On May 4 and 5, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will take part in the meeting
of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation’s Foreign Minister Council in India.
In this format, the foreign ministers will focus on preparing the agenda for the next meeting
of the SCO Heads of State Council, to be held on July 3 and 4 in New Delhi.
Among other things, they will review the corresponding draft documents and resolutions.
The ministers will also exchange views on topical matters on the international and regional agenda.
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov is also scheduled to hold a series of bilateral meetings.
Today we mark nine years since the proclamation of the Lugansk People’s Republic.
In 2014, its people, together with residents of Donetsk, said no in a single voice
to the anti-constitutional nationalist coup in Kiev
and stood up to defend the rights, freedoms, interests and historical values
of Donbass, a Russian-speaking region.
On May 11, 2014, the LPR held its self-determination referendum,
and went on to declare state sovereignty on May 12, 2014.
Throughout these years, people from Lugansk maintained unbreakable bonds with Russia,
their historical homeland.
In the end, this determined their decision to become part of the Russian Federation
following the September 2022 referendum.
We took note of yet another extremist statement by Mikhail Podolyak,
adviser to the head of the Office of the President of Ukraine.
On April 25, speaking on the Ukrainian television network TSN, he said that Kiev,
“from a legal perspective, has the right to destroy anything in Crimea, Lugansk, Donetsk,
and the Zaporozhye and Kherson regions.” Even if this is already obvious to everyone,
this logic is not just about destruction, but about exterminating everything and anyone
who refuses to submit or fall in line, or anything at odds with this nationalist logic.
This is the gist of the Kiev regime’s ideology.
I would like to thank Mr Podolyak for acknowledging this yet again in public and reaffirming
that they no longer try to hide what we have been saying all along over these past eight years.
There was a time when we were told that we were imagining things.
No, this was not the case.
Today, they are open about destruction and extermination, and say so without hiding anything.
It may be that they do not have the strength or simply cannot contain themselves anymore.
These days, however, they talk about what they call rights and legal grounds.
They do not care whether they have them or not.
They will destroy anyway.
This demonstrates yet again Vladimir Zelensky’s actual attitude towards these regions of Russia
and the people living there, while saying that he intends to liberate them.
For them, this probably means exterminating these people.
Representatives of the Kiev regime use devastating attacks and the merciless extermination
of civilians as their operational methods.
We accused them of being neo-Nazis and having a propensity
to reincarnate the fascist practices of the past.
There was a time when these practices existed on these territories, and today they are coming back.
Representatives of the Kiev regime have been open about this.
Remember the atrocities committed on occupied Soviet territory?
At the time, the idea of exterminating all people living there was also in the air.
This is exactly what Mikhail Podolyak said.
Their ideological followers among Ukrainian neo-Nazis have adopted these practices.
For them, these are alien lands, and alien people.
In these conditions, the people of Crimea, Donbass, Kherson and Zaporozhye
made a timely decision to reunite with Russia.
In fact, this was the only right decision, as time has shown.
Russia can defend its nationals and stave off any enemy.
May 2 marks nine years since the Odessa tragedy, which culminated in the bone-chilling atrocities
at the Trade Unions House.
Ukrainian nationalists and radicals intentionally set it on fire with opponents
of the new government blocked inside.
Several dozen people were burned alive.
Those who started the fire looked on and rejoiced in the fact
that people were about to perish in flames.
The horrible images of burnt corpses circled the globe.
Horrific in their cruelty, photos and videos of people jumping from the windows and neo-Nazis
finishing off the wounded on the ground produced an even greater shock.
Having said that, let us go back to what Mikhail Podolyak, who represents Vladimir Zelensky’s office, said about destroying and exterminating people and having the right to do so.
In Odessa, too, this was a choice rather than a matter of law.
I could have said that they answered the call of their hearts, but people like this have no heart.
In fact, the Kiev regime repeated what the Bandera punitive troops did 80 years ago in Khatyn, Belarus.
The only difference was that the building had a stronger structure this time.
This time, however, they also filmed it all on their phones and cameras.
This time, we have colour images, too.
However, a comprehensive investigation into these events never happened,
and the culprits were never held to account.
Moreover, many of those who were caught on camera and could be identified as taking part
in killing people not only remained free, but went on to become public figures in Ukraine,
where the state positions itself as a “flagship of democracy” in the region.
Only people of that kind could climb up the social ladder in this atmosphere of lawlessness,
police brutality, authoritarianism and gross human rights violations.
To divert attention, the authorities in Kiev have found a “scapegoat” in the person
of former Public Safety Police Chief Dmitry Fuchedzhi.
On April 18, 2023, the Primorsky District Court in Odessa sentenced him to 15 years in prison in absentia for organising mass riots and abusing his official authority, thus causing tragic developments.
This suggests that setting people on fire is the same as abusing one’s official authority, and that killing people who jump out of windows apparently equates to “mass riots.” This is how things work there.
This situation will continue.
They can only be stopped; they will never change their minds.
It appears that the results of the April 21 meeting of the Ukraine Defence Contact Group in Ramstein, Germany, have deeply disappointed the Kiev regime.
We can hear the statement from their “diplomat” Andrey Melnik.
The meeting participants did not promise the long-awaited aircraft, long-range missiles
or other offensive weapons systems.
Ukrainian Deputy Foreign Minister Andrey Melnik, known for his inappropriate statements
while serving as Ambassador to Germany, stated with open irritation the other day
that current military assistance volumes were not enough,
and that the Kiev regime needed ten times more.
According to Melnik, their partners should cross the artificial red lines and allocate 1 percent
of their GDPs for military supplies.
Kiev’s appetites are growing exponentially.
The NATO countries have already allocated over 65 billion euros for the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
They continue to train Ukrainian service personnel.
On April 24, 2023, John Kirby, Coordinator, Strategic Communications, US National Security Council, said that the United States was training Ukrainian military battalions outside the country,
and that they were mastering so-called combined arms manoeuvres.
These manoeuvres will combine mechanized infantry units with weapons and air defenses,
allowing them to operate on open terrain.
According to Kirby, last week alone, the Kiev regime received equipment worth $325 million.
The United Kingdom has sent thousands of shells for Challenger-2 tanks to Ukraine,
including depleted uranium filled shells, without concern for the negative consequences of using them.
Yesterday, they openly admitted that the Kiev regime had already received these shells,
that they were not responsible for their use or any possible consequences.
This is correct.
They see Ukraine as a tool and a testing site.
They care nothing about what is happening there.
In their own words, their only purpose is to inflict a strategic, military and economic defeat
on Russia on the battlefield.
The territory called Ukraine, the Kiev regime and the people of Ukraine do not interest them
except in this context.
They have absolved themselves of any responsibility for local developments.
The West says openly that they will do everything possible
to facilitate a successful Ukrainian counteroffensive, supposedly due to begin in the near future.
They are not hiding the fact that they are behind all these plans.
They have repeatedly noted their involvement in tactical target acquisition,
and now they are creating a strategic disposition.
Representatives from the “collective West” are also demanding openly
that Russia sustain the maximum possible losses.
So, they are reaffirming their direct involvement in the conflict once again.
The Ukrainian regime continues to use terrorist methods during the hostilities.
Ukrainian neo-Nazis constantly set up firing positions and ammunition depots in schools,
hospitals and residential buildings.
They use civilians as human shields and do not hesitate to shoot refugees.
Ukraine’s special services are organising more and more terrorist attacks
using explosives on Russian territory.
On April 24, 2023, the Kiev regime tried to attack the Black Sea Fleet base in Sevastopol
using unmanned speedboats.
Experts believe that the drones were probably launched from Odessa, and that they sailed
via a humanitarian corridor reserved for implementing the Black Sea Initiative.
The West is now becoming increasingly concerned about extending this initiative.
These criminal actions by the Kiev regime seriously impact the so far valid grain deal.
Vladimir Zelensky has proposed holding a face-to-face summit in Kiev on May 8-9, timed to coincide with the anniversary of the end of World War II – this new initiative looks like a cynical mockery
of history and the memory of our ancestors.
I just wonder if they will hang banners of Stepan Bandera and other Nazi collaborators along the streets the motorcades will use, or maybe in the building? Is this how they will mark the anniversary?
If they introduce public holidays and name streets in honour of those collaborators,
why not go through with this? The idea of the event is to draw a parallel
between historical Nazi aggression and the developments in present-day Ukraine.
There are some similarities indeed, but not the ones that Zelensky is talking about.
They are obvious: Nazi collaborators are being praised and their “feats” glorified,
and a neo-Nazi logic is being instilled under these same accolades.
They seem to want to turn everything upside down.
This is the Ukrainian neo-Nazi way of marking the revenge of nationalist ideology.
We consider such “gatherings” (if this event actually takes place) a blasphemous mockery
of the memory of the peoples of the former USSR, which suffered enormous losses.
Historians are still unsure of the exact death toll: how many people not just perished,
but were exterminated deliberately.
After all, Adolf Hitler and his supporters all professed this ideology.
He had many supporters in Europe.
A conscious and deliberate extermination of people who were of no value to Nazi Germany
or fascist Italy, or who stood in the way of natural resources and rich lands.
Today, Mikhail Podolyak said they had a legal right to kill the people inhabiting these territories.
They have the same ideology, and that’s why they need this “summit.” I would like to remind you
(I’m not sure this will reach the Kiev regime) that September 3 marks the end of World War II (1945), and May 9 marks the victory over Nazi Germany.
It was on this day that the Great Patriotic War of the peoples of the Soviet Union ended.
The relevant resolution by the UN General Assembly indicated two dates, May 8 and 9,
as victory anniversaries.
Has anyone read this? They have no time.
They are busy exterminating the people, and they aren’t even hiding it.
Vladimir Zelensky’s own grandfather fought against the Nazis.
I dread to imagine what he would say to his grandson if he could see what is happening now.
The Kiev regime continues its sanctions war against Russia.
On April 22, restrictive measures were introduced against 100 more individuals and 320 legal entities.
This time, the blacklist includes the defence industry – automation, electronics, instrument
making companies, their partners, including foreign ones,
as well as all our parliamentary political parties.
The Ukrainian authorities continue to churn out ideas on how to strengthen the anti-Russia sanctions.
On April 25, they presented a certain plan of action developed by head of Zelensky’s office
Andrey Yermak and former US Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul
(this one has a finger in every pie).
This group of “thinkers” did not come up with anything new.
They proposed extending the illegal restrictions to Russian uranium, metallurgical products, jewelry, every oil and gas company, including Gazprom, introducing full taxation on Western oil
and gas companies that have remained in Russia, blocking our country’s access to foreign oil
and gas services, and cutting off the export of high-tech products that “help the Russian military.”
In addition, personal sanctions might affect the leadership
of the Rosatom state atomic energy corporation.
Such inappropriate decisions and proposals by the Kiev regime once again prove
that Russia has been pursuing the right policy for the de-Nazification and demilitarisation of Ukraine
and the elimination of security threats emanating from that country,
and the protection of the population.
I would like to draw your attention to the fact that another report by the Russian Ministry
of Foreign Affairs on the human rights situation in Ukraine has been published on our website.
It notes that the situation with regard to promoting and protecting human rights in Ukraine
has deteriorated markedly over the past year and a half,
and the trends evident in this area are cause for serious concern.
The systematic suppression of human rights, opposition and dissent in Ukraine has become
an actual deliberate policy of the Kiev regime since 2014,
with one of its aims being to fight against anything related to Russia on any front.
This is evidenced by the many documented cases of serious human rights violations in all spheres
of public life, and the unwillingness to do anything to rectify this disastrous state of affairs.
Moreover, lately, under the guise of martial law, the Kiev regime has established
an authoritarian system of government, characterised by absolute usurpation of power,
extrajudicial killings, strict censorship, the virtual elimination of independent media
and political opposition, total government propaganda, an active search for traitors
and imaginary Russian spies and saboteurs among those who are not.
In addition, the Kiev regime’s campaign against the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church has reached
an entirely new level of cynicism and hypocrisy.
We can all see that this is not just a political behind-the-scenes struggle, but a real attempt
to destroy the Orthodox Church, a total ban on it
and a large-scale wave of seizing the church buildings that belong to the Church.
A state of war and the use of the widest range of repressive measures are necessary for those
who are now in charge in Kiev as the only and most certain way of sustaining their own existence.
This requires suppression of any dissent, even that which is not regulated by the executive branch, namely faith and religion.
At the same time, no steps are being taken to address the serious human rights abuses that exist,
not even an attempt.
The only area in which the Kiev authorities are taking the initiative is the glorification of Nazism
and the distortion of history.
Here they have no equal.
All of these negative manifestations, which are also supported by extensive evidence,
are reflected in the report published on the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs website.
I recommend that everyone familiarise themselves with this document.
I urge representatives of the media, international analysts and political scientists to read it without fail.
As for the global scale of hypocrisy in the context of what is taking place in Ukraine
under the guidance of the collective West, I’d like to say a few words about a Spanish reporter.
This story is directly connected with the situation in Ukraine,
the actions of the collective West and their ideology.
We have taken note of a story about Spanish journalist Pablo Gonzalez
published in the April 9 issue of Publico, one of Portugal’s popular newspapers.
According to the article, Ukrainian security services started suspecting Gonzalez,
a reporter for Spanish television channel La Sexta in Ukraine, before the special military operation
of publishing reports that clashed with the official propaganda of the Kiev regime.
Despite pressure and threats, Gonzalez continued to act professionally,
providing objective information on the situation in Ukraine.
In late February, he moved to Rzeszow, Poland,
where he planned to cover the life of Ukrainian refugees.
What happened to him there? He was detained by Polish security services without any charges.
He has been held behind bars for more than a year.
The maximum three-month pretrial detention term for such cases has been extended several times.
Over that period, Pablo Gonzalez has only once been allowed to see his wife.
The newspaper has reported that neither intervention by Spanish diplomats nor the discussion
of the journalist’s case by the Spanish and Polish prime ministers have helped settle the issue.
This outrageous situation has been described in the Portuguese media community as the first case where an EU member state has imprisoned a journalist from another member state
without presenting charges.
Can you imagine that? A few more words about total hypocrisy.
American journalist Evan Gershkovich was caught red-handed.
The documents needed to prove the charges have been provided, including to the general public.
We have received letters from the editorial boards on this issue, including from European publications.
Media outlets in Italy, Spain, Portugal, Germany and other countries
have called on Russian ambassadors to take note of the situation and do something.
This is what I would like to ask these European and EU publications.
Gershkovich is an American journalist who was caught red-handed in Russia.
When will you start sending your editorial boards’ collective letters over the arrest of your journalists
in Poland to the ambassadors of Poland in your countries, for example? When will you raise the issue
at UNESCO? This question is not just meant for EU publications
but also for the officials of EU governments.
When will the case of the Spanish journalist in a Polish prison be discussed at international venues
and organisations? Will you discuss it in the form of a PACE resolution?
Or will you give the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought to him? No? Not interested?
Is his plight not a matter of concern to you? Why? He is your journalist.
But the EU countries don’t care.
They care about an American journalist only because he attempted to obtain secret documents
in an illegal way.
The collective West’s declarations of concern about journalism, journalists and freedom of the media are not worth a nickel.
They – the “collective EU” – don’t even want to discuss this Spanish journalist,
let alone do something to have him released from prison.
Only the Portuguese newspaper has written about him.
Where are all the others? This is a crying example of double standards, a policy that is widely practiced in the West when a journalist’s opinion diverges from the Washington-approved line.
Moreover, it is a textbook example of how their own journalist can be imprisoned
and written off as a meddlesome factor.
Nothing has been done to attract public attention to his fate.
The West, which accuses Russia of every mortal sin, including the persecution of journalists,
is very skillful at getting rid of independent journalists and sweeping its media environment
clean as soon as they notice any attempt to provide an alternative view on Ukraine-
related developments.
On April 25, 2023, Swedish authorities made yet another unfriendly move against Russia
by declaring five Russian diplomats personae non grata.
It is notable that these hostile actions are part of a large-scale propaganda and political campaign
being waged by the Swedish media with support from security services
and in close cooperation with other North European countries in the traditional
for the collective West spirit of “highly likely,” and include the exposure of alleged “spies”
operating in Northern Europe.
I keep asking the EU collectively and every EU member country separately, as well as Britain
and the United States, especially after the publication of such articles, when they are going
to publish the data about their security service members on the staff of their embassies.
That would be honest.
And after that we will be able to discuss the matter.
We regard the Swedish authorities’ decision as part of their increasingly confrontational policy
towards Russia.
As you know, these actions will not go unanswered.
On April 28, 2004, the CBS 60 Minutes ran a story about US servicemen abusing prisoners
in the notorious Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
After Washington and its allies invaded Iraq in 2003 under a false pretext and without any provocation, the majority of Iraqis accused of “crimes” against the Western coalition forces
were sent to that prison near Baghdad.
Think about it: the Western coalition that attacked Iraq set up a prison for those
who were accused of attacking foreign coalition forces.
I would like to remind you that after September 11, 2001,
the United States legalised the use of torture against terrorism suspects.
This is not a joke.
The decision has been formalised by the American legislature.
Torture has been widely used at the Guantanamo concentration camp
and in special CIA prisons around the world.
In a way, Abu Ghraib was the testing ground where prisoners were subjected to abusive treatment
such as beating, waterboarding, rape, the use of unmuzzled dogs to torment prisoners, noise torture, sleep and food deprivation, electric shocks and other physically
and psychologically degrading treatment.
The so-called US “military personnel” did not regard Iraqi prisoners as human beings.
Real soldiers in a regular army don’t do and are not allowed to do such things.
Those who do it exceed their powers and violate their status as members of a regular army.
The Iraqis who survived in that slaughterhouse have been maimed for life.
They cannot forget the nightmare existence at Abu Ghraib.
One of the inmates said that after release he was filled with dread every time
he saw Americans in the street, fearing that they would put him back into that prison
and torture him again.
He said that memories of torture did not let him sleep,
and that he seems to be still hearing the prisoners’ cries.
Information about the use of torture in Abu Ghraib became public knowledge,
largely thanks to US journalist Seymour Hersh, who is now trying to draw public attention
to the terrorist attacks on the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines.
He published a story about Abu Ghraib, in which he not only asked questions but also made accusations against the countries, regimes and individuals who were guilty of those crimes.
It was thanks to Seymour Hersh that the world learned
that only 11 US servicemen had been declared guilty of using torture.
Eleven is more than one, the one person who has been found guilty of setting fire
to the House of Trade Unions in Odessa [on May 2, 2014].
This is better than nothing, but do they think we will believe that those 11 US servicemen
were the only ones to torture prisoners? The majority of them were given short,
I would even say symbolic, prison terms.
Those who held high positions in the administration and the Pentagon have not been called
to account despite ample evidence that implicated them in torture-related crimes.
Then US Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld later wrote that he had no regrets
over the way the Pentagon conducted interrogations on Iraq.
Torture at Abu Ghraib is a quintessential example of the US policy
of discrimination and double standards in the area of human rights.
It has been doing this systematically, including in Guantanamo where inmates are subjected
to inhuman treatment to this day, despite the numerous appeals by the international community
to shut down that prison and numerous US politicians’ promises to do it.
Easter, the recent Christian holiday, has brought back a memory of World War II –
one of the many unsightly facts from the history of that war
that the Americans and the British have been trying to hush up for years.
On April 16–17, 1944, when Orthodox Christians celebrated Easter, British and American air forces bombed Belgrade, the capital of Yugoslavia, which was under Nazi occupation at the time.
In Serbian history books, the incident is known as “Bloody Easter.” Given the importance of Belgrade
as a major industrial centre and transport hub, the Anglo-Saxons justified
that bombing by military necessity.
They claim they hoped to disrupt the supply of Romanian oil to Germany
and to hinder the supplies of the Wehrmacht group in Greece.
However, for some incomprehensible reason, the Allied command did not take into account
(or simply ignored) the fact that the air raid was planned for Orthodox Easter Day.
Belgrade went through a lot in the 20th century, and later, too.
According to contemporaries, the airstrikes began during a festive church service.
Bombs fell haphazardly in different parts of the city.
The assault led to a large number of civilian casualties, including women and children.
Modern historians estimate that more than 2,000 civilians died in Belgrade alone.
The bombing provoked a massive exodus from the capital of Yugoslavia,
where many historic buildings were reduced to ruins.
Every year, all Orthodox churches in Serbia commemorate April 16, 1944,
a tragic day for the Serbian people, with memorial prayers.
In the collective consciousness of the Serbs, those bombings once again confirmed
the Westerners’ reputation as inhuman beings who cannot be stopped by any humane considerations from achieving their own goals.
And every time they use some humane pretexts, you just know
there is some cold calculation behind them.
In Serbia’s history, a Western bombing happened again at the end of the 20th century,
when NATO launched an operation against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in March-June 1999.
We have noted the start of an investigation against former Australian Special Air Service Regiment (SAS) soldier Oliver Schulz, suspected of premeditated murder of an Afghan farmer
in the Uruzgan province in 2012.
His arrest and the charges against him have no precedent in the history of justice in Australia.
As far as we know, this is the first murder charge to be brought
against a serving or former military member in that country
concerning crimes committed during deployment to Afghanistan.
And they committed countless crimes there.
It is regrettable that for all these years, the defence department of the “green continent”
has been making every effort to hide the atrocities committed by its representative.
They relied on the patently false circumstances in their investigation
and neglected the numerous testimonies of witnesses.
The Australian soldiers’ conspiracy of silence was only exposed due to a video
from Schulz’s helmet-mounted camera, which was widely publicised.
The camera captured the killing of an unarmed young Afghan who was unable to resist.
We would like to remind Canberra that the vaunted Australian justice system is stalling the cases
of 25 other servicemen who illegally killed 39 Afghan civilians between 2009 and 2013.
As usual, the world learned about the atrocities committed by the Australian “democratisers”
only thanks to the investigations by independent experts.
As to the “independent” Australian media – which claim to be independent, especially
as opposed to media from other countries, including Russia – they have been trying to evade this issue.
We would like to talk once again about the ubiquitous “freedom of speech,”
Australian and Anglo-Saxon style.
The Australian authorities have sentenced military lawyer David McBride to 50 years in prison
for exposing the crimes committed by Australian soldiers in Afghanistan,
which, in fact, caused such a wide public outcry.
Fifty years behind bars.
For a lawyer who published a document.
In Australia.
In the present day.
Here it would be appropriate to recall the brutality towards unarmed Afghans
that representatives of Australia’s neighbour, New Zealand, demonstrated with impunity.
In August 2010, New Zealand special forces killed six farmers, including one child,
and injured 15 others in the Tirgiran Valley during Operation Burnham.
There have been no reports of any charges or convictions in the media.
The UK Ministry of Defence showing double standards in investigating similar illegal actions
by their soldiers in Afghanistan is almost a given.
More recently, new circumstances have been revealed concerning the horrific murder
of 54 Afghan citizens by British special forces soldiers.
Yet, the trial on the merits was closed without bringing charges.
But it is the United States that remains the uncontested champion
in bullying the population of the occupied countries.
Of the hundreds, if not thousands, of “erroneous” attacks on civilians in Afghanistan,
the bombing of the Médecins Sans Frontières hospital was one of the most egregious.
On October 3, 2015, the US Air Force bombed that nonprofit organisation’s hospital
in the Kunduz province, killing 42 doctors and patients and injuring 43 others.
Do you think anyone was punished? Of course not.
This was the United States, the most democratic, free, and law-abiding country.
There are more lawyers there than in the rest of the world.
Most of these crimes are reflected in the White Paper published on the Russian Foreign Ministry website and listing cases where civilians died in Afghanistan as a result of illegal actions
by the United States and its allies.
Work is underway to add more facts to the list.
The innovative Phygital sport movement, initiated by Russia and combining sport,
science and technology, and the related international tournament Games of the Future,
due to take place in Kazan in February 2024, were unveiled on April 18, 2023.
The independent non-profit organisation Agency for the Development of Computer Sport
organised this presentation with support from the Foreign Ministry.
The event included the heads of 12 foreign diplomatic missions and members
of the Moscow Diplomatic Club, affiliated with the Council of Young Diplomats
that brings together young diplomats from 60 national embassies.
Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Chernyshenko, Head of Tatarstan Rustam Minnikhanov,
Russian Minister of Sport Oleg Matytsin, International Ice Hockey Federation (IIHF) President Rene Fasel (1994-2001), and Head of the project, Games of the Future, Igor Stolyarov greeted the participants.
During the event, representatives of the diplomatic corps were able
to gain insight into the innovative Phygital project that combines traditional sports and cybersports.
It aims to demonstrate a new approach towards sport competitions.
Additionally, the participants discussed broad opportunities and Kazan’s preparations
to host this large innovative international tournament.
The foreign guests also learned about the trial competitions, held in Kazan since 2022.
On April 21, 2023, the ALBA Games of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America
opened in an impressive setting in Caracas, La Guaira.
These major inter-regional competitions involve about 3,500 athletes from 11 countries
vying for awards in 35 sports categories.
This is the first time the Games are taking place in an open format.
At the same time, Russia is a specially invited guest of the alliance
and the only extra-regional participant.
The Russian national team includes 48 athletes competing in seven sports categories.
Russian Minister of Sport Oleg Matytsin took part in the official opening ceremony.
The participation of Russian athletes in the ALBA Games under their national flag
and without any discriminatory or illegitimate restrictions, as imposed at the initiative
of the International Olympic Committee, attests to the high level of relations with the alliance countries.
This is an important contribution to strengthening friendship between our countries and peoples.
It also highlights our readiness to jointly counter the attempts
of certain states and international organisations to politicise sport.
I think this is a wonderful example of a current and future response to all those
who are damaging the global sports movement.
Yes, they will hit the Olympic movement.
Unfortunately, as we have seen, the IOC is unable to ward off these blows.
However, this does not mean that world sports, international sport cooperation and communication between athletes (the way they should communicate at sport competitions) have no future.
This is absolutely out of the question.
I am confident that the world, its countries and peoples will find solutions,
like this regional and intercontinental competition within the framework of an association of states, under the auspices of associations of countries, etc.
Those who believe that they can downgrade world sports to the level of diktat by certain countries,
and that they can decide how many medals they can hand out and to whom, are mistaken.
This will not happen.
The Joint Staff of the CSTO celebrates its 20th anniversary on April 28.
The Collective Security Council of this organisation approved the decision
to establish a joint military staff in Dushanbe in 2003.
The Joint Staff is actively involved in building up the military component
of the CSTO’s collective security system in order to ensure the peaceful development
and stability of the member states.
It addresses a broad range of tasks related to forming and using the CSTO Troops (Collective Force)
and their functioning.
It also organises joint operational and combat drills, trains specialists for the armed forces
of the CSTO member states, and operates the CSTO Crisis Response Centre.
The focus in the context of collective military organisational development is on developing
all components of the Collective Force – the Collective Rapid Deployment Force
of the Central Asian Region, the Collective Rapid Reaction Force, the Peacekeeping Force,
and the Collective Air Force – with account taken of current challenges and threats to military security
in the CSTO’s area of responsibility and along the perimeter of its borders.
The Collective Force is supplied with advanced and compatible weapons and military equipment.
Faced with increased threats to biological security in 2022, the CSTO has established a joint radiation, chemical, biological and health protection unit.
In all, over 60 different joint exercises and drills involving the Collective Force components
have been held.
Since 2017, these have taken the shape of Combat Brotherhood strategic exercises
conducted in a uniform military-political and strategic environment
in one or several collective security regions.
Representatives of international security organisations and concerned states are regularly invited
to the exercises as observers.
The CSTO is engaged in analytical and research work on urgent matters related to the development
of its military component, relying on the expert potential of the leading educational
and research institutions, primarily those specialising in air force employment,
air defence, reconnaissance, communications and other areas.
Over the cooperative years, [Russian] military schools have trained about 24,000 officers
from the CSTO member states under a quota envisaging either favourable terms
of payment or no charge at all.
Between April 29 and May 9, 2023, the Night Wolves International Motorcycle Club and the Fund
for the Support and Development of the Roads of Victory Patriotic Motorcycle Movement
will hold the 9th International Roads of Victory Motorcycle Rally dedicated to the 78th anniversary
of Victory in the Great Patriotic War.
The Roads of Victory Motorcycle Rally helps to preserve historical memory about the heroic feat
of valour performed by the Soviet people in the years of the Great Patriotic War (1941-1945)
and the role this country played in gaining a victory over Nazism.
It also promotes the patriotic upbringing of rising generations.
This year, the programme of the motorcycle rally includes events dedicated to the 80th anniversary
of the Battle of Stalingrad, the liberation of the city of Korenovsk and Kuban,
and the end of the Battle of the Caucasus.
The final destination of the rally is the city of Mariupol, where the restored and rebuilt monument
to the liberator soldiers of the 221st Mariupol Division and the 130th Taganrog Division will be unveiled.
It takes your breath away, when you realise what times we live in.
All of this is happening at the same time as the scum of the earth insults the memory of our ancestors.
They are attempting to make us kneel and pledge allegiance to the Kiev regime’s neo-Nazi authority
and those in the West, who are behind this horror.
They pull down monuments and sneer at history.
But there are people who are trying (and often successfully) to defend historical memory: they do this step by step, painstakingly, despite the odds,
and often at the cost of their own wellbeing and even future.
These people are so determined because they know that there is no future without history
and that forgetful people are doomed to repeat the old mistakes.
The event will involve bikers from Moscow, Kaliningrad, the Stavropol Territory, the Rostov Region, Chechnya, Dagestan, Crimea, and a number of European countries.
En route, the bikers will collect humanitarian aid that will be used to support the service members
and civilians in the area of the special military operation.
Now let me describe the circumstances surrounding this event in 2023.
Given the surge of anti-Russian sentiment in Europe, it has become extremely difficult
to hold the foreign legs of the rally.
The same happened earlier, too.
We have repeatedly said this.
Some countries denied visas or permissions, some stopped the procession or detained its participants, and still others refused to permit the lease of what was necessary for the event.
This year, a number of countries, predominantly East European, have imposed a strict ban on contacts, which led to a situation where full-scale organisational support, including in establishing interaction
with regional authorities, has become next to impossible.
Moreover, the aggressive behaviour of the Ukrainian diaspora supported by local “activists”
calls into question the participants’ safety.
Nevertheless, the Foreign Ministry will provide the organisers with the necessary assistance
and all-out support, as has been the case since 2015.
The Board of Trustees of the Leo Tolstoy International Peace Prize Foundation has decided
to open the submission of nominations for the prize from April 12 to June 12.
The prize will be awarded for the first time this year, Named after the great humanitarian writer,
this international prize will be awarded for outstanding achievements in ensuring universal
and equal security based on the rule of international law, preventing a nuclear disaster,
building a multipolar and non-violent world, as well as other significant achievements
leading to the strengthening of mutual understanding, trust, peace and cooperation among peoples.
The winners will be selected by an international jury, which includes public and political figures
and writers, and representatives of culture, science and business circles from Russia, Europe, Asia, Africa, and Latin America, who are internationally renowned for their contribution
to promoting cooperation among nations.
The candidates can be nominated by international organisations, parliaments, bodies of authority, public organisations, education establishments and, of course, members of the jury.
Details are available on the foundation’s website.
This year we will mark 30 years since the establishment of World Press Freedom Day (May 3).
The day was established by the UN General Assembly at UNESCO’s initiative to attract the attention
of governments and the public to the importance of guaranteeing freedom
of the media and the safety of journalists.
Frankly, all this – the UN, the General Assembly, May 3, freedom of the press, UNESCO, and attracting attention – looks like a joke today when Russian journalists are denied visas to visit the UN,
when Julian Assange, a leading investigative journalist, has been persecuted for years,
when international media outlets that don’t fit the global trend
(not the international trend in the sense of international standards, but the generally accepted trend
of certain media outlets of the “collective West”) are being blotted out and persecuted,
and when journalists are thrown into prison.
I mentioned Julian Assange,
but it’s also Marat Kasem and the Spanish journalist I talked about today as well.
Despite all this, celebratory events will likely be held according to plan.
As usual, the UNESCO Secretariat will hold a themed conference.
This year, the theme of the conference, to be held at the UN Headquarters in New York,
is Shaping a Future of Rights: Freedom of expression as a driver for all other human rights.
What did UNESCO do toward this end in 2022, at the very least if not through the years?
Why has it not reacted to the plight of Marat Kasem, the persecution of a vast number of journalists
in Ukraine and the murder of Russian journalists and writers? Does it have no time or money for this? Has it invested everything in the celebration events in New York?
Will any speaker from the UNESCO Secretariat find the courage to at least mention Darya Dugina
and the others who have been killed or thrown into prison for taking a stand as journalists and writers? Or will they talk only about human rights in general, regardless of what individual they have in mind? Regrettably, despite an ambitious theme, the organisers have not simply failed but have not even tried to ensure the plurality of opinion and inclusiveness at the conference
as the elementary conditions for freedom of the media.
The non-transparent choice of speakers – international officials, the heads of human rights NGOs
and media corporations representing the “collective West” – leaves no hope for a representative
and unbiased discussion.
It is obvious that participation in the conference will not be equal and non-discriminatory.
The trouble is that the neo-liberal advocates of freedom of expression are openly acting
on the principles of Orwell’s Ministry of Truth and they divide a multifaceted media environment
into “us” and “them,” into bona fide journalists and “propagandists” (as they see them).
We call on the secretariats of international organisations
that are involved in promoting a non-universal agenda in the sphere of journalism and mass media
to respect the principle of objectiveness when planning international-level events.
As for the upcoming conference in New York, I would like to borrow Josep Borrell’s simile and say
that this “get-together” of the civilised residents of the wonderful “garden” will offer no added value
for people of the “jungle.” I would like to remind you about the ongoing registration for the fifth Leaders of Russia national management competition, a flagship programme in the Russia –
Land of Opportunity presidential platform.
According to the organisers, 70 countries have already submitted applications.
Foreign citizens were eligible to join the competition in its second season.
Since then, applications have been submitted by 150 countries altogether or nearly 80 percent
of all UN member states.
In addition to prizes, the foreign winners of the fifth competition will have an opportunity
to apply for Russian citizenship under a simplified procedure, and the finalists will be able to apply
for a residence permit.
I would like to remind you that President Putin has signed executive orders granting Russian citizenship to 27 foreign participants of the fourth competition from the United States, France, Poland, Moldova, Israel, Bulgaria, Greece, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Belarus.
Over 840,000 people from 150 countries submitted applications to the previous four Leaders
of Russia competitions.
Applications will be accepted until May 14 on the competition website: лидерыроссии.рф.
Question: EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell recently said that the EU would build relations
with other countries taking into account their policies with regard to Russia and China.
“We have to reach out much more to third countries.
The Russian narrative has to be countered in Asia, in Africa, in Latin America,”
Borrell said adding that he had prepared a plan in this regard.
How would you comment on this statement? Maria Zakharova: On April 25, Russia’s Permanent Mission to the EU published a comment about this.
But I have a few words to add.
Josep Borrell has made yet another inappropriate statement.
A diplomat and a representative of the European Union, he claims to be someone
who airs the views not only of the EU governments, but also of its people.
What he said was totally inconsistent with the interests of these nations.
No one asked their opinion when Josep Borrell announced this.
This was yet another example of the European Union acquiring an ideological agenda
and its leaders violating one of the fundamental principles of the UN Charter concerning respect
for the sovereignty of states and their independent role
in determining the path of their own development, their foreign and domestic policy.
This is also a manifestation of segregation.
Again, we are seeing an attempt to divide nations, those entitled to live as they see fit,
to engage with whomever they want, to build a sovereign domestic and foreign policy on their own,
and others who are deprived of this right and have to take instructions from the more privileged group.
Not that long ago, EU politicians, in bilateral contacts and public speeches, indignantly denied any ideas that they were making other states face an artificial geopolitical choice – “either with us, or against us.” Now they are talking about it openly.
Previously, they announced that these countries were free to choose their own way
of engaging with various players in international relations.
At the same time, they applied economic “incentives” and monetary controls against those
who did not want to serve the interests of the West, and imposed restrictions.
The entire scope of visa formalities, approvals or denials, visa regimes and visa-free travel agreements was also a tool for managing the situation and exerting pressure and influence
on the countries concerned.
Even showing loyalty to the European Union did not guarantee prosperity,
as resources were being drained from the controlled states, they were made dependent on the EU,
and in the event of any economic problems or social tensions, they were left to fend for themselves.
So Josep Borrell’s revelations did not surprise anyone.
He makes inappropriate statements on a regular basis.
They are “inappropriate” as if compiled from ultimatums and hypocrisy.
Unfortunately, these are the main “spiritual bonds” holding together the ideology
of their “rules-based international order.” This does little to improve the European Union’s popularity.
Attempts to remedy this situation through aggressive propaganda, intimidation, clamping down
on any alternative points of view and the imposing of a bloc-based confrontational logic are only driving the EU further into isolation.
In the end, the EU will be hardest hit and will suffer from its own attempts to divide the world
with a new “curtain.” What used to be an iron curtain will apparently be replaced by a botanical one.
A segregation by plant variety.
Probably, they are judging others by themselves, regarding humanity as plants.
Maria Zakharova: This is yet another blasphemous manifestation of the essence of the regime in Latvia and more proof of Latvian lawmakers serving the revanchist aspirations of the ruling neo-Nazi elite.
For that Baltic country, May 9 is not Victory Day; it is a day of defeat.
For us, this day marks the victory over fascism and Nazism;
for them (they have now admitted this) it is a day of defeat.
There is no other way to interpret it.
I would also like to remind you that the Latvian parliament does not speak for the entire population
of Latvia, because a significant number of its residents, labelled non-citizens,
are deprived of the opportunity to vote.
They do not enjoy the basic democratic right to participate in elections, and do not have a say
about the composition of the country’s highest legislative body.
Therefore, what is happening is a manifestation of the very essence of the regime that now runs Latvia, not a reflection of broader public sentiment.
Apparently, this regime is not hiding its support for neo-Nazism.
The situation in Ukraine, they maintain, is correlated with their historical vision.
All this just proves that we have been right to call a spade a spade, accusing them of complicity
with neo-Nazism, and new manifestations of fascism.
Now this story has come full circle.
This is no longer about specific politicians, isolated events or words taken out of context,
but a deliberate policy pursued by a certain regime (the Baltic regimes are also sponsored by the West) to support historical collaborationism during World War II and, at the present stage, to promote manifestations of neo-Nazism under the auspices of the Kiev regime and attempts to consolidate them on the territory of Ukraine.
Question: James Rubin, US Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs during NATO’s aggression against Serbia, when the Radio Television of Serbia building was blown up,
and now Special Envoy of US State Secretary Antony Blinken, demanded, through Radio Free Europe, that RT Balkans be closed.
He also said that he would like Russian media to not be present anywhere in the world.
And just a few days later, the same source said that the EU,
as part of a new package of anti-Russia sanctions, was preparing sanctions against RT Balkans.
Would you comment on this, and how can you explain the need for Western leaders
to stifle those media that do not work the way they see fit? Maria Zakharova: The situation is absurd.
These statements speak for themselves.
The West no longer hides anything, but speaks openly.
Today, we have repeatedly touched on this: Adviser to the head of the Office of the President of Ukraine Mikhail Podolyak said that they have the right and must exterminate people on the territory of Crimea, Lugansk, Donetsk, and the Zaporozhye and Kherson regions.
In the same way, the statements you cited demonstrate a desire to eliminate: in this case,
not people but the media.
How can one comment on this? You call evil what it is,
and you are asking that I give it some kind of additional meaning? There can be no other meaning here.
In the past, we did try to draw attention to the double standards and hypocrisy.
Now they are talking about it openly: that there should be no Russia in the form
in which it currently exists; there should be no Russian culture and language.
Like it’s better that it doesn’t exist at all, at least on the scale it exists today.
They say that there should be no Russian media or journalists.
This is stated directly.
No additional comment is required.
The only thing that could be done is to state that this is an imperialistic point of view,
a manifestation of neocolonialism.
Some countries, with no moral grounds to do so, illegally arrogate to themselves the right
to model the world and its development as they see fit: who has the right to live, speak, trade, produce, have children, and who does not.
This is a modern interpretation of the slave system, when the metropolitan countries give themselves the right to be considered masters, and others their slaves.
In this manner they speak to those who do not even have the physical ability to answer.
But this is not about us.
We have such ability.
Those who like these rules have the right to play by them.
We do not.
This is what we rebelled against.
It is said openly that Washington wants Russia to have no way to spread its point of view
on global processes, so there would be no such thing as Russian media abroad, because Russian media prevent the collective West, led by the United States, from influencing the minds
of the international community in the way they need.
Our media and journalists, with their fact-based reports from the hotbeds of world events,
encourage people to evaluate reality critically (in fact, this is normal when people do it this way).
Apparently, this goes against the plans that the American rulers have regarding their own people,
to zombify them.
If you watch American television, you will see that basically a one-sided, practically sterile,
refined and adjusted picture of the world is given on global problems.
Therefore, any alternative point of view discredits its own media in the eyes of the audience,
while the media are so biased that they simply contradict themselves.
Obviously, the Americans have reached an ideological dead end.
We talk about this regularly.
This is yet another manifestation of what we are talking about and proving with related examples.
Question: Can you comment on the “elections” in northern Kosovo and Metohija,
in which only 13 Serbs participated? Why did the Western countries support the holding
of these elections, despite the announced boycott by the Serbian population? What is an election without voters and what is the purpose of such an election?
Maria Zakharova: We immediately commented on these elections.
The comment was published on our website on April 24.
It says: “The provisional self-governments in Pristina continue fanning tensions in Kosovo
and deliberately deadlocking the dialogue with Belgrade.
The indigenous Serb population and its fundamental rights and freedoms are again under threat.
Yet more evidence of [Pristina’s] disdain was the holding of the so-called elections
in the Serb-populated northern part of the autonomous territory on April 23.
Despite the fact that the Serb majority boycotted the “elections”
and refused to nominate their candidates, the ballot went ahead, under Western pressure.
The result was predictable: the Serbs unanimously boycotted this parody of the democratic process, with 96.5 percent of voters failing to turn up at the polling stations.
But the negligibly low turnout of 3.5 percent ensured by the small number of Albanians
and the lack of elementary conditions for voting
(two-thirds of polling stations were portable containers) did not prevent Pristina from cynically declaring the elections a success and naming the “winners.” All four of them, to be sure Albanians,
got between 100 and 519 votes, depending on the municipality,
whereas the residents with voting rights there number almost 46,000.
This is what the Western-style supremacy of law looks like (in this case, Kosovo-style),
which the US and the EU like to talk about so much.
This is how they see the future of this region.
This is a textbook example.
It can be framed and described and shown to everyone how democracy will continue
to be organised everywhere in the Balkans where the US and the EU control the process.
This is a provocative substitution of generally accepted electoral procedures with a shameful imitation, which, nevertheless, completely suits Pristina’s Western sponsors: they encourage the occupation
of northern Kosovo and seek to finally deprive the local Serbs of their right to vote in the face
of the persecution and terror unleashed by the local “Prime Minister,” Albin Kurti.
The Kosovo Albanians are boasting of failing to implement their obligations under the Brussels Dialogue and threatening to thwart the creation of the Community of Serb Municipalities with executive powers.
They build up the presence of heavily armed “police” special forces in non-Albanian areas
and intimidate residents.
Emissaries from Washington and Brussels have long played up to the Pristina leadership,
encouraged false accusations against the Serb community,
and hushed up the growing threat of aggressive Albanian nationalism.
As a result, EU mediation has become a conveyer belt for churning out versions
of a pseudo-settlement benefiting the Kosovo Albanian side.
Can we call this a settlement, a rapprochement of positions, a resolution of contradictions?
No, exactly the opposite.
The “municipal elections” have additionally highlighted the pernicious nature
of the West’s policies in the region.
Opting for despotism, discrimination and ethnic cleansing cannot lead to peace and agreement.
Unable to quash the ingrained Serbophobic reflexes, the US-EU tandem is plunging Kosovo
ever deeper into crisis.
For their part, the Serbs, who did not wish to participate in this electoral farce, have demonstrated
true national dignity, unity and cohesion in a difficult environment, as well as readiness to hold
their ground shoulder-to-shoulder with Belgrade.”
Question: Based on Lavrov’s signals “thrown”
at Antonio Guterres about the violation or non-fulfillment of the grain deal by our opponents.
What is the limit of Russian patience to continue participating in it?
Maria Zakharova: I will correct you right away.
We did not throw any signals.
The meeting between Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres
lasted a long time.
It was almost entirely devoted to the implementation (or non-implementation, as we see it)
of the Black Sea initiative, which the West calls the grain deal.
This is about both a signal and the limit of patience.
Let me remind you that Russia extended it for only 60 days, arguing that it did not consider
its implementation as satisfactory.
We made our position clear.
We received a package of proposals from the UN Secretary-General addressed to President of Russia Vladimir Putin on the development, implementation and further progress of the Black Sea initiative.
All of this will be thoroughly analysed.
The decision will be made based on the results of interdepartmental study.
Question: After the trip to the UN headquarters in New York, how do you see the multipolar world,
the idea of which we are trying to convey?
Maria Zakharova: I would separate these two questions.
The trip, as you said, to New York, chairing the meeting of the UN Security Council was
an additional opportunity to acquaint the world community with our fundamental approaches
to this issue.
We did not present anything new, but shared our views, tried to further explain our basic foreign policy, draw attention to it and emphasise some of its most important areas.
Russia stands for a more just and democratic world order that would ensure reliable security,
the preservation of cultural and civilisational identity,
and equal development opportunities for all states.
This can only be guaranteed within a multipolar system of international relations.
The main principles can be found in the new Foreign Policy Concept approved
by the President of the Russian Federation on March 31, 2023.
It is available and can be read.
I think a lot of people have already done so.
In particular, it stipulates the sovereign equality of states, non-interference in internal affairs,
the diversity of cultures and civilisations, and much more is laid down as fundamental principles.
I would also recommend that everyone look through the text of Sergey Lavrov’s remarks
during the UN Security Council open debate on April 24, 2023.
Question: Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov recently made a Latin American tour.
Following his visit to Brazil, he said that, among other things, the topic of BRICS was discussed.
Bloomberg recently quoted South Africa’s BRICS Sherpa as saying
that 19 countries have expressed interest in joining BRICS.
Did the minister discuss the mechanism for new countries joining the group during his visit to Brazil?
Maria Zakharova: This topic is certainly discussed at the meetings with our BRICS partners
both in the bilateral format and in the five-party discussions.
We discuss this regularly with our colleagues from Brazil.
The issues of BRICS expansion are very topical and, of course, are in the focus of attention.
They are addressed at the level of heads of state and foreign ministers of the five countries.
The Beijing Declaration of the 14th BRICS Summit includes an instruction to work out
the relevant guidelines, standards, criteria and procedures.
The whole set of related issues is being discussed by BRICS Sherpas and Sous-Sherpas.
It requires an in-depth analysis and careful internal study from the five states to achieve consensus.
Yes, we regularly discuss this topic, using every opportunity.
At the same time, as we have repeatedly noted, we consider it premature to disclose the details
of the approval process at this stage.
Question: After the Azerbaijani side established a checkpoint on the Lachin road, Yerevan’s officials accused Moscow of allegedly failing to fulfill its obligations.
In particular, the Armenian Foreign Ministry called on Russia to “finally fulfill its obligation
under paragraph 6 of the trilateral statement.” Secretary of the Security Council of Armenia
Armen Grigoryan stated that the Lachin corridor belongs to Russia, and it is Moscow
that is responsible for all the events taking place there.
How would Russia comment on Armenia’s indignation?
Maria Zakharova: I do not know if it was indignation or a call.
You said they called on us.
Russia clearly stated its position in the Russian Foreign Ministry statement dated April 24, 2023.
At present, both through the Russian peacekeeping contingent “on the ground”
and at the political level, the necessary efforts are being made to resolve the situation
regarding the Lachin corridor and return it to the track of the trilateral agreements
of November 9, 2020.
We consider it fundamentally important that Yerevan contribute to the search
for mutually acceptable solutions.
Question: Kazakhstan has agreed to the accreditation of representatives of the Taliban in the republic.
Does Moscow have similar plans?
Maria Zakharova: This is an unexpectedly worded question that requires both
an answer and some fine-tuning.
Why did you mention Kazakhstan’s decision? Why are you asking me?
Representatives from the new authorities in Afghanistan were accredited in Moscow last year.
Afghanistan’s Embassy in Moscow performs its functions.
It is not my duty to say whether they are successful or not.
This question should be addressed to Kabul.
They have maintained strong contact with Russian agencies.
Mr Jamal Nasir Garwal has been Afghanistan’s charge d’affaires on an interim basis in Moscow
since March 2022.
He was appointed by Taliban leaders.
Diplomatic work has been carried on in accordance with the plan.
I can elaborate on this theme: the Russian Embassy in Kabul continued functioning
under the new conditions after the August 2021 regime change in Afghanistan.
Our two countries’ diplomatic missions promote practical collaboration between Russia
and the current Afghan authorities.
It is odd that you lumped together Kazakhstan’s sovereign decision and a subject
that is no longer of current importance to us.
As I said, we have been working amid the new realities that took shape in Afghanistan
after 2021 for some time.
To reiterate: I think we have been successful in this regard.
Question: You said UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres presented his proposals
on how to implement the grain deal in full.
Has Russia studied these proposals? Are they acceptable to the Russian side?
Maria Zakharova: The materials were given to President Vladimir Putin.
As I said, a decision will be taken after they are studied by the relevant Russian agencies.
Question: Sergey Lavrov said at the UN that the grain deal was deadlocked.
What can save it, according to the Russian Foreign Ministry?
Maria Zakharova: Its full implementation.
As simple as that.
The “deal” is made up of two parts that must be implemented, and not as one wishes or selectively.
This is not a buffet where everyone can choose whatever they like and leave something
that does not look appetizing.
These are commitments that must be fulfilled the way they were written in black and white.
If only all that were implemented.
We are well aware that the situation on the ground is difficult and volatile.
There are numerous obstacles.
But this was coordinated by the sides and accepted as the basis for further operations.
Therefore, everyone must implement it.
During the talks in New York, we heard a lot about efforts to implement it made by the UN Secretariat.
But efforts alone are not enough.
We understand that there is no need to call into question Secretary-General Guterres’
story about such efforts really being undertaken.
But at the same time, it should be stated that these efforts have failed
to reach their target in their entirety.
The second part of the Black Sea Initiative is not being implemented.
It does not work.
Question: The International Working Group on Russian Sanctions made up
of Western and Ukrainian experts and officials has suggested lowering the price ceiling for Russian oil
to $45 (and prospectively $30) per barrel and introducing an embargo on Russian diamonds, metals, etc.
Is Russia ready for these restrictions? Is retaliation being prepared?
What kind of measures might it include?
Maria Zakharova: The unilateral restrictions and sanctions imposed by the Washington-led
collective West are a disease of the current Western liberal system.
And the disease is advancing.
The only question to be asked now is whether it is curable or hopeless.
There has been a lot of devastation caused by the restrictions and sanctions
in the Western countries themselves.
Many problems are of a system-wide nature.
(And again, the question is whether this can be reversed or not.) I am not speaking about
global economic opportunities or potential, nor about common markets.
This is a vanishing subject.
The whole thing is clear.
It took so many years to create and streamline the market mechanisms in the West.
But the ideology of market mechanisms is being destroyed as ever more unilateral anti-Russia sanctions that hit the West itself are introduced.
I am referring to market mechanisms, not even to the liberal markets.
It is clear that the collective West’s unprecedented unilateral restrictive measures against Russia
have dealt a strong blow to the world economy when it was just beginning to recover from the crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Business activity is on the decline everywhere.
Production and logistics chains are being disrupted.
Investment flows are slowing.
The financial and raw materials markets are increasingly volatile.
Unemployment is on the rise.
Businesses and populations are losing money, and there are many other processes
that can be observed.
Analysts openly discuss the threat of Europe’s de-industrialisation as a consequence of it losing
its competitive advantages.
Compelled by the need to replace Russian gas, the EU countries have actually started
reorienting global LNG supply chains, thereby inflicting both direct and indirect
(a surge in the cost of shipping) damage on Asian energy importers and on developing countries.
In other words, by widening the spiral of sanctions against Russia, the United States actually uses
unfair competition methods with regard to its European allies and EU partners
that in turn are seeking to shift the main burden of problems to developing economies
based on the green development concept.
All of this is accompanied by claims that the collective West is most of all concerned
with the wellbeing of the destitute and developing nations.
There is no doubt that any additional restrictions against Russia will only aggravate the problems
in the global economy and lead to shortages of raw materials and the cost increases in production.
All of this will whip up consumer price growth, inflation, and related processes.
Regrettably, the least developed countries will be hit the hardest by the unilateral sanctions.
Given its colonial past, the collective West is well versed in shifting Western-created problems
to weaker and less prepared members of the international community.
We will certainly continue to adapt our national economy to the new foreign trade
and financial realities.
We are stepping up the import substitution drive.
There is no doubt that we will be able to consistently replace Western markets
and protect our interests.
It is clear in this case how we should proceed.
We have neither the time nor the desire to expect that the West will come to its senses.
We should forge ahead.
We will use all existing opportunities and tools to protect our interests.
Some people in the West are saying openly that we are withstanding the pressure of the sanctions
and strengthening our economic competitiveness.
Question: The Financial Times writes with reference to informed sources that the EU countries
and Japan (G7) turned down the US proposal on imposing an almost total ban on exports to Russia.
According to the paper, Washington proposed the ban because it is displeased with the existing system that makes it possible for Russia to continue importing Western technology.
Tokyo and the EU believe that such a ban is impracticable.
According to The Financial Times, the United States intends to announce its proposal at the G7 meeting in Hiroshima in May.
Can you comment on this?
Maria Zakharova: Washington’s contacts with the EU remind me
of the “breathe – don’t breathe” situation.
Then just “don’t breathe.” The current suggestion is that they just stop breathing at all.
They have no scruples about multiplying their “sanctions” as a policy-changing tool
used against sovereign countries.
They have declared this as a normal business method, because it helps them win competitions
where they are unable to manage it in a different way and to interfere in the internal affairs
of other countries so as to moderate the internal political situation that influences the local authorities.
There can be many reasons for that: economic destabilisation, falling standards of living,
fewer opportunities for businesses, etc.
The collective West is declaring all of this normal (including within its unions).
This is no longer an emergency for them.
“Look, they have survived! But why?” The West did not plan for our survival.
But we did survive; we live, and we are developing.
We are solving the current problems created by the collective West.
And this is what drives them crazy.
Using ever new trade restrictions and bans against Russia can be regarded as an economic war
that has a devastating effect on the generally recognised rules of multilateral trade
and devalues the principles of sovereign equality and mutually beneficial cooperation.
They are undermining the rules not only in relation to Russia (I am referring to the West
and the EU’s collaboration with this country) but also of their own basic views on market economy, economic liberalism, and free competition as the basis of a market economy.
We are not surprised by the fact that the “sanction strategists” ignore the obvious economic falloff
from these measures, losses that are acutely felt by Western producers and exporters oriented
towards a capacious and large-scale Russian market.
Question: Have you decided on the response measures against American journalists following the denial of visas to Russian journalists during Sergey Lavrov’s visit to the United States?
Maria Zakharova: I won’t tell you.
Let it come as a surprise.
Question: Did the Russian delegation in New York have any bilateral contacts
with the US Department of State on the New START and strategic stability? Director of the Department for Non-proliferation and Arms Control Vladimir Yermakov said in a recent interview
that the United States “got carried away with such chimeras as ‘escalation control’
and ‘escalatory domination.’” What does this mean?
Maria Zakharova: There were no contacts with the US Department of State
during Sergey Lavrov’s visit to New York.
We would have told you otherwise.
We comment on everything promptly.
There were no contacts on the subject you have mentioned or on any other issue.
Russia has previously informed the United States in detail about its stance on the New START.
US officials have not requested additional information.
As for strategic dialogue, there has not been any progress on that track since Washington suspended it.
And it is impossible to expect any progress now that America’s policy is increasingly moving away
from diplomacy and an equal dialogue.
Washington is trampling upon Russia’s security interests and doesn’t consider it necessary
to respect them.
As for the second part of your question, this means that the United States is walking on the edge
in trying to put maximum pressure on us, thinking that it will be able to keep escalation
within suitable limits.
It continues to deliberately infringe on our fundamental interests, generate risks and up the stakes
in its confrontation with Russia, testing our pain threshold and trying to expand the limits in its favour.
It believes that it can maintain full and dominant control of the situation at every possible stage,
which Washington thinks will either prevent any damage to the United States or minimise it
compared to the damage inflicted on the opponent, meaning Russia.
It appears that American strategists are entertaining similar illusions about the hypothetical scales
of a “nuclear escalation” or at least its lowest stages, as they see it.
This is an extremely dangerous delusion.
Moreover, this approach contradicts Western claims about their commitment to reducing strategic risks, including the risk of sliding towards a direct military conflict between nuclear powers.
Russia will do all it can to prevent the worst scenario, as our leaders have said more than once,
but not at the expense of our vital interests.
We do not recommend anyone to question our resolve or put it to a test.
Question: The United States and France are monitoring the Azerbaijan-Armenia conflict.
The other day they again made biased statements regarding Azerbaijan.
French Foreign Minister Catherine Colonna went on a visit to the South Caucasus.
Her visit is a statement.
Can a positive solution be found to the problem with such an unbalanced policy?
Maria Zakharova: As far as I remember, the United States and EU countries, including France,
wanted to play the role of “honest broker” in the settlement of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict.
Judging by the current situation, they have botched it.
Regarding the aspect that directly concerns Russia, I would like to say
that our American and French colleagues’ attempts to convince everyone that they are acting strictly
in the interests of peace in the South Caucasus have been debunked by their regular anti-Russia attacks.
This has nothing to do with constructive efforts or with being an honest broker.
Such statements are only strengthening the impression that the real aspirations of Washington and Paris are mercenary, politicised and aimed at undermining Russia’s positions.
Concern for the regional nations is clearly not part of their plans.
One more proof of this is that, regrettably, they act likewise with regard to other open
or simmering conflicts.
Acting on their mercenary interests and often anti-Russia narratives, they interfere in disputes
and complicate them, without contributing anything constructive, or added value,
while claiming that they are doing this out of concern for the people.
In fact, they are doing all this to achieve their own goals and objectives.
Question: What are the prospects for a meeting of the Azerbaijani and Armenian foreign ministers
in Russia? Our Western colleagues in the US and the EU also claim they are working on this
on their territory.
What do you think about this situation?
Maria Zakharova: A basic agreement on such a meeting has been reached.
The date will be announced later.
Question: What does the Foreign Ministry think about media reports that the G7 is considering
the possibility of a total ban on exports to Russia?
Maria Zakharova: I have already commented on this.
I can just repeat that this is no surprise.
Probably they will come up with even more absurd formulas.
I cannot rule this out because this is what they mean by “the rules-based order.” They will invent
the rules and compel everyone to follow them.
New trade restrictions and bans as regards Russia are undermining universally accepted principles
of multilateral trade and competition.
They completely devalue the norms of sovereign equality and mutually beneficial cooperation.
The EU countries will be the hardest hit by losses from response sanctions.
But does Washington ever think about other states? If new sanctions are introduced
we will respond to them but we will do this as we always do – thoughtfully and carefully,
being guided by the need to protect our interests and people, maintain the stability
of the national economy and the interests of domestic businesses.
We intend to continue developing interaction with reliable partners who adhere to a constructive,
non-ideological policy in their relations with us and who do not destroy everything around them.
Such partners are pragmatic and follow the established and universally accepted rules rather
than some invented quirks.
In turn, these states receive an opportunity to enter Russia’s dynamic market and, on a broader plane, the Eurasian Economic Union.
The departure of some foreign companies from Russia opens a number of niches
that could be filled with products from the countries that wish to develop pragmatic cooperation.
Question: The Office of the UN Secretary-General reported that Antonio Guterres had presented
a detailed report on the progress made so far in the implementation of the Russian part
of the grain deal.
He told Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov about this.
Can you share with us the details of the progress mentioned?
Maria Zakharova: I have already shared details and commented on this for your colleagues
from the Reuters news agency.
It would be better to call this “progress in the attempts” but we wish there would be “progress
in the results.”
Question: Excuse the request for clarification, but he spoke so confidently about progress.
Maria Zakharova: My comment on this was extensive enough.
Question: National Security Council Coordinator for Strategic Communications John Kirby welcomed
a telephone conversation between President of the PRC Xi Jinping and President of Ukraine
Vladimir Zelensky.
He said it remained to be seen if this call would lead to peace.
What do you think about the US response to this telephone conversation?
Maria Zakharova: We think US statements are inconsistent and contradictory all the time.
Without refuting their previous statements, the same people called for the problem to be settled
“on the battlefield.” They said this was not the time for talks.
They did not support China’s peace initiative.
Now they are saying something else.
I have already said it is pointless to comment either on these private statements and personal opinions of the White House or, on a broader plane, the entire United States (we don’t know).
This contradiction brings any analysis to a dead end.
In reality, we see a reverse response from the US.
It is building up the supply of arms and money to the Kiev regime, funding its crimes.
This is its response to all peace plans and initiatives.
No doubt, the Americans consider themselves beneficiaries of continued hostilities.
Question: Welcome back! It’s good in America but better in Russia!
Maria Zakharova: I was not so much in America as in the UN Headquarters.
It is really interesting and dynamic there.
As for the United States, I have nothing to say.
We were working all the time.
You probably saw us.
Question: Do you have any new information on the tragic developments in Sudan? Is Russia going
to evacuate its citizens and diplomats from Sudan? Many countries are doing this.
Recently, Saudi Arabia said it was helping many countries to evacuate their citizens.
Do you have contacts with other countries on this issue? What do you think about US allegations
that Russia has been interfering in the home affairs of Sudan, in part,
via the Wagner private military company?
Maria Zakharova: Moscow is seriously concerned about the dramatic events in Sudan.
We are urging the sides in the conflict to display political will and restraint and take urgent measures
to reach a ceasefire.
We believe it is possible to settle any differences through negotiation.
We are taking all the necessary measures to ensure the security of Russian citizens in Sudan,
including the possibility of evacuation.
Indeed, other countries are contacting us on this issue.
We are in touch with many countries.
As you know, all this is related to security.
I can assure you that we are working hard on this issue.
We will certainly tell you about our decisions in this regard.
As for the private military company you mentioned, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov commented in detail on this issue during his news conference in New York on April 25.
We advise you to read the transcript of his remarks in English on the Foreign Ministry’s website.
Question: The words with threats about a nuclear strike from Head of the Main Intelligence Directorate of Ukraine Kirill Budanov, read: “There will be no nuclear strike if we return Crimea.”
Could such statements suggest that Ukraine is engaged in the manufacture of nuclear weapons
for subsequent use on the territory of the Russian Federation?
Maria Zakharova: Let me start with the fact that we remember very well
Vladimir Zelensky’s loud statements, which are very difficult to interpret as anything other than as
an approach to the possible revision of the non-nuclear status of Ukraine.
Remember, these were repeated statements.
We also remember calls for preventive nuclear strikes by NATO countries against Russia.
We remember the statements of the current Ukrainian political forces and politicians calling
for a nuclear strike on Russia.
We have repeatedly assessed these completely inadequate and absolutely unacceptable ideas.
This is why there is nothing new or surprising for us in the ranting of Vladimir Zelensky’s henchmen: destructive logic, irresponsible statements, provocations, and keeping afloat the relevant topics
that are resonant for all sane humanity.
We do not consider it necessary to analyse every painful cry from the abundant heap representatives
of the Kiev regime make.
They really are in some kind of painful, sometimes inadequate condition.
And everyone sees it.
This once again demonstrates the essence of the officials who have settled in Kiev.
The necessary conclusions have long been made, both by us and by that part
of the international community that regards the Kiev clique as an internationally illegal phenomenon.
And it does so because it has the opportunity to be guided by its own analysis, its own assessments,
and not by arguments and manuals imposed by the West.
As for the possibilities of Ukraine acquiring nuclear weapons or creating a dirty bomb,
any signs of such activity are being carefully monitored by the relevant Russian agencies.
Question: Director of the Foreign Ministry Department for Non-Proliferation and Arms Control,
Vladimir Yermakov, said in a statement: “Russia may withdraw from the moratorium on the deployment of ground-based intermediate and shorter-range missiles as a response to US actions.”
Is Russia considering the possibility of deploying tactical nuclear weapons on the territories
of friendly countries besides Belarus in response to the aggressive policy of NATO?
Maria Zakharova: If you look at the original statement, you will understand that we are talking about
a rigid juncture outlined when we announced a unilateral moratorium on the deployment
of ground-based intermediate and shorter-range missiles.
The moratorium is viable only until similar American-made weapons are deployed
in the respective regions.
Let me remind you that representatives of the Pentagon do not hide their plans
to deploy mobile missile systems of this class in Europe and the Asia-Pacific region to counter Russia
and the People’s Republic of China as soon as possible.
They even talk about this with some bravado.
The only factor preventing them from taking practical steps is that the work to create
full-fledged complexes of this sort is incomplete.
However, we can see that huge resources have been put into this,
and the corresponding US systems may begin to deploy in the foreseeable future.
This is what makes the Russian moratorium increasingly fragile.
In addition, we cannot but consider the general degradation of the military and strategic situation
as a result of the extremely hostile policy carried out by the United States and its allies,
as well as the entire set of destabilising military programmes they are implementing.
We take this factor into consideration most seriously.
The military nuclear cooperation between Russia and Belarus is carried out strictly within the borders
of the Union State, with its territory being a single defence space.
We reserve the right to take all necessary steps to ensure the security
of both Russia and the Union State.
There is no point in speculating about the possible nature of potential additional countermeasures.
All this will be carefully measured against the evolution of the threats the US and NATO pose for us.
Question: Gabriel Felbermayr, Director of the Austrian Institute of Economic Research,
made cynical calls to limit Russia’s import of medicines.
Can the Russian Foreign Ministry comment on such statements that contradict European humanism?
Maria Zakharova: First, I am sceptical about what you call “European humanism.”
You can say whatever you like, but actions prove otherwise.
Of course, we should not speak on behalf of the whole of Europe.
We, the Russian Federation, are an enormous part of Europe.
Do not forget this.
Speak plainly: the European Union.
Brussels forgets about EU humanism when it rushes into adventures like the Libyan or Iraqi campaigns.
The European Union member countries, participating in such illegal actions,
do not think about humanism for some reason.
They do not think about refugees, about the economy of the regions that are under attack,
or about consequences and compensation for the people who suffer from their experiments.
How is this humanism? Humanism proclaimed in word is anti-humanism.
It is even worse not to remember humanism at all.
Second, I believe it is Austria that should comment on such statements.
These are shameful statements by public figures.
Vienna should be responsible for them.
I don’t know at which level: the Austrian Ministry for Social Affairs, Health,
Care and Consumer Protection or other humanitarian agencies.
This is not my sphere.
We are not going to do this.
This shameful statement remains on the conscience of the Austrian authorities.
They have plenty of room to bring people who display such misanthropic logic to their senses.
It may manifest itself in different ways.
These are not only direct calls for murder, not only explicit segregation.
It could be a smooth, soft, between-the-lines intention to divide people into those
who have the right to receive medicines and those who do not.
But this is the West, the West that opposed the international certification for our Russian vaccine,
and stepped up sanctions pressure on Syria during the pandemic, the Syria suffering both
from the aftermath of the attacks by international terrorists and sanctions pressure
from Western countries.
This is the same West that did not allow Latin American countries to receive badly needed medicines during the pandemic when the health situation in these states deteriorated.
What do you want from them? What kind of humanism? From the historical point of view
of the unsightly role of Western countries, they should negate such statements now.
And they are the ones who must do it.
Question: The ruling party in the Republic of South Africa is planning to renounce
the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.
The party’s members are saying that this has something to do with certain situations.
Does this refer to the ICC arrest warrant for President of Russia Vladimir Putin?
Does the Russian Foreign Ministry commend the desire of other countries not to recognise
the jurisdiction of the ICC?
Maria Zakharova: These discourses and statements have been voiced at different levels
in a sovereign state.
I do not consider it necessary to comment on all this.
There is an official state position.
Various countries elaborate their own position in a different way.
We comment on this position after it has been formulated.
We do not consider it possible to comment on domestic debates and discussions.
We have seen these statements, and we have taken them into account.
Everyone knows our attitude towards the International Criminal Court.
The so-called ICC has failed to become a universal and unbiased agency
of the international criminal justice system.
Unfortunately, it has turned into yet another tool of Western political pressure and propaganda.
In this connection, I would like to recall that, in 2016, President of Russia Vladimir Putin signed
an executive order, Russia’s Intention not to become a Party to the Rome Statute
of the International Criminal Court.
Russia does not have a timeserving position in this connection.
This position was not formulated following certain decisions and pseudo-decisions of this organisation.
We formulated this position long before that, we stated it officially over six years ago,
and we have repeatedly confirmed it.
Question: In his interview with a French television channel, the Ambassador of China to France Lu Shaye noted that various states, established after the break-up of the Soviet Union, had no effective status
in global law, due to the absence of an international agreement
that would specify their status as sovereign countries.
What does the Russian Foreign Ministry think about the Chinese Ambassador’s position?
Maria Zakharova: We have heard these statements, and we believe that it is within the remit
of the Chinese Foreign Ministry to provide explanations regarding these statements.
Its Spokesperson Mao Ning provided the relevant comments on April 24, 2023.
Question: Can the Crimean authorities guarantee safety in the run-up to the holiday season?
Many cities are cancelling Victory Day parades on May 9, and drones, launched from Ukraine, are falling.
Do the authorities seriously fear terrorist attacks?
Maria Zakharova: Are you sure that you should address this question to the Foreign Ministry?
Russian security agencies are authorised to facilitate security using military methods;
this is their prerogative.
You should ask them how they are doing this, and what exactly they are doing to protect us.
With all respect, I do not have the authority, and more importantly in this case,
I do not have any information.
Please speak with my colleagues.
Question: Do you think our compatriots’ role in the media has strengthened in the wake of restrictions on the Russian news outlets in many countries around the world?
Maria Zakharova: I have already spoken extensively today about the restrictions on the Russian media.
Unfortunately, with regard to the media our compatriots are running or the information work that they are carrying out, they have also fallen under this pressure, restrictions, ill-treatment and sometimes harassment and persecution.
Alas, this is so.
But you are absolutely right.
This is a special genre and a special area that took years and even decades to take shape.
This is a special kind of - I wouldn’t say information work - but life itself for many people out there
which is to enlighten their compatriots about important events and to provide answers to questions.
Many media outlets run by our compatriots are really on that mission and are carrying it out
with dignity.
Their role is important and continues to grow.
Question: I wouldn’t dare to pose this question to anyone but you.
Maria Zakharova: Is it okay to ask me?
Question: Yes.
Maria Zakharova: Thank you for trusting me with that.
I think it’s a meme, a dictum born right here and now:
I wouldn’t dare to pose this question to anyone but you.
Question: It’s not only because you answer all the questions, but because you enjoy a special trust.
Recently, I spent five hours at a Krakow bus station.
Everyone around was speaking Russian.
There were only a few Poles there.
Mothers and children spoke pure Russian.
Two- and three-year-old toddlers spoke nothing but Russian to their parents.
Poles treated them just like Ukrainians.
I didn’t hear anyone speaking Ukrainian.
Rarely, I could hear someone speak a rural mix of Russian and Ukrainian.
In your opinion, who are these masses of people going to the West? What nation are they part of?
Are they our people or another country’s? Refugees? Are they fleeing their regime or Russia?
Maria Zakharova: They are the victims of the experiments conducted by the collective West
and Western NATO-centric regimes who at one point decided that history,
culture and civilisational development are meaningless and everything, including the past
and the present, history, the lessons of the past, the memory of ancestors, could be rewritten on the go.
They've done it before as well.
The fact that the results were poor didn’t really matter.
They were allowed to do so.
What's the difference this time? A few centuries ago, and even in the 20th century, they didn’t see anything wrong with grabbing a ruler and a pencil and drawing borders along routes and dotted lines
on geographical maps, thus dividing nations and giving names to states.
This is how they built their colonies with ensuing troubles and problems for many years to come.
Here, they decided to do the same, sometimes using a ruler and a pencil, sometimes a compass,
in every sense of the word.
Occasionally, they did so just hiding a fist inside their shirt, conducting experiments on rewriting
or resetting entire nations comprised of various ethnicities.
Remember the button that former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton presented to Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov during their talks? Beaming with joy, she said it was a “reset” button, but it turned out it said “overload.” I think what they wanted to do was reset the entire population living in Ukraine
but they ended up with an overload.
These are the people of different ethnicities who are now asking themselves how to identify themselves in a new Western way.
Things used to be clear before.
Not because there were guidelines to follow, but because families said so
and children were brought up that way.
There was a certain atmosphere where efforts were made not to aggravate these matters.
No one had a bone to pick with the next person just because their last names ended in “ko” or “ov.” Everything was mixed up and that’s how things were.
We all travelled along this path in history.
They decided to reset things, based on the Western melting pot model.
An overload followed.
The melting pot has become an infernal cauldron.
This is what it is, unfortunately.