On June 30, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov
will attend in Moscow the opening of the SCO National Peoples’ Diplomacy Centre in Russia,
created at the initiative of the Eurasian Peoples’ Assembly.
The diplomatic corps of SCO member states, observers
and dialogue partners have been invited to attend.
The Centre is designed to help implement Russia’s foreign policy aimed at strengthening the SCO,
as well as to promote friendship and shared respect for cultural
and civilisational diversity among the nations united on the SCO platform.
In its practical activity, the Centre will establish horizontal ties with identical organisations
operating in China, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan.
At 11 am (approx.) on June 30, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov
will conduct a briefing on a broad range of issues, including developments in Ukraine,
the humanitarian dimension of the Ukraine crisis, the current international agenda, and more.
The relevant announcement will be posted on the Foreign Ministry’s website
and its social media accounts.
The Kiev regime’s neo-Nazis and the foreign mercenaries fighting on their side continue
to commit mass war crimes against civilians and military personnel.
Their cruelty has reached an unprecedented scale.
Many criminals believe that their atrocities will remain unpunished,
but justice will be delivered to those who are guilty of violence, abuses and murder,
including in accordance with the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
In late May 2023, the Supreme Court of the Donetsk People’s Republic
sentenced a fighter of the Nazi Azov Battalion to life imprisonment
for executing a Russian prisoner of war in Mariupol on April 15, 2022.
On June 26, 2023, the Supreme Court of the Lugansk People’s Republic
handed down a 15-year sentence to a flamethrower operator of the Ukrainian air assault brigade
for shooting at a bus with civilians who were being evacuated
from the war zone in Rubezhnoye on April 2, 2022.
Russian law enforcement agencies will continue to scrupulously collect evidence
to expose criminals and call them to account.
Horrible proof of torture, violence and murders committed by Ukrainian neo-Nazis
and the personnel of the Ukrainian Armed Forces in 2014-2023 is provided in the book
titled The Black Book: Atrocities by Present-Day Banderites, 2014-2023.
It was published by the Russian Military Historical Society jointly with the Defence Ministry
and the Democracy Research Foundation chaired by Maxim Grigoryev,
a member of the Civic Chamber of the Russian Federation.
It includes evidence by victims and witnesses, investigation materials and photographs.
This book is a follow-up on the publication by the Russian Military Historical Society,
The Black Book: Atrocities by Banderites, about the Banderites’ crimes
committed during and after the Great Patriotic War.
It will be published in several foreign languages soon.
We believe that the information provided in it will be useful, especially for those
who refuse to see Nazism in Ukraine or a connection
between the present-day Banderites and their ideological idols of the 1940s.
The criminal nature of the Kiev regime has been confirmed by Deputy Head of Ukraine’s Main Intelligence Directorate Vadim Skibitsky,
who told the German media about the so-called “elimination lists.”
They plan to kill not only Russian politicians and military leaders who top the list,
but also public figures, journalists, bloggers and patriots.
According to Skibitsky, “the elimination of enemy propagandists is justified in wartime conditions.”
He also mentioned plans of terrorist attacks on infrastructure facilities in Crimea.
We are not only shocked by the Kiev regime’s openly terrorist methods
but also by its maniacal striving to kill civilians, journalists and public figures.
Do you remember their languid reaction to the murders of Darya Dugina and Vladlen Tatarsky
and to the assassination attempt on Zakhar Prilepin?
They neither refuted nor confirmed their involvement.
They just smiled and said cryptically that they didn’t do it, but they know what’s what.
Today, they say openly that they are planning and committing such crimes and will continue to do so.
What does this point to?
It is more than mere cynicism; it is evidence of their extremist and terrorist essence.
It is shocking that they have been supported by the “sophisticated” Western societies,
which claim to be tolerant and to be upholding human rights.
Does tolerance include peaceful coexistence with terrorists?
If so, it is a completely new interpretation.
The above information has been published in the German media.
Did they include any references to German legislation or Germany’s international commitments?
Did they mention that such methods are illegal and are not endorsed in Germany,
or that the German state and society distance themselves from such statements?
No, they didn’t.
Why? The reason is that they are financing these crimes.
They are not financing what they describe as the Kiev regime’s “justified struggle” for the country
and the people, but the murder of our citizens, Russians and people of other ethnicities,
whom they don’t regard as part of their ideological, civilisational or political world.
We remember the statements made by the EU High Representative
for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Josep Borrell,
about Europe as a “garden” and the rest of the world as the “jungle”
where they have a right to restore order by financing the Kiev regime
to help it kill as many Russians as possible.
These calls have been made by US Senator Lindsey Graham and former US President George W. Bush.
How could the democratic German media publish this?
Did they give the floor to representatives of ISIS [designated as a terrorist organisation]?
Did they interview the perpetrators of terrorist attacks in Germany in the past few years?
Did they publish statements by those
who were implicated in the murder of EU citizens in other EU countries?
No, nobody considered it possible before to publish statements by such people
about the assassination of public figures.
But what about solidarity among journalists?
The Kiev regime has been quite blunt when declaring that it planned to kill media professionals.
What do the German journalists who published this interview think about it?
Or is this yet another case of our journalists being somehow different from theirs?
Maybe the German media should think about creating a permanent section on their websites
for terrorists of all kinds, including ISIS, al-Qaeda and Jabhat al-Nusra?
On the other hand, they were the ones who divided the terrorists into good and not-so-good terrorists, singling out those with whom they could strike deals.
If so, there would be nothing shameful about creating a separate section
for offering a platform to extremist organisations of all kinds to share their plans
and use various circumstances to justify their actions.
As for us, reading these articles will raise awareness among us about the terrible nexus
between extremism and the Western community.
By seeking to justify its savage nature, the Kiev regime persists in its attempts
to stage a counteroffensive, a senseless and suicidal undertaking.
The Ukrainian Armed Forces have already lost tens of thousands of people.
However, just the other day, Deputy Pentagon Press Secretary Sabrina Singh said
that the United States accounted for losses of this magnitude
when planning military action on Ukrainian and Russian territory.
After all, these are Ukrainian nationals, not US citizens.
In terms of the Western “garden vs jungle” metaphor,
this was their immediate purpose –to be slaughtered.
In other words, the effort to exterminate Ukrainians and Russians is advancing strictly
in keeping with the plan devised by the United States well in advance.
Moreover, the West seems to have failed to draw any conclusions
from the failed attempt by the Ukrainian Armed Forces to stage a counteroffensive,
thinking that they can still turn the tide in their favour
by continuing to supply Ukraine with even more weapons.
Everyone saw what the mobilisation effort over there looks like.
Everyone can see that people are being pulled out of their homes and separated from their families, rounded up, beaten and kidnapped just to fill the ranks of cannon fodder.
Chief EU diplomat Josep Borrell said
that the EU would approve an additional 3.5 billion euro military aid package for Ukraine.
Australia followed up by promising Kiev 70 military hardware units and 105 mm artillery shells.
The United States announced a new military assistance package worth $500 million.
Let me emphasise one more time
that the only thing these new arms deliveries to Ukraine achieve is escalate the armed conflict.
These are irresponsible steps causing multiple casualties, including among civilians in the region.
The West has now focused on persuading countries of the Global South
to take part in the so-called Peace Summit.
Organised without Russia, it purports to find a peaceful resolution to the Ukraine conflict.
What a preposterous logic.
On the one hand, they accuse Russia of taking part in the conflict,
while on the other hand seeking out the Kiev regime
when it comes to discussing what they call a peace settlement.
Do they believe that if they come together in a ritual discussion,
this will somehow bring about peace, considering the situation?
Or if they invite countries which have nothing to do with this story
but who can lend them their moral and informational support?
Can peace materialise against the backdrop of these never-ending arms supplies?
In fact, the sole purpose of this gathering is to promote Vladimir Zelensky’s so-called peace formula, which is a total fraud.
This summit constitutes yet another attempt to persuade the world
that there is no alternative to this formula.
I am certain that it will all come down to yet another effort
to promote the false messages underpinning the peace formula and the event.
Those who choose to attend it will be able to see this up close.
We have explained on multiple occasions
that the Kiev regime’s would-be peace plan has nothing to do with peace.
In fact, it is a list of ultimatums for Russia, including withdrawing troops from Donbass,
Crimea, Zaporozhye and the Kherson Region,
which are lawfully part of Russia, paying Kiev compensation and reparations,
and pleading guilty in quasi-legal tribunals
established by the Kiev regime with the proactive support of the West.
A single document brings together all the nonsense coming from their propaganda.
This is nothing more than an ideological construct.
Attempts to determine the outcome of the Ukraine conflict without Russia’s involvement
are doomed to failure.
Were it not the case, this would have happened a long time ago.
Go ahead and try to bring about order and peace.
Do you expect this kind of discussion to lead to any progress?
On the contrary, it will only make things worse.
The sole purpose of inviting as many participants as possible to this would-be summit,
primarily from the countries of the Global South, is to designate them
as siding with the staunch supporters of the Western point of view
on the developments in and around Ukraine.
We have seen this quite a few times already, for example in Syria.
How many times did they hold events promising to achieve a complete settlement
in just a couple of days?
I remember the United States convening gatherings of this kind
among like-minded countries in the centre of Europe.
What came out of these initiatives?
No one even remembers what they were called.
They failed to deliver for one simple reason:
any knowledgeable and experienced person understands that when it comes to making peace,
the most important thing is to stop bloodshed and arms supplies.
Without this, roundtable discussions, conferences or symposiums will not produce any results.
The Kiev regime has proven this point.
They have taken part in talks on several occasions, entered into agreements
and confirmed their position only to back out of it right after that.
We cannot trust a word they say there.
There are documents signed by Western leaders, namely Germany and France,
and these documents made its way into a UN Security Council resolution.
Turns out, no one intended to carry it out despite the fact
that as a UN Security Council resolution constitutes a binding commitment.
What will they do if any commitments are put forth during summits of this kind?
Nothing.
They can simply forget them.
All they want is to tick the box by holding yet another political publicity event.
We call on all responsible states, which truly seek peace and even more so express the desire
and readiness to play a constructive role in the search for a political
and diplomatic settlement of the conflict, not to participate in this provocative undertaking.
The West needs your presence at the “summit”
just to create a semblance of a broad support for its results.
But this will make prospects for a peaceful settlement even more remote.
Relief efforts continue in the wake of the humanitarian and environmental disaster
at the Kakhovka Hydropower Plant which Kiev engineered on June 6, 2023,
when a Ukrainian missile strike destroyed the dam, causing an uncontrolled
dumping of water from the Kakhovka reservoir down the lower reaches of the Dnieper.
As of today, we know of about 48 deaths and 126 hospitalised persons.
Considerable environmental damage was caused, thousands of animals
perished at the Lower Dnieper National Nature Park, fields along the Dnieper were washed away,
and the North Crimean Canal is likely to shallow.
The destruction of the Kakhovka HPP has led to dangerous chemical fertilisers,
pesticides and fuel leaking into the local bodies of water.
Did any member of the Kiev regime think about the consequences?
The important thing for them was to commit a sabotage attack, make their presence felt,
and show to the world what they are capable of.
In total, 35 communities with over 22,000 houses are located in the flood zone.
Will this make the Kiev regime doubt their actions?
Never!
For normal people, the presence of thousands of people in a flood zone is a disaster,
a tragedy, a heartbreak, and motivation to offer help.
For the Bankova Street vampires, this is yet another reason to rejoice and have a celebration
(judging by their inadequate behaviour the morning after).
The water level in the town of Novaya Kakhovka reached 12 metres at one point.
The related Russian agencies, including the Emergencies Ministry, Health Ministry,
and others continue their non-stop efforts to eliminate the aftermath of the disaster,
implementing epidemic control measures to avoid an outbreak of diseases
and helping people in the worst-hit areas.
People are also getting financial support.
In this context, we were surprised by the response from international organisations,
which, despite their purported objectivity and impartiality,
have again declined to condemn the crimes committed by the Kiev regime,
the true perpetrator of this act of sabotage.
They are “unaware” and “lack information.”
Something else is needed for them to make relevant conclusions.
Evidently, the above is not enough.
In conclusion, I would like to pay tribute to yet another victim of the Kiev regime,
Alexander Zakharchenko, the first head of the Donetsk People’s Republic,
who would have turned 47 on June 26.
For the whole of that day, people brought flowers to the site of his death.
Alexander Zakharchenko, who signed the Package of Measures
for the Implementation of the Minsk Agreements and did everything in his power
to ensure peace in Donbass, was killed in a bomb blast
organised by Ukrainian saboteurs on August 31, 2018.
The Kiev regime was using terrorist methods against its political opponents, allegedly their own citizens, as already back then, complying with the orders they received from their Western sponsors,
yet the international community wanted to hear nothing about it
and looked the other way lest it saw anything.
Any chance for a peaceful settlement was destroyed.
Alexander Zakharchenko was a paragon of a true freedom fighter, true patriot,
and defender of his homeland from those whom we now legitimately call Nazis and neo-fascists,
and he remains as such in our memory.
All the above-mentioned facts prove once again that those
who are attempting to oppose us on behalf of the Kiev regime are open Nazis, terrorists,
as well as corrupt politicians and thieves into the bargain.
Therefore, there is no alternative to implementing the goals of the special military operation.
On June 20, 2023, the European Commission proposed creating a new instrument
to provide predictable financial support for Ukraine over the 2024-2027 period.
Guided by the principle of providing “sustained support” to Ukraine regardless of anything,
the EU bureaucrats continue to make loud statements about new financial assistance to Kiev.
This time, they have announced the establishment of a new instrument, the Ukraine Facility,
designed in word to help the Kiev authorities ensure macro-financial stability
and infrastructure reconstruction and modernisation.
I wonder what stability they mean, considering that President Zelensky
and his thugs have destroyed nearly everything in the country.
One of the goals of this initiative is to carry out the main internal reforms
as part of Ukraine’s EU accession process.
Apart from the proposed donor assistance from third countries and organisations,
the initiative openly mentions the use of the Russian state assets frozen in the EU.
In fact, the idea is to carry out the destructive policy of enslaving Ukraine through debt,
and robbing the country of its sovereignty.
Moreover, they are not acting altruistically.
They claim that they will transfer the Russian assets to the Kiev regime
and also add a little from their own pockets.
But in fact, they will lend these funds to Ukraine.
The EU and the US are ready to give anything on credit.
For example, a significant part of funds under the Ukraine Facility is to be provided
through “highly concessional loans.”
I believe they should have said honestly that they mean fast-disbursing loans.
It is obvious that Ukraine will hardly have any funds to repay these loans in the near future.
The EU’s financial assistance has greatly contributed to the record high growth of Ukraine’s state debt, which the Ukrainian Finance Ministry estimated at over $124 billion as of April 2023.
It looks like the future generations of Ukrainians will have to pay the current bills,
and it would be reasonable to assume that they won’t pay in money.
These loans will be repaid with resources and the remaining economy and sovereignty.
They have already lost their land, although it’s not clear what they used it to pay for.
They will lose everything else, provided the future generations inherit anything.
The potential result will be the ultimate looting and bankruptcy of Ukraine.
Today, many people in Ukraine are aware of the grim reality.
They say that Ukraine as a state is no more, and not because of Russia
but because people like Ukraine’s current leaders stood at the helm over the past decades.
These goals were set for those who claimed to be patriots
but in fact implemented Western (and not only Western) ideas.
When I say, “not only Western,” I mean that the Kiev politicians,
guided by their own corrupt interests, stopped at nothing to grab as much as possible for themselves.
You can see the result.
Today, I heard an expression that astounded me.
An avatar is the only thing left of Ukraine.
Those who have no interest in the country’s history cannot say what this avatar stands for,
or if there is nothing but a vacuum behind it.
There is no denying that.
The situation is being further complicated by the fact that the EU’s allocations
are underpinned by a set of conditions aimed at strengthening the Western influence in Ukraine.
Under the new instrument, the Ukrainian authorities will need to prepare a Ukraine Plan,
detailing its vision for the reforms it intends to undertake to receive funds.
The focus must be on a public administration reform and transition
towards a green and digital economy.
In other words, a country that prospered thanks to agriculture and that during the Soviet era,
had its own fundamental science and well-developed industry,
will be turned into an appendage based on Western principles.
The West will have the final say on resources while Ukraine is to move towards a green
and digital economy based on EU standards and with the direct approval by the European Commission.
A multilayer mechanism will be established to audit the use of funds,
including the use of inspections carried out “at any moment” of project implementation.
Since this plan is actually a “development” strategy for Ukraine,
the EU’s initiative is nothing other than an external administration plan.
One more proof of Brussels’ cynical policy towards Ukrainian authorities is that financial assistance
will only be provided on the condition of compliance
with fundamental human rights and freedoms of all citizens.
Was it Commission President Ursula von der Leyen who decided
that the Kiev regime must respect the fundamental rights and freedoms of all citizens?
The idea could only dawn on those who have no notion of what is happening in Ukraine.
What rights and freedoms?
What citizens?
There is nothing but cannon fodder, dictate and terrorism in Ukraine.
Who has rights and freedoms there?
Moreover, the European Commission has pointed out
that concern for ethnic minorities is a major aspect of its collaboration with the Kiev regime.
Who, according to the European Commission, should Kiev take care of?
Russians?
Kiev had eight long years to do that [after 2014] and many years before that.
When we tried to draw the attention of the European Commission,
the EU and all those Western institutions to that, they refused to regard it as a serious problem.
Why have they decided to promote absolutely unrealistic provisions
that contradict even President Zelensky’s laws, namely, a ban on Russian books
and the Russian language, as well as direct persecution of those who continue to speak Russian?
There is no understanding this.
It is clear to everyone except the European Commission that Kiev will not honour this provision.
Have they had too many Pfizer injections?
What’s going on anyway?
This is even clear to the Western handlers
who turned a blind eye to the Ukrainian government’s years-long policy of segregation
and elimination of Russian speakers and its wholesale offensive against media freedom.
Or do they think that putting this provision on paper will protect them from responsibility
because they hoped that Kiev would respect and try to implement it?
We all know what this logic usually leads to.
We took notice of the opinion on the 2022 Ukrainian law on national minorities (communities),
released by the Council of Europe Venice Commission on June 12, 2023.
You don’t know whether to laugh or cry, as the saying goes.
In fact, at the outset, caring for ethnic minorities used to serve as a pretext
for sending financial assistance to Ukraine.
On the other hand, this same institution, the Council of Europe’s Venice Commission,
is not from a different planet or another continent.
The European Commission is woven into the Council of Europe’s structure.
The Foreign Ministry has already explained the discriminatory nature of this law,
concealed as it is behind formal references to international agreements on protecting ethnic minorities.
Hungary and Romania rejected this document.
As you know.
there are big Hungarian and Romanian communities living in Ukraine.
However, in the current political environment
we cannot expect an advisory body of the Council of Europe to come up
with an unbiased assessment of the situation as far as law and human rights are concerned.
The opinion became yet another intentional step
towards destroying the reputation of what used to be a respected international institution
conceived as an independent expert advisory body on legal matters.
Instead of facilitating constitutional development and strengthening democratic institutions,
the Venice Commission volunteered to convert its expert capabilities into a tool of political posturing.
Today, its opinions are only good for designating friends and foes.
All they do is assign labels: these are friends who can do as they please,
while those are foes and they cannot do anything.
Friends get minor, if any, reproaches in a paternalistic tone,
while they spare no effort in chiding the foes.
We have seen this many times.
All you have to do is open recent opinions on Russian laws to see
how far they are willing to go with the stern language and terminology they use,
as well as their decisions whenever the commission is on a mission to carry out a political hit job.
Ukraine enjoys the status of the preferred enfant terrible
and gets special treatment from the would-be experts in the Venice Commission.
There is a tradition to include only superficial objections in opinions of this kind by literally
repeating the commission’s earlier conclusions regarding the Ukrainian laws on education and language.
In particular, the commission once again noted the “differential treatment
between the languages of indigenous peoples.”
What do they mean by “differential?”
This is when you want to impose a single language despite the fact
that an important part of your population has been speaking a different language for many centuries.
The law bans the use of a language which is many people’s mother tongue.
In addition, people who stay true to their native language suffer from harassment
and psychological pressure.
This is what they call “differential treatment.”
For many years now, these experts have been using this shameful euphemism
to conceal outright discrimination against the Russian language by the Kiev regime.
This has now gone beyond discrimination by evolving into a crusade against the Russian language.
The West is carrying out a global effort to cancel the Russian language and culture,
and the Kiev regime is part of it.
They failed a year ago, but stayed on course.
They use every opportunity to advance this agenda.
Kiev simply ignored the earlier recommendations from the Council of Europe and the OSCE
to amend its language laws.
We are certain that this time too all the objections will be ignored.
After all, deficiencies in the rule of law and system-wide human rights violations,
including the rights of ethnic minorities have already become the hallmark of the criminal regime
led by President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky.
But as long as he is ready to fight Russia until the last Ukrainian,
using the money he receives from his Western sponsors,
he will not be held accountable for violating universal and European values
in terms of promoting cultural, religious and language diversity,
no matter how gross these violations become.
By ignoring the Russophobic aspects of Ukraine’s new law on national minorities
and justifying the Russian language ban
in the context of the alleged “present Russian aggression against Ukraine,”
the Venice Commission has de facto given the green light to an aggressive push
to root out everything Russian and promote forced assimilation
by relying on the clumsy notion of a “transitional period.”
Members of the Venice Commission certainly know
that within the Kiev regime everyone uses Russian in their communications.
If not, they are not experts on this matter.
If they know this, just as we do, how can they get their heads around this?
What does Russia have to do with it, if within a single country its gang of leaders speaks Russian,
while preventing all others from using it?
They were brought to power with the sole mission of taking away and destroying everything
that brought us closer together all these years.
We are witnessing an attempt to offer international legitimacy
to the persecution of Russian speakers in Ukraine
by creating a far-fetched legal framework for cancelling everything Russian.
It seems that this is what the commission is after, along with all other structures
within the Council of Europe and in the West in general.
With these double standards in plain view, we can no longer call for these partisan bodies
to respond to the outrage and illegal actions perpetrated in Ukraine.
Russia proceeds from the premise that delivering on the objectives of the special military operation
will restore justice in Ukraine and enable ethnic groups living on its territory to enjoy all their rights.
I cannot fail to mention French President Emmanuel Macron’s recent interview for the France 24
and FranceInfo television channels.
He labelled Russia “the sole colonial power of the 21st century” waging an imperialist war
and being a destabilising influence in Africa.
That’s philosophy and the flight of thought on a truly breath-taking scale.
I don’t know how they put this in French,
but we talk in such cases about “one’s guilty conscience speaking.”
Perorations of this kind are inappropriate considering France’s dubious role in Africa.
The international community remembers the dirty pages of Paris’s colonial history;
France is still striving to exploit Africa’s resources, masking its neo-colonial methods
and schemes with false rhetoric and pretended concern for the Africans’ welfare.
While posing as a champion of international law and the territorial integrity of states,
France continues to illegally hold foreign lands.
Let’s go through the list.
Suffice it to recall Paris’s stubborn disregard of the UN General Assembly decisions
on the Union of the Comoros’ rights to the island of Mayotte,
the ongoing disputes with Madagascar over the Scattered Islands in the Indian Ocean,
and with Mauritius, over Tromelin Island.
France refuses to acknowledge its responsibility for war crimes
and the consequences of nuclear tests in Algeria, for the aggression against Libya in 2011
and the destruction of Libyan statehood,
which gave rise to many of the current problems in the Sahara-Sahel region.
Paris is trying to shift the blame for the consequences of their own criminal actions onto African states, as we see in Mali, for example.
Why don’t we ask the people living in African states
who oppressed them throughout the long history of the continent’s “civilised” development
and continues to do so?
Who was responsible for the “robbery and outrages” President Macron described?
Who plundered Africa’s natural resources and removed its cultural treasures to their own museums? Ask them who has been genuinely helping them to grow,
to strengthen their statehoods and economies, and ensure security.
The Central African Republic, Mali and Burkina Faso have actually answered these questions
by asking the French neo-colonisers to clear out.
This is the reason for the hatred that seethes in the French President’s words.
Lithuania is moving towards a totalitarian police state by leaps and bounds.
I can give you examples.
First, world-renowned figure skater Margarita Drobyazko was stripped of her state awards
by the Lithuanian authorities for participating in popular Russian ice shows.
Recently, they also initiated the procedure for depriving the athlete of Lithuanian citizenship
under a truly absurd pretext: she allegedly poses a threat to national security.
How? By skating or just by being beautiful?
At the same time, Vilnius continues to clean up its information landscape and fight pluralism of opinion.
This is also a neo-democracy.
Now also online.
The Radio and Television Commission of Lithuania has decided to block IP addresses
where Russian television channels can be watched.
The country has been taking these steps
amid the gross fabrication of criminal cases for political reasons.
Earlier this month, the Supreme Court of Lithuania upheld the decision
of the court of original jurisdiction and the appeal court
on the imprisonment of the well-known Lithuanian opposition politician,
public figure and journalist Algirdas Paleckis.
It is noteworthy that the charges against him – espionage for Russia –
were never proven by the investigation.
That is, the investigation failed to make a strong case against him.
So, they used some vague phrase, “preparation for espionage.”
Straight from George Orwell.
It is no longer surprising that “enlightened” Europe is calmly watching
and indulging police terror in the Baltics.
Did you expect anything else of people who give billions to terrorists on Bankova Street?
All they want is to spite Russia as much as possible.
They will go to any lengths for this, as they have repeatedly demonstrated.
We know from history what such experiments lead to:
every totalitarian regime, Nazis and fascists included,
started with the violation of personal rights and freedoms.
As you know, September 3 is the Day of Victory over Militaristic Japan
and the End of World War II of 1939-1945.
Once again, Tokyo’s response highlights the reluctance
of the administration of Prime Minister Fumio Kishida to look history in the face,
and its striving to impose distorted perceptions of past events.
We would like to recall that, following the surrender of Nazi Germany,
Japan remained the only threat to the progressive part of humankind headed by the Allied Powers.
Tokyo failed to take advantage of a chance to make a quick peace,
declining to join the Potsdam Declaration of 1945.
Consequently, the Soviet Union unfailingly honoured its allied obligations
and was forced to enter the war against the Japanese imperial army in the Far East.
This became a decisive contribution to ending bloodshed and saved the lives of many people,
including millions of ordinary Japanese citizens on the main Japanese islands.
Do Japanese citizens know this?
I am confident that they do not.
For example, they do not know who dropped the atomic bomb on Japan,
not to mention the reasons for the current decisions.
The Red Army defeated Japanese militarists and ended their rule.
The new name for the military glory day is entirely consistent
with the momentous events of 78 years ago, [1945],
which proved crucial for the entire international community.
This decision restores the historical truth.
We provided Tokyo with a chance to reset our relations and to perceive bilateral relations
and the entire international situation in a peaceful manner that would be geared to the future.
However, this chance did not inspire Tokyo.
Consequently, this decision is a logical continuation of the official holiday Victory over Japan,
instituted after the end of World War II by a Decree of the Presidium
of the Supreme Soviet (Parliament) of the Soviet Union.
At the same time, we would like to draw attention to the fact that the approval of the new bill,
signed by the President into law on June 24, 2023, is purely a domestic Russian affair.
We emphatically oppose any outside attempts to influence this process.
We stated this clearly and firmly to the Japanese side via diplomatic channels.
We cannot help but mention the fact that, in the past 18 months,
we have been witnessing an unprecedented upsurge of Russophobia
on the part of the administration of Prime Minister Fumio Kishida
in connection with the situation in Ukraine.
This includes the approval of dozens of sanction packages,
the dismantling of mutually beneficial cooperation, the curtailing of exchange programmes
and interregional ties and a large-scale media campaign
aimed at spreading lies and fake news about Russia.
The Government of Japan alone has done everything possible
to destroy the positive aspects of bilateral relations, accumulated over many years.
According to Chief Cabinet Secretary Hirokazu Matsuno,
this Russian decision could stir up anti-Russian sentiment among Japanese citizens.
Against this backdrop, one can understand the insistent calls of the Russian public, veteran
and political circles, especially those in Far Eastern regions, for the passing of the above-mentioned law.
Instead of voicing grievances, Tokyo should learn a sobering lesson from the historical events, highlighted by this memorial date, fully recognise the results of World War II
and renounce revanchism and any return to the militarisation of Japan
that brought grief and suffering to the people of the world and Japan itself.
The sanctions hysteria around Russian sports
and our athletes being admitted to international competitions is still raging.
Our Western ill-wishers are using all means available to hurt our country,
including misinformation about the alleged decision of the IOC
to admit Russian athletes to the 2024 Olympics in Paris as refugees.
At the same time, the international sports organisation,
which has repeatedly tarnished its reputation, hurried to disavow such fake news,
stating that it had not developed any options for admitting Russian athletes.
At the same time, we believe that, unfortunately, we cannot count on the impartiality of the IOC
or any other international sports federation led by an agenda-driven sports official.
A recent example: the Russian youth wrestling team was declined visas to Spain
that it had requested in order to take part in the European championships.
Our Wrestling Federation received a response from the IOC and United World Wrestling,
saying that the Russian national team would not receive visa assistance.
So, this is not just about a complete neglection of all the responsibilities and agreements
applicable to a country hosting major international sports tournaments,
but, the disengagement of the relevant international structures from dealing with the problem,
which is especially sad.
This shameful incident should become a signal for all participants in the global sports movement
that any situation in their country that does not fit into the Western template can backfire on clean
and honest athletes due to the puppet-like nature of the international sports agencies.
It is no secret that the brazen violation of the principle of autonomy
of the international sports movement and the ongoing lawlessness against Russian athletes
are the result of the anti-Russia course imposed by a narrow group of Western countries.
International sports officials who obediently follow the orders of the collective West
to refuse professional athletes admission to competitions are simply killing international sports.
It is not international sports anymore but a sports get-together, a giveaway game.
The absence of Russian athletes has a negative impact on the entertainment appeal of competitions,
the commercial aspect, and on their representativeness.
Russia has always been and always will be one of the most important participants
in the international sports and Olympic movements and this cannot be changed so easily.
On the contrary, our country is open to sports interaction and continues to focus
on strengthening sports friendship with all constructively disposed countries and interstate associations.
We continue to organise competitions in our country
and take part in major international competitions and sports events.
This year, the International Festival of University Sports of the BRICS, SCO and CIS Member States
will be held in Yekaterinburg in August;
Minsk will host the 2nd CIS Games;
and the BRICS Games will take place
as part of the current presidency of the Republic of South Africa in BRICS.
Next year, the BRICS Games will take place in Russia.
In the summer of 2024, Yakutsk will host the Children of Asia International Sports Games;
the World Friendship Games will be held in Moscow, in the autumn,
and also that year, Kazan will host the Games of the Future innovative multi-sport tournament.
On July 1, 1968, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT),
approved by a resolution of the UN General Assembly at an earlier date, was opened for signing.
In the past 55 years, it has virtually become a universal international law tool
and an important foundation for ensuring international peace and stability.
In all, 191 states have signed the NPT to date.
Another NPT review cycle is to commence soon, and we hope that this cycle
will help consolidate the treaty.
This is yet another reason for re-examining issues that require solution
and an opportunity to try to evaluate existing risks in a well-balanced spirit,
a salient feature of the NPT’s foundations.
This is even more important because the global security system is currently being seriously tested.
Obviously, now that the international situation has become extremely aggravated,
signatory states must team up and facilitate a stable nuclear weapons non-proliferation regime,
an element of maintaining global stability.
Quite possibly, this is one of the few elements, if not the only one.
We are expecting states, parties to the NPT, to display due political
will during the new review cycle and to do everything possible
to implement the Treaty’s goals and objectives.
Work continues to expand Russia’s international passenger air traffic,
despite difficulties following the declaration of collective Western sanctions against Russia.
In May 2023, participants in the 20th meeting of the Intergovernmental Russian-Cuban Commission
on Trade, Economic, Scientific and Technical Cooperation announced in Havana
that direct scheduled air transport to Cuba would resume from July 1.
Rossiya Airlines, an Aeroflot PLC subsidiary, will operate the flights.
We are convinced that this decision, adopted in the spirit of relations of strategic partnership,
will bring fraternal Cuba that is located far away, but which we hold so dear, ever closer.
Doubtless, this will provide a new impetus to our cultural-humanitarian and business ties
and will also help resume the influx of Russian tourists to the familiar and hospitable Freedom Island.
There are plans to hold the Forum of Campaigners against Modern Practices of Neocolonialism
in Moscow on October 18-20, 2023.
The Forum is to involve delegations of political parties, outstanding public activists
and prominent representatives from academic, expert and business circles
from an estimated 70 countries.
President of Russia Vladimir Putin supported this initiative
by the All-Russian Political Party United Russia.
On March 30 and May 31, 2023, members of the international Organising Committee
held their meetings under the guidance of United Russia Chairman Dmitry Medvedev.
Members of the leaderships of major political parties from Algeria, Brazil, Venezuela, Vietnam, Zimbabwe, Indonesia, China, Congo, Cuba, Laos, Lebanon, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia,
Nicaragua, Pakistan, Syria, Ethiopia and the Republic of South Africa
took part in the meetings online and via videoconference.
The key objective was the joint elaboration of weighty and comprehensive measures
to counter neocolonialism and neo-imperialism and to institute a permanent international mechanism (where influential political forces from various countries
will be able to chart coordinated anti-colonial steps).
The concerned parties decided to work in line with the Forum’s preliminary programme
and an appeal urging everyone to join this platform that is not directed against anyone,
and which aims to help build an equitable world without oppression,
sanctions and interference in domestic affairs.
The creation of an anti-colonial coalition meets the interests of the global majority
during the consolidation of efforts aimed at countering the dictates of the United States
and its satellites and at guaranteeing the sovereign right of nations to independent development.
The Russian Foreign Ministry has actively joined the efforts to implement this initiative,
and it will do everything possible to ensure the success of the Forum.
Question: According to media reports, PACE adopted several decisions
concerning the Russian Federation at its June 19-23 meeting in Strasbourg.
How would you comment on the outcome of that session?
Maria Zakharova: Respecting the separation of powers principle,
we rarely spoke about the activities of PACE or other parliamentary entities.
However, the most recent session indeed deserved a brief review, and we did that.
I’ll explain why.
Even after Russia withdrew from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe,
the organisation seems to have a problem snapping out of it.
One would have thought it was best to let go, with Russia gone and other things on their plate.
The PACE member countries have more than enough problems of their own
with the economy and finance, as well as corruption and internal disagreements.
But no, we are still at the top of the PACE agenda.
Their rhetoric rose to a fever pitch as they continue to churn out Russophobic documents.
On June 22, PACE approved a resolution on the Political Consequences
of the Russian Federation’s War of Aggression against Ukraine.
Who drew up this document?
Perhaps they used certain expert services?
Why would they?
No need to invent anything new when they have tried and true Russophobes,
in particular from Lithuania.
This document, if you can call it that, contains a detailed list of proposals
for the implementation of the pseudo-legal decisions of the 4th Council of Europe Summit in Reykjavik, held on May 16 and 17.
The organisation’s feverish activity clearly indicates
that the collective West is neither going to admit its own mistakes in relations with our country,
nor it is looking for some way out of the current situation, which is really their fault.
The Strasbourg parliamentarians lament their failure to achieve the UN Sustainable Development Goals, including the fight against climate change; the dismantling of the collective security system in Europe; and the exacerbation of nuclear rhetoric.
Apparently, all the above is Russia’s fault.
We are to blame for all of that.
Wait, so it was us that orchestrated the coup in Kiev?
Or wasn’t it?
Or was it Paris, Berlin, Washington, London and Brussels again?
They need to get this part clear.
They have been ignoring the numerous criminal acts
that the Kiev regime has carried out with their own money –
blowing up the Kakhovka Hydroelectric Power Plant, attacks on the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant, and the shelling of civilian facilities on Russian territory – this only covers the past year.
What about the years before that?
The eight long years?
They are definitely counting on the escalation of this conflict,
calling for support for Ukraine’s bid to join NATO.
Question: what does the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe have to do with the alliance? It was supposed to be an independent European agency,
whose mission was to underscore the special character and role of the European continent.
No, they don’t seem interested in that.
Maybe they are scared or just weak – they keep clinging to NATO.
Why?
Well, because they are already part of the alliance! NATO has long brought PACE to heel.
The Russophobic wing of PACE is obsessed with finding a niche in the Western campaign
to bring Russia to justice – hailing the creation of what they call registers of damage
and special international tribunals.
One question: When are they going to focus on Libya then?
How about an international tribunal for the criminals who destroyed the Libyan statehood?
If NATO is among their concerns, the United States of America should be one, too.
Where is a tribunal and a register of damage from the years of occupation of Iraq?
I think Syria, too, could make a huge number of claims once a register
and tribunal for Syria are established.
It is well known how many PACE and NATO countries were involved and what they did there.
As a reminder, we regard any decisions by such bodies as legally null and void.
This much should be obvious.
The problem is that they are imposing a false agenda, thus fostering a misleading perception.
The next PACE resolution adopted on the same day was War of Aggression Against Ukraine – Participation of Russian and Belarusian Athletes in the Paris 2024 Olympics and Paralympics?
The title speaks for itself.
PACE is calling on the International Olympic Committee to extend the 2022 ban on Russian
and Belarusian athletes from major competitions until the “end of the conflict.”
Look, this is parliament.
It should not be about promoting some idea that emerged on the sidelines
or was generated by some think tank.
As a parliament, PACE must express the will of the people living in the Council of Europe countries.
Has anyone asked them?
Have any of these decisions been adopted through a referendum or at least mini-consultations?
This is a very peculiar interpretation of the principle, keep politics out of sports.
In addition, it shows a cynicism concerning the rights of Paralympic athletes, people with disabilities.
I would like to ask PACE, will the Council of Europe dare punish Ukrainian athletes
for possible propaganda of Nazism?
Do they maybe plan to adopt a resolution condemning the aggressive, terrorist,
and extremist actions by the Kiev regime and accordingly,
will that affect Ukrainian athletes’ participation or non-participation in international sporting events? The outcome of the PACE session shows that, instead of seeking solutions for a peaceful settlement
to the conflict, the organisation is bringing grist to the mill of supporters of the military scenario.
They cannot do otherwise because they are part of this “aggressive infrastructure.”
They are not an independent body.
They are part of NATO thinking and NATO mechanisms.
By issuing endless indulgences to Kiev, the Council of Europe bodies are turning into accomplices
and hostages of the neo-Nazi regime and its Western handlers.
Unfortunately, there are no sane players on the Strasbourg platform today
capable of preventing the further degradation of the Council of Europe.
But this is no longer our problem.
They’ll have to deal with it themselves.
Question: The Moldovan authorities continue to talk about the Russian threat
and their unlimited support for the Kiev regime.
Do you think that Moldova is getting more and more entangled in Ukrainian affairs?
Maria Zakharova: As you know, we have commented on this a lot.
It would be more correct to say that the collective West, through the Kiev regime,
is dragging Moldova into the Ukrainian conflict and what’s more,
is regarding it as a possible second Ukraine.
Unfortunately, Chisinau understands everything very well.
Maia Sandu’s regime is doing this on purpose.
They simply mislead people living in Moldova, its citizens.
It is no longer about a zealous discussion of “Moscow's unprovoked aggression”
and exhortations of “unlimited solidarity” with the regime.
Moldova says it is ready to become a logistics hub for the southeastern Ukrainian territories.
That is, Maia Sandu’s government says if there is bloodshed, come to us, to Moldova,
we will gladly welcome you on our territory.
Any sensible politician or a person who cares about what’s going
on would never wish for their country to become a springboard for hostilities.
But everything is fine here.
The Moldovan leadership offers, invites and calls all kinds of trouble and misfortune to its territory.
They also offer to send a group of Moldovan engineers
to participate in demining the territory of Ukraine.
Thus, the Moldovan authorities are getting closer
to becoming direct accomplices of the criminal Kiev authorities,
while making their own population hostages.
At the same time, Moldova is bolstering its military and political cooperation with NATO and the EU,
and the militarisation of the country continues.
In this context, the idea that it is viable for Moldova to abandon the status of permanent neutrality enshrined in its Constitution as “inconsistent” with current international realities is gaining ground.
Of course, this cannot but cause us concern.
We have repeatedly pointed out to Chisinau that assistance from the collective West,
including in the military sphere, serves its own interests exclusively.
As experience shows, these interests are often pursued at the expense of the recipients of such assistance, or even on their ruins.
The Moldovan nation understands this very well, and an overwhelming majority
is against transforming their country into a “logistics appendage” of NATO.
The people of Moldova do not believe in the stated figures or in those myths
that they are encouraged to believe, myths about the “Russian threat.”
They are interested in maintaining neighbourly relations with Russia.
We hope that the Moldovan authorities will also realise
what is actually hidden behind the facade of the promises of the West
and will stop playing with the security of their republic.
Yes, we hope.
But of course, we have no faith.
Question: There were media reports that United States law enforcement agencies
placed Natalia Burlinova, head of the Public Initiative Creative Diplomacy,
an autonomous non-profit, on a wanted list.
What would be your comment on this situation?
Maria Zakharova: This is yet another legal outrage by the American government
against Russian nationals, who face persecution for political reasons
and are exposed to routine extraterritorial enforcement practices,
as well as designated on illegitimate sanctions lists.
All this has become the norm for Washington.
It is now researchers, academics and civil rights activists
who face this barefaced pressure on behalf of the US quasi-justice system.
This is not something new and did not start just a year or two ago.
This is a phenomenon spanning the past decade.
I believe that this is indicative of the punitive nature of the US system of quasi justice.
The charges brought against Natalia Burlinova are clearly absurd.
What is the goal here?
There is no doubt that the goal is to pressure those representing Russian research institutions
and their American colleagues who are open to working with Russia.
What are the accusations against her?
She stands accused of networking, and promoting horizontal communications
between the civil societies of our two countries.
I believe that this is what we need at this point.
Overall, we have seen what happened to Maria Butina and how the US justice
and penitentiary systems sought to punish her for an email in support of promoting bilateral relations.
They did everything to try and destroy her as a human being.
It seems that Natalia Burlinova is next in line.
It is quite telling that the repressive actions by the US authorities coincided with the Myrotvorets,
a Ukrainian website, designating members of Russian NGOs on its lists.
We know from experience that this poses a direct threat to the lives and health of these people.
Cases where people included in the database of this criminal website
were killed have been in the public spotlight.
They include journalists Oles Buzina, Darya Dugina, Vladlen Tatarsky (Maxim Fomin),
and Oleg Kalashnikov, a political activist.
We call on the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Turk,
Director of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights Matteo Mecacci,
and other international human rights bodies to pay attention to these outrageous initiatives
by the US system of quasi justice and political witch hunt, and respond accordingly.
Question: In light of the multiple media publications on this topic,
can you comment on the situation with the land plot belonging to the Russian Federation
at the intersection of King George V and Ha-Ma’a lot streets in Jerusalem
and its intended use in the future?
Maria Zakharova: I would like to draw your attention to the fact
that the Embassy of the Russian Federation in the State of Israel released a statement on June 16, 2023.
In it, the Russian diplomats working in Tel-Aviv offered a detailed comment on this topic.
I can only add that on May 18, 2023, the authorised representatives of the Russian Federation
and Jerusalem municipality, with the assistance of the Russian Embassy and the Israeli Foreign Ministry, signed a settlement with a protocol attached to it to specify the boundaries
and acreage of Russia’s land in West Jerusalem.
What is this all about?
Russia purchased this plot of land in 1885.
You heard me right.
This deed was entered into a document signed on June 19, 1895,
and titled “The register of Russian properties in Palestine and Syria, except private holdings.”
This latest settlement with the Jerusalem municipality sets forth
and reaffirms Russia’s historical rights to this land plot.
It provides for opening an exclusively administrative station
for providing consular services to Russian nationals on this land
once all the necessary conditions are in place.
This was not and is not about the transfer of the Embassy to Jerusalem
or the placement of its branch there.
We have seen all kinds of articles on this subject.
Let me emphasise once again that Russia has not changed its approach to the status of Jerusalem.
I can also add that Russia is committed to defending its property interests in the Holy Land
by working closely with the relevant agencies in Israel and Palestine.
We will carry on with these efforts.
Question: According to a recent poll published by NBC, up to 74 percent of respondents believe
that the United States is on the wrong track and only 20 percent believe
that the US is moving in the right direction.
Another poll shows that American society is even more divided –
supporters of the Democratic and Republican parties are extremely distrustful of each other.
What is your view on this?
Maria Zakharova: It seems to me that it is the United States that should judge here after all.
It is their country.
We have repeatedly stated that the United States
is in a period of serious internal confrontation and split.
This also applies to the elites
(you see, there is a life-and-death struggle between representatives of the Republican
and Democratic parties).
It is not about politics, philosophy or views on the future at all.
It is simply a skirmish every time that has purely pragmatic interests at stake
and shows the lack of unity and cohesion in society, which are so important to the state.
That does not mean at all that there cannot be different views on it.
There should be.
But this bitter battle erupts every two years when a new electoral cycle begins in the United States.
All this suggests that the split is colossal.
This is why a huge number of domestic problems are not being solved.
You see, it's just diametrically opposed views in society.
What's the difference between our approach and the American one?
When I say "our approach," it is more about countries that support traditional values
and stand for a healthy perception of democracy and are opposed to liberal diktat.
We assume that different points of view in society have the right to exist and are natural.
But they must be harmonised.
That is the main task of the state, among others.
And in the United States, these contradictions and differences of opinion are used for political battles.
Then it all leads to the necessity of endless international expansion, in order to earn outward "points,"
in order to fight these "invisible dragons" and to prove to the nation that it is "defended."
I think it is up to the Americans themselves to assess.
Indeed, for us these figures are unsurprising, but revealing.
Question: Russian embassies and consulates general are probably informing you
about the reactions in "their countries" to last week's events in Rostov-on-Don.
Can you, at least in general terms, characterise the reactions by continent,
region or key states in those regions?
Maria Zakharova: Do you think there should be some kind of a table?
I would like to draw your attention to the statements by Russian President Vladimir Putin,
as well as to the interview Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov gave to the RT channel on June 24.
The head of the Russian Foreign Ministry stressed
that Russian President Vladimir Putin received numerous calls.
His colleagues from over the world expressed solidarity, support and confidence
that the situation would be under control and would return to the constitutional framework.
And that’s what happened.
Sergey Lavrov also had several telephone conversations at the initiative of foreign partners.
Many called our ambassadors.
Representatives of the authorities and public figures expressed support, asked clarifying questions
and hoped for the crisis to be overcome.
Many statements have been made in recent days.
In particular, Saudi Arabia has expressed support for actions to protect Russia's constitutional order.
We constantly receive similar statements, both at the official level and from the public at large.
Have there been those who have gloated?
Sure there were.
Even without them there are always those who throw matches into the fire.
But you will find out about this when you watch Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's interview
with the programme The Big Game on Channel One.
Question: As you know, railway service between Russia and Armenia through Georgia is blocked.
Yerevan says that the problem is in Abkhazia.
What, in your opinion, are the prospects for resolving this issue?
Maria Zakharova: We are making every effort to implement the devised large-scale roadmap.
It includes documents signed by the heads of state,
and relevant commissions under the auspices of representatives of the governments of our countries.
Everything is being done on a daily basis to implement this plan.
Question: The President signed a law according to which September 3 will be referred to in Russia
as the Day of Victory over Militaristic Japan and the End of World War II (1945).
Could this affect bilateral relations?
What is this day officially called in China, North Korea and the Republic of Korea?
Maria Zakharova: I have already commented on this in my opening remarks.
As for the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the Republic of Korea,
they do not officially mark this date, but modern historians call it the day World War II ended.
Instead, both countries celebrate August 15,
which commemorates Korea’s liberation from Japanese colonial rule of 1910-1945.
Question: Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said
that members of the Wagner Private Military Company (PMC) will continue to provide services
in the Central African Republic and in Mali,
considering that African countries tend to choose Russian services
over the presence of Western military personnel.
To what extent does this matter in terms of Russia’s relations with the African continent,
and what role will these relations play in defining Wagner’s future,
especially in the run-up to the Russia-Africa summit in St Petersburg?
Maria Zakharova: In his statement, President Vladimir Putin drew a clear line between those
who were behind this mutiny and the overwhelming majority of fighters.
The organisers have already been designated accordingly.
As for the overwhelming majority of fighters, the President described them as people
who served their country and its people in good faith and performed their duty with honour.
No one questioned their professionalism, merits or heroism.
When political observers, public figures and politicians discuss these people,
we must keep in mind this assessment by Russia’s leadership and people.
Any attempt to place the organisers and the fighters under the same umbrella
would be inappropriate since many fighters ignored being used and failed to understand
what was being asked of them.
Let me emphasise this point for you since many experts failed to grasp this message.
We need to look beyond the Wagner trademark, beyond this household name
and go to the essence of the matter.
The fact of the matter is that over the years these people have proven their worth
in their frontline engagements by ensuring our national security and countering the Kiev regime.
Before that, they excelled in Syria and in some African countries.
I am referring to those who sacrificed their lives and served selflessly even after signing a contract.
This is something to remember.
Forgetting about that would pose an even bigger threat.
We must be totally impartial on this matter.
Once again, I invite you to read the Presidential statements.
As for whether they will stay in Africa, it is up to the sovereign African governments to decide.
It has always been this way, in fact.
It was the African states, their leadership and political leaders who turned to specialists,
experts and instructors and signed contracts to invite them to their countries.
They emphasised that their contractors were very effective in delivering on challenging tasks
rather than focusing on political evaluations.
States enjoy the sovereign right to invite and contract those
who can benefit them, serve effectively, etc.
As for our relations with the African countries,
we have talked about preparations for the Russia-Africa summit several times already.
With only a couple of weeks left, preparations are in full swing.
I think that as a US journalist working for an American title, you are well tuned into this subject,
but maybe you are missing an essential aspect here, and I am not criticising you in any way,
but just sharing my impression.
Russia has been promoting a frank and trust-based dialogue with many African countries.
It is quite different compared to our dialogue with the West
considering our geographical proximity and civilizational affinity.
It could seem that we share the same creed with the West,
considering that we share the same religious roots and our cultures are intertwined.
It could seem that we have everything we need to understand each other quite well.
However, it was not trust that underpinned our dialogue with the West.
We trusted them but all we got in return were endless lies, deceits, manipulation, etc.
Trust dominates our relations with the African countries.
We are frank and constructive when discussing our cooperation agenda and any current global issues.
The upcoming summit will once again reaffirm our commitment to this frank dialogue on all matters.
Neither side has ever shied away from sensitive, challenging issues,
guided in our efforts by the legacy of trust and the awareness across the African continent
of the historical role the Soviet Union and Russia played in promoting its independence.
Preserving this memory is essential.
Today, we provided quite a few examples, including Japan, of efforts to erase
or reshape the historical memory: without denying their past completely,
they believe that it is worth forgetting.
But the African continent knows and treasures its past.
This offers a great foundation for our dialogue.
Let me emphasise that we are open to discussing all issues in a trust-based manner.
I am certain that the Russia-Africa Summit will once again drive this message home.
Question: Secretary of the Ukrainian National Security and Defence Council Alexey Danilov
said President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko could take part in talks between Moscow and Kiev.
What does the Foreign Ministry think of this statement?
Does it indicate that the international prestige of the Belarusian President
has increased even in the eyes of Kiev’s politicians?
Maria Zakharova: I will divide this question into two parts.
First, I will deal with talks and mediation
and then I will talk about President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko.
While making statements on potential talks between Moscow and Kiev,
the Kiev regime seems to forget for some unclear reason that in March 2022,
it unilaterally broke off negotiations at the behest of the West.
Later, on September 30, 2022, Kiev legalised this policy by adopting a law to this effect.
We have not heard any constructive proposals on resuming the negotiating process since then.
To the contrary, there have just been requests, screams
and demands to the West to supply them with more arms.
Russia has been subjected to all kinds of insults and aggressive statements.
Kiev deleted from the information space and blocked anything that was said
about peace by people who cared, and who wanted to mediate.
Ukrainian officials are competing with each other in their Russophobia
and making unrealistic initiatives like the notorious “peace formula”
that has nothing to do with settling the conflict.
They reject mediation initiatives from other countries.
I will cite just a few recent examples.
After meeting with the Pope, Vladimir Zelensky said in his interview with RAI TV on May 13, 2023,
that with all due respect for the Pope, Ukraine did not need mediators but needed a just peace.
So, this is about mediation.
On May 30, 2023, Zelensky commented on China’s peace initiative:
“As for China’s own peace initiative, we made it clear
that we appreciate any peace-making efforts of other countries but our peace formula,
our initiative is of fundamental importance.”
He said more than once that only their “peace formula,”
their initiative had the right to exist although it is bereft of reality.
They are not interested in any other initiative.
You mentioned Mr Danilov, who went even further.
On May 17 of this year, he said:
“I would like to remind some international politicians
that weapons are the best method of diplomatic communication in relations with Moscow.”
It follows from this that Kiev is not thinking of peace at all.
Moreover, Washington and Brussels are holding Kiev back from this approach.
They are saying that the time for peace has not come
and there is only the battlefield and the war until the last Ukrainian.
As for the role of President of Belarus, an allied nation, Alexander Lukashenko,
President Vladimir Putin has already thought about this.
He made a public statement about it.
It is hard to add anything to this.
According to protocol and our functional duties,
I am not supposed to assess the presidents of other countries.
The Russian leadership has already done this.
But I will allow myself an exception to this rule.
There is no doubt that Alexander Lukashenko is an outstanding statesman,
a skilful politician and diplomat, a man who can promptly resolve the most complicated
and unconventional problems.
He could definitely make a tangible contribution to reaching a peace agreement
if the Kiev regime wanted to do this.
However, in reality it does not want this.
I will recall that Mr Lukashenko’s actions stand behind these words and the recognition of his role.
Thus, following his instructions, in February-March 2022,
conditions were created in Belarus for talks between Russia and Ukraine.
I am not even mentioning his hospitality and assistance
in organising the longest negotiating marathon in February 2015
when the well-known Package of Measures was signed.
On many occasions, Belarus and personally President Alexander Lukashenko
acted as effective mediators, displaying goodwill and a striving for global peace,
and helping those who needed assistance in establishing peace.
Question: Russia’s Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations Maria Zabolotskaya
said US secret services are trying to recruit Russian diplomats.
What recruitment methods have been used most often during your work?
Have they ever tried to recruit you?
Marias Zakharova: No, they have not.
They have done many nasty things – sanctions, planted media publications and support for those
who threatened me (the Kiev regime and the Mirotvorets website)
but they have not done what you mentioned.
As for methods, they use both conventional and non-conventional methods.
We have often talked about this.
They have stepped up this activity in the past year and a half but they started it long before this.
American secret services “approach” Russian diplomats.
This activity is anti-humane because they are using personal data,
issues of family and children and health conditions.
They have used many methods that go beyond traditional approaches.
In recent years, they have come up with other methods as well.
You would be surprised but in the EU countries, this is done at NATO’s initiative.
The US is also involved in this activity (ideologically, it is leading this).
They put up flyers that are not ads but that are designed to recruit people
and they mention telephone numbers, much like Nazi leaflets:
“Russian Ivan, surrender! Cooperate with us and we’ll give you a can of jam and a pack of cookies.”
They also use unconventional computer opportunities and the internet
to send recruitment proposals to employee emails.
They also resort to more illegal actions like hacking the websites at our foreign offices.
They publish their announcements on these sites.
All this started a long time ago.
This is part of how Washington has destroyed our bilateral relations.
We have been through many trials.
Russian Ambassador to the US Anatoly Antonov spoke much about this.
We have also published materials on this issue.
Yes, the Americans are savvy.
They include intimidation and psychological pressure with their actions.
They believe this should work when combined with the blocking of accounts
and the imposition of limits on travel in the country and terms for family members,
non-issuance of visas and the creation of many obstacles in the way of our functional duties.
Unfortunately, our embassies are even subjected to violent attacks of aggressive actions.
Molotov cocktails have been thrown at some buildings; others have been stormed;
they have also broken into homes.
All this is done as a package to create a destabilising situation that facilitates this recruitment approach.
Question: Can you comment on reports that Estonia is the first in the European Union
to create a mechanism for using frozen Russian assets?
And the Vice Chancellor of the Estonian Foreign Ministry also said
that damages will be paid by those who have proven connections
with forming Russia’s policies or facilitating implementation.
Maria Zakharova: We have commented on this topic many times.
Question: Overnight, Azerbaijan used artillery and drones.
There are four casualties in Nagorno-Karabakh.
The Nagorno-Karabakh parliament has appealed to Russia
and its peacekeepers to use more effective methods to curb Baku’s aggressive policy.
What, apart from public or non-public statements, does Russia intend to do to stop this
and get Baku to implement the trilateral statement?
Maria Zakharova: We are concerned about the increasing number of armed incidents
and ceasefire violations in Nagorno-Karabakh.
We call on the parties to show restraint and to resolve all contentious issues peacefully,
politically and diplomatically in cooperation with the command of the Russian peacekeeping contingent.
We believe that a de-escalation of the situation would be facilitated by quick action
to fully unblock the Lachin Corridor and create conditions for normal life among the civilian population.
Question: At yesterday’s meeting of the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry
investigating the circumstances of the 44-day war, ruling party MP Armen Khachatryan
asked Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan whether the 2020 war could have been prevented,
given the desires of both Azerbaijan and Türkiye to start military operations,
and Russia’s interest in increasing its influence in the region
and gaining a military presence in Nagorno-Karabakh.
Nikol Pashinyan replied that the war could only be prevented
if the Armenian side made serious unilateral concessions,
without any response to Russia’s alleged role in starting the war.
The question is what was Russia’s approach to the conflict in 2020?
Maria Zakharova: I assume this is because Russia’s role is documented in the relevant written document, signed by Armenia and Azerbaijan.
This role cannot be questioned because it has been confirmed by the conflicting countries.
There was consensus on this issue.
I answered a similar question during the previous briefing.
Once again, what concerns the investigation into the circumstances of the 44-day war
in the autumn 2020, is Armenia’s internal issue.
All the questions for the Prime Minister of Armenia were heard
in the context of ongoing internal investigations, debates and attempts to find the truth.
This is the internal affair of Armenia.
If there is any attempt to find malicious Russian intent, it’s from the evil one,
a false message and pure misinformation.
Any approach like this can be answered with a quote from the document
signed by Armenia and Azerbaijan.
It was Russia and President Putin personally who stopped the bloodshed,
and Russian peacekeepers in Karabakh are enforcing the ceasefire.
Question: At the same parliamentary hearings, Nikol Pashinyan stated
that “Armenia had some weapons, the rights to which were not fully or partially owned by Yerevan.” Given that before the war Russia was Armenia’s only arms supplier,
in particular of the Iskander missile systems, one wonders
whether Russia had imposed any restrictions on Armenia in terms of using these weapons
to ensure its defence?
Maria Zakharova: This is a question for our Defence Ministry
and those specific subordinate agencies of the Ministry of Defence
that conclude contracts and supply armaments.
This is outside the Foreign Ministry’s competence.
Question: The other day, Chairman of the Defence Industry Directorate
under the President of Türkiye Haluk Gorgun said that Türkiye and Azerbaijan were implementing
a joint air command and control system project, HAKİM.
What is Russia’s view on the ongoing expansion of NATO’s military presence in Azerbaijan?
Given that prior to the start of the special military operation,
Russia had spoken strongly against the expansion of NATO’s military presence
and increasing military integration with the post-Soviet countries.
Maria Zakharova: This issue is also within the competence of the Defence Ministry.
At the same time, I would like to note that Russia has repeatedly expressed its negative attitude
towards the possible emergence of permanent or semi-permanent NATO infrastructure
in the South Caucasus.
Our position remains unchanged.
Question: Do you think the recent Wagner PMC mutiny and Mr Lukashenko’s mediation
would accelerate or hinder the integration of the Republic of Belarus in the Union State
with the Russian Federation?
Maria Zakharova: I think this is hardly relevant to the issue of integration.
This is our spiritual rapprochement obviously.
When you know that there are people who are not just indifferent to your problem,
trouble or tragedy but treat it as their own and are ready to take responsibility a
nd probably part of a it, it’s worth a lot.
This attitude not only brings people closer together but makes them a family and gives them strength.
We don’t need to prove our family feelings and ties.
As for integration, the unifying processes of Russia and Belarus rest on their centuries-long friendship and neighbourliness and common interests in improving the living standards of their people.
Now the main thing is a legislative foundation for such interaction.
It has been drafted.
You know about these agreements and the integration roadmap
that has both a political outline and practical applied documents.
Regardless of any trials, Russia and Belarus remain loyal allies and reliable partners.
President of the Republic of Belarus and Chairman of the Union State Supreme State Council
Alexander Lukashenko took a personal initiative to help settle the current situation.
This is yet another demonstration of the special character of bilateral ties
and the strength of the Union State and our common understanding of the importance
of preserving stability and cohesion in the face of external and internal challenges.
Question: Does your ministry know anything
about the whereabouts of Russian citizen Yevgeny Prigozhin?
Can you comment on a statement by the US authorities to the effect
that they will demand his extradition if he happens to be in a country
that has an extradition treaty with the US?
Maria Zakharova: I have no information about his location.
As you understand, this is not within the Foreign Ministry’s competence.
As for the second question, obviously this is about State Department Press Secretary
Matthew Miller’s response to a question by a journalist at a briefing on June 26 of this year.
As I understand it, this is about some old accusations.
They were not made today.
We already commented on them.
As for the judicial aspect of extradition, I can say that no Russian citizen
can be extradited to another state.
All Russian citizens have the right to rely on Russia’s assistance
in protecting them from illegal attempts to prosecute them abroad.
As for the events of June 24, we will figure out everything ourselves, without outside commentators.
Those who wanted to express support, did that and those who wanted to help, did that as well.
We remember and acknowledge all this and will not forget.
Question: The main thing is the consolidation of the Russian people,
so that Russians do not kill Russians.
Is that right? Maria Zakharova: It is possible to reach many different conclusions from this.
Some have already been reached and some are still to be reached.
I am sure that not everything has been said and determined.
There is no doubt about this.
You are right in saying that the West does not understand this.
On that day, I received a message from a Russian citizen
who responded to the words of French President Emmanuel Macron.
He said the situation testified to a split in Russia, the fragility and weakness of the country,
its army and people.
She wrote to me
“those who say this don’t know Russians.
Two men in a village may beat each other for a chicken stolen during a drinking argument,
but if a bear comes, they will always unite.”
I’ll emphasise that this is not my invention.
This message was sent to me at 5:28 pm on Monday.
Western analysts should remember this when they are trying to tell us something about ourselves, analysing what we are doing or trying to pull us apart.
I don’t know if this women invented this herself or took it from somewhere.
But these words were coming from the depths of her heart, and I had to quote them.
Please convey them to all our Western “non-friends” and even enemies.
They should know this.
The situation on June 24 has shown the main thing –
the people are united and understand the essence of the ongoing processes,
that they appreciate peace, stability and the internal feeling of unity
and cohesion above everything else.
This feeling creates conditions for all the rest
(also important but impossible to achieve without the above).
Historically, we have passed through many trials and with different results
but we have demonstrated the unity of the country.
There were people that asked whether it was possible to catch fish in troubled waters inside the country and play on the feelings of the Russian people.
It is possible but only to a certain point – eventually it will all play out.
Their bet will never play.
You are right in saying that one of the main conclusions from this whole situation is the unifying
and consolidation of the nation that does not oppose anyone inside
but is united inside and is at one with the state and society.
The nation assumed a responsible attitude to these events.
Question: Esteemed Alexander Dugin writes that these events give us serious and profound lessons.
The key issue is about shifts in power.
He says there are two alternatives: one is to pretend nothing happened
and abstain from any reshuffling; the other is that Russia is in for a worse scenario.
Will there be any reshuffling?
Maria Zakharova: This is certainly not a question for me or the Foreign Ministry,
but I have already partially answered it.
Maybe indirectly but I gave an explanation on this.
You should realise that this is a question on an entirely different level and sphere than our ministry.
Question: Did foreign intervention stand behind Prigozhin’s mutiny?
Maria Zakharova: Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said in an interview with RT
that our competent bodies are investigating this now.
We don’t want to make assumptions but want to wait for the factual results.
Second, you can see today Mr Lavrov’s interview with Channel One,
where he devotes much time to answering this question.
Question: We know that Russia has renewed its efforts to resolve the Syrian crisis.
However, on June 20, 2023, a Turkish drone attacked a vehicle in the village of Tarpaspi
in eastern Qamishli, killing the co-chair of the town’s council, Yusra Darwish,
and her deputy, Liman Shweish, as well as their driver.
The co-chair of the Qamishli council, Gabriel Chamoun, was wounded.
What does Russia think about this military attack?
Maria Zakharova: Russia continues to work to comprehensively resolve the situation in and around Syria as soon as possible, which suggests the legitimate government control
of the entire territory of the country.
As you know, the government does not control the entire territory for one simple reason:
part of Syria’s territory remains occupied.
Everyone knows that it is the United States that continues to occupy this territory.
This also implies the efforts to ensure the security of its borders with neighbouring states
based on consideration of each other’s legitimate concerns.
The comprehensive resolution of these issues will make it possible to prevent similar developments.
Question: How did Alexander Lukashenko manage to reach an agreement with the Wagner Group
on issues unsuccessfully negotiated with the Russian Defence Ministry for the past few months?
Maria Zakharova: You are confusing terms.
President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko joined in as a mediator to resolve a certain situation
that they managed to settle jointly.
Do not connect two different things; they are different issues.
I do not want to discuss this issue.
The mediatory efforts were focused on a specific episode.
I have already mentioned their role and significance.
There should be no doubt.
Question: Alexander Lukashenko asked not to call him a mediator.
He said he was the same kind of participant as President of Russia Vladimir Putin.
Maria Zakharova: I find it hard to discuss this.
If he made this request, it means he did it.
Indeed, the word “mediation” has unfortunately started acquiring a negative connotation
in global practice these days because many of those who called themselves mediators
turned out to be people or organisations with double standards, to put it mildly.
They either failed to actually mediate or did something diametrically opposite.
I believe that an actual resolution to this situation should reinstate
the true meaning of the word “mediation.”
I respect the position of a person who was directly involved in these developments.
However, I would like to show what genuine mediatory efforts are all about.
Today, these efforts have become completely opposite in many respects.
We see that many people from overseas are eager to mediate in the region,
specifically, in the post-Soviet countries near Russian borders
even though they are not part of our region.
At the same time, they incite tensions and pit warring parties
involved in difficult situations against each other.
They act deliberately in the opposite direction.
Many people therefore do not trust the word “mediation.”
It would be great to see this term exonerated in the context of what we have seen,
so that people can realise that mediation can and must be something worthy,
aiming to achieve a genuine result, displaying a professional approach and emotions
like friendship, brotherhood, open intentions and true goals.
I am trying to use this word in this context only.
It pains me to see how many people wear the costume of a “mediator”
when it is nothing more than camouflage concealing questionable goals and objectives.
Question: Experts believe that the Wagner PMC is slowly pushing the French military out of Africa.
This also coincides with the policy pursued by Russia to strengthen relations with the African countries and pull them away from “French colonisation.”
Does the Foreign Ministry believe that the sudden change in Wagner’s sentiment,
which manifested itself this weekend, could lead to an attempt
to organise a coup against Russia's African partners as well?
Maria Zakharova: Russian instructors (or whatever you prefer to call them)
have not been deliberately pushing anyone out.
This is a major misconception replicated from article to article,
from question to question, from material to material.
They have not been forcing anyone out.
France withdrew from Mali and the Central African Republic of its own accord.
Moreover, as representatives of those countries say, France didn’t just leave,
it abandoned and betrayed them at a very difficult time in their history.
I heard such assessments.
You know this popular phrase – if there is a void, something will fill it.
To be honest, we sometimes became victims of this approach too,
where we left somewhere and abandoned certain connections, contacts,
or participation for later, until better times.
Then our place was taken.
We also have many such examples.
One might recall certain betrayals.
Someone might have thought it made sense to withdraw
and concentrate on something else for the time being because we could always return.
Unfortunately, it is not always possible to return.
The current situation is not about someone being “forced out” by someone else.
The fact is that the African countries invited Russian instructors
when they could no longer use the services of French instructors because they left.
When France realised it was losing the market (this was a regular services market for them),
its influence (image is important), when the French realised it was collapsing and disappearing forever, they started using mala fide methods such as misinformation.
They began denigrating our cooperation on this track – not necessarily interstate ties,
just African countries’ interaction with private companies and instructors.
It is essential to understand why those instructors are there in the first place.
Question: Could the Wagner Group start a riot in Africa?
They operate there too.
Maria Zakharova: Was that sarcasm?
This situation was too complex and tragic to make it a target for irony or sarcasm.
I do not think it should be looked at from this angle.
One can hypothesise about anything.
You might have asked where the next earthquake will occur.
The likelihood of one happening tomorrow or today anywhere is high enough.
Or, on the contrary, something good will happen.
No earthquake will occur where it was expected.
Why should I hypothesise? This is outside my job responsibilities.
And you should not be concerned about that.
Question: Let me explain.
It was not sarcasm.
The Western media indeed published reports
that the Wagner Group could attempt a similar push in Africa.
That's why we asked you.
Maria Zakharova: I suggest you read Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with RT of June 24, where he said that he did not see any panic
or any change in Russia’s relations with the African countries.
On the contrary, he received calls and words of support from the region.
I also saw those countries’ reactions in public, with a detailed understanding of the situation.
I think we had better proceed from that.
Question: Secretary of Ukraine’s National Security and Defence Council Alexey Danilov said
that Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko could take part in negotiations
on the settlement of the conflict in Ukraine,
and that Russia already has “a real group of future negotiators with Ukraine.”
Can the Ministry of Foreign Affairs comment on the group they are talking about and on the information about the President of Belarus taking part in the talks?
Maria Zakharova: I can't imagine what Alexey Danilov was talking about.
I think you need to check with him.
If he gives you names, it will be interesting.
I have no idea.
It could be anything.
Maybe a projection on the “good Russians.”
Or those the West has supported for decades with American grants
under the guise of “representation from Russia.”
I don't know who or what he was talking about.
Question: I would like to hear more about Cardinal Matteo Zuppi’s visit as Pope Francis' envoy.
Has the Vatican requested a meeting? As far as I understand, there will be no official meeting.
Maybe an unofficial one?
Maria Zakharova: No meetings are planned by the Russian Foreign Ministry.
If anything changes, we will let you know, but there were no such plans initially.
There are no such meetings in the schedule.
Question: But have they been requested? Maria Zakharova: No meetings have been requested
because they were not planned.
This was discussed awhile ago.
It is not on our agenda.
Naturally, we also keep this question under review.
But the Foreign Ministry is not involved in these meetings.
Question: Israeli Foreign Minister Eli Cohen said
the Jewish state had chosen the right side of the conflict, where it supports Kiev.
The Kiev regime has repeatedly demonstrated Nazi symbols and glorified Bandera, Shukhevich
and other accomplices in the extermination of Jews and other nations.
Now we see the descendants of those who lost about 6 million people in the Holocaust
during World War II supporting a state that glorifies neo-Nazism.
Do you think it is just ignorance of their own history or a well-paid agreement with the West?
What is it they could have been promised in return,
to be ready to forget the genocide against their own people?
Maria Zakharova: On June 27, the Foreign Ministry invited Ronen Kraus,
Chargé d'Affaires of the State of Israel to Moscow, for a talk,
where certain public statements by Israeli Ambassador to Ukraine Michael Brodsky
were brought to the Israeli representative’s attention.
As you know, unfortunately, his statements about the search for Ukrainian identity
and the country’s new “heroes” were strangely out of touch with current realities,
and most importantly, with historical truth.
He sounded like he was justifying...
actually, he said that figures such as Stepan Bandera and Roman Shukhevich
have become new symbols of Ukraine.
In fact, not Ukraine, but the Kiev regime.
Yesterday, the Israeli representative was told
that Russia and Israel had worked together in the past to rebuff attempts to rewrite history
and glorify Nazi henchmen, including on international platforms.
The two countries are active in the UN and other international organisations.
The Foreign Ministry emphasised the importance of continuing joint efforts on this track
and called for unambiguously condemning those who praise war criminals
such as Bandera and Shukhevich, with the blood of hundreds of thousands of innocent victims,
including Jews on their hands, in an attempt to encourage Russophobic sentiments.
I would like to point out something else.
On the one hand, you raised the question of Israel's position.
At first, I wanted to suggest you ask the Israeli Foreign Ministry, official bodies or public organisations.
On second thought, I decided against suggesting this.
Let's all together ask these questions to the victims of those torturers and killers.
Let's just imagine this for a minute.
But we won't last even a minute.
It's too horrible.
But at least for a couple of seconds, let’s try to focus and imagine
we could talk with the hundreds of thousands of people who fell victims to such criminals,
to those who have now become a symbol of the Kiev regime.
Imagine we have the opportunity to ask them now which side of history is “right.”
Question: The answer is obvious.
Maria Zakharova: So that’s that.
There is a lot of situational decision-making, politics and diplomacy in this world.
For the most part, it serves the cause of peace, but some of it is misused.
Things happen.
But there is the historical truth that cannot be canceled – a measure to calibrate ourselves against.
I suggest that every time you hear that whitewashing Bandera and Shukhevich is okay,
that they are just images and their connection with the Nazis can be ignored,
and they can be seen as “builders” of the Ukrainian state –
try to ask the victims of those criminals whether this is consistent with their side of history.
As you correctly said, the answer is obvious.
This should inspire us all.
Question: Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said in his remarks
that Russian secret services have already launched an investigation.
Were Western secret services involved in the situation on June 24 of this year?
Are there any grounds to believe that Western secret services planned it?
Maria Zakharova: Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov talked about the start of the investigation.
I can confirm again that Russian competent bodies are doing this.
This investigation is now ongoing.
I don’t want to speak in slogans or about something unsubstantiated
because we will instantly hear that all this is demagogy.
I’d like to draw your attention to the interview with Mr Lavrov on Channel One today;
it will be broadcast this evening, Moscow time.
But many quotes from it have already been made everywhere.
Watch it – the Russian Foreign Minister said many interesting things in this interview.
I will confirm once again that the investigation is ongoing.
Question: The Constitutional Court of Latvia has upheld the ban on the Russian language.
Now they are introducing relevant norms of the fundamental law.
The Latvian Saeima must make amendments to the law
that requires instruction in Latvian only before July 1, 2024.
So Latvia has also decided to ban the Russian language.
What can you say about this? Maria Zakharova: First, this is the state of Western democracies –
they are doing what completely contradicts their verbal declarations.
Second, this is the manifestation of the dictatorship of liberalism.
On the one hand, it declares that everything is allowed and everyone is free,
that there is equality and tolerance everywhere.
But on the other hand, it resorts to harassment, discrimination, and even up to racism,
xenophobia, intolerance and the like.
Third, the Baltic regimes are absolutely nationalistic and this attitude does not concern Russians alone.
In principle, this is very similar to what the Kiev regime is preaching.
It is not just the Russian language and Russian speakers that are subjected to harassment in Ukraine, otherwise, Hungary and Romania would not have any problems.
Meanwhile, today they are blocking many decisions on Ukraine
just because the rights of their national minorities are not ensured on its territory.
The position of the people that are not national minorities but ethnic groups is even worse.
The Baltic regimes are pursuing their nationalist policy through dictatorial methods.
This policy is taking shape in their countries under the cover of the West,
with its prompting and inspiration.
The Baltic region had every opportunity to become a territory of common interests,
language and multiculturalism, a venue for dialogue between civilisations, of everything
that the Western community has declared.
What has it turned into instead?
It has become a caricature of itself.
These countries have the institution of non-citizenship,
they prosecute all those whom these countries call non-titular nations,
they practice segregation of all types, and they pressure children
by introducing the standards you mentioned into their legislation – you name it.
Why are they doing all this?
What has such a policy brought to these countries?
Has this policy turned them into large industrial centres?
No.
Maybe they have finally explored outer space having won what they call freedom?
No.
Are they developing sciences or at least some of them?
No.
They have no industry, no science and no outer space.
Maybe they are focusing on increasing the birthrate?
Could this be the case?
Maybe, they have given up everything and are focused on procreation, but this is not the case, either.
Look at their demographic figures – they are much worse than those they had during the Soviet years.
These countries are completely dependent on Western subsidies.
They are completely dependent politically and they are subordinated to the NATO-centric system.
What is behind this?
What was the purpose of this?
Such things happen in reality when some countries depart from supreme democratic principles
to overcome misery, encourage economic development and make a technological leap.
They need to consolidate and centralise their efforts
to fulfil some important goals and reach new frontiers.
But this has thrown them back.
Unfortunately or not, but this always happens.
We have talked about this more than once.
Has internal consolidation taken place there?
What is there to discuss?
You understand perfectly well how split their society is inside.
Question: There are people that do not support this policy.
They are in the majority.
Maria Zakharova: Of course.
They are making it worse for themselves.
These are their countries.
I think a synthesis has taken place there.
On the one hand, in their bid to shatter the Soviet Union, Western forces
relied on the “leftovers” from World War II and the Great Patriotic War.
These “leftovers” were the collaborationists whom these countries promoted.
Later, many of them became “a new political elite.”
On the other hand, this “elite” with these “ideas” began to dictate its own rules
because they could not live by any other rules.
I think a bad synthesis occurred here.
This has been disastrous for the Baltic regimes themselves.
Question: Some people in Russia believe that foreign experts
were probably involved in organising the mutiny.
If this is true, how could Russia respond to such aggression?
Maria Zakharova: You said that some people in Russia believe this.
I would say that this is believed not only in Russia.
I have heard international leaders say that such situations never happen without Western involvement, the involvement of Western countries or the collective West.
Even President of Serbia Aleksandar Vucic spoke about this.
So, not only people in Russia think so.
Law enforcement and other concerned agencies must give answers to all these questions.
As for Russia’s response, we have always responded with a package of measures,
including our historical memory, a domestic antidote that is effective
even against a large-scale threat (it is for the investigative authorities to determine the scale).
Of course, all of us were worried.
The situation has hit us right in the heart.
But we have overcome.
On June 24, during the active phase of the situation, President Putin said
that we would overcome any hardships and become even stronger.
This is true.
We have overcome them, thankfully.
We did it together.
We have seen that we can overcome anything, including domestic chancers,
for lack of a better word, and any other external “desire” to play such games.
We have overcome, and we have become even more united.
We were reading what public opinion leaders, government officials, politicians,
doctors, teachers, service people, entrepreneurs, workers of culture and scientists had to say,
and all of them said the same thing.
Nobody phoned them with a request to say this or to make videos.
All of them did it because they were on the same page.
That’s why they all said the same thing, although with a few different details,
depending on the amount of information they had or the regions they were in.
But essentially, they were on the same page.
Isn’t this our response?
Isn’t this what you meant when you asked about our reaction to such Western actions?
I think it is.
We have overcome, and we have become stronger, as President Putin has said.
Question: The internet in Russia fully depends on the United States.
There are special military cyber teams and bot farms manipulating public opinion
and setting it against Russia as a whole.
What measures can the state take to render them harmless, and what can citizens,
media owners and bloggers do to resist negative influence?
Maria Zakharova: First of all, I don’t agree with you.
I may have said yes in the heat of the debate and elaborated on the subject too readily.
But it should be said, for justice’ sake, that our experts have been talking for years
about the importance of creating a sovereign internet, to be used in conditions
that do not necessarily stipulate independence but as an emergency.
We have been told and assured that we have this capacity and that it is operational.
The relevant services and agencies assured us.
We can only trust their word.
Second, a great deal has been done over the past few years to reinforce our information sovereignty, like the development of our media, the support they receive from the state,
their proliferation in the international information environment,
and the establishment of fundamentally new information platforms.
There is a lot of this around.
Few people appreciate it.
People love to criticise, and they hardly ever express appreciation.
We should appreciate this.
We have our own social media, which are more than just good.
Take VKontakte, which is becoming popular throughout the world.
Name one large country that has its own social media.
We have them.
This is extremely important.
We have more than one social network.
It’s true that we are lagging behind with video hosting.
But we have improved the system to a level where it has become usable,
and they promise us to continue to improve it.
Overall, I agree with how you formulated the question.
A panel discussion on digital sovereignty addressed this subject at the SPIEF 2023.
It was organised by the Foreign Ministry of Russia.
Question: Schoolchildren in Russia have been on vacation for a long time,
gaining energy for the new academic year.
Children of our compatriots in the EU will go on vacation only next week.
For example, Slovakia will hold a wonderful traditional children's film camp
for Russian-speaking children from Slovakia, Russia and Ukraine.
Upon returning, the children sing Russian songs at home, recite Pushkin by heart –
thus they help both their parents and elders not to forget Russian culture.
What are the opportunities for children of compatriots in the EU countries this summer?
Maria Zakharova: Any form of recreation for Russian-speaking children in the EU countries,
contributing to the promotion of the Russian language, raising awareness of our national culture, literature, fine arts and theatre, can only be welcomed.
The traditional children's film camp held in Slovakia
is a good example of excellent focused work with children and parents in Europe.
As for our country, in July and August, the well-known Artek International Children's Centre
(Republic of Crimea, Russian Federation) will hold a shift involving children from around the world
who won the People of Artek international contest.
In total, 225 high school students from 14 countries took part in it.
The winners, only 100 teenagers, received their tickets to Artek.
Among the participants of the international shift are children from Abkhazia, Armenia,
Belarus, Egypt, India, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Syria, Uzbekistan, and South Ossetia.
I envy them.
I visited the renovated Artek in 2015.
Now there are even more opportunities.
It is an unforgettable experience, a unique opportunity for recreation, friendship and development.
Of course, it is a pity that children from the EU are deprived of such an opportunity
due to aggressive and dictatorial policies.
But that is not because of us.
We are ready and always say “welcome.”
They are deprived because of the regimes in those countries.
It should be noted that one of the main areas of our work with compatriots abroad is the support
and promotion of the Russian language, the preservation of the historical truth, and spiritual education.
All this reinforces the continuity of generations,
becomes a cornerstone in raising children in the families of compatriots
in the spirit of Russian traditional values, and helps our fellow citizens to protect their children
from the spiritual and moral degradation that is growing in a number of Western countries.
Not just degradation, but the dominance of perversions.
And the criminal legalisation of perversions as well.
Various government agencies and Russian regions are making consolidated efforts along these tracks.
Russian embassies and consulates general,
as well as representatives of Federal Agency for the Commonwealth of Independent States,
Compatriots Living Abroad, and International Humanitarian Cooperation (Rossotrudnichestvo)
respond to the initiatives and requests of diaspora activists and support various events for children, including their participation in folk celebrations, children's art exhibitions and concerts.
Rossotrudnichestvo implements the Hello, Russia! programme,
which is amazing in its essence and designed for children of our compatriots,
to arrange trips to historical places in our country.
A New Year party with Rossotrudnichestvo is interesting every time.
Such really great opportunities.
A number of fascinating activities for children of compatriots are also carried out, for example,
through the government of Moscow and other constituent entities of the Russian Federation.
No matter how much they scheme against us, we continue to move forward.
Question: Is it a matter of principle for Russia where and under
whose aegis a possible peace treaty between Armenia and Azerbaijan will be signed,
and who will guarantee its implementation?
Maria Zakharova: It is important for Russia that the peace treaty should be durable and stable.
There were numerous instances in history, including recent history,
where a large number of ad hoc agreements were signed for the sake of appearances, for the protocol.
Later they were never implemented.
Even with regard to Armenia, unfortunately, agreements failed to be implemented for various reasons, despite huge mediating efforts.
Therefore, the treaty in question must be durable and stable.
It should ensure a balance of interests between Azerbaijan and Armenia.
This can be achieved based on a consistent implementation of the roadmap
of the Armenia-Azerbaijan normalisation process,
which consists of a number of 2020-2022 trilateral agreements
between the leaders of Russia, Azerbaijan, and Armenia.
If anything is needed additionally (life does not stand still and the situation is constantly changing),
we can think about supporting this process based on UN decisions.
But this requires the consent of both Yerevan and Baku.
As for the Western mediating efforts, they are being discussed at length today,
but for some reason as an alternative to the Russian mediation.
One has the impression that the Western countries resent and compete with Russia
in order to reformat and take over the entire agenda.
One feels that the West has no interest in Armenia and Azerbaijan,
let alone in their peaceful coexistence.
The most important thing for them is to do it contrary to Moscow, go down in history,
and, if possible, create levers of influence.
But if they want to be true mediators, they should stop thinking about their zero-sum games
and give up any thoughts inspired by these criteria.
The West’s attempts to “bring peace” to the South Caucasus can only be viable
if they are not directed against Russia and do not compete with our efforts.
In my opinion, this is obvious.
Question: There are media reports that even humanitarian cargoes
cannot be transported via the Lachin corridor.
A humanitarian disaster seems inevitable.
What is the way out, in your opinion?
The repeated appeals by officials, Russian officials included, to comply with the 2020-2022 agreements between the leaders of Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia fall on deaf ears.
Maria Zakharova: Apart from our appeals on the ground,
there are Russian peacekeepers and border guards,
who proved in practice for such a long time that peace is possible.
I already commented on this today.
This is what we are counting on.
Besides, there are Russian experts at work, who are in constant contact with both Baku and Yerevan.