Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, June 13, 2024
- Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s talks with Deputy Prime Minister of the Republic of Cuba Ricardo Cabrisas
- NATO’s destructive activities
- Another terrorist attack by the Kiev regime militants targeting Russian media personnel
- Ukraine crisis update
- Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with students from the Foreign Ministry’s secondary boarding school
- The denunciation of the Russian-Ukrainian intergovernmental agreement on cultural centres
- France’s latest initiatives to support the Kiev regime
- Anniversary marking the conclusion of NATO’s aggression against Yugoslavia
- 25th anniversary of the UN Mission in Kosovo under UNSC Resolution 1244
- Day of memory of victims of the Budyonnovsk Attack
- The Second International Forum of Ministers of Education in Kazan
- International Inter-Party Forum in Vladivostok
- 30th anniversary of the Treaty on the Principles of Friendly Relations between Russia and Vietnam
- The 80th anniversary of the allied landing in Normandy
- EU’s initiative to transfer interest from the frozen Russian assets to Ukraine
- Activities of the Foundation for Remembrance, Responsibility and Future
- Finland’s efforts to obtain a more detailed rendering of its border in the Baltic Sea
- Russia’s message to its former overseas partners
- Decision by the Western countries to allow Ukraine to use long-range weapons to target Russian territory
- Russia-Armenia relations
- Statements by Armenian leadership
- The Greek diaspora in Mariupol
- Religion in Ukraine
- UN Security Council votes on a ceasefire in the Gaza Strip
- Outcomes of the elections to the European Parliament
- Outcomes of SPIEF 2024
- Russia-China relations
- Visit by the Foreign Minister of Türkiye to Russia
- Russia-Uzbekistan relations
- News restrictions against Russian diplomats
On June 13, Sergey Lavrov will hold talks with Deputy Prime Minister of the Republic of Cuba Ricardo Cabrisas, who will be in Russia on a working visit.
This meeting is a logical part of the regular series of close and confidential political contacts between Russia and Cuba, including Ricardo Cabrisas’ meetings with the heads of related Russian ministries on the sidelines of the St Peterburg International Economic Forum (June 5-8, 2024), the official visit of Foreign Minister of the Republic of Cuba Bruno Rodriguez Parrilla to Russia (June 9-13, 2024) and his participation in the BRICS Ministerial Meeting held in Nizhny Novgorod.
Sergey Lavrov and Ricardo Cabrisas, one of the most experienced Cuban politicians in charge of bilateral trade and economic relations, will discuss the current state and development outlook for Russia-Cuba strategic partnership, in particular, the deepening of our political dialogue and financial and investment cooperation, as well as measures to promote the implementation of joint priority projects.
The ministers will also talk about key international issues and the further development of our countries’ interaction on multilateral platforms.
There are more issues on the agenda of the Russian Foreign Minister. We will duly notify you about them. You can also monitor our plans on the website of the Foreign Ministry and our social media accounts.
We will now discuss an issue, the subject of news reports that are coming to us every few minutes. We receive many questions on this subject. This implies destructive activities of countries of the collective West, their aggressive rhetoric with regard to Russia, new measures for supporting the Kiev regime, as well as statements on delivering large amounts of weaponry to the Ukrainian conflict zone.
Ahead of the NATO summit in Washington, the alliance continues to ratchet up its propaganda rhetoric with regard to Russia. The bloc’s officials and the leadership of member countries are constantly talking about the threat of a Russian attack on the Baltic states and Poland. They are instilling an idea that this should take place in the next few years. Naturally, they are using this factor to motivate their activities, explaining that all of them must prepare to repel this alleged Russian threat.
What is happening in reality? The alliance has been preparing for a potential military clash with Russia for a long time. NATO’s 2022 Strategic Concept portrays Russia as the most substantial and direct threat to the security of the alliance’s member states, as well as to peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic region. Somehow, they even failed to note that our country is also located on the European continent, and that it accounts for most of its territory. They have approved regional defence plans and formulated specific objectives for all of the bloc’s military commands. They are constantly simulating hypothetical conflicts with Russia. Who is provoking this conflict? The answer is obvious: NATO countries are doing this. The alliance is testing logistic routes for the redeployment of troops and weaponry across the Atlantic Ocean and towards the Eastern flank. From January 22 through May 31, 2024, NATO conducted the Steadfast Defender 2024 military exercise, the largest post-Cold War exercise. This time, Russia, rather than some fictitious, illusory and far-fetched state, was named as the main enemy for the first time. NATO countries’ defence budgets continue to expand, and their economies are becoming completely militarised.
We want to note once again that Russia has not harboured any aggressive plans with regard to NATO and its member countries; nor does it have such plans today. At the same time, we realise that the alliance does have such plans. Washington does not need a peaceful Europe. The controlled chaos concept has gone too far. Today, the ideologists of the US “deep state” are demanding even more blood. They want to drench the entire European continent in blood. They are goading Western Europe towards a precipice and an abyss in the hope that this will help them weather the current domestic policy and economic collapse in the United States. US public debt volumes also highlight this. I am not even talking about an ideological fiasco.
Another terrorist attack by the Kiev regime militants targeting Russian media personnel
It has just come to light that militants of the Kiev regime have carried out another terrorist attack against Russian journalists while they were performing their professional duties. According to available information, a targeted (key word) UAV ammunition drop (it is to be confirmed by law enforcement based on facts) resulted in grave injuries to NTV correspondent Alexey Ivliyev, his colleague, a cameraman for the same channel Valery Kozhin, and a member of their escort. The victims were taken to the hospital in Gorlovka in serious condition, where doctors are currently fighting for their lives.
Once again, members of the journalistic community and Russian media are targeted by the assassins of the Nazi Kiev regime. Meanwhile, not a single authoritative international organisation, including UNESCO and the OSCE, has responded. The Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe has completely discredited itself and removed itself from any professional relevance. But first of all, I am referring to UNESCO, as part of the UN family. It has yet to hold the Kiev regime accountable for these terrorist attacks and other atrocities. The silence of such institutions, or their occasional general statements without an adequate targeted response to each terrorist attack, and without comprehensive measures to halt this monstrous, nationalist hunt for our correspondents, signifies one thing: the individuals, employees, and bureaucrats responsible for this area within these international organisations, whether willingly or not, become accomplices to these crimes. Thus, they are encouraging the Ukrainian Nazis to commit further atrocities. The blood of Russian journalists is not only on the hands of Ukrainian Armed Forces militants but also weighs on the conscience (if any remains) of international officials in Vienna, Geneva, Paris, and New York. I hope that at least now, in Mr Dujarric’s briefing, this issue will not be ignored. I hope they will find the strength to identify the perpetrators and condemn these actions, not just provide an adequate reaction, but condemn them.
We pray for our journalists, wishing them strength and a full recovery. We hope their lives will be saved.
We see (I said this at the very beginning of the briefing) that the West continues its efforts to escalate the conflict, apparently banking on the Kiev regime’s terrorist activity – the intractable war it wages against the civilian population.
The Anglo-Saxons are openly inciting the Kiev regime to commit brutal terrorist attacks. Apparently, the damage done to facilities is not enough for them. They demand more from the Kiev regime, encouraging Ukraine to strike targets inside Russia. But they still can’t get enough.
Now Washington and London are planning even larger acts of sabotage. On June 8, the British tabloid Daily Express wrote that if Moscow achieved victory or any military success in Ukraine, Vladimir Zelensky’s junta would resort to “terrorist activity which would see Russian schools and other civilian infrastructure targeted.” This is what the Western media write now. And that, defence and security analyst Nicholas Drummond states in his article, “would be much more devastating than anything we have seen on the frontlines.” He is sure that preparations for such acts are already underway, and believes that “any peace deal <…> imposed” on Kiev would catalyse the process.
So what is this newspaper referring to – a tabloid that is definitely not a supporter of any side associated with Russia? This is not entirely about our country. The truth is that Daily Express, its writers, and as we are already seeing, many public figures and journalists, are acknowledging that the Kiev regime’s activity amounts to terrorism. All they still have to do is to admit the obvious: all of that has become possible, the Kiev regime’s terrorist activity is only possible because the collective West is paying for it. Where does the money come from? The unfriendly regimes, acting in solidarity with the terrorist Kiev regime, are taking the money from their citizens, from ordinary taxpayers, from businesses, from corporations in the EU and NATO countries by dirty methods, without asking. What kind of dirty methods? They are using propaganda, relentless scaremongering by the mainstream media, insisting that, if the Kiev regime fails to “win something back” now, Russia will become a threat to the European Union. I don’t even know how they have arrived at this conclusion, or rather an ideologeme they are imposing on their citizens. They are using mythologems like this to force EU citizens to agree, without even being asked, to their money and taxes being directed towards escalating the conflict in Ukraine and spreading it further around the European continent.
It cannot be ruled out that the potential perpetrators of the planned terrorist attacks may include butchers from the notorious Azov nationalist battalion. As a reminder, the Biden administration has lifted the restrictions on the use of US weapons imposed earlier, as The Washington Post reported on June 11 citing the US State Department. Apparently, “after thorough review,” the US officials resolved that the Azov fighters never “espoused racist, xenophobic and ultranationalist views” or committed “humanitarian violations” after all. The US State Department should probably make this policy shift public, rather than just leak it to a newspaper or plant it in the US media through anonymous sources. This is just monstrous: American experts – those who consider themselves experts, serving at the State Department – believe that the Azov nationalist battalion, which officially became part of the Armed Forces of Ukraine but never abandoned it former symbols, ideology, or methods, has ceased to be ultra-nationalist. Please note that nearly seven years ago, the American congressmen who declared Azov an extremist, anti-Semitic and neo-Nazi organisation and forbade any assistance to it, had no doubt that those militants were real neo-Nazis. So, Washington is willing to befriend even the most inveterate thugs if this benefits its geopolitical interests. Has this ever been otherwise? Let’s be honest – the United States has never been any different. It has always been like this. I will not even quote the statements by American politicians admitting that, whatever the next bastard they bet on is capable of, if it suits their interests, they’ll be ready to put up with it.
I will quote facts instead of quotes. This is exactly how international terrorist organisations emerged one after another – specifically, Al-Qaeda. This is exactly how they all started, with Washington staking on cutthroats, terrorists and open extremists, and pumping colossal funds into their activity. Eventually, the United States could no longer get rid of them and spent even more on eradicating them. But it was too late. The terrorists targeted US citizens first and foremost. But it happened later, after Washington realised and satisfied its own momentary geopolitical impulse.
We know very well how today’s Banderites can act upon the carte blanche to kill civilians in Russian regions given by their Western masters. I have just given you several examples. On June 7, in a horrific attack on residential buildings in Lugansk and a shop in Sadovoye, Kherson Region, using ATACMS and HIMARS missiles, smart air bombs and other weapons supplied by the US and its allies, 28 people were killed, including a child, and 75 were wounded, including three children.
On June 7 in Stary Oskol, Belgorod Region, the Banderites attempted a murder of former mayor of Kupyansk, Kharkov Region, Gennady Matsegora for “collaboration with Russian invaders.” The politician was transported in grave condition to Moscow, where doctors fought for his life, but he could not be saved. The Main Intelligence Directorate of the Ukrainian Defence Ministry claimed responsibility for the terrorist attack, stating that “they helped Gennady Matsegora get to kingdom come.” Certainly, in Washington’s eyes, there is no nationalist subtext in these words. They were not talking about America, after all, or Israel or any other closest allies. Therefore, anything goes.
Russian authorities are thoroughly documenting the crimes of Ukrainian neo-Nazis. None of the Kiev regime’s evil acts will be overlooked. Perpetrators will be identified and held accountable.
Many did not believe that for Washington, this was more than just a political agenda (I am referring to what is happening under their watch and with their direct involvement in Ukraine). Beneath the surface, it involves theft and neocolonialism, driven by the need to replenish their reserves with new resources, given the lack of opportunities to do so elsewhere. On June 9, 2024, US Senator Lindsey Graham candidly admitted in an interview with CBS that the United States needs Ukraine because “they’re sitting on $10 to $12 trillion of critical minerals.” Considering the US national debt of $35 trillion, from the perspective of this senator, securing resources equivalent to a third of that debt is quite valuable for Washington. Let’s quote Lindsey Graham: “I don’t want to give that money and those assets to Putin to share with China.” What’s surprising is that Lindsey Graham didn’t even mention the citizens of Ukraine. Like all American politicians, he doesn’t view Ukrainians as people capable of managing their own resources, even theoretically. In practice, across all levels from the executive to the legislative branches, American security forces and public figures, Ukraine’s citizens are viewed by the United States as a tool, a consumable resource, a means to alleviate internal crises and maintain dominance, both in mentality and resources. According to the American senator, these resources can only be effectively utilised by Ukraine and the West, hence Kiev requires assistance. Lindsey Graham believes Ukraine can be a valuable asset and therefore it needs support. He questions how Ukraine will manage its resources without the United States’ involvement. What else did he say? “We can’t afford to lose” the war in Ukraine. Previously, he proposed supplying weapons to Vladimir Zelensky’s regime in exchange for Ukraine’s natural resources, effectively putting the country up for sale, not just on credit, but with immediate resource extraction for the US. It is evident that the intention to exploit this territory remains entirely relevant for the Washington controllers of the Kiev regime. Obviously, Bankovaya Street is attentive to the advice of such senators. I would call them hawks, as we used to say, but I don’t want to offend the birds.
Let me remind you that Lindsey Graham is designated as a terrorist and extremist by Russia. At the urging of this criminal figure, Vladimir Zelensky, in a manner of close complicity, made legislative changes to lower the mobilisation age in Ukraine, which underscores Washington’s colonialist approach towards Ukraine and the comprador nature of the Kiev regime.
Let us discuss another law that has recently entered into force. Just like the law reducing the draft eligibility age, this document highlights the Kiev regime’s hatred for its people. On June 6, 2024, members of Ukraine’s Verkhovna Rada passed the second version of the Law on Preschool Education that will become a welcome addition to a legislative package aiming to destroy the Russian language – the language that most Ukrainian citizens think in and continue to use both in their everyday life and at the front.
The above-mentioned regulatory act allows representatives of indigenous peoples and ethnic minorities to obtain a preschool education in their native language, while also studying the state language. This law has no place for the Russian language, spoken by millions of Ukrainian citizens. At the same time, the bill’s Article 9 bans any discrimination in the sphere of preschool education. It appears that infringement on the rights of Russian-speaking individuals no longer amounts to discrimination in Ukraine.
Obviously, the date for approving the bill was hardly chosen by coincidence. What is June 6? What does this day mean for the Russian language and for our culture? We celebrated the birthday anniversary of Alexander Pushkin on this day. In 2010, June 6 was proclaimed the UN Russian Language Day. The Kiev regime is ruthlessly fighting Pushkin just like it is fighting the Russian language. Ukrainian authorities are demolishing monuments, bas-reliefs and memorials dedicated to the poet. Why does the Kiev regime dislike Pushkin so much? The answer is obvious. First, he is associated with the modern Russian language and our culture. Second, his poem Poltava describes Hetman Ivan Mazepa who has now been proclaimed a national hero in Ukraine. So, here is what Pushkin wrote at that time:
‘That there is nothing he holds sacred,
That there is no kindness he remembers,
That there is nothing he loves,
That he would spill blood as soon as water,
That he despises liberty,
That there is no Motherland for him.’
At that time, Pushkin was writing about Mazepa, but he was also peering into the 21st century. These lines aptly describe the incumbent Kiev regime, too.
The great Russian poet vividly and truthfully described the unenviable fate of Mazepa the traitor. Obviously, members of Zelensky’s gang, including ideologists and those who are doing everything possible to undermine the foundations of Ukrainian statehood and to rewrite history, find it hard to swallow this truth.
I would like to say once again that those who are doing this in exchange for Western money, passing such laws that force Ukrainian citizens to forget their native Russian language, Russian literature and music, are fighting Ukraine, and not just Russia alone.
It is pointless to fight Pushkin and the Russian language. They have already become part of the world’s cultural legacy; they have existed, exist, and will continue to exist. The pro-Bandera regime will inevitably meet its demise. People will continue to speak Russian, read Russian-language books and perform Russian songs; they will use it to write poems and make love confessions.
We have noted the results of a survey conducted by the Kiev International Institute of Social Sciences on May 16−22 and published last week. The survey essentially summarised Vladimir Zelensky’s five-year presidency. According to the survey, almost half of Ukrainians (49 percent) believe that the state of affairs in the economy has worsened since 2019; 43 percent noted the degradation of democracy. The majority of respondents believe that the root cause lies in the erroneous actions of the Kiev regime that they call “authorities.”
The rating of Vladimir Zelensky’s party, Servant of the People, speaks volumes about his own reputation. Fifty-five percent of the respondents criticise the party’s activities and only 7 percent have a positive attitude. In the conditions of a total suppression of dissent and strictest censorship, this data speaks for itself. And this comes at a time when nothing but good news about this party is shown to audiences in Ukraine. There is no alternative coverage. Residents of Ukraine are tired of endless lying, lawlessness and spiralling corruption. So, here are the results. Endless “television marathons” from Bankovaya Street and rampant propaganda are producing less and less effect.
As for the feelings of the citizens of Ukraine, who are being exploited literally as cannon fodder to create a “nutritional product” to favour Zelensky and his military ambitions, frankly, I was shocked to see this information. I have seen a lot but this time, I was stunned. A Ukrainian fighter, who decided to build a different life from what Zelensky prescribed for him, made a raft out of empty bottles to cross the Dnieper and surrender to the Russian army. I believe this person had other opportunities to change his fate, but he chose what he considered most important in his life. The largest number of people so far escaped through the Ukrainian-Hungarian border. Thirty-two Ukrainian citizens in a truck with a false military license plate entered the Hungarian territory and were discovered in the village of Barabas.
This is not desertion. People end up on the front against their own will. They are hunted down and thrown to meet sure death. This is not about it. It is about killing. They are not dying in the name of Ukraine, the Ukrainian people or as noble heroes for the sake of truth. They are being killed by the Kiev regime. The citizens of Ukraine who use any means, be it a raft made of empty bottles or a truck with a false license plate, to flee and leave it behind, they are not betraying Ukraine. They are saving themselves from the killers on Bankovaya Street. There is an enormous difference.
Meanwhile, incidents involving the use of weapons distributed by the Kiev regime to civilians for “organising self-defence” in February − March 2022 are increasing in frequency across the country. According to Minister of Internal Affairs of Ukraine Igor Klimenko there are approximately five million weapons and an unknown number of grenades in circulation. The amount sold of these weapons can only be imagined. The revenue from these sales likely helps Ukrainian sellers to sustain themselves and their families, and meet their daily needs. Can you imagine where these weapons may have ended up? Officials in the Middle East are correct in predicting that the European continent could become the next incubator for a potent international terrorist movement. This outcome will stem from the actions of the collective West, driven by Washington’s aggressive policies and the totally toothless, silent, and passive approach of the EU countries.
It is noteworthy that this arsenal is now being used to resist the actions of military commissariats in Ukraine enforcing mobilisation. Initially distributed in 2022 to protect themselves against the Russians, these weapons are now being used by the Ukrainians to protect themselves against fellow Ukrainians. There have been instances of gunfire aimed at Ukrainian military enlistment offices, and vehicles belonging to officials have been set ablaze. Such incidents are increasingly being reported across different regions of the country. For instance, on June 7, 2024, a man fired an RPG-18 Mukha grenade launcher at a military enlistment office building in Kharkov, resulting in the destruction of documents containing data on those liable for military service.
Many might argue that these actions constitute sabotage or desertion and are deemed unworthy by certain internal regulations in Ukraine regarding mobilisation behaviour. But no, this is not about violating oaths or promises made by Ukrainian citizens to their state. Instead, it reflects the reality of a state captured by a terrorist group funded by the West, which is conducting genocide against its own population. It appears that Ukrainians’ tolerance for the legal lawlessness of authorities and extremism of the Kiev regime towards their own people has reached its limit. It’s difficult to predict where this will lead. However, considering Vladimir Zelensky’s increasingly frantic mobilisation efforts, sending more people to certain death, it’s evident he fears a new uprising similar to the Maidan.
The facts mentioned reaffirm the importance of the objectives of the special military operation to denazify, demilitarise Ukraine, and neutralise threats originating from its territory. As stated by Russian leadership, these objectives will be achieved.
We heard many fakes, misinformation and sheer lies about Russia’s “blasphemous” behavior towards Ukrainian children, who allegedly are kidnapped and deprived of their cultural identity. All of that was refuted with facts in hand. The most difficult thing is to refute open lies, because it is a tall task to prove the obvious. But we are doing that anyway. Here is an example.
On Russia Day (June 12), Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov met with Alexander and Alexey Ivlevs, students of the Foreign Ministry’s secondary boarding school. Who are these boys? Their parents tragically died in Mariupol during the Ukrainian army’s artillery attack on the city’s residential areas in March 2022. In 2023, these children were brought to Moscow, where they were enrolled in the Foreign Ministry’s boarding school. This was done with the permission of their own grandmother, who has become their guardian angel. Thank you, Alla Mikhailovna, for what you have done for them.
The meeting was attended by Foreign Minister of Cuba Bruno Rodriguez Parrilla, who had just finished talks with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. I urge everyone to see the footage from this meeting. It is a case, where the protocol formula, “the meeting was held in a friendly atmosphere,” reflects the gist of what took place there.
The denunciation of the Russian-Ukrainian intergovernmental agreement on cultural centres
On June 12, 2024, President of Russia Vladimir Putin signed Federal Law No. 127-FZ On Denouncing the Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine on the Establishment and Terms of Functioning of Information and Cultural Centres signed in Moscow on February 27, 1998.
After June 23, when this law will come into force, we will notify Ukraine via the existing channels that the Agreement is null and void.
The denunciation was a forced step. We have always proceeded from the premise that cultural and humanitarian ties should not become a hostage of politics. For this reason, we were not in a hurry to break it off until there was the slightest chance for a dialogue. It is no secret that the Russian Science and Culture Centre in Ukraine had to operate in a very difficult environment after the bloody armed coup in Kiev in February 2014, when the power was seized by the radical nationalist forces. It came under regular attacks from the nationalists and had to wind down its operations in 2021, when sanctions were introduced against Rossotrudnichestvo, its parent organisation.
Today, it can be said with absolute certainty that there are no prospects for a resumption of constructive cooperation between the two countries, including in the humanitarian sphere, in a situation where the Kiev regime pursues a rabid Russophobic policy, takes steps to wipe out the Russian language and culture, and persecutes our compatriots.
All of this motivated the decision to terminate the Cultural Centres Agreement as inactive and no longer relevant.
France’s latest initiatives to support the Kiev regime
We cannot overlook the recent aggressive statements from the official Paris regarding their intentions amidst the conflict in Ukraine. France has announced plans to transfer Mirage 2000-5 fighters to the Kiev regime, provide training for Ukrainian pilots and mechanics, and also training and equipping a brigade of the Ukrainian Armed Forces consisting of 4,500 personnel. Furthermore, they have authorised the use of French weaponry in attacks on Russian territories. Simultaneously, discussions persist regarding the deployment of French military personnel to Ukraine, initially as “instructors,” although the actual nature of their activities there is widely understood. According to media reports, France is even attempting to assemble a coalition of NATO nations for this purpose.
During the commemorative events in France marking the 80th anniversary of the Allies Landing in Normandy, a fresh wave of aggressive anti-Russian remarks seemed particularly ill-timed. This situation is a historical embarrassment for Paris, given that our country was not invited to participate in these events. Discussions have ensued for a considerable time, exploring various ways to address this issue. Ultimately, they decided not to extend an invitation. Against this backdrop, statements were issued about France intending to enhance its support for the Kiev regime, potentially escalating the situation across the European continent. While warmly welcoming the leader of the Ukrainian clique, Western leaders have notably refrained from acknowledging the historical fact, highlighted by French historians, that Ukrainian collaborators fought alongside the Nazis in the ranks of the Wehrmacht in France.
Paris’s efforts to rationalise its rash actions and portray them as not exacerbating the Ukrainian crisis appear futile. How could they not escalate the situation? These actions are destabilising Europe. France’s increasing involvement in the armed conflict in Ukraine is steadily moving from purported assistance to actions that risk heightening tensions and potentially leading to a direct confrontation with Russia. Such a scenario could have unpredictable consequences for security in Europe and globally.
Do the citizens of France want this? The answer is clear: they simply have no say on the matter. Are French soldiers prepared to sacrifice their lives for interests and ideals that are foreign to them, for narratives shaped in Washington and London that have turned Ukraine into a pawn in the conflict against Russia? I have serious doubts about this.
The outcome of the European Parliament elections, which dealt a severe blow to French President Emmanuel Macron and his party, unmistakably demonstrated that the majority of French citizens do not approve of his policies. It is time for French citizens, public figures, and journalists to wake up, open their eyes and grasp the reality of what they are being drawn into. Perhaps, instead of stirring up society with an imaginary Russian threat and pushing Europe and themselves towards war, the French leadership would be wiser to address urgent domestic issues and contemplate the long-standing, unresolved challenges in the economy, security, and migration. Do they believe that a major conflict will somehow resolve all of Europe’s problems? No. In reality, such a scenario would only exacerbate the situation further.
Anniversary marking the conclusion of NATO’s aggression against Yugoslavia
June 10, 2024, marks 25 years since the conclusion of Operation Allied Force, NATO’s aggressive campaign against sovereign Yugoslavia. During this operation, over 2,000 civilians, including 89 children, lost their lives. The West callously labelled these casualties as “collateral damage.” Will the West initiate legal proceedings against themselves at the International Criminal Court? There are witnesses to NATO’s atrocities, there are victims and their families who can testify.
Throughout NATO’s “humanitarian intervention” over 78 days, 14,000 bombs were dropped on Yugoslavia and over 2,000 missiles fired. Cluster and high-explosive shells were extensively used as well as depleted uranium ammunition that resulted in radioactive contamination across large areas of the Balkans.
Notice how quickly Westerners react with nervousness to anything related to nuclear weapons. The moment someone raises the topic, they swiftly label it as aggressive rhetoric.
In Yugoslavia, projectiles containing depleted uranium were used, similar to those now employed in Ukraine. The West supplies these munitions to the Kiev regime from London, utilising them either through Ukrainian forces or directly. Why isn’t the British public concerned about environmental damage, contamination, and the resulting casualties? Indeed, foreign victims are not seen as victims but as collateral damage. The severe consequences of that environmental disaster from 25 years ago continue to affect human health today, and it may take decades, if not centuries, to overcome them.
NATO aircraft primarily targeted civilian infrastructure. The extensive list of material damage includes:
– Tens of thousands of residential buildings and flats;
– Over 300 industrial and energy facilities, including oil refineries, power plants, and power lines;
– More than 350 transport and communication facilities, including airfields, bridges, railway infrastructure, gas stations, relay stations, and post offices;
– Around 50 healthcare institutions and approximately 100 kindergartens, schools, and universities;
– Dozens of historical and architectural monuments, churches, and monasteries.
Estimates place the total economic damage to the Yugoslav economy between $30 to $100 billion.
The tactics employed by the West against Yugoslavia, primarily targeting Serbs and Serbian cities, are now being replicated against our country through the Kiev regime. If anyone claims these are “collateral damage” and that these targets were not deliberate, let me remind you that the Crimean Bridge had been a target of terrorist and extremist activities by the Westerners and the Kiev regime long before 2022. They eagerly plotted to obstruct its construction and subsequently demolish it. Did Washington, London, and collective Brussels seek arbitration to hold themselves accountable for these actions, issue warrants for their own arrest? Not at all.
They did not apologise to the Serbs. That’s their standard approach. Those who don’t conform and refuse to toe their line, they face destruction, exploitation, and continued disrespect.
It’s important to remember some of the most horrific incidents during the NATO intervention in 1999, when civilians were deliberately targeted:
– The bombing of residential areas in Aleksinac on April 5;
– The missile attack on the Belgrade-Thessaloniki passenger train on April 12;
– Assault on a column of refugees in the Djakovica area on April 14;
– Destruction of the Radio and Television of Serbia building, along with its employees inside, on April 23;
– Attack on a passenger bus near Podujevo on May 1;
– Dropping cluster bombs on central neighbourhoods of Nis on May 7;
– Attack on the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade on May 7;
– Bombing of a column of refugees in the village of Korisa near Prizren on May 14;
– Raid on the Dragisa Misovic Clinical Centre in Belgrade on May 20.
The US and its allies committed numerous war crimes under the false pretext of protecting Kosovo Albanians. Who else has the West not “protected” in this manner? Iraqis, against their legitimate government. Libyans, against their legitimate government. There are numerous other examples. These actions were not driven by genuine concern for human rights but rather aimed at establishing perpetual threats against Belgrade and Serbians on their historic lands, and against Europeans in general. And today, under the guise of mediating settlement, the West is pressuring Serbs to relinquish Kosovo, while encouraging the Pristina “authorities” to purge the Orthodox population, ultimately pushing the region to the brink of armed conflict.
Instead of lecturing Serbs on understanding and forgiving NATO for the Yugoslavia massacre, Americans and EU members should have long ago acknowledged their atrocities and taken responsibility for them. The attack on a sovereign European nation for the sake of global dominance disqualifies them from claiming moral authority.
25th anniversary of the UN Mission in Kosovo under UNSC Resolution 1244
Twenty-five years ago on June 10, 1999, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1244, establishing the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK). This decision played a crucial role in bringing the conflict in the former Yugoslavia into the political mainstream.
In addition, Resolution 1244 laid the foundations of the international legal framework for the Kosovo settlement, which affirmed Serbian sovereignty in that region.
Unfortunately, Western countries chose to undermine the provisions of this UNSC decision by actively supporting the separatist tendencies of the Kosovo Albanian administration.
How do you think American citizens feel about this? Most Americans are unaware of the UN Security Council resolution that designates Kosovo as Serbia. Instead, they are often presented with a different narrative on American TV channels, portraying Kosovo as a sovereign country that the United States should support in building democracy, at the expense of American taxpayers.
NATO is supplying arms into Pristina and helping Kosovo to create its own "army" (in reality, a gang of cutthroats), despite the prohibition set by UN Security Council Resolution 1244. But US citizens are not supposed to know about that. With the tacit consent of Western powers, the self-proclaimed Kosovo authorities are bullying the Serbian population in the province, pursuing a policy of expelling Serbs from their ancestral lands. These actions exhibit all the elements of genocide, although not necessarily in legal terms (this is a matter for international legal experts), but certainly from the universally recognised humanitarian standpoint.
Under these circumstances, a full-scale United Nations presence in the Serbian autonomous province of Kosovo and Metohija seems more necessary than ever. Its primary objective should be to help ensure security, stability and respect for human rights in the province.
Russia supports the Mission's activities and advocates for the preservation of its human and financial potential. We firmly believe that only UNMIK, and not the "authorities" in Pristina, has the legitimate right to represent Kosovo, in accordance with Security Council Resolution 1244.
We hold the view that any solution to the Kosovo issue must be acceptable to Belgrade, based on Security Council Resolution 1244, and ultimately endorsed by the UN Security Council.
Day of memory of victims of the Budyonnovsk Attack
Twenty-nine years ago, on June 14, 1995, the terrorist act in Budyonnovsk, the Stavropol Territory, became one of the most terrible and bloody tragedies in the history of modern Russia. One hundred and sixty bandits took 1,586 people hostage and drove them into the main building of the city hospital. For six days the terrorists held patients, medical staff, women in labour and newborns at gunpoint. A total of 129 people were killed, including 18 police officers, 17 servicemen, and about 415 were wounded.
June 14 is annually marked as Day of Memory of the attack victims. On this day Budyonnovsk residents, servicemen and women, officers of law enforcement and security agencies, special forces veterans and Stavropol Territory officials carry flowers to the memorial near the department of the interior building, as well as to the central district hospital. This year will be no exception. Budyonnovsk plans to hold memorial services, mourning rallies, and lay flowers at the monuments to fallen civilians, officers of internal affairs agencies and helicopter men.
Over 30 terrorists were convicted and sentenced to various terms in prison for involvement in the terrorist act. Its organiser Shamil Basayev was eliminated in a special operation in Ingushetia in 2006. Most of the bandits, who attacked the peaceful city in June 1995 were eliminated in course of combat and special operations.
This bloody crime has no statute of limitations, the establishment and punishment of the culprits continues. In the course of a criminal investigation in early June 2024, officers of the Ministry of the Interior and the Federal Security Service detained Chechen-born Khamzat Zoyev and Dagestani-born Kazbek Anasov. According to the investigation, they voluntarily joined Shamil Basayev's gang in the first half of June 1995. There is no doubt that retribution will inevitably befall all the terrorists involved in this inhuman act.
Why do Russian diplomats need to speak regularly about this on the international arena? Because the West was behind this monstrous terrorist madness. Those murderers, who seized women, children and newborns in a hospital, were received in Washington, London, Paris, Berlin and Brussels as the dearest guests. They were hailed as "rebels and fighters for democracy." Westerners told them and the entire international community that they were "the opposition to the undemocratic regime in Moscow," "bearers of the ideology of freedom for their region and many others." They were encouraged, supported and motivated. And the West is doing absolutely the same in various locations of the world.
The Second International Forum of Ministers of Education in Kazan
On June 9-12, Kazan hosted the Second International Forum of Ministers of Education “Shaping the Future.”
The forum was organised by the Russian Ministry of Education in cooperation with the Russian Ministry of Education and Science jointly with the Government of the Republic of Tatarstan and with support from the Foreign Ministry of Russia.
The event was attended by representative delegations from over 40 countries.
Russian Minister of Education Sergey Kravtsov read out a message of greetings on behalf of President of Russia Vladimir Putin. The message said that the leaders of Russia “focus on meeting the evolving needs of young people in the changing socio-economic landscape, instilling in them spiritual and moral values that foster the development of mature, responsible individuals.”
Director of the Department for Multilateral Humanitarian Cooperation and Cultural Relations Alexander Alimov read out Sergey Lavrov’s address, which said that Russia was ready to share with international partners its latest R&D and promising educational projects for the benefit and progress of mankind.
The forum delegates discussed a number of issues, including access to quality education, progress in digital educational services, and training of skilled personnel and educators. They also looked into how to strengthen cooperation in the area of secondary vocational education and to create engineering schools.
The Memorandum on Cooperation in General, Secondary Vocational, and Additional Education between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Djibouti was signed on the sidelines of the Forum. Representatives of 21 states signed the Declaration on Setting up a Working Group on Creative Professions, the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Education, and Creation of Engineering Schools.
The 11th BRICS Education Ministers Meeting was held at the Forum as part of Russia's BRICS Chairmanship in 2024. The meeting approved a Declaration of BRICS Education Ministers.
Russia is active in organising a global educational space. That the Forum was attended by so many countries is evidence of its relevance as a venue for discussing current education and science issues, as well as the role of education and science in addressing crucial tasks involved in an all-round and harmonious development of society.
International Inter-Party Forum in Vladivostok
As part of the Russian Federation’s chairmanship of BRICS in 2024, the International Inter-Party Forum will take place in Vladivostok on June 17-19. The event will bring together leaders from prominent foreign political and social forces who share a commitment to constructive interaction in pursuit of common interests. The forum is organised by the United Russia all-Russian political party.
The forum’s theme, Global Majority for a Multipolar World, embodies the shared aspiration of our states to foster a more just, equitable, and inclusive framework for international cooperation, emphasising the growing significance of the Global South and East countries. This vision led to the decision to hold the Forum in an extended format, inviting partners and like-minded states. On the sidelines of the main event, an inter-party round table titled Russia – ASEAN Countries will also be organised. Over 100 delegates from more than 30 countries are expected to attend.
The participants will not only identify problem areas but also formulate practical steps to enhance the role of Global Majority states in global governance mechanisms and strengthen partnerships in politics and security, finance and the economy, and cultural and humanitarian ties.
The forum builds on the tradition of promoting socio-political dialogue among parliamentary parties and NGOs from BRICS countries and like-minded states.
30th anniversary of the Treaty on the Principles of Friendly Relations between Russia and Vietnam
June 16 marks 30 years since Russia and Vietnam signed the Treaty on the Principles of Friendly Relations between the Russian Federation and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, governing our relations in a new environment. To commemorate this significant date, an exchange of congratulatory messages is planned between the heads of state, governments, and foreign policy departments of Russia and Vietnam.
It is important to remember that the history of bilateral relations began much earlier. In the 1950s, our country supported the heroic Vietnamese people in their struggle for freedom and independence against French colonialists, and in the 1960s-1970s, against American aggressors. Both we and our Vietnamese friends always remember this. During those times, the traditions of friendship and mutual assistance were established, forming a solid foundation for the comprehensive strategic partnership launched in 2012.
We continue our proactive and trust-based political dialogue, including at the highest level. Additionally, contacts are maintained between parliaments and through party channels.
Steps are being taken to adapt trade and economic relations to the current global situation. By the end of 2023, trade turnover with Vietnam had increased by 8.3 percent, and in the first quarter of this year, it surged by 34 percent.
Mutually beneficial cooperation in the strategically vital oil and gas sector, facilitated through joint ventures like Vietsovpetro for exploration and production in Vietnam and Rusvietpetro in Russia, deserves the highest praise. Moreover, Gazprom is advancing its projects on the Vietnamese continental shelf.
GAZ cars are manufactured at the GAZ Thanh Dat joint venture located in Da Nang. Emphasis is placed on scientific and technological cooperation, as well as cultural and educational exchanges. Interregional relationships have significantly strengthened, involving Moscow, St Petersburg, and the Kaluga, Moscow, Rostov, and Ulyanovsk regions.
The 80th anniversary of the allied landing in Normandy
I promised to say a few words about how Paris, in a rage of its ever mounting aggressive rhetoric, once again decided to lash out both at its own and our common history.
Let me remind you that the 80th anniversary of the Allied Landing in Normandy was celebrated on June 6. I don’t know whether it is worthwhile to recall this, but judging by the amnesia that has swept over the Élysée Palace like a pandemic, our country is the successor of the USSR, a nation that has made the decisive contribution to victory over Nazism and fascism, to the liberation of Europe from Hitler’s occupation, and to the salvation of the European civilisation from destruction. But they demonstratively refused to invite Russia. They ignored the cherished memory of 27 million Soviet people, who sacrificed their lives to save mankind from fascism.
I think that many current European “leaders,” who came to power through manipulations, including with US interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states in the EU, rather than by the will of the people, would like to forget this page of their own history. The French authorities are no exception in this sense. But their knowledge of history has always been, at best, inadequate, if not nil altogether. How else then can we explain the ceremonious reception in Normandy, given to the head of the Kiev regime, who never stops chanting the Nazi rallying cry (not the one invented in Ukraine or for Ukraine) – I will not reproduce it – who extols criminals like Stepan Bandera and Roman Shukhevych, joined in a standing ovation to a former soldier from 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician) in the Canadian Parliament, and, to wipe out the slightest memory of the Great Victory, pulls down monuments to the [Soviet] military commanders, who made the current D-Day (Europe Day) celebrations possible.
The French Resistance activists, relatives of the French Jewish victims of the Nazi oppression, and General Charles de Gaulle would have been terrified by what is happening today. Many of their descendants are terrified, but they fear to say so in public. So much for those individuals, who are representing the Europeans in the Western part of the European continent.
Question: The other day, the head of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, announced that the first 1.5 billion euros of the frozen Russian assets would be available to Kiev in July 2024. What is your comment?
Maria Zakharova: What can I say? Virtually every day, we comment on yet another Western theft, or yet another set of illegitimate and unlawful Western sanctions, or the West’s intention to steal something. So, please read my previous comments. But I will repeat the main point now. It is criminal, cynical and yet another blow to international law to use stolen Russian funds to bankroll the military adventures of the Kiev regime and its patrons. We will retaliate, of course. As usual!
We know that the G7 countries have allegedly reached basic agreements to issue yet another loan worth $50 billion to Ukraine, charged upon would-be earnings from managing the Russian assets. This step will lead the West to no joy. The unlawful initiatives stemming from the wish to stuff the Kiev regime with money at someone else’s expense will break the backbone of the financial system and entail devastating crises.
The European Union will bear the onus of these systemic risks. The EU’s own decisions, albeit imposed upon it by the United States, have already backfired. But they will continue backfiring on and on, involving the flight of capital (it is already facing the flight of European companies that have “gone west,” that is, to the United States). The reason is that Global Majority countries will respond by withdrawing their investments.
Besides, there are more than enough European property and funds in Russia (something stated on more than one occasion by representatives of the Russian Government) and the inevitable retaliation will be extremely painful for Brussels. So, they will have to pay for their insanity from their own pocket.
It is obvious that this scenario is in Washington’s interests. Though paying lip service to Trans-Atlantic solidarity, alliance, and special partnership with the EU countries, the US, in fact, seeks to weaken the EU economically, and, if we speak straight and call things by their proper names, its aim is to enslave only recently prosperous EU countries.
Washington dreams of depriving the EU of its independence and making it pull the chestnuts out of the fire for itself, its reward being the permission to buy US LNG at triple the price. But it is not certain that the permission will be forthcoming either. And, of course, the EU’s fate is to meekly obey any reckless US undertaking, given its lamentable financial state. While previously Paris or Berlin had an opportunity to refrain from being involved in monstrous crimes committed by the Anglo-Saxons in Iraq and elsewhere, this opportunity is no longer available today. They will run to the master’s heel at his first whistle.
Regrettably, the European ruling circles have forgotten about national interests and the potential damage to citizens of their native countries and to their own businesses, if after all the Russian assets are confiscated in any form under some pseudo legal pretexts.
Question: In 2000, the German government established the Foundation Remembrance, Responsibility and Future to pay compensations and carry out projects to support victims of Nazi persecution and preserve their memory, including in our country. The foundation’s board of trustees also includes representatives from Russia. What can you say about its activities in Russia at the present time?
Maria Zakharova: Since 2014, Russia has been represented at the foundation by Vladimir Lukin.
Until 2022, the foundation conducted cultural, humanitarian, educational, social, research, and various other programmes across several Russian regions. However, after 2022, it adopted an overtly politicised stance that was distinctly anti-Russian in nature.
Recently, the foundation’s management cancelled a meeting scheduled for June 4 in Berlin, citing a flimsy pretext. This meeting was supposed to be the first in-person gathering of its board of trustees after a long pause, with participation expected from a Russian representative. It’s evident that the German organisers were likely intimidated by the presence and speech of the Russian participant. This decision could potentially derail their plans for another display of Russophobia.
We regret to observe that the foundation is progressively deviating from its original mission of supporting victims of Nazism. Instead, it is becoming a tool for political confrontation with Moscow.
What does this indicate? It shows the increasing historical amnesia within German authorities or, conversely, a resurgence of revanchism. It reflects Berlin’s attempt to rewrite the history of World War II, and its persistent reluctance to officially acknowledge the crimes against humanity committed by the Third Reich in the USSR during the Great Patriotic War, particularly the siege of Leningrad, as acts of genocide against the peoples of the USSR.
You know, there’s an important topic to ponder. When we speak about allies in the anti-Hitler coalition, historical amnesia becomes evident. They tend to forget who stood alongside them, the significant contribution of the Soviet Union and Russia as the successor of the USSR to defeating Nazism. They overlook the victims and the sacrifices made by the Soviet people. It wasn’t just the Soviet people who all at once stood to defend humanity back then; it was a burden carried by the nation, a blow to the gene pool, leading to a demographic collapse. So many lives were lost. Therefore, the term “historical amnesia” is highly relevant. When it comes to the German political elite, it’s not just about forgetting but also about a desire for revenge and the completion of what the direct founders of the Third Reich and Nazi ideology had planned. They couldn’t achieve it back then. For 80 years, they remained suppressed, unable to resurface with their anti-human ideology. Now, under the guise of current Russophobia, it appears they see an opportunity to advance this agenda. It appears to be disconnected from those past events. Using it as a disguise, they can pursue everything they intended to do back then. It’s less about historical amnesia now and more about a thirst for vengeance, a determination to accomplish what they couldn’t back then. We have discussed this repeatedly at our briefings, how unevenly denazification progressed in German society. It was thorough in Eastern Germany, but in Western Germany... Many Nazis and collaborators have become pillars of support for NATO or Western regimes, or the collective West led by the United States. Many not just found refuge, having no right to the reincarnation of their ideas, but were welcomed as honoured residents in certain parts of the world. This topic is certainly worth discussing further.
The same concerns the use of the Berlin Karlshorst Museum, situated in the building where the German Instrument of Surrender was signed, to propagate pseudo-historical anti-Russia narratives and events. We strongly condemn this immoral stance taken by the German authorities.
Question: Please comment on the Finnish media report that the country’s Foreign Ministry and the Ministry of Transport and Communications have begun verification of the baselines, from which the breadth of Finland’s territorial sea and exclusive economic zone in the Baltic Sea are measured?
Maria Zakharova: We have seen the reports to the effect that the above-mentioned Finland’s agencies are engaged in such work. They are performing aerial photography to verify the geographical coordinates of Finland's marine reference points and to identify new islands, reefs and rocks that may have appeared in the sea.
As far as I understand, according to Finnish laws, such a survey must be carried out once in every 30 years, and the last one was done in 1995. In our estimates, such actions by Finland as well as the work currently executed by the Russian side to specify the baselines in the Baltic Sea are of an exclusively technical, routine, one might say cartographic nature and do not lead to changes in the borders in the Baltic Sea. The innuendo on this subject in some countries and in their media was completely incomprehensible to us. I know that even some politicians alleged that Russia is changing its borders, etc. It has nothing to do with reality.
Question: Currently, a group of Russian ships, including a missile frigate and a nuclear submarine, is visiting Cuba. Does the Foreign Ministry perceive this visit as part of Russia’s response to recent statements by the President of Russia regarding the possibility of supplying long-range weapons to countries allowing the use of their long-range weapons against Russia? What message does Russia aim to convey to its former overseas partners through these manoeuvres off the coast of the United States?
Maria Zakharova: Regarding the military aspect of this matter, all explanations and details are provided by the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation and President Vladimir Putin himself, who has addressed this topic. Therefore, it would be appropriate to direct your question to the Ministry of Defence for further clarification.
Regarding the message or signal that these actions might convey to the West, I’d like to elaborate further. It’s quite interesting that whenever there are military exercises, naval missions, joint delegation exchanges, or observations of specific manoeuvres, the Western public is quick to question and seek clarification about the underlying messages. When we, as you said, convey these messages through political and diplomatic channels, and when President Vladimir Putin spends hours giving interviews, engaging with representatives from all countries, both friendly and unfriendly, and responding to questions from journalists, including those from Western countries, it’s curious that these detailed statements and comments are not often acknowledged as signals. Nobody asks for clarifications. It’s quite remarkable, isn’t it?
I hope that the numerous signals and messages sent by Russia don’t just fade into the background but are actually received by the intended recipients.
Regarding the countries of the Global Majority, we receive feedback. Our relations with them are progressing swiftly in various spheres, despite the Western countries’ efforts.
When it comes to the West, one might wonder why it appears entirely deaf to our signals, only to later launch vigorous campaigns to block our messages from entering their information space. This phenomenon is particularly striking in democratic nations.
Thank you for your question. I would appreciate it (if your editorial office finds it suitable) if this news about signals and messages could also be covered in your agency’s news section. Over the years, numerous non-military and non-political messages have been sent to the West.
Let’s provide specific examples: energy. Russia didn’t just sell its resources; our country built infrastructure to facilitate the promotion and transport of our own resources to the West.
Security matters. Russia was prepared to address them and underscored this in diplomatic discussions across all conceivable platforms, from global forums involving all nations to specialised Euro-Atlantic ones. Our country engaged with all dialogue platforms, even those associations with an anti-Russia stance but offering dialogue opportunities. Russia exerted significant efforts to advance these dialogues within the international legal framework and consistently signalled its commitment to ensuring security, not only for itself but also for its partners, including those with challenges.
Then we have cultural and humanitarian, educational, visa, logistics, transport, scientific, and technical fields – signals were sent to all of them. Why is it that only those related to the army and the navy seem to break through? This question isn’t for us but for those receiving the signals at the other end.
Question: In response to the recent decision made by the United States and some of its European allies to allow Ukraine to use Western weapons to attack Russia’s territory, some European politicians have spoken out against it. Prime Minister of Slovakia Robert Fico said on social media that these actions proved that these countries do not want peace, but also want to escalate the situation in Ukraine. Austrian Defence Minister Klaudia Tanner said in an interview that these actions “crossed all boundaries.” Would you comment on this? How will the US decision affect the course of the Ukrainian crisis?
Maria Zakharova: The United States and its allies are already leading to further prolongation and bringing this conflict to a completely different, larger-scale, catastrophic level by supplying more long-range and destructive weapons (though I am not sure any superlatives can be applied to destructive weapons) to the Kiev regime and allowing them to be used to attack the Russian territory. Why are they doing this? It is clear to those who know the history of international relations at least in the 20th and the 21st centuries. The fact is that Washington is at its deepest pique. Its actions brought its economy and domestic policy to the brink of collapse. It needs a way out of this situation. There are not enough internal resources. Other states do not give up external resources voluntarily, as they have done for many years, although it is difficult to call this situation voluntary. It was colonialism and imperialism, which siphoned off these resources. There is only one way to replenish the coffers and prolong the existence of the obvious global bankruptcy of the United States: by increasing the level of tension in the world, creating new zones of chaos, managing it, and inciting new conflicts. This is a classic scheme that the Americans have resorted to more than once.
In fact, World War II was an opportunity for the United States to emerge from the long economic, financial, and political depression that it had experienced for many years. The last thing that was expected from the United States was that this experience would be repeated in the 21st century. After all, the United States has declared itself as the flagship not only in the economy and progress in all spheres, but also in protecting human rights, freedom and democracy in the world. This was supposed to put an end to this aggressive ideology and the subversive experience of doing business which undermined all humanity. But no.
Today we can see everything starting anew. Ukraine is already on fire: it kindled like a stock of hay after Washington splashed a bit of its American democracy on it. The Middle East is already burning, groaning in the fire. The numbers speak for themselves, they are scary to voice: 37,000 civilians died just because of the United States’ adventurous attitude. The deepest tragedy of the region, which required a subtle approach using international law and diplomacy, but were American liberal democracy was also applied, with their opinion instilled on Israel and many other regional players. All this resulted in terrible outcomes.
Before this happened, the local soil of the Middle East and North Africa was richly fertilised with American ideas about how this region should develop, such as the Arab Spring, Colour Revolutions, and regime changes. And before that, the occupation of Iraq, the destruction of Libya as a state, and experiments on Syria, which they did not fully succeed only because Russia responded to Damascus’s request and protected the country and its people from complete destruction.
What else? International associations and institutions created at the initiative of the United States and Western countries are being destroyed. They were called upon to become new restraining elements in the architecture of the 21st century world order. The right as such is abolished. In its place, certain “rules” are shoved in, which no one knows, but in essence it is one rule: the rule of the strong.
It is clear that the current supplies of weapons and equipment are northing else but Washington’s attempts to spark another global conflict on the European continent. Vladimir Zelensky’s regime will use the indulgence issued to it to continue terrorist attacks on peaceful Russian cities and towns, which he still considers as his own, but at the same time you do not treat “your own people” that way. The latest shelling of Lugansk and Belgorod and today’s tragic events are clear examples of this.
At the same time, we can see that more voices are being raised in the countries of the collective West, which realise the consequences of these permissions, large supplies, and assistance. We hope that prudence will gain momentum among Western politicians and will eventually prevail over the radical elements of the European political establishment who are ready to plunge the continent into the abyss of a large war.
Question: Is
Maria Zakharova: It seems to me that the subjects that you have combined in one question should be separated.
First: any developments in the domestic political environment of a country (and
Second: relations with the Armenian people, relations with
Perhaps, I should not list them, but since you have asked about it; you are asking if
I will remind you that a great number of lives and destinies of those living both in
We pull our relations out of any nosedive some crazy heads tried to drive them into a number of times, those heads who thought either about nothing, or nothing but money or their own ambitions.
I assure you that we will always be friends and develop relations with
Question: How can you comment on statements by Nikol Pashinyan, voiced from the parliamentary rostrum yesterday and today, that
Maria Zakharova: Let Armenian political analysts and public activists comment on this issue. This person is an integral part of the political establishment. I leave this at their discretion.
I have noted a statement about the CSTO, that
One can endlessly juggle with these words, but I believe that this is completely unbefitting. There are strategic state interests, and there are problems that the region has, unfortunately, failed to resolve so far. It is necessary to think about security, strategic cooperation and the civilian infrastructure that should be established, including by relying on security in this region and on stability in the name of future generations. This would allow the region to become advanced and to develop, so that neglected problems would not drag it to the bottom.
This is why we need to overcome existing problems and facilitate regional stability. This would prevent the region from remaining on the curb of global progress and development. Everyone is talking about multipolarity nowadays. In turn, the
If they want to state something, they should do this directly and openly. We have noted a million times that the CSTO is an organisation stipulating voluntary membership for everyone. It has no command-and-administer system; nor does it pressure member countries. The organisation facilitates mutually respectful dialogue. No one is forcing anyone to stay there. What seems to be the problem? Why are Armenian politicians speculating on this issue for so long? There is the campaign rhetoric concept, the concept of elections and implementing campaign promises. They ought to settle their own accounts. Why are they deceiving their own people?
I would like to note the fact that no CSTO member is raising these issues before
Question: Recently, Greek Minister of Defence Nikos Dendias has said that, at his meeting with Sergey Lavrov on February 18, 2022, he asked the Russian Foreign Minister to take care of the Greek diaspora in Mariupol, which the Greek minister believes has disappeared today. Is it true that Mr Lavrov and Mr Dendias discussed the Greek diaspora in Mariupol in 2022? On what grounds? Could Mr Lavrov have shared about Russia’s plans? We are coming to Mariupol and seeing thousands of people of Greek origin who did not disappear but continue to live there. Please comment on this.
Maria Zakharova: To be honest, I will not even try recalling what was said at this meeting or look through archival documents, for an entire number of reasons. First, we share the gist of closed talks only in the format of media reports. You can read them on our website. But this is not the most important reason. Perhaps it would be worth looking through all the recordings of the conversation. I think that the main thing this politician needs to do now (you say that he is now the current Minister of Defence, but even if he were not the current Minister, he would still talk about this) to see how absurd his words are, is to arrive in Mariupol. What is the problem? Does he need money to buy a ticket? I will find some for him to buy one. I understand that it is now difficult to travel from the European Union to Russia due to the EU’s actions, but he can find a way. We will help him with it and send him money for a ticket; let him come and see. Before making any implausible statements about the Greek population that has “disappeared” from the new regions of Russia, it would be worth making sure of this personally. I think that a person holding a position like this must have a certain courage and responsibility. With a combination of courage and responsibility, let him come and take a look.
As for the actual situation with the Greek diaspora in the new Russian regions, you have rightfully noted that you have facts because you have been there many times. I know this because I read your reports. Despite pressure from authorities, certain representatives of the Greek media also visited Donbass and spoken with people there. I think they have managed to break through the information blockade on this topic, which, unfortunately, is taboo in Greece, as I understand. I see Greek journalists trying to convey the truth about the state of affairs to their audience, writing about Russia’s efforts to restore peaceful life in the new territories as well as about the ongoing development there, including that of the Greek community.
So what’s the main idea of what you are saying? Greece’s current leadership is deliberately ignoring this group of their compatriots abroad. Why? I have the answer. They are punishing them for choosing Russia, for not scolding it or insulting it as it simply does not occur to them to criticise our country. They are punishing them because they made this choice together with Russia and live like their fellow citizens and the entire country, overcoming all problems, developing a new life in the new regions, and preserving their traditions.
I think it is for Greece to decide how to handle this situation. But as you ask, I believe it would be right for the current Greek leadership to show their interest in the lives of people they consider their compatriots, and stop segregating them on the territorial or even national basis. If American Greeks are good Greeks, then, say, Russian Greeks are almost not Greeks, as the Greek government sees it. You cannot do that.
We remain open for contacts on the humanitarian agenda.
Regardless of whether the diaspora has disappeared or not, let us wait until Greek Minister of Defence Nikos Dendias assents to come and to send a delegation in order to make sure; I will provide him with some tips.
Greek nationals living in Mariupol and other communities near the Sea of Azov now have all the opportunities for preserving and expanding their cultural and historical traditions.
In February 2024, the first Greek national and cultural autonomy of the Donetsk People’s Republic was registered in Mariupol. You should ask the Greek Government whether they know that a new association of their compatriots has emerged. If they say no, then it would be appropriate to ask what their diplomats and senior officials from the Greek Government (who are supposed to oversee diaspora issues) are doing. If they say that they know about it, then this means that the Greek Defence Minister, mentioned by you, is lying.
Additionally, two local autonomies have been registered in Melitopol and Berdyansk in the Zaporozhye Region. They are registering these organisations in line with Russian legislation and with the active involvement of Tavrida, a regional national and cultural autonomy of Greek residents.
After obtaining a legal status, Russian Greeks have received an opportunity to implement various projects more actively. They can also receive state support and take part in multiple federal programmes aiming to preserve their distinct identity, traditions and language.
Not a single Russian citizen will refuse to assist this association on a par with other similar organisations just because it brings together people whose compatriots live in an unfriendly state. Actually, this is happening on the territory of EU countries and, unfortunately, Greece where local authorities discriminate against Russian nationals. I am not talking about the Greeks as individuals, but rather as citizens of their country. We can see many Russophiles and people retaining fond memories of close-knit bilateral cultural, humanitarian and political ties between our countries. I am talking about the government and people making discriminatory decisions with regard to everything associated with Russia. Apart from politics and state aspects of our relations, this encompasses everything linked with Russia, including culture, science, education, humanitarian exchanges, the diaspora, and compatriots.
The trials that have fallen to the lot of the residents of the new Russian regions, including the Greek community, have changed much but one thing remains true: they are still the same people who love their birthplace, honour their ancestors’ customs and respect the heroic past of our great country.
On June 1, foreign journalists took yet another press tour of the Donetsk People’s Republic. Media representatives could see for themselves how Mariupol is rising back up, speak to residents and hear their opinion. As of now, this city of half a million people is almost fully restored, with almost all residential buildings rebuilt. Russian Greeks are among those directly involved in these restoration efforts.
Now, I will answer a question that you did not ask but which, obviously, must be asked. Why did the Defence Minister of Greece make such a statement? You asked me what the actual state of affairs looks like. But you did not ask why he had made the statement. Especially since everybody understands that his claims are not true. I will explain. If the Greek government recognises that there is a Greek community in the new Russian regions, then it will have to answer a question from its own public. Why is he supporting the supply of weapons that will be used by the
I sincerely envy you for being on
Question: I did not have a chance in the beginning, but I wanted to say that love, Orthodox faith, compassion and traditions will defeat everybody who supports discord and war.
Maria Zakharova: You know what the problem is? What you talk about, love, is exactly the central theme of all world religions, and it is what’s being eradicated. Look at the Orthodox Christian faith being eradicated in
Question: Why did
Maria Zakharova: I do not quite understand what you mean by overturning a veto. How can somebody overturn a veto?
Remark: I mean, to do something so that
Maria Zakharova: There is an entire process for that. After receiving a negative result in the UN Security Council, the states addressed the same issue with the General Assembly (or themselves) and are discussing it. Their discussion is bringing results. The next stage will be the UN Security Council again. It is not possible to overcome a veto, according to law and specifically, the UN Charter.
But in addition to international law, there is actual situation that everybody in the world is talking about. I see that the international community is united regardless of which political parties are in power and which regimes control these countries.
People around the world are saying that the situation in
I do not know why this happens. I will not even try to address the topic of justice. Is it fair that children in
As a rule, we use these words (about preservation, protection and safekeeping) to talk about cultural heritage, monuments or paintings. Look how much care we take. Insurance companies make colossal efforts and insure remarkable works of art and architecture, jewels and jewellery. Aren’t children’s lives worth receiving if not insurance or guarantee then at least protection? I am talking about Palestinian children.
The entire world, regardless of political systems (I am talking about people across the globe), is saying that the situation is unacceptable. I believe the UN Security Council must take this signal, listen and understand that yet another veto from the
Question: Does Russia expect changes in its relations with Europe after the recent electoral victory of forces opposing the current EU policy towards Russia?
Maria Zakharova: We need to look at the results. They speak for themselves. People do not want to see in power the political forces of some EU countries that have led them to an escalation of tensions on the continent. Meanwhile, the leaders of the Collective Brussels and the West as a whole still remain on the European continent. They are rabid, absolutely unruly, reckless Russophobes, persons representing the world’s war party.
I think that this process (I mean the understanding of realities by EU residents) will be complicated, but it has already begun. I do not have high hopes but rather wish them to take off these "blinders" and wake up from this illusion as soon as possible, before it is too late.
By the way, I think this is a good comparison with what happened during the COVID-19 pandemic, when the population of the European Union was cheated out of billions of euros with those very vaccines. They were purchased by the EU leadership from the United States and then destroyed, as zealously as they had been purchased. It is not totally unclear whether such amounts were needed or not; whether the vaccine was good or bad or whether it helped to save people or, on the contrary, worsened their health condition. But the main thing is obvious -everything was done solely on the basis of the desire to get rich, to earn another billion for the management of the European Commission and the companies they represented. This situation would not be the same now. There is a difference.
The situation with the pandemic was overcome one way or another. Yes, with losses. Certainly, with repercussions. But the search for new drugs, good vaccines, protocols for treating this disease gave appropriate dynamics and brought good results. If the European continent is involved now in a bloody confrontation through the US efforts (which is apparently the dream of the US liberal democrats), they will find it impossible to get out of it with minimal losses. There is no such vaccine or such medication that would bring it to an end quickly. The Ukraine situation is another proof to this effect.
Question: Most media outlets working on the sidelines of the St Petersburg International Economic Forum (that ended last week) focused on nuclear deterrence issues and possible Russian arms deliveries to countries experiencing certain pressure from the West. Don’t you think that the consistent shifting of the global development centre into Asia and Russia’s pivot to the East (that, according to the President of Russia, started taking place long before current developments in Ukraine) also became the Forum’s key issues? How effective did this forum prove for Russia in this context?
Maria Zakharova: I agree with the assertion that a discussion of Russia’s relations with the West or various aspects of the conflict around Ukraine did not become the main issue of the SPIEF 2024 agenda. Although they discussed this issue, it did not dominate the agenda.
As I see it, the multipolarity issue became the main subject (I took part in several discussions and heard multiple other discussions and read their main points in the news). What is the difference? Certainly, we have to heed the conflict potential, we have to study and pay attention to it. Moreover, we should treat this issue in the most serious manner. However, the consolidating and positive potential is more important. This has now become the most constructive achievement worldwide, and all of us are struggling for its sake.
An assessment of prospects for forging a new world order and predicting its image dominated the discussions. Obviously, the hegemony of Washington and its satellites is receding. I believe that everyone, even including the West, have become reconciled to this. They discussed the outlines of a future world order.
In this context, the Forum became a milestone that largely underscored the existence of a Global Majority, specifically, a large group of countries defending their national interests on a mutually respectful basis and by honouring international law.
I am also happy because many media outlets have, at last, stopped spreading the hackneyed cliché about Russia’s pivot to the East. I believe that the concepts of polycentric development and multipolarity are beginning to replace these trite statements. Although their gist is similar, we should move away from this simple stereotypical perception and facilitate a truly in-depth comprehension of ongoing processes and their analysis.
I would like to note a statement by President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin that Russia has been expanding its interaction with Asian countries for a long time. It is following in the wake of global trends, namely, the emergence of new economic development centres in this region. The updated Russian Foreign Policy Concept formalised all this in 2023; earlier documents did the same by analysing the situation and charting the relevant direction of movement.
Instead of discussing an eastward turn, it would be logical to talk about more intensive collaboration with countries of the Global Majority. This did not happen due to certain timeserving considerations or because someone harbours a grudge. This highlights a comprehension of new realities and a new geopolitical balance of power.
The assertion of new centres of political influence and economic growth is one of the causes of tectonic shifts, mentioned all the time by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in great detail. These centres include China, India, regional powers in the Middle East and Latin America. The assertion and strengthening of such international associations as BRICS, the SCO, ASEAN and the EAEU is another factor contributing to this process.
I would like to discuss the establishment of these organisations once again. Their member countries are bound by the principle of mutual profitability, interests, as well as respect and consideration for these interests, rather than in accordance with the administrative-command system.
It is true that the West has in fact decided to break up with us and to punish
Why did the West do this to us? It needed competitive advantages that could not be obtained in a legal way. So, this is yet another zone of chaos to somehow resolve their own contradictions and crises.
There are other thoughts, too. We have begun to actively resume our participation in global processes (
All of this was the reason for the West to shut down relations with us. We did not do that. We have always proceeded from the fact that this is the choice the West made. As soon as they made new dividing lines, the potential was redistributed, and will continue to be redistributed more actively in the areas where we have mutual interest with other countries, regions and where our interaction will be beneficial and effective.
The Western countries’ policy of sanctions only encourages us to find new ways and forms for cooperation in trade, the economy, and transport and logistics. This idea was also developed at the St Petersburg International Economic Forum. In spite of the enormous sanction and political pressure on
We have partners to work with. Our main partners are in the CIS, the Global East and South. Their participation in the forum proves clearly that there is mutual intention to establish cooperation with
Question: At the end of 2023, China emerged as the primary purchaser of Russian artworks, including paintings, engravings, sculptures, stamps, collections, and antiques. Plans are underway to establish a Russian-Chinese fund by the end of 2024 to support performing arts projects. How do you view these developments in the Russian-Chinese dialogue? Can we say that the cultural identities of Russia and China share numerous points of connection?
Maria Zakharova: We are actively fostering cultural and humanitarian relations with China through mutual cultural exchanges scheduled for 2024-2025, as decided by the leaders of both nations during the Years of Culture of Russia and China. Numerous exhibitions, festivals, vernissages, and other events are also part of these initiatives.
There was a pause due to the pandemic, but it has been successfully overcome. Now, the exchanges have resumed with renewed vigour and enthusiasm. The prospects are wonderful. Interest in learning about Russia in China and vice versa has surged. Events are happening at local, regional, and federal levels, pointing to tremendous potential in this cultural exchange.
Secondly, the reason why the Chinese purchase Russian artworks is likely because they hold significant value. Recognising that amidst Western calls to cancel Russia, including Pyotr Tchaikovsky and Ivan Aivazovsky, there is a promising investment opportunity. Wise investors understand that temporary circumstances affecting everyone do not dictate long-term value. Instead, enduring interests and genuine cultural worth always prevail.
There’s one more point. I also recall how extensively the Chinese invested in the European Union countries. They acquired wineries, castles, and real estate. Now, people from China and other nations see the current developments. They realise that in an instant, their real estate, wineries, vineyards, and investments could become like clay shards, similar to the fairy tale about the antelope. In a single moment, all that gold could disappear. Why? Because these assets could become pawns in political manoeuvres orchestrated by the West. China has already experienced this.
For instance, back in 2020, amid the global search for ways to handle the pandemic, voices in the West called for China to be held accountable. They insisted that China must “pay for everything.” The reasons behind these calls were unclear, but they were indeed heard. Fortunately, this trend eventually reversed. It would have been absurd to punish either the state or its people for the pandemic. Nevertheless, it all happened. Looking back, we now understand how these sentiments unfolded: seizure of property, real estate grabs, asset seizures, theft, and more.
I believe they will make purchases where profitability is ensured and guaranteed by compliance with the law, rather than through piracy.
Question: How does Russia view Türkiye’s interest in BRICS? What was the outcome of Hakan Fidan’s visit to Russia?
Maria Zakharova: Türkiye’s interest in BRICS should be evaluated by Türkiye itself, not Russia. BRICS operates with its own membership criteria and is open to engaging even with non-member states, as observed in Nizhny Novgorod: member countries met on the first day, followed by an extended meeting involving all BRICS partners on the second day. The level of Türkiye’s interest falls under the jurisdiction of Ankara’s official authorities.
The working visit of Türkiye’s Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan to the Russian Federation was highly productive and eventful. He held meetings with political leaders of our country and counterparts from various Russian ministries and departments. President Vladimir Putin personally received the guest during his stay.
On June 11, 2024, in Nizhny Novgorod, Hakan Fidan participated in an extended session during the BRICS Foreign Ministers Meeting, which included heads of foreign offices from the Global South and East countries, along with those presiding over regional cooperation formats.
Russia acknowledges and respects Türkiye’s and other states’ sovereign aspirations to establish systematic interaction with BRICS. The association is progressively attracting more like-minded participants who share a mutual commitment to constructing a fairer, more equitable, and inclusive framework for international cooperation.
On the sidelines of the BRICS Foreign Ministers Meeting, Hakan Fidan held talks with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on various international agenda items, including developments in the Middle East and North Africa, the South Caucasus, and the Black Sea region. The talks were conducted in a businesslike and constructive manner, focusing on key bilateral issues and exploring opportunities for trade and economic cooperation.
Question: How far can Russia-Uzbekistan integration go? What should its end result be? Will this become part of the Union State?
Maria Zakharova: On June 16, we will mark the 20th anniversary of the Treaty on Strategic Partnership with Tashkent. Since then, we have managed to considerably enrich the experience of our joint work, to drastically expand multilateral collaboration and to establish comprehensive strategic partnership, due to the rapid pace of Russia-Uzbekistan ties and a particularly trust-filled dialogue between the leaders of both countries.
A declaration, signed by the leaders of both states on the sidelines of the SCO Heads of State Council Meeting in Samarkand on September 15-16, 2022, formalises this.
The large-scale results of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s visit to Uzbekistan on May 26-28, 2024 highlight impressive progress in relations between Moscow and Tashkent.
The Joint Statement, signed by both presidents, sets forth ambitious future objectives in all spheres. Participants in upcoming meetings of the Intergovernmental Commission on Economic Cooperation and the Joint Commission of Prime Ministers of Russia and Uzbekistan will deal with these issues later this year. Additionally, all ministries, agencies and major economic operators of our countries maintain direct constructive contacts
High-priority aspects include expanding trade and economic, investment and industrial cooperation, expanding energy projects, including construction of a low-capacity nuclear power plant in Uzbekistan.
Stronger ties between regions and business circles are an important aspect. For this purpose, the traditional format of the Forum for Interregional Cooperation between Russia and Uzbekistan has been elevated to the level of Council of Regions of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Uzbekistan.
Russia continues to provide Uzbekistan with all essential support in deepening its cooperation with the EAEU, with due consideration for its status as an observer state, granted on December 11, 2020 at a meeting of the Supreme Eurasian Economic Council.
Our Uzbekistani friends actively study the Union’s activities and mechanisms of its operation. They take part in meetings of the Supreme Eurasian Council and the Eurasian Intergovernmental Council. We believe that, by joining the common market, Tashkent will be able to take part in the association’s full-fledged decision-making process. It will access advanced engineering solutions, used by EAEU countries, and make its economy more stable by implementing well-known measures, including crisis management options.
According to mutual obligations, our work hinges on respect for sovereignty, non-interference, friendship and neighbourliness, equality and consideration for each other’s interests.
Speaking of the Russia-Belarus Union State, I would like to refer you to the relevant organisations of the Union State, and you will learn the answers to your questions there.
Question: First of all, we would like to congratulate you, your colleagues and everyone who has joined us online today on Russia Day.
Politico writes that the foreign ministers of eight European Union countries – the Czech Republic, Estonia, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, and Romania – have written a letter to Josep Borrell asking to restrict the free movement of Russian deputies and their families within the EU. Is the Foreign Ministry aware of this letter? How do you view this decision, especially considering international law? It goes against Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Will Russia take any reciprocal measures, tit-for-tat measures or some others?
Maria Zakharova: You have three questions. The first is whether we know about this or not. This is not the only letter. I only know one thing: this process has been ongoing recently. It becomes a discussion during their summits, councils of foreign ministers, and meetings, or emerges as letters, collective requests, and individual discussion between countries and the EU bureaucracy. Forms vary. The disease is the same, but manifestations vary. This is about the persecution of Russian diplomats, because the disease that afflicts the collective West, in particular Western Europe, is called Russophobia and a manic desire to inflict a strategic defeat on us. The manifestations vary. Persecution of Russian diplomats is one of them. They suffered from all kind of things. They were expelled and physically attacked; there were attempts to recruit them, and more than once. They encountered unbearable living conditions, from physical harassment to frezzing of personal, individual, and embassy accounts. Visas were not extended, or denied. We have been mocked at in every possible way. Even ceremonies to lay flowers at World War II soldiers’ graves and monuments ended in madness, as was the case, for example, with our ambassador Sergey Andreyev. This whole demoniacal crowd, which was clearly biased and paid for, attacked him. Forms can be different.
There are subforms, too. Putting restrictions on Russian diplomats’ movement is one of them. How? They either limit the radius of their movement, or require that their travel outside certain zones be coordinated in advance. Poland has also taken similar measures and steps. We have known for a long time. Everything is progressing in the same track regarding this form.
As for considering or not considering the international law, you were right to say that there are the Vienna Conventions on diplomatic and consular relations. They envisage how countries should receive diplomats. Nobody says that countries cannot put restrictions for some reasons. It is important that these decisions must not be politically biased. Anything can happen. Sometimes conflicts break out in some countries, and security deteriorates. The country sees that their diplomats are not treated as they should and takes reciprocal, defensive measures. Here, there is only political bias, based on Russophobia.
This results in a direct collision with international law. If formally everything they do can somehow be included in the scope of international law, then its essence and reasoning for their actions have nothing to do with it and directly contradict it. Here is a simple example. If a person was denied a visa (diplomat or journalist, it doesn’t matter) because this person violated the laws of the host country, then this is a legal decision in accordance with international law, local laws, and traditions. It is not very good. Perhaps it would be better to give someone a chance to redeem themselves or use some preventive measures. One way or another, this falls under into international law or local legislation. But if a person is refused due to his or her nationality, and the rejection has a clearly nationalistic connotation (inconsistency and non-compliance with laws is only a screen for making such a decision), then this is outside the international legal field, and, in fact, any legality.
Will we adopt reciprocal measures if such restrictions are put on Russian diplomats? Yes, we will. If you see news on the restrictions on Russian diplomats’ activities, you can write this immediately. It was always like this: Russia will take appropriate measures: retaliatory, mirror, symmetrical, asymmetrical. They will be different every time.
The fourth point I would like to conclude my answer with. When adopting these restrictive measures against Russian diplomats, these countries must understand that they are above all targeting their own diplomats, knowing that we follow the rule of reprisals, on which diplomatic routine is largely based.
Additional materials
-
Photos
