On June 22, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov
will hold talks with Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs of the State of Qatar
Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani,
who will pay a working visit to Moscow.
The foreign ministers will discuss in detail the key issues
of the further development of multifaceted Russian-Qatari relations.
The parties will exchange views on the current items on the international and regional agendas, including developments in Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Sudan and the Arab-Israeli settlement.
Special attention will be paid to the prospects for long-term,
sustainable stabilisation in the Persian Gulf zone
through the creation of collective response mechanisms to existing challenges
and threats in this strategically important region with the participation of all interested states.
As part of preparations for the second Russia-Africa Summit, on June 23,
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will chair a meeting of the Business Council
dedicated to the development of trade and economic cooperation with the African countries.
The event will be attended by representatives from the Foreign Ministry’s leadership
and from relevant departments,
as well as the heads of major Russian business associations and companies.
On June 14, 2023, Sevastopol celebrated its 240th anniversary.
We are proud of that city and many glorious pages in its history.
During the Great Patriotic War, Sevastopol resisted the Nazi onslaught for 250 days,
and during the Crimean War of 1853-1856,
our warriors defended the main naval base of the Black Sea Fleet for 349 days.
In both instances, they fought against overwhelming enemy forces.
Today the city is deservedly known as Hero City
and is again resisting the attacks of the EU and NATO countries on Russia.
This time, they are trying to attain their geopolitical goals through the neo-Nazi Kiev regime,
which they nurtured after a pattern they used in the past.
We remember how Nazis were brought to power in Germany in the 1930s and who paid for it.
But our enemies will not succeed, however hard they may try.
The people of Sevastopol honour the memory of their legendary forefathers
and will do everything in their power so as not to dishonour their combat and labour achievements.
On June 14, 2023, an exhibition of Byzantine icons removed from Ukraine opened in the Louvre, France.
According to the museum,
this was done “to contribute to the protection of Ukrainian cultural objects.”
It is unclear, though, what was threatening the sacred images
or how many icons France has “evacuated,”
because only five icons are being exhibited.
How many icons have they removed from Ukraine?
This is reminiscent of the European countries’ attitude to the heritage of their former African colonies.
Too many of those exhibits have been “rescued” to European museums and private collections for good, and the people of Africa never saw them again.
The colonisers did this not only in Africa but also in the colonial or semi-colonial countries
located in close proximity to Europe or in it.
I remember the museums of Egypt and Greece sending numerous requests to those
who tricked them into allowing them to remove their masterpieces, which they never got back.
The precious icons that are on display in France today have a long history.
They witnessed many ordeals, like the fall of the Byzantine Empire
and the period of iconoclastic controversy.
During the Great Patriotic War, part of the collection was plundered by the Nazis
and was lost to humankind.
And now the same danger has approached the sacred images
that had been preserved by Soviet experts.
They survived many trials but succumbed to the regime of Vladimir Zelensky,
which has been worse than the locusts that devour everything they encounter.
The plundering of Ukraine is ongoing at a record pace under the legal umbrella
provided by Zelensky and his pack.
We doubt that these works of art will ever be returned to Kiev.
The Nazis from the Zelensky government continue to desecrate the memory of our great forefathers within the framework of the campaign launched by Ukrainian “minister of culture” Alexander Tkachenko to rename everything that was Russian.
The Ukrainian neo-Nazis have now attacked three outstanding Russian artists:
Ilya Repin, Arkhip Kuindzhi and Ivan Aivazovsky, who have been declared Ukrainians.
I know that there is no use appealing to reason now.
The Kiev regime has long been fatally ill with neo-Nazism.
When this disease takes over a person or society, it kills logic, common sense,
morals, ethics and everything else.
I will not call on you to consider the ideas and principles that guided the team sitting on Bankova Street.
I suggest that we listen to the artists themselves, to how they described themselves.
Arkhip Kuindzhi wrote:
“I am a Russian.
My forefathers were Greeks who moved here from Crimea’s southern coast
and established the city of Mariupol and 24 villages during the reign of Empress Catherine.”
Ilya Repin wrote in a letter to artist Vasily Polenov:
“You will see how our Russian reality shines.”
Ivan Aivazovsky said that he was Armenian by birth and Russian in his soul.
None of the regions of the Russian Empire where these artists lived and worked were part of Ukraine, which did not exist on the geographical maps at the time.
And none of them ever thought of describing themselves as Ukrainians.
I will not speak about their nationality here.
There is such a thing as documents.
I know that documents and the Kiev regime are poles that will never meet,
but it would be reasonable to look at these documents and read what they say.
Such unscientific and deeply politicised initiatives
are the feature of the Kiev regime and its Western handlers.
Famous museums in NATO countries are placing new sign plates
at the works of Russian artists and renaming their paintings.
We have seen this.
Russian avant-garde artists have been renamed as Ukrainian.
We call on the relevant international organisations to pay attention to this.
The geopolitical ambitions of the “golden billion”
and its striving to do the largest possible damage to Russia and to hit it as hard as possible
are doing immense harm to global arts and science and distorting global history.
The situation will continue to deteriorate,
because their every move will be taken within the framework of this process.
Every publisher, gallery owner and art expert will not only feel free
to determine the nationality of authors and the names of paintings
but also the dates of these works of art without expert evaluation.
They will present new works of art as ancient art.
In the past, they were called fraudulent art works.
This process is gaining momentum now.
This will also harm active supporters of global de-Russification.
Vladimir Zelensky and his pack are bothered about monuments.
They have seen this happen in the NATO countries that have monuments to Red Army soldiers.
The Kiev regime is waging this campaign with gusto.
On June 19, 2023, a bust to Yuri Gagarin, the world’s first cosmonaut,
was dismantled in front of the Centre of Technical Creativity
and Vocational Guidance for Schoolchildren in the Darnitsa District in Kiev.
Doesn’t the Kiev regime regard him as the world’s first cosmonaut, as a cosmonaut or as Yuri Gagarin? Which is it?
The monument stood there for a long time, and everything seemed to be fine.
Another absurdity is that they present Soviet scientists who were born in Ukraine as Ukrainians, regardless of how these scientists regarded themselves or were officially registered,
or how felt in accordance with their cultural code.
As far as I remember, it has been reported, and nobody has refuted this information,
that space designer Sergey Korolyov has been declared as a Ukrainian as well.
If Korolyov is a Ukrainian, why are they destroying his heritage,
which monuments to Gagarin are part of, in a sense?
This is absurd.
There should be a logic, but I don’t see any.
When a person or society contract neo-Nazism, it destroys everything, from the laws of physics to logic.
Morals and values are the first to be eliminated.
This happened on June 17, 2023, in the town of Vinogradov in the Zakarpatye Region,
where a bust to Soviet teacher and writer Anton Makarenko was dismantled,
even though he had a Ukrainian family name.
There is no logic in this; it is the terminal phase of a disease called neo-Nazism.
Zelensky’s regime has demolished nearly all monuments to the Great Patriotic War
and to outstanding figures of Russian culture and history in his country.
Didn’t Ukrainians fight in the Great Patriotic War?
If we look at the names, we’ll see that many soldiers were registered as Ukrainians.
Take the outstanding military leaders of the Red Army.
Were there no Ukrainians among them?
There is no explanation other than that this is a disease of neo-Nazism and fascism
with all the elements of racial discrimination, racism and xenophobia.
In this particular instance, it can’t be cured.
It would seem that they have demolished and destroyed everything they could,
but the destructive spree is not over.
On June 15, 2023, the Ukraine Defence Contact Group met at the Ramstein air base again.
The participants have promised to continue to help Ukraine.
Although the so-called counteroffensive prepared by NATO has not succeeded,
they continue to push Kiev into suicidal operations,
promising to pump weapons into Ukraine for “as long as it takes.”
How many more people must die for Ukraine to begin wondering
if it is being used or deliberately destroyed, although not by those
who have been declared as enemies but by those who are giving weapons to it?
It is a cynical and horrible Western manipulation of the people who believed and trusted them.
In addition, every new Ramstein meeting is increasing
the burden on the American and European taxpayers.
But who cares about them?
They are only a card that is played during election campaigns.
Huge funds are being diverted from social programmes and healthcare,
education and economic development in the EU and the United States
to the bloody whirlpool of the Kiev regime.
It has been reported that the lion’s share of European
and American humanitarian aid for the people of Ukraine is appropriated by Kiev officials
who are famously steeped in corruption.
They invent ever more grey schemes to take over (actually, steal) humanitarian aid
and subsequently sell it throughout the country.
Up to a third of this cargo vanishes on the way to its addressees.
This is fully in keeping with the general view on the current powers that be in Ukraine,
who have long forgotten about the well-being of their citizens
and are only thinking about lining their pockets.
When the issue of Ukraine’s European
(that is, the possibility of joining the EU or even moving a step closer to this dream) is raised,
political analysts, experts and officials in Brussels say that with this level of corruption Ukraine
cannot even dream of joining the EU.
But dreaming or not dreaming is not the point.
The point is that corruption in Ukraine soared above the previous levels when the EU,
Washington and London started to use the methods of pre-colonial protectorate in Ukraine,
when American ministers and advisers appeared in Ukraine,
when government meetings were not chaired by the prime minister or the president of Ukraine
but by a vice-president of the United States (Joe Biden),
and when the incumbent president, Petr Poroshenko, meekly attended that “lesson”
together with his ministers.
We are watching the developments involving Joe Biden’s family.
It appears that he applied his personal experience throughout Ukraine,
and that his legacy has been solidified there.
Hardly a week goes by without some Ukrainian neo-Nazi announcing his plans
to eliminate Russians in the spirit of Joseph Goebbels.
The latest such statement has been made by Mikhail Podolyak,
an adviser to the head of Office of President Zelensky.
He said the following about the Ukrainian counteroffensive:
“There is only one plan: the most brutal advance, killing as many Russians as possible on this route.”
He didn’t have to try so hard.
We remember very well the recent statement by Senator Lindsey Graham
and recommendations by George W. Bush regarding their expectations in Ukraine,
its mission and reasons for investing in the Kiev regime,
which is “to destroy as many Russian troops as you can.”
Vain hopes.
Russia will not leave such plans and calls unpunished, as it has been pointed out many times,
including by President Vladimir Putin at the SPIEF.
The Nazi criminals will be called to account and punished for their crimes.
The task of Ukraine’s de-Nazification and de-militarisation will be fulfilled.
On June 19, 2023, a conference on the crimes committed by Ukrainian troops in Artyomovsk
was held in Donetsk.
The evidence of their atrocities included witness testimony by local residents.
The Ukrainian thugs massacred the Russian prisoners and wounded soldiers, killed civilians
and blew up buildings with people in them during their retreat.
This evidence of the Ukrainian forces’ crimes will be forwarded to the UN
and other international organisations.
Witness testimony will be used in a series of criminal cases.
Human Rights Commissioner of the Donetsk People’s Republic Darya Morozova has said
that the assessment of the crimes committed by Ukrainian troops must not be limited
to the ongoing work within the framework of Russia’s national legislation.
The Kiev regime is flagrantly violating international humanitarian law.
War crimes have no statute of limitations.
A tribunal for Ukraine will be held sooner or later,
and the thugs and functionaries of the Kiev regime will be called to account.
On June 22, Russia marks the Day of Remembrance and Sorrow.
On that day 82 years ago, the Great Patriotic War began, in which our heroic predecessors
routed Nazism and liberated Europe from the horrors of the Nazi plague.
Today, Russia is faced with a similar task: to root out the burgeoning monster of Nazism.
There is no way for us other than fulfilling this mission honourably until the final victory.
We have noted the Air Defender 23 exercise, now underway in German airspace.
This is the largest exercise involving NATO air forces since the alliance’s inception.
The NATO-supervised exercise involves 250 fixed-wing aircraft, including 100 US aircraft.
Its scale implies that Washington and its allies are drafting operational plans
for engaging an adversary with a comparable potential.
We know what adversary they have in mind.
As you know, the bloc’s exercises have always been directed against Russia over the past few decades.
On June 4-16, 2023, NATO navies completed the BALTOPS 23 exercise in the Baltic Sea.
According to the information that is available,
the exercise’s restricted area encompassed Russia’s Kaliningrad Region
and adjacent Russian sea expanses.
The very existence of these exercise scenarios demonstrates once again
that the North Atlantic bloc’s war machine has nothing to do with defensive operations.
All its efforts are aimed at all-round containment of Russia
and even working out options for attacking our country.
In these conditions, we would like to note once again that any attempts
to threaten the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the Russian Federation
will inevitably result in repercussions for their organisers.
Let us take a look at what is happening now in Kosovo
from the point of view of the current and historical realities.
The situation in the southern Serbian province of Kosovo and Metohija is steadily deteriorating.
The self-proclaimed authorities led by “prime minister” Albin Kurti
are openly moving towards an armed conflict.
Terror against Serbs is becoming even more brutal, and the provocations are becoming more devious.
One would think, how much further could they go?
Illegal detention of citizens continues, and the Serbian cargo transport is blocked
when it tries to enter the region.
Serbian children have become victims of the Pristina punitive forces.
On June 17, 2023, the Kosovo Albanian “police” beat up two minors in the Zvečan municipality,
brother and sister Kristijan and Dara Radosavljević.
The members of the Kosovo police humiliated them, made them kneel down and verbally abused them.
Only the appearance of the teenagers’ mother stoped the humiliation
and saved the children from violence.
The armed raids against helpless civilians, children, women and elderly
are the calling card of the Kosovo Albanian forces.
So what about the West, which is supposed to oversee the situation in the region,
claiming that it is fulfilling its mission as an intermediary
and has been there for many years as a peacemaker?
The United States and the EU continue to turn a blind eye
to “prime minister” Albin Kurti’s disruptive actions and intentionally lead the settlement process
to an impasse, forcing Serbs to give up their vital interests.
The custom of Washington, London and Brussels to indulge all those
with whom they associate Kosovo and Albanians is ineradicable.
You know this perfectly well from recent history.
Since April 2013, Pristina has continued sabotaging its obligations
to create the Community of Serb Municipalities in Kosovo.
But instead of putting pressure on the Kosovars, the American intermediaries
have been laying the groundwork for a radical limitation of the community’s powers
and replacing it with some mechanism to protect language rights,
while supporting Albin Kurti’s thesis about the “non-territorial” nature of this structure.
Against this backdrop, the risk that the West’s games with international law
to create alternate options to deal with the Kosovo problem
will bring the region to a new disaster is increasing.
At the same time, a reliable foundation for the settlement exists and remains in full effect:
UN Security Council Resolution No.1244 as the basis for talks
between Belgrade and Priština and any intermediary efforts of the international community.
From June 13 to July 13, 1878, Berlin hosted a diplomatic conference
whose formal aim was to sum up the results of Russia’s victorious war against Türkiye in 1877-1878.
The talks involved the best representatives of European diplomacy, the very finest.
During the meetings, the European monarchies sought
to prevent the growth of Russian influence in the Balkans.
Motivated, as always, by political factors, hopes for here-and-now profit,
and sheer envy of the spectacular victories of Russian arms,
they did their best to revise the terms of the provisional Russo-Turkish Treaty of San Stefano
signed earlier in 1878.
London displayed the greatest anti-Russian zeal during the diplomatic battles.
In spite of the Russian position, the European monarchies insisted
on drawing borders in the Balkans based solely on their interests
rather than on the ethnic, economic or historical principle.
Russia literally had to defend the war’s results on the diplomatic front,
and not even for its own sake, but in the name of justice, legitimacy, and law.
Russia wanted the centuries-long struggle the Balkan nations waged for their state independence
and true sovereignty to be ultimately crowned with success,
and this striving was supported by the whole of Russian society.
Even though the congress managed to alter some terms of San Stefano to the detriment of Russia
and the South Slavs, the Russian delegation led by Chancellor of the Russian Empire His Serene Highness Prince Alexander Gorchakov managed to overcome the European resistance
and gain recognition of independence for Serbia, Montenegro and Romania.
Russia also opened the way towards independence for Bulgaria, and for the first time,
problems of Albanian and Macedonian statehood were outlined.
Unlike Russia, European participants sought to grab anything that was not nailed down.
On the sly, unexpectedly the countries that had not been involved in the war at all
but styled themselves as “peacemakers” – Britain and Austro-Hungary –
cleaned up the most desirable pieces of Türkiye, the former getting Cyprus
and the latter establishing its protectorate over Bosnia and Herzegovina, which it later occupied.
The true results of the Congress of Berlin transpired during the Balkan Wars of 1912-1913
and World War I that broke out in 1914.
A seat of tensions was deliberately created in order to limit Russia’s influence in the Balkans
and, as a consequence, this paved the way for subsequent bitter conflicts.
We honour the memory of 200,000 Russian soldiers, who fell in the Russo-Turkish war of 1877-1878
for the independence of Balkan nations.
We appreciate the attitude of the citizens of Serbia, Montenegro, Bulgaria, Romania
(those, who know history), and of other Balkan countries,
who despite West-installed politicians’ time-serving attempts to revise the history of ties with Russia, still cherish the memory of its decisive contribution to their state independence.
Returning millions of refugees and temporarily displaced persons to their permanent places of residence is a crucial element of comprehensive settlement in Syria.
Short of this, it is impossible to achieve the final normalisation in the Syrian Arab Republic,
let alone remove additional tensions generated by the massive presence
of this category of persons in neighbouring Lebanon, Jordan, and Türkiye.
The state of cessation of hostilities has been maintained in Syria for a long while
owing to efforts undertaken within the Astana format involving Russia, Türkiye, and Iran.
Seemingly, we could say that the main threat,
which forced most Syrians to leave their homes, has been removed.
So, who and why is obstructing this return?
The answer is obvious.
The United States and the collective West constantly continue their pursuit of an anti-Syrian policy, torpedoing all the essential components of a global settlement, including the solution to this problem.
First, they toughen the economic blockade of Syria
(it was not lifted even during the Covid-19 pandemic),
something that leads to a decline in the standard of living and deprives Syrians of the chance
to restore their war-ravaged country, and second, they use subtle political methods,
bringing pressure to bear on UN specialised agencies,
primarily the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees.
The lion’s share of the billions of dollars that the Western sponsors allocate at their donor conferences, which are held without Syrian participation, is sent to where the refugees are at present
rather than to the territories controlled by the Syrian Government,
where returnees could be received and accommodated.
Therefore, these people get UN relief in the neighbouring countries,
where they can teach children and use medical services.
In principle, this is a good thing.
But as soon as refugees decide to go back home, they automatically lose UN relief
and are left to their own devices.
It is clear that in this situation many Syrians remain in countries that have given them refuge.
Life itself forces them to take this decision.
Thereby, a dangerous demographic challenge is created for countries like Lebanon or Jordan.
The mercenary pro-Western media are an additional lever of pressure,
given their indefatigable efforts to churn out horror stories about alleged “atrocities”
perpetrated by the bloodthirsty regime (the reference is to the Syrian Government)
that would not stop short of arrests, torture, and even killings of those
who dared to return to their homeland.
They are deliberately creating a frightening picture that is relayed to Syrian refugees
and displaced persons.
They do some subtle work as well, engaging specially selected activists
or even employees of UN special agencies,
who distribute provocative questionnaires aimed at convincing refugees
that they should not go back home in the short term.
I think these are immoral and dangerous games that the West has openly made part of its logic.
The desire to do a lot of harm to Damascus and play the tragic and difficult “refugee” card
for political reasons may entail serious destabilising consequences for a number of states in the region.
We hope that the Syrian Arab Republic’s return to the Arab Family
and the incipient restoration of relations between Damascus and its regional entourage
will resolutely change the situation and help the Syrian refugees go back
to places of permanent residence in their homeland.
For our part, we will continue our efforts to solve this problem
in coordination with the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic.
Last week, the Bureau of [the Intergovernmental Council] of the UNESCO International Programme
for the Development of Communication concluded its regular session in Paris.
This programme is the only intergovernmental forum in the UN
that seeks to defend freedom of expression and opinion
and that supports the media in developing countries.
During the session, the Russian Federation announced plans to make a voluntary contribution of up
to $250,000 this year to carrying out humanitarian projects in the African countries.
It is important that the initiatives that have been approved were proposed by African nations,
which means they aim to address real – instead of imposed from outside –
requirements in the field of mass media and journalism in Africa.
The Russian Federation is fully committed to the global priority
that UNESCO gives to Africa and is a member of the relatively informal Group of Friends
that was established in November 2022 by nations who believe the African countries
should be given more prominence at the UN.
We will continue to provide support to our partners in other areas covered by UNESCO.
On June 16, following the 45th session of the World Coordinating Council of Russian Compatriots
and with support from the Foundation to Support and Protect the Rights of Compatriots Living Abroad, participants in the session visited Patriot military
and patriotic park of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation.
They laid flowers to The Victors’ Mothers monument,
visited the main church of the Russian Armed Forces
and saw the exhibits of the Memory Road Museum and other places of interest.
In addition, the participants unveiled a memorial stone and laid the Alley of Compatriots in the park.
It is expected that the attendees of various compatriot-related forums
that are held in Moscow will carry on the tradition of visiting the park and planting trees in the alley.
On June 27-30, Addis Ababa will host events to mark the Days of Russian Spiritual Culture in Ethiopia.
A special format was chosen for large-scale initiatives in many genres
to raise the world’s awareness of Russia’s rich cultural and spiritual heritage.
The Russian Ministry of Culture has partnered with the Russian Foreign Ministry
and the Moscow Patriarchate to carry out this project.
The Ethiopian capital will serve as the venue for an exhibition highlighting the unique heritage
of the Kizhi State Historical, Ethnographical and Architectural Nature Reserve,
which is included on the UNESCO World Heritage List,
as well as a roundtable discussion on the Affinity of Spiritual and Cultural Heritage
as the Foundation for the Development of Russia and Ethiopia.
Also, performances by the Moscow Theological Seminary Choir are scheduled for September 2023.
The delegations from both countries will include representatives of the authorities of the two countries, the Russian Orthodox Church, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church,
top officials from cultural institutions in both countries and leading experts in science, culture and art.
June 22 marks 82 years from the start of the Great Patriotic War.
This is a distinct page in Russia’s history, designated as the Day of Remembrance and Sorrow
on the official list of memorable dates.
That treacherous attack by Nazi Germany and its satellites on the Soviet Union
still sends echoes of grief, pain and outrage over the millions of trampled and mutilated lives.
Even more so today, when some people in the West have decided, out of the blue,
that those victims should now be relegated to oblivion.
But we will not allow this to happen.
The trials that befell the USSR in those terrible years have been imprinted
in the historical memory of our people.
Every single family here has been affected in one way or another by that terrible war;
none has been spared.
It took a superhuman effort for the Soviet Union to win the Great Patriotic War
and crush the misanthropic ideology of Nazism,
which was condemned by the international community at the Nuremberg Tribunal.
However, apparently, it was not defeated completely in Western Europe, given that many of the collaborators escaped punishment at the time.
The invaders completely or partially destroyed more than 1,700 cities and towns,
and over 70,000 smaller communities in our country.
The Soviet Union had to bear the brunt of WWII:
the country lost almost 27 million people, accounting for 40 percent of the total human losses
among the parties to that global conflict.
Unfortunately, time has shown the vitality of the Nazi ideology.
Nazism has been recreated in Ukraine according to the same patterns
for the sake of a monstrous geopolitical experiment aimed at containing Russia.
It relied on former collaborators who found refuge in the West after the war and Nazi criminals,
who were not just forgiven by Western political elites for the sake of their interests,
but were granted a “whitewashed future.”
Only this can’t be washed off.
It must be frankly admitted that less than 80 years since that war,
the Anglo-Saxons tried to use Nazism as a battering ram to defeat Russia,
giving Ukraine (the Kiev regime) the role that Nazi Germany played in the 1930s.
This is beyond good and evil, considering that Ukraine, too, has gone through the atrocities
of the Nazi occupation during those years.
If you read documents or watch footage of the Munich pact,
you will understand how cleverly the West was able to strike such deals.
We have realised that the West has never renounced such scenarios, plans and schemes,
even despite the general censure of what they had created in Germany back then,
nurturing Nazism with their own taxpayers’ money and supporting fascism.
In recent decades, the West has been consistently nurturing people
associated with 20th-century Nazism and fascism and harbouring anti-Russia attitudes.
Remember 2008, when NATO enticed Ukraine with a potential membership
at the 20th summit in Bucharest?
Realising that they had political support, Ukrainian neo-Nazis,
with the tacit approval of the United States and their allies,
began vigorously gaining foothold in all spheres including the country's government.
The UN vote on the Russian resolution against the glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism
and related practices was quite revealing, clearly demonstrating the Anglo-Saxons’ involvement
in shaping the Nazi ideology of the current Kiev regime.
The United States and Ukraine always voted against our draft resolution until 2022,
but now the entire West, including the Axis countries – Germany, Italy and Japan – has joined them.
Furthermore, Washington and its allies have been turning a blind eye
to all the atrocities and lawlessness unfolding in Ukraine.
First, there was the legislative “reform” aimed at the “decommunisation” of Ukraine.
This was not “decommunisation” at all;
if this were what they wanted, they would have emphasised different aspects.
But every step taken under the guise of “decommunisation” was actually directed against Russia.
At the same time, they were widely glorifying Ukrainian accomplices of the German Nazis,
members of the OUN-UPA groups, and persecuting Great Patriotic War veterans.
That was the period when the terrible scenes of the 1930s Nazi Germany model were revived.
This involved the harassment of the Russian-speaking population
which went as far as medieval witch hunts at times
(think of the people burned en masse in the House of Trade Unions in Odessa in May 2014).
Reprisals against dissidents and political opponents were carried out without trial or investigation,
and the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church was persecuted.
The residents of Donbass were openly exterminated by the ideological followers of Stepan Bandera
and his accomplices.
It now takes just a few formalities for Bandera and Roman Shukhevich
to be canonised in the area controlled by the Kiev regime.
The “metropolitan” of an entity called the OCU has already consecrated icons depicting them –
it is not so much a schismatic church, but rather a cult torn off from the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.
After such “icons” have been consecrated, I am sure we will soon see more of those faces painted.
Ukrainian neo-Nazism has been nurtured from the outside for years
(and gradually incorporated in Ukraine).
The “collective West” has been arming this force for years,
which makes the West a de facto proxy participant in the conflict in Ukraine.
However, the heirs of the Great Victory generation have no moral right
to allow the Nazi ideology to make a comeback.
We remember the horrors Nazism brought
and the tremendous effort the world had to put into defeating it.
We see now that the unfinished work to eradicate Nazism has led to some terrible consequences.
We bow our heads to the memory of our fathers, grandfathers
and great-grandfathers who perished during the Great Patriotic War.
Today, our servicemen continue their just cause, again fighting the Nazi hydra
as part of the special military operation in Ukraine.
On the Day of Remembrance on June 22, state flags will be flown at half-mast throughout the country, and a minute of silence will be announced at 12:15 pm to honour the victims of the Great Patriotic War.
We remember!
We will not betray them and will achieve justice,
because it is underpinned by the history of the nations who were not only victims,
but who found the strength to voluntarily sacrifice their lives for their loved ones,
as well as for total strangers and even future generations.
Question: The EU is preparing a 50-billion-euro package of aid for Ukraine
in the run-up to the donor summit.
They want to raise funds from three sources, “voluntary donations” from European countries, “borrowed funds” and Russia’s seized assets.
What can you say about this latest attempt to use Russia’s money
that was essentially stolen, to fund the Ukrainian regime?
Maria Zakharova: The West, led by Washington, has one wish,
to drag out the conflict in Ukraine for as long as possible and cause significant losses.
They are planting Nazi ideas that subsequently are even shaped into artistic images.
It has come to the point when the portraits of Shukhevich and Bandera
are painted on “Eastern Orthodox” icons and consecrated –
and not by some fringe figures but by people who have been proclaimed
and recognised as leaders of a new “religious” movement (essentially, a cult).
For Ukraine and many of its other underlings, the West paints a picture of an investment boom,
with unsubstantiated prospects (there is a boom but no investment yet),
technological progress (while destroying everything on Ukrainian territory,
supplying weapons and combat vehicles and provoking a prolonged conflict), and industrial expansion.
We have all been through this.
Written agreements were reached.
But how many times has the West been deceitful?
Its only goal is to make sure that Ukraine sticks to its Russophobic course and confrontation with Russia.
This is exactly why, in addition to fuelling the conflict by supplying more and more weapons,
the EU and NATO are feeding Ukraine with endless promises of support and quick-fix handouts.
As long as the fire of war keeps burning.
Their job is to stoke it as much as possible.
Brussels is trying not to focus on the fact that essentially, their intention is to put Ukraine,
through the Kiev regime, into unconditional debt bondage for many decades.
Everybody remembers that, even notwithstanding the alliance
and fighting the common evil together (Nazi Germany),
the West received every last kopek of the lend-lease provided to the Soviet Union.
We fought the common evil, a creature fostered in the West that exterminated all living things.
And still, we paid back everything to our allies.
What about this time?
How big will the burden be for the people who will live “there”?
At the same time, the European Union is not eager to keep providing for Ukraine.
Sooner or later, European voters will ask (and they are already starting to raise questions)
how their taxes have been spent,
when they see criminals killing their fellow citizens with weapons
brought into their countries from Ukraine via the black market –
because these supplies did not reach Bankova Street
(and even if they reached it, they were immediately resold).
According to the scheme in which the Kiev regime is involved,
these weapons are not documented anywhere.
And then EU residents will start asking questions.
How long it takes before this happens also depends on them.
They will want to know where their taxes went.
Where is the output from the previous financial injections into the Kiev regime?
What happened to the stories of a Western blitzkrieg?
And these questions will have to be answered.
And the answers will be negation or silence.
Declaring itself an open society, the West is skilled at figurative silence.
Meanwhile, the EU officials are trying to implement innovative approaches
that would help them appropriate the seized funds and property of Russians
so that they could be handed over to the Kiev regime while making these actions appear legitimate.
At the same time, it is obvious to everybody that the EU –
an entity claiming to be the stronghold of the supremacy of law
and the inviolable right to private property – is practicing economic racketeering.
Now we can see what happened to rights.
There are none.
The rights have been pushed to the background like unnecessary things.
Human rights as well, you have never heard anything about them from the West
in the context of the situation in Ukraine.
The most important thing is supplying weapons.
Human rights are a matter for some other time.
Several European institutions are already sounding the alarm and publicly declaring
that the seizure of Russia’s assets will inflict even more damage on the EU economy and the euro zone.
This measure will finally destroy the reputation the European Union
once had as an attractive jurisdiction for doing business and investing.
Russia’s stance on this matter is simple and clear: the European Union must,
without conditions or delay, return the stolen assets to their lawful owners –
Russian citizens, Russian companies and the Russian nation.
Question: The latest data from the US Treasury Department show that the country’s government debt has exceeded $32 trillion for the first time,
nine years before it was supposed to reach this threshold under an earlier forecast.
The US debt went over $31 trillion on October 2, 2022 and it took the country just eight months
to add another $1 trillion.
On June 3, Joe Biden signed a law increasing the debt ceiling starting January 2, 2025,
while the ceiling will be suspended until then.
What do you think about this debt crisis in the United States
and how its government has been responding to it?
How will this affect the global economy?
Will it accelerate the demise of the so-called dollar hegemony?
Maria Zakharova: This is what the media referred to as the political debt ceiling circus
performed by the US Congress.
Not only did Congress give the Biden administration the green light
to keep adding to this astronomical government debt,
which has already exceeded $32 trillion and is 1.5-times the country’s GDP,
but it did not even set a new ceiling.
As a result, Washington spends twice as much as it can generate in revenue.
In our everyday lives, we can use different names for people, companies,
or entities that act this way, but this does not change the essence of the matter:
if you make half of what you spend, and cannot pay your debts, you are bankrupt.
It is beyond my understanding why there are all those perorations by political observers and economists about recessions, downturns or crises, which all fail to address the obvious.
This is like a typical Ponzi scheme, something that is viewed as an illegal practice,
primarily by the Western countries.
How can anyone treat this subject in any other way?
This economy cannot exist unless it gets regular injections of new doses of cash.
However, there is nothing in these injections to put the economy on a sustainable path.
This is a huge bubble, and we have seen bubbles of this kind burst in the United States many times.
The 2008 subprime mortgage crisis is a case in point.
Fuelled by bad loans and speculation, the market once again failed despite all the injections,
creating a domino effect which left everyone in tatters
including banks and stock exchanges in and outside of the United States.
So many people lost everything they had, while companies went bankrupt.
This started a global financial crisis, but instead of Washington assuming the blame or apologising,
or recognising that its economic model faltered, we witnessed the emergence of the Group of 20.
Once again, the international community had to step in and pay for the experiments
carried out in the United States.
I can hardly tell you how long this can carry on.
If the conventional laws of political economics were any guide,
the economic demise would have materialised a long time ago if not for printing all these dollars.
So far, the US government has been able to avert a default
by injecting more cash into the economy and taking aggressive action abroad.
However, these are temporary fixes which further destabilise global trade and finance
and prevent businesses from planning their long-term strategies.
In fact, despite all their partisan conflicts, the White House and the US Congress
agreed on postponing the effort to resolve fundamental issues related to the imbalanced nature
of the US financial system until after the 2024 presidential election.
The ruling liberal and globalist regime decided to place its bets on winning time,
regardless of who becomes the next president,
while shifting the burden of sustaining the global dollar hegemony on the rest of the world,
primarily the developing countries, as it always does.
In other words, they are trying to impose their new neo-colonial order based on the American rules, which implies preserving the North-South divide between the rich and the poor,
where there is a golden billion and all the rest.
After all, it was Josep Borrell who coined the “garden vs jungle” terminology.
Meanwhile, the United States has been obsessed with sanctions and weaponising the dollar,
which undermines trust in the US currency and pushes the Global Majority to find alternative tools, including by transacting and keeping their reserves in national currencies.
Russia, China and other countries that are not willing to accept Washington’s diktat
and global speculative model are involved in this process.
These are emerging economies with a lot of growth and development potential
backed by their real economies rather than bubbles.
This process is gaining momentum and sets conditions in place for a transition
to a multipolar world order with better justice for all,
and based on mutual respect and sovereign equality,
which are the basic tenets of international law.
Question: In an interview with Reuters, a spokesperson for Ukraine’s Ministry for European Integration said that Kiev is negotiating with Western arms manufacturers
to set up the production of Western weapons on Ukrainian territory.
Does this require any additional response on Moscow’s behalf?
Maria Zakharova: I have a big favour to ask you.
The next time you have an interview with someone representing the Kiev regime telling you
that the Western countries intend to build arms factories on Ukrainian territory,
could you please ask them to provide their coordinates.
We could really use them.
Question: Why has Russia denied access for the UN to Dnieper’s left bank
affected by the Kakhovka HPP disaster?
Maria Zakharova: The Foreign Ministry has released a very detailed comment on this topic.
It contains the answers to all the questions on this topic.
Here is the gist of the matter:
if the UN Secretariat followed a single standard,
it should have paid attention to what happened with the Nord Stream pipelines,
answered the question of who has been shelling the Zaporozhye NPP,
or talked about its effort to keep a close eye on this serious issue,
considering the Kiev regime’s obsession with destroying everything,
hurting civilians and damaging the environment.
After all, it has been viewing the Zaporozhye NPP as a sought-after target.
Instead of ditching questions and saying that it is not aware of what is going on,
the UN Secretariat must be serious when dealing with these cases and reports
without exercising a selective approach to various topics depending on in whose court the ball is.
Since the UN pretends to be a universal organisation, it must act as a referee
rather than an honest broker – after all, we are not on a marketplace.
This is the core principle, or a single standard for everyone to follow.
Otherwise, we will treat this as playing into the hands of certain forces and taking sides.
Question: President of Moldova Maia Sandu said that the Constitutional Court ruling to ban Sor,
a political party, was something “people expected.”
On the other hand, it was a representative from this very party, Evghenia Guțul,
who won the election in Gagauzia.
Do you agree with Maia Sandu’s assessment?
Are you aware of the corruption allegations against Sor?
What do you think about them?
Maria Zakharova: This is a rare instance when I cannot but agree with what Maia Sandu said
on banning Sor as something that was to be expected.
After all, nothing she says can surprise me anymore.
We have been keeping a close eye on these developments.
This is Moldova’s internal affair, had it not been for the effort
by the Moldovan leadership to link it to Russia.
Let me remind you that this is an opposition party represented in the national parliament
which holds its mandate from the people of Moldova who voted for it.
We can see that the ruling by Moldova’s Constitutional Court to ban Sor
resonated across the country and had a lot of negative press,
deepening divides and polarising Moldova’s society even more.
This decision has been viewed as yet another attack by the country’s authorities
against democratic principles to please the so-called collective West,
and this is not just about democracy as a model but about respecting people’s rights.
This is also viewed as an attempt to settle scores with political opponents and root out dissent,
as well as failure to show respect for their own people.
For the people of Moldova, the jubilation among Moldova’s leaders saying
that the Constitutional Court ruling was somehow a “victory for democracy,” is a cynical farce.
Political observers in Moldova have noted that the allegations against Sor
were clearly driven by a political agenda, and the same applies to the way the ban was enacted.
They pointed out that the overlap between the Constitutional Court ruling
and the political processes unfolding in Moldova was not a coincidence.
This situation is primarily linked to the election in Gagauzia on April 30, 2023, and May 14, 2023,
where Evghenia Guțul, who represents Sor, won.
Some have voiced concern that the practice of banning political parties
can be used against other opposition forces in the country, too.
I can confirm that this threat does exist.
They will not stop where they are now.
Experts believe that efforts by the authorities to cancel Sor would have not succeeded
without the collective West’s proactive support and patronage.
The West has been backing Maia Sandu and has been using Chisinau as a proxy
for turning Moldova into another Ukraine.
We know the manipulation technique:
promote Russophobia, limit the use of the Russian language, review your history,
encourage revanchist sentiment, step up cooperation with NATO and militarise the country,
and aggressively implement the neo-liberal agenda in social life,
while depriving elites of independence, sovereignty, and shattering the country’s statehood.
Question: Russian Ambassador in Yerevan Sergey Kopyrkin
was summoned to the Armenian Foreign Ministry
in connection with a shooting episode near the Lachin border checkpoint.
The statement says Yerevan urged Moscow to take the necessary steps
to clarify the circumstances of the incident and remedy the situation.
How did Moscow react to the Armenian side’s protest?
Maria Zakharova: The June 15 incident near the entry to the Lachin corridor
from the side of Armenia stems from the fact that there is no delimited Armenian-Azerbaijani border.
Russia has repeatedly called for launching effective
and thorough activities of the bilateral commission on delimiting the Armenian-Azerbaijani border
with our advisory assistance.
We are ready to help with determining the border line in this area,
which has become another bone of contention between the parties.
The accusations against the Russian peacekeepers are absolutely groundless.
We strongly recommend reducing media rhetoric on this account.
Peacekeepers are working closely with the parties to normalise the situation,
to maintain the ceasefire and to stop hostilities in their area of responsibility.
Question: The State Department will spend $1 million to study Russia’s influence on US allies.
This initiative has two goals – to raise awareness of how to counter “Russian disinformation”
and to improve the resilience of Russia’s target audience.
What does Moscow think about these decisions by the State Department?
Does Moscow plan to resort to similar tools?
Maria Zakharova: There are no such plans whatsoever.
Speaking of the situation at hand, we have more pressing goals and objectives to deal with,
which our colleagues – foreign-based diplomats and Central Office employees – talked about.
In addition to their main job (this is a genuine public service given the ongoing developments),
and their job responsibilities, they help deal with humanitarian issues and engage in charitable activities, and provide assistance to the people in need with ongoing developments in Ukraine,
the wounded people, children, etc.
These are the specific goals and objectives for using their own efforts and means.
There is no energy, time, or money to deal with the nonsense you mentioned.
What do we think about these decisions by the US State Department?
We think they are part of an approach that is completely divorced from reality
and a desire to lay hold on the money and have it change pockets.
Let the Americans ask themselves what their money is used for.
It’s nonsense.
Question: Isn’t Moscow worried that its close strategic partner China maintains contact
with the Biden administration?
As is known, following the talks between Chinese President Xi Jinping
and US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, the two sides have reportedly made progress
and reached the agreement on some specific issues.
Maria Zakharova: Every sovereign country has the right to maintain its own contacts,
diplomatic efforts, negotiations, visits, etc.
For us, this is an unshakable principle.
You cited the assessments provided by one side,
but there are assessments by the other side as well, which are different.
These talks were marked by the Americans as talks that “made progress”
but ended in a mishap on the part of the United States.
Following the remarks by President Biden, the Chinese Foreign Ministry issued an official protest.
This is a rare turn of events keeping in mind that the talks were of “great importance”
for the United States.
Barely had the aircraft with Blinken onboard cleared the skies of China,
the Chinese Foreign Ministry issued a note of protest
in connection with the official Washington’s statements.
Russia remains confident in its relations with China for one simple reason.
Our views on the basic issues of the modern world order are either overlapping or very close.
Respect for international law, non-interference in the internal affairs of other states,
not targeting each other, not considering others as a tasty morsel or a target for destruction, etc.
We have obligations and agreements that have been legally enshrined.
We are scaling up their practical implementation.
We are in favour of difficulties in relations between the countries subsiding
so that the countries could agree.
This is a good and positive trend which we welcome.
There is one small nuance, though.
Unfortunately, US promises to anyone of anything usually end in them failing
to deliver on any of their promises.
This is a historical fact and reality.
To reiterate, each country has the right to develop bilateral and multilateral relations.
We are talking about an independent state.
Question: The Parliament of Mongolia attaches great significance to relations with Russia,
the Speaker of the Mongolian Parliament said on Monday,
while meeting with Federation Council Speaker Valentina Matvienko in Moscow.
It is common knowledge that the third neighbour policy
is one of the principles of Mongolian foreign policy.
In 2019, for example, the United States and Mongolia signed a declaration on strategic partnership.
How does this “virtual reality” influence the region, including the interests of Russia and China,
the two real neighbours of Mongolia?
Washington perceives them as dangers and risks.
Are there any potential threats here affecting Russian gas transit to China?
Maria Zakharova: The Asian aspect of Russian foreign policy prioritises
the development of bilateral relations with Mongolia, our neighbour and friend.
These diverse relations rely on a long-time history of cooperation and mutual assistance, and they develop at the level of comprehensive strategic partnership.
The peoples of our countries vividly recall and honour the traditions of combat fraternity
that were tested during the struggle for the freedom
and independence of Mongolia on the Khalkhin Gol River,
as well as during the struggle against Nazism and militarism during World War II.
We continue to conduct a mutually respectful and equitable dialogue in international affairs,
and this meets the core national interests of the peoples of our countries.
Speaking of collaboration between Ulaanbaatar and Washington, Russia, unlike certain other countries, prefers not to interfere in relations between other states.
All independent countries have the right to conduct a sovereign foreign policy,
provided that it is not directed against the interests of third parties.
At the same time, we have repeatedly noted that greater US foreign policy activities
in any specific region spell nothing good for local countries.
As a rule, this provokes yet another spiral of tensions,
the emergence of new security threats and deception.
This has happened more than once.
Regarding economic cooperation projects with friendly China and Mongolia,
we continue to implement them on a mutually beneficial basis.
Question: After the terrorist attack at the Kakhovka HPP dam,
UN officials started to insist on getting immediate access to the Russia-controlled areas
affected by this human-made disaster.
Everybody remembers how long it took for Rafael Grossi to obtain a mandate for an IAEA mission
to visit a potential nuclear disaster site, the Zaporozhye NPP.
In your opinion, what is happening?
Is the UN Secretariat responding to incidents more promptly?
Maria Zakharova: No, these are double standards.
They are rooted in more than uncertainty, inner tardiness or lack of professionalism.
This is about pleasing a certain group of countries and pursuing their interests.
In order to be impartial, one must follow one important law, which is to avoid double standards.
If there is one standard, impartiality can be achieved.
It is something we have always asked the UN Secretariat to practise.
For example, they managed to overlook the Nord Stream pipeline attack
(and Western countries immediately played along by blocking our resolution proposing
to begin an investigation under the aegis of the UN Secretary-General).
An ammonia pipeline was blown up.
It was certainly the Kiev regime’s area of responsibility and competence without an alternative.
Did you hear the UN Secretariat condemn the act in any way?
There was nothing.
I want to note that the ammonia pipeline is civilian infrastructure used to transfer fertiliser
that provides 45 million people with essentials.
It is a matter of food security, which we have heard about so many times.
Since there was an explosion in the area controlled by the Kiev regime,
the UN Secretariat and its specialised bodies could at least express their notorious concerns
and say that the incident is bad news as it is.
But they pretend to be unaware and have no information.
When asked for clarification, they disappear and keep you waiting for answers.
We have every reason to doubt that international officials are impartial,
especially in view of the UN Secretary-General’s statement
that, regardless of who is responsible for the Kakhovka HPP incident,
it would not have happened if not for Russia’s actions on a larger scale.
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov responded that one should take an even broader perspective.
If not for the state coup in Ukraine, hand-controlled by the West
(with money injections and interference in domestic affairs, appointing people with US passports
to serve as senior officials in Ukraine),
nothing would have happened, including the explosion and the destruction of the Kakhovka HPP.
How far can it go?
They should be impartial and act using political analytical constructions with historical references.
But they would not even look there.
When they are asked to at least evaluate the events based on the current conditions,
they turn out to be “unaware” and request more time.
Then they disappear without answers.
The responsible parties and circumstances of the tragedy are perfectly clear to us.
Back on October 21, 2022, we informed the UN Security Council about the Kiev regime’s plans
to destroy the dam in the Kherson Region.
Russia’s claims were supported by data on Ukraine’s air strikes at the hydropower plant’s floodgates, to raise the water level in the Dnieper.
After the dam was destroyed, we circulated a chronological report of the developments of the past months among Security Council members.
These are facts that speak for themselves.
Question: Ukrainian prisoners of war of Trans-Carpathian origin were transferred to Hungary
with the participation of the Russian Orthodox Church.
Could you share some details on how this happened?
Maria Zakharova: Indeed, this prisoner swap did take place.
As you may have learned from an article
posted on the website of the Russian Orthodox Church’s Moscow Patriarchate on June 8, 2023,
it was the church that coordinated this exchange.
I would like to refer you to the Russian Orthodox Church for further details.
Question: The fact that Russian peacekeepers accompanied Azerbaijan’s border control guards
trying to hoist a flag on Armenia’s territory made quite a splash in Armenia.
Why did the peacekeepers act this way?
Has Russia been able to settle this issue with Armenia after the Russian Ambassador
was summoned to Armenia’s Foreign Ministry?
Maria Zakharova: Armenia summoned the ambassador, not Russia,
so I suggest that you seek the details from them.
There was just our response.
I cannot agree with what you said about the involvement or actions by Russian peacekeepers
in the context of actions by just one of the parties.
The peacekeepers are there to act in the interests of both sides
and help them overcome the differences between them.
I have already shared my comments on this topic today.
There is nothing I can add.
Question: Azerbaijan has stopped using the Lachin corridor for transport purposes.
It was used for cargo transportation accompanied by representatives
of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and Russian peacekeepers.
What does Russian intend to do to resolve this issue?
If Azerbaijan fails to abide by the terms of the November 9, 2020, Trilateral Statement,
while Russia is unable to influence Baku, can we say that it is not being enforced?
Maria Zakharova: We carry on with our efforts by relying on the Russian peacekeeping force
and using other means for unblocking the Lachin corridor.
Russia expected Armenia and Azerbaijan to continue complying
with their commitments under the November 9, 2020 statement.
We call on Yerevan to remain involved in trilateral formats,
since any pause in their work has a negative bearing on the situation in the region
and leads to an escalation on the ground.
In the meantime, we call on Baku to take the necessary steps
to unblock the corridor for humanitarian purposes
so that people living in Nagorno-Karabakh do no become hostage
to its political disagreements with Yerevan.
Question: RIA Novosti quoted a diplomatic source in an article saying
that the United States is demanding that the Nagorno-Karabakh authorities
hold talks with Azerbaijan in a third country, with threats that otherwise Baku
would carry out a military operation against Artsakh.
How does this relate to the presence of Russian peacekeepers?
We have been seeing regular ceasefire violations in Nagorno-Karabakh recently.
What will be Russia’s position if the events go down this road?
Maria Zakharova: I believe information published by several outlets to be trustworthy.
Russia is ready to facilitate dialogue between Baku and Stepanakert on ensuring the rights
and security guarantees for Nagorno-Karabakh’s residents,
as we have told the interested parties many times.
The Russian peacekeeping force has been deployed in the region as per the November 9, 2020,
Trilateral Statement by the leaders of the three countries.
It defines its main operational modalities.
Let me reiterate that the main goal for the Russian peacekeepers is to ensure
that the ceasefire holds within the area under their responsibility.
As for whether a military operation is possible,
I have already said that reports on the existence of this “school of thought” are not exaggerated.
Having said that, it will depend on whether the approach set forth in these statements
and legal methods prevail, or there will be an attempt to opt for a destructive plan
as reported by the media.
We have read multiple articles about efforts to divert the parties from the coordinated,
legal and legitimate path by once again plunging them into chaos and uncertainty.
We choose the first option and want all the agreements to be carried out.
We have done enough to make this happen.
We have nothing to prove to anyone, and stand ready to move forward step by step on all these tracks, from the efforts related to the situation on the ground, to economic matters.
This will be no easy task.
It requires hard work from us day in and day out and a tremendous effort.
This is the way we have been acting, and we stand ready to carry on along the same lines.
Question: Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan said on June 20
at a meeting of the parliament’s inquiry committee to investigate the circumstances of the 44-day war that Russia has de facto failed to achieve a ceasefire,
including on October 19, due to Azerbaijan’s ever new demands.
President of Russia Vladimir Putin said earlier that it was the Armenian party that refused to sign.
What actually happened?
Maria Zakharova: This meeting of the Armenian parliament committee
is related to the ongoing domestic political processes in Armenia.
I am not sure that we should comment on these debates.
The details of confidential talks at the highest level are also not in my competence.
It is not our tradition or area of responsibility.
Regardless of how heated the domestic political debates are, there is truth supported by facts.
It was Russia that was able to reach a ceasefire in Nagorno-Karabakh in the autumn of 2020
and restore peace in the region.
This was included in the Statement by the leaders of Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia.
How can it be otherwise?
Or maybe someone wants to revoke their signature?
I do not think so.
We have heard all sorts of things about various issues on the domestic agenda of various countries.
We proceed from the position officially stated by the leader of any given sovereign country.
We are guided by it.
It is necessary to focus not on searching for the guilty (or at least, leave it to historians),
but on implementing the series of trilateral agreements concluded at the highest level in 2020-2022.
They are the fundamental, sole roadmap for Armenian-Azerbaijani normalisation.
Maria Zakharova: Considering that you work for a Moscow publication,
I thought that you would be celebrating Mayor Sergey Sobyanin’s birthday.
I would like to add my voice to numerous birthday greetings and to thank him for the fact
that we are living in the best city in the world,
which is no exaggeration, a city that combines traditions with innovation.
This city is being run by people who sincerely and truly love it.
I would like to join in congratulating our mayor.
I mean it.
The main point is that wherever we go and whoever we meet, as a popular song goes,
no matter what political debates we hold or how much we may disagree,
everybody admits that Moscow is an awesome city.
Our capital is a shining city and wonderful proof that traditions and innovation,
history and modern day can go together, and that one can respect past achievements
while moving forward into the future.
Question: Are the situation in Moldova and deliberations about its foreign policy reminiscent
of the development of the current policy of the Kiev regime?
Could Moldova become another state with an ethnocide policy
based on changing the nation’s identity and depriving it of its language and history?
The proclaimed goal of European integration is destroying democracy
when it comes to the anti-Sandu parties and opinions.
The same has been going on in Ukraine since 2014, and everybody can see what this has led to.
Is the West preparing one more country for disintegration?
Maria Zakharova:I have already commented on the situation in Moldova today.
It is not so much a situation that has developed inside Moldova,
as a situation that has been provoked by pro-Western individuals incorporated into Moldovan society.
These people are not promoting the interests of the Moldovan people
or the state but the external interests they have been told by the West to protect.
The trademark of the current Moldovan leaders is infringement
on the principles of democracy at the behest of the collective West.
It boils down to the destruction of democratic principles, political point-scoring,
elimination of dissent and disregard for their own citizens.
I doubt that you can recall a period in history, a date or a fact that would resemble, even if distantly,
the current insanity that has been provoked by the activities of Maia Sandu’s government.
I have tried – and failed – to find an analogy to the renaming of the Moldovan language.
There were language bans and quotas,
but I don’t remember anyone renaming the national language,
the pride of the country in which many wonderful books have been written,
just to please some outsiders who have nothing in common with the country.
Question: Maybe they are getting ready for Moldova to become part of Romania at some point?
Maria Zakharova: No doubt about it.
Two, five, six, thirty states can unite or change as they wish.
Only, there are a couple of small but important points to bear in mind.
First, these decisions must rely on the people’ opinion.
But no one is asking them.
Maia Sandu came into the picture and told everyone she is guided
by the “best” practices of Western democracies and wants to replicate them.
In Switzerland, a referendum is held on repainting a fence on the country’s main street.
They hold referendums to decide every issue – how to park cars or how to manage the city economy.
Here, they have an issue that concerns the entire nation, affecting its cultural identity and individuality.
But the decision is made by a bunch of people and it is made for the entire nation –
a nation no one has asked about it.
Any association is possible, but one must really ask the people.
Sociological research, important and necessary as they are, is not enough.
Not at all.
These decisions need to rely on the opinion of the people,
and that opinion needs to be formalised in the legal plane.
This is usually called a referendum.
Or they should use some other kind of established plebiscite.
Secondly, I have no knowledge of any legitimate legal associations or reunifications
where a country wasn’t integrated on an equal basis.
There must be equality.
That implies a certain attitude towards the people of each of the two or more countries.
They need to have some foundations for integration, some process.
Can you imagine that any country that has joined the European Union in recent decades
would dissolve into the EU, renaming its language, or redefining its cultural identity?
Not that I’ve heard of.
On the contrary, every step taken in the European Union and in the OSCE area
emphasises the rights of minorities,
even those that cannot influence any political or fundamental changes.
They are still granted the right to defend their identity and views –
in the historical context, in the modern or political context, no matter.
Obviously, these are the two conditions that must be met.
But there is no doubt that this process is gaining momentum.
We see all this in Moldova today.
Here are some recent examples:
Moldovan leaders show no signs of tempering the already off-the-scale anti-Russia rhetoric.
In particular, on June 19, President Maia Sandu again expounded on “Russian propaganda”
and “Kremlin agents” in an interview with DW Conflict Zone.
I don't know who these people are.
I know about Romanians in the Moldovan government,
but there are no “Kremlin agents” or “Russian propaganda” there.
Moreover, the media have been blocked there.
On June 13, Moldovan officials attended a ceremony in Singerei
to inaugurate a monument to “the victims of the totalitarian communist occupation regime.”
A social group consisting of citizens and residents of Moldova,
a community and state institutions attended the event.
They were local people.
The State Chekhov Russian Drama Theatre in Chisinau
has removed nearly every production of Russian classics.
It would seem to make sense for a theatre named after Anton Chekhov
to offer Russian classics, would it not?
Not any more.
They want to rename the theatre instead.
They will call it the National Drama Theatre.
Another theatre in Chisinau, the Eminescu Theatre, shows The Siberian Files,
a production about the “extermination of the Bessarabian population during the Soviet occupation.”
Is this okay?
Where are the people who know their country’s history,
where Moldovan residents, together with the entire Soviet Union,
defended their land from the Nazi troops?
Where are those people?
Why are they not among those who shape the information agenda in Moldova?
The answer is simple: any dissent has been blocked.
This is not even dissent – this is factual knowledge, this is history.
We have seen this in Ukraine.
We also know what it has led to.
Do the people of Moldova understand what they are being prepared for?
Yes, they do.
We see it every day.
There is no hope that the country’s authorities will finally realise where their policy
will lead the republic, because they are following the advice and rules of their “Western comrades.”
I don't believe they can change their minds.
Another thing is that sometimes understanding comes quickly when crisis hits.
It happens.
This is the most realistic scenario.
Because one cannot arrogantly disregard the opinion of one's citizens,
promote hatred towards one of the ethnic groups, and reincarnate the spirit of nationalism.
This policy is splitting Moldovan society and generating military and political tensions in the region.
Question: I would like to comment on your words about Moscow.
The best city is St Petersburg, my hometown.
You visited it recently.
Maria Zakharova: Do you want to contest it?
Question: I couldn’t help but make a note.
Maria Zakharova: I think the point is we should support each other
in our love for specific dots on the map.
One can love many cities.
But you can’t be oblivious to the fact that Moscow has been transformed
and has extensive experience it can share with everybody else.
It is not a matter of our personal preference but an objective reality.
I don’t want to argue.
I respect different opinions.
When we talk about different places and describe them,
we usually rely on a specific set of criteria.
Moscow is a city that received the highest praise from the UN, in its specialised rating,
during the first year of the pandemic.
It is not just my personal attitude.
There are facts to support it.
Question: During his meeting with President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev in Baku,
President of Türkiye Recep Tayyip Erdogan said that Türkiye
is ready to open a consulate general in Shusha.
Could this statement and the possible opening of a consulate general be a potential threat
for the Russian peacekeepers in the region and for the peace talks
between Armenia and Azerbaijan, mediated by Russia?
Maria Zakharova: We proceed from the premise that opening consular offices, in Shusha or elsewhere, is a bilateral matter between Baku and Ankara.
Opening consular offices in other locations is within the competence of the respective sovereign states.
We understand that this issue may be sensitive for Yerevan.
In our contacts with our partners,
we systematically guide them towards considering each other’s interests
and realising the importance of consistently continuing the process of normalising
both Armenia-Azerbaijan and Armenia-Türkiye relations.
Question: When answering questions from the media during his trip to Belarus
to attend the CSTO Foreign Ministers Meeting, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said
that the West is trying to sow discord among the organisation’s members.
Can you provide any examples of these attempts?
Maria Zakharova: The CSTO is increasingly emerging as an irritant for the West
as it gathers momentum in its work.
Let me share some examples with you.
Some of them refer to past periods, while others reflect present-day developments.
We see that the challenges the CSTO has been facing
when working with other international structures and organisations stem from artificial,
rather than natural causes.
Having international, intergovernmental organisations grant a certain status
or engage in dialogue with various regional organisations around the world is quite natural.
The story here is rather complex.
This process never went as smoothly as with the associations of Western countries.
Someone clearly played a role here.
Moreover, the West has made no secret of its desire to undermine the CSTO.
They have been promising those refusing to work with Russia more preferences,
an alternative security umbrella, more military and technical cooperation.
Sometimes, the West chose threats instead of incentives.
It goes both ways.
There is also a massive effort taking place on the information and political front in these countries.
It goes far beyond working with the state as an entity.
We are talking about carrying out awareness campaigns consisting of spreading misinformation
about the CSTO, publishing and spreading fake news and misleading, offensive information online
to denigrate the CSTO both from the outside, and from the inside.
A plethora of groundless slanderous publications appeared in the Russian media,
as well as across the CSTO region, as confirmed by the organisation itself.
During the Minsk ministerial, Sergey Lavrov told his colleagues
that they must be clear-eyed and alert regarding Western proposals to expand military cooperation.
There is clearly a hidden agenda here, including when it comes to accessing national databases,
and exchanging sensitive information among the CSTO partners.
Of course, we have never and will never question the sovereign right of our closest friends
and allies to expand their relations with various international actors.
Still, it is our duty to warn our partners against the risks our common security space may face.
I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the CSTO is moving in the opposite direction
by offering its member states a unifying agenda instead of seeking to destabilise other structures.
Despite the destructive attempts to split the CSTO apart, the CSTO Foreign Ministers Meeting
reaffirmed our shared commitment to reinforcing our allied ties and unity within our ranks,
as well as the commitment to better respond to a wide range of present-day threats.
Question: Could you provide any specific examples?
Maria Zakharova: I already have.
Are you asking me to point a finger at a specific entity or name?
My answer is that this is happening in several dimensions, including in the media, inside our countries.
There are many examples, including articles and comments by political observers.
These would-be political researchers live off grants or other kinds of Western support.
They keep talking about the CSTO’s ineffectiveness, irrelevance, and inefficiency.
These are not their ideas.
Anything is possible, though.
An independent thinker would not fail to see that over the past years the CSTO has been proactive
in its efforts and achieved tangible results.
There is no way anyone could fail to notice this.
Those turning a blind eye to these developments are doing this at the behest of specific forces.
This is the only way I can explain this.
All these planted memes, or infographics are completely at odds with reality –
all this transcends borders and invades our common information space.
Languages may vary, but the actions are coordinated.
This effort mostly comes from structures within NATO, or the United States, which calls the shots.
American diplomats working in various countries may also be behind these efforts.
Allow me to speak a little more about Moscow.
I have never done this.
Not that I want to correct you.
I just want to compare.
When you go to a birthday party, you hear so many nice things said about the host.
I don’t think you would stand up and say that you are better.
It is customary to say good things at a celebration.
It is indeed a celebration when you want to speak from the bottom of your heart.
It is something that Muscovites – and not only them – take pride in.
I look at the reaction from people in our country, foreigners living here permanently,
foreign workers and students.
They all express enormous warmth and gratitude to the city and everybody
who has made Moscow the way it is today.
Question: During discussions on digital sovereignty at SPIEF,
you mentioned the need to give a sense of purpose to this fundamental transformation,
saying we must be aware of where we are going.
And that is an issue of ideology.
Maria Zakharova: I see no contradiction here.
I believe that ideology and setting goals are two different things,
but this does not mean they cannot go together or should contradict each other,
or exist in parallel universes.
I mentioned goal setting, because ideology is a much broader concept.
It is a means, a philosophy, and a commitment to a certain outlook
from a political or economic point of view.
It is about the ultimate result, the goal and the tasks that we define and set for ourselves to determine the effectiveness of the process.
Basically, this process should have a certain point it should aim at
or strive to achieve in some segments.
This is not up for debate.
What matters is that in this context, the pace, efficiency and outcome can be assessed
if you understand the goals and objectives:
if they are clearly formulated, the assessment will be objective.
But ideology is a much broader and more complex concept.
Question: Article 13(2) of the Constitution of the Russian Federation states
that no ideology shall be proclaimed as state ideology.
Does this mean that a constitutional reform is being developed to abolish the state ideology?
Maria Zakharova: I am definitely not the right person to answer this question.
We are in charge of foreign policy.
We discussed digital sovereignty in the context of the digital dictatorship that we now see in the West.
Your question should be addressed to those involved in domestic policy
and to representatives of our legislative authorities –
basically, to all whose focus is on the domestic policy.
Question: When will Russia initiate a legal procedure
to terminate the bilateral treaty with Ukraine on its sovereignty?
Maria Zakharova: The procedure for terminating the bilateral treaty with Ukraine
on its sovereignty is hampered by the absence of such a treaty.
In Article 1 of the Treaty on the Principles of Relations between the RSFSR
and the Ukrainian SSR of November 19, 1990,
the two republics recognised each other as ‘sovereign states.’
The 1990 treaty was then replaced by the Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership
between the Russian Federation and Ukraine of May 31, 1997 (Article 39),
which was denounced by Ukraine and terminated on April 1, 2019.
Question: The only language the United States understands is brute force.
Can the Foreign Ministry propose engaging strategic nuclear deterrence mechanisms
in order to create comparable threats directly to the United States,
so that it gives up trying to defeat Russia on the battlefield
and stop supplying weapons and mercenaries to Ukraine?
Maria Zakharova: In accordance with the Russian doctrinal documents,
strategic nuclear deterrence measures are being implemented nonstop.
These measures rely on the principle of defensive nuclear deterrence,
under which nuclear weapons can be used only under certain circumstances.
The United States is well aware of these circumstances.
We have repeatedly laid them out and commented upon them
in the most detailed manner, in particular, the Foreign Ministry has done so.
Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov focuses on it particularly.
I suggest that you read his interview and comments which spell out everything in detail.
But still.
In the context of the above question, it is important to emphasise once again
that the greatest danger now lies in the fact that acting in line with the aggressive course
of the United States and NATO on inflicting a “strategic defeat” on Russia in the Ukrainian conflict
that they had provoked, they keep raising the stakes
and are increasingly drawn deeper into military confrontation.
Clearly, this kind of reckless policy may lead to a direct armed clash between the nuclear powers.
I don’t think there is any need to go over the nature of the strategic risks arising
in connection with this and the potentially catastrophic nature of the further development of events according to the worst-case scenario.
Fully aware of the seriousness of the situation, we are sending, tirelessly and consistently,
signals trying to sober up Western countries.
However, the problem is that, overcome with anti-Russia hysteria
and absorbed in the all-out hybrid war against our country,
the West is not ready to see our position adequately.
So, the responsibility for the further degradation of the situation lies fully with the Western capitals.
For our part, we can firmly reiterate that Russia is determined to uphold its security interests.
We recommend the West not to have any doubt about it.
Question: There have been reports about threats and even personal sanctions
against African, Asian and Latin American delegations
which visited the St Petersburg Economic Forum in St Petersburg.
Can you comment on this in more detail,
specifically viewing this as a phenomenon of Western diplomacy?
What does the Foreign Ministry know about a diplomatic scandal (or incident)
with the South African delegation at Warsaw Airport,
when the bodyguards of South African President Cyril Ramaphosa and journalists
were not allowed to leave the plane for the whole day?
Nor were they given access to Hungary’s air space
and thus were not able to perform their peace mission in the Russian Federation.
Maria Zakharova: This is not the first time that we see such attitude from the US
and the collective West.
We cited many examples when they blackmailed those
who voted by using available instruments of interaction with the countries for their intimidation,
and threatening those who voted in person.
This has even happened with votes on UN General Assembly resolutions (not the Security Council), which are non-binding recommendations.
We have always relied on political and diplomatic methods, including talks,
as a means of settling existing differences and disputes.
We have rich diplomatic traditions
as well as the tragic experience of conducting defensive wars on our own territory.
The multi-ethnic people of Russia do not seek confrontation.
That said, considering our historical experience, we realise that we must ensure our security.
In foreign policy, we are fulfilling our commitments in good faith.
We strive to develop relations with all partners in line with this logic.
Proceeding from good neighbourliness and mutual respect,
which are basic principles stated in the UN Charter,
we are consistently developing relations in the CSTO, the EAEU, the CIS, BRICS and the SCO,
and with our colleagues from Eurasia, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America.
In their diplomatic work, Russian representatives do not resort to blackmail or other forms of political, economic and psychological pressure to achieve their goals.
Even when the West succeeds in reaching immediate results, they eventually have a reverse effect.
We are conducting an honest and open dialogue with our partners,
explaining our facts-based arguments and giving them an opportunity
to determine freely their own attitude to events.
“Freely” is the key word here.
We have heard a lot from the West about such a fundamental principle as freedom,
but their practical deeds completely contradict their words.
Meanwhile, we proceed from the principle of freedom in our relations with our partners,
be they our allies, friends or simply business associates.
In most cases, our partners fully understand this approach.
In many respects, it is a major element in our search for points of contact when the situation is not conducive to this.
We often hear from representatives of the Global South that the Americans, on the contrary,
are practicing what they call “coercive diplomacy.” In other words,
they are threatening others with sanctions and other punitive measures.
Indicatively, they are using these methods against the negotiators themselves
but also against their family members who own real estate, live or study in the West.
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov spoke about this more than once.
In turn, his colleagues and partners honestly told him during talks
that they are aware of this Western attitude towards them.
In the last few years, voting at the UN General Assembly was often based on this principle of coercion.
Mr Lavrov often recalls a very indicative case from his own practice.
A colleague from a developing nation complained that the Americans
were exerting pressure on his capital to make it renounce cooperation with Moscow.
Mr Lavrov asked him what the Americans offered in exchange.
The answer was a surprise – the Americans promised not to introduce sanctions.
They were not offering any benefits to his country but promised not to make things worse.
This answers the question about the ideas or stratagems that motivate them.
Who is going to like this?
Nobody.
But some people can resist it and others, unfortunately, cannot.
Let them deal with their approaches themselves.
We have a different one.
I am convinced that in any event they will fall victim to their own course.
The problem lies in the loss of diplomacy and their inability to conduct a professional dialogue.
This is due to the morbid feeling of their own exclusivity, exorbitant arrogance,
attempts to impose a distorted picture of the world on all others, the use of unseemly methods of fighting Russia and the funding of illegitimate ways of conducting the international game.
The NATO-centric countries continue crudely interfering in the internal affairs of other states.
This painful situation is doing harm to everyone.
We know for sure that the curators from the US, Britain and the EU brainwashed officials
and businesspeople from other countries to renounce participation in the SPIEF 2023.
Letters were sent and talks held;
blackmail and threats were used, as well as manipulations.
The Americans made purposeful trips to countries that are well-disposed towards Russia
to disrupt agreements that had been reached.
They said they know about the signing of some agreements with Russia
and that now they must be cancelled.
And what will they give in exchange?
They said they won’t make it any worse than it is now.
This is their logic and tactic.
There is a lot of evidence and facts to this effect.
I’d like to emphasise that they will themselves become victims of this mentality, this approach,
as it has happened more than once.
Our position is completely different.
Question: At the United Russia Party General Council Commission on International Cooperation
and Support for Compatriots Abroad, Sergey Lavrov emphasised three provisions of importance for us: 1) priority in ensuring the interests of Russian citizens and compatriots abroad
amid the unprecedented burst of Russophobia;
2) establishing a Club of Russia’s Friends;
and 3) the use of the potential of the International Movement of Russophiles.
Can you comment on these three points in more detail?
Maria Zakharova: During the current aggravation of the geopolitical situation, the Russian world
that embodies the unity of all those who are spiritually linked with our country
and its culture and share its traditional values always comes under threat.
Organisations of our compatriots in many countries, activists
and regular citizens are facing unprecedented pressure, attacks,
and threats that sometimes become reality.
In these conditions, our mission is to unite Russians abroad.
This stems from our compatriots that ask us to support them.
Millions of our compatriots form one of the world’s largest diasporas,
which is an inalienable part of our civil society despite living abroad.
We continue helping our compatriots that are engaged in public activity,
are drawn to each other, and together support the Russian language and our traditions,
and that celebrate our common holidays.
Today, the Foreign Ministry of Russia, its foreign offices, the Government Commission
on the Affairs of Compatriots Abroad and Rossotrudnichestvo pay a lot of attention
to the viability of our diaspora’s public associations,
to which the overwhelming majority of our compatriots abroad are oriented.
These organisations are making a tangible contribution to the preservation of Russian historical,
cultural and humanitarian heritage, the promotion of the Russian language
and the pursuing of their goals through their activity.
They are protecting children and young people from the moral and spiritual degradation
that has affected a number of countries.
This primarily applies to protection for the institution of family, childhood and maternity.
Our work with communities is adapted to the current foreign policy situation.
It primarily concerns human rights issues, moral support for public associations,
assistance in preserving a common Russian cultural identity,
information and explanatory work and numerous acts and events with our assistance.
In general, our comprehensive measures help unite the community
around the ideals of the Russian world.
The founding congress of the International Movement of Russophiles
held in Moscow on March 14 this year was a great success.
It brought together 87 foreign delegates from 42 countries.
The congress demonstrated the substantive, serious interest of the international community
in developing active international cooperation in preserving
and promoting Russian cultural legacy
as a counterweight to West-unleashed aggressive Russophobic policy.
Representatives of the movement are prepared to regularly hold various humanitarian events,
giving interested citizens of foreign states and Russians living abroad an opportunity
to openly protect Russia’s cultural presence in the world arena.
The World Online Conference on Multipolarity took place on April 29 this year.
It was attended by over 100 participants from five continents.
They are planning to continue developing the dialogue on this theme in different formats.
Preparations are underway for the second congress
of the International Movement of Russophiles scheduled for the beginning of next year.
In addition, representatives of the movement are ready to support various initiatives
and measures on promoting Russian science, culture and education
and preserving monuments related to Russia.
The initiators of the International Movement of Russophiles
are planning to make full use of their potential for creating a noticeable international movement
that will support respect and equitable dialogue, prevent racist rhetoric,
counter all manifestations of Russophobia
and promote dissemination of authentic information on Russia.
The United Russia political party initiated the formation of a broad international public platform,
The Club of Russia’s Friends.
It considers the expansion of humanitarian contacts and building an atmosphere of trust
between peoples an important component of party diplomacy.
This informal association will include a digital platform.
Its initiators plan to supplement it by in-person meetings, exchanges of delegations,
as well as cultural, educational and other events.
They plan to involve all those that would like to preserve and deepen ties with the Russian world, including authoritative politicians, MPs, diplomats, religious and public figures,
representatives of business and scientific circles and leaders
and active members of youth movements, including those from unfriendly states.
The latter is explained by the fact that we separate the policy and Russophobic attitudes
of the leadership in certain countries from the approach pursued by the people
who want to promote contact with our country.
They are doing this either by tradition or to protest personally against the nationalist hysteria
that has gripped the leaders in their countries.
The main point is for all participants to be ready for a mutually respectful,
equitable and productive dialogue.
Member of the bureau of the United Russia Supreme Council Senator Andrey Klimov
presented the initiative on the Club of Russia’s Friends
at the St Petersburg International Economic Forum and also in Kaliningrad,
on the sidelines of the sixth meeting of the United Russia Party General Council Commission
on International Cooperation and Support for Compatriots Abroad.
The next event on promoting this initiative is expected to take place in Minsk on June 23
in cooperation with the Belaya Rus Belarusian party.