after Russian journalists and media outlets full throttle. And you are wondering whether they tried to censor them.
Censorship is about retouching pieces or even significant portions of information, muting, altering, or adding things, and putting in conditions for publishing it. This was nothing short of annihilation of everything related to Russia in the media sphere. On top of that, it was publicly declared as part of their state policy. The Biden Administration accused the Russian Federation and Russian journalists of committing coups in the political life of the United States.
It was a case of state-level bullying with actual offensive operations against Russian media outlets and journalists. So, there’s no need to smooth edges. We have so far been talking only about the US territory and jurisdiction. They have done a lot more persecuting Russian journalists internationally. They coerced [a number of countries] to pursue an anti-Russia policy in the media by force or by using other tools.
Question: President Trump promised to reinstate freedom of speech in the United States, but the State Department spokesperson made it clear that the United States was not going to stop opposing Russian media, including Sputnik and RT. What do you make of that?
Maria Zakharova: We will do everything we can to support our journalists. We have an absolute right to do so, because these rights are part of the international law. The same tenets are enshrined in the US law: the unacceptability of censorship, freedom of speech, and safety of journalists. All of that is an integral part of the US law. If journalists do not violate the laws of a particular country, that country has no right to obstruct their professional activities.
Question: The Ukrainian Armed Forces killed or severely wounded several Russian journalists over the past few days. In the summer of 2024, the Ukrainian Armed Forces carried out a similar strike in Donbass, which killed our reported, Nikita Tsitsagi. Back then, you called on international organisations, primarily UNESCO, to condemn Kiev for its actions. Have you received any response from UNESCO? This time, the death count is much bigger. Is there any hope that international agencies do not remain silent on this matter?
Maria Zakharova: Minister Sergey Lavrov came up with a brilliant and extremely concise and penetrating way of framing Audrey Azoulay in her role as UNESCO’s Director-General. He said that by refusing to perform her mandate on this matter and shying away from condemning the killings of journalists she de facto becomes complicit in the informational warfare unleashed against our country, which basically amounts to waging a war on truth.
Trying to get UNESCO’s top executive, as well as specialised agencies and other structures to respond has become a daily chore for us. We have been using our diplomatic channels and speaking out in public on the pressing need to condemn the killings of people working for media outlets regardless of who they are and where they come from. We seek to alert the international community and make sure that it keeps this issue on its radar, while preventing international officials with their pro-Western bias from sweeping this agenda under the carpet or getting away with nonsensical and empty statements. The media have been making an invaluable contribution to these efforts. At a certain point, it dawned on them that they all suffer when their colleagues find themselves in harm’s way. The Russian Union of Journalists and regional unions have become proactive on this front.
On several occasions, these global pressure campaigns have forced the Director-General to make statements on this topic. To give you an example, Audrey Azoulay finally condemned the killing of Nikita Tsitsagi and cameraman Valery Kozhin in June 2024 after our repeated reminders that sabotaging the decisions by UNESCO’s governing bodies, the General Conference and the Executive Board, was unacceptable. However, she added some unacceptable undertones to her statement by saying that these killings took place “in eastern Ukraine, temporarily occupied by the Russian Federation.” We must understand that matters dealing with the security, sovereignty and territorial integrity do not fall within UNESCO’s purview, while ensuring safety for journalists does.
In any case, at this stage, she did comment on and condemn the killings of your colleagues, who were Russian journalists. At the same time, we can see that these statements by UNESCO’s Director-General have been rare and have not become a norm for this entity and its Secretariat. They tend to wake up only when someone starts ringing all the bells and sounding the alarms. They have basically hunkered down and believe that they can simply sit the whole thing out. Moreover, the West and Russia-haters have pressured them into foregoing their immediate responsibilities. But we will not let them act this way.
UNESCO is far from effective when it comes to managing these situations, but we will force them to do their job on a case-by-case basis.
Audrey Azoulay’s 2022-2023 Report on the Safety of Journalists and the Danger of Impunity offers a telling, if not an outrageous, example. Let me remind you that it does not mention the Russian journalists and media professionals who died at the hands of the Kiev regime in this period. This report was a total fraud and a quasi-review, which provoked outrage around the world. It led to a wave of complaints against her from the professional community and the media in and outside Russia.
When this report was debated at the 34th session of the Intergovernmental Council of the International Programme for the Development of Communication (IPDC) in November and December 2024 in Paris, Russia and many other countries condemned the Director-General for demonstrating this unacceptable bias and partisanship in her role as an international official.
We demanded that the Secretariat explain its method for cherry-picking the killings of journalists mentioned in the report. The explanations we received were unpersuasive and confusing. They argued that this method was not subject to coordination with member states and that the Secretariat approved it on its own. It goes without saying that we could not accept this posture, since it basically undermined UNESCO’s intergovernmental status as a specialised UN agency. This is to say that we will keep raising these issues and will keep working on this agenda. That said, this approach sits well with the Western countries. After all, the NGOs which have Audrey Azoulay’s ear have a primary mission to serve a narrow grouping of countries and their regimes.
The released USAID documents prove this point beyond any doubt. Here is how it works. The corresponding liberal regimes, i.e., the liberal dictatorships, financed NGOs which worked for these regimes by gathering information and passing it on to intergovernmental and international organisations, which in turn referred to the “information received from the civil society” and “impartial assessments” when issuing their biased statements. This means that Western countries have been de facto paying for these statements to make it into the public space or to be removed from it.
The current Director-General has been playing along with the authorities in Kiev and their Western patrons. Her partisanship and bias are a disgrace. She thought that she would be able to sit it out too, but something went wrong. And the most terrifying thing about it is that her activities lead to even more killings of journalists.
Together with the like-minded countries and actors, we will do everything to ensure that the Director-General lives up to her mandate, while fighting these arbitrary practices within the Secretariat. UNESCO will soon have a new leadership team in its Secretariat, which does make us hopeful that it will change its take on this issue. Maybe Audrey Azoulay’s experience and the way she treated UNESCO will serve as a lesson for the current candidates so that they do not repeat these mistakes – and these are criminal mistakes.
Question: President of the Armenian National Assembly Alen Simonyan has stated that Yerevan cannot indefinitely sustain tensions in relations with Russia. Earlier, the Armenian newspaper Hraparak reported that Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan has instructed preparations for rapprochement with Russia. Are there signs of a thaw in relations between Moscow and Yerevan, and if so, what might be driving this?
Maria Zakharova: I have just addressed the practical efforts from the Russian side. In certain areas, these efforts have been reciprocated by Yerevan, although in other respects, they still need to be elevated to a new level. Discussions must focus on concrete steps to ensure substantive dialogue. There is no need to talk about abstract nuances or perceptions.
Our relations with Armenia have always been exemplary. Historically, this could not have been otherwise. We are neighbouring nations. Our humanitarian ties are natural. Geography, shared destiny, and history dictate that we cultivate these relations. There are those displeased by this. Our position, as defined by the President of Russia and enshrined in doctrinal documents, remains steadfastly oriented towards the comprehensive development of relations with Armenia and its people.
Question: Alexander Fedorchak was killed while on editorial assignment, adhering to all international protocols for journalists operating in conflict zones. Do diplomats have the means to secure international recognition of the journalist’s murder as a terrorist act by the Kiev regime?
Maria Zakharova: Primarily, our law enforcement agencies must conduct their investigation and deliver a verdict. This is currently underway, as evidenced by statements from relevant competent bodies. Such determinations are paramount in classifying these acts. From a political standpoint, these crimes constitute terrorism. However, formal legal classification must follow the conclusion of law enforcement proceedings.
Regarding international organisations: Recent years have demonstrated that claims by certain states of adhering to principled positions were, in many cases, disingenuous. These amounted either to rhetoric or attempts to obstruct agreements on other fronts. They spoke of human rights and freedom of expression, yet when confronted with actual violations of journalists’ safety and freedoms, they fell silent. Their influence extends to the secretariats of relevant international organisations.
We must demand responses from international institutions. However, it would be misguided to assume that such responses will arise from conscientiousness or elevated moral principles. Unfriendly regimes have long since abandoned both conscience and morality – as have the secretariats of international organisations, whose personnel either directly represent these regimes by nationality or act as agents of their policies. Our task is to make them work, yet we must not indulge in the delusion that a “golden age” will dawn, awakening their self-awareness.
The era of idealistic perceptions of international institutions – that they will autonomously fulfil mandates without pressure – has passed. Experience has proven this unworkable for many reasons, which we have repeatedly highlighted. Our task is to intensify our efforts.
Question: In your assessment, to what new level have negotiations progressed, based on recent interactions with the American delegation?
Maria Zakharova: It would be premature to give emotional assessments. We will measure progress through concrete deeds. Qualitative appraisals of bilateral relations fall within the purview of national leadership.
Question: According to some reports, the German Interior Ministry has started recruiting mercenaries from among Afghan refugees with a criminal record. They have little choice. Either they are convicted in Germany and serve a prison term, whereupon they are certain to be deported to Afghanistan, or they sign a contract and join the International Legion for the Territorial Defence of Ukraine. According to some information, there are over 2,000 individuals of this sort. Don’t you think that Germany is directly violating the International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries approved by UN General Assembly Resolution 44/34 of December 4, 1989?
Maria Zakharova: I would prefer to use verified information. While asking a question, you can use any information you like. As for us, we need confirmed stuff. At this stage, I would prefer to refrain from jumping at hasty conclusions and take time off for proper verification.
The Federal Republic of Germany is a party to all universal international humanitarian law agreements. Among other things, it must be guided by clauses on mercenarism contained in Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1949. Berlin has also signed (but failed to ratify) the 1989 International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries.
In this connection, we would like to remind everyone that mercenaries are not combatants by definition and are not covered by the 1949 Geneva Convention. Those who recruit mercenaries should know full well that they violate both international law and their national laws and are also accountable to these people’s families. “Soldiers of fortune” heading to the special military operation zone to fight for the Kiev regime have only two options: either they land behind bars or go out of this world. There is also a third option: they can come to their senses and cancel the trip.
Question: US President Donald Trump went on record as saying that Russia and Ukraine would meet to discuss ceasefire in the Black Sea area and that third countries would take part in monitoring the ceasefire. When and at what level is this meeting being planned and what countries are meant?
Maria Zakharova: You better ask the US side about that. I think he was commenting on the outcome of the Riyadh meeting. Russia has also commented on it, as I have said earlier today.
Question: Senator Grigory Karasin, who led the Russian delegation to Riyadh, said that the Russian-US negotiations would continue and be joined by the UN and some other state parties. What countries are likely to join the talks?
Maria Zakharova: Let us not engage in guesswork. This issue will be decided by agreements to be reached during the talks. The meeting has just ended. The results have been reported and assessed. The work will continue. If there is any news in this regard, we will certainly share it with you.
Question: Commenting on the Black Sea Initiative yesterday, Sergey Lavrov mentioned the previous deal, which was derailed, while also quoting the UN chief.
According to the Foreign Ministry, does Vladimir Zelensky have enough legitimacy to sign any agreements, when the United States is acting as an intermediary and discussing the terms separately with Russia and Ukraine? Is there anyone on the Ukrainian side that Russia can negotiate with, or does it make sense to talk only with US representatives?
Maria Zakharova: You are referring to Sergey Lavrov’s interview, in which he made those statements and said that Vladimir Zelensky knows that his days are numbered.
You are asking whether they are legitimate to negotiate with and whether they can be trusted. In fact, Vladimir Zelensky’s “legitimacy” (actually a lack thereof) can now be a subject of lengthy research. So much has been said about it, including in Ukraine, with a variety of new “aspects” invented to keep this ship afloat. We have answered these questions at all levels.
No, representatives of the Kiev regime cannot be trusted. How can anyone trust them when they twist things on the go? They even turn around the agreements reached with their handlers, who have been supervising them all these years.
Today I cited proof that Vladimir Zelensky managed to distort even the statements made by Francois Hollande and Angela Merkel who said they never intended to comply with the Minsk Agreements. He said that he was allegedly deceived by Russia after the Minsk agreements.
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov regularly addresses this issue. He always emphasises that this is not about trust, not about believing or hoping that they will not deceive us this time. We require firm guarantees, which our country will accept as such. Do not think that we have changed or will change our view. It is a question of who is negotiating on the other side and how. I think you can see it too. These are the issues that have yet to be resolved.
Question: Who can give Russia any guarantees about the Black Sea Initiative? What kind of guarantees will be acceptable, since Russia, as a party to the agreements, takes responsibility for their implementation? What kind of guarantees do we need to trust Ukraine?
Maria Zakharova: Again, I would like to refer you to Sergey Lavrov’s explanations. Among other things, he said that their handlers in Washington should do their part to curb the monster that the previous administration has nurtured. He mentioned this in his interview.
Question: In this situation, can we negotiate only with the United States, but not with the Ukrainian side?
Maria Zakharova: Russia is in contact with the US delegation. Because Vladimir Zelensky has forbidden himself to negotiate with our country.
Not everyone survived those talks. The Kiev regime was destroying its negotiators. Negotiating with Russia has not been unblocked. This problem has no solution right now. They have blocked their own negotiations with us.
Question: How would the Foreign Ministry comment on the extremist forum, Black Sea: The Future Border for a Safe and Stable Europe, held in Bucharest, where calls were made to make war against Russia and “destroy” it?
Maria Zakharova: I would not call it an assembly but a mob, because it was organised by several infamous NGOs controlled by Western and Ukrainian security services, among others. Ukrainian security services operate under the control of Western ones, and it is clear what these NGOs are like.
This meeting is interesting because of the hysteria that unfolded there, which highlighted the ultimate desperation of certain circles amid the sharp deterioration of the Kiev regime’s situation.
As for Romanian parliament providing a venue for aggressive individuals to stage a manifestation aimed at undermining Russia’s territorial integrity and Romanian officials taking part in it, this is just another provocative episode in the anti-Russia campaign unleashed by the European Union leadership, this time by the hands of Bucharest.
On the one hand, the current authorities in Bucharest hypocritically chant about their desire for peace and stability in the region, and on the other, give foreign centres of influence complete control of their country, turning it into an instrument for escalating international tension.
This has nothing to do with protecting sovereignty and national interests. Romanian society is critical about this. This is why a significant part of Romanian society is more and more resolute in expressing its opinion and demanding an adjustment of the political course. When forums like this are imposed on them, this becomes understandable.
Question: Was there an official response from the OSCE regarding Ukrainian drones’ attack on Moscow after OSCE Secretary General Feridun Sinirlioğlu saw the consequences of the attack by the Ukrainian Armed Forces with his own eyes? If it was, what was it, and if not, how can one explain the silence?
Maria Zakharova: The response was given at the joint news conference with OSCE Secretary-General Feridun Sinirlioğlu following his talks with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on March 11, 2025, in Moscow.
Question: President of the Armenian National Assembly Alen Simonyan has asserted that Yerevan has no intention of resuming participation in the Russia-Azerbaijan-Armenia trilateral format concerning the unblocking of communications. Was this matter addressed during the telephone conversation between Sergey Lavrov and Ararat Mirzoyan? How does the Armenian side justify its reluctance to collaborate with Russia on this issue?
Maria Zakharova: Let me remind you that the unblocking of transport communications in the South Caucasus has been entrusted by the leaders of Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia to the overseeing deputy prime ministers. In Armenia, this issue is managed not by the politician you referenced but by another official. Consequently, it is Yerevan that ought to clarify whether responsibilities for executing this mandate have been reassigned. If not, inquiries should be directed to the designated authority.
I find little purpose in commenting on the specific declarations of this specific official, as we operate on the premise that such matters fall outside his purview. Our stance is informed not by personal assessments but by the evaluations and instructions of Armenia’s leadership.
To resolve this critical issue, a dedicated Trilateral Working Group on Unblocking Transport and Economic Ties in the South Caucasus was established under the tripartite agreements concluded at the highest level between 2020 and 2022 (1, 2, 3, 4). Within this framework, substantial progress was achieved in harmonising both the legal foundations and technical specifications for restoring transport corridors between Armenia and Azerbaijan, grounded in the principles of reciprocity and sovereignty.
We observe the destabilising interference of Western states. Equally, we note that the postures adopted by Armenian authorities periodically – and at times persistently – provoke legitimate questions. These dual factors have precipitated stagnation in cooperation within the Working Group. We have consistently commented on this matter; it is scarcely revelatory.
We remain convinced that the prompt revival of substantive collaboration within the Trilateral Working Group would not only rejuvenate the South Caucasus’s transport and logistics network – integrating it into broader Eurasian freight transit schemes – but also catalyse socio-economic advancement for Armenia and the wider region.
Should Yerevan’s position have evolved (it is a sovereign prerogative) it would be prudent for such revisions to be communicated at an appropriate level.
Question: On March 25 of this year, President of the Armenian National Assembly Alen Simonyan, during an exchange with journalists, addressed the CSTO, Armenia’s stance, its membership in the Organisation, and Armenian-Russian relations. Kindly provide your response to his remarks.
Maria Zakharova: What necessitates commentary? Let Yerevan elucidate what constitutes state policy versus personal conjecture or political posturing. Once official Yerevan clarifies this, we will discern whether we are engaging with an individual perspective, political, or formal governmental position.
Question: He reiterated that no changes have occurred. He affirmed that Yerevan had not altered its approach towards the CSTO and related matters.
Maria Zakharova: Unaltered since when? Your own reaction betrays the absurdity. Hence, I maintain the futility of commenting further.
Question: The Armenian parliament has adopted the draft law on the beginning of Armenia’s accession to the EU in the second and final reading. What is Russia’s stance on this initiative?
Maria Zakharova: Russia’s position has been expressed multiple times at various levels. Representatives from the Presidential Executive Office, as well as Deputy Prime Minister Alexey Overchuk, who oversees this area, have provided comprehensive statements on the matter, including detailed explanations supported by facts and figures.
In short, EU membership and EAEU membership are not mutually compatible. They are mutually exclusive based on specific parameters, not on ideological or political views, but proceeding from the agreements made within each of these associations. They represent intersecting possibilities, rather than interconnecting ones.
Question: The Ukrainian delegation arrived in Riyadh to engage in negotiations with the United States dressed in military uniforms once again. In both Russia and Ukraine, this has been referred to as a “circus.” Are there any unspoken dress code rules for such important events? What is the Kiev regime trying to convey with this behaviour?
Maria Zakharova: Typically, when invited to an official event in another country, such as an official reception or ceremonial meeting, or when one country invites diplomats or delegations for such meetings, the dress code is usually discussed in advance.
In the negotiation process, certain aspects have become routine, and for additional events, the dress code is typically specified.
The protocol establishes standardised guidelines to prevent any misinterpretation of these terms. There is an understanding that if a person wishes to deviate from the specified dress code, they may instead wear the national dress of their country.
It seems that the Kiev regime has developed a distinctive uniform, though in many cases, it’s not actually military in nature. It’s more of a performance in military attire. What we see isn’t genuine military uniform but rather worn by civilians with no connection to military service. The impression is that the Kiev regime has turned this into something beyond a national dress code – into a symbol of their own sect.
This could go down in history as a time when extremists and terrorists of the Kiev regime not only established a sect but also created a specialised system of symbols, one of which was the uniform.
Question: US-made HIMARS MLRS were used to kill Zvezda and Izvestiya reporters. Russia’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations Vasily Nebenzya said back in 2022 that military satellites were used to set targets for HIMARS missiles, and US servicemen on the ground coordinated satellite and reconnaissance information. Will the Foreign Ministry follow up with a note of protest to the US government?
Maria Zakharova: We keep saying publicly at all levels that Western weapons and Western weapon supplies are behind killing civilians. Now, I cannot say anything about the year - I don’t have this information - but the absolute majority of weapons used by the Kiev regime are clearly of Western provenance and are used to kill journalists.
Do you believe that notes of protest have a stronger impact than public statements? I don’t think this is true in this particular case. I think this question is better directed at American civil society. We have covered this matter extensively today. Why are they keeping silent about it? Why are they so reverent about human rights, or who put their hand on what part of another person’s body? Or, who looked at whom many years ago, in the last century, and now believes this constitutes violation of human rights and freedoms? Why can a trivial tweet or a social media post with a picture lead to someone being wiped out from the information and political sphere? All of that is happening at a time when weapon supplies by governments and regimes fail to elicit a reaction from American civil society and NGOs?
One of the answers has been looked into thoroughly today. This is because local NGOs and “American civil society” were generously funded by USAID, which the current administration has shut down. No other civil society is available that would work not for money in America, but out of a deep-seated desire to become a guarantor or to really care about human rights.
Question: According to US intelligence, Russia will remain a threat to US interests for a long time to come. Commenting on the talks in Riyadh, Foreign Minister Lavrov said that peace guarantees could only exist in the form of an order issued by Washington to Zelensky. You said no breakthroughs from Russia-US talks should be expected. Rodion Miroshnik regularly reports about hundreds of civilians who had been impacted by Nazi shelling. The media talks about “hybrid,” “information,” and “proxy” warfare, whereas what we have in reality is a shooting war between the United States and Russia. During the war, should the Commander-in-Chief have all the powers and the General Headquarters?
Maria Zakharova: What’s your question? You have provided some talking points. Are they what your question is about?
Question: Call things for what they are. It’s a shooting war plain and simple without any modifiers.
Maria Zakharova: We call it a hybrid war. Do you have a problem with that?
Question: What about the powers? Are they hybrid too?
Maria Zakharova: What? I don’t understand your question.
Question: We are asking this question because people from across the country want Vladimir Putin to have emergency powers.
Maria Zakharova: Direct your question to the Presidential Executive Office.
Question: The tragic event - the killing of our journalists - has caused a wide-ranging reaction and affected many people. The International Russophile Movement immediately reacted and stated its position in a special Declaration.
“The International Russophile Movement considers outrageous and unacceptable actions by the military that include deliberate tracking down of journalists and strikes on civilian sites, which violates every norm of international law. We are extremely outraged that not a single Western media outlet has officially reacted and condemned this heinous pre-planned terrorist attack against representatives of the Russian media.”
Has any other international organisation condemned that crime perpetrated by the Kiev regime?
Maria Zakharova: All I can say is we are grateful to everyone who came forward and reacted to it. There are many of them.
One of the first statements I saw came from our Belarusian colleagues. We are grateful for this show of solidarity. I have seen responses from other countries as well.
I think your question makes sense. We will make a compilation of reactions and statements. This is not just a litmus test, but a point of no return. Anyone from specialised, non-governmental organisations that deal with the journalists’ safety and freedom of speech internationally who do not see the mass killing of Russian journalists will no longer be eligible to discuss this topic. This is the point of no return.
We will demand that international organisations (since they live on the money of taxpayers of different countries and have accepted such activities as their work) do their work.
Speaking of non-governmental organisations, what can we ask of them? It is a question of whether we seriously consider them in this capacity. Every time they assert themselves in that capacity, we will remind them that they have acknowledged to their own worthlessness.
