As reported at the previous briefing, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov
will visit Türkiye on April 6-7 of this year at the invitation of his Turkish counterpart Mevlut Cavusoglu
to take part in the talks on a broad range of bilateral and international issues.
More details on Mr Lavrov’s visit to Türkiye will be available soon on the Foreign Ministry website.
On April 10 this year, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov
will hold a working breakfast with the heads of the diplomatic missions
of the BRICS countries in Moscow.
This format has become a tradition and has won the reputation of a popular venue
for the sincere exchange of views on a broad range of international issues.
At the upcoming meeting, the participants plan to discuss urgent global issues
and the promotion of cooperation in BRICS.
During South Africa’s BRICS Presidency this year, the countries in the association
will conduct intensive work on key areas of strategic partnership in politics and security,
the economy and finances, culture and humanitarian ties.
We welcome the priorities set by our South African partners,
including the line towards strengthening ties with Africa.
We intend to promote Russia’s initiatives
and are interested to constructively cooperating with our partners in all areas.
BRICS is a unique example of building interstate relations along the lines of mutual respect
and consideration of interests of all association members.
Today, the Five is the guardian of genuine multipolarity.
It expresses the views of the developing nations.
On April 14 this year, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will attend
a regular meeting of the CIS Council of Foreign Ministers in Samarkand (Republic of Uzbekistan).
The foreign ministers will exchange views on pressing international and regional issues,
discuss promising areas for developing multifaceted cooperation in the CIS format
as well as review the results of their cooperation in 2022.
They plan to focus on issues of international security and the need
to promote law enforcement, cultural, humanitarian and educational ties.
A terrorist attack that took the life of the Russian war correspondent Maxim Fomin,
a.k.a. Vladlen Tatarsky, was committed in St Petersburg on April 2.
Scores of other people were injured.
Law enforcement and investigators responded promptly and professionally.
The terrorist suspect was taken into custody and is cooperating.
The investigators believe the crime may have been organised from inside Ukraine.
Official statements to that effect have been made.
This is a terrorist attack and a crime against civilians.
This is a crime against a journalist who engaged in the quest for truth
and in fact fought for freedom of speech.
The reaction, or rather lack of it, from the “democratic” West is quite telling.
They call themselves “civilised”, “exceptional” and “leaders”.
They are not like everyone else, but better.
They call themselves a “garden.”
This “garden” didn’t utter a single word of sympathy or empathy.
They didn’t even issue a statement acknowledging that it was a terrorist attack.
People who are not aware of the mechanics of their actions,
their philosophy and ideology will find it unbelievable.
For those who are aware of it, there’s nothing surprising.
It’s absolute cold-bloodedness, because they knew what they needed the Kiev regime for.
They know what they are using Ukraine for.
They are talking a lot about doing everything for that country, which, in fact, is not true.
They are cynically using it as a foothold, a training ground and a tool to counter Russia.
It’s another track.
Hence, the silence.
The absence of the most basic confirmation that it was a terrorist attack.
We should remain objective, though.
Not all of them are silent.
Permanent Representative of Canada to the UN and a well-known Russophobe Robert Rae
wrote on social media that Vladlen Tatarsky was not a journalist,
but a rabid propagandist who spewed hatred and misinformation.
Is the Ministry of Truth based in Canada?
Is there any international arrangement whereby Canada is entitled to determine
who is a “good” journalist and who is a “bad” one?
There is no international agreement entitling Canada to any such thing.
This is the first point.
Second, I have a question for the Canadian authorities.
Our Embassy will reiterate this question.
Does it mean there are people, professions, characteristics, characters,
or personality traits against which terrorist attacks can be perpetrated?
This is something new.
Could Canada elaborate?
I'm not asking for clarification.
I would like to understand the logic.
Frankly, this is the first time I’ve heard that, from the point of view
of the Western “progressive” community, there are categories of people
that qualify as legitimate targets of terrorist attacks.
We’ve heard much from them that corroborates their logic of segregating people into “right”
and “wrong”, “worthy” and “unworthy,” “creative” or “obeying.”
I repeatedly quoted Josep Borrell, allegedly the chief EU diplomat,
as saying that the world is divided into a “garden” and a “jungle.”
But this is the first time we are hearing about segregating people into victims of terrorist attacks
and others who are acceptable targets.
We demand that Canada explains itself and make its logic known, because it's something new.
Indeed, we are aware of the historical periods when this logic was not only recognised as normal,
but even dominated in some countries.
It's called Nazism.
Back in 1930s-1940s, those who swore allegiance to Nazism and fascism
believed there were people who not only deserved to be killed,
but who must be killed, because they are “not like us,”
inferior and genetically did not fit the mold of the future human race
that was adopted in those countries.
Unfortunately, Canada is home to numerous direct descendants of Nazis and fascists.
But until now I didn’t realise this is now Ottawa’s official position.
We heard the silence of the collective West when Darya Dugina was murdered,
but the reaction on Bankovaya Street was not long in coming.
This is also indicative.
It was different, and it was subject to change.
As soon as the news about this act of terrorism was reported, Vladimir Zelensky said
he did not follow the events in Moscow or St Petersburg, hinting that Kiev was not involved.
However, a suspect began giving evidence on her cooperation with Ukrainian secret services, representatives of the Kiev regime and people associated with them.
Something went wrong at this point.
Something went awry in this frame-up
that the mentally ill people in the Kiev regime had been preparing.
The rhetoric began to change abruptly.
We noted a petition recorded on the Ukrainian President’s website
with an appeal to rename a street in honour of the person suspected of staging this act of terrorism.
Don’t believe anyone who tells you this was a technical error
or that people can put their initiatives on the presidential website if they want to.
A long list of humanitarian initiatives, some of them long overdue,
that should have been recorded were not recorded on this website.
They were merely published there and eventually deleted from this website.
There was no further response.
According to some media sources, people on Bankovaya Street
thanked the Ukrainian Defence Ministry’s Main Intelligence Directorate for the successful operation.
Is something missing?
I think so.
Our law enforcement and investigative bodies are bound to add something to this
like they are doing now, publishing the information they are verifying and that is being confirmed.
All this story about the collective silence of the West
and remarks by the most odious representatives of the Western regimes,
and about this violent malice that the Kiev regime demonstrated and all those that it inspired,
is no longer about Zelensky as the “enfant terrible” of the West.
This is about the collective West (I am referring to the ruling regimes)
becoming the enfant terrible of the international community.
As for Zelensky, he is simply doing what he is told.
On March 31, the Kiev regime organized another show in the same style – the Bucha summit.
What kind of summit was this?
Why is it named after Bucha?
Probably, you remember the Bucha story.
It was the venue of one of the worst frame-ups.
Such things have happened before.
We have talked about them.
Such things took place during World War II and the Great Patriotic War.
Nazi, fascist troops resorted to these scenarios, methods and frame-ups.
Now they have been repeated in Bucha.
Hence, the name of the Bucha summit.
I would like to remind you that while the Russian forces were deployed in Bucha,
its residents could freely move around the town, use their cell phones
and go online to communicate with those who were not in the town.
No complaints about the actions of Russian troops were reported.
On March 31, 2022, a day after the Russian units left the town,
Bucha Mayor Anatoly Fedoruk announced publicly
that there were no Russian troops in the town,
but he did not say anything about the bodies of executed residents lying the streets.
I believe that he had every opportunity to do this, as we have pointed out more than once.
But he did not use it for some reason.
The first footage of dead bodies positioned around the town
appeared in Ukrainian Telegram accounts on April 1,
and foreign journalists were shown the bodies on April 2.
As a result, Bucha came to symbolise the cynicism of the Ukrainian propaganda,
which was supported and possibly incited by the “collective West.”
That performance was organised to derail the Russia-Ukraine talks
and to launch a package of anti-Russia sanctions,
which had been prepared well in advance.
Bucha has become a symbol which the Kiev regime is using when telling its myths about us.
No less cynical was the “Bucha summit” and its “declaration” made up of anti-Russia statements
that have nothing to do with reality.
As expected, it does not mention the numerous documented crimes
committed by the Ukrainian neo-Nazi detachments.
A year has passed, but a full-scale official investigation into the Bucha massacre has not been held.
There is no reliable list with the names of those whose bodies were laid out in the Bucha streets.
We have no interest in the lists that have allegedly been posted in the social media,
on obscure websites or Kiev-controlled sites.
Our appeal to investigate the tragedy
and to provide the lists of names is addressed to the UN Secretariat.
This is how Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov formulated it
during his meeting with UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres.
We have not received any reply to this day.
There is no information about the time and causes of death of those people,
where they lived and when they came to Bucha,
and whether there is any evidence that their bodies had been moved.
Nothing, nothing but myths.
It is unclear why it was not forensic experts but journalists who were the first on the site.
The absence of answers to these questions proves
that it was a well-orchestrated propaganda stunt of the Kiev regime.
It is obvious that the organisers of the “summit” wanted to divert the attention of the global public
from their own crimes and discrepancies in the provocation in Bucha,
as well as to bolster the false allegation of the murder of Bucha residents by the Russian military.
I have a question.
A terrorist attack was staged in a Russian city several days ago.
If the “collective West” cares about people so much, why hasn’t it noticed that tragedy?
Is this another element of segregation into the “right” and “wrong” people,
those who can be wept for and those who are not worth noticing?
The summit organisers obviously wanted to reinforce the symbol of Bucha as a meme,
something that is instantly recognisable.
It is a mix of information technology and psychology, a horrible, detestable,
illegal and immoral instrument.
We have seen such instruments used before, and, regrettably, we will see more of this.
A violent attack on the rights of believers of the canonical Orthodox Church
is gathering momentum in Ukraine.
Unable to achieve success on the battlefield, Zelensky’s regime has decided
to show its strength in a conflict with Orthodox clergy and parishioners, including women and children.
I would like to point this out for the Western community,
where so much attention is being given to the issues of gender.
Let’s highlight it this time too, so that they can see the problem more clearly.
On April 1, 2023, the Shevchenko District Court of Kiev sentenced Metropolitan Pavel of Vyshgorod
and Chernobyl, the abbot of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, to 60 days under house arrest.
The Security Service of Ukraine claims that it has sufficient facts
to accuse the metropolitan of inciting religious strife.
This is absurd and crazy.
If we looked at it out of context, we would have taken it for a silly and awful April Fools’ Day joke.
The metropolitan has also been charged with the justification and denial – simultaneously –
of Russia’s armed aggression against Ukraine.
But the most preposterous thing is that he is accused of inciting religious strife.
Actually, he preached in his own territory, in the churches
and on land that has always been Orthodox.
What he preached in his home, in the house of God, is what that monastery,
its construction and restoration from ruin, is dedicated.
He never called for anything else, only that they are left where they are,
that they are not torn away from the place they belong to.
While the court announced the arrest of Metropolitan Pavel, neo-Nazi activists
started pouring into the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, hindering its operations and mocking its Orthodox rites.
It is called blasphemy, and in a secular society it is known as inciting religious strife.
On March 31, 2023, adviser to Zelensky’s executive office Mikhail Podolyak said in an interview
to a Ukrainian television channel that the situation with the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
is “an excellent opportunity to physically eliminate pro-Russian priests.”
This is monstrous.
Have those in the West who formulated human rights norms
and wrote annual reports on the freedom of religion, criticising others
and keeping the right to punish and pardon for themselves, noticed this?
Have they?
There are not hundreds but thousands of “professionals” in the West
who formulate international norms within the framework of the OSCE and other organisations
whose mission is to protect humanity, countries and nations from xenophobia,
including religious hatred.
Where are all these people?
None of them has noticed that monstrous phrase, none of the international officials
whose duty it is to monitor such things.
Here is what Zelensky’s representative said:
“An excellent opportunity to physically eliminate pro-Russian priests.”
Ukraine must allegedly follow this path
so that there is “only one canonical Ukrainian church” in the country.
Who has the authority to decide this?
Does he, a representative of Zelensky?
Will Zelensky decide how many churches and which denominations Ukraine should have?
I would like to say that nobody must remain silent in this situation,
including representatives of Orthodox countries
where Christianity is the most widespread religion.
Nobody must remain silent, neither states and public associations, nor people in the countries
where Islam, Buddhism and Judaism are the dominant religions.
Those who profess these religions in Ukraine will be affected too.
The attackers won’t stop because they are not just fighting against “pro-Russian” sentiments.
They will only keep the movements, parties, public figures, ideologies and philosophies
that are serving their regime.
This is what they are doing.
They want to eliminate all grounds for alternative opinions, for dissent and pluralism.
Those who remain silent think that they will survive, but they are wrong.
Those who are not actively upholding their values
and are not opposing the regime probably do not feel oppression now,
but it is a false feeling of security.
It is a path to disaster.
All of this shows that the Kiev regime has turned religion into a tool of its nationalist policy
aimed at clearing the country of everyone who disagrees with it.
It is also indicative that Washington, its satellites and its hand-fed expert community
are keeping silent about the Kiev regime’s criminal persecution of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.
We have repeatedly made this point.
Usually, the Americans immediately denounce any violations of rights and freedoms,
especially if Russia is involved in any way.
This time, however, their official support for what the Ukrainian authorities
are perpetrating against the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
would be at variance with the declared goals of the Summit for Democracy,
which the White House held late last week.
This is not just political double standards.
It is hypocrisy.
It is falsehood.
In February, a Ukrainian journalist, Dmitry Sokolov,
who exposed the official persecution of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church,
was arrested by the Ukrainian security service right on the premises of an Orthodox monastery
and incarcerated for 53 days.
His prison term will expire in mid-April.
Where are the specialised agencies of the United Nations?
Where is UNESCO?
Where is the OSCE?
Where are all these Reporters Without Borders and human rights organisations?
Isn’t he a journalist?
Or is he a journalist unlike all others?
Everyone is silent.
Everyone in the international community is comfortable with this.
In the meantime, the Western countries continue pouring weapons into Ukraine.
They also hire mercenaries all over the world
and are doing whatever they can to make the Ukrainian conflict as protracted and bloody as possible.
Yesterday, the Pentagon announced through its press service another $2.6 billion in military aid to Kiev, including ammunition for anti-aircraft systems, such as Patriot and NASAMS,
and for multiple rocket launchers, such as Grad and HIMARS, as well as NATO-calibre artillery shells.
Thus, US military aid to Ukraine has reached $35 billion or more
since the start of the special military operation.
According to US Secretary of Defence Lloyd Austin,
nine NATO countries have agreed to give Kiev over 150 Leopard tanks for nine tank brigades.
The TASS agency has calculated
that all Western countries promised Ukraine a total of 293 tanks in 2023,
of which 57 (19%) have already been handed over to the Kiev regime.
Let us name the countries that have supplied or are going to supply Kiev with tanks to fight Russia:
the United States, the UK, Germany, France, Canada, Spain,
the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Finland, and Sweden.
Many of them attempted to wage war against our country in the past.
The EU, in turn, has allocated around 13 billion euros for military aid to Ukraine,
as it became known after a meeting between US Secretary of State Antony Blinken
and EU chief diplomat Josep Borrell in Brussels on April 4.
Much of this sum comes from the European Peace Facility, cynical as this may sound.
Many European countries use the hostilities in Ukraine
as a pretext for getting rid of their outmoded military equipment
in exchange for more modern models.
You will ask, why fall back on the EPF to transfer funds to the Kiev regime so that they buy weapons? They are doing this for fear that their EU public will rise up against them.
They tell the public that this money will be used for a good cause,
for humanitarian needs, assistance and medicine.
They are hiding what specifically these funds will be spent on.
This is why they call this fund the European Peace Facility.
In the meantime, the money is transferred for making war.
Moreover, while supplying their discarded equipment to Ukraine,
these countries are attempting to get the EPF pay them a compensation
to a much greater amount.
These are just small-time crooks.
Small, that is, on the global scale, but, in fact, not so small at all,
if we consider the human toll, for which they are directly responsible.
They pass their discarded equipment off as advanced US analogues.
Let me underscore, this is not my logic.
I am trying to analyse their mentality.
They are making a pretty penny for themselves – this I can understand, if just barely.
But they pretend that this is being done for the sake of Ukraine
which they have prodded on for years to get involved in this situation.
It’s a nightmare.
While Western companies continue to reap profits from the supplies of military equipment
and resale of Ukrainian grain, the Ukrainian economy continues to degrade rapidly,
as it accumulates massive debts.
Ukraine’s state debt already totals $98.1 billion.
The Government of Ukraine predicts that it will amount to 106 percent of the country’s GDP in 2023.
According to Fitch Solutions, this indicator will total 135 percent of the GDP.
The 2022 budget deficit amounted to 20 percent of the Ukrainian GDP ($38 billion).
International Monetary Fund and European Union experts believe
that Kiev now requires $3 to $5 billion each month.
The US Treasury Department estimates the amount at $8.5 billion per month.
These statistics show that the Ukrainian economy can only exist at the expense of Western sponsors, who are actually assuming control over it.
In fact, the Kiev regime is interested in continued hostilities
because it would otherwise be unable to obtain foreign assistance;
moreover, it would be forced to service its accumulated multi-billion-dollar loans.
Russian service personnel continue to accomplish various objectives of the special military operation, including the elimination of all threats emanating from the territory of Ukraine.
I will not repeat what Russian leaders are saying every day about specific objectives and tasks.
Not only our statements but facts that emerge every day serve to confirm them.
Not long ago, there was a prolonged debate regarding the fact
that the “wonderful,” “democratic,” “open,” “honest” and “fair” United States
is opposing us for a reason.
It's because we're not like them.
We are “bad” overall, whereas they are always “good”
and can, therefore, convene “summits for democracy,” award “prizes”
based on the level of “democratism,” and carry out policies that range from containment
to outright aggression against the countries to which they did not give these “prizes.”
I will now move on to my “prizes.”
I have a few, too.
In September 2014, acting within the framework of the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS
that they hastily cobbled together, the United States started attacking targets on the Syrian territory located in areas then occupied by ISIS without asking for the consent of the Syrian government.
It’s not that they did not receive it: they didn’t even ask for it.
Damascus was notified of the beginning of the military operation
and at the same time the United States warned it against trying
to use the results of these actions to expand the government control zone.
Syria is a sovereign state and its government members and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad
are elected officials, but the Americans did not even tell them
what they were going to do in that country.
Not only that, they wag their finger
and tell them to not even try to take advantage of the situation
in order to bring relief to their problems, since none of that is being “done for you.”
Gradually, having established close cooperation with the Kurdish formations that were fighting ISIS,
the Americans deployed a number of military bases
and temporary deployment facilities in northeastern Syria in order to launch ground operations.
In addition, they created a major Al-Tanf base in southern Syria
where the borders of Syria, Iraq and Jordan meet,
thus cutting the critical transport artery connecting Damascus with Baghdad.
An area within 55 km of this site was unilaterally declared off-limits to military
and civilian Syrian authorities.
As a reminder, this is and always was the territory of Syria.
The attempts to access it were met with American strikes from the MLRS and combat aircraft.
Syrians, the citizens of that country, wondered
why they were being attacked by missiles on their own territory.
However, the international community remained silent
and pretended not to know anything about it,
because the Western media did not cover it
and because it “was the right thing to do.”
It was the “order” they received from Washington.
At the peak – in 2018 – the scale of the illegal military presence of the United States in Syria
was estimated at 2,000-2,500 troops.
Once again, without Syria’s consent.
Today, the total number of US troops stands at about 1,000.
Nevertheless, this allows the Americans to actually control up to 20 percent of the Syrian territory
thus depriving the Syrian government of access to areas
which, before the crisis, provided about 70 percent of the country's export proceeds.
What would you call it?
An occupation?
No.
Occupation is something lighter.
This is a seizure, an appropriation of something that does not belong to you.
The systematic plunder of the national wealth of Syria – primarily oil, wheat and cotton –
is carried out under their supervision.
They keep in custody, without trial or investigation, tens of thousands of captured ISIS fighters
and persons suspected of affiliation with ISIS,
as well as members of their families from around the world.
One can easily guess what kind of work the US intelligence agencies
are conducting among these people.
Previously, they acted the same way.
There were many reports about them transferring recruited terrorists to Afghanistan
and other countries, about using them for sabotage against the legitimate Syrian government.
There were even materials about them being sent to Ukraine as mercenaries
fighting for the Kiev regime.
During more than eight years of their illegal presence in Syria,
the Americans have committed many actions that fall under the definition of war crimes.
They levelled the city of Raqqa, the capital of the province of the same name,
which was home to 1 million people.
No one kept records of the casualties resulting from the bombing of residential areas of the towns
on the eastern bank of the Euphrates – such as Hajin and Baghuz – that they “liberated.”
The US military have repeatedly and purposefully
targeted the positions of the Syrian government forces and their allies,
which resulted in deaths not of terrorists, but of the people who fought against them.
Both in Syria and neighbouring Türkiye officials and ordinary people are wondering
about the nomenclature and quantity of military equipment, weapons, and ammunition
that were imported uncontrollably by the Americans into Syria.
Most of them were handed over to Kurdish and other armed formations,
whose activities are not regulated by Syrian law in any way.
In other words, their activities are banned.
Who will be held accountable for how and against whom they may be used in the future?
This is not a hypothetical question.
We are very well aware of the use of American weapons
which were supplied to “fighters for freedom and democracy,” “rebels” and “liberators.”
There are many such epithets.
In fact, they are thugs, militants and terrorists who used these weapons not only in the territories
that lie far from the “garden” of the collective West, but inside it as well.
Clearly, the extended stay of the US military in the Syrian Arab Republic
without the consent of that country’s legitimate government
and without the UN Security Council’s sanction is an illegal occupation,
all the more so as rules have been established within a portion of the territory of a sovereign state under the US “military umbrella” that are inconsistent with the Syrian law.
Given the limited resources faced by the Syrian government
as a result of the US-imposed illegitimate sanctions and financial and economic blockade,
the current situation objectively provokes separatist sentiment in northeastern Syria,
primarily among a portion of the Kurdish population.
This is yet another tinderbox in the already explosive Middle East.
The above leads us to a conclusion
that no matter how hard Washington is trying to cite good intentions
to account for the reasons for its military intervention in the affairs of the Middle East
and other regions of the world, the outcome of their actions is always destructive.
The countries that have had the misfortune to undergo these experiments paid dearly for them.
Many fell prey to illusions or were unable to oppose the United States.
The sooner this ends, the better.
This is what the interests of global security, peace, stability and development call for.
We took note of several statements on the use of information
and communications technologies made by the US leaders at the recent Summit for Democracy, specifically on their resolve to defend human rights and oppose the “autocracies”
in the digital space by denying them access to spyware and by fighting censorship.
This is a disgraceful absurdity.
First, if they want to fight “autocracies,” they could focus on their own monopolies, the IT giants
that have monopolised this sphere (in the international context) and prevent national laws
(let alone companies from other countries) from penetrating it.
They both call the tune and play it.
Ironically, Washington, while paying lip service to internet freedom,
is the one that draws dividing lines online.
According to the Biden administration’s logic, the pro-American democracies have the right
to enjoy the entire range of ICT benefits,
while independent and sovereign states with foreign and home policies of their own
are automatically categorised as autocracies and should have their rights restricted.
As for spyware, the US authorities are brazenly hypocritical.
It is their own country that is notorious for its worldwide spying in violation of state sovereignty
and fundamental human rights and freedoms.
The Americans engage in spying both at home and elsewhere.
It is no secret that their intelligence agencies use spyware such as Pegasus and Graphite almost without any control to get unauthorised access to mobile devices and information systems the world over.
While saying that it is necessary to regulate these tools, Washington
is obviously trying to reserve the right to their use.
At the same time, they do not call into question the admissibility of e-spying,
if it is the doing of “democracies.”
We know they are free to do anything they want because they are exceptional.
Incidentally, judging by the fact that only 11 out of 74 participants in the summit
signed the joint statement on spyware,
even many of the closest US allies do not subscribe to this approach.
Where resistance to internet censorship is concerned,
the current US administration had better start with itself.
Before Joe Biden, the world never knew internet censorship on such a scale.
For example, why not make companies like Meta
(recognised as an extremist organisation in the Russian Federation)
or Google stop blocking numerous user accounts on information resources under their control?
Why not stop concealing from the public the web pages
that are ideologically disadvantageous for the United States?
Why not stop feeding politically biased content or encourage extremist comments?
As things stand, the United States is cancelling freedom of expression
and promoting a man-hating philosophy.
They do not moderate any xenophobic remarks that we hear about our country.
For them, this is normal content, including direct assassination calls.
Do you remember what it all began with?
A number of US platforms were recognised as extremist when they declared
that the calls to kill citizens of Russia “could be explained,”
for which reason they would not moderate their content.
And what do we hear after that?
The Biden administration says that its fine democracies can enjoy the rights and feel free online.
The implication is that those not on their A list will be moderated and clobbered on.
In other words, what the White House must really do is to stop restricting access
to information in violation of the generally recognised norms of international law
and, by the way, the First Amendment to the US Constitution.
On the whole, the notorious remarks addressed to the Summit for Democracy by US officials
are evidence that Washington is seeking to retain technological dominance
that is slipping from its hands.
Unable to keep it via an honest market competition, the US authorities are trying –
under the cover of political slogans – to push through their self-seeking interests.
But it’s a no-go affair, as is evident from the more than scanty results of the Washington get-together.
As promised, we continue to expand our White Books section about the crimes of Anglo-Saxons
and their satellites in different regions of the world.
Today we will cover the damage sustained by Iraq’s historical heritage
as a result of the US-led coalition’s aggression in 2003.
After US troops seized Baghdad on April 9, 2003, the city was subjected to indiscriminate plundering
and looting, including against the major landmarks in the capital.
The documentary footage of that activity was shown around the world.
The State Board of Antiquities and Heritage, the Iraq National Museum, the Iraq National Library,
the Triumph Leader Museum of state gifts presented to Saddam Hussein
are among the important facilities that sustained the most damage.
There is a record of numerous attempts by the US military to smuggle antiquities out of the country.
A great number of the artefacts taken out of Iraq during the occupation period
were stolen by international coalition officers and privates in line of duty,
including at the request of concerned US agencies and private collectors.
One example of the Anglo-Saxons’ barbaric treatment of foreign cultural values is Babylon,
one of Iraq’s ancient cities of huge archaeological importance
that suffered the most direct damage from the presence of the Western forces.
I understand that it may be hard to imagine but I will try to draw your attention to the fact
that during the occupation, the invaders built a large helipad in the city to make it easier to steal
and smuggle cultural values to their “beautiful garden.”
As a result, several archaeological landmarks were simply destroyed
and some were subsequently taken out of the country.
To protect the air base from shelling, the US military filled many containers with archaeological soil, thereby violating the integrity of archaeological landmarks.
Archaeologists, museum staff and cultural heritage specialists from several countries did their best
to draw the attention of the miliary command and the public to that problem,
but the helipad was only dismantled after the US troops pulled out.
According to John Russell, who served as an advisor on culture with the Coalition Provisional Authority (occupation administration) in Iraq in 2003-2004,
tens of thousands of antiquities from Iraq were openly sold on the US market,
and the law enforcement authorities didn’t show any interest in it even once.
The plunder of archaeological sites, as well as the looting of artefacts from museums
and libraries committed by the local population are serious crimes
that destroyed the country’s historical memory irretrievably,
and the blame for this lies entirely with the occupying authorities.
The US military intervention in 2003 unleashed a chain of cause and effect
that ultimately led to the atrocities committed by ISIS in Iraq after 2014.
To this day, local and international researchers are unable
to even roughly estimate the damage the terrorists dealt
to the country’s cultural and historical heritage.
I just cited examples of the Westerners destroying monuments
that may have been exported and possibly sold because of their value.
The same logic is behind the destruction of monuments
that cannot be sold or exported.
On March 31, vandals again desecrated the Soviet Army monument
in the centre of the Bulgarian capital.
That monument was seriously damaged in February.
Obviously, this new attack was triggered by the blasphemous initiative
to dismantle the monument recently proposed by pro-Western parties in the city legislature.
The Russian Embassy in Sofia sent a note to the Bulgarian Foreign Ministry
expressing extreme concern over the ongoing desecration of monuments
commemorating the common history of Russia and Bulgaria.
The note included a call to the Bulgarian authorities
to conduct a thorough investigation of all such incidents,
to hold the perpetrators accountable and prevent such criminal acts in the future.
We demand that the Bulgarian side comply with the provisions
on the preservation of war memorials and cultural monuments
contained in the August 4, 1992 Treaty of Friendly Relations and Cooperation
between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Bulgaria,
and the Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation
and the Government of the Republic of Bulgaria
on Cooperation in Culture, Education and Science of April 19, 1993.
These are Bulgaria’s international legal obligations that the country must respect,
not to mention the obvious moral side of this matter.
In reality, Bulgaria is blatantly and deliberately ignoring them
due to the aggressive Russophobic ideology adopted by NATO and the EU countries.
On the other hand, we have seen a reaction from the part of Bulgarian society
that carefully preserves the historical memory and its own traditions,
and honours the liberators’ feat.
Ordinary Bulgarians as well as political and non-governmental organisations are standing up
to protect the monuments because they understand that they are also protecting themselves.
They are paying for the damaged monuments’ repair.
We hope that they will be able to defend their beliefs and our common memorials.
When I mention the local population’s reactions to the demolition of monuments
and their effort to defend or repair them,
this certainly does not mean that Russia and our embassies are failing to make an input.
I was just emphasising that some of the things happening in Bulgaria,
and elsewhere in Eastern Europe for that matter,
do not reflect the common will of the people who live there.
There are people who protest against this, and there are quite a few of them.
But what they have to say rarely filters out of the local media or at the political level.
But there are many of them, and they are doing what they must.
April 6 marks International Day of Sport for Development and Peace.
It was established on August 23, 2013 by UN General Assembly Resolution 67/296.
With this document, the General Assembly confirmed the positive impact
that sport has on social and economic development,
its beneficial role in promoting peace and neighbourly relations between countries,
as well as human rights.
Of course, 10 years ago, when establishing the International Day of Sport,
the UN member states were guided by a noble mission, goals and intentions.
Back then, no one questioned that sport is a unique tool for developing
and strengthening social ties, and building mutually respectful interaction,
designed to bring people together and unite them, and not vice versa.
At the same time, we regret to note that recently sport has been increasingly used
by some Western countries in a distorted way, for their own opportunistic purposes.
We are again and again witnessing persistent attempts to politicise international sports cooperation,
put pressure on international sports organisations,
including the International Olympic Committee, and split the international Olympic movement.
We consider this unacceptable and contrary to the statutory goals
and ideals of the Olympic movement.
Russia has traditionally advocated the development of equal sport interaction
that fully meets the spirit and principles of Olympism and excludes politicisation and bias.
We stand for fair competitions, ensuring equal access for all countries
without exception for full participation in the Olympic and Paralympic movements.
On December 1, 2022, during the 77th session of the UN General Assembly,
the resolution “Sport as an enabler of sustainable development” was adopted by consensus.
The Russian Federation was among its co-sponsors along with 90 UN member countries.
The resolution says: “Major international sport events should be organised in the spirit of peace,
mutual understanding and international cooperation, friendship and tolerance,
and without discrimination of any kind, and that the unifying
and conciliative nature of such events should be respected.”
We hope that the ruling elites in the countries of the collective West will finally come to realise
that the approach envisaged in the resolution requires
that the vicious practice of defaming athletes on the basis of citizenship, nationality,
their views on issues of not only politics, but also religion, social order,
morality and ethics, be abandoned.
The United Nations announced International Day of Reflection
on the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda on April 7, 2003.
Estimates vary from 500,000 to 1.1 million people killed in that country
during the ethnic clashes in three months in 1994.
Up to 20 percent of the country’s entire population was killed.
These tragic events led not only to the death of a massive number of innocent people –
we mourn their sad fate along with the entire international community –
but also the destruction of the country’s economy and the further deterioration of a humanitarian crisis.
We have deep compassion for the national tragedy of the Rwandan people,
which took place 29 years ago.
Today, we have an opportunity to honour the memory of the victims.
This is a good time to think about how to prevent such inhuman atrocities.
We must work hard on countering any manifestations of nationalism, racial and religious intolerance.
This resolute position of principle is particularly relevant today.
On April 7, 2023, the World Health Organisation (WHO) will celebrate its 75th anniversary.
WHO is an important part of the UN system,
the main platform for international cooperation on public health.
WHO includes 194 countries that cooperate in countering infectious
and other diseases and in developing scientific knowledge.
The Russian Federation is an active participant in this work.
We have made sizable contributions to the development of global healthcare.
Russia’s domestic approaches to organising primary care, sanitary-epidemiological oversight
and healthcare for a mother and child have become accepted with WHO’s involvement
all over the world and have preserved the lives and health of millions of people.
We send our greetings to the World Health Organisation on this anniversary
and wish it new successes in the interests of the entire global population.
We hope the WHO member countries will manage
to preserve this unique format of cooperation
despite the turbulence of the international political system
and will pass on its traditions of depoliticised interaction,
scientific cooperation and professional communication to future generations.
The 25th International Festival of Russian Theatres, “Meetings in Russia”
will take place in St Petersburg on April 7-16, 2023.
It is devoted to the works of Alexander Ostrovsky, a great Russian playwright.
UNESCO has introduced the 200th anniversary of his birth
into its calendar of memorable dates for this year.
Theatres from Abkhazia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan will take part in the festival.
Russia will be represented by the Brovun Donetsk Academic Music and Drama Theatre.
The Fourth International Conference of the Association of Russian Theatre Workers Abroad
“Russian theatre abroad as an institution of Russian culture” will be one of the festival’s highlights.
It will take place on April 7-8.
The Festival, “Meetings in Russia” has been held every year since 1998.
It helps preserve the traditions of Russian drama and promotes cultural ties with Russian compatriots abroad.
It has been awarded with the Russian Government Prize in the field of culture.
April 10 is International Day of the Resistance Movement.
On this day, we honour the memory of the heroes who valorously stood up to the Nazi regimes
during WW2 and fought them in their own countries as well as in the occupied territories,
often putting their lives at mortal risk.
The people in France, Greece, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, Yugoslavia, Norway, Czechoslovakia
and other European countries rose to fight against the inhuman Nazi regimes.
Thousands of Soviet citizens and representatives of Russian diasporas
who had left the country after 1917 took an active part in many partisan operations
in European countries, above all, in France and Italy.
In total, more than 180,000 of our compatriots participated in the anti-fascist resistance,
including POWs who had escaped from Nazi concentration camps
as well as civilians carted off into Nazi slavery.
In northern Italy, there is high awareness of the heroism of Garibaldi Brigades,
including partisan units led by Fyodor Poletayev.
He was posthumously awarded the title of Hero of the Soviet Union.
I certainly must mention Daniil Avdeyev, member of the Italian resistance movement
nicknamed Comandante Daniele, who led the partisan battalion named after Stalin.
The identity of Gennady Adler-Scheglov (partisan name Alexander),
who fought in the 79th Garibaldi Vigano brigade, was not established until 2021.
The Group of the Museum of Man, a resistance network in France,
was created by Russian émigrés in 1940 and led by Anatole Lewitsky and Boris Vildé.
In 1943, the Central Committee of Soviet prisoners of war in France was created,
headed by Red Army Senior Lieutenant Mark Slobodinsky and Boris Matline, a French communist,
the son of Russian émigrés known as Colonel Laroche.
The legendary women’s partisan unit Rodina (Motherland)
fought in the region of the French town of Thil.
Its founders, Nadezhda Lisovets and Rozalia Fridzon, originally came from Soviet Belarus.
Vasily Porik’s unit fought the enemy in the vicinity of Lens.
(He was posthumously awarded the title of Hero of the Soviet Union.
Another unit that fought in France was the 1st Soviet partisan regiment
under the command of Major Alexander Kazaryan.
At least six partisan groups comprised of Soviet POWs and Russian émigrés
participated in the liberation of Paris.
A group led by Captain Steverov held the Bridge at Asnieres for 24 hours,
preventing German tanks from entering the city.
Another group of émigrés led by Lev Savinkov took the Soviet embassy
and hoisted a red flag over it.
All those courageous and selfless people had something in common –
their unwavering belief that the fascist ideology was unacceptable and contrary to human nature,
and determination to liberate their countries from the Nazi invaders.
In the USSR, the partisan movement in the occupied territories, its scale and effect,
posed a major obstacle to the enemy and became a symbol of popular resistance to aggression.
In total, 6,200 partisan units of up to 1 million Soviet and foreign nationals
operated behind enemy lines in 1941-1944.
They established “partisan areas” behind the front line,
which caused significant damage to the enemy’s rear services.
The armed struggle put up by partisans in the USSR and members of the resistance movement
in other countries made a great contribution to the victory over Nazism
and hastened the end of the bloodiest war in world history.
Employees of the People’s Commissariat for Foreign Affairs of the USSR
N.A. Pevtsov (died in battle in 1943), Pevtsov (died in battle in 1943), V.N. Shestakov, and I.A. Dementiev
also participated in the partisan movement.
Unfortunately, the WW2 lessons are easily forgotten today
and sacrificed to geopolitical considerations and certain regimes’ interests.
Attempts to rewrite history and glorify Nazi accomplices and collaborators
are becoming more and more numerous.
For some reason, they are not condemned in the countries
that have suffered the most from the Nazi invaders;
worse still, these tendencies are being promoted and supported by Russophobic forces.
A clear example of this is the various public manifestations glorifying Nazi accomplices and collaborators supported by the Kiev regime as well as the Baltic countries.
The International Day of Resistance Movement offers us an opportunity
to remember the true heroes of the fight against Nazism and give another thought
to what the ancestors of modern Europeans died for, allowing them to be alive right now –
is it still alive in Europe?
On April 11, the world marks the International Day of the Liberation of Nazi concentration camps.
This commemorative date was not chosen arbitrarily.
In fact, it was on April 11, 1945, that prisoners of the Buchenwald camp in Germany
staged a rebellion and held the camp until the arrival of the US Third Army.
An extensive network of concentration camps was created in Germany and on the occupied territories.
Millions of prisoners from European countries and the Soviet Union, prisoners of war and civilians,
were held in the camps in inhumane conditions.
Let us remember Auschwitz, Dachau, Majdanek, Mauthausen, Sachsenhausen, Ravensbrück,
Treblinka, Stutthof – the death camps where people were exterminated in horrendous ways.
On the Soviet territory, there were Salaspils, Alytus, the Ninth Fort of the Kaunas Fortress and Azarychy, where tens of thousands of – I’d like to simply say “people” – victims were held captive.
The prisoners were exploited in hard labour, used as expendables in horrific medical experiments,
burnt in crematoriums and killed in gas chambers.
I don’t know what was worse.
I don’t have a scale.
When they were herded together into barracks and burnt alive
or herded together into gas chambers and killed with gas.
Or when they, like outdated mechanisms, were taken apart, with teeth,
hair and skin collected in separate piles.
I don’t even know what was worse for them.
I know it was a catastrophe for the humankind.
According to some estimates, 11 million out of 18 million prisoners of Nazi concentration camps
were exterminated.
Liberation began in 1944 when on July 3, the Red Army
rescued prisoners of the Majdanek camp near Lublin (Poland) from death.
It was only then that the entire catastrophe and the gruesome scale of Nazi crimes became exposed.
Until then, many had doubts or, as they like to say these days, “had not watched television”
(of course, there was no television, and the media was different).
But the explanation was the same: they “did not see,” “did not know,” “did not read,”
“did not hear,” “did not listen” and “did not look deeper.”
Afterwards, everyone gasped with horror.
Many lived tranquil and uneventful lives in direct proximity, literally face to face,
in their lovely and beautiful homes.
They knew exactly what was built behind those fences and realised
that people were only confined there and never released.
They knew very well that the smoke rising above those places did not just come from thermal stations; in fact, those were prisoners turned by Nazis into black smoke.
They knew that and remained silent.
It was nice and convenient that way.
As I said in the beginning of the briefing,
many people today prefer to ignore terrorist attacks, grief and deaths.
Or they believe what they are shown and what has nothing to do with reality.
They are not asking questions because it is more convenient that way.
They believe that everything will work out in the end.
Human conscience cannot be exterminated.
It is inexterminable.
A moment will come for many in the West who prefer not to see, not to hear or read,
when they will no longer be able to turn a blind eye and the truth will reveal itself in its entirety.
And millions of people will ask questions.
I am certain that this moment will come, and those who were silent will have to answer.
They will even have to answer to themselves, because it will be impossible to live with it.
I want to finish this topic by reminding you
that the system of concentration camps in Germany was eliminated after the defeat of the Nazis
and condemned by the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg as a crime against humanity.
I would like to quote poet Alexander Sobolev.
He and composer Vano Muradeli wrote a song called The Buchenwald Alarm Bell,
which became a symbol of the fight for peace.
Hundreds of thousands burnt alive Line up, line up, In rows, shoulder to shoulder.
International columns Speak to us
People of the world, stand up for a minute!
Listen, listen It booms from all sides
There sounds in Buchenwald A bell ringing.
This date showed that in a new post-war era,
despite all the horrors experienced by humankind, people are able to unite,
and that they can rejoice all together and empathise despite rivalry.
April 12 is Cosmonautics Day.
We are proud to note that our compatriot Yury Gagarin flew the first manned space mission
and ushered in the Space Age in the history of humankind.
This year also marks the 60th anniversary of the near-Earth space mission
involving Valentina Tereshkova, the first woman in space.
Russia, the first country to start exploring outer space,
consistently advocates its peaceful development on an equitable and non-discriminatory basis.
We are committed to constructive cooperation with all parties involved in space activity.
Multilateral partnership within the framework of the International Space Station is a good example.
Twenty-five years on, the ISS remains the most ambitious
and most successful project in the field of space exploration.
Russia continues to play a key role in implementing the ISS programme.
We continue to advocate efforts to strengthen the role of the UN Committee
on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space
as a unique international venue for regulating a wide range of orbital activities.
Russia strives to preserve outer space
as a peaceful environment in strict compliance
with the norms and principles of international space law.
We welcome any initiatives and projects aiming to explore
and use outer space in the interests of the entire human race, rather than individual players.
Question: On Monday, a trial involving the so-called president of Kosovo Hashim Thaci,
charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity
committed during the war of independence against the Serbian armed forces,
opened at the Kosovo Specialist Chambers and the Specialist Prosecutor’s Office in The Hague.
Do you believe that the trial is fair and unbiased?
Maria Zakharova: As you have heard, much has been said
about the Kosovo conflict supposedly being a war for independence.
There is deliberate and unjustified glorification going on,
and they are trying to ennoble a situation that, in reality, amounted to protracted terror
by the undercover Kosovar Albanian bandits.
The Kosovo Specialist Chambers and the Specialist Prosecutor’s Office in The Hague
are currently getting to the bottom of those developments.
I would like to say that we clearly understand the current information game.
This is not some more prosaic thing, but something much more terrifying.
We can see the initial results of this body’s work
and their stated intention to conduct an unbiased trial.
In December 2022, Salih Mustafa, a commander of the Kosovo Liberation Army,
was found guilty of war crimes and sentenced to 26 years in prison.
Regarding Hashim Thaci and his co-defendants, the prosecution claims
that it has collected substantial evidence proving that they had established
an organised crime group for persecuting those whom they considered traitors and collaborators.
This implies the personal responsibility of ringleaders of the Kosovo Liberation Army
for committing war crimes and crimes against humanity in 1998-1999,
including abductions, torture and murders.
The evidence is to be presented on April 11.
To be honest, the current trial in The Hague is the last hope for justice for the relatives of people victimised by Kosovar Albanian henchmen and for those who managed to survive.
We hope that the Kosovo Specialist Chambers and the Specialist Prosecutor’s Office
will act professionally and in an unbiased manner,
and that they will pay due attention to witness protection issues.
Question: Can the Foreign Ministry comment on the defeat of Milo Dukanovic
in the presidential election in Montenegro and his losing power after 30 years?
Does Moscow expect any improvement in bilateral relations,
or should we not build up hopes because of Montenegro’s NATO membership?
Maria Zakharova: An election is a domestic affair for a country.
Let’s leave comments to experts and representatives of the country itself.
As for improving bilateral relations (as you asked), let me remind you
that Montenegro has been a member of NATO since June 2017.
It is bound by obligations and bloc discipline.
In fact, it is more than discipline – it is diktat.
You can see quite clearly that the headquarters in Brussels oversees compliance with this dictated will.
There is no room for having one’s own opinion.
And those who attempt to pursue a sovereign and independent policy
are immediately punished one way or another.
Restoring relations – and their level, as you know, is now at a historic low (if we stick to the facts) –
is a process possible only when there is intention and political will to resolve the issues,
problems and disagreements that have piled up over the years.
We do not harbour any illusions in this case.
We will act based on the specific steps that Podgorica is able to take in bilateral affairs.
We are open to dialogue.
But the dialogue we develop with all countries is based on equality, mutual respect, mutual benefit,
the international legal framework and bilateral agreements.
Question: Would you please comment on the new concept for a security zone
around the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant presented by the IAEA General Director?
Has Moscow reviewed its provisions?
Does Russia agree with the narrowing of the security zone according to this concept?
Maria Zakharova: We maintain a permanent dialogue with IAEA General Director Rafael Grossi concerning all aspects of the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant operation.
Since the very beginning, Russia has assisted with the implementation of Rafael Grossi’s initiative
on creating a zone for nuclear and physical security at the plant.
As you know, the dialogue has not developed smoothly –
and we have mentioned this multiple times.
But the main goal is clear to us and it is to do everything
to prevent the shelling of the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant by Ukraine
and prevent a disaster or a man-made catastrophe with unpredictable consequences.
Creating the zone is still largely hindered by the position of the Kiev regime
that is not ready to support the IAEA General Director’s efforts
and comply with its obligations not to attack.
Regarding the possible parameters of the zone or, in other words, its scope,
we continue to work on this matter.
Frankly, I believe it is too early to publicly reveal any specific details.
Let’s leave it to the negotiators and experts directly involved in this issue.
I can only assure you that consultations with the agency are ongoing.
Question: French President Emmanuel Macron visited China.
He said at a news conference that France would consider any country helping Russia an accomplice.
Can you comment on this statement?
Maria Zakharova: So much has been said on this subject today.
The trap that many EU countries have fallen into
is that they rarely give much thought to the capacity in which they are making their statements.
When they touch on international issues, they become hostages of collective accountability,
or, as they put it, “the EU’s common foreign policy.”
In reality, they are just hostages of diktat,
where they are forbidden to air any ideas in a national capacity.
Hence my question: is this France’s national foreign policy approach?
The second question: has it been coordinated with Brussels?
Third: What does Brussels think?
This is my first point.
Today, I heard a statement by EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy
Josep Borrell, who said Europe needed China in their beautiful “garden.”
They need a country they used to consider part of the wild “jungle.”
We understand perfectly well why the Westerners are making such statements.
It’s all about resources, finances and opportunities they now need so badly
to avoid collapsing into a localised Western recession.
Second, regarding Russia’s “aggression.”
Of all people, President of France Emmanuel Macron,
who has spent hours talking with the President of Russia Vladimir Putin,
should know every detail of Russia’s approach,
as well as the facts about the situation in Ukraine and around it.
Who, if not Emmanuel Macron as a Normandy format participant
(he was included in his capacity, not just representing France.
Although he was not behind the development of those agreements, he has been responsible for implementing them for years) would know how the West, in particular his country and he himself,
have failed in their commitments to implement the Minsk agreements.
Who knows better than Macron, the leader of a NATO member country,
how much effort the United States and the North Atlantic alliance have invested to destabilise Ukraine? If he doesn’t feel knowledgeable about this, why doesn’t he reread some of the NATO materials,
or those from his American allies, partners, or older brothers
(whatever their status in the relationship) before drawing any conclusions?
If a conclusion relies on facts (they have been provided to the French side many times
at the highest level, at the level of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Defence,
various special representatives, Russian diplomats, ambassadors, and others),
then this is just a substitution of concepts, hypocrisy and spreading lies.
As for the third aspect you mentioned, which I think is no less important –
any threats to countries that intend to help Russia,
to interact and cooperate with our country, are flagrant blackmail.
Honestly, there can be no explanation why anyone would talk like that with sovereign countries,
what grounds they might have or who authorised that sort of behaviour.
Nobody is entitled to act like this.
No country – no sovereign state like Russia or China, for example
(not that I would describe NATO or the EU member countries like that) –
would take such ultimatums, threats, or blackmail from anyone.
We are not bound by the sort of obligations that hold the NATO members together,
where they have to adopt policies that were never even discussed with them.
This has been happening more and more often with the NATO member countries lately.
No one has the right to behave like this with Russia, or with any other sovereign country.
Those countries should first learn how to implement their own sovereign independent policies,
defend their own national interests, or at least find out
who was behind the disruption of the gas pipelines that delivered the critical resources
for their beautiful “garden” to flourish.
When they summon up courage to resolutely raise this question for themselves, then others
will be able to take them seriously, as truly sovereign
and independent states warranted to lecture others.
As long as they do not even have the opportunity to ask each other
what happened on their own territory, or in the NATO area of responsibility,
what disrupted civilian infrastructure that ensured their well-being,
all the empty talk and threats are nothing but blackmail.
There is no serious discussion here.
Question: NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has announced Finland’s accession to the alliance, which will extend NATO’s border with Russia considerably.
What actions will Moscow take in response?
Will any security measures be taken?
What is Russia’s assessment of this latest development?
Maria Zakharova: I would like to point out that yesterday (April 4) the Foreign Ministry Statement
on Finland completing the process of joining NATO was published on the official website.
As for specific actions in response, the statement says
that “specific decisions regarding the build-up of defence capabilities
along Russia’s northwestern borders will depend on the specific terms
on which Finland joins NATO, including the deployment of NATO’s military infrastructure
and offensive weapons on its territory.”
This comment remains relevant.
If there is anything new from that side, we will definitely comment.
You know we won’t be far behind.
Question: President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko said that Minsk could ask Moscow
for strategic nuclear weapons in addition to the tactical nuclear weapons
whose deployment had been agreed upon.
What is Russia’s position on this issue?
Maria Zakharova: President of Russia Vladimir Putin has recently presented a detailed outline
of the parameters of Russian-Belarusian cooperation in the military nuclear sphere.
We proceed from the premise that Russia and Belarus are creating a single defence space
within the framework of their Union State.
We have the right to resolve any national security issues arising in connection
with the aggravation of external threats in the way that will best suit our interests.
The revamped Military Doctrine of our integration association with Belarus
has been in effect since November 2021.
Under the doctrine, the two countries consistently expand their military and military-technical cooperation.
Our further steps will be entirely commensurate with the evolution of the military strategic situation.
Regrettably, it continues to deteriorate at this stage,
primarily because of the policies and concrete actions taken by the United States and its NATO allies.
To reiterate: our military cooperation with Belarus, including in the nuclear sphere,
is fully in keeping with all of Russia’s international legal obligations.
Question: The Western countries have failed to comment on the terrorist attack at a St Petersburg café, which killed a Russian war correspondent.
Last year, they also kept silent about the assassination of Darya Dugina.
Can you comment on the Western reactions?
Maria Zakharova: I spoke at length about it earlier today.
We also discussed this on the day when the terrorist attack happened, killing our war correspondent.
This silence is already verging on complicity.
Let me explain why.
This is a signal to all those engaged in extremist and terrorist activities of this sort,
a signal implying, in all evidence, that they are doing the right thing,
if no one has denounced them in the West.
This encourages further heinous “feats of valour.”
It is not just appeasement, it truly verges on complicity.
Question: Yesterday (April 4), Finland officially joined NATO.
The Secretary-General of that military alliance declared
that it was necessary to maintain and further intensify military and economic support for Ukraine.
In the meantime, German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius is saying
that Berlin will not supply weapons from its arsenals to Kiev
over and above the military support projects that have been promised.
How would you assess the internal differences arising inside the alliance?
Maria Zakharova: As far as Finland is concerned, let me repeat that all the assessments
are contained in the Foreign Ministry Statement on Finland completing the process to join NATO.
I have nothing to add to it.
As for the differences inside NATO,
they are not so much internal divergences in the bloc as system-wide contradictions.
Real-world experience and the results of their activities are demonstrating
to the member countries of NATO and the EU
(now we regard the two as a monolithic conglomerate,
which, though not yet institutionalised, has a single philosophy and programme settings for the future) how counterproductive and dangerous what they are doing is.
Quite specific processes are unfolding in each country.
Their leaders are asking themselves whether they should go on doing
what they did and proceed along the trodden path or somehow start reassessing their contribution
to destroying global stability and security, including food security.
This is not only ideological rhetoric.
Mostly these are the results of their own steps and actions that they must now deal with.
Question: After Evan Gershkovich’s arrest, over 35 journalists and editors around the world
sent a letter in his defence to Russian Ambassador to the US Anatoly Antonov
via the Committee to Protect Journalists.
Will the Foreign Ministry react to this letter?
Maria Zakharova: Why should we react to the letter if we see how hypocritical its authors are?
If they had really supported free and independent journalism and this profession,
they would have probably paid attention to the recent assassination of a journalist.
You can call him whatever you like – a war correspondent or a man
that covered the situation in the region but he was a journalist.
Everyone knew him as such.
I haven’t seen either a collective or individual reaction from those who signed this letter.
So, frankly, this letter is of no significance to me.
Before April 2, I still paid attention to what these people said under the pretext of concern
for freedom of speech and this journalist.
Now I no longer have any interest in it.
It is impossible to talk about lofty ideas if you don’t see the obvious,
if you refuse to see a tragedy and express condolences.
When terrorist attacks took place in Paris and other cities of the NATO or EU members,
solidarity was expressed – avatars were changed on social media, there were photos of candles,
and central places were decorated in the colours of the flag of the country where people were killed.
We took part in this as well.
We did this sincerely, not because someone told us to do it on NATO’s instructions.
It was done out of feeling.
We expressed condolences, commented on the situation
and denounced terrorist attacks against journalists.
For instance, after what happened in the offices of Charlie Hebdo, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov
took part in a solidarity march.
But what reaction are we seeing from the journalistic community you mentioned
(yes, it is not the whole community but a certain part of it)?
Zero reaction and reluctance to discuss it or even take notice.
This shows that people are being segregated.
Some people are “good”, “proper” and “useful” whereas others are so-so
and it is not important what they are doing.
They do not deserve any attention.
If they treat us this way, their demands, requests and remarks
do not require a response on our part, either.
This doesn’t mean that I am not sympathetic and that if such tragedies, God forbid, happen again,
we will not express our sympathy.
We will express it as we always have.
It only means that we may also ignore such letters.
We will always answer questions because this is our profession.
But when something additional is required, we must see to what extent their reaction is reciprocal
and how sincere they are in their defence of freedom of speech and journalism.
Question: After the latest briefing, the Foreign Ministry reported that Gershkovich
will be guaranteed consular support.
Maria Zakharova: Consular support must be guaranteed by a country to its citizens.
We can provide consular access.
These are different things.
Question: Has an American diplomat visited Gershkovich?
(Not yet, according to the latest info).
Is there any sense of when this may take place?
Maria Zakharova: The issue of consular access is now being studied
and will be resolved in accordance with existing consular practice and Russian law.
You and your colleagues will certainly write about this.
Compare it to cases that show how the American authorities
behaved towards citizens of Russia and other countries in similar situations.
They behaved differently.
I will emphasise again that this issue is being studied
and will be resolved in accordance with consular practice and our laws.
Question: Japan’s Kyodo News agency has reported that China’s President Xi Jinping
“does not take either side” on the issue of the Kuril Islands,
whereas previously China took Japan’s side.
Does Russia have this information?
How would you comment on this statement?
Maria Zakharova: Comments on China’s position should be provided by its officials,
who do this promptly and very professionally.
As for Russia’s position, we never talked with Japan about which side the Kuril Islands belong to.
We provided arguments to repel Japan’s unsubstantiated claims to the South Kuril Islands
during the peace treaty talks,
which we are no longer conducting, according to the Foreign Ministry statement of March 21, 2022.
As for Russia’s position regarding Russian territories, you know it very well.
Question: Speaker of the National Assembly of Armenia Alen Simonyan has announced
that Armenia was notified and welcomed Warsaw’s decision
to increase its contingent in the EU mission deployed on the Armenian border in the summer.
During talks in Moscow, Foreign Minister of Armenia Ararat Mirzoyan said
that Yerevan had not refused to deploy a CSTO mission and was ready to accept observers.
Are you discussing this issue with Armenia?
How soon can a CSTO mission be sent to Armenia?
Maria Zakharova: Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov pointed out, following these talks,
that Russia is satisfied with Armenia’s interest in deploying the CSTO mission.
We are sure that this step will help stabilise the situation in the region.
Russia and our other allies are ready to do this.
Such decisions are coordinated and adopted at the top level of the CSTO,
that is, by decision of the Collective Security Council.
As for the timeframe, it depends on our Armenian colleagues.
As soon as they are ready, we will resume our practical efforts
to formalise the modalities of the CSTO observer mission.
So, the ball is in Armenia’s court.
Question (via interpreter): On Tuesday, India rejected attempts by Beijing
to change the names of some places, including in the “eastern state of Arunachal Pradesh,”
which China lays claim to.
What is Russia’s view on this matter?
Maria Zakharova: This is a matter of bilateral relations between India and China.
Whether it is a matter of cooperation and differences, I believe
that it would be correct for the parties themselves to comment on this matter.
I don’t think that Russia can comment on it.
Question: Will Russia raise the issue of Kiev’s terrorist activities at the UN Security Council
in connection with the murder of military correspondent Maxim Fomin (Vladlen Tatarsky)?
Maria Zakharova: That terrorist attack, which Russian law enforcement authorities are investigating,
will certainly be offered for discussion at the UN Security Council for a number of reasons,
which we mentioned today.
Russia’s Permanent Representative Office at the UN provides all the facts
which have to do with the UNSC agenda and the protection of our national interests in this UN platform.
Question: Russia’s Foreign Policy Concept highlights the issue of preventing cross-border damage
to the environment, primarily the introduction of pollutants
(including radioactive pollutants) into its territory.
What are the plans to prevent the importation and use of ammunition
with depleted uranium in Donbass and Ukraine?
Maria Zakharova: This is a hot issue.
We are doing our best to draw the international community’s attention, through bilateral channels
and international organisations alike, to the damage
that would be caused by depleted-uranium munitions.
It would be a disaster if this logic prevails.
You are aware of the historical examples.
We have mentioned them many times.
If our adversaries choose to make this irresponsible move, we have ways to respond,
of which President Putin unequivocally warned on March 25
during his interview with Rossiya-24 TV channel.
We always do our best and engage in the negotiating process and political and diplomatic efforts
in order to stave off negative scenarios.
But if this irresponsible criminal logic prevails, then plan B will be used.
Question: The Foreign Policy Concept addresses international information security
and the strengthening of Russian sovereignty in the global information space.
How do these two areas (security and sovereignty) apply to your work
and the work of the Foreign Ministry in general?
Maria Zakharova: Ensuring international information security and strengthening sovereignty
in the global information space are the basic strategic guidelines
underlying the policy of the Russian Federation.
We believe each state has sovereignty within its information space,
including the internet, which is regulated by national laws.
However, we have to uphold even this quite natural right in the international arena
and the diplomatic and political fields, and in our legal and practical activities.
The United States and its NATO allies have adopted the practice of violating other countries’ sovereignty and interfering in their internal affairs, and are increasingly using the ICT to do so.
This is mainly done through transnational corporations.
Western IT companies such as the extremist Meta, as well as Google and Microsoft,
whose products and services are used around the world,
are stubbornly pursuing Washington’s ideological agenda
while ignoring the requirements of national legislations.
It is not clear whether they are operating under US laws.
I am trying to understand to what extent they are in compliance with their own laws
when they use various kinds of blocks, promote information, mark accounts, etc.?
I do not think anyone has analysed it yet.
We see how bitter this struggle is, including the economic factor of pressure and political tools.
It is difficult to tell who is on which side, or who wants what.
In the heat of the political battle, everyone forgot about the law and legislation,
and the battle is on with them being oblivious of their obligations to US national laws.
Ensuring the security of national information resources, including, primarily,
critical information infrastructure sites,
is inextricably linked with the strengthening of digital sovereignty.
This is critical in the context of the unprecedented number of computer attacks
coming from Ukraine with the logistical support of its Western curators.
In contacts with its foreign partners and on multilateral platforms,
Russia consistently advocates the creation of a fair system of international information security
relying on a universal agreement that would regulate the activities of the states in the sphere of ICT, guarantee their equality and respect for each country’s sovereignty.
The concept of a convention on ensuring international information security
presented by Russia to the UN contains some related groundwork on this account.
Rest assured (this is rather within the purview of other agencies more than the Foreign Ministry)
that we can protect ourselves in practical terms.
Question: It was reported that the UK was dropping
two of the three original charges against Mikhail Fridman.
Why do you think the banker deserved this pardon?
Maria Zakharova: This question should not be addressed to us.
Mikhail Fridman did not ask the Russian Embassy in London for consular or any other assistance.
The British side did not respond to requests from the Russian Embassy.
It is not known for certain what is going on there.
I have seen a lot of speculation in the British media.
It would be better to pose your question to the parties you mentioned, not us.
Question: Montenegro has not excluded the suspension of visa-free travel for Russian citizens.
Has the Foreign Ministry received any communication from Montenegro on the fact
that they are developing such an initiative?
Maria Zakharova: In recent years, the leadership of that country has not hidden the fact
that its main goal is to join the European Union as soon as possible.
Podgorica has joined all the illegal restrictive measures taken by Brussels against Russia,
explaining its policy by its obligations as an EU candidate country.
I do not think they will have the inner courage to be guided by their national interests
while addressing other issues as well.
Most likely, under pressure or in pursuing its goal to join the EU, their foreign policy
will be based less on their own national interests, and more on submission to Brussels’ dominance.
Question: Back in March, President of the European Council Charles Michel
said the European Council should decide
on starting the negotiating process on Ukraine and Moldova’s accession before the end of 2023.
However, at a recent news conference held in Brussels ahead of the NATO ministerial meeting,
Jens Stoltenberg said that the issue of Ukraine’s membership would not matter
if it didn’t get the upper hand in the military conflict,
noting specifically that the advisers are far from achieving the goal of 65 billion euros in military aid.
According to The Financial Times, the letter of accession and the application are already on the table.
But the alliance is ignoring it.
How does the Foreign Ministry assess the likelihood of Ukraine’s accession under these circumstances? Maria Zakharova: These questions are better directed elsewhere.
They should be addressed to these entities.
Do you seriously believe anyone in the EU is interested in seeing Ukraine getting there?
Or, is anyone really thinking about the interests of the people of that country
or about observing their rights or keeping up with the obligations to the people
who have been lured and enticed there for so many years?
Of course, not.
The only thing they are thinking about is to have the Kiev regime follow their plans
which include opposition to Russia and aggression against our country.
You’ve seen a list of demands where we are supposed to “disappear,” “be cancelled”
and “destroyed and shattered to pieces.”
This is what they expect the Kiev regime to do.
Nothing else.
Hence, total censorship in Ukraine.
Now, even Western journalists have felt the pinch.
Now they know that if they go to Ukraine to cover a story, an SBU officer
will follow them everywhere and sift through the material
to separate “correct” information from “incorrect.”
Why do that?
So as to keep a lid on the voice of reason (I’m not even talking about conscience) and self-preservation.
Only one voice can be heard, that of Vladimir Zelensky.
You see? He is an out-of-touch sickly little man who is not even his own man,
and he keeps destroying everything and everyone around him and is expected
to follow a certain scenario.
True, no one – neither the Ukrainian people, nor Ukrainian politicians –
were asked for their opinion when the plan was being drafted.
They are not part of it.
Only those who were nominated by Washington, London or Ottawa,
or were recruited from within the Baltic countries
and the post-Soviet space according to the White House-approved list, will be part of it.
No one was asked about their preferences.
People were zombified with promises that Ukraine will “now” or “soon”
or “before you know it” be an equal member of the EU and all the benefits will flow from there.
They even allowed Ukrainians to travel to Europe visa-free.
Truth be told, everyone in Europe was shocked.
We understand that this was done for the Ukrainians to take the bait.
As soon as the global plan to turn the conflict into an all-out confrontation was set in motion,
the rhetoric regarding Ukraine’s membership and participation became completely different.
Help is provided not for the purposes of economic revival, or civilian goals and objectives.
It is used to ensure that bloodshed and confrontation lasts as long as the West needs
so that Russia ceases to exist.
This is their old dream.
Let’s proceed from a realistic assessment of what is happening.
If you want to compare what they said earlier and what they are saying now,
ask them to comment on their own statements.
The Westerners are now even refusing to supply the weapons they promised to supply.
They say that it’s “too expensive” and that they “are not up to the challenge,”
and rebuilding efforts or rebuilding plans are definitely not part of the responsibility of only the EU
or the Western countries, and that the entire world should pitch in.
Current EU leadership continues its attempts at geopolitical development of the post-Soviet space
and seeks at any cost (even at the cost of EU stability)
to subsume as many countries as it can into its orbit.
This does not mean giving them a good life.
These are two separate issues.
EU propaganda is working hard to incite bellicose anti-Russia sentiment in the EU member countries,
all the more so as people in the European countries practically have no access
to alternative points of view or independent media.
As for the countries that can’t wait to become EU members,
please note what its current leaders have turned the EU into.
This once successful, truly prosperous, non-militarised and inherently integration project
has morphed into a military-political association, not even independent at that,
but subordinate to the anti-Russia goals of the United States and NATO.
The EU is pursuing a confrontational and essentially neo-colonial policy on a global scale
as it ignores one of the fundamental UN Charter principles of the sovereign equality of states.
It is using its economic weight (or rather, what is left of it) as a weapon in a hybrid war in an effort
to ensure the hegemony of the West.
Without a doubt, the fact that this aggressive military-political entity is moving closer to Russia’s borders does not bode well for European or global security and instead is provoking more tensions
on the continent and around the world.
It remains unclear how the process of Moldova’s rapprochement with the EU
correlates with the 1993 Copenhagen criteria for accession to the EU,
which prioritise observance of democratic principles by the candidate countries.
Where are these democratic principles to be found now?
Moldova is led by a person with a Romanian passport
who “rewrote” the Moldovan language into Romanian and is doing things
that run counter to the national interests of that country.
Where is democracy here?
Media outlets are being closed and alternative points of view are being blocked.
The above 1993 document talks about respect for rights and freedoms,
as well as efforts to strengthen the economy and the social sphere.
Who is observing any of that?
Is it Moldova or Ukraine?
Who, where and to what extent?
Probably, this is about assigning an SBU officer to a foreign correspondent upon their arrival in Ukraine.
Is that a step towards compliance with these criteria?
Chisinau is pursuing the opposite kind of policy and is cleaning up the country’s internal political space from any manifestations of dissent and persecuting opposition politicians and media in the process.
The socioeconomic situation is crumbling.
Look at Moldova taking steps towards EU membership.
It is not following the path of strengthening the economy and democracy
or developing the social sphere, but the path of power centralisation, censorship
and total control over the entire socio-political space.
It is using various intimidation and pressure methods on the opposition in order to get there.
This is directly opposite to earlier announced criteria.
Things in Ukraine are even worse.
However, Moldova is following the path of Zelensky.
Perhaps, they know what they are doing.