Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, December 11, 2024
Table of Contents
- Syria update
- Warning for Russian citizens travelling abroad due to the risk of detention or arrest in the United States or third countries at the request of that country’s law enforcement authorities or special services
- Ukraine update
- The US deliveries of antipersonnel mines to Ukraine
- Statements by the US president-elect on peace in Ukraine
- Moldova update
- A year after Bulgaria dismantled Soviet Army monument
- Britain’s accusations against Russia regarding alleged hostile activities in the ICT sector
- Greetings to the Russian Media
- Mexican Press Club awards for Russian media representatives
- 80th anniversary of Russian-Nicaraguan diplomatic relations
- Ardennes Offensive anniversary
- The Day of the Russian Federation Constitution
- Israel's involvement in the Syrian conflict
- Intervention of third countries in the Syrian situation
- Vladimir Zelensky's aspirations to join NATO
- Prospects for the Chinese economy in 2024
- Evacuation of Bashar al-Assad
- Syria update
- Recent statements by the President of Türkiye
- Cancellation of the presidential election in Romania
- Resolution of the Syrian conflict
- Situation in Abkhazia
- Israel's attacks on Syrian territory
- Armenia's refusal to pay contributions to the CSTO
- Political crisis in the Republic of Korea
- Situation “on the ground” in Syria
We are closely monitoring the dramatic events in the Syrian Arab Republic. Our assessments were laid out in the December 8 Foreign Ministry Statement.
Our number one priority is ensuring the safety of the Russian citizens currently residing in Syria, and protecting Russia’s property and its diplomatic, military and other missions. That includes activities conducted by our companies and organisations.
We emphasise the importance of adhering to the international legal norms governing the Russian institutions’ status and activities in Syria, including Vienna Conventions. As you may be aware, our diplomatic mission in Damascus remains operational despite the extremely high security risks.
Syria is now entering a transitional period, and the country will inevitably run into more challenges that are literally unfolding in real-time. We express our solidarity with the Syrian people, with whom Russia has historically enjoyed friendly relations, and sincerely wish them success in overcoming the challenges, difficulties, and problems they face.
We reaffirm our principled position in support of Syria’s sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity. We advocate the early establishment of an inclusive political process led by Syrians themselves through broad national dialogue in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 2254, which we referenced repeatedly over the years. We note the importance of unconditional consideration of the interests of all Syrian ethnic and religious groups, which is Russia's principled position.
Amid the ongoing political transition, we prioritise the preservation of the Syrian state institutions and continued performance of their functions. We call on all parties involved to act responsibly and to contribute to the early restoration of security and stability in that country. It is important to ensure the rule of fundamental law and the maintenance of the rule of law, to protect civilians’ rights, to promote civil peace and national reconciliation, and to prevent acts of vandalism, violence, bloodshed, or terror.
We remain in close coordination with our international and regional partners, including at the UN, in order to help stabilise the situation in Syria as quickly as possible.
We maintain contacts with the forces on the ground.
We strongly recommend Russian citizens in Syria to exercise maximum caution and avoid crowded places. All our previous warnings regarding travel to Syria remain in effect.
We are receiving numerous inquiries from Russian and foreign media, as well as our citizens, concerning our assessment of the situation in Syria, the reasons for and the background of what is going on there, the involvement of external forces and internal actors, and their role. I would like to bring your attention back to what I said at the beginning which is that our prime focus at this point is ensuring the security of Russian citizens and the protection of our property.
With regard to our assessments of the situation in that country, we are closely following the developments and will base them on the actual situation on the ground, act accordingly, draw our own conclusions, and provide appropriate assessments of actions and processes. We also urge the international community to avoid provocative statements or rhetoric that could adversely affect the situation.
Given the escalating confrontation in Russian-US relations, which are balancing on the verge of rupture through the fault of the official Washington, travelling to the United States either for personal or professional reasons are fraught with significant risks.
We have repeatedly discussed this issue and provided specific examples to support our arguments. In addition to the extremely strict and discriminatory visa application process for Russian citizens, who are often forced to travel to third countries to obtain permission to enter the United States, with no guarantee of success and non-refundable fees if denied, our compatriots have long been targeted by US authorities, particularly the special services.
Recently, a fraudulent scheme has been increasingly employed to lure Russian citizens abroad in cases when the US authorities have certain claims against these individuals, including politically motivated ones. These claims are classified in various ways but are not publicly disclosed.
How does this “luring” work? Invitations are extended under the pretence of attractive commercial or tourist opportunities, followed by the detention of targeted Russian citizens and their transfer to US jurisdiction under extradition agreements. The full list of countries cooperating with the United States in extradition matters can be found on the website of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
We strongly urge you to avoid travelling to the United States and its allied satellite states, including Canada and, with few exceptions, the countries of the European Union, unless absolutely necessary, especially during the upcoming holidays.
While abroad, it is important to steer clear of situations where you could fall victim to provocation or face detention under the pretext of allegedly violating local laws.
If you notice signs of specific interest in you, such as proposals to meet and discuss some vague “terms of cooperation” or job offers promising “generous compensation,” remember the cases of Russian citizens who later ended up in US prisons. Many of these individuals travelled to the United States for negotiations on supposedly “lucrative” contracts, as certain American representatives told them. We had to fight for many years to secure the release of these people.
Consider all potential risks carefully. If the attention shown to Russian citizens by the Americans appears suspicious or overtly persistent, it may be wise to break off these contacts, revise your travel plans and return home.
We have always said and reaffirm this now: The Russian Federation’s diplomatic and consular missions in the United States and other countries will, as before, render maximum assistance in protecting the rights of Russian compatriots, who have found themselves in a difficult situation.
In the current situation, particularly in view of the convulsive actions on the part of the Biden regime that still occupies the White House, actions we are witnessing today, it is necessary (I want to say and stress this once again) to compare risks.
People ought to weigh all “pros” and “cons” and calculate the risks of traveling abroad to avoid tragic incidents, where the US punitive justice leaves no chance of a fair trial, churning out mind-boggling prison terms of 15 and occasionally 25 years. Naturally, I am not referring to nations that are friendly to Russia.
The Ukrainian Nazis never stop terrorising the civilian population in both our and their own country. The Banderites attack civilians with gunfire and drones on the daily basis.
From December 3 to 10, the Russian air defence and electronic warfare forces suppressed or shot down over 200 AFU-controlled drones, with the Russian maritime aviation neutralising eight Ukrainian unmanned surface vessels in the Black Sea.
On December 6 of this year, the Banderites launched a deliberate drone attack on a humanitarian relief station in Alyoshki, Kherson Region, killing three and wounding another three civilians.
On December 8 of this year, AFU drones dropped explosives in Gorlovka, Donetsk People’s Republic, wounding eight civilians.
The Ukrainian terrorists fired 240 munitions and launched 187 drones at populated localities in the Belgorod Region, wounding 12 civilians.
All persons implicated in these and other atrocities committed by the Kiev regime will be identified and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Based on evidence collected by the Investigative Committee of Russia, Russian courts continue passing sentences upon Ukrainian neo-Nazis and mercenaries for their military crimes.
Andrei Romashchenko and Igor Ivanyuk of Azov (an AFU nationalist unit banned in Russia) have been sentenced in absentia to 24 and 24.5 years imprisonment, respectively, for gunning down two civilians in Mariupol in March and April, 2022. International arrest warrants have been issued for the two neo-Nazis. Yet another Azov bandit, Denis Khmelevsky, has been sentenced to 24 years imprisonment for ordering to shoot two civilians in Mariupol in March 2022.
The court has sentenced Palma Vajari Moises Urbina, a mercenary from Venezuela, and Georgian mercenaries Georgy Akhalay and Kartlos Rusitashvili to 14 years in prison (in absentia), Lado Gamsakhurdia to 18 years, and citizen of Kazakhstan Zhasulan Dyusyumbin to 20 years. The latter used social networks to incite violence against Russians and provided false information about the activities of the Russian Armed Forces in Mariupol, Bucha and Volnovakha in an interview with a US social media platform.
Nine Ukrainian terrorists − Andrey Shestak, Nazary Moroz, Vladislav Yavorsky, Vadim Shulga, Sergey Yampolsky, Maxim Kolbasin, Dmitry Shalar, Vladimir Penzin and Konstantin Romanyuk − have been given prison sentences ranging from 24 years to life for targeting apartment houses in Stary Krym, Mariupol Region, from a Grad multiple-launch rocket system in March 2022.
Investigation into the activities of US mercenary Derrick Bales has been completed. He has been charged with committing a terrorist attack in the Kursk Region in August 2024 and placed on the international wanted list.
The Russian Investigative Committee has initiated proceedings against Ukrainian Colonel Pavel Rozlach, who commanded the launch of cluster bombs with toxic agents inside the Kursk Region in August 2024. At least 20 people were injured in that attack.
The Russian law enforcement authorities continue working to call Ukrainian Nazis and foreign mercenaries to account for war and other crimes.
Although the terrorist essence of the Kiev regime is no longer a secret, the West continues to send weapons to it.
The West is pouring weapons and money into Ukraine to escalate the conflict. The outgoing US administration is doing as much as it can, if not more. On December 7, 2024, Pentagon chief Lloyd Austin unveiled a $988 million package for Ukraine at the Reagan National Defence Forum, extolling large-scale assistance to Kiev as a major achievement of his department.
The outgoing Biden administration is ready to do anything to prolong the agony of its Ukrainian puppets, in part to continue lining its pockets through the criminal corruption scheme of channelling money from Washington, via the Kiev regime and Ukraine, to those in the West who approve these huge allocations.
According to US media reports, the White House has been pressuring Congress to approve an additional Ukraine aid package worth $24 billion, which it formulated as a bill for funding “anomalies.” If the White House really wants to finance their settlement, it should set its eyes on its domestic policy, which is more anomalous than anything the world has seen in a long time.
House Speaker Michael Johnson did not put that issue on the agenda, leaving it for President-elect Donald Trump to decide after he assumes office since Trump has mentioned the possibility of slashing US assistance to Ukraine. He said in an interview with a US channel on December 8 that Kiev that would “possibly” receive less military aid once he takes office.
On December 9, 2024, Friedrich Merz, the revenge-seeking Christian Democratic candidate for chancellorship, visited Zelensky in Kiev to discuss Germany’s further strategy and the possibility of sending long-range Taurus missiles to Ukraine. Merz did not try to disguise his sabre-rattling attitude, echoing the words of war-hungry ex-UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who said that Ukrainians were forced to “fight with one hand tied behind their backs.” Merz agrees that this situation is “unfair” and must be changed.
However, no efforts to escalate the conflict will change the course of the special military operation. Russia and the Russian Armed Forces tightly hold the initiative along the entire front line and are acting consistently to fulfil the tasks set to them. Those who are daydreaming about Russia’s “strategic defeat” can clearly see the results of this, and German politicians should see them as well.
In the absence of internal agreement on the funds American would spend on its Ukrainian “mistress” (Zelensky), they have decided to resort to common robbery.
It was reported on December 8 that the Kiev regime has approved the terms of a 40-year US loan of $20 billion as part of the G7’s $50 billion aid, to be repaid with proceeds earned from frozen Russian assets. All these nice words and political and financial formulas conceal nothing less than common robbery.
It appears that, apart from authorising out in the open theft of Russian-owned assets, Washington has tried to kill two birds with one stone. It wants to help Ukraine at others’ expense, without forgetting about its own interests and personal gain either. At the insistence of the United States, this “deal” is formalised as a Certificate Purchase Agreement between Ukraine acting as a borrower and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The concerned parties also signed an agreement between Ukraine and USAID on guaranteeing and repaying a loan and on issuing an IOU certificate by the Ukrainian Ministry of Finance in favour of the Federal Reserve System, with USAID guaranteeing the certificate. The loan carries 1.3 percent annual interest, plus an average rate charged on US Treasury bonds; their repayment and redemption are conducted using income from frozen Russian assets.
Any reasonable person understands that we are dealing with banditry and robbery, which have been elevated to the rank of state policy by Washington and its cronies. Obviously, the United States no longer has any money left for assisting Ukrainian neo-Nazis. It appears that the United States will soon start using real gangster tactics, which were widely used in the United States in the past and, as it seems, have not been forgotten.
All this is what we call corruption, robbery, embezzlement, a merger between US institutions of state authority and the business community, as well as the creation of an international money-laundering cartel. This is a concentration of all terrible things that Washington has openly opposed all the time. In reality, they are inventing monstrous illegal schemes for withdrawing and appropriating other countries’ assets.
I would now like to discuss an issue that virtually preoccupies US politicians, specifically, lowering the mobilisation age for Ukrainian conscripts. As of late, the Ukrainian press is actively discussing the Kiev regime’s plans to take this step, which is not suicidal for it (we already know all about them). This step spells suicide for the people of Ukraine. This is being done under pressure from the outgoing Biden administration. It is precisely Washington that is insisting that Ukrainian authorities lower the age of mobilisation to 18 years in exchange for continued US military assistance.
Another monstrous and bloody scheme deals not only with corruption, but with human lives. The Americans like to give all kinds of names to their campaigns. This proposal, on which Washington insists, can be named Money in Exchange for Lives.
Matthew Miller, Spokesman for the US State Department, made an extremely cynical statement and noted that all young Ukrainians who will be drafted as soon as reach adulthood would be fully equipped at Washington’s expense. I would like to ask Mr Miller: Why did not the US State Department indicate that the word “equipment” also included funeral expenses?
According to Ukrainian media outlets, a survey conducted by Bankovaya Street shows that 80 percent of young people aged 18 to 25 are likely to desert. In effect, if 300,000 Ukrainian recruits are mobilised, about 240,000 of this number would escape. They are well aware that Bankovaya Street and the White House are preparing coffins for them under the guise of “equipment.”
Vladimir Zelensky pretends to be genuinely concerned about the future generations in Ukraine. The other day, he said that “the West should prioritise missile supplies and efforts to degrade Russia’s military potential, rather than lowering the conscription age in Ukraine.” What was he up to prior to that? He himself had been lowering the conscription age. This represents an attempt to wash off the blood stains caused by his earlier moves.
Zelensky, more than anyone else, has a stake in making the hostilities last. Ending them would inevitably lead to the political collapse of his regime. Thus, he will do everything to prevent this from happening in the foreseeable future. For the sake of self-preservation, as the ringleader of this junta, Zelensky will stop at nothing and will sacrifice just about anything. He has long since placed the Ukrainian people on the altar of his ambitions.
Lowering the conscription age in Ukraine is a matter of time, and everyone is clear about that, especially so, since the US State Department has promised material rewards or financial incentives in exchange for the lives of Ukrainian citizens.
Even now, Ukrainian consulates are denying foreign travel passport services to young Ukrainians under the age of 18 who have not registered for military service. As earlier reported, such individuals were allowed to register for draft remotely, but that option seems to no longer be available.
Meanwhile, Western nations, particularly EU countries, are increasingly shutting off the Ukrainian citizens’ access to social, financial, and economic adaptation, which means that the West is effectively forcing Ukrainian citizens out. Ironically, these same countries previously invited them over promising the world to them. Now, they will do everything to, on the one hand, exert pressure on Bankovaya Street to make it stop issuing or renewing Ukrainian passports to Ukrainian citizens residing abroad and, on the other hand, to shut down and make unrealisable programmes for providing economic and social support to them in Western countries, where they have resided all this time.
Dehumanisation in Ukraine is going on across multiple fronts.
On December 5, in central Kiev’s Alley of Glory, the busts of World War II heroes Sidor Kovpak, Ivan Chernyakhovsky, Pavel Rybalko, and Alexei Fyodorov were dismantled. On December 8, in Pavlograd, the IS-2 (Joseph Stalin 2) tank, designed by Pavlograd native Zhozef Kotin as an answer to Nazi Tiger and Panther tanks, was removed from the plinth. This monument was created by local residents. These Neanderthal tactics equate Zelensky regime with the followers of Nazi Germany. This is an attempt to erase from memory the selfless Ukrainian soldiers and homefront workers who liberated the Ukrainian SSR from Nazi scum. They can claim whatever they want, but these facts cannot be wiped out from history.
Lots of monuments, some of which were UNESCO-protected cultural assets, have been demolished. What has UNESCO done in this regard?
On December 4, under pressure from neo-Nazis, the Odessa City Council unanimously supported the removal of monuments associated with Russian culture and history, including monuments to renowned Odessa residents and the monument to Alexander Pushkin erected in 1889 by city’s residents. This monument is part of the UNESCO World Heritage Site in Odessa. It survived two world wars, the revolution, multiple regime changes and shifts in ideology, but failed to survive the neo-Nazi Zelensky regime.
It was reported in October that, acting on the initiative of Odessa cultural figures, more than 100 people sent an open letter to this international organisation and to Zelensky with a request not to destroy the historical appearance of Odessa. It had nothing to do with their sympathies or antipathies towards our country. Moreover, these citizens, as well as a number of intellectuals from Britain, the United States, Italy, and France who joined them, have never shown any sign of affection for us, but the barbaric acts by the Kiev regime horrified even them. In December, in connection with the threat of demolition of the monument to Alexander Pushkin in central Odessa, the UNHRC sent a petition to UNESCO Director-General Audrey Azoulay. What UNESCO had to say about this, you may wonder. We, too, would like to know that. This organisation is publicly funded, and this is its direct responsibility. The answer is “nothing.” This agency that formerly enjoyed high international standing stubbornly keeps absolutely disgraceful silence.
In this context, the absence of practical steps to support the memorial heritage of Odessa is quite conspicuous. On December 6, the Italian newspaper Domani published an article with a telling title “Meloni: “We will reconstruct Odessa.” A year later, the city has not received a single euro.” The article claims that as of November, within the framework of the Italian “laboratory for the reconstruction of Odessa” and the budget of 45 million euros planned until 2027, Odessa has received only 70,000 euros from UNESCO. If you subtract 70,000 euros from 45 million euros, you are left with a large sum. Where are the 44 million-plus euros? Not only me, but Italian journalists would like to ask this question, too, and they are effectively asking it.
Father Miroslav, the rector of the Transfiguration Cathedral in Odessa, which was damaged in July 2023 by Ukrainian air defence, admitted to journalists that the parish had to raise money for repairs on its own, and the city had not received a penny from Italy.
Of course, the budget is scheduled to last until 2027, so maybe something will turn up in the remaining two years, but the scale of deception, lies and forgery is just outlandish.
A few more words about UNESCO. People from different countries appeal to the organisation; they send letters to its Director-General, Audrey Azoulay. They appeal to other UN agencies. There is no reaction. This is quite surprising because, with modern technology enabling an unlimited spread of information, one does not really need any letters to be aware of the monuments under UNESCO protection being demolished. The news is openly circulating across the media outlets, news agencies, and television. UNESCO’s mission is to monitor the condition of this cultural heritage without waiting for any letters or appeals. Letters can be useful when something has accidentally escaped unnoticed, or as a preventive measure for the future, a warning about a possible negative development. The monuments in question have been demolished. The perpetrators’ urge to destroy them has been discussed publicly. This information is widely available. UNESCO’s mandate is to protect monuments. They aren’t doing it. They do not even respond to the letters that are sent to them in support of their own Charter.
Is this an isolated case? Is this only about monuments? No. The organisation is showing the same attitude when it comes to journalists. Journalists, representatives of the public, the media, and journalists’ unions have been sending letters and appeals en masse, saying everything they have to say about UNESCO Director-General Audrey Azoulay’s draft report, in which she overlooked the killings of Russian journalists. As a reminder, it is a report that deals exclusively with attacks on media representatives around the world from 2022 to 2023.
We have not seen any reaction from UNESCO, the Director-General or other UN agencies. They could have commented on this; their mandate includes covering these issues. The West has always prided itself on speaking with one voice. The UN Secretariat’s press office or its press secretary could have helped. The Secretary-General’s representative could have said something to his colleagues from UNESCO in Paris. They haven’t.
The letters I am referring to have not just been sent to the UNESCO Director-General or the UN Secretary-General; they have been published in the media, posted on websites, shared on social media, and are publicly available. Do Western journalists, when they see this in the news, wonder what the UN’s reaction is? No.
In Ukraine, they continue to glorify Stepan Bandera, and now also Vladimir Zelensky. A photo has been shared on social media depicting the Kiev regime leader against the background of his own giant images, standing at the altar in the Refectory Church of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, confiscated from the canonical UOC, in front of representatives of the junta and foreign guests who are eating at buffet tables. Is there any limit to this cynicism? On the other hand, this is not even cynicism; this is sacrilege. Trampling on religious shrines, desecration, and abusing believers’ feelings are an inherent part of the diabolical self-assertion typical of both modern Ukrainian neo-Nazis and their predecessors, who were largely doing the same.
As the Ukrainian Reich continues its total brainwashing policy, Verkhovna Rada deputy Vladimir Viatrovich initiated the release of a comic series for children portraying Nazi agent Stepan Bandera as a hero. An animated adaptation of that story was shown on the Ukrainian Armed Forces Day celebrated on December 6. This new “masterpiece” presented the Ukrainian children with a mythologised history recounted by an Afro-Ukrainian woman. I know I should remain impartial and unemotional, but I don’t know how to do it when this unrivalled piece of cinematic art reflects anything but the accurate history of Ukraine.
Instead, it shows Ukrainians, helped by American soldiers, defeating some vague foreign invaders during World War II. There is no mention of the invaders being in fact German fascists who were eventually chased out by the Red Army liberating the Ukrainian SSR, or of the multi-ethnic forces that fought Nazism and fascism. Those fighters never divided themselves or others on the basis of ethnicity, and actually fought those who did – who tried to divide people into first- and second-rate. This is absurd. What do they think they are doing? What is the deal with this Afro-Ukrainian woman anyway? She should have known better. Perhaps she ought to have read the story of Babi Yar to have a better understanding of Nazism and fascism, which insisted that people of another race were not even human. She should have read some History 101 book before agreeing to do this.
This is very similar to what the Americans are doing in other parts of the world. Japan has held another Hiroshima and Nagasaki commemorative ceremony. What do we hear them say there? Words of sympathy for the victims, and no mention whatsoever of who perpetrated that tragedy.
All the above are primitive tactics the Kiev regime is using to suppress any critical, analytical or independent thinking in the young people who remain in Ukraine. Children are being taught neo-Nazi ideology, while the West provides funding for their indoctrination. This is the state ideology promoted by the Kiev regime and Vladimir Zelensky.
All the above facts once again confirm the relevance of Russia’s special military operation to denazify and demilitarise Ukraine and eliminate any threats emanating from its territory. All these goals will be achieved, as the Russian leadership has repeatedly stated.
The US deliveries of antipersonnel mines to Ukraine
We took note of media reports about the United States supplying antipersonnel mines to the Kiev regime. This information confirms Russian assessments about foreign countries continuing to pump Ukraine full of weapons that more often than not do damage to civilians, including children.
These US steps and actions are being taken against the background of the Fifth Review Conference of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Antipersonnel Mines and on Their Destruction (Ottawa Convention), held on November 25−29, 2024, in Siem Reap, Cambodia, and represent a graphic example of Washington’s hypocrisy and double standards with regard to various international legal instruments, including the Ottawa Convention.
No later than 2022, US President Joe Biden officially announced that his country was changing its policy towards antipersonnel mines. He specified that the US intended to implement the necessary efforts to join the Ottawa Convention and renounce the transfer or use of this category of weapons in any regions of the world with the exception of the Korean Peninsula. This hasty retreat from the earlier US attitudes characterises Washington as an unreliable, inconsistent and dangerous international player.
In addition, these US actions encourage Kiev to violate its obligations under the Ottawa Convention, which Ukraine joined in 2005. The Russian law enforcement agencies regularly record and document all cases of Ukrainian employment of antipersonnel mines against civilian populations and facilities. Since 2022, for example, 187 facts of civilians stepping on PFM-1 Lepestok antipersonnel high-explosive mines have been recorded in the Donetsk People’s Republic alone. It is also on record that Ukraine makes a wide use of PMN-2 high-explosive mines and MON-50 and PVP-50 directional fragmentation mines.
We note the dangerous trend towards other Western countries revising their position as regards the Ottawa Convention under the pretext of a “changed security situation.” Among others, these include Latvia, Estonia and Finland, which follow the suit of Lithuania in declaring their intention to withdraw from this international treaty shortly.
Do you remember what the same countries said earlier? Do you remember how they “butted their head” upon tables at international organisations, arguing that antipersonnel mines were so “inhumane?” Where is their “humaneness” now?
These actions are fraught with the further subversion of the international legal system in the area of arms control, disarmament, and non-proliferation, erosion of the security situation, and an escalation in Europe.
Statements by the US president-elect on peace in Ukraine
President-elect Donald Trump, following a brief meeting with Vladimir Zelensky in Paris on December 7 this year, in the presence of President Macron, urged President Vladimir Putin to initiate an immediate ceasefire and commence negotiations on peace in Ukraine. "Time to act," Donald Trump wrote on the Truth Social platform. Yet, he put forward no concrete proposals or ideas. Moreover, not a word was mentioned regarding the pivotal matter – Kiev's willingness to engage in such talks.
What can be said? Firstly, Russia is taking action. Secondly, if anyone anticipates Russia making some concessions, it appears these individuals lack sufficient understanding and perhaps have a short memory. Let us "refresh it." The crux of the matter is that it is impossible to overlook that our country has, on numerous occasions, demonstrated goodwill in pursuit of mutually acceptable agreements to settle the Ukrainian crisis.
This was evident in February 2015, when the Package of Measures for the Implementation of the Minsk Agreements was signed. In 2014, it was Russia that initiated them. We must not forget that towards the end of March 2022 in Istanbul, following another round of Russia-Ukraine talks, there was a prospect of reaching a peace agreement. Yet, each time, Kiev and its Western patrons thwarted the implementation of these agreements. And then, in the "crux of the biscuit," they officially prohibited Zelensky to engage in any negotiations. He signed the relevant document under the pressure of the United States.
It is telling that Zelensky's response to Donald Trump's aforementioned call was disregarded across the ocean. In reality, the purported leader of Ukraine, who has long lost legitimacy, replied to the US president-elect with a cynical refusal, reiterating that he would not consent to any peace agreements without security assurances, which he interprets as the country's membership in NATO.
Achieving peace is not the Kiev regime's priority. They do not think in those terms at all. Why? They have been taught otherwise. By whom? The Joe Biden regime, the White House administration, for many years has been "drilling" the Kiev regime towards the opposite – provocations, non-compliance with international agreements, ignoring international law, and fostering aggression.
This factually mirrors the instincts discovered and explored by Ivan Pavlov in his scientific discourse. The Kiev regime received greater rewards from the White House for heightened aggression, greater disregard for rights, and increased provocation. This is the root of their reflexes.
Kiev thinks in terms of war while concocting "peace plans." However, these plans were a misnomer for peace, as they demanded more armaments. They then transitioned to some manner of "victory/defeat" plans. Their essence remains unchanged – further escalation of the conflict, securing more funds and weapons.
However, the US opts for silence on this matter. And how erroneous that is. According to the Ukrainian press, Andrey Yermak, Head of the Office of the President of Ukraine, who visited Washington last week, persistently appealed to representatives of the outgoing and incoming US administrations to assist Kiev in "reclaiming territories along the 2022 borders" and joining the North Atlantic Alliance.
In my view, what is happening in Ukraine represents one of the direst historical tragedies ever to befall a nation worldwide. The monstrous deception the Ukrainian people succumbed to under Vladimir Zelensky's exhortations, who was bought with his "sniffed-out guts," is without precedent. This is occurring alongside the Pentagon's urgent supply of arms and military equipment to the Ukrainian armed forces, aiming to sustain combat operations through most of 2025.
The frankly delusional notion of inflicting a "strategic defeat" on Russia remains on the agenda. So, who is uninterested in peace? Who consistently refuses it? Who enacts laws prohibiting it? Who employs aggressive, hateful, xenophobic rhetoric? The Kiev regime, using American money.
If Washington genuinely wished to halt the conflict, it would immediately command its Kiev puppets to withdraw its armed forces from their positions within the four new regions of the Russian Federation. This would pave the way, as President Putin elucidated in his address at the Russian Foreign Ministry on June 14 of this year, to initiate negotiations (of course, after Zelensky revokes his own order, scripted under US direction, prohibiting talks with the Russian leadership) on Ukraine's non-aligned, neutral, and nuclear-free status, including its denazification and demilitarisation.
Implementing the proposals articulated by the Russian Head of State will stop the conflict and achieve a comprehensive, long-term, and equitable solution rooted in strict reciprocity principles and from the standpoint of our national interests. This involves acknowledging the "realities on the ground" when shaping a new geopolitical configuration following the special military operation, safeguarding the Russian Federation's interests, and excluding third countries’ interference.
After every message coming from Washington, we receive numerous inquiries from the team Trump is forming: are we open to dialogue with the new team and Donald Trump himself? We are unequivocally prepared, especially concerning resolving the Ukrainian crisis. However, we have yet to receive any serious, viable options addressing Russia's legitimate security concerns and ensuring the rights of the Russian-speaking population.
I wish to highlight the comprehensive remarks made by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in various interviews with both Russian and international journalists, where he elaborated in detail on Russia's perspective on the situation. This is not solely our perspective. It also implies a genuine settlement.
The Moldovan authorities have persisted with their attempts to justify their failure in running the country by alleging to what they call Russia’s hybrid war.
Speaker of the Moldovan Parliament Igor Grosu and the country’s Foreign Minister Mihai Popșoi have spent the past week voicing their grievances with Moscow to their curators by pretending that Russia was “trying to plunge Moldova back into instability and chaos.”
We would not have to respond to these statements, had they refrained from making them. But since they have ventured into this territory, we have no other choice. You’ve made your bed, now you have to lie in it, as the saying goes.
Suffice to look at Moldova’s social and economic performance indicators under Maia Sandu to understand that the current government has brought the country to the brink of an abyss. They were the ones who created this chaos and fostered instability. In fact, the Moldovan economy has come to completely depend on foreign borrowings, so when their inflow declined, the country had to print more money and increase its government debt. According to media reports, over the past three months it surged 70 percent in annualised terms. There have been bitter jokes among experts saying that there is only the unemployment rate, decline in the birthrate and population outflow that have generated more momentum compared to the falling approval ratings of the Moldovan authorities.
The government lacks a sound strategy to improve the situation. It is quite symptomatic that the national government asked the parliament to declare a state of emergency in the energy sector starting December 16. This is not the first time they do this. Before that, Moldova had a state of emergency for almost two years, from February 2022 until December 2023. People in Moldova remember its consequences: it led to an unhinged effort to obtain Western loans, and created a legal vacuum, causing extrajudicial reprisals against political opponents and a campaign to close the undesirable media.
On a separate note, we must mention the irresponsible way in which the Moldovan leadership has been treating national security. According to recent media reports, Rheinmetall Automecanica, a Romanian company and a subsidiary of a German defence manufacturing corporation, intends to invest a generous amount of money in what they refer to as rebuilding the machine engineering sector in Moldova. Considering that this company specialises in providing maintenance and repair for German and UK-made armoured vehicles used by the Ukrainian Armed Forces, we can make a safe guess about the actual motives behind this investment. If there is a skill that they have mastered to perfection over there in the West, it consists of counting their money and having others do the dirty and dangerous job for them. They have now decided to bring this approach to Moldova.
Chisinau hosted a security conference in late November 2024, during which EU’s Ambassador to Moldova Janis Mažeiks boasted that military assistance for Moldova from the EU reached 137 million euros in 2021-2024, which made Moldova its second largest recipient after Ukraine. He added that Brussels intended to keep it up. This begs a question: How far are you willing to go? Will this carry on to the point that Moldova becomes a party to the conflict in Ukraine in its own right? Or do they want to start using Moldovan nationals once they run out of Ukrainians? Has anyone asked what people of Moldova think about it? There is little doubt that no one bothered to ask them because they know what they will hear in advance. This is not what the people of Moldova need, as we can clearly see from opinion polls. In these surveys, 55 percent of Moldovans said that the republic was on a wrong path.
During the conference that I have just mentioned, Chisinau signed a new partnership agreement on defence and security matters. This time, it inked this pact with London. In fact, the UK is ready to allocate about 2 million pounds just for cyber security, which means for the Moldovan leadership blocking opposition websites, primarily Russian-language resources. Earlier, we have drawn your attention to the fact that the country had signed similar documents with Norway and Sweden.
Therefore, the Moldovan authorities continue moving along the vicious path traced by the Kiev regime by outsourcing national security and the future of their people to the West. We know well what Washington, Brussels and London do in these situations: they try to get as many resources as they can, plunge the country into chaos, and then leave it up to the aid recipient to deal with the challenges it faces. If you do not believe me, just look at what they did to Ukraine. And if their underlings are unable to cope with the issues caused by western policy, who is to blame, may I ask? Not the West, of course, but those who failed. This is when the failed underling is replaced by a new “champion of democracy.”
Chisinau must keep all this in mind before irresponsibly posturing as a member of the rules-based order. There is only one rule here – the West destroys everything and sows chaos. There are so many new impact craters every day which consume entire nations. Yes, these countries may be facing formidable challenges, but at least they know what it costs to pursue their national interests and ensure peace for their country.
A year after Bulgaria dismantled Soviet Army monument
A year ago, a Monument to the Soviet Army was barbarously dismantled in central Sofia by decision of the Bulgarian government. All statements about an urgent need for tis renovation turned out to be a lie. The figures of a Soviet soldier, a Bulgarian worker and a mother with a child have been cut up as scrap metal.
This year, we would have marked the 70th anniversary of that monument. The impressive monument was created by Bulgaria’s leading sculptors and architects on public donations and unveiled in 1954 to commemorate the Great Victory over Nazism.
Its destruction is an insult on history, the memory of heroes and those who respected their history and memory and donated money for the monument. It is an insult on what Bulgaria itself did.
Since the monument’s establishment and until recently, Bulgarian citizens, war veterans, the heroes of Bulgaria and those who remembered those events brought flowers to the monument as a sign of gratitude to the Bulgarians and Red Army soldiers who liberated Europe, including Bulgaria, from the Nazi plague.
The destruction of that monument was one of the most shameful acts in the hybrid war against Russia. They are not only waging this hybrid war against Russia but also against civilisation, humanity and the truth. The monument’s destruction was part of the propaganda campaign aimed at denigrating Russia’s role in Bulgarian history and at weakening mutual sympathy between our nations.
We continue to communicate with ordinary Bulgarians and representatives of sober-minded political and public associations every day, and we know that the overwhelming majority of Bulgarians do not support such actions by their authorities. They would like to maintain both friendly relations with Russia and to preserve their own history. We are inseparably bonded by common values such as a striving for genuine freedom, as well as patriotism and antifascism.
We firmly believe that truth and justice towards the liberators will eventually prevail. Hopefully, it would not be too late for Bulgaria, because the loss of historical memory spells the end of a nation’s history, and there is no future without history.
Britain’s accusations against Russia regarding alleged hostile activities in the ICT sector
We have observed yet another iteration of the anti-Russia campaign in the United Kingdom. This time, it stems from accusations made in the National Cyber Security Centre’s annual review, under the British Government Communications Headquarters, alleging “hostile” activities of our country in the field of information and communication technologies.
It is worth noting that the document fails to present any concrete or substantial evidence to substantiate the allegations it puts forward. Furthermore, an analysis of the report reveals that the purported threats attributed to Russia are not even a primary focus. Nevertheless, for the sake of political convenience, the media has chosen to emphasise the geopolitical context.
It is clear that this is part of a broader Russophobic agenda pushed by the British political establishment to serve their own interests. London is fully aware that, since May 9 of this year, the Global Intergovernmental Register of Contact Points for exchanging information on computer attacks, an initiative spearheaded by Russia, has been operational within the UN framework. This mechanism was specifically established to facilitate investigations into such incidents. Despite being a participant in this system, the UK has not submitted any requests through this channel to us. This clearly indicates that the British have no evidence linking Russia to malicious activities in the information space. Furthermore, London seems uninterested in identifying the actual perpetrators behind these incidents – assuming they even occurred and were not entirely fabricated. Once again, the UK has opted for its “highly likely” narrative and resorted to public accusations over substantive engagement. This approach contrasts with the professional cooperation between competent agencies that Russia has consistently suggested.
We believe that, rather than resorting to baseless insinuations, Great Britain should turn its attention to the actions of its protégés. Vladimir Zelensky’s regime, which it actively supports, openly acknowledges orchestrating hacker attacks, including through the Kiev-controlled IT Army. This raises a question for the Foreign Office: do you truly believe this behaviour knows any bounds? Will these “cyber-cyborgs” distinguish between Russian entities or users and British ones? Of course, not. Their primary aim is to exploit hacked accounts, systems, and websites for personal gain. They have already extended their activities to Western Europe, as evidenced by investigations into Ukrainian hackers that have resulted in multiple court cases across the European Union. The UK will be no exception.
Yet, for reasons unknown, these egregious actions fail to provoke any outrage in London.
Greetings to the Russian Media
Today, a message of greetings from Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov addressed to the Editor-in-Chief of the Moskovsky Komsomolets newspaper, Pavel Gusev, has been published to mark the 105th anniversary of the newspaper's founding.
However, this is not the only significant milestone. Achieving 105 years is indeed a remarkable feat! Once more, I extend my heartfelt congratulations to the newspaper and its entire team.
In parallel, 19 years ago, on December 10, 2005, the RT television channel commenced broadcasting. This channel prioritises the foreign policy of our nation and other countries, as well as international relations.
Within a relatively brief period (by global standards), the channel has accomplished commendable achievements, establishing itself as one of the acknowledged frontrunners in the media sector both domestically and internationally.
These accomplishments can be attributed to the cohesive and professional efforts of its correspondents, who have risen to prominence within the global information arena. They speak different languages, possess an unspoken camaraderie, and are often found in hotspots, distinguishing themselves as personalities rather than merely employees subsumed by the professional objectives set by the media management. Each is a distinctive figure, shaping the agenda, which is only welcomed by the channel's leadership. In my view, such contributions merit both honour and commendation.
In contemporary journalism, each journalist and correspondent is encouraged by the management to pursue independent creative endeavours, not solely within the framework of team and editorial assignments but also to promote and realise their own creative potential.
The television channel is continually evolving and enhancing, not merely keeping pace with the times but forging ahead, setting new benchmarks and trends, and shaping the fashion within the information sphere.
On this day, I would like to highlight another aspect. RT has become a principal target of "Western democracies" (or more aptly termed Western quasi-democracies). Over 110 sanctions and other restrictive measures, including broadcasting bans, resource blockages, and administrative penalties, have been imposed on the channel and its staff by the EU, the UK, the US, and Canada. That's not to mention expulsions, detentions, and degrading treatment. RT staff are subjected to harassment, bullying, psychological pressure, and even physical intimidation by the security agencies of Western countries.
Nevertheless, RT remains undeterred. I believe this serves only to motivate them to work with even greater determination. They perceive it as a challenge and an impetus to advance.
Despite the extreme measures employed to pessimistically marginalise them, the trust of their audience remains intact. In fact, it is burgeoning. The channel has gained momentum and is showcasing to the world what quality journalism that honours traditions while embracing modernity truly is.
RT has adapted to and surmounted the toxic media environment orchestrated by the West. The channel has significantly bolstered its media presence, redirecting its resources to previously untapped countries. They have embraced this as their mission, contrary to what the West intended to do with them. Everything has fallen into place. The channel's popularity is escalating across all continents.
Congratulations to our colleagues and the entire team! We wish you every success!
Mexican Press Club awards for Russian media representatives
On December 5, 2024, the Mexican Press Club, one of the country’s oldest and most prestigious professional associations, hosted the 72nd journalism awards ceremony. Recipients included numerous representatives of Russian media outlets.
For example, RT Television Channel received an award for Helena Villar’s news report Vieques: futuro minado. It tells the story of Vieques Island, whose future is threatened by landmines. For several decades, the US Armed Forces used this island, located near Puerto Rico, for testing various weapons systems. Although US military personnel left the area over 20 years ago, local residents still face the risk of unexploded mines and bombs, and continue to suffer from various grave diseases caused by the accumulation of heavy metals in their bodies.
The second award went to journalist Eric Fonseca for his documentary titled Northern Lights Dance, which explores this unique natural phenomenon on the Kola Peninsula.
Camila Lozano Delgado received an award for her interview with Sebastian Martinez, a member of the Colombian insurgent group Central General Staff uniting representatives of the dissident wing of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, who shared his perspective on the challenges hindering the national peace process. M. F. Padilla received an award for producing this interview.
Sergio Pintado, a journalist from the Sputnik Mundo agency, received a well-deserved award for his interview with Marisa de las Nieves Delgado, the first woman born in Antarctica.
Anastasia Shishkalova, Head of the Latin American Department at the TV BRICS media network, was commended for her high professionalism and the network’s coverage of international events.
Each year, Mexican Press Club awards prominent journalists from Mexico and across the globe. This recognition once again confirms that the work of Russian journalists is highly regarded worldwide, despite various Western schemes.
We are truly proud of our journalists and correspondents. We congratulate and thank them for their professional contribution to the common media cause.
80th anniversary of Russian-Nicaraguan diplomatic relations
December 12 marks 80 years of diplomatic relations between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Nicaragua.
That act of goodwill, which we made in 1944, opened the door to rapprochement between our nations, but it was the victory of the Sandinista revolution in 1979 that opened a truly new stage in Russian-Nicaraguan relations.
We appreciate the fact that in 2015, at the initiative of the Nicaraguan parliament, the day when we established diplomatic relations became a state holiday in Nicaragua. It is celebrated as Russia-Nicaragua Friendship Day. We regard this as evidence of our fraternal friendship and solidarity, spiritual affinity and a common desire to build a world based on equality, freedom, justice and mutual respect.
We are delighted that a representative delegation led by Representative of the Nicaraguan President for Russian Affairs Laureano Ortega Murillo will visit Russia on the occasion of that memorable date.
It is a great pleasure for us that despite serious external challenges relations between Russia and Nicaragua are developing in the spirit of strategic partnership supported by a constructive and trust-based political dialogue, including at the highest level.
Thanks to the efficient operation of the bilateral Intergovernmental Commission, which held its 6th meeting on December 11 in Moscow, we are consistently strengthening our trade, economic and investment ties, expanding our cultural, humanitarian and law enforcement contacts, and developing our practical partnership in healthcare, space exploration, agriculture, transport, the peaceful use of nuclear energy, emergency relief, and the training of personnel.
We appreciate our allied cooperation on the international stage. Russia and Nicaragua are acting in concert on global issues, coordinating their stances on the overwhelming majority of them, notably, the creation of a more just polycentric world order based on respect for the norms and principles of international law and the UN Charter, non-interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states, and rejection of illegal pressure in the form of restrictions and sanctions aimed at punishing and overturning “disagreeable” governments. We note with approval the truly friendly cooperation of our countries within the Group of Friends in Defence of the UN Charter.
There are many bright pages in the history of Russian-Nicaraguan relations. Moscow and Managua were together at the most difficult periods in their history, overcoming all hardships and proving that our ties are stronger than the most challenging turns in history.
A positive and even unique experience of cooperation, which we have accumulated over the past years, provides a solid foundation for the further build-up of all aspects of our bilateral relations.
We extend our cordial greetings on this memorable date to our Nicaraguan colleagues and friends.
Ardennes Offensive anniversary
We have repeatedly highlighted the selective approach practiced by Western countries when it comes to covering historical events, especially the ones in which our country played a key role in preserving the identity and freedom of those very Western countries. This includes preposterous in its form and disgusting in its content attempts to silence, or at least to downplay, the decisive contribution of the Red Army to liberating Europe from Nazism during World War II.
We are compelled to state that rewriting history in the West has been put on a systematic basis and taken to the state level. As a result, we are witnessing not just solemn processions of SS “veterans” and honouring Nazi criminals in countries that are not ashamed to call themselves “bastions of civilisation,” but also the efforts of some Ukrainian political “figures” inspired by their Western patrons to build their own “statehood” on lies, xenophobia and Neanderthal nationalism. As a result, today the Russian army has to confront modern-day forms of Nazism, which underlies state ideology in Ukraine.
For our part, we plan to fill the gaps in the memory of our former WWII Allies with regard to the key events of World War II, which we call the Great Patriotic War. Thus, the period between June 22, 1941 - when almost all of Europe was captured by Hitler without offering any serious resistance - and the landing of allied troops in Normandy on June 6, 1944, encompasses almost three years, during which the Red Army fought unending bitter battles against Wehrmacht. During that time, thanks to the fortitude and courage of the Soviet people, the Nazi war machine was fatally damaged, which largely predetermined the ensuing collapse of Nazi Germany. Having liberated our land, the Red Army went on to liberate Europe and reached Berlin, thus putting an end to the war.
Today, we will discuss the Ardennes Offensive, which took place in Belgium from December 1944 to January 1945. Its 80th anniversary will be marked on a grand scale. A large number of delegations from different countries, except Russia, will take part in the memorial events. We are not forcing ourselves in other people’s events. We have enough memorable dates of our own. However, these events have a direct connection with our country.
The breakthrough by Wehrmacht tank and infantry formations in the Ardennes began on December 16, 1944, and had the American-British troops retreat almost 100 kilometres. Supreme Allied Commander Dwight Eisenhower wrote to Washington that if the Soviet troops did not launch a new major offensive, the Allied forces in the West would find themselves in the direst situation.
Caught in a critical situation that threatened the Allies with surrendering Strasbourg and Paris, they were forced to turn to Moscow for help. On January 6, 1945, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill sent a message to Stalin with a request to immediately step up the Red Army’s offensive on the Eastern Front in order to divert some of the Nazi troops from the Western Front.
Notably, before the Ardennes Offensive, the leaders of the United States and Great Britain never considered it necessary to coordinate their plans with Moscow, but now they suddenly did.
In an effort to accommodate the Allies, the Supreme High Command General Headquarters moved the timeline of the Red Army’s winter offensive in Poland to early 1945, despite unfavourable weather that limited the use of aviation. During the 23 days of the Vistula-Oder strategic offensive operation, the Soviet troops swept away Nazis, advanced to a depth of 600 km, and widened the breakthrough to 1,000 km. A significant portion of Poland and Czechoslovakia was liberated from Nazi invaders, and military operations were transferred to the territory of Nazi Germany.
Our rapid advance in the East forced Hitler to redeploy 15 of the most combat-ready German divisions from the Western Front, which allowed the Allies, by January 28, 1945, to throw back the German troops to the positions they had occupied before the Ardennes Offensive and, on January 29, to launch their own offensive against Germany.
Today, in an effort to mythologise the image of the 1944-1945 Allied campaign and to give it the appearance of a triumphant single-army march to liberate Europe, some Western politicians and media turn everything upside down and try to portray the Ardennes Offensive almost as a key factor in the advance of the Red Army on the Eastern Front. We not only condemn and reject such politicised and openly disingenuous attempts to distort historical facts, but we oppose them.
The Russian archives store letters by British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and US President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to Stalin, in which they, on behalf of their governments, expressed gratitude to the Soviet Union for its assistance during the critical days of the Ardennes Offensive and recognised the decisive role of the Soviet offensive in the East for its favourable outcome. Such are the facts.
If the West continues to insist on their version of “rewritten history,” they will have to admit that these documents are invalid and had never been sent. They will have to disavow the words of the leaders of their own countries of that period. Are they willing to do so? If not, they must recognise these documents and build their position accordingly based on historical facts.
We pay tribute to the memory of the fallen in those horrifying battles in Ardennes. But we also invariably remember the Red Army’s decisive contribution to common victory, its feats and great achievements, and the fact that it offered a helping hand to the Allies in the most challenging moments of that bloody war.
The Day of the Russian Federation Constitution
On December 12, this country celebrates the Day of the Russian Federation Constitution. On this day in 1993, its Fundamental Law was approved by a nationwide vote. This law established the key principles of the federal system and outlined the structure of the supreme bodies of state power. It became the firm foundation of the modern political system and Russia’s sovereignty.
In this era of global change, the Constitution continues to serve as the guarantor of social stability, the rights of citizens, the preservation of natural heritage and Russia’s territorial integrity. It ensures the country’s further development and upholds the fundamental values of our society: a strong family, patriotism, and rich intellectual and cultural traditions.
The Preamble to the Constitution states that the multinational people of the Russian Federation recognise themselves “to be a part of the world community.”
The Foreign Ministry of Russia is invariably guided by the constitutional provisions in its work and does everything in its power, in cooperation with other bodies of power, to achieve the tasks outlined in the Constitution. Our country pursues a sovereign foreign policy determined by the understanding of Russia’s unique role in maintaining global peace and stability.
Question: How would you comment on Israel’s intervention in the Syrian conflict and the entry of Israeli troops into the territory of the SAR?
Maria Zakharova: The actions undertaken by the Israeli armed forces, which have occupied the buffer zone in the Golan Heights and several adjacent areas, constitute a breach of the 1974 Syrian-Israeli Disengagement Agreement.
The Israeli Air Force’s strikes on military and civilian facilities within Syrian territory, characterised by large-scale missile and bombing assaults, have elicited grave concern within the international community. Such assertive actions undoubtedly fail to contribute to the stabilisation of the situation in Syria, further exacerbating the already exceedingly challenging circumstances that have unfolded in recent days.
In the face of the extremely complex military and political conditions confronting the friendly Syrian populace, it is incumbent upon all members of the international community, especially neighbouring nations, to exhibit restraint and an elevated level of responsibility by refraining from actions that could provoke further deterioration of the situation in Syria. If the interests, security, and rights of Syrians as citizens of that sovereign nation are truly valued, these must be substantiated by tangible measures.
It is imperative to resolutely adhere to the principles of international law, unconditional respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic, as well as the international commitments previously undertaken concerning that nation and its people. This represents a test for all those who profess to “care” about human rights and present themselves as states governed by the rule of law.
Question: How would you comment on the statement by Supreme Leader of Iran Ali Khamenei that the invasion and military coup in Syria were orchestrated by the US and Israel, and that Iran has evidence to support this?
Maria Zakharova: The situation is under scrutiny, and further information is forthcoming to assess the developments in Syria.
Regarding Israel, its leadership has openly declared its role in these events. This is a publicly articulated stance by the Israeli leadership concerning their involvement in the Syrian situation, and they are not concealing it.
As for the United States, it has persistently imposed sanctions on Syria and its people over many years. At the moment, they assert that the events are linked to the public dissatisfaction with the social and economic conditions in that country. The United States has significantly influenced these conditions, having even disregarded humanitarian considerations by refusing to ease sanctions during the pandemic. At a time when all reasonable countries and peoples were extending a helping hand to one another, the US was contemplating stricter measures against the SAR and the Syrians to exert leverage over the situation. Every nation, investigator, politician, and journalist is entitled to seek evidence supporting their perspective and share it publicly. However, it is crucial to pay heed to and observe what heads of state declare at the official level regarding their involvement in this situation.
Question: Vladimir Zelensky announced plans to call Joe Biden to discuss the possibility of his country joining NATO. What does he expect to achieve with such public declarations? What is his ultimate goal?
Maria Zakharova: Vladimir Zelensky seems to hope for continued financial and military support, believing that his actions will go unchallenged due to his involvement in questionable dealings with Joe Biden’s family. Additionally, his relentless ambitions appear to be the driving force behind these hopes.
A major contributing factor is his (and the entire Kiev regime’s) involvement in large-scale, illicit corruption schemes designed to funnel Western funds through Ukraine and return them to those who authorised their allocation. We have brought up numerous facts, and now these facts seem to surface in the West as well.
Joe Biden’s pardon of his son for all these crimes committed over the course of a decade speaks volumes. Vladimir Zelensky is banking on this, possessing the relevant documents and information, and believing that this will serve as a guarantee of his impunity. He is sorely mistaken.
Question: The other day, the Politburo of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China held a meeting to review and discuss the planned economic work for 2025. The meeting participants highlighted that China’s economy has generally remained stable and made progress this year, with the main goals and tasks of socio-economic development for 2024 expected to be successfully achieved as the year draws to a close. What are your thoughts on the state of the Chinese economy this year? Are there any interim results that stand out to you?
Maria Zakharova: I believe it would be inappropriate for us to give assessments to China’s economy. It’s up to Chinese statistical institutions to provide assessments and data on the economy within the country. There are also internationally recognised institutions that compare the state of different countries’ economies based on established criteria.
We are confident that the Chinese leadership possesses the most up-to-date and reliable information regarding the state of the PRC’s economy and its future prospects. China has consistently demonstrated stable and high rates of economic growth over the years, and we hope that these positive trends will continue into the future.
Russian-Chinese cooperation in practical areas significantly contributes to the economic development of both nations. The strategic partnership in the energy sector is deepening, with increased oil and natural gas supplies. Industrial cooperation is advancing, particularly in the automotive industry, and agricultural cooperation is expanding. We are also strengthening contacts in the science and technology fields, including space research.
Our economies complement each other and offer ample opportunities for further growth. A clear evidence of this is the continued positive trend in bilateral trade this year.
We have no doubt that Russian-Chinese relations will continue to play a crucial role in enhancing the wellbeing of our countries’ peoples.
Question: Did Russia assist in evacuating Bashar Assad and his family? What form did this assistance take? Were any agreements made regarding a safe flight?
Maria Zakharova: The necessary assistance was provided as part of the humanitarian gesture I mentioned earlier. I won’t go into the specifics at this time.
Question: How do you assess the developments in Syria? What other developments can we expect?
Maria Zakharova: Russia’s priorities concern the security of Russian citizens and Russian facilities where our compatriots are located.
Regarding Syria, the representatives in Damascus who are currently forming government bodies, have made it their main priority to preserve the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. I will emphasise what we have been talking about all these years: the importance of preserving and supporting interethnic and interfaith unity, working to prevent clashes and conflicts between these groups, and provocative actions that may escalate the situation. These are the priorities of the people who are forming new authorities in Syria (I have seen their statements to that effect). To what extent will this be possible? This is not about predictions, but about specific work.
Questions: Could you comment on President of Türkiye Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s statement that there are only two leaders left in the world: himself and Vladimir Putin? Does this mean that Moscow and Ankara will soon have to cooperate on the global stage in the context of certain conflicts?
Maria Zakharova: This statement reflects the President of Türkiye’s personal assessment, which his assistants should comment on. The actual quote was slightly different from what you said. It was longer and also included a reference to experience.
Russia respects the leaders of the countries that are friendly to Russia, maintains dialogue with them and develops relations. We have regular contacts, including on our territory.
Question: Calin Georgescu won the initial round of the presidential election in Romania. The nation’s Constitutional Court annulled the results based on intelligence reports regarding significant “activity” by one of the candidates on social media platforms. Could you provide your commentary on this situation, particularly in light of the West’s response to opposition protests in Georgia?
Maria Zakharova: This represents an unprecedented scenario for nations that either belong to Western democracies or aspire to emulate them. I struggle to recall a similar instance.
Indeed, just two days prior to the second round of the presidential election in Romania, scheduled for December 8 this year, the Constitutional Court of the nation – contrary to its own earlier resolution confirming the first round’s results – rendered an extraordinary verdict, annulling the electoral process and necessitating a re-run of the elections. This decision was justified by “certain violations on the part of one of the candidates” and, as is customary, “a threat to national security.” It is already evident that measures akin to a “witch hunt” against the supporters of the leading candidate have commenced, including detentions, interrogations, and searches.
The Romanian media, influenced by foreign, particularly American, interests, are perpetuating an entirely false narrative of Russia’s alleged interference in the elections. These insinuations defy denial as they are mere fabrications. When refuting claims, there ought to be facts (albeit distorted, false). However, what transpired in Romania is so absurd that even the citizens of the country struggle to comprehend the events. Our nation has no involvement in Romanian internal political affairs. All of this is regarded within Romania as a farce.
It is imperative to discern the true reasons behind these events. A substantial portion of the electorate, during the presidential and parliamentary elections held on December 1 this year in Romania, withheld trust from the current ruling elite, which failed to fulfil promises made to citizens during previous elections. The demand for new leaders who prioritise national interests has matured, leaders who would act not at the behest of the West, but in accordance with the interests and aspirations of their people. Such a shift has caused alarm not only within Bucharest’s elite but also among its external patrons. Essentially, the “emergency brake” of the electoral process has been pulled on orders from abroad.
The first round of the presidential election was conducted and deemed valid by Romanian constitutional authorities. In terms of democracy, what happened in Romania is a glaring example of the violation of fundamental civil rights.
In this context, the disgraceful silence of relevant international bodies – the UNHRC, the OSCE ODIHR, the Council of Europe – is quite conspicuous. Even in instances of normal elections with internationally recognised results confirmed by international observers, they always have remarks and criticisms. At times, they are willing to concoct something simply to voice an opinion. There are numerous examples. Yet in this situation, where things have gone completely awry, they remain silent.
There is no doubt that in the coming months, efforts will be made to transition to “manual control” of democracy, to return Romania’s “lost” voters into the ranks led by globalists.
Following this incident, many in Romania and abroad have adopted a fresh, objective perspective on global developments. It is crucial to view matters realistically and recognise that under the guise of democracy, its principles and rules, the West often interprets entirely different concepts and has no intention of implementing what it proclaims as a priority. Undoubtedly, this case is unprecedented, but it is exceedingly illustrative.
Question: On December 8, President of Syria Bashar al-Assad stepped down as president and left his country, with the opposition led by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham assuming power. Is Russia planning to establish diplomatic relations with the new Syrian authorities? What steps are being planned to retain its political and economic presence in Syria? What is the likelihood of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham being struck off the list of banned organisations?
Maria Zakharova: Diplomatic relations between our two countries have been established and are developing. In this context, I believe that it is wrong even to formulate this question the way you do. As for contacts with political movements, we maintain and promote these with various politicians and political forces as per the Foreign Ministry Statement of December 8, 2024.
Where concrete steps are concerned, we should primarily wait for the authorities in Damascus to become properly institutionalised. This process is just being launched. An absolute chaos reigned supreme before that. It is only now that certain bodies of power are starting to emerge and lay claim to authority. So, the world is watching the authorities in Syria assert themselves. Later, we will be able to go over to the practical part of your question.
As for striking Hayat Tahrir al-Sham off the list of prohibited organisations, we will proceed from its concrete steps and actions. How can we speak theoretically? These are concrete things implying a definite assessment.
Question: Russia has suspended its financial aid to Abkhazia as of September 1, 2024, on account of Abkhazia’s failure to meet its economic integration commitments. In November, the Abkhazian Parliament voted against the ratification of an agreement on Russian legal entities’ investments in the local economy. Given Sukhumi’s plea about Russia resuming its social payments, at what stage are the talks on integrating Abkhazia in the Russian economic zone?
Maria Zakharova: These matters are not within the purview of the Foreign Ministry. Please apply to the relevant agencies.
Question: The Israeli army continues attacking Syria, in particular, its military sites. Yesterday, the port of Latakia was attacked several times. We hear Israeli military leadership uttering mounting threats to the opposition forces in Syria. What is the Foreign Ministry’s take on Israel’s actions if it stays this course? How will this affect the situation in the Middle East?
Maria Zakharova: I’ve just commented on this. There is international law, and there are bilateral agreements between Syria and Israel. There are steps that destabilise the situation. This certainly does not help alleviate tensions.
Syria was, is and must be a sovereign state. That is how our country has always viewed it, as it provided Syria with assistance and support. That is how all other members of the international community should treat it – as a sovereign independent state. This is my answer to your question about our assessment of the strikes. Can we truly say this is normal? No, we can’t, especially so in a situation that Syria has found itself in now.
Whatever the international community does should help stabilise the situation, unless, of course, they are not concerned about the fate of the Syrian people, in which case some other assessments must be made. We hear other candid remarks that have nothing to do with Syria and Syrians, but everything to do with these people’s own ambitions. Is that consistent with international law? Of course, not.
Question: Speaking on the margins of the XVII Verona Eurasian Economic Forum, Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Pankin commented on the Armenian authorities’ refusal to pay the CSTO fees: “Armenia has a grace period of two years. After that, appropriate decisions will need to be made.” What kind of decisions may be made? Will Russia raise the issue of excluding Armenia from the CSTO? Won’t this play into the hands of the Armenian authorities, who are not officially leaving the CSTO, but are doing everything to get expelled from the organisation?
Maria Zakharova: You just said that Armenia is not paying fees. I believe the question of whether they pay/do not pay/or plan to pay these fees should be addressed to the authorities of that Republic. Why should we comment on Yerevan’s plans to pay its fees?
You can also refer this question to the CSTO Secretariat, which, just like the Armenian government, provides regular comments.
I will start with what may really relate to us. Funding the CSTO (this principle is not much different from the practice of other international associations) is an inalienable obligation of its members. The organisation’s budget is formed from the fees paid by its member states. Back in 2003, the countries approved the prorating system for paying these fees. Russia covers exactly half of the CSTO budget, while the other allies contribute 10 percent in equal-sized contributions.
There is no provision for any form of “abstaining from funding,” and fees that have not been remitted during a fiscal year in question constitute the state debt.
If a state fails to pay its arrears to the organisation’s budget within two years, the Collective Security Council may rule against the debtor state, up to and including depriving it of the right to vote.
Similar approaches are in place in the UN organisations. In fact, these approaches were used as an international experience which was drawn upon to establish approaches to the CSTO budget.
Back in the day, Armenia agreed with this state of affairs. I haven’t heard them ever say anything against it. Whether they are going to pay or not is a question for Yerevan. Once we get their answer, we will have a chance to clarify their motives.
With regard to their intentions, you should also ask them if they are going to pay or not. To reiterate, we know nothing about whether the official authorities of Yerevan have submitted documents to the CSTO about their withdrawal from this organisation. The Russian leadership, in particular the Foreign Ministry’s top officials, has repeatedly made it clear. No such documents have been received.
Meanwhile, we keep hearing someone say that Armenia does not see itself as part of the CSTO, or sees itself outside its framework. But this question is better addressed directly to the representatives of Armenia.
Question: You mentioned depriving it of the right to vote. That way, it is not an expulsion from the organisation, but just taking the voting right from a country, which hasn’t paid due fees for two years?
Maria Zakharova: I quoted the CSTO statutory documents. The CSTO operates through its Secretariat, which interacts perfectly well with the media. They can provide a detailed answer to you. I have offered a general answer to your question.
Question: What is the Foreign Ministry’s assessment of the internal political crisis in South Korea and the way it affects strategic security across Northeast Asia? Does it mean that the ongoing political chaos in Seoul could have a chilling effect on the effort to expand and develop the trilateral military alliance formed by the United States, Japan and South Korea, even if temporarily? Could this, therefore, roll back the emergence of a prototype for some kind of an Asian NATO-like structure?
Maria Zakharova: We do hope that the situation on the Korean Peninsula comes back to normal, while the ongoing developments do not have a negative bearing on the military and political landscape there.
Many have been asking similar questions in this context. In fact, the situation was quite challenging there to begin with, considering the unrelenting provocations by the United States, and others. Pyongyang has invariably served as the primary, if not the only target for all these misleading accusations. However, considering the current developments in Seoul, we can see that those who are under Washington’s wing are the ones causing instability.
Russia has been consistent in sticking to its principled position. It consists of advocating collective efforts to de-escalate tension and ensure peace and security in this sub-region. However, the United States and those who identify themselves with its aggressive approach, including South Korea and Japan, have been moving in the opposite direction in an effort to form an aggressive military and political bloc and further militarise Northeast Asia.
As for the way the ongoing developments in South Korea could affect Washington’s plans to create some kind of a NATO-like structure in Asia, the Republic of Korea can hardly be regarded as the main actor, even if Seoul has been proactively involved in efforts to lay the groundwork for enabling NATO to penetrate this part of the world.
The fact that this would-be democracy as engineered by the United States in the southern part of the Korean Peninsula has been failing to operate as a viable entity is another matter. After all, there was not a single head of state in South Korea over the past decades, i.e., since the 1960s, who was able to resign in calm. All had to face some kind of a tragedy at the end of their lives. Practically none of them have been able to escape this destiny. There were either government coups, or corruption charges, or prison terms, or suicide, or tragic death, etc. They would have been better off focusing on their country’s internal challenges. If the Republic of Korea does need the United States to be its helper, let the US play this role, as long as this sits well with Seoul. This is the starting point, and an opportunity to benefit from its knowledge and efforts, instead of trying to reshape the entire region. However, this is exactly what Washington aspires to. It is true that South Korea is proactively involved in efforts to lay the groundwork for enabling NATO to deploy its capabilities in this part of the world.
This is a multi-layered and a multi-pronged process, and it is taking place not only as part of the alliance formed by Seoul, Tokyo, and Washington, but also by having the four key regional satellites of the United States align and coordinate their agendas. I am referring to Australia and New Zealand, apart from South Korea and Japan.
Each of these countries has a specific role in the context of sustaining NATO’s global aspirations. For example, Canberra opted for entering the AUKUS trilateral bloc (US-UK-Australia), which has a nuclear component to it. Today, this entity is preparing to expand its ranks by adding those who matter for the Anglo-Saxons to join this military and technological initiative. From a formal perspective, it is not related to WMDs, but it is dangerous nonetheless in terms of its end results.
There are also other avenues for creating a NATO-like framework in Asia. It is the Euro-Atlantic element which underpins the work of the illegitimate Multilateral Sanctions Monitoring Team regarding the DPRK, and the same applies to the so-called Indo-Pacific conferences the United States holds for the commanders of armed forces and senior officials from intelligence agencies.
So far, it is hard to tell whether there would actually be an Asian NATO down the road as something akin to the Western original, or whether we are dealing with an effort to open up the Asia-Pacific political landscape and infrastructure and enable the Euro-Atlantic forces to gain a foothold there. For now, the latter option seems to be gaining traction.
However, it is already obvious that this policy is counterproductive and could have extremely negative consequences in terms of regional stability. After all, the masterminds of this re-shaping effort are guided by aggression, hegemonism and neo-colonial tenets.
Question: What mistakes has Syria made? Was it some drawbacks in its civil society or legitimate government agencies? What should Russia avoid and what should it prepare for in advance, like the lack of patriotism and such like? What’s your take on this?
Maria Zakharova: As I have said in my opening remarks, there is a great deal we need to seriously analyse. I believe that this is exactly what many people are doing now.
As it is, we are now focused more on the safety of our citizens and facilities, which involves taking a number of practical steps.
I can repeat here what I have already told the media today. The Foreign Ministry’s crisis centre for the safety of Russian citizens in Syria is working round the clock to coordinate the necessary decisions. Russia maintains contacts with many political forces (not all of them, because it is difficult to identify all political forces now) to clarify issues and reach the targets associated with the safety of our citizens and facilities, as well as to establish interaction with the forces that are coming to power in Syria. This is our focus now.
I need to say once again that our current priority is to ensure the safety of Russian citizens and facilities in Syria. But we will analyse all the relevant issues and share our conclusions with you in due time.
Additional materials
-
Photos
