Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, October 27, 2022
Table of Contents
- Sergey Lavrov to attend the conference on Economic Cooperation: Compatriots and Russian Regions. Responding to Modern Challenges
- Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s upcoming talks with Indian Minister of External Affairs Subrahmanyam Jaishankar
- Ukrainian crisis
- The temporary blocking of the Foreign Ministry’s account for a video about provocations in Bucha, Izyum and Kupyansk
- Rishi Sunak’s election as Britain’s Prime Minister
- Update on Moldova
- Middle East settlement
- Unfriendly actions by the Greek authorities
- Russian citizens detained and arrested in Norway
- The Big Ethnographic Dictation
- Statements by president of the European Council
- Sergey Lavrov’s meetings on G20 sidelines
- Russia-Ukraine dialogue
- Nobel Foundation’s decision not to invite Russian and Belarusian ambassadors to Nobel Banquet
- Armenia bans Zatulin and Simonyan
- Grain deal update
- 30 US lawmakers with their letter to the US President
- Vladimir Putin’s meetings with Armenian and Azerbaijani leaders
- Persian Gulf-Black Sea transport corridor initiative
- Russia-EU dialogue on Ukraine
- Possibility of direct flights between Russia and occupied Northern Cyprus
- EU initiative on Russian assets confiscation
- French President’s criticism of US gas export price cap idea
- Some countries’ military activity
- Possible reduction of Russian diplomatic presence in Western countries
- New wording of the Foreign Policy Concept
- Inspections of grain carriers departing from Ukraine
- Josep Borrell’s Latin American tour
- Israel’s stand on arms deliveries to Ukraine
- Russia-Italy relations
- World Thematic Conference of Russian Community Abroad
As I reported at the previous briefing, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will take part in the World Conference of the Russian Communities Abroad sponsored by the Government Commission on Compatriots Living Abroad. The conference, Economic Cooperation: Compatriots and Russian Regions. Responding to Modern Challenges, will be held in Moscow on November 1-2.
It is a major annual event held between world congresses of compatriots in accordance with Federal Law No. 99-FZ On the State Policy of the Russian Federation in relation to Compatriots Living Abroad of May 24, 1999. The last World Congress of Compatriots took place in October 2021 in Moscow. We are sincerely glad that the coronavirus situation has improved enough to hold a face-to-face event.
More than 140 entrepreneurs, leaders and activists of associations of compatriots from 84 countries will take part in this forum, as well as representatives of federal and regional legislative and executive authorities, Russian foundations and NGOs.
The conference will include two plenary meetings, The Russian World and Modern Challenges; and Russian Regions and Compatriots: Promoting Trade and Economic Cooperation; and four panel discussions: Tourism: Trends and Opportunities in Modern Conditions; IT and Small Business: New Goals and Horizons; Young Compatriots as Drivers of Economic Development in Times of Change; and The Right to Defence: Business in Russia and Abroad. Two of them – on tourism and IT – will be held at industrial sites located at VDNKh national exhibition centre.
On November 8, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will hold talks with Indian Minister of External Affairs Subrahmanyam Jaishankar who will be in Moscow to have a meeting with Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Industry and Trade Denis Manturov (as the co-chairs of the Intergovernmental Russian-Indian Commission on Trade, Economic, Scientific, Technical and Cultural Cooperation). The foreign ministers will discuss the status of bilateral relations and international issues.
On October 25 of this year, in New York, the UN Security Council discussed, at Russia’s request, the Kiev regime’s preparations to stage a provocation with the use of a “dirty” nuclear bomb on the territory under its control. The Russian representatives cited convincing arguments pointing to the serious nature of this problem. In our comment on October 24, we noted that the aim of the provocation prepared by the Ukrainian authorities and their Western curators is to blame Russia for allegedly using a weapon of mass destruction and lead a powerful anti-Russia campaign that will undermine trust in Russia among its numerous partners.
For those who doubt this logic of the Kiev regime, I will recall Vladimir Zelensky’s words about the need to deliver a preventive nuclear strike on Russia rather than waiting around. He urged NATO to do this. When everyone noted this monstrous statement that shocked even the fans of the Kiev regime that appease and support it in every possible way, attempts were made to justify his words. Zelensky said that he was misunderstood, that he ostensibly was talking about economic strikes. We know what he meant. Somehow these strikes are supposed to be a prelude or a response to nuclear strikes by another country. He was willing to start a nuclear confrontation. His unhealthy ambition does not let him stop at the damage that his regime had already inflicted on his country, the region and the world as a whole. His message demands even more victims. Now the President of Ukraine is holding out his hand for nuclear arms. Luckily, he doesn’t have them.
In 2014, public figures holding liberal views saw the horrors happening on Maidan Square, the streets of Kiev. There was not a single Russian soldier or a person associated with our government there – only Ukrainian citizens, mercenaries and militants from Western countries, which were trained with Western money in the Baltic countries and Poland. These Western-oriented people said unanimously – it is sheer luck that a country ruled by these people, who overthrow the government by these methods, does not possess nuclear weapons.
Apparently, back then they had no idea how far this unbridled ambition – generously backed by ample amounts of money and weapons – could go. Now, they need more than just nuclear weapons, which Vladimir Zelensky demanded the international community to provide in February speaking at the Munich Security Conference. They are sparing no effort to show their readiness to use nuclear technology as they see fit, which is nothing short of nuclear blackmail, but on a different level. The Kiev regime is showing its sponsors (the Washington-London Anglo-Saxon duo, Brussels and everyone else who made a political, militarily or financial investment) that if they do not continue to provide and increase their help, it will move on to Plan B.
The Russian Defence Ministry told us about Plan B and cited hard facts. It did so openly, without using any “leaks” or “sources.” Our military held a briefing and expressed, through the Foreign Ministry and our Permanent Mission to the UN, among others, Russia’s concern, which the entire international community, primarily the sponsors of the Kiev regime, which chose to press ahead with its destructive ideology on a different level, should share as well.
This can be backed up by indirect (although, I think, it has already become pretty much direct) evidence: for several months now, the Zelensky-led regime has been firing missiles into the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant. They cared little about the fact that it was a civilian facility. All they cared about was the fact that it was a nuclear energy site. The way Kiev saw it, this shelling attack was supposed to trigger a series of actions and steps on the part of the West that would push the world to the brink of a nuclear disaster. This is exactly what President of Ukraine was talking about. They need a pretext. This “pretext” didn’t work in the case of the Zaporozhye NPP owing to Russia’s efforts.
That took them to the next phase of the terrible, extremist and destructive logic which was the “dirty nuclear bomb.” Those in the West who are now, officially or through the media, saying that things are not what they appear and Kiev has no plans of “rigging up” anything, would benefit from a reminder of what Vladimir Zelensky said to NATO about a preventive nuclear strike. The people in the Western or non-Western countries, who understand what nuclear war and radiation are all about, will never understand their governments if they choose to support the President of Ukraine’s line of thinking. You need a convincing reason and Vladimir Zelensky came up with one. First, it was Zaporozhye NPP and now it’s a “dirty bomb.” He let it slip. I’m not sure why or what condition he was in. But Zelensky let out the plans they are discussing among themselves.
We urge the West to use its influence with its Ukrainian underlings and tell them to turn back from this dangerous and reckless idea and all actions stemming from nuclear blackmail. It could have irreversible consequences, including possible mass loss of innocent civilian lives. We regularly make it clear that radiation has no boundaries. It does not need passports, visas or permits to travel. It cannot be put on the sanctions list or stopped when trying to cross the border pillar mark. Radiation is insidious. It does not ask anyone for permission to go anywhere and has critical consequences for human health and life.
I would like to once again draw your attention to Vladimir Zelensky’s address to the Lowy Institute in Australia on October 6. His was perfectly frank about the use of nuclear weapons. Not by Russia but by NATO, I should stress. He urged the alliance to deliver preemptive strikes at our country before Russia uses nuclear weapons itself. Who believes this was not exactly what he said, please read the transcript.
Why does the Kiev regime want this? It seemed like Ukrainian officials defined themselves as modern, young and future-oriented people. Perhaps there is no contradiction here. They are oriented towards their own personal future. Maybe one reason Kiev uses nuclear blackmail is to extort more Western financial aid (including the large amounts of money that settle in their own bank accounts) and military assistance (to protect themselves rather than the people of Ukraine, and destroying more of Ukraine).
On October 25, in Berlin, an expert conference was held on restoring Ukraine. The day before this conference, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen published an article stating that Ukraine needs a 21st century Marshall Plan. The article suggests that the EU countries, the G7, financial institutions, international organisations and private investors should provide full maintenance to Ukraine and sponsor its recovery for decades. The European Union intends to source these charity funds by seizing Russia’s frozen assets. Ursula von der Leyen made it very clear that the EU is ready to fund Ukraine in 2023 with 1.5 billion euros monthly, which amounts to at least 18 billion euros. She also hinted that Kiev’s actual needs are several times higher.
Ukrainian officials stopped hiding their desire to scrounge money a long time ago, and only welcome these offers. Prime Minister Denis Shmygal said during the conference that he expects the West to create “a financial Ramstein” for Ukraine and to urgently grant the country $17 billion for immediate socioeconomic needs before the end of the year.
Judging from Ukraine’s growing military spending, it is unlikely these funds will be used to pay pensions and wages. Disguised as recovery money, this aid is needed to cause even more destruction. We noted that the West has already provided $42.3 billion in military aid to Ukraine, including more than half ($28.3 billion) from the United States. The Pentagon recently disclosed that these funds were partially used to supply almost one million 155mm shells for M777 howitzers, 3,000 Excalibur guided artillery shells, 7,000 RAAMS projectiles and 180,000 shells for 105mm weapons. This is more than 50,000 tonnes of artillery shells. So much for the recovery of Ukraine.
Ukrainian Defenсe Minister Alexey Reznikov frankly admitted in a recent interview with the American publication Politico that his country was, verbatim, “a combat testing field” for Western weapons against the Russian army. This is the first time this idea is being aired as a plea. He actually said Ukraine was a great country and invited the West to bring untested technologies and weapons there. Let me remind you that the “civilized” world even rejects cosmetic testing on animals. And here is the Kiev regime, perfectly okay with testing weapons on Ukrainian citizens. By way of example, Alexey Reznikov cited the use of various types of NATO howitzers by the Ukrainian army. In his view, Western arms manufacturers are literally competing with each other to see which system proves most effective in the field. This is what he says about his country. Everyone okay with this?
I have read a lot of documents and watched videos chronicling the actions of extremists and terrorists. Alas, one has to be aware of this, too. Those on whom homemade or professional bombs were used were referred to as enemies of humanity, of the country or their ideology. But people never used them against their own citizens. They never tested anything on those whom they considered to be on their side. In the 2010s, after the Arab Spring, ISIS emerged as a phenomenon, which was a first in the history of mankind – a terrorist, extremist group that claimed to be creating its own state. The group had money; it also had symbols they elevated to state symbols, as they saw it. They did not claim to dominate a territory, but claimed to create a caliphate. We said at the time the world had never seen anything like that.
What the Kiev regime is doing now is also a first. Even the most terrible sadists and child-killers of the past never suggested testing weapons on their citizens who were defending their own country. They aren’t even making the same distinction as with people they have segregated (according to their ethnic background, language, or religion) into “good” and “bad.” They aren’t calling for doing this to the bad ones only. They propose using the good ones as guinea pigs. I do not know of anything like this in the world. The world has seen civil wars and political confrontations that led to protracted internal conflicts; the world has seen a lot. But not testing foreign weapons on their own people, not proposing to test howitzers. “Our people will endure anything” – this is the logic of the Kiev regime.
The emerging picture is curious, yet terrible: the governments and corporations in the US and the EU, while ignoring the opinion of their own citizens, are financing and arming the Kiev regime, which embraces Nazi ideology, and making profit from multi-billion weapons contracts. This goes hand in hand with their statements about the need to stop the bloodshed, start negotiations, and so on. But their actions are only delaying a settlement of the conflict and aggravating the economic situation, including in Western countries. These states are the ones doing this, the same ones who spoke about food security a few months ago. At the same time, European citizens are told by their own regimes to “tighten their belts” to survive the consequences of the EU’s anti-Russia sanctions, and also to pay to keep the Ukrainian economy viable. A complete absurdity. Actions and statements lacking any logic.
All this is unfolding against the backdrop of US officials repeating almost daily that Russia is not interested in negotiations. We even recently published a selection of quotes by representatives of the Kiev regime, Vladimir Zelensky and other figures. Many of their ideas have by now been codified in legislation. All negotiations with our country have been prohibited by presidential order.
Meanwhile, according to the UN World Food Programme (WFP), more than 50 million people in 45 countries are teetering on the edge of famine. This year, the WFP needs $24 billion to reach 153 million people, but the gap between needs and funding is bigger than ever before, according to the organisation. What does this have to do with it? There is a connection. A couple of months ago, Washington said that everything needed to be done to fight for food. And not for those who are used to eating nice and expensive food, but for the needy.
A grain deal was signed. The United States immediately fell silent. Why? According to the WFP, a huge number of people are in dire need of food. Why did this topic vanish? Because it was not food that fed the hungry, but money that fed US companies that were part of the grain deliveries from Ukraine. The US was not lobbying for the interests of its producers, industrialists or businesspeople, but the profiteers who used Ukrainian grain to make enormous profits. Ukraine, Russia – they did not care. It was a net gain. And I am talking about facts and figures. They confirm that the pandemic exacerbated the problem of world hunger and it got even worse because of the conflict in Ukraine, which, as we are well aware, is further fuelled through the supply of Western arms there. Meanwhile, the West remains deaf, blind and dumb to the needs of countries in dire need of food. There are more than 40 of them.
Contrary to the values proclaimed to the public, Western “democracies” prefer sponsoring the extermination of civilians in Ukraine, thereby violating the basic human right to life. No one thinks of allocating even a couple of percent of the huge amount of money for stimulating and prolonging the conflict to what was so important for the West a couple of months ago: food security, overcoming hunger and helping the needy. Against the backdrop of spending on Ukraine, their commitment to fighting hunger is terrible hypocrisy. The statistics on grain exports from Ukraine are further proof of this.
We have taken note of yet another extreme example of distorted hypocrisy. On October 19, 2022, the European Parliament awarded the 2022 Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought to “the brave people of Ukraine, represented by their president.” The MEPs who bestowed this “honour” to the representatives of the criminal Kiev regime most likely don’t understand their responsibilities. They may have a slight notion of who Andrey Sakharov was, but they certainly know nothing about his views. He said that he not only considered necessary, important and topical but did not imagine that Ukraine could exist without our community. The Sakharov Prize has been awarded to a person who considers those who stood up for and have been fighting for years for this community as subhuman. It’s difficult to believe this unbelievable fact. They can’t accept the puzzle they see when all the pieces fall into place. And the picture is horrible. There are mystifications. This is their exposure. You keep asking yourself if this is for real. Regrettably, it is. Maybe some MEPs will find the time to read what the person they named their prize after really said.
The Crimea Platform Parliamentary Summit was held in Zagreb on October 25-27. We have pointed out on numerous occasions that events held within the framework of Kiev’s initiative on the “de-occupation” of Crimea are apriori Russophobic and directly challenge the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Russian Federation. This has been confirmed by President Zelensky, who said that the Crimea Platform should lead to the creation of other similar platforms aimed at weakening Russian influence in Transnistria and Abkhazia and at returning the “Northern Territories” to Japan. He has a global mindset. He doesn’t feel constrained by any rules. He has decided that the Far East deserves his attention, which will not decide what to do without him.
The Kiev regime and its ideologists, forebearers and handlers who organised that event have once again shown that they don’t care about the opinion of people in Crimea. They couldn’t care less about democratic institutions and procedures. Who cares that a referendum was held in Crimea in 2014? Kiev’s statements on the “forum” held in Zagreb are evidence of that. Secretary of the National Security and Defence Council of Ukraine Alexey Danilov has noted that if the Kakhovskaya Hydroelectric Power Plant is blown up, the idea of water supply in Crimea will be gone for 10 or 15 years, or maybe forever.
This state is located in the center of Europe. It is one of the largest. No one could have thought this could happen there. We might’ve seen this in the Middle East, done by some distant extremists and terrorists. The West kept promoting this image of an extremist, a terrorist as someone with a very specific cultural correlation and religious ideology. That was a paradigm imposed on us. That is why it is so difficult – next to impossible – to believe that we’re seeing what we’re seeing now. A totally extremist regime in a European country. A person representing an agency responsible for security states that a civilian facility can be attacked, and people will have no water supply for the next 10-15 years (his country’s armed forces are doing exactly this); and he is obviously saying this with pleasure. What more needs to be done to convince us of the extremist logic of this regime? What else needs to happen? This is not circumstantial evidence, not allegations requiring proof. This is a direct statement, not overheard, not referenced, but quoted verbatim, as it was said.
Is this a recent trend? No. Long before that, the power grids supplying Crimea with electricity were mined, and the water supply was cut off. This logic was part of the regime’s actions over the years.
All these facts once again confirm the correctness of Russia’s policy line on the Ukrainian issue, the importance and relevance of the goals and objectives set by the Russian leadership.
This morning, one of the American digital platforms blocked our Foreign Ministry’s English-language account for seven days again.
This time, the reason is a ten-minute-long video in English, in which we and our experts and specialists gathered facts about the provocations staged by the Kiev regime in Bucha, Izyum and Kupyansk. There were video and photographic evidence, and unique interviews collected by the Foundation for Democracy Research. This video raised uncomfortable questions regarding the numerous inconsistencies and doctored versions imposed on the Western public. The leading Anglo-Saxon mainstream media and bloggers, suffering from selective blindness, are either afraid or do not want to voice them.
The ten-minute-long video resulted in a week-long suspension of our account on the American social network. Is this democracy? Of course. Why not? Only one country in the world can decide what freedom of speech is and what is harmful for consumption. Or can we assume that there are different materials, different points of view and approaches? We started asking these questions not in 2022, but many years ago.
Over a few days, the post with the video caused a public outcry and collected hundreds of thousands of views on this platform alone. Do you think they explained anything to us? No. Our account was peremptorily blocked, and that’s it.
The zeal with which American IT corporations mop up the truth about the Kiev regime’s provocations only confirms that they are all in this together. This is a criminal community with an extensive structure of political, military and financial support. They use democratic institutions for the opposite purpose.
Elon Musk, who bought the platform and presents himself as an ardent supporter of this very freedom of speech, should be interested to see what happens. Elon Musk has repeatedly said that social networking platforms should become a place that proves freedom of speech in practice, simply by existing. What definition can be chosen for such a looking glass?
The video is available on our other platforms, including the Russian Foreign Ministry’s English-language Telegram channel, as well as on the digital resources of the Russian Permanent Mission to the OSCE. Let them block us as much as they want; we will speak and repeat our message just as much.
Rishi Sunak’s election as Britain’s Prime Minister
On October 25 of this year, Rishi Sunak assumed office as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. We noted that in his first public statement, he reiterated the trite thesis on Russia’s alleged responsibility for the economic troubles of the world. The new British leadership made its intention to continue the Russophobic course of its predecessors instantly clear. Considering the persisting anti-Russia consensus in the British political establishment, many analysts did not expect a different approach to relations with Russia.
You have to answer for your words. If this is an analysis, please cite facts. We expect Britain to elaborate on the ideas expressed by the Prime Minister. They must be proven with facts.
Mr Sunak’s attempt to hold Moscow responsible for the numerous mistakes in the Tories’ economic programme should alarm British citizens. We can only advise London to take an objective view of the situation now developing in the kingdom and to start dealing with the urgent problems of the British economy, that Mr Sunak himself described as an internal economic crisis. The reasons behind this situation were mentioned recently – the unprofessional actions of the previous Prime Minister. What do we have to do with this? It was her programme that provoked one more round of economic crisis in the United Kingdom. Now a new leader from the same party has come to power. Maybe he wants to protect her from the party’s own blunders by shifting the blame to Russia? No, you have caused everything yourselves, and it would be great if you had to answer for all this. You should answer for your accusations against us, before the world and the British people. I would say ‘the British voters’ but cannot because neither the previous nor the current prime minister was elected. Hence, these officials do not feel obligated to them. It is amazing how the winners of the Tory leadership race become prime ministers. What a twist of democracy! I didn’t expect the 21st century to be bogged down in the distorted interpretation of democratic processes, but we are seeing this today.
Neither propaganda cliches, nor Russophobia will lift Britain out of its recession, reduce record inflation, the growing budget deficit or the overwhelming level of national debt. Blaming Russia won’t help. You have to overcome your problems yourselves. It is possible to develop economic ties with Russia, and this would probably give your economy a new lease of life. But this is a different story that is not related to the accusations against our country.
The political process in Britain is surprising. I wouldn’t even mention it if they didn’t impose it on us as a model, didn’t lecture others, and didn’t accuse others of their own domestic problems. Again, the Brits did not elect the British Prime Minister. The local political establishment decided that 193 Tory members in the House of Commons would make a better judgement on this issue than British citizens would. This is reality.
We are watching, with concern, the developments in Moldova, which is historically close to us. Thousands of people there continue to protest, dissatisfied with the policy of the country’s leaders, many of whom, incidentally, have Romanian citizenship.
I will not comment on the actions of the country’s authorities in suppressing the protests. Actually, it is up to the Moldovan people to evaluate the extent to which the persecution of the opposition and the dispersal of peaceful protests by force fits into the concept of democracy. Let them judge for themselves.
I would like to point out something else. The above events are accompanied by an escalation of anti-Russia rhetoric on the part of the country’s officials, bordering on outright Russophobia. It even got to the point that some members of parliament from the ruling Action and Solidarity party called for recognising Russia a “terrorist regime.” We are noting such anti-Russia statements and cannot leave them unanswered.
Another trend that alarms us is the persistent “spinning” of the “Russian threat” narrative in Moldova. The aim is obvious: to prepare public opinion for an increase in defence spending and to justify increased cooperation with NATO and the EU allegedly to “protect Moldovan neutrality.”
We have been fine with Moldova and its citizens. Many came to us for work and to live. This was not bad, until the politicians, bought by the West (very talented at that), led the people to the edge under the bright or multi-colored banners of western values. They did not ask themselves why, what for, and how would it end. A lot of money has been invested in ideology. The process has been set in motion. No one thinks that they are striking at the heart, cutting off ties between nations, which had been strengthened over decades. This is because the amounts of money to spin this kind of position preoccupy their minds.
We have commented on this many times. But once again, as experience shows, the real threat to Moldovan neutrality is not Russia, but the Western military and military-technical “assistance,” the real purpose of which is to secure the interests of the West itself, and not the security of Moldova. Further evidence of this is the US military’s maneuvering in the immediate vicinity of this country.
In this context, we have taken note of Moldova’s statements at the meetings in Chisinau with OSCE representatives on October 24 to the effect that the current situation in the region requires the creation of new dialogue platforms on the Transnistrian issue. This actually calls into question the relevance of the Permanent Conference on Political Issues in the Framework of the Negotiation Process on the Transnistrian Settlement in the 5+2 format.
We strongly disagree with this approach. We regard these judgments as an attempt to break the internationally recognised platform for a Transnistrian settlement, a platform that has proven efficient and relevant.
Once again, we call on Moldova to refrain from rhetoric and statements that make it difficult to find a comprehensive solution to the Transnistrian problem.
If officials in Chisinau intend to contact our ambassador about this, please note that we are only responding to their rhetoric. If there is no practical action against Russia and the people of our country – there will be no comment. Keep your protests to yourselves. Stop engaging in blatant Russophobia, then we will not have to comment.
There is serious concern over the situation in the occupied Palestinian territories on the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and in the Gaza Strip. Civilian casualties are reported almost every day there, which are related to Israel’s counterterrorism raids. There are casualties among Israeli military as well. This is the result of years of stagnation in a Middle East settlement. Russia has always urged all sides to show restraint and to stop using violent methods, immediately.
The United States and the EU bear serious responsibility for this tragic situation. Washington and Brussels are using the developments in Ukraine, which they themselves have orchestrated, to divert the attention of the international community away from regional conflicts, including the Palestine-Israel conflict, which is of key significance for the Middle East. Cooperation with Moscow in the Middle East Quartet of Russia, the United States, the UN and the EU, a unique diplomatic mechanism approved in UN Security Council resolutions, has been curtailed.
Russia’s consistent position is that a reliable and lasting settlement of the Palestinian issue is only possible through the UN-approved two-state solution, which envisions the coexistence of Palestine and Israel in peace and security. We reject any attempt to abandon this basic approach or to replace it with any kind of questionable scenario like an “alternative homeland” for the Palestinians. These ideas have been suggested by those who are planning to create chaos and disrupt nascent unification trends in the Middle East.
Years of procrastination in this political settlement have benefited the opponents of the peace process who use the current status quo to create irreversible unilateral realities on the ground. Violence, the settlement policy and attempts to unilaterally change the status of Jerusalem’s holy sites aggravate the situation and therefore undermine the potential for creating an independent, viable and territorially integral Palestinian state.
We see a way out of this vicious circle in relaunching the Palestinian-Israeli talks and international cooperation, primarily within the framework of the Middle East Quarter. Russia is ready for collective work. At the same time, as an independent nation we are resolved to use our far-flung relations with the conflicting sides and all countries in the region to help improve the situation in the Middle East and to settle regional problems, including the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
Unfriendly actions by the Greek authorities
We note with bafflement that this year, for the first time in many decades, representatives from our embassy in Athens were not invited to celebrate the anniversary of the victory of the combined Russia-Great Britain-France squadron in the Battle of Navarino on October 20, 1827.
We regret that, under the cover of the current international situation, the Greek authorities continue their futile attempts to rewrite history and to “cancel” anything connected with our country. They do not seem to understand that by canceling Russia they are canceling their own history. Meanwhile, it was at the insistence of the Russian Empire that warships of the allied great powers were sent to the Mediterranean Sea, and, according to the unequivocal conclusions of historians, the victory in the Battle of Navarino 195 years ago was of paramount importance in the success of the Greek national liberation struggle. Does this fact no longer matter to Athens?
We are confident that the Greek people will not allow the memory of our common pages of history to be erased and will not forget the decisive role of Russia in gaining independence for Hellas. People who forget their own history betray themselves.
Russian citizens detained and arrested in Norway
Recently, we have noted a sharp increase in the number of Russian citizens being detained or arrested on suspicion of recording critical infrastructure and facilities in Norway and for the illegal use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). Since October 11, 2022, there have been 10 such cases, primarily tourists using drones, as well as photo and video equipment for amateur photography. Investigations are initiated against these Russians, and they are placed under arrest for up to several weeks by court decision, and their equipment is confiscated.
These groundless detentions are taking place against the backdrop of a targeted promotion of a “Russian intelligence threat” by the Norwegian authorities. In fact, our citizens in Norway are being hunted, and the local population is actively involved in this process – ordinary Norwegians are strongly urged to “exercise increased vigilance” and report any “suspicious” cases to the police. Even our compatriots living in Norway are not immune to persecution by the Norwegian authorities.
At the same time, the Norwegian authorities try to justify their actions against drone pilots by a ban on Russian individuals and legal entities using any airborne devices, including drones, in Norway, which was introduced on February 28, 2022, while no explanation can be found to justify the charges against tourists with amateur photo and video equipment. In essence, the persecution of Russian citizens is based on anti-Russia “spy mania.” The information about certain facilities and technical means that are prohibited from being photographed seems to be known only to the instigators in this “manhunt” for Russians. The tourists arriving in the country are not aware of this.
Given this, we recommend that Russian citizens who intend to visit Norway carefully weigh the risks when planning a trip and be prepared to receive “special interest” from Norwegian law enforcement agencies and secret services, and to avoid bringing professional photo and video equipment there, in order to avoid an incident. Russians visiting Norway should avoid filming sensitive (we would like Oslo to clarify this) sites and using drones, based on the current regulations there.
The Big Ethnographic Dictation
On November 3-8, 2022, the seventh Big Ethnographic Dictation international educational event will be held to mark National Unity Day. The theme of the seventh dictation is “Many peoples, one country!” It is aimed at preserving the ethnocultural identity of the peoples of Russia and strengthening interethnic peace and harmony.
Every year, millions of residents of Russia and foreign countries take part in the dictation regardless of age, education, religion and citizenship. The dictation was first held on October 4, 2016, with 90,000 participants. In 2021, more than 2.5 million people from 85 Russian regions and 95 countries of the world, representing all continents, joined the event. Even cosmonaut Sergey Prokopyev wrote the dictation during his orbital flight at the International Space Station.
Everyone interested in the history and culture of multiethnic Russia is again invited to test their ethnographic knowledge, both online and in person. That is why the Federal Agency for Ethnic Affairs organises the dictation not only in Russian and English, but also in Spanish.
Participation in the competition is simple: you have to register on the dedicated website from November 3-8 and answer the test questions.
Question: European Council President Charles Michel said that Kiev makes a decision concerning negotiations with Russia independently. To what extent do you think this statement is true?
Maria Zakharova: This morning I saw a report that head of the Lega Nord party in the Senate of Italy’s National Parliament, Massimiliano Romeo, said that Kiev should not single-handedly make all decisions about Ukraine’s future. The international community also has a role to play in this, while taking into account the country’s interests. Here's what he said: “It's a little hard to hear you say, Ukrainians will decide. Of course, we must respect their agenda, but it would be better to say that the international community will make a decision in the interests of Ukraine.” I understand that it was a statement by a political party.
You quoted the head of the European Council; he holds an official position, which gives him certain authority. This is evidence of the total disunity and inconsistency of policies within the consolidated West, a group only held together by two factors: the Russophobia imposed on them and the fear of certain action taken against them. The fact is, they don’t know how to assess what is happening or what role they play, and cannot make plans for the future.
Is Kiev independent in the negotiations? No. The Kiev regime has neither independence nor negotiability. They aren’t free to make decisions on negotiations or on anything else. The Kiev regime is being used in the interests of Washington and London. These Western countries are dictating to Kiev to achieve their interests, the Kiev regime and Ukrainian politicians being a cat’s paw. That’s an extremist logic. I have mentioned this today in part. Representatives of the Kiev regime are making an effort to demonstrate their loyalty to their handlers. This is a classic story where the West creates monsters, which later turn against their creators. There are plenty of examples we know of. Bin Laden, flesh of the flesh of the Western world, was educated, financed, ideologically and materially conditioned by the West. An appropriate base was created for him there. Then, at some point, he became the number one enemy of the same people who created him. Here, too, such trends have manifested themselves. The Kiev regime has no independence in the context of Ukraine's national interests. They have not come to power democratically, but through a series of coups. They pretend to be democratically-minded, but in fact they are not.
They have never fully responded to societal demands, because Ukrainian society is multifaceted, multi-layered, multiethnic, and multi-confessional. They have pursued an externally imposed policy domestically and at international platforms.
Suffice it to remember the Russian-Ukrainian talks that went on in February-March 2022 and were terminated in April. The Ukrainian authorities at the time pretended that it was their initiative. We have heard such statements. They attended three head-to-head rounds in Belarus. On March 29, a document was signed in Istanbul that was a blueprint for future agreements. We were working to revise and finalise them during numerous meetings via videoconference, while they were killing their negotiators. But that process was disrupted. Russia's proposals of April 15 remained unanswered. Obviously, this was done on orders from their Anglo-Saxon handlers, who closely followed the negotiations and who clearly had other goals than achieving peace. They were writing a different story where the conflict escalated.
Earlier, similar situations occurred more than once in the Minsk process in the Contact Group and the Normandy format. Everyone remembers the scandal at the Normandy summit in Paris in December 2019, when Vladimir Zelensky refused to adopt a pre-agreed final document and insisted on replacing the provision on the disengagement of forces along the entire contact line with withdrawal from specific areas only.
The list of evidence goes on and on. This confirms that the West has never been interested in peace in Ukraine, and that the current situation is a terrible conglomeration of Western interests with the mechanics of the Kiev regime. Their Western handlers always rudely lashed out at the Kiev authorities when at least some progress became evident in negotiations with the Donbass republics during the Minsk process, and then with Russia. Washington has never hidden that it was closely following the developments and that the Minsk agreements and the Normandy format, in which it is not involved, remained sensitive issues for it. We have repeatedly stated our awareness of their actions to hinder the Kiev regime in those formats whenever any progress was about to be made. The United States interfered immediately and made its own demands. The Westerners fear any progress towards a peace agreement, primarily the Anglo-Saxons, who have banned Kiev from negotiating, demanding the continuation of hostilities until a “final victory.”
As for the European Union and its member states, their actions and statements, if anything, are prolonging the armed confrontation. These countries are supplying weapons to the Kiev regime, reinforcing its sense of permissiveness and impunity, and harming the interests of their own citizens and jeopardising domestic security. These weapons are already getting back to them through the black market. The Ukrainian leadership sees such tacit consent as a carte blanche to keep killing civilians, shelling and destroying residential buildings and civilian infrastructure. In much the same way, the EU countries, primarily Berlin and Paris, have turned a blind eye for years to Kiev's clear sabotage of the Minsk agreements and open discrimination against the Russian-speaking population in Ukraine.
What kind of Ukrainian sovereignty can we even talk about, with these people in power and with this regime? Sadly, Ukraine has been a puppet in the hands of its Western handlers for many years.
Question: Does Sergey Lavrov have any meetings with the Ukrainian delegation planned on the sidelines of the G20?
Maria Zakharova: I will not speak specifically about this format. We have not received any official requests from Ukraine for a meeting with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on the sidelines of any events.
As concerns talks with Ukraine, our position on this matter is well known. I have just commented on it extensively. Nothing has changed lately. We have repeatedly voiced our readiness for a dialogue with Kiev, obviously with consideration for new territorial realities and the situation on the ground.
The matter is not what we are doing but rather what is happening with the Kiev regime. They have withdrawn from the talks and subsequently reinforced the rejection of any talks per se. Vladimir Zelensky said in May that Ukraine must get back all of the territories it had before February 24, and only then Ukraine will sit down to negotiate.
By the autumn, this rhetoric changed again. On September 30, 2022, Zelensky signed an executive order claiming that it is “impossible” to hold talks with the Russian President.
Later, he clarified that Kiev would be ready to talk with Russia but with a different President. I see inconsistencies. I can add nothing more. Washington should hear about this. The US Department of State should note all these twists and turns of the Kiev regime so that they would stop repeating like a mantra that it is Russia that is not ready to talk.
Question: Are there any areas of common interest left at all for us to talk with Ukraine?
Maria Zakharova: What are you talking about? Allow me to remind you that Ukraine has not left the CIS (although it has withdrawn from most of CIS agreements) and still takes advantage of the benefits that come with being in the Commonwealth. This is to your question on common areas. Despite demanding that the rest of the world break off relationship with Russia, condemn and petition against it, the Kiev regime continues to exploit every benefit they can get from Russia and the integration structures where Russia plays a constructive role.
There are many other aspects that, despite what the Kiev regime claims, continue to be part of the links and contacts and not even Vladimir Zelensky can break them off, because such is life. This is an example of political double game.
Many think that, if the President, the Foreign Minister, or the Ambassador did not attend summits or CIS Foreign Ministers’ Council Meetings, this means that Ukraine is not in the CIS. This is not true. Ukraine is still in the CIS and receives many benefits from being part of this organisation.
Question: The Nobel Foundation has decided against inviting the Russian and Belarusian ambassadors to the 2022 Nobel Prize ceremony in Stockholm. What is your comment?
Maria Zakharova: Actions by this organisation’s representatives are increasingly “original.” Of course, this is a distinct world with its distinct rules. They are free to interpret them as they please. But there are certain things that compel the world at large to ask questions.
In 2009, Barack Obama became President of the United States of America. Prior to that, he never engaged in foreign policy activities, focusing on domestic policies (and his track record on that was less than 15 years). So, he gets elected. After less than a year in office, he is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.” I remember that many people were shocked, although that organisation has a right to its own rules and laws. But this was really odd. In my recollection, this was a bombshell. No one could believe this was possible – a person getting a prize “as an advance,” for his future achievements, rather than for what has been already achieved. There were different interpretations… But many similar things happened afterwards. We discussed other prizes earlier today.
The trend is, alas, the same. I am referring to the extreme politicisation of the tools that had been designed to avoid politics (and not only because politics is not always a highly moral affair) in order to support other areas of human communication and to unite human communities through people’s achievements in different countries. Right now, things are moving in the opposite direction and are artificially incorporated. This is a political situation that has absolutely no relation to this organisation or their nominations, and it is killing the original intent behind the Nobel Prize.
In fact, it is traditional to invite heads of all accredited diplomatic missions to the Nobel Prize ceremony in Stockholm. This decision by the Nobel Foundation is yet another example of politicisation and a manifestation of Russophobic sentiments that have infected all strata of Swedish society. Regrettably, by taking these steps, the Nobel Foundation continues to ruin its reputation as a competent and unbiased judge of scientific achievements by scientists from different countries. I would like to remind you of the words of Alfred Nobel himself (incidentally, his attitude to Russia was one of respect): “A good reputation is more important than a clean shirt. Unlike reputation, the shirt can be washed.” The organisers and quarters responsible for the existence of this prize would do well to remember this quote. By now, there are too many “stains” on the Nobel Prize reputation.
The Nobel Foundation’s escapade styled as the collective West’s agenda-driven “cancel culture” campaign will have no effect on our country’s resolve to defend its interests. The attempt to ignore Russia and Belarus cannot cancel the incontestable contribution that the best minds of both countries have made and continue to make to the development of world science.
As for this politicisation, it is my wish that the organisation distance itself from such extreme manifestations verging on nationalism.
Question: How would you comment on the decision banning State Duma Deputy Konstantin Zatulin and RT Editor-in-Chief Margarita Simonyan from entering Armenia? Did Armenian authorities impose any similar bans in the past? What possible consequences can this situation have for diplomatic relations between Russia and Armenia?
Maria Zakharova: You should ask the Armenian side about their motives for banning Konstantin Zatulin and Margarita Simonyan.
We were dismayed by the media reports that State Duma Deputy Konstantin Zatulin and RT Editor-in-Chief Margarita Simonyan were banned from entering Armenia. We immediately asked the Armenian side, via diplomatic channels, for an official confirmation and explanation. We assume that, if this information is confirmed, it would be difficult to interpret this episode as a friendly step meeting the allied nature of our relations. We will decide on our subsequent actions after we receive an official reply.
We would like to note that Konstantin Zatulin and Margarita Simonyan have always advocated the all-round consolidation of Russian-Armenian allied ties and contacts between individuals. There should be no doubts here, and I have not heard any other statements from them. They are public and political activists, and they have their own opinions of various developments. They advocate expanding bilateral allied relations. There has never been any doubt in this connection. We don’t want any artificial pretexts to be invented at a time when the West is purposefully trying to destabilise the situation in the South Caucasus and to drive a wedge in relations between Moscow and Yerevan.
Question: Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said on Monday that Russia will issue a request to the UN Secretariat for it to provide statistics about Ukrainian grain shipments to the end consumer. As far as I understand, this request concerns the Ukrainian grain (about 50 percent of the total exports) that goes to the EU and which, according to the EU, is subsequently allegedly taken to the poorest countries. According to Sergey Lavrov, the answer provided by the UN Secretariat will determine whether further actions will be taken to adjust the grain deal. Could you clarify what the Minister meant by adjusting the grain deal? What are the plans to adjust it? What particular positions, according to the Foreign Ministry, should be adjusted as part of the deal?
Maria Zakharova: My answer will consist of two parts.
First, as you may be aware, the Ukrainian grain deal was concluded for 120 days, and its first stage ends on November 18. Also, a memorandum was concluded between Russia and the UN for a period of three years. The UN Secretary-General said it was a “package agreement.” It was his idea to make the two parts of these agreements equivalent, which cannot be interpreted as the fulfillment of one part of it while ignoring the other part, or the fulfillment of the second part in disregard of the first part. These agreements must be implemented equally and must not be denied by either the parties or the intermediaries. They are two parts of a single deal.
To reiterate, this idea was advanced by the UN Secretary-General and later approved as a “package deal.”
What are we seeing? The part related to Ukrainian grain is being implemented. There may be issues, but overall it is being implemented. If we look into the course or the results of this implementation, we can see that the motivating part that started this entire dialogue about the need to conclude a deal and resolve the Ukrainian grain-related issues is at odds with the West’s purported goals and objectives, which is a fact that everyone can clearly see. We discussed this today as well. It was stated that the needy countries need to be fed, but as of today (the President of Russia spoke about this, and we commented on it as well), unfortunately, we are seeing increasingly disproportionate – in terms of motivation – implementation of this deal in the context of meeting the interests of the West.
We see no results with regard to the Memorandum. It’s a fact. We mentioned this to the UN Secretary-General (I’m referring to Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s talks with Antonio Guterres in New York). Our Permanent Mission to the UN mentioned this, and we spoke about this publicly during meetings at the level of Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Vershinin’s talks with his colleagues from the UN, and provided clarifications. This state of affairs is unsuitable for us. It’s a package deal. All of it must be implemented. We understand that there will be issues as we go (it’s not that we want them). But we must cooperate to overcome them. We must see people willing to overcome these problems, rather than to perpetuate or even create additional ones.
The second part of the deal concerns Russian food and fertilisers, which we will be happy to provide to those needy countries that want and need them. Bank accounts have been blocked. Transactions cannot be carried out because payments cannot be made. They have been blocked by Western sanctions. Despite the assurances that there are no issues, they certainly exist. If there were no issues, we would not be talking about them. We would be supplying products and being paid for them. This is not happening. Accordingly, we have until November 18 to decide on our future actions based on factual data.
Here’s the second part of the answer. Regarding the details and nuances that you most likely have in the form of additional questions, we will soon release material prepared by our experts and post it on the Ministry’s website.
Question: On October 25, 2022, a group of 30 liberal US Democrats sent a letter, which they later withdrew, to President Biden urging talks to end the war in Ukraine. A Democratic representative in Congress commented on the withdrawal of the letter that “Russia doesn't acknowledge diplomacy, only strength.” What can the Foreign Ministry say on this?
Maria Zakharova: It’s US lawmakers who don’t acknowledge diplomacy. They have rubberstamped a multitude of resolutions, statements and acts, which contravene international law, their own country’s commitments and the essence of bilateral and multilateral diplomatic relations. I believe I don’t need to provide examples. This includes all their sensational stop lists and the vast number of initiatives which they have legalised as the US legislative branch.
The United States is not one to talk about diplomacy. Take Iran’s nuclear programme. At first Washington followed the path of diplomacy, but later it pulled out of both the talks and the deal. Moreover, it did not do this in accordance with stipulated procedures, but just because the direction of its interests changed. The United States simply announced its withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). I would like to remind you that later it became a binding document because it was formalised in a UN Security Council resolution. But Washington simply said that that’s what it wants. So, it’s not for the United States t to say that diplomacy is not a method.
Since the Americans mentioned strength, I will remind you that for 20 years they did not engage in diplomacy in Afghanistan but instead used strength to occupy it for an obscure reason.
Didn’t the United States use strength to occupy Iraq and kill civilians? Do you need more examples? I don’t remember them using diplomacy in Yugoslavia. All this happened over the past 20 years, and there’s more. Latin America and Asia know very well that the United States doesn’t care for diplomacy but instead acknowledges strength. So, it’s not for US lawmakers to talk about this.
Maybe this a curve of democracy. Some US lawmakers first sent a letter and then withdrew it. That’s probably how they see their responsibilities. I believe that this event has delivered a blow to the proud history of US system of checks and balances and separation of powers, where branches have no influence on each other, where the executive branch doesn’t pressurise the lawmakers who don’t lean on the judiciary. That “history” has been blown up by practice. Don’t forget that midterm elections are due in the United States in November, so this could be part of the political game. I don’t know for sure.
Question: Preparations are underway for Vladimir Putin’s meeting with the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan, according to Dmitry Peskov, the press secretary of the Russian President. Rumour had it that it would be held in October. What are the main obstacles, according to Russia, to the final settlement of the conflict between Baku and Yerevan? What issues are at the top of the agenda of Moscow’s talks with these South Caucasus republics?
Maria Zakharova: The organisation of highest-level meetings is commented on in Russia by the Presidential Executive Office.
Question: Talks are underway on a Persian Gulf-Black Sea transport corridor across Iran, Armenia, and Georgia. It could be an analogue of the North-South corridor bypassing Russia. What is the Foreign Ministry’s attitude to this project?
Maria Zakharova: In this case, our attitude is that the main agency involved, the Transport Ministry of Russia, should comment on this. My recommendation is that you should request comments from it.
I will only remind you that the initiative was put forth by Iran in 2016, when discussions on a Persian Gulf-Black Sea international transport corridor were launched with the participation of Armenia, Georgia, Bulgaria, and Greece.
Question: The European press writes a lot about disagreements between Paris and Berlin regarding Ukraine. Is the Western consensus giving way to manifestations of dissent? Does Russia maintain contacts with the Europeans at this stage, and is it hoping to search for a compromise, or is it only interested in negotiating with the boss, i.e., the United States?
Maria Zakharova: Today, while replying to a question about statements by European Council President Charles Michel, I talked about one interpretation of this situation that has many aspects. He discussed one aspect in line with his own opinion, and Italy offers a different interpretation of this same aspect. When governments change in EU countries, they start voicing other opinions.
Yes, we can see that there is a general consensus in the EU on the anti-Russia position. We can see this everywhere. They don’t accept Russia’s position. However, this consensus has no other unifying aspects. The collective West is somewhat bewildered in these uncertain times. Some EU members realise that Washington and London have their own interests that disregard the opinion of Brussels as a collective body or separate EU member countries. President of France Emmanuel Macron recently addressed this question to his Anglo-Saxon colleagues during a discussion of the energy situation and energy carrier prices.
Even the same EU officials have different positions, and it is hard to explain their motives. This may be linked with changes in their position or with the fact that they simply repeat someone else’s statements. Perhaps, different parties provide them with different positions, and they make them public. Josep Borrell is a perfect example. First, he talked about peace. Later, he started talking about a victory on the ground, then he started voicing the need for talks. Each time, he made different statements. As I see it, there is no consensus there. The United States plays a dominant role, and most EU countries know nothing about the real situation and prospects.
As for the disagreements between Paris and Berlin, you should address your question to them. We can see that they don’t even conceal the fact that they disagree on a number of issues. We believe that they should reply to these questions themselves.
There is another aspect that is quite important. Instead of engaging in a tug-of-war, France and Germany have, at long last, realised the consequences of toeing the American line in the context of the Ukrainian situation: Europe has crumbled as an integral entity, and the same is true of European prosperity and peace as a fundamental value for the European continent. France and Germany systematically adjusted their position to suit Washington. They never opposed the United States and never defended their own interests. This led to the emergence of a real Nazi regime, the murders of civilians that have been going on since 2014 and the destruction of civilian and vital infrastructure. All this happened with the absolute tacit consent of the collective West. They should stop pouring weapons into Ukraine. This is the only option that can help resolve the conflict, and there is no other way. So far, the policies of Germany, France and the EU merely encourage the delivery of weapons, technical systems and equipment, and this serves to protract the armed standoff. European citizens pay for all this.
Question: The Turkish, Cypriot and Russian press often discuss the possibility of new direct flights between the Russian Federation and the occupied territories of Northern Cyprus, as well as the opening of a Russian consular office there in the near future and even the possible recognition of the self-proclaimed state. Some analysts believe it is Russia’s way of retaliating for the support of European sanctions by Nicosia and Athens. Can you clarify the situation?
Maria Zakharova: The Russian side has repeatedly explained it in exhaustive detail, through the Foreign Ministry and the Russian Embassy in Nicosia. Just a week ago, the Izvestia newspaper published an interview with Ambassador Andrey Maslov. Deputy Chief of Staff of the Presidential Executive Office and Presidential Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov also made statements on this score.
Let me repeat once again: Russia's approach to the Cyprus settlement is well known and remains unchanged. We continue to support the relevant UN Security Council resolutions, including 541 (1983) and 550 (1984), which instruct all members of the international community not to recognise any Cypriot state except the Republic of Cyprus.
The interests of Russians living in Cyprus are protected by the Consular Office of the Embassy in cooperation with the official Cypriot authorities. Russia is working continuously to improve its consular services for Russian citizens in the northern part of the island and to protect their rights and legitimate interests.
We would like to stress that, unlike the countries of the collective West, we are never driven by such concepts as revenge or punishment, despite the difficult geopolitical situation and the obvious confrontational course pursued by the EU and NATO towards Russia.
We are being asked why Russia has strengthened its consular presence, why a consulate was opened, why it was closed, why the services shifted online, or why some of the calls have not been taken. Some attribute these changes to political motives or to our sluggishness. Look at this in the context of what is happening in the EU or the collective West. Look how many of our diplomats have been expelled from those countries. This primarily affected the services to the population – Russian citizens, compatriots and citizens of the European Union. With this number of our diplomats remaining in their jobs, our missions are only maintaining continuous work due to their exceptional proficiency and skill. Some of our foreign missions now have an ambassador, one diplomat and one technical officer. At the same time, they have a load of political work that no one else can do. No one is trying to make the situation on the ground any easier. The number of requests, questions and problems from Russian citizens and compatriots has only increased. When the EU countries publish or leak news about the expulsion of more Russian diplomats, no one there seems to care how our embassies are going to provide services to the citizens of their countries, given that there are joint projects, businesses, families and many other problems that no one will solve for them. No one seems to care.
Question: Did I understand correctly that direct flights from an internationally unrecognised state are impossible?
Maria Zakharova: Presidential Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov said that no decisions have been made to organise direct flights between Russia and the so-called Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.
Question: The President of the European Commission said it is the EU’s aim to confiscate Russian assets. At the same time, Ursula von der Leyen admitted that there were legal obstacles that would not be easy for them to overcome. Brussels has established a working group that is taking stock of the frozen assets and studying the possibilities of seizing them. What is Moscow’s opinion of this initiative?
Maria Zakharova: This is not a freeze; it is theft. We strongly urge the EU representatives to stop their verbal manipulations and to call things by their proper names. They should no longer talk about freezes, redistributions and compensations. They must simply admit that they are thieves. And the EU intends to go on stealing. This is how things really stand.
Since 2014, we have seen the EU churn out, as part of its sanctions pressure on Russia, numerous illegitimate and ungrounded decisions on “freezing” properties and financial assets which belong to Russian nationals and companies. This phenomenon has existed for a long time.
The EU’s supreme judicial authority, the EU Court of Justice, has openly connived at these practices for years, refusing to protect Russian property and actually declaring the primacy of political expedience over law.
Recently, I saw an interview with an EU-based rabidly anti-Russian holder of a Russian passport. Asked, how she would feel if the EU froze or confiscated her considerable property in the EU contries, she said her hatred for Russia was so great that, on the one hand, she would think that this was a private story, but on the other, this was a matter of judicial practice. It was enough to visit an EU court and the matter would eventually fix itself. She would set to work a couple of lawyers and everything would be settled. Nothing will be settled! This is not resolved at any level. The EU Court of Justice is not a private business but the EU’s supreme judicial authority. And this authority is refusing to protect the property of Russian citizens and openly declares the primacy of political expedience over law.
Now we are seeing a new stage of this drama: they are looking for a pretext to finally lay their hands on the Russian assets. The West has much experience in this sense. In its time, the British monarchy legalised piracy, making it part of its system. They have found a good historical example showing the way to do it. Why talk about a freeze, if they can invent a law or write a paper saying that everything is fine and they can go on stealing, provided it looks legit. Moreover, the EU seems to be eyeing not only the assets and property of private individuals and companies but also Russia’s state reserves. The EU itself admits that confiscating the “frozen” assets is against the current laws, but these acts should be “adjusted” and everything will fall into line again. I think this is a topic for a legal workshop. Historical parallels are yet to be found (excepting the “legalisation” of such “cases” in Great Britain). Perhaps this was done in European countries after revolutions, when they legitimised whatever was deemed illegal only the day before. But I have neither seen, nor do I remember a daylight robbery of this sort.
If implemented, these pseudo-legal exercises will finally bury the EU’s reputation as a champion of the rule of law and, consequently, as an attractive jurisdiction for business. This must be clear to everyone.
I think foreign investors will think a thousand times before risking their funds and investing them in the EU, which actually provides no legal guarantees for foreign capital. I think it is also clear to what extent this will improve the current economic situation in Europe. There will be no improvement whatsoever.
Russia will take appropriate measures, if it comes to the crunch and they confiscate Russians’ assets or the Russian state reserves.
Question: French President Macron criticised the United States for using double standards when setting prices for the gas that is sells to Europe at the prices that are three to four times higher than the prices on the US market. Bloomberg reports that according to Macron this issue should be discussed, since “it is about integrity in transatlantic trade.” What do you think is behind this?
Maria Zakharova: It makes me want to say “bonjour.” Hello everyone who just realised the kind of game Washington is playing with them. We have made clear on many occasions what this means. Washington has no plans to be guided by the interests of its allies' energy security, and even less so by maintaining the European economies’ competitiveness through cheaper energy. Their logic works the other way round and is to do their best to get rid of competitors in international affairs in every sense of the word, including the economy, energy, science, and so on. Who are the competitors? Of course, it’s the EU, whose currency has appreciated in a couple of decades to the point where it threatens the US dollar dominance. Russia and China, too. They don’t hide this when they talk about Russia or China, but when it comes to the EU what they do is wrap up nicely the anti-allied model of interaction with Brussels pretending that the EU benefits from everything that is happening, and it is important to maintain political unity of the ranks. In doing so, Washington is improving its edge. The EU and other countries used to receive cheap gas from Russia. For many years, it was the pet peeve for Washington, which was pressing these countries into saying no to our resources claiming that this undermines their energy security, which is an absurd statement. We suggested signing long-term contracts. Washington was running around telling them not to buy cheap gas from us, but to buy expensive gas from them, because they will benefit from safe and secure gas supplies from the United States. In February 2022, President Biden said they would put an end to Nord Stream 2 if Russia chose to move. It appears that when Washington was telling the EU that using Russian gas was not safe for it, it knew (many years ago) that this civilian infrastructure that is used to transport energy from Russia to the EU would come under attack. The statement was made in February 2022 and the attack occurred in mid-2022.
The European Union is accustomed to stable energy supplies from Russia, which helped ensure proper standards of living in the EU. Entire sectors of the European economies (including the metallurgical and chemical industries) have been thriving for decades on stable supplies of Russian gas under long-term contracts, which offset expensive labour and more rigorous environmental regulations. How did it happen? Everything happens for a reason. Things were like that due to us.
These arrangements made it possible for the EU countries to successfully compete with the international, including American, companies. At some point, America got tired of putting up with this, because its companies could no longer compete effectively, since they had to compete not only with the EU, but with other centres of power such as Asia and Eurasia, as well. Africa, with its potential and enormous resources, is going through a revival. Latin America has suddenly ceased to comply at the first command or at the first landing of the US troops on its territory.
From Washington's standpoint, the world has come to an imbalance, because Washington was no longer in control of everything. They started taking things into their hands, which many, like us, didn’t like.
Speaking of Paris, these questions should have been asked earlier. When Berlin came under pressure, Paris could have said something in support of Germany. But back then Paris benefitted from an onlooker position while Germany was struggling and thought it would not be affected by any of that.
With the deepening energy shortages in Europe, the policy of rejecting Russian energy clearly does not make economic sense and is undermining, first and foremost, the EU member states’ interests.
Notably, this is what the EU chose consciously for itself. Another thing is that it was pressed into making this choice. This can’t be denied. In March 2022, the European Commission presented the REPowerEU plan, stating the goal of moving away from Russian energy, particularly natural gas, “well before 2030” by increasing LNG imports from other suppliers and expediting the introduction of renewable energy sources (RES). More ambitious goals were announced later such as to reduce dependence on Russian gas by two-thirds by late 2022 (we have a saying for the occasion: “the man did as he said.”) The year 2022 is drawing to an end. Then, they pushed the temporary deadline for abandoning Russian energy back to 2027. They needed to “dump” our energy resources, the sooner the better. When they say we are influencing their energy policy.
Question: NATO has been holding its scheduled nuclear exercise, Steadfast Noon, for the past week. In turn, Russia has also informed the US of a scheduled nuclear exercise that includes the launch of missiles capable of carrying nuclear explosives. At the same time, the United States has deployed the 101st Airborne Division in Romania and the 82nd Airborne Division in Poland with a total number of personnel reaching almost 10,000. Russia has also said recently that it has reached an agreement with Cuba on resuming the use of the Lourdes military base in Cuba and will relaunch an intelligence centre there. These developments look like a relapse of the Cuban Missile Crisis from 60 years ago. How would you assess the global nuclear threat?
Maria Zakharova: Let us leave all the fine distinctions, comparisons and parallels to historians (as what regards the Cuban Missile Crisis and the current developments). There are many books about the past events. Now, you are witnessing them yourself.
In both cases, we speak about Washington’s aspiration to acquire a decisive military and strategic advantage at all costs, which is destructive for international security. The goal remains the same: by using all means (and in their opinion, by whatever means necessary) to ensure global domination for themselves to promote their selfish interests and to suppress those in opposition. In the 1960s, the crisis was triggered by the Americans’ deployment of nuclear missiles in Europe and Türkiye aimed at the USSR. The current aggravation is related, first of all, to Washington’s destructive course aimed at the expansion of NATO to the post-Soviet space, which is harmful to us, and at the same time their withdrawal from all binding and restrictive mutual agreements on security and strategic stability. Thus, both at that time and now, the US never considered it necessary to take into account the fundamental security interests of our country, thus creating practical threats by their actions.
As for the nuclear threat, it has objectively increased, like it did during the Cuban Missile Crisis. We have repeatedly said this when speaking about the Kiev regime’s intentions. The logic of the current moment is simple: the more the US gets involved in supporting the Kiev regime on the battlefield, the more risks it creates to provoke a direct armed confrontation of the major nuclear powers, which is fraught with catastrophic consequences.
The difference with the Cuban Missile Crisis is that while facing our resolute resistance, Washington continues to raise the stakes this time, believing in its ability to manage the escalation without any consequences for itself. This dangerous approach is a chimera. To prevent the worst-case scenario, the current US politicians must show the same awareness of responsibility for the fate of the world as was shown by the US leaders during the settlement of the Cuban Missile Crisis. There are no sensible alternatives to that. I will leave all other nuances and differences between the two situations to historians.
Question: Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov recently said that it made no sense for Russia to “maintain its former presence in Western countries.” Could you clarify what specific changes are in the offing, and why?
Maria Zakharova: Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has repeatedly commented on this subject.
At my last briefing, I also answered this question. I will comment in less than minute detail now.
It makes no sense to bang on their shut door that they have additionally propped from inside. (Perhaps it is not exactly they who have closed the door but those with an access to the interior premises.)
We did all we could to show all the advantages of interaction and cooperation, as well as a negotiated solution to crises. If this is their choice that was, moreover, demonstrated in such a disrespectful manner, we have a lot of other areas and regions where people are eager to work with us and look forward to working with us.
We are often reproached for being obsessed with the West. They would like to see us more often and at greater length in other regions. There are a lot of opportunities of this sort. We have always pursued a multi-directional policy. (In the late 1990’s, Russia developed a concept that was later implemented in practice.) We will continue to do this. The pro-Western slant will have to be rectified. And we are doing this now.
Question: After his meeting with members of the Valdai International Discussion Club, Sergey Lavrov mentioned the Foreign Policy Concept in response to one of the questions. Earlier, it was reported that a new version of the Foreign Policy Concept was being drafted to replace the one that was approved in 2016. Could you please tell us about the new document?
Maria Zakharova: Not yet, because the process of coordination is under way. The Foreign Policy Concept is at the elaboration stage.
Deputy Secretary of the Russian Security Council Alexander Venediktov has offered detailed comments aside from Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks you have mentioned.
Let me remind you of what he said: “The document is being upgraded with account taken of various factors. It goes without saying that the Foreign Policy Concept will reflect all the realities of the international situation, which has changed over the past few months, and will specify our approaches to interaction with different players and regions. Our approaches to the collective West will be subject to a profound adjustment.
The final version is not ready yet, but generally the work is nearing the closing stage.
The Concept’s upgraded version is likely to be submitted to the Security Council by the yearend, but this does not mean its automatic approval. Therefore, it is more realistic to expect the document in the first half of 2023.”
Question: Ukraine has recently accused Russia of deliberately dragging out inspections of vessels carrying grain that leave the Ukrainian ports under the grain deal. How would you comment on that?
Maria Zakharova: I am not going to comment on it. I spent enough time talking about the problems with the deal today. There are many more of them in addition to those you mentioned referring to Ukrainian representatives. If they do not see the existing problems, there is no need to plant similar arguments. Many things are not going as they should.
Question: EU chief diplomat Josep Borrell, known for his open support for Ukraine, is currently on a trip around Latin America. Do you think it could lead to a regional initiative of Latin American countries against Russia?
Maria Zakharova: So the gardener has left his wonderful garden and ventured out into the wild jungle? If we quote Josep Borrell himself, this is the way we can describe his trip.
I will not make any guesses as to how people in Latin America will react to the voyage of EU chief diplomat Josep Borrell. We are well aware of his views, as well as the views of our partners in Latin America. We have a direct dialogue with them.
We are witnessing the EU’s attempts to pull other countries into its confrontational policy. We know how these countries are resisting and defending their point of view, showing their sovereignty on these issues.
As for the EU, they are using blackmail and threats in flagrant violation of one of the key principles of the UN Charter on the states’ sovereign equality. At the same time, the European Union does not care about these countries’ national priorities, the nature of their relations with Russia, or cultural and historical aspects of our cooperation. Under the pretext of democratic changes and solidarity with EU “values”, Brussels is imposing models of economic and political development on independent states that make them subordinate to the West. Josep Borrell etched his name into history by dividing the world into a “garden” and a “jungle.” By doing so, he creatively restated the West’s colonial philosophy towards the rest of the world. To which he immediately got a reaction and had to apologise.
Our approach towards Latin American countries is absolutely sincere: we are building relations with them based on a pragmatic, mutually beneficial, non-ideological, and internationally legal approach. We have an open agenda. We do not view this region through the lens of our own geopolitical interests or forget about the interests of these countries. We do not have such a world view. We are in favour of building bridges, of the equality of interests and mutual respect, rather than building walls and barriers. The Minister has recently spoken about this in detail in his interview with Argumenty i Fakty weekly.
We can only reiterate that we intend to continue positive cooperation with the Latin American countries. We are not forcing them to choose with whom they want to side, us or not us. Or if they are not with us, they are against us. No. We will develop relations with our Latin American friends to the extent they are ready to do so.
Question: What is your comment on Ukraine’s dissatisfaction at Israel’ reluctance to sell weapons. President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky said during a videoconference sponsored by the Haaretz newspaper that Israel’s refusal to sell weapons had drawn Moscow and Tehran closer together.
Maria Zakharova: Let the parties themselves comment on things related to dissatisfaction or reluctance. If you are asking me about our relations, I am ready to answer this question. But we have nothing to do with Kiev’s emotions. I see no reason to comment.
Perhaps Mr Zelensky was in low spirits.
Question: Can you comment on Giorgia Meloni’s appointment to the post of Italian Prime Minister and her statement to the effect that Italy’s stance on its NATO membership and relations with Ukraine and Russia will remain unchanged? Two or three days before that, Silvio Berlusconi, who heads one of the parties that supports her government, said quite the opposite. He remains a good friend to President Vladimir Putin; there was an exchange of benign messages between Putin and Berlusconi. The latter criticised the Ukrainian government and declared that President Zelensky was responsible for what was going on in Ukraine. In this connection, what is your vision of future relations between Italy and Russia?
Maria Zakharova: This question could take two hours to answer. I will try to cut it short. Following the early parliamentary elections held in Italy on September 25, Giorgia Meloni has become the first female prime minister since the inception of the Italian Republic. We respect the Italian people’s will and reaffirm our readiness to work with any Italian government based on the principles of reciprocal consideration for each other’s interests and on pragmatism.
I quoted this statement this morning, but Italy said something new about Ukraine. You quoted Meloni and Berlusconi. I will quote Massimiliano Romeo, Lega Nord party leader in the Italian Senate. There are differing comments: Meloni says one thing, Berlusconi another, and Romeo still another. What does this mean? It probably means that temperamental Italy is engaged in a political process. Each political force has views of its own. It is impossible to comment on every statement that comes from Italy. That country has a democracy with long-standing traditions, and each political party expresses nuances of its own in their approaches.
We are oriented towards the official point of view. For us, as a state, the important thing is a country’s position. As we understand it, this should be voiced by the authorised persons.
It is not quite clear what Giorgia Meloni means, when she says that Italy’s position in NATO, or its attitude towards NATO, will remain unchanged. She needs to expand on this. Of course, it’s Italy’s internal affair. But if you are asking us to comment, I would like to understand what is meant by that. Do you know what the problem is? The positions of individual countries in their national capacity do not exist in NATO. Is the new Italian leadership aware of this? This is an established fact. No one in the alliance takes into consideration the national positions of the member states, let alone asks the opinion of the people living in these countries. NATO’s position is based on that of the main “player,” the United States. The views of the other countries are not taken into account in the decision-making process. And this is the main position. All NATO-related statements have the right to exist because they are made by politicians and statesmen. But there is no denying reality, which is as follows. NATO, like the EU, is dominated by a dictatorial command-and-administrative system. Any democratic institution has long ceased working within these organisations. There is neither democracy, nor freedom of expression. What does exist is the dictatorship of just one decision-making centre. The most interesting thing is that we have seen a unique phenomenon in the past few months: the EU countries (the NATO members) were informed about the EU’s position by the media. This means that Brussels took decisions without notifying the member states prior to their publication. After consultations with Washington, a decision was approved and announced by Brussels. The capitals of the member countries learned that they had “passed” the decision only post-factum. This must be understood. I do not want to teach anyone in Italy.
The last thing I would like to cover in the context of your question is that the Ukraine situation began unfolding a long time ago: not in 2022 or even in 2014. If we take the period after the collapse of the USSR, there were two anti-constitutional coups staged by the Western countries, primarily the United States, with support from the EU (that at that time included London) and Paris. They staged the anti-constitutional coups in Ukraine – two coups to be exact.
People, who want to understand the Ukraine crisis, should take this fact into consideration rather than start “counting” from February of this year. That’s it.
Excuse me for a banal and simplistic example, but this is the same as curing a headache by just taking headache pill in the belief that the treatment is over if you relieve the pain. You need to find out the main cause of the ailment. With this, there is a chance that you will fully recover. We have the same story here. It is impossible to change anything unless you understand the main causes of what has happened in Ukraine and around it. The West needs to realise this, and then accept and admit it.
Question: Is there any chance that the Pope of Rome will act as mediator between Vladimir Putin and Joe Biden?
Maria Zakharova: French President Emmanuel Macron has reached out to the Vatican asking it to mediate a peace settlement with one hand, while the other hand is writing bills and signing orders to supply arms to the Kiev regime in the conflict zone. How shall he balance himself? Otherwise it will lead to a split personality: either peace and negotiations, then mediation, or supplying arms and endlessly stimulating the conflict. I cannot say how this can coexist in one man. You'd better ask him yourself. He is closer to you.
Question: Next week will see the opening of the World Conference of Russian Compatriots Living Abroad on Economic Cooperation: Compatriots and Russian Regions. Meeting the Challenges of our Time.
Are there any cultural or patriotic programmes for the participants (like a visit to the State Historical Museum where you were on October 25, 2022, or to the VDNKh)?
Maria Zakharova: Yes, we have already announced the event. Given the full agenda of the conference: two plenary sessions, two panel discussions, and four thematic sections (we talked about these in the initiative part). Let me remind you that two of them (on tourism and IT technology) will take place at the VDNKh.
There is a lot to see in Moscow. There are all kinds of cultural and patriotic programmes available. You can get to know all the sights of the capital of our great Motherland.
Additional materials
-
Video
-
Photos
