Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, June 19, 2024
- Sergey Lavrov’s participation in CSTO Foreign Ministers Council meeting
- Sergey Lavrov’s upcoming official visit to the Republic of Belarus
- Sergey Lavrov’s participation in the Primakov Readings forum
- Ukraine crisis update
- G7 leaders’ decision to send $50 billion to Ukraine backed by Russian assets by the end of the year
- The G7 summit outcomes
- Results of the meeting of NATO defence ministers
- The first joint report on the human rights situation in certain countries by the foreign ministries of Belarus and Russia
- Western attempts to split Russia
- World Olympic Day and the decline of the Olympic Movement
- Day of Memory and Sorrow
From answers to media questions:
- Certain statements by NATO Secretary General
- OSCE Media Freedom Representative nears end of mandate
- Russia accused of undermining internal political processes in Moldova
- Moldova update
- “Peace summit” in Switzerland fails
- Russia’s retaliatory measures in response to the transfer of our assets to the Kiev regime
- Russia demands that UNESCO react to the death of Nikita Tsitsagi
- Military and technical cooperation between France and Armenia
- Russia and Türkiye join forces to fight terrorism
- Ruben Vardanyan’s arrest
- Certain aspects of Russian-Armenian cooperation
- Nuclear dealings between the US, Japan and South Korea
- Aggressive media rhetoric against migrants from former Soviet countries
Sergey Lavrov’s participation in CSTO Foreign Ministers Council meeting
On June 20-21, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will take part in a meeting of the Foreign Ministers Council of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation, to be held under the chairmanship of the Republic of Kazakhstan in Almaty.
The foreign ministers of the Organisation member states will discuss the current international and regional landscape, review the outcomes of various CSTO collaborations, and deliberate on enhancing coordination in foreign policy.
The CSTO Foreign Ministers Council is expected to approve several draft decisions presented by the Collective Security Council during its regular session on November 28, 2024.
Sergey Lavrov’s upcoming official visit to the Republic of Belarus
On June 24-25, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will make an official visit to Minsk to mark the 32nd anniversary of diplomatic relations between Russia and Belarus.
His itinerary includes meetings with President Alexander Lukashenko, the chairs of the Council of the Republic and the House of Representatives of the National Assembly Natalya Kochanova and Igor Sergeyenko, and talks with Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergey Aleinik. Additionally, the Foreign Minister will lay a wreath at the Victory Monument and address students and lecturers at the Academy of Public Administration under the aegis of the President of the Republic of Belarus.
The meeting participants will discuss various current issues of bilateral cooperation, the international agenda, and multilateral foreign policy coordination. Special focus will be placed on diplomatic support for integration processes within the Union State and the establishment of a new Eurasian security architecture. They will also plan future contacts, including scheduling the annual joint meeting of the Russian Foreign Ministry and the Belarusian Foreign Ministry collegiums in the fourth quarter of this year in Minsk.
Following the meeting, the ministers will sign a joint statement outlining the primary objectives of the foreign policy dimension of union integration. They will also issue a joint appeal to the heads of executive bodies of friendly Eurasian associations, inviting them to engage in dialogue on security issues in Eurasia and collaborate on developing the Eurasian Charter for Diversity and Multipolarity in the 21st Century.
Sergey Lavrov’s participation in the Primakov Readings forum
On June 26, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will take part in the 10th Primakov Readings International Scientific and Expert Forum held in tribute to the memory of the outstanding politician, public figure, diplomat and scholar Yevgeny Primakov.
In his address, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov is expected to present the Russian vision of the main global trends and provide explanations on current aspects of Russia’s foreign policy.
The Primakov Readings have been held annually since 2015. Today, the forum is a recognised international discussion platform on global politics, security and the economy. As usual, the invitees are prominent Russian and foreign politicians, scientists, diplomats, journalists, and representatives of the scientific and expert community. The theme of this meeting, Russia in the Global Context, is highly relevant and offers much room for discussion.
Importantly, this anniversary meeting is held ahead of Yevgeny Primakov’s 95th birth anniversary. His contribution to the effort to promote Russian interests internationally as well as rationalise and forecast geopolitical processes is truly invaluable. The best confirmation of the above is the political reality arising from an irreversible process that is ushering in a multipolar system of international relations.
The Kiev regime goes on with a series of terrorist attacks intended to destroy civilian population and civilian infrastructure. Its hate is targeting women, children and elderly people. The neo-Nazis are doing the same as their idols from the Third Reich. True, occasionally their behaviour exceeds in brutality what was done during World War II, or the Great Patriotic War, as it is known in Russia.
What the Ukrainian neo-Nazi barbarians like the best is to fire at Russian cities and villages from all types of heavy weapons.
On June 14, a Ukrainian Tochka-U missile hit a five-storey residential building in Shebekino, the Belgorod Region, causing a collapse of one of its sections.
I want to remind you of the hysterics and convulsions that the Kiev regime was writhing in under Petr Poroshenko and later Vladimir Zelensky as they assured the international community that it was not they who had shot down the Malaysian Boeing over Ukraine. Allegedly, they neither targeted civilian facilities, a passenger airliner, or any aircraft in the sky, nor hit them even by chance.
We remember perfectly well that it was a passenger liner that was shot down by the Ukrainian Armed Forces in the course of a drill when “new democracy” was being established in Ukraine under President Leonid Kuchma. At that time, Kiev admitted to a mistake and paid compensations. The case went no further, although it should have had a continuation.
Ukraine’s present-day artillery and missile attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure (I think that not only the experts know today what Tochka-U is all about) confirm that the Kiev regime was lying when it claimed that they had nothing to do with the downing of the Malaysian Boeing, because supposedly they could not even conceive of that by definition, let alone fire at civilian infrastructure or a passenger airliner. They not only can but also do all that with a demonstrative pleasure.
The collapsed section of a five-storey building buried a number of residents. Five of them died, six were injured. This was clearly yet another terrorist attack meant to intimidate local people and sow panic among them.
The Armed Forces of Ukraine also continue to target Russian journalists who are selflessly fulfilling their professional duty and are ready to sacrifice their lives in order to tell the truth to the world. Future generations will cite this truth as irrefutable evidence of the Kiev regime’s criminal essence and our country’s selfless struggle for the future of the entire humankind.
In the past few days, our correspondents sustained irretrievable losses once again. On June 13, 2024, the Kiev regime’s Nazis deliberately attacked a film crew of the NTV television channel in Gorlovka, the DPR. Cameraman Valery Kozhin was killed, and correspondent Alexey Ivliyev seriously injured.
On June 16, 2024, News.ru photo correspondent Nikita Tsitsagi was killed in an attack near Ugledar.
Russian law enforcement agencies meticulously record the crimes of Ukrainian neo-Nazis, they expose the culprits and bring them to account. We provide instant political and international legal assessment of these events. We can see that specialised international organisations, obliged (yes, obliged because they get paid for this and are entitled to huge budgets) to provide professional assessment of lawlessness with regard to media representatives in Ukraine, maintain a dead silence (in the direct sense of the word).
First, we staked on the OSCE. Later, we realised that the United States, the United Kingdom and the entire NATO community had completely blocked the work of this organisation. This organisation has found itself in a state of absolute dysfunction. But UNESCO continues to operate. This is part of its mandate as a UN division, and it should instantly respond to all issues linked with the safety of journalists. For many years, UNESCO drafted proposals, norms and criteria facilitating safe professional activities of journalists. The organisation held multiple events linked with freedom of speech and the ability of journalists to engage in their activities throughout the world and to tell the people about facts that they witness, observe and record.
So, what do we see? Under the guidance of French citizen Audrey Azoulay, UNESCO has virtually stopped paying attention to this issue. But the organisation and Ms Azoulay have no right to do this because this is their direct functional duties. They should be paid for this because they have failed miserably in all other spheres.
Just look at the “cancel culture” now sweeping the world. Let us see what is happening to the cultures of nations, and let us evaluate cynical efforts of the collective West to impose their culture and subculture on the Global Majority. However, the organisation can act independently in the field of freedom of speech and the safety of journalists. Unfortunately, UNESCO has nothing to say here either.
Why? This is not because it has lost a tool or is underfunded. However, if it is underfunded, it is the United States that is underfunding UNESCO because it is unable to repay its debts. Politically, the work of this organisation, headed by a citizen of a NATO member state, has been blocked.
Courts in the Russian Federation continue to sentence Ukrainian neo-Nazis for grave crimes against civilians, using evidence provided by the Russian Investigative Committee.
Lieutenant Vladimir Grib, a commander of an air-defence missile and artillery battalion, Military Unit No 3057 of the Eastern Operational Territorial Formation of the Ukrainian National Guard (the nationalist Azov battalion banned in Russia) has been sentenced to life imprisonment in absentia. He is also declared internationally wanted. According to investigators, a bus with civilians was shot up on his orders in Mariupol on March 2, 2022; four people were killed as a result. Senior Sergeant Maxim Kondrashev who fulfilled this order has also been sentenced to life imprisonment.
Lieutenant L. Papzho, also from Unit No 3057 and a member of the Azov battalion, received a 22-year prison sentence in absentia and is also put on the international wanted list for attempting to shoot an unarmed man near Mariupol airport on March 17, 2022. That person was severely wounded but survived.
On June 11, Chairman of the Russian Investigative Committee Alexander Bastrykin held a Coordination Council meeting on assistance to children hurt as a result of humanitarian catastrophes, natural hazards, terrorist attacks and armed conflicts. The meeting focused on ensuring security of children during the special military operation. Alexander Bastrykin underscored that since 2014, about 5,000 criminal cases had been opened against more than 1,000 individuals, including representatives of Ukraine's military and political leadership, security agencies, members of its radical nationalist associations and mercenaries. It has been established that 6,139 civilians, including 173 minors, have been killed in the armed conflict, and at least 15,000 civilians have been injured, including 734 minors.
Now about how the "civilised West" feels about all this. On June 13, on the sidelines of the NATO Defence Ministers' meeting in Brussels they held the 23rd meeting of the Ukraine Defence Contact Group (in the Ramstein format). In his capacity as its chairman, Pentagon chief Lloyd J. Austin said not without pride that since 2022 the members of the group had supplied Kiev with weapons worth $98 billion.
Can you imagine how many people in the world could have been cured, fed and educated? How many people could have received a chance to get their own housing or jobs?
Since 2022 alone, $98 billion was allocated to the Kiev regime. However, that is not all. United States Defence Secretary Lloyd J. Austin forgot to add that they were allocated uncontrollably, without any financial accountability and without any understanding of where and how such funds are spent. Why? This is part of the plan of the current US liberal democracy in the White House to enrich itself and those who will enable them (the White House) and the current administration to remain in power.
This is the end of the good (from Lloyd Austin’s point of view) news for the Ukrainian Banderites’ regime. Despite the fact that the main subject on the meeting agenda was "strengthening Ukrainian air defence" and the transfer of the first F-16 aircraft to the Ukrainian armed forces in the summer, no breakthrough decisions were made in this regard. The junta will not receive new Patriot systems, something which Vladimir Zelensky insists on. Moreover, Americans had to refute media reports about the Washington plans to relocate one Patriot battery from Poland to Ukraine.
It looks like the situation with the F-16 jets is even worse. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg let the cat out of the bag twice in his June 17 address at the Wilson Centre in Washington, when he said: “The fact that now delivering F-16s of course it will create the future NATO, sorry, Ukrainian Air Force that will be NATO interoperable. NATO planes, NATO pilots, NATO trained pilots” In fact, he admitted the truth.
This could be a Freudian slip. But it could also be a token gesture the Kiev regime would use to reassure its nationalist battalions and armed forces that they have as good as joined the Alliance, that it is at one with the Kiev regime and already views it as part of the bloc.
But it appears that few people in NATO are eager to see this happen, which is why the delivery of the F-16s has been postponed until late August.
Shortly before the latest meeting of the Ukraine Defence Contact Group, Stoltenberg soured Zelensky’s mood by saying that Ukraine would only join NATO after it secured victory over Russia.
Leaving aside the current situation in Ukraine, bilateral relations and our attitude to the Kiev regime, do you think that it would be merciful, if not fair and honest (NATO has forgotten these words), to say this before pushing Ukraine into the abyss? Couldn’t Mr Stoltenberg and his colleagues tell Ukraine in 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 or 2017 that Ukraine would join NATO, just as they had promised, but only after defeating Russia?
Do you think this would have changed the general mood in Ukraine? I think so. This would have sobered up those who spent years thinking that the collective West will build democracy in Ukraine and lead it into a bright economic, financial, humanitarian, scientific, technical and cultural future.
I think they would have seen that the road into this future lay through a war against Russia, that the collective West planned to use Ukrainians to wage a proxy war against Russia. Why didn’t Mr Stoltenberg say so back then? They did a dirty trick on the citizens of Ukraine.
The Alliance clearly understands – both collectively and personally, just as Jens Stoltenberg does – that this will not come about, that Russia won’t be defeated. In other words, Kiev’s perennial efforts to join NATO have cost Ukraine its life.
Mr Stoltenberg will never admit this. But then, a day may come when their cynicism, Russophobia and disdainful attitude not only to Ukraine but also to all Slavic nations will force them to admit this. One day they will admit why they began this gamble.
But Ukrainians can put this question to Zelensky, the government and all those who are pulling them somewhere, expanding conscription, tying people to lamp posts, throwing them into trenches and burying them. Knowing that the Alliance doesn’t see any future for Ukraine, they could ask the Kiev regime why it is sending them to the frontline.
I am sure that the EU has the same answer regarding Ukraine’s accession to the union. The EU has become NATO’s economic department. The EU doesn’t like to invest, promote development or work for the future of new members or associated countries, not to mention non-members. It can only seize, exploit and redistribute, or, as they say, streamline in their favour.
The price they want from the citizens of Ukraine, Ukrainian society and people (I can no longer say “Ukrainian state” because there is nothing left of it) is to inflict a “strategic defeat” on Russia, using Ukrainian lives and huge Western funding.
The EU continues to propagate these messages to Ukrainian citizens through the propaganda system established by Vladimir Zelensky and his NATO mentors. However, this scenario is highly unlikely and fundamentally unachievable.
Now, concerning Vladimir Zelensky’s recent travels: throughout last week, Zelensky and his accomplices toured
It’s intriguing how this conference unfolds while the Ramstein group concurrently discusses additional lethal supplies to bolster the
Funny, isn’t it? The European Peace Facility, organised by EU nations, seems to have fuelled the ongoing war.
This event clearly had a focus on destruction, as a significant number of attendees represented the military-industrial sector, discussing specific projects for supplying arms to the Ukrainian Armed Forces. They also emphasised the importance of combatting corruption and highlighted internal power struggles within the
The agreements inked at the conference, promising investments totalling approximately €16 billion across various sectors of the Ukrainian economy, reflect the West’s ambition to acquire the country’s remaining resources, industries, and agriculture. Their primary concern lies not with
On June 13-14, the Ukrainian delegation attended the G7 summit in
Believe it or not, exclusive information: shortly after the G7 summit in Puglia announced the allocation of $50 billion to the regime in Kiev from frozen assets, various channels immediately conveyed messages from these same fellows. They insisted it wasn’t their decision, but rather other members of the G7 who would be taking the money from us. They asked not to retaliate against them, making it clear they wouldn’t participate. Why? They understand that our reprisal will be severe.
What a display of abomination and baseness, cynicism, and deceit! On camera, under the scrutiny of the American political machine, they pledge allegiance to the pirate logic of seizing others’ property. Then, they rush to the phones, pleading and assuring that it wasn’t them, but rather another country. They fear retaliatory measures will be taken against them. That’s their entire ideology.
Apparently, money is becoming a significant issue in the West. When tens of billions of dollars are thrown away uncontrollably (with “aid” now exceeding a hundred billion), it’s evident that there is no clear source to replenish these funds.
Increasingly, citizens of European Union countries (as demonstrated by the European Parliament elections) are questioning where their taxes are going. The same trends are observed in the
After years of discussing trade liberalisation, globalisation, and the balance between liberal economic policies and protectionism, it has all culminated in simple theft.
The potential military defeat and political collapse of the
In legal terms, this would be considered a criminal conspiracy, which aggravates the guilt of each copartner. By extending loans to
On the sidelines of the G7 summit, Kiev signed “security guarantee agreements” with Washington and Tokyo. Vladimir Zelensky’s has already more than a dozen of them in his “penny bank” but none of them is an international treaty. It is an absolute chimera, cheating his own citizens. At least some proof must be provided. They are stamping “pieces of paper.” Why do we call them like that? Because they can be unilaterally terminated at any moment.
Nevertheless, it is a convenient tool for the West to put pressure on the Kiev regime, which is completely dependent on foreign aid. In particular, the agreement with the US has a clause on Kiev’s accountability in the use of funds received from Washington. When hundreds of billions had already been spent, they remembered that it would be nice to report. This is funny. This clause is inserted into agreements like this with the only purpose - to help liberal Democrats in the White House with the election campaign. The question “where is the money?” is on the US citizens’ agenda. They are asking Joe Biden. At the same time, they know that he will not answer for several reasons.
His allies decided to put a fly in Zelensky’s ointment after the G7 summit. On June 17, the EU Council announced a commission would be established to combat corruption and misappropriation of aid supplied to Ukraine. It took them more than two years to do this. What commission? What kind of corruption? There is banditry, not corruption there, which has evolved into terrorism.
This is what always happens. It is about absolute permissiveness and impunity, which the United States first encourages among those it chooses as its next allies, which then gives rise to extremism. There is no other way. This is science and knowledge, supported by theory and practice.
It is clear that corresponding institutions in the US and Europe (I mean not elites, but people) are starting to ask uncomfortable questions. They doubt Vladimir Zelensky’s legitimacy and understand that this money is sucked into some kind of a black hole. As for the scale of the theft and its transatlantic nature, it has long been obvious to everyone.
Apparently, Kiev wanted to conclude its tour with a triumphant peace conference on Ukraine in Bürgenstock, Switzerland, on June 15-16. But the opposite happened: a complete fiasco. In addition to our assessments, this is exactly how the Western press views it. I would say that the Ukrainian press does, too, but there have been no independent media Ukraine for a long time. The Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs confirmed the assessment.
On June 17, we published a detailed comment about this. Today, we would like to add that the Alpine congress clearly showed that the West was ready to play the Ukraine card in its confrontation with Russia by any method, even the most odious one. This is why they also refuse to discuss anything beside the impractical and completely bankrupt Zelensky formula, or why this person who has lost legitimacy is reluctant to lift the previously imposed ban on negotiations with the current Russian leadership, or why there is nothing in the formula on revoling the racist laws adopted by Verkhovna Rada and directed against the Russian-speaking population.
We hope that the countries that provided alternative options will note this and amend their well-known proposals accordingly.
If Washington, London and Brussels really wanted to restore peace or at least cease the bloodshed in Ukraine, they would stop endlessly pumping it with weapons. This is a straightforward formula. Add specific details in the form of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s initiative voiced in this hall on June 14, during his meeting with the Foreign Ministry’s senior staff. It was streamed live. Everyone saw and heard this. The transcripts are available on the Kremlin website and on our website. This is a working formula, a real prospect for a settlement.
Regarding the Russian language, it seems no one grasps how crucial and consequential this issue is for
The overt persecution of those who speak their native language, even informally, is intensifying. Building on the “language ombudsman” Taras Kremen’s assertion that schoolchildren and teachers should only speak Ukrainian during breaks (a regulation not even mandated by
The next step will be to control thoughts. How will this be implemented? What if migrants from eastern
I’m afraid to think what these children from the
Meanwhile, the residents of the country themselves clearly do not agree with this state of affairs and are trying to resist as best they can. A video from a “networking evening” in
Where is the OSCE? Where is this entire human rights camarilla that receives colossal salaries just to promote freedom of speech, protect national minorities, and care for linguistic diversity? Where are all those within the OSCE who claim to be defenders of human rights, considering that
Previously, this language ombudsman or “Sprechenführer” (as he is referred to in the country) urged employees of the territorial centre for recruitment and social support, that is, an enlistment office, to communicate exclusively in Ukrainian, citing that this is crucial for the unity and strengthening of the state’s defence capability.
What absurdity they have reached! How can they talk about strengthening the state’s defence capability when everything currently used by the Armed Forces of Ukraine comes from the West? None of the inscriptions are in Ukrainian. Or does Taras Kremen not realise this? Seems that he is not strong as a rock as his name suggests, but rather as dumb as one.
It’s difficult to conceive a more absurd expression of ideas. As long as the spawns of Nazis remain in power in
The examples mentioned are just illustrations of the broader trends. They underscore the importance of the objectives of the special military operation aimed at denazifying, demilitarising
G7 leaders’ decision to send $50 billion to Ukraine backed by Russian assets by the end of the year
We have received many questions about the G7 leaders’ decision to finance the Kiev regime using profits generated by frozen Russian assets. As I have said, they plan to send Ukraine $50 billion in aid by using profits from reinvesting Russian gold and currency assets frozen in Western countries. That is how they formulated their decision. In plain English, the West has always been tied up in knots over Russia’s money.
It has become obvious that today any country can lose its sovereign assets kept in the West if the United States and its client countries become displeased with that country’s domestic or foreign policy for any reason. Everyone can see that Washington, Brussels, London and their associates are expanding restrictions under far-fetched pretexts. Not only Russia and China but all Global Majority countries are facing these risks.
The Americans impose unilateral sanctions if they decide that a government is not “democratic” enough. There may be different reasons, from harassment of LGBTQ+ people (the propaganda of LGBTQ+ is prohibited in Russia) to a “wrong” geopolitical stand or violations of human rights in any interpretation, even when this has nothing to do with the matter in hand. Any pretext could be used to freeze other countries’ assets. Such pretext could be invented without any regard for law and morals, which have long been trampled underfoot in the collective West.
We have explained many times what happens and how, and what this juggling with sanctions and others’ property can lead to. The systemic effect of these actions can be destructive for the global economy and the financial system the West created to ensure its domination of the global economy. I doubt that anyone would wait for the Anglo-Saxons to seize their assets for “democratic” purposes. Aware of this, the responsible countries of the Global South have started withdrawing their assts from the once safe American and European financial havens.
Not surprisingly, Western currencies and reserve instruments are becoming increasingly toxic, and Western economies are rapidly losing their competitiveness and attraction for foreign assets. A moment of truth is coming for the United States, Europe and other countries, which have been living beyond their means on neocolonial rent, endless loans, refinancing and all manner of financial speculations that are further increasing their debts. This debt bubble, which is growing on money that is nothing more than pieces of paper (even the Western media no longer describe the IMF-designated reserve currencies as hard currencies), can pop any day, and you will be offered a far-fetched reason for this, too. They have clearly overtaken themselves in this race for pseudo-leadership. The consequences for people in the collective West and for the national economies will be dramatic, including in the long run.
It is the price they will pay for stealing others’ assets, for geopolitical scheming and harassment, for interfering in others’ affairs with the use of illegal instruments, such as sanctions, as well as for launching a genuine trade war against countries that independently attained substantial results and decided to use their own resources to implement national goals and objectives. It is the price the West will pay for failure to understand and for refusing to recognise new centres of power such as BRICS, the SCO and other associations of the Global Majority countries.
I cannot help speaking on the G7’s doings. Formerly, the G7 claimed to be an association of the largest economies, and this was the reason why it was established. Today, some people wonder why all the communiqués, statements, and declarations adopted by this group as well as the agenda of their meetings boil down to opposing Russia and discussing solely aggressive political plans. I suggest that those who wonder why and how this happened should look at the G7’s origins.
Let me remind you that the group was formed as an association, a forum and a dialogue of the largest economies. Since these economies are no longer the largest ones (which is a fact) both in terms of economic indicators and their potential (including population numbers, resources, and civilisational development indices), they are looking for a new agenda. This has happened of its own accord.
Let us now turn to concrete facts. I do not think it necessary to comment on the substance of the absolutely groundless insinuations included in the communiqué, insinuations concerning the Ukraine crisis, various accusations against our country, and assessments of our cooperation with friendly countries. It is clear why we will not comment on this. By the same token, we understand the G7’s goals and objectives.
By raising the intensity of Russophobia and toughening their rhetoric, in particular on the further pouring of arms into the Ukrainian Armed Forces, the misappropriation of the Russian assets, and the extension of secondary sanctions, they wanted to try and show their might and provoke further polarisation of international relations. They also wanted to justify themselves before their public at home, find a pretext for legalising yet another exorbitant expenditure on their Ukraine project, support the electoral processes in the United States, and much else.
All of this runs counter to peaceful coexistence and progressive development of states and peoples. Not only the development of the Global Majority, but also of the world as a whole. Such attempts clearly demonstrate anew that the West is not interested in peace anywhere as a matter of principle. As for Washington, it has finally made the rest of G7 follow its confrontational, Russophobic line, including with regard to the situation around Ukraine.
As a result, the G7 no longer even attempts to play a coordinating role in the global economy. It has become a political tool involved in efforts to preserve the US hegemony. And yet, the G7 member states have the nerve to speak on important global issues on behalf of the entire international community, and to try to palm off the guidelines agreed among themselves and, in fact, imposed by the Anglo-Saxons, as some kind of universal standards and even as the ultimate truth.
After you hear what they have stated in Italy and see what they have written in their communiqués, you feel an urge to ask: Who do you think you are? You are not even the entire collective West. I will remind this to them to help in self-identification. The G7 states account for only10 percent of the world population. Why should the 10 percent speak for the rest of the world? Is it perhaps on account of some special achievements in the economy? If there were any successes in the past, they were only due to the use of other nations’ resources. Today, there is nothing left of that either. Their share in the world economy is steadily declining, their international prestige has been lost, and their influence is rapidly tapering off. There are no positive results at all. This is probably why we can see how aggressively the members of this “exclusive club” (which some people, apparently by inertia, continue to call the G7, although this has not been true to fact for a long time) are trying to promote their purely self-seeking interests, throwing to the winds the rules of decency and openly disregarding the principles of the UN Charter.
As a result, the G7 summit has become yet another milestone on the path of decadence of the once respected organisation. I think it has become a serious reminder to the effect that the agenda supported by the United States and its closest allies, including the imposition of Western non-universal values on everyone, is radically different from what the Global Majority is interested in, what it really lives by, and what issues are now on the agenda of the entire planet.
Let us emphasise once again: the time of associations such as the G7 is gone beyond retrieve. Its member countries must admit their mistakes, disavow their hatred-based anti-Russian statements, recognise the objective reality of the emerging multipolar world, and trim their foreign policies to the new realities and their own capabilities that are becoming increasingly scarce, as we can see. Because they are secured by nothing but pathos and ambitions.
Results of the meeting of NATO defence ministers
On June 13-14, Brussels hosted a meeting of NATO defence ministers. It became the final opportunity to compare positions before the upcoming NATO summit in Washington on July 9-11. The Brussels meeting focused on continuing the military aid to the Kiev regime, including transferring it under the umbrella of the alliance and creating a fund for obligatory support for the Kiev regime by NATO countries. As I have said, commented on this in the section on the developments around Ukraine, it was once again reaffirmed that the Kiev regime was nothing but a tool, even not a puppet. It at least pretends to be independent. Here, it is nothing more than a tool for Washington and its allies in the struggle to maintain geopolitical superiority and inflict a strategic defeat on their rivals, as they put it. The progress in implementing regional defence plans to further contain Russia was discussed.
Concerns about (I think they phrased this beautifully) “the activities of Russian intelligence” and “increasing hostile activities of Russia in NATO countries” raised at the meeting were widely covered. The reciprocal “decisive steps” were agreed upon (also their stylistic find). In essence, another round of spy mania and witch hunt is unfolding, and most importantly, a campaign to support the electoral process in Washington. Moreover, history repeats itself.
Once again accusations against Russia do not have any proof. All this is only necessary so that the points of American liberals, who are now actively trying to maintain their presence in the White House, find some kind of international support. NATO propagandists are running out of steam: they don’t know how else they can scare people living in NATO member countries so that they meekly agree with the further militarisation of Europe and the constant increase in the already astronomic military spending. This year, 23 NATO states have already achieved the level of 2 percent of their GDP allocated for the provision of armed forces and the purchase of new weapons. The rest, apparently, will be put under pressure in the time remaining before the summit in order to publicise the high level of financial discipline within the bloc. As the Secretary-General admitted, all this is being done in the interests of the American military-industrial complex, which receives two-thirds of military orders from US allies.
Let me remind you that this is Western Europe: the cradle, Roman law, education, science, culture. It gave so much to both the Western world and the international community, and it did not sell itself so mediocrely (it does not get anything, but just gives its opportunities and resources to Washington), but gave itself to those who now command in Washington and (let’s be honest) in London; not without pleasure for those who control Western Europe. It no longer belongs to itself, nor does it belong to the citizens of Europe. It lost its independence and turned into I don’t even know what; in some kind of quasi-association of once great states that have lost all independence in making any decisions, including existential ones.
In general, we can say following the Brussels meeting, that the summit in Washington will be another anti-Russia gathering where further ways to escalate tensions in Europe will be discussed, with an emphasis on building up NATO forces and strike weapons near Russian borders, including for pumping up the American electorate along the lines of liberal Democrats who are fighting to maintain their power in the White House.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Belarus and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation have drafted their first joint report on the human rights situation in certain countries. In the past, these reports were issued by each ministry separately, but now they have decided to join hands.
It will be published simultaneously by both ministries on June 20 at 10 am. Please follow our website. The presentation of the report is also scheduled for July 3 and 5 during conferences on the sidelines of the 56th Session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva and in the OSCE HQ in Vienna.
Ahead of the presentations and your review of this document, I would like to focus on its main conclusion that the main problems in this area stem from the desire of a definite group of countries to impose its time-seeking interests on other states under the guise of universal norms. In this way, they are implementing their plan to establish the “rules-based world order.” This results in the introduction of a one-sided interpretation of human rights norms and unscrupulous attempts to use human rights for political aims, including attempts to undermine the main principles of international law through rhetoric on human rights violations as a pretext for interfering in the internal affairs of sovereign states.
Today, we must state that the Western countries evince no intention to renounce confrontation in favour of constructive international cooperation in the human rights sphere. Moreover, their connivance at the ideas of racism and the revival of Nazism is a source of most serious concern. I don’t even mention their fealty to chauvinism that has become something like a state ideology in the West. What is their “cancellation culture?” It is chauvinism. They are blocking the UN, OSCE and Council of Europe mechanisms that negate, condemn, and prevent attempts to glorify Nazism, racism, xenophobia and related intolerance.
Unlike similar US and European reports, research by the foreign ministries of Belarus and Russia is not aimed at mentoring or moralising. It is based on submissions from human rights NGOs and takes into account recommendations of international universal and regional human rights mechanisms, specifically UN treaty bodies (committees) and regional (particularly European) human rights institutions. Our report generalises facts related to human rights violations in those countries. We leave it to the readers of this document to give them a moral assessment.
Western attempts to split Russia
Here is an interesting thing regarding human rights and their interpretation in the West. We have heard it on many occasions from those who are agents of Western influence in our country. Some have left, some continue to be in Russia pretending they are an opposition. Look at what they are doing. It also pertains to their attitude to the human rights language, which they allegedly use and protect human rights. Here is what they have sunk to.
The Russophobic duo Khodorkovsky-Kasparov has appeared in the Politico US online publication. In its Brussels branch, they published a plan to introduce a "passport for a free Russia." They called it so. In order to stimulate, as they formulated it, immigration from our country. There they are adjusting the facts to fit the supposed concept, as always, some mixture of propaganda. They are absolutely careless about the validity of such experimenting. With no hesitation, they use a historical example of the effectiveness of the mechanism they proposed, drawing parallels between the "passport of a free Russia," as they call it, and the Nansen passport. That was a document to be received by White Army immigrants after World War I. It was issued by the League of Nations. Such things can only be said because of a monstrous illiteracy. Moreover, formulated in writing, passing them off as historical truth.
The main message of the article is that all Russian citizens shall be divided into those loyal to its leadership and opposing it. The West is suggested to win the latter over to its side, grant them some privileges and mobilise against the Russian government. It seems to me that they have crossed some reasonable boundaries.
The paragraph concerning the requirements for candidates to join Free Russia is particularly noteworthy. They will have to undergo "necessary checks" and swear allegiance to the ideals and principles of the non-systemic opposition. What is this? If any historical parallel is possible with the 21st century, there is only one - the infamous ausweiss. Remember? Such a "paper" was issued to residents of the Soviet territories occupied by Nazi Germany. And the necessary fingerprints of the document holder are apparently planned to be obtained in the embassies of those Western countries that recognise these new ausweisses.
This is a significant example of the degradation of these marginalised figures. Although how much more so. But you see, a new bottom is being broken. It becomes simply even embarrassing for the propaganda's narrow-mindedness, for the ignorance of history, for that they make a bet on the same sort of mankurts and scoundrels as themselves.
World Olympic Day and the decline of the Olympic Movement
This subject has to do with the processes underway in the Olympic Movement. It is connected with the overall degradation caused by the crisis of the liberal Western democracies.
The World Olympic Day is marked on June 23. Its story began on June 23, 1894, when the father of the modern Olympic Games, Pierre de Coubertin announced the establishment of the International Olympic Committee, the largest sports organisation in the world. Little could he imagine that the ideals of the Olympic Movement, which he formulated, would be trampled underfoot 130 years later in a situation created by the organisation’s officials, their sponsors and those who stand behind them politically and financially. Little did he think that sport would be politicised to a degree where it would start destroying itself and its veery essence. The essence of sports is unity, and the essence of global sports is global competition. Today, it has been turned into yet another instrument of encouraging bloodshed.
Regrettably, we have to say that the West has pushed international sports competition into a deep crisis. Striving to cancel Russian sport, the IOC leadership and the West are using dirty methods, from bribes, threats and blackmail of national sports organisations to provocations, spying on Russian athletes and their discrimination.
We believe that these actions are harming the global sports community and are accelerating the decline of the international sports movement. By denying access for the strongest athletes and hence lowering the standards of competitions, the international sports organisations are hindering the development of global sports. As the result, competitions are becoming less attractive, and fans are losing interest.
We will continue to uphold the rights of our athletes. The international Olympic community must respect the Olympic Charter and universal human rights standards. The Fundamental Principles of Olympism 4 reads: “The practice of sport is a human right. Every individual must have access to the practice of sport, without discrimination of any kind in respect of internationally recognised human rights within the remit of the Olympic Movement.”
Russia remains committed to the principle of equal sports interaction with all interested countries, which is fully in keeping with the spirit and letter of the Olympic Movement and rules out politicisation and bias. We stand for honest and fair competition.
We invite all athletes who share this view to take part in sports events in Russia held on the basis of genuine Olympic principles: freedom, equality, striving for peace, respect for sports and their interpretation as physical culture.
Operation Bagration’s 80th anniversary
One of the Red Army’s biggest strategic offensive operations in the history of the Great Patriotic War, which came to be known as Operation Bagration, in honour of famous Russian commander and hero of the 1812 Patriotic War, General Pyotr Bagration, started 80 years ago, in June 1944.
This operation stood out by its territorial scale and its outstanding results in terms of tactics and strategy. The Red Army launched the offensive on June 23 along a 700-kilometre frontline. By the end of August, they advanced their positions by 550 to 600 kilometres to the west, while stretching the frontline to 1,100 kilometres. This successful offensive enabled the Soviet troops to liberate almost all of Belarus, and major parts of Lithuania and Latvia, as well as Poland’s eastern regions.
During the operation’s first stage, the Red Army defeated the Army Group Center’s main forces after 12 days of intensive combat. On July 3, it liberated Minsk, while encircling about 30 German divisions in and around Vitebsk, Bobruisk and Minsk.
On July 17, about 57,600 German soldiers and officers who were taken prisoners in Belarus marched through Moscow’s central streets. It took these Nazis three hours to march through the city.
In mid-July, the battle was raging along the frontline stretching all the way from the Baltic Sea to the Carpathian Mountains. On July 13, the 3rd Belorussian Front overcame the enemy’s fierce resistance, liberated Vilnius and reached Neman River.
On July 17 and 18, the Red Army crossed the Soviet Union’s state border with Poland. On July 23, our troops reached the Majdanek concentration camp and liberated its inmates, and went on to seize Lublin on July 25. By the end of August 1944, the Red Army liberated Belarus’ vast territory and an important part of Eastern Prussia. The Soviet troops reached Vistula River, and were closing in on Warsaw and Eastern Prussia. The Nazi coalition was cracking at the seams with Romania and Finland leaving it in early September 1944.
Guerilla fighters, the partisans, played an unprecedented role in assisting the Red Army in Belarus. They ambushed the enemy, destroyed its headquarters and units, disrupted communications, took strategic positions and held on to them until troops arrived there as part of the offensive effort. French pilots from the Normandie squadron fought shoulder to shoulder with the Soviet pilots within the 3rd Belorussian Front’s air force. This French squadron received the honorary title “Niemen” for its heroic action to cover the Soviet troops during combat action near Niemen.
According to German data, the Nazis lost over 916,000 people in June-August 1944 during Operation Bagration. It created a bridgehead for undertaking new massive offensives against the enemy army groups in the Baltics, East Prussia and Poland.
Operation Bagration came down in history not only as the Red Army’s remarkable strategic operation, but also by supporting US and British armed forces after their June 6, 1944, landing in Normandy. Facing a disaster in Belarus, the German command had to send major reserves from the west eastward, which created favourable conditions for opening the second front. At that time, 70 percent of Wehrmacht’s ground forces, up to 145 divisions, continued fighting on the Soviet-German front. In his message to Joseph Stalin on September 27, 1944, Winston Churchill wrote: “It is the Russian army that tore the guts out of the German military machine and is at the present moment holding by far the larger portion of the enemy on its front.”
Prime Minister of Great Britain Rishi Sunak and this whole clique, and I am not even talking about President of France Emmanuel Macron, thought that they could mark Europe Day and the liberation of the European continent, its Western parts, from the Nazis, without inviting our country to these celebrations. This was an outrageous way of treating Russia and its veterans, but in acting this way they also betrayed the memory of their own fighters and political leaders of that time. Or does Britain no longer respect Winston Churchill as it used to?
Soviet soldiers of all ethnic backgrounds demonstrated their mass heroism and excellence in combat when fighting to liberate Belarus with 1,500 participants in this effort receiving the Hero of the Soviet Union titles and hundreds of thousands of service personnel receiving orders and medals.
June 22 is a special date in the history of our country, known as the Day of Memory and Sorrow. It is included on the official list of commemorative dates because the treacherous attack on the Soviet Union by Nazi Germany and its satellites still evokes grief, pain and outrage over the millions of crippled lives. Exactly 83 years ago, the Nazis, having subjugated most of Europe – which surrendered without a fight, as always, as it is doing today – attacked the USSR. It was the day when the Great Patriotic War began for the Soviet people – the deadliest and most brutal conflict in the history of our country, which lasted 1,418 days and claimed more than 27 million lives of Soviet citizens.
It was the Soviet Union that bore the brunt of Hitler’s invasion. It was also the Soviet Union that was able to break the back of Nazism and liberate the European nations from Nazism and fascism. The Eastern Front inflicted over 75 percent of the military losses on the Wehrmacht and Nazi Germany’s allies. On this day, we also commemorate the victims who perished in Nazi captivity and who died from hunger and deprivation behind the lines. We mourn all those who have fulfilled their duty to defend the Motherland at the cost of their lives.
For our country, the victory in the Great Patriotic War has always been a source of pride and a symbol of the victory of life over death. That period went down in history as the time of the Titans. The people who defended the freedom and independence of our Motherland were heroes, even if they did not think of themselves as such. We know what they were.
After the Victory, it seemed that Nazism as an ideology had been defeated and would never be able to rear its head again, that the countries it had stemmed from would have learned the terrible lesson, and that those who experienced it would never forget what it was like.
But no. The ideas of superiority, exceptionalism, and xenophobia appear to be tenacious – perhaps because they are the quintessential evil. They have taken deep roots in the minds of Western elites to re-emerge today as an instrument of their centuries-old Russophobic policy. They remained dormant for a while, driven into a far corner and marked inappropriate and unfit for use. And all along, the West has been rewriting and editing the history of World War II, methodically, year after year. They even made an attempt to rewrite the history of the Great Patriotic War for us, purposefully “forgetting” the Red Army’s decisive contribution to the defeat of Nazi Germany. The blasphemous statements by the leaders of Western nations that have arrogated to themselves the victory in World War II is the result of that policy we are witnessing today. Their approach is that of a rolling stone that knows not its ancestry. Not only with regard to us – this is also how they treat their own fathers and grandfathers, their ancestors, betraying their memory, demolishing monuments to them. They are now lying in ruins, having defeated themselves.
Nazism has been recreated in Ukraine according to the same old patterns for some monstrous geopolitical experiments aimed at containing Russia. It relies on Nazi collaborators and fascist criminals who found refuge in the West after the war, and were not just forgiven by Western political elites because it suited their interests, but were safekept in case they might be of use sometime down the road, stored for later as a kind of reserve stock. Historically, it is a disgrace for the West: these people led prosperous and clean-cut lives, and some of them enjoyed society’s respect for many post-war decades. They mingled with the elites in Western countries, as if they had managed to wash away the shameful stigma of Nazi criminals. No, one can’t wash it off. It never comes off, because Nazism is not only about external manifestations. External manifestations are given to us for convenience, for indication, so that we can immediately identify the threat and know where it’s coming from. No, real Nazism is deep inside. It is something ingrained in one’s mind; a monstrous pandemic of dehumanisation, for which there is no other vaccine except for knowing history, self-improvement, distinguishing evil from good, and preserving historical memory.
Less than 80 years later, the Anglo-Saxons tried to use Nazism as a battering ram to defeat Russia. Only now they decided to assign this role to the Kiev regime.
After the special military operation began, the collective West instantly and simultaneously launched a large-scale campaign aiming to “cancel” Russian culture, sport, literature, and, in principle, the people of Russia. It has already imposed thousands and even tens of thousands of unilateral illegitimate sanctio0ns against our country, including those in the economic sector. Those who planned all this realised that they were imposing these sanctions against people who are working, toiling and fulfilling their professional duties every day. They knew that they were introducing these sanctions against people in Russia and all over the world because trade wars always affect all parts of the planet. However, they believe that they are “entitled,” and that they are exceptional because they see themselves as a “blooming garden”, which can do anything, and the “golden billion.”
At the same time, they are waging a war on monuments to those who liberated Europe from Nazism. They are tearing down monuments to heroes of the Great Patriotic War and to soldiers who liberated Europe. This is not just about the Great Patriotic War or the Second World War. A war has been declared on Russian classics. They are trying to defeat and forget them in order to completely bulldoze the historical memory of nations.
The 2014 Ukrainian coup d’état showed that the collective West was doing its best to turn Ukraine into an anti-Russia, to revive the ideas of neo-Nazism and nationalism there. They praise and glorify the supporters of Hitler, namely, Stepan Bandera and Roman Shukhevich, conduct torch processions and cancel the Russian language, although an overwhelming majority of Ukrainian citizens think in Russian and speak Russian. Terrible scenes reminiscent of Nazi Germany in the 1930s have been re-enacted, with people being abused and exposed to medieval tortures. Let us remember the mass burning of people at the House of Trade Unions in Odessa in May 2014. Let us recall the brutal mistreatment of those who were forcibly detained and imprisoned. Let us also recall statements by representatives of the Kiev regime, including Petr Poroshenko who noted that those who have not sworn allegiance to these ideas will always live in basements, and that opportunists and collaborators would be quite well-off and prosperous.
The Russian-speaking population of Ukraine experienced precisely this medieval-style abuse. The authorities were summarily sentencing and executing dissidents without prior trials and investigations. Just remember how people were tied to posts, stoned and dragged (and are being dragged now) towards military recruitment offices. The most important thing is to ensure that this neo-Nazi ideology continue to triumph in the future. First, Russian-speaking individuals, Russians and everyone associated with Russia were led to the slaughter. Right now, they are rounding up those who had gloated over Russians not so long ago. They are laying the lives of Ukrainian citizens on the altar of neo-Nazism, including the lives of those who had sworn allegiance to neo-Nazism not so long ago.
We have talked about all this. For many years, we said that nationalism and Nazism, let alone fascism, were monsters that eventually devour their own creators. They always call for blood and sacrifice, regardless of their initial goals. Just look what is happening to political opponents of the Kiev regime. The canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church is being persecuted. The ideological followers of Bandera and his accomplices openly tried to exterminate the people of Donbass. For many years, Ukrainian neo-Nazism was fostered by external forces. The collective West armed it and continues to do so now. It is a proxy participant in the conflict in Ukraine.
As heirs to the Great Victory generation, our people have no moral right to permit the revenge of a Nazi ideology. We remember the horrors, caused by Nazism, and the efforts of the entire world to defeat it. We can see that unfinished denazification efforts, primarily those of Western countries, are now yielding their terrible results. We bow low before the memory of our fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers who gave their lives in the Great Patriotic War. We will always remember the feat of home front workers as well as that of soldiers who fought on the battlefields. Home front workers brought victory closer by sacrificing their lives, health and well-being. Russian service personnel continue their right cause and fight the Nazi hydra during the special military operation.
We will always be grateful to victors who stepped into immortality and gave us a future, life and peace.
Eternal glory to those who died fighting for the freedom and independence of the Motherland and the whole world! May their memory last forever!
From answers to media questions:
Question: NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg announced that NATO countries have begun consultations on bringing nuclear weapons to a state of combat readiness. How would you comment on this statement?
Maria Zakharova: It’s an amazing story. Initially, these statements were attributed to Jens Stoltenberg in an interview with The Telegraph. However, NATO officials later disavowed them. I believe journalists should investigate whether he actually made those remarks or not.
Instead of condemning British journalists for spreading fake news, some high-ranking NATO retirees immediately accused Russia of propaganda. It was actually the British journalists who made the mistake. We recall how the British establishment once tried to frame Reuters, denying that their political and government officials made the statement that the agency reported. After extensive efforts, Reuters journalists ultimately defended their reputation. Apparently, The Telegraph couldn’t manage this and decided to blame it on Russian propaganda. What does Russia have to do with this? The situation involves only The Telegraph and Jens Stoltenberg. As usual, the West rushed to use tired anti-Russian narratives, ignoring their own significant communication issues.
Regarding the question, irrespective of the operational readiness of weapons designated for NATO’s joint nuclear missions, the practice of deploying these weapons remains deeply destabilising for security on the continent. These missions involve the deployment of American nuclear weapons in Europe, thousands of kilometres away from US territory and within operational reach of Russian borders. Our stance remains unchanged: we call for the complete removal of all American nuclear weapons from Europe and the dismantling of the infrastructure that supports their deployment there.
Question: Recently, in her speech marking the conclusion of her mandate, the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media criticised the alleged dire state of the press in Russia, claiming this impacts security across the OSCE region. How do you view such remarks?
Maria Zakharova: You’re absolutely right. Ms Teresa Ribeiro didn’t talk about completing her work, but about the end of her mandate. Maybe they used to be the same thing, but not anymore. Her work hasn’t finished; her mandate has ended. Why? Because she didn’t achieve much. This is embarrassing for Portuguese diplomacy, which promoted her as a highly capable professional when they nominated her for this position. Portuguese diplomats showcased Teresa Ribeiro in this role to countries expected to support her candidacy. However, she turned out to be good for nothing. Such inactivity comes at a significant cost to everyone involved.
The prolonged period of inaction – difficult to characterise it as anything else – by Teresa Ribeiro as the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media stands out as a glaring example of unprofessionalism and bias within the organisation. It goes beyond years of appeasement toward certain countries and the misuse of her role as Representative. We have witnessed this pattern before, as well as we saw some officials in similar roles at the OSCE who countered destructive trends and influences through their professionalism and personal dedication. They balanced viewpoints and utilised their expertise to effectively fulfil the mandates entrusted to them.
Teresa Ribeiro made no effort whatsoever. She actively contributed to segregating the international journalistic community by categorising media as “good” or “bad.” In recent years, her actions have been limited to making opportunistic, one-sided statements that do not align with her mandate. Her deliberate disregard for reprisals against Russian journalists and military personnel, as well as the terrorist attacks on unarmed correspondents by the Kiev regime, raises serious questions about her personal integrity, not just her professional conduct.
Teresa Ribeiro’s mission ended in failure. Under her leadership, the OSCE executive structure entrusted to her deteriorated into complete dysfunction and eventual collapse, while she also exacerbated the politicisation of media issues within the organisation.
The Representative should question herself about the “catastrophic situation” regarding the safety of journalists in the OSCE area. She owes an explanation to the participating countries for her silence regarding the brutal murders of journalists such as Darya Dugina (Platonova), Vladlen Tatarsky (Maxim Fomin), Oleg Klokov, Rostislav Zhuravlyov, Boris Maksudov, Semyon Yeryomin, Valery Kozhin, and Nikita Tsitsagi through terrorist attacks. There has been no formal condemnation of these acts, nor even a mention of the perpetrators. Not a single word. Indifferent and negligent!
A blatant breach of the mandate included the overlooking of multiple EU restrictions on Russian media, deliberate neglect of violations against journalists, who dare to step over Western guidelines, and the exclusion of Russian-language media from the European information space. The profound imbalance in the Representative’s actions and her Office exacerbated an unprecedented decline in media pluralism and access to information within the OSCE region. This imbalance acted as a catalyst for the collapse of the entire structure, with her personal actions contributing to this outcome.
Based on the outcomes of the Representative’s “work,” it is clear to us that the institution has been effectively hijacked through excessive politicisation, necessitating a comprehensive reform based on new principles. Without such reform, there is a risk of the Representative’s actions not only failing to address issues in protecting journalists but also endorsing severe violations.
Certainly, we must discuss not just the necessity of reforming the OSCE, but also whether the organisation possesses the capacity to enact such reforms. How can it achieve greater efficiency when entire clusters and blocks of its work are controlled by other interests?
Question: On June 13, 2024, the government of the United States, Canada and Great Britain adopted a joint statement accusing Russia of undermining democratic processes in Moldova, inciting protests and using criminal activities, corruption and disinformation. They have also declared support for Maia Sandu in her struggle against the Kremlin’s destabilising activities in the leadup to the presidential elections and a referendum on Moldova’s path to EU membership. Could you comment on this?
Maria Zakharova: It is either a frame-up or an attempt by the West to support Sandu’s regime by any means possible. They financed her; she is a Romanian citizen, and she regularly presents Western narratives. Meanwhile, more and more Moldovan citizens are feeling the effects of Maia Sandu and her government’s operation. This is not about ratings but about the survival of Moldovans as a nation, ethnicity and culture. A powerful foreign assistance was required, which is why the threesome have joined hands.
Actually, they have not said anything new. It is yet another combination of hackneyed Russophobic statements complemented with groundless and unsupported allegations of Russia’s responsibility for Moldova’s troubles, which have nothing to do with reality.
It is an attempt to camouflage the process of Moldova’s gradual transformation into a dictatorship under the guidance of Western puppet Maia Sandu. She has been given free hand to continue to cleanse the country of “the enemies of democracy” to ensure her re-election amid a record low rating. It is yet another example of what we refer to as “the West will help us” policy.
This joint statement should be considered in light of its assessment by independent Moldovan experts, who have been exceptionally unanimous. They have assessed that statement as interference in Moldova’s internal affairs and evidence of the actual loss of its sovereignty and transition to external governance.
There is another interesting but traditional element: Western countries support each other during election processes, stating their preference for candidates in each other’s countries. During the US election race between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, the heads of NATO countries spoke about their “apparent” preferences for Clinton, adopted statements and gave thousands of interviews. They used their official status of heads of state to directly interfere in US elections. American magazines with the portrait of Clinton as the next US president were sent to the printing shop before the election was over. Then president of France Francois Hollande even sent a message of congratulations to her.
What they are doing now with regard to Moldova directly corresponds to the values or, rather, anti-values of the Western world. They talk about non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries, yet they interfere. They talk about the sanctity of democratic processes, yet they try to nurture electoral preferences in a sovereign state. They talk about pluralism, freedom of speech and independent media, yet they are encouraging Moldova to continue to shut down all non-mainstream media outlets. They talk about cultural distinction and identity as part of human rights, which they formulate as the rights of national minorities, yet they applaud Sandu when she says that “there are no Moldovans, there is no Moldovan language. There are Romanians and the Romanian language.” There are many examples of this, including in the economy. Where is the supposed liberalism of Maia Sandu’s government? We only see corrupt manual governance in the interests of Western corporations rather than the people of Moldova.
Question: How would you comment on the current situation in Moldova?
Maria Zakharova: We are following the developments in Moldova, whose leadership continues to destroy traditions, morality and Moldovan national identity by disseminating revisionist views and neoliberal values.
In the year of the 80th anniversary of Moldova’s liberation from the German and Romanian invaders, official Chisinau supports initiatives aimed at whitewashing Hitler’s accomplices. How can these two be in accord in Maia Sandu’s head? The truth is they aren’t, since she has made her choice in favour of whitewashing collaborators.
For example, on June 13 of this year, a ceremony was held in the village of Stoyanovka, Kantemirovsky District, to commemorate with military honours Romanian soldiers who “gave their lives on the battlefield for the liberation of Bessarabia in the summer of 1941.” A commemorative event in Falesti also honoured “Romanian heroes who died during World War II.” What kind of Romanian heroes are they? An anti-fascist underground? They were collaborators, Nazi troops.
Shortly before the two blasphemous events, the country’s senior officials made statements on the anniversary of the so-called 1941 deportations, using that controversial page of history to denigrate Moldova’s time as part of the Soviet Union, a period that is rightfully considered the republic’s golden age. At the same time, the Moldovan authorities could not miss the opportunity to promote the “European project,” allegedly designed to lead the republic “to the space of freedom, peace, prosperity and confidence in the future.” Seriously? So Moldovans just need to give up being Moldovans, stop calling their language Moldovan and henceforth identify as Romanians. Maia Sandu’s plan amounts to a Nazi cult.
In fact, the people of Moldova were shown the actual trappings of a European future during the June 16 LGBT parade in Chisinau – in fact it was called a pride march there. As always, representatives of Western diplomatic missions took part in the procession, which was heavily guarded by the police, with Western “tourists” posing as a happy crowd. True, everyone has their own beliefs and ideas of how best to spend their time. But if something like this happened, it is nothing to be proud of, and even less so a reason to march down the street with your underpants off and waving them in the air. Therefore, there were no Moldovans who would do this. So they had to use Western extras to ensure massive participation. I wonder if going to LGBT parades in the host country is a job requirement for Western diplomats or if this comes from their hearts. Or perhaps from some other body regions? Complete insanity.
On the contrary, ordinary Moldovans gave preference to other events held on June 15-16, which promoted traditional family values. We have earlier cited survey data that showed that 85 percent of Moldovans oppose the legalisation of same-sex marriages and support traditional moral values. The media reports about arrested traditionalist protesters demonstrate just how much the authorities resent Moldovans’ attempts to defend their identity, to protest against this new normality and continue to live in a traditional one. In case of an LGBT parade, which celebrates someone’s “honour and dignity,” they are allowed to march around the city like this. But if you stand up for traditional family values, you can end up in custody.
Another manifestation of “democracy” promoted by the Maia Sandu regime was the suspension of the Joc folk dance group director after several dancers from the company, famous since Soviet times, took part in the Moldovan Courtyard cultural event on the sidelines of the St Petersburg International Economic Forum. Why? So that they know where you can dance and where you can’t. This is the way the Maia Sandu regime treats the citizens of Moldova. This travesty of justice is also manifested in the procedures Moldovans have to go through at the airport when they arrive in their country. This is an outrage against common sense. This is Maia Sandu’s immoral policy towards Moldovans inside Moldova, where people are tormented for hours upon arrival, interrogated, inspected, and have their passports torn apart.
The policy pursued by official Chisinau contrary to public interest has already led to a demographic disaster. According to the latest official data, the population of the republic shrank by 69,000 people in 2023, and over the three years of Maia Sandu’s presidency, by 203,000, or nearly 8 percent. Moldova is a peaceful country, which has not been attacked by international terrorists or engaged in military operations to defend its borders. People are running away from those “values.” Also, the number of births dropped by 11 percent over the year because the current leadership has been unable to create favourable conditions for the younger generation in the country: in 2023, absolute poverty among Moldovan children exceeded 30 percent, and in rural areas, this figure reached 44.6 percent.
We know from opinion polls as well as from talking to people (we have weekly events such as forums where we can talk), that the majority of Moldovans not only understand everything, but also try to resist. They realise that their interests have been trampled upon, that they are being mocked, and that Maia Sandu’s policy amounts to genocide. They think not only about themselves, but also about future generations of Moldovans; they understand that the current government policy can lead their country to an abyss. We are confident that all the attempts to substitute the Moldovan national identity, rich history and culture with “European values” alien to the population are doomed to failure.
Question: Representatives of Iraq, Jordan and Rwanda recalled their signatures after signing the final communique of the so-called Ukraine peace summit in Switzerland last weekend. What, in your opinion, motivated their decision, and was this the result of Russian diplomatic efforts?
Maria Zakharova: We have already commented on this issue in detail in our June 17, 2024 press release.
Far from everyone agreed to support the openly anti-Russia final communique. First, 12 delegations refused to do this, and their number reached 14 following the meeting. These countries include India, Indonesia, Jordan, Iraq, Mexico, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, the Republic of South Africa and other states. Quite possibly, the number of these countries will increase.
Obviously, the Global Majority does not accept the methods for resolving the Ukraine crisis proposed by Kiev and the West. This is because they can see their far from peaceful essence, they can see the truth and the desire of Western representatives to impose an agenda aiming to continue the conflict, rather than make peace. They do not want to follow this dangerous line.
We are confident that the world will continue to comprehend the fact that the peaceful initiative of President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin is a real way towards a peace settlement. He formulated it in his remarks at the Russian Foreign Ministry on June 14, 2024. This proposal can become a real path to peace.
Question: G7 leaders agreed last week to loan $50 billion to Ukraine using interest on frozen Russian assets. Russia has repeatedly said that it would certainly respond, and that this response would be painful. When is this response forthcoming? Can you describe its parameters?
Maria Zakharova: Our country accommodates a substantial volume of Western assets and property under Russian jurisdiction, and all of them can be affected by our actions.
We are not going to disclose them. But a wide range of political and economic counter measures can be applied to unfriendly countries.
I will not list specific countries (there are not so many of them in the G7), but numerous capitals have sent us a signals that they have nothing to do with this G7 decision, that they will not engage in this because they realise that they would face extremely painful outlays as a result of our retaliatory actions.
Question: Thank you for remembering our colleague Nikita Tsitsagi.
Maria Zakharova: My condolences to your editorial office and Nikita Tsitsagi’s relatives and friends. We are addressing UNESCO. I am not talking about the OSCE because there is no longer anyone whom we can speak with there. Would you like to use our diplomatic channels for sending anything you find necessary (in connection with your loss) to UNESCO? We will be happy to do this. We are doing our job. This will be confirmed once again in the near future. We will be happy to take advantage of your position as a media outlet. I understand the grief of his family and relatives, but perhaps they will find the strength to address their words to an organisation, called on to defend journalists but not doing this. Our official words cannot melt the “icy” hearts of international officials. Perhaps your team’s words will ring some bells, and they will reply; they would have provided this reply, if it were not for our state and national affiliation, as well as our affiliation with a certain culture and history. If you have this desire, we will send this to UNESCO.
Question: Thank you. We will elaborate on this issue and contact the Foreign Ministry. What consequences may ensue for Russia’s security following the agreement on military and technical cooperation signed between Yerevan and Paris? In particular, they entered into a contract on the supply of French Caesar self-propelled guns during the visit of the Armenian Defence Minister to France.
Maria Zakharova: Paris is provoking another round of armed confrontation in the South Caucasus. It is one more step. The French leadership is not acting in the interests of Armenia and its people. Paris is after exploiting the existing differences, contradictions in the countries or between the countries as an instrument for attaining its own time-serving goals. I mean not only personal interest of the Elysee Palace, but also France in general as an advocate of NATO ideology. This is how it should be treated.
Question: Will the Foreign Ministry comment on the information that Türkiye helped to prevent one more terrorist act in addition to the Crocus attack in Moscow? The Hurriyet newspaper wrote that terrorists wanted to attack a shopping centre, but thanks to Ankara’s help it was possible to prevent that attempt.
Maria Zakharova: Such things refer to the competence of special services. They make comments to this effect. Given the entire complexity of this issue and the possibility that comments may affect security issues, I believe that specialised professionals shall make the relevant statements. I can only say that we maintain contacts with our Turkish colleagues at all levels and discuss all questions on the agenda.
Question: Attorneys of Ruben Vardanyan reported the other day that he had been tortured in the Baku prison. How can you comment of this information and on the situation in general regarding the unlawful detention of Vardanyan and former political leadership of Artsakh? Is the question of setting them free being discussed during the Russian-Azerbaijani talks?
Maria Zakharova: As we have noted on many occasions, Ruben Vardanyan has surrendered his Russian citizenship. In this connection it would have been correct to address these questions to Baku and Yerevan.
Russia stands for a comprehensive Armenian-Azerbaijani normalisation in line with the 2020-2022 trilateral highest level agreements. This process also provides for solving humanitarian issues, such as: return and exchange of all persons held by the parties, careful treatment of cultural and historical heritage sites, monuments and memorials, and exchange of information through the relevant agencies and public organisations on the search for missing people.
We regularly send the relevant signals to the Armenian and Azerbaijani sides.
Question: In his interview with Komsomolskaya Pravda, Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Galuzin said Armenia’s transition under the umbrella of the United States and NATO will make it impossible to maintain a common defence space with Russia and within the CSTO. Russian Telegram channels are saying Russia may stop talking with Armenia about supplies of weapons and military equipment in response to Yerevan’s current policy. Is this information valid? Will Moscow revise relations with Armenia in the military-political or economic sphere?
Maria Zakharova: The information about Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Galuzin’s interview with Komsomolskaya Pravda is fully valid, and the interview includes all the assessments.
With regard to the rumours about our military product supplies, this question is best directed at the departments that are in charge of these matters such as the Defence Ministry and the Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation.
Notably, military supplies to foreign countries are carried out with account taken of the special military operation’s needs. The existing restrictions on certain types of weapons and military equipment apply to military-technical cooperation not only to Armenia, but our other partners as well.
Concerning our contacts with Armenia in the military-technical sphere, we are not turning them down, but are instead conducting them on a regular basis without any claims coming from the other side.
Question: On June 10, the third meeting of the US-South Korean Nuclear Consultative Group, which has been functioning since 2023, was held in Seoul. The South Korean media reported that the representatives from the two countries completed consideration of the sequence of actions in case of a potential nuclear attack by the DPRK, discussed joint planning and implementation of nuclear deterrence, and interoperability of US and South Korean nuclear weapons. Russia’s Ambassador to South Korea Georgy Zinoviev made it clear that Japan was showing heightened interest in the above Nuclear Consultative Group and was also interested in having US nuclear weapons deployed on its territory. Is this information indicative of the overall aggressive the US policy in the Asia-Pacific region? And how fair is it to link these dangerous signals from Seoul and Tokyo with the Americans’ plans to raise tensions in their current confrontation with China?
Maria Zakharova: I would remove question marks from your questions, make these statements affirmative and thus answer your questions. But I can’t.
These meetings of the US-South Korean Nuclear Consultative Group held in Seoul on June 10 are yet another proof that Washington’s aggressive policy on the Korean Peninsula leads to further escalation of tension there and undermines peace and stability. Working on scenarios of an armed conflict with the use of nuclear weapons is pushing the sub-region to the brink of a nuclear disaster.
Are there any intentions in these US actions? Of course, there are. This is what they want, what they dream of. If they could set another region ablaze, undermine it, and plunge it into total chaos, such as turn the Korean Peninsula into a Middle East 2.0, it would be an excellent turn of events for them. Why? Because that means more contracts for the US military-industrial complex. This is a good opportunity to show their own citizens some of their own exceptionalism and to raise the stakes in international affairs. In such a scenario, they could employ many of their favourite techniques, such as create problems for other countries in the region and create another front, so to say. During the Great Patriotic War and World War II the second front was associated with something good, something necessary, and something that our country had been waiting for in its fight against Nazism. In this case, when we talk about another front of the collective West, things are the opposite. This is yet another “front” organised by the collective West in order to plunge the planet into an ugly confrontation.
The US-ROK joint nuclear planning is not limited to just countering “threats” coming from the DPRK. It is also aimed at strategically deterring Russia and China. Talk about deterring “threats” from the DPRK begs a question: who created those threats? This is the DPRK’s answer to everything that the West has been doing to that country for many decades now.
We are closely following the intensification of Japan’s military-political interaction with the United States and its regional allies in Northeast Asia and the Asia-Pacific region, where Tokyo is one of the key vehicles carrying anti-Russian and anti-Chinese initiatives in line with the US policy of “dual containment.”
Tokyo, Japan is just another tool for the United States. In this case, the thrust is directed not so much against our country, but rather China in the first place. How does the United States see a number of countries, in particular Ukraine? Do the Japanese people want to share their fate with the fate that Washington has lined up for Ukrainians? The Americans are using Japan to destabilise the situation in the Asia-Pacific region. We had fantastic opportunities and prospects for interacting with official Tokyo and Japan as a country and the Japanese people as a nation. There were so many economic benefits and opportunities for joint development of our region that is so rich in resources. There were so many interesting projects in the economy, business, and finance, or answers to common challenges and joint solutions when it comes to the environmental protection or providing relief to natural disasters. We had so much experience under our belts. But all of it has been destroyed by the American bacillus of hegemonism and treating the countries as its vassals, and using them solely as its tools.
We have repeatedly pointed out the fact that Prime Minister Fumio Kishida administration’s accelerated remilitarisation of Japan, including consistent steps to dismantle the “pacifist restrictions” imposed by the postwar constitution and creating an essentially offensive military potential in the country, poses danger to the region.
Of particular concern are Tokyo’s plans to erode its national nuclear-free status, including in the format of joining US joint nuclear missions similar to NATO countries and conducting multilateral exercises involving strategic bombers that are certified for nuclear missions. Prospects for deploying US medium-range missiles on the Japanese islands are part of the same plan.
The United States, as well as the Republic of Korea and Japan, should be aware that any potential threats to the Far Eastern borders of the Russian Federation will be met with an appropriate response to strengthen our country’s defence capabilities. This situation confirms the timeliness of the instruction issued by President Vladimir Putin to our Ministry in this room on June 14, 2024, when he spoke about the importance of forming Eurasian security.
Question: My question concerns relations with people born in the former republics of the Soviet Union. Today a number of media outlets are using very aggressive rhetoric against so-called migrants.
Maria Zakharova: When you say “people born” in the former Soviet Union, do you mean me too? My passport says “born in the USSR.”
Question: We consider them our compatriots, who defended our fatherland back in 1945; this is why we are asking this question.
Maria Zakharova: Do you consider yourself to be born in the Soviet Union?
Question: Of course.
Maria Zakharova: This rhetoric must be more respectful so that people are not segregated on this basis. This would be useful for all the issues you are going to talk about now. All of us who were born before the USSR collapsed are from it. As a country, we are the successors of the Soviet Union.
Question: Thank you for that remark. In fact, these are our compatriots and we share a great past with them. These people defended their common fatherland. Now the media are using very aggressive rhetoric against them, inflating all the problems associated with these people, while in their “small homeland” they are also exposed to Western propagandists, who are distorting history to force them to adhere to aggressive positions against the Russians. Are there mechanisms to influence the position of the media? Perhaps censorship.
Maria Zakharova: We have the Law on Mass Media. Perhaps this is what you mean by an influence mechanism. There is legislation regulating information and public activities, such as those of the media, speakers, and government authorities. We have a 2024-2025 action plan for implementation of the 2019-2025 State Migration Policy of the Russian Federation. Respect for all of the above and for domestic legislation in general (many things are envisaged there) and the implementation of state doctrinal documents should create favourable conditions so that there is no room for provocations and derogatory attitudes towards people in the information space, but there are opportunities for a factual and unbiased coverage.
Additional materials
-
Photos
