Excerpts from the briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, December 20, 2023
- Sergey Lavrov’s visit to the Kingdom of Morocco
- General meeting of the Commission of the Russian Federation for UNESCO
- Ukraine update
- The UN General Assembly’s approval of a Russian resolution on preventing the glorification of Nazism
- No response from the UN Secretary-General and the UN Secretariat to the repeated Russian requests for them to obtain a list of victims of the Bucha provocation from Kiev
- The outcome of the EU summit and its statements on the need to expedite the delivery of missiles and ammunition to Ukraine and supply more air defence systems
- OSCE/ODIHR releases fourth interim report on violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law in Ukraine
- Moldova update
- European Union adopts another package of anti-Russia sanctions
- EU introduces sanctions against Russia’s Znaniye Society
- Situation in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict zone
- Completing the evacuation from the Gaza Strip
- Statements by IOC Vice President Juan Antonio Samaranch Salisachs on allowing Russian athletes to compete in the Paris 2024 Olympics
- International Migrants Day
- Banned broadcasting of interview with Russian Ambassador to Bulgaria
- Conclusion of the Lower Dnieper strategic offensive operation
- Deportation of thousands of Russian citizens from Latvia
- New anti-Russia statements by Moldovan officials
- Increasing NATO presence in Finland and Sweden
- The Northern Sea Route as an alternative to other maritime routes
- New Turkish initiatives on a settlement in Ukraine
- Maia Sandu’s unfounded accusations of Russia
- International Day of Human Solidarity
- Le Monde on Russia’s presence in Africa
- John Kirby’s statements
- US role in Palestinian-Israeli settlement
- EU’s latest package of sanctions
- US-Finland defence cooperation
- The risk of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict spreading to Lebanon
- Josep Borrell’s statements
- Armenian officials’ statements
- The Palestinian-Israeli conflict and the situation in the Red Sea
- Municipal elections in Serbia
- Russia-Vatican interaction
- Growing German military presence in Lithuania
- Diplomatic highlights of 2023
- Double standards
- Growing US presence in the Red Sea
- The Davos Economic Forum and Russia
- Germany’s latest unfriendly moves
- The Soviet Union’s dissolution
- The upcoming signing of a strategic partnership treaty with Iran
Sergey Lavrov’s visit to the Kingdom of Morocco
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov is in Morocco today, where he is taking part in the 6th session of the Russian-Arab Cooperation Forum. As per tradition, we will publish all the materials on the Foreign Ministry’s website and in our social media accounts.
This is just one event in Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s schedule, as he continues his tour of the region.
General meeting of the Commission of the Russian Federation for UNESCO
On December 22, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will chair the annual General Meeting of the Commission of the Russian Federation for UNESCO. Attendees will include heads of relevant Russian agencies, governors, representatives from the media, the private sector and the academic world, as well as prominent figures in culture, education and sport.
The minister will offer his assessment of the current state of Russia-UNESCO cooperation, and the participants will discuss plans to expand our future interactions with this universal organisation dedicated to educational, scientific and cultural cooperation.
The participants will adopt resolutions on this topic and share them with the media.
The Ukrainian neo-Nazis are facing setbacks on the battlefield. Instead of compelling them to negotiate or at least giving these neo-Nazis the option not to withdraw from the talks and avoid this bloodbath, their Western handlers have sent them into battle. Let me remind you that it was Washington, London and Brussels who were behind this concept. They may have used different words to describe it, but this does not change its meaning: they believe that the winner can only be determined on the battlefield. But the Ukrainian neo-Nazis found themselves in a dire situation on the battlefield. At least this much is clear. This is why they have been seeking to vent their frustration on civilians.
Residential buildings and social infrastructure in Donbass, along the Sea of Azov coastline, as well as in the Kherson, Belgorod, Bryansk and Kursk regions have been subjected to daily shelling, resulting in casualties and destruction.
On December 14, 2023, the Ukrainian Armed Forces carried out what amounted to the biggest strike against Donetsk since 2014. High-rise residential buildings, the Transfiguration Cathedral’s dome, and the Donetsk National Technical University’s building were hit. A hospital and a school also sustained damage. Two civilians died, and three others, including a child, were wounded.
On the same day, the Ukrainian neo-Nazis targeted 11 communities in the Kherson Region with over a hundred shells, resulting in the death of one civilian. Do you think that the relevant international human rights organisations, committees and commissions, or the capitals of countries showing so much concern for children and their destinies paid attention? I am not even talking about condemning these acts. They could at least state the facts about what the Vladimir Zelensky regime has been up to. But what can they say? After all, they are the ones proactively sponsoring these activities.
In Lugansk, the Ukrainian Armed Forces have been using the HIMARS MRLs. On December 15, 2023, eight people died and another 23 were wounded in a shelling incident targeting Lantarovka. On December 17, 2023, the Ukrainian fighters carried out a missile strike against Schastiye, killing three civilians and destroying four residential buildings.
On December 16, 2023, the Ukrainian neo-Nazis used the HIMARS MRLs to target a humanitarian aid distribution point in Novaya Mayachka, Kherson Region, leaving two civilians dead and two wounded.
Over the past week, the Kiev regime attempted to use UAVs to attack the Moscow, Lipetsk, Rostov, Volgograd, Bryansk, Kaluga, and Kursk regions, as well as Crimea. Air defence systems successfully intercepted these strikes.
The Foreign Ministry has been regularly updating international organisations on the crimes against civilians perpetrated by the Vladimir Zelensky regime. On December 15, 2023, we submitted a document to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. It contains facts describing the criminal acts committed by the Kiev regime against civilians between 2014 and September 2023. We called on the Secretary-General to tell the public what the Secretariat and the United Nations think about this topic. They must respond to these crimes and distribute these materials as part of the UN General Assembly’s 78th Session. Russian diplomats called on the UN Secretary-General to undertake all these steps.
Using evidence gathered by Russia’s Investigative Committee, courts in the Russian Federation continue to issue verdicts against Ukrainian neo-Nazis who have committed grave crimes against civilians.
Ukrainian Armed Forces fighter Alexey Grebyonkin received a life sentence in absentia for killing several civilians in Mariupol.
Ukrainian Nazi Ernst Kudusov has been sentenced to 25 years in a maximum security prison for shooting two unarmed civilians.
Banderite Sergey Paliychuk, who ordered a strike at civilian infrastructure, has been sentenced in absentia to 28 years in a maximum security prison and placed on the international wanted list.
Investigations into crimes committed by Ukrainian neo-Nazis will continue. Nobody will escape punishment.
In the context of these atrocities committed by the Kiev regime, the European Council decided at the December 14-15 meeting to open negotiations for Ukraine’s accession to the EU. This is not Kiev’s ascent to Europe; in fact, it is the EU stooping to the level of the Nazi regime in Kiev.
Moreover, it is a Brussels’ consolation prize to Zelensky for failing to provide him with 50 billion euros. Evidence of this is a statement by President of France Emmanuel Macron, who said following the event that Brussels’ decision was a political move that had no legal force, because the EU was still very far from an enlargement that would include Ukraine. In plain words, this is a horrific and bloody charade that is claiming the lives of civilians and those whom the Kiev regime is forcibly recruiting and sending to their doom.
On December 18, 2023, Bloomberg News reported that Pentagon Comptroller Michael McCord had written to leaders of the House and Senate defence policy and appropriations committees, stating that the US Defence Department was spending its last $1.07 billion on aid to Ukraine and that its accounts would be empty by December 30. Moreover, these funds would not be transferred to Zelensky’s regime but would be used to replace the weapons and equipment taken from the US Army’s stockpiles and sent to Ukraine. Watch their hands, as the popular saying goes. Look at their machinations under the guise of helping the young Ukrainian “democracy.”
On December 15, 2023, EU Budget Commissioner Johannes Hahn told Reuters that last spring the US urged the EU to launch a long-term EUR 50 billion funding programme for Ukraine, so that the Biden administration would use it to pressure Congress into allocating additional funds for the Kiev regime. The best description of this is a thief robbing a thief. This is exactly what Brussels, Washington and London are doing.
Washington is cynically trying to shift the multibillion-dollar burden of the Ukrainian crisis it has unleashed onto the EU, forcing the Europeans to bankroll the corrupt and criminal Zelensky regime.
Forced mobilisation is ongoing in Ukraine. Videos posted online show raids organised to get holds of draft-aged people in malls and other public places. But Zelensky’s regime is not satisfied. There are also people walking in the streets who can be sent to the battlefield, according to Zelensky.
Deputy of the Verkhovna Rada Maryana Bezuglaya has recently written in the social media about planned amendments to the law on mobilisation. This can only mean more opportunities to forcibly recruit more people, everyone without exception, to the war. Such initiatives are fresh evidence that the criminal regime in Kiev is ready to go to any lengths and to continue fighting “until the last Ukrainian.”
We have taken note in this connection of the admissions made by former Ukrainian Ambassador to the UK Vadim Pristaiko, who told Radio Liberty that Britain might have to send its troops to Ukraine in the case of a “catastrophic development of the war.” According to Pristaiko, when Zelensky runs out of soldiers and weapons, London will have to consider sending an expeditionary force to Ukraine. Let’s clarify the situation. British soldiers have been fighting in Ukraine for a long time now. This is common knowledge. It is an open secret, as everybody knows. The UK military are training the Ukrainian army, planning subversive operations against Russia’s Black Sea Fleet and facilities in Crimea, and guarding Zelensky. It is also common knowledge that they are fighting on the battlefield.
This is the real picture of the current developments and who stood at the origins of the Ukrainian crisis, who is instigating its escalation and hindering a peaceful settlement, and who is profiting from allocations that pay for the deaths of Ukrainian citizens.
Meanwhile, a ruthless battle is underway against Ukraine’s historical legacy, sometimes using unimaginable methods. Several days ago, the Kiev city government dismantled the monument to the crew of the Tarashchanets Soviet armoured train, which stood on the site of the grave where the crew was buried during the Civil War (1917-1923).
We have pointed out on numerous occasions that everything that Zelensky’s regime is doing in Ukraine is a carbon copy of what the Third Reich, that is, Nazi Germany, did during the 1941-1943 occupation of Kiev. In particular, they demolished the Tarashchanets monument, which was restored after the war, just like they demolished the monument to Nikolai Shchors in Kiev. Unable to succeed in their counteroffensive, the Kiev neo-Nazis are now venting their impotent rage by punishing the heroes who fell a hundred years ago.
As we have said, this inhuman and anti-Christian policy of Zelensky's regime has come against the resistance of local residents. According to recent media reports, people who care for their real history prevented the authorities from demolishing a monument to a Soviet soldier in the Lvov Region.
Several days ago, we marked the 80th anniversary of the first trial of Nazis and their accomplices held in the Soviet Union on December 15-19, 1943, in liberated Kharkov. They were prosecuted for the brutal crimes they committed against innocent civilians. During the occupation of Kharkov, the Nazis killed over 26,000 Soviet citizens. The neo-Nazis in Kiev are using the same methods now, but they will be called to account like their Nazi idols.
The UN General Assembly’s approval of a Russian resolution on preventing the glorification of Nazism
On December 19, participants in a plenary meeting of the 78th UN General Assembly Session approved the customary Russian resolution “Combating glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.” In all, 118 UN member states supported this document, seen as highly important by the international community, while 49 voted against and 14 abstained. In all, 38 countries from all regions co-authored the resolution. Earlier, members of the UN General Assembly’s Third Committee approved the resolution.
The resolution condemns any actions aimed at revising the results of World War II and forgetting its lessons, including attempts to question the decisions of the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal, to equate victims with their executioners and to desecrate the memory of those killed while fighting Nazism. The document rejects attempts to glorify the Nazi movement, neo-Nazism and members of the Waffen SS organisation in any form. It condemns the creation of monuments and memorials, as well as public demonstrations, aiming to glorify the Nazi past, the Nazi movement and neo-Nazism, as well as attempts to proclaim members of the above-mentioned organisation and those who fought the Anti-Hitler Coalition, cooperated with Nazi movements and committed crimes against humanity as national heroes and members of national-liberation movements.
At the same time, the resolution expresses profound concern over increasingly frequent attempts and incidents involving the desecration or destruction of monuments honouring those who fought Nazism during World War II. Additionally, the document condemns the measures of certain states, including legislative measures, to ban symbols and emblems associated with the victory over Nazism.
Guess who could oppose all this? Of course, the very same NATO axis and the very same NATO member countries that demolish monuments to World War II (called the Great Patriotic War in Russia) heroes or approve such actions. They are now applauding Nazis implicated in killing people during World War II.
Countries of the “collective West” voted against the key Russian initiative at the UN for the second year running. Why did they do this? They strive to ensure Russia’s foreign policy isolation, and they are even ready to sacrifice ethical considerations and to sustain reputational damage for the sake of opposing Russia. Moreover, they are really infected with the germ of Nazism, specifically, neo-Nazism. In fact, this germ tended to thrive over the past few decades. To a great extent, they banked on those who did not stand trial in various countries, including Eastern Europe and the CIS region. They decided that this would become their driving force including in opposing Russia.
Former Axis members, specifically, Germany, Italy and Japan, voted against the resolution. We see this as an irresponsible step that makes us doubt the sincerity of their earlier statements about comprehending their guilt for unleashing World War II. These actions do not meet the obligations of these states regarding their commitment to the UN’s goals and principles, assumed by them while joining that world organisation.
The position of Germany, Italy and Japan, as well as some other states that fought countries of the Anti-Hitler Coalition during World War II, highlighted the premature nature of discussions and proposals on omitting clauses about hostile states from the text of the UN Charter. How can we consider an additional or expanded role for these countries in the work of the UN Security Council (these ideas were expressed with regard to Germany and Japan) if they are voting against the basic principles embodied in the UN Charter?
The results of the vote on the Russian resolution will define Russia’s subsequent position with regard to supporting states that would like to become permanent or non-permanent members of the UN Security Council, including during discussions on expanding this body, which, under Article 24 of the UN Charter, is chiefly responsible for maintaining international peace and security.
On September 22, 2022, when the UN Security Council was holding a meeting on Ukraine, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov publicly requested that the UN Secretary-General obtain a list of victims of the provocation in Bucha from Ukraine.
Despite our repeated reminders to the UN people, Spokesperson for the UN Secretary-General Stephane Dujarric went on record as saying at his October 25 briefing that he had no information as to why Kiev had failed to submit the said list of victims’ names, or about whether they were planning to send it, or what obstacles were preventing the Ukrainian side from doing this.
Journalists also asked us to answer this question. We have to play an unending game of referring them to the international organisations. What do we have to do with this? After all, this is what the Russian side publicly asked the UN Secretary-General to do at the UN Security Council meeting and personally during meetings and bilateral contacts between the Russian foreign minister and the UN Secretary-General.
A similar question was posed to UN representatives in December of this year. There is still no substantive response. They only promised to provide a comment shortly, so far as possible within the limits of their competence. They have been juggling with this phrase for 18 months.
We are surprised to learn that the UN Secretariat is attempting to interpret the direct address to the UN Secretary-General as a request for assistance in getting information from Kiev. We have no illusions as to Kiev’s readiness to expose its own fake bloodbath.
We have sent our appeal directly to the UN Secretary-General and we want to obtain answers to the questions we asked him. I think that referring our requests to the Kiev regime, from which we allegedly should expect a reply, is a game of evasion and a conscious effort on their part not to do what they must. I am speaking about the UN Secretariat.
We have provided detailed estimates concerning the outcome of the EU summit in Brussels on December 14-15. I wanted to note once again that the disastrous policy pursued by the outgoing EU government made what was once a peaceful and successful association heavily dependent on the United States and put it on the verge of European conflicts. The US military-industrial complex, the US financial and banking system, and other sectors have been pleased to profit from the EU’s militarism and its senseless economic and military support for the neo-Nazi Ukrainian regime since 2014.
Moreover, the interests and capabilities of EU member countries, plunged into an economic crisis caused by their self-isolation from Russia, are increasingly diverging, including in relation to their further sponsorship for the bankrupt Zelensky Government. Zelensky sees continuation of the conflict with Russia as his last chance to hold onto power.
The EU is growing weaker as it puts all its strength into the effort to promote Washington’s global domination. As a result, it is losing its ability to conduct an independent foreign policy and wasting its political and economic capital in the world. Its own actions are undermining security in Europe. And it is not only that the hybrid war with Russia is depleting EU arsenals and leaving national armed forces without weapons and ammunition, but also that the black market of weaponry is filled with goods smuggled from Ukraine that later surface in other regions of the world, including in the Middle East. Later, EU spokespersons would lament the developments in that region, which, in fact, had resulted from their own policies. This is an absurd logic. We have repeatedly pointed to this circumstance and explained the risks to the EU’s internal security, specifically its civil aircraft that are in danger if local criminals and extremists lay their hands on surface-to-air missile systems.
Surprisingly, the EU leaders are mesmerising themselves with plans to continue their military support for Kiev at a time when neither the overstrained EU economy and industries, nor the Kiev regime and its armed forces are able to produce the results announced by the big boys in Brussels, Kiev, Washington, and London. As is clear to everyone, it is important for the United States and NATO – and therefore for the EU as their “purse” – to drag out the hostilities in Ukraine for “as long as it takes,” that is, to continue the war to the last Ukrainian. Residents of EU countries and ordinary Ukrainians are unlikely to be willing to put up with these inhuman terms and attitudes.
On December 12, the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) issued its fourth interim report on reported violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law in Ukraine. The Office has once again released a made to order product, designed for the new stage of the Western alliance's propaganda war against Russia. The extensive range of accusations against us lacks any evidentiary basis, relying solely on the testimony of unnamed witnesses, which amounts to perjury. As expected, the main sources of ODIHR’s biased pseudo-analysis of what is happening in Ukraine are the Kiev regime, pro-Western NGOs and the media. Russian sources are quoted selectively, if at all. Notably, the report fails to acknowledge any of the factual material Russia submitted to the Office, including information from the Foreign Ministry.
This is a shameful fact in the history of the OSCE. This organisation is in the deepest crisis, and this new pseudo-report by the ODIHR proves this. ODIHR is meant to work free from political agendas, promoting the interests of all participating states; in reality, it has once again contributed to whitewashing members of the Azov and Aidar nationalist battalions.
The most surprising fact is that the ODIHR report essentially includes no complaints against the Kiev regime at all. There is no mention of the Ukrainian forces’ strikes against civilian facilities in the LPR, or in cities and towns in the Zaporozhye, Kherson, Bryansk and Belgorod regions of Russia. ODIHR remained equally silent about the cluster munitions used by the Ukrainian armed forces. None of this is included in the report; they have not seen this nor have any awareness of this.
ODIHR Director Matteo Mecacci personally presented this malicious propaganda piece to the OSCE. It is a disgrace and a stain on the already tarnished reputation of the OSCE.
I would like to remind the ODIHR Director that, in addition to the importance of upholding the principle of political impartiality in this role, his mandate was extended until September 2024 for purely technical reasons, allowing for ample time to select a more suitable candidate. Everything that has been done under his leadership proves that this was the right decision. This report, which was crafted in Washington, is another blow to the OSCE’s credibility.
As we continue to follow the developments in Moldova, we see Chisinau’s jubilation over the European Council’s decision on December 14-15 to start pre-accession talks, and it’s reminiscent of a feast at a time of the plague. The official rhetoric includes notions such as victory, triumph of freedom and independence, and Moldova’s return to the European space after it was “torn away by the Empire.” Does this mean Moldova was not in Europe before? Where was it then? Part of what continent? This is absurd. There is something else I’d like to ask the ideologists behind this campaign or anyone else making these loud declarations at Maia Sandu’s command. When Britain exited the EU, what was it? A funeral of freedom and independence? Was Britain's withdrawal from the European continent also the results of the Empire’s intrigues, the Russian Empire, apparently? Or what? Aren’t they a bit confused in Chisinau? Obsequious and eager to please the EU grantors for the “advance payment” – which is not binding for Brussels or EU members in any way, for all it’s worth – Chisinau has stepped up its anti-Russia rhetoric and activities.
On December 15, the pro-Western majority in the country’s parliament pushed through the draft of a new National Security Strategy, in which Russia is absolutely unfairly labelled ‘the most dangerous and constant source of threat <...> to the statehood, democracy and prosperity of Moldova.” That, after years of mutually beneficial cooperation, where Russia supplied resources to Moldova and offered employment to Moldovan citizens who brought home enough money to support their families, which factored in the well-being of Moldova as a country and a state. And now we are declared the most dangerous and constant source of threats?
In this context, it might be a good idea to recall that the “Empire” – the Russian Empire and then the USSR – played a crucial role in preserving Moldova’s national identity, socioeconomic, cultural and humanitarian development. During its time as part of the USSR, Moldova recovered from the post-war devastation in the shortest possible time, increased its economic capabilities and rectified its demographics. After 1945, more than 500 industrial facilities were built in the republic, and its population grew from 2.46 to 4.36 million people between 1940 and 1990. That’s a 77 percent increase. The figures speak for themselves.
Conversely, Moldova’s time apart from Russia saw a dismantling of industry, degradation of agriculture, impoverishment of the population and depopulation – all of which we observe today. These are “serious threats to the state, democracy and prosperity of the country.” And those who are responsible for severing Moldova’s ties with Russia or other countries that it benefited from, are responsible for this situation.
It is therefore no coincidence that the Moldovan public has more reservations about the decision to start pre-accession talks with the EU than the republic’s leadership. The Moldovans see what is happening and what the EU is turning into. Yes, a few decades ago Europe really seemed to be a symbol of security and prosperity. And now what? Is it an assembly point for mobilising the resources for militarisation of Europe and escalation of the situation? The people in Moldova see their country turning into a part of the European periphery, detached from Russia, which is a historically and spiritually close society. They see how their country is being drawn into conflicts instigated by Washington and London on the European continent in recent years, with the sole intention of disrupting its well-being and prosperity.
Our country has never posed a threat to the friendly Moldovan people. We remain committed to maintaining and expanding our multifaceted bilateral ties. We are confident that the people of Moldova share this attitude.
European Union adopts another package of anti-Russia sanctions
On December 19, the Foreign Ministry published a statement on its website on the response to the EU’s 12th package of anti-Russia sanctions. Questions keep coming, so I will speak more about this issue.
On December 18, the European Union, disregarding the clear and unambivalent position of the global community, which opposes unilateral restrictive measures, adopted yet another package of illegitimate anti-Russia sanctions after long discussions. I suppose they are entertaining the illusion that Brussels will be able to emerge the winner in this sanctions standoff they have been forcing on us.
In the meantime, it is becoming more and more obvious that any attempt by the EU to use its restrictions to irreparably damage the Russian economy is a hopelessly lost cause and a recipe for disaster.
Our country has not just withstood the West’s unprecedented financial and economic pressure. This involves not just sanctions and restrictions, but a trade war that Washington and London unleashed ten years ago by pitting the EU against our country. On the contrary, the Russian economy, regardless of what they planned and how they imagined it, has developed a powerful immunity to sanctions; it has become more sustainable and is developing successfully. This year, Russia’s GDP increased by 3.5 percent. The real sector of the economy is growing at a rapid pace.
At the same time, the European Union is suffering from the consequences of its own anti-Russia sanctions. It is not our choice. Not only did we oppose it and try to convince the EU and its member countries to follow a path of mutual cooperation, respectful dialogue and mutually beneficial interaction, we have also long since proved to everyone that we are a reliable supplier of resources and a dependable partner in many joint projects. In the eurozone, GDP grew by 0.6 percent this year. The European Union is falling into a recession. Several days ago, the EU’s Eurostat statistical office published fresh data about industrial production in the European Union: it has fallen by 5.5 percent over the past 12 months, and in the eurozone by 6.6 percent.
So, whose economy is falling apart at the seams? Who has damaged whose economy? Here are real figures and facts.
Sooner or later, all these Brussels officials will have to explain to their citizens why all this was done to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia and what it has led to, why it was futile and where billions of euros and dollars went. The main victim of the sanctions war waged by the US-inspired West against our country is the European Union itself. This is the way Washington deals with its European rivals: by hooking them on buying American energy commodities and weapons at huge prices, and consistently depriving them of their industrial and technological base. What is happening to the EU is the direct consequence of the political spinelessness and puppet-like behaviour of most European elites. But this is their choice. It is another story that nobody delegated this to them. I am speaking about their countries and citizens.
The way another portion of anti-Russia restrictions was agreed upon at the recent meeting of the European Council shows that the once sovereign European states (that is, some elites) no longer have the right to choose. To adopt a decision on sanctions promoted by the Washington, the EU’s majority can now simply ask opponents and those doubting to step outside.
It seems that the restructuring in the EU that is necessary for the admission of the next wave of new members led by Ukraine, has already begun, just like the necessary process of the EU’s economic convergence with candidates for membership. But in this case, it is not a case of the would-be members trying to catch up with Brussels, as it used to be, but rather the European Union is stooping down to their level of economic development. The anti-Russia restrictions that damage the European economy only augment this.
No matter how many new sanctions packages the European Union signs, adopts and develops, the obvious fact will remain that our country is consistently moving towards reaching the goals of the special military operation. And the sooner the EU accepts this as a given, the better it will be for them.
EU introduces sanctions against Russia’s Znaniye Society
Brussels has come up with a crazy idea: imposing sanctions against the Russia’s Znaniye (Knowledge) Society. It is symbolic. Just listen. The European Union has adopted sanctions against knowledge. This move truly represents the state of mind in Brussels. Knowledge is under sanctions there.
We are speaking about the nationwide educational organisation, the Znaniye Society. The papers stamped by Brussels say that this society was created by the President of the Russian Federation. It is true, this organisation was established in 2015 in accordance with the presidential executive order to promote the achievements of science and education, a healthy lifestyle, as well as to raise the young generation in the spirit of traditional values.
So, what is it that Brussels objects to? What does it dislike? That we promote knowledge and science and not antiscience and illiteracy? That we are dealing with youth issues? Is this what they do not like? Yes, it is true, unlike the West, we are trying to educate young people and not dumb them down. They do not like our traditional values; look at what these new ethics and normalities have led to.
It is amazing but famous foreign scientists, educators and artists regularly speak at Znaniye events. Maybe this is what Brussels is against? Maybe they believe that their own citizens should not get a feel for such platforms. It is much better to gather to discuss the gender reassignment of children or lowering the age when they can change their gender. It seems so.
This move does not make any sense, it has no logic or understanding and is yet another Russophobic escapade aimed at severing humanitarian ties with the Russian Federation, as they assume it will. It seems that the European bureaucracy is in fact not fighting what the President of Russia does but everything that is designed to educate, improve health, and promote personal development.
Such interference in the development of research, educational and youth cooperation clearly shows that our Western opponents (in fact, unfriendly regimes) are ready to politicise any area, be it education, culture, sports or healthcare in their desire to cancel Russia and exclude it from the global processes. I want to remind Brussels and everyone who has given in to its agenda and at the US’s behest that you do not have a monopoly on these areas. You have long since lost it and even the leading positions in these spheres. You have no right to dictate anything to anyone.
We are completely confident that the European Union’s destructive policy in these areas of international interaction will backfire, as well as all the sanctions, which, unfortunately, have hit EU residents. Judging by the number of international events held in Russia, it is obvious that the restrictions implemented against us cannot slow down the development of Russian education and science.
Situation in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict zone
Violence in Gaza continues unabated. The humanitarian disaster in the enclave has transcended all boundaries, leaving tens of thousands of Palestinians killed or wounded. According to the WHO, women and children account for 70 percent of these casualties.
Against this backdrop, on December 11, 2023, representatives of the current and new UN Security Council member states made an unofficial trip to the Rafah crossing in Egypt on the border with Gaza, at the initiative of the UAE. Russia’s Permanent Representative to the UN Vasily Nebenzya was one of the participants.
The delegation visited the crossing, a logistics centre and a hospital in Arish, Egypt, as well as a desalination plant. The delegates met with Egyptian officials, representatives from UN specialised agencies and humanitarian NGOs, and held a videoconference with staff members of an Emirati hospital in the Gaza Strip.
This trip served as an opportunity to explore humanitarian efforts to help the people of Gaza, as well as to witness the disastrous humanitarian situation inside the Palestinian enclave with its healthcare and social institutions on the brink of collapse, imminent hunger and a deteriorating social and epidemiological situation. It is telling that representatives from the United States, France and Albania decided not to take part in this visit.
Once again, we emphasise the urgent need for a ceasefire in the Gaza Strip as well as de-escalation in the West Bank. This would prevent new civilian casualties and allow Palestinians to receive all the assistance they need. We will continue working with our partners to achieve this objective.
Completing the evacuation from the Gaza Strip
On December 18, 2023, the last group of Russian evacuees from Gaza and their Palestinian family members (a total of 73 people) took a special Emercom flight from Cairo to Moscow. A mobile Foreign Ministry unit was dispatched to the Domodedovo Airport to help them pass border, migration, sanitary and epidemiological controls.
In keeping with the instructions by President Vladimir Putin, Russian diplomatic missions in Cairo, Tel Aviv and Ramallah, as well as the relevant Foreign Ministry units, the Emergencies Ministry and other agencies provided for the safe passage of almost all Russians and their family members who asked for help when leaving the conflict zone through the Rafah checkpoint into Egypt. Over 1,100 people were transferred to Russia on Emercom planes.
An Emercom response team completed its mission in Egypt and returned to Moscow as per the decision of the Russian President. We will deal with any future requests from Russians who, for various reasons, are still in the Gaza Strip on a case-by-case basis. This includes those who have authorisation to cross into Egypt at Rafah.
We are grateful to our Egyptian, Israeli, Palestinian and Qatari partners for their assistance with this evacuation effort.
Statements by IOC Vice President Juan Antonio Samaranch Salisachs on allowing Russian athletes to compete in the Paris 2024 Olympics have caught our attention. He claimed that a “painful but fair balance for the situation of Russian and Belarusian athletes” has been found.
This begs the question regarding the terms for what he called a fair balance? Can we even talk about fairness if, according to the latest IOC data, only six Russian athletes have so far been allowed to compete in the Paris Olympics? Let me remind you that team Russia included 212 athletes at the 2022 Beijing Olympics, and 336 at the 2021 Summer Olympics in Tokyo. What a perplexing development, considering that Russia is viewed as a sports superpower around the world. What guided the IOC bureaucrats in the decision-making process?
For an average European, “admission of athletes” may sound encouraging and assertive. But we must understand that all this results from the unprecedented discriminatory terms imposed by the IOC. Russian athletes must meet these conditions in order to compete in individual events as neutrals by de facto forfeiting their national identity and basically renouncing their homeland.
Where is all this fairness and balance? This has nothing to do with the Russian athletes. We proceed from the premise that sports and sporting events serve as a unique tool for developing and strengthening social ties, promoting mutually-beneficial contacts, bringing together and unifying nations. Russia has consistently championed international sports cooperation based on the principles of equality and non-discrimination so that all countries without exception benefit from equal access to sporting events. How many years has his injustice been going on? This is not just a manifestation of injustice, but an ultimate expression of injustice as a new normal.
We call on all reasonable representatives of the global sports movement to follow simple and obvious approaches. There was a time when these approaches laid the foundation for the international Olympic movement. These are the very principles I have already mentioned: they promote unity and positive creativity instead of destruction and driving people apart.
On December 18, the international community marked International Migrants Day. It was established following the adoption in 1990 of the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, which came into effect on July 1, 2003. Since then, 70 home countries of migrants, located predominantly in Asia, Africa and Latin America, have become parties to that convention. Russia joined the international consensus under UN General Assembly Resolution 55/93 of December 4, 2000, which declared International Migrants Day.
In order to improve the mechanisms of governing migration processes and optimise the overall benefits of migration, the international community drafted a universal non-binding document, the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, which the UN General Assembly adopted in 2018. Russia supported its adoption, while Hungary, Israel, Poland, the United States and the Czech Republic voted against it and 12 countries abstained.
Russia is committed to constructive cooperation on migration, which is evidenced, in part, by the fact that Russia joined the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) in April 2021. The IOM is a leading intergovernmental association on migration issues within the United Nations system. At the time of joining it, we put forth our views on the matter in great detail.
Banned broadcasting of interview with Russian Ambassador to Bulgaria
On December 16, 2023, the programming board of the Bulgarian National Radio (BNR) banned the broadcasting of a pre-recorded interview with Russian Ambassador to Bulgaria Eleonora Mitrofanova. The ambassador spoke on current issues and developments in Sofia, including the barbaric demolition of the Monument to the Soviet Army in the centre of the Bulgarian capital, an act that caused an outrage in Bulgarian society.
Eleonora Mitrofanova replied to questions from journalists. It was not a policy statement but an interview, a live conversation about the special military operation and the development of Russia, that is, issues on the current bilateral, regional and international agenda.
Another issue had to do with sanctions. Bulgaria has adopted anti-Russia sanctions too, so why not discuss this? Why can’t the ambassador of a country against which sanctions are adopted answer a Bulgarian journalist’s question about how we are dealing with these sanctions?
And what do you think happened? The decision to ban the interview, which was taken under open political pressure, has been implemented. The interview has not been broadcast. This is shameful evidence of censorship.
Local media regulators immediately started looking for reasons to justify their act of self-censorship, the lines and phrases in documents that would explain their decision to ban the recorded interview. It is an example of absolute hypocrisy of the Bulgarian political elite and the forces that are guiding them, which keep telling the world about their alleged commitment to the freedom of speech and lecturing the world, all the regions and continents, on how to promote democracy, work with journalists and grant interviews. In fact, they are removing any views that contradict the standards of Euro-Atlantic propaganda from their own information space.
I would like to say that Director General of Bulgarian National Radio Milen Mitev explained the decision to take down the interview with the Russian ambassador because it violated the standards of journalism, denying accusations of censorship. Does this mean that the interviewee must keep to the highlights adjusted to the local media standards? Does the BNR provide its guests with booklets on the high standards of the Bulgarian radio?
Attempts to smother the truth and put in question the objective historical processes, which are weakening the global domination of the West, are doomed. The panic reaction [to the Russian ambassador’s interview] shows that the Sofa authorities at least suspect this.
I would like to note that there are really independent media in Bulgaria; they uphold the principle of the plurality of opinion not only in word or during conferences but also in their daily work. Concerned Bulgarian citizens can find an objective presentation of the situation at alternative information resources.
And now, to the main point. Why was Ambassador Mitrofanova’s interview taken down? The answer is that Bulgaria’s political leadership is less popular in Bulgaria than the Russian ambassador. This is the real reason. Ambassador Mitrofanova provides facts, knows history and is not afraid to speak the truth, and she does it professionally and with respect for the Bulgarian people, the history of Bulgaria and Bulgarian people, as well as the people of Russia and our shared history.
She is respected by those whose opinion is based on facts, dates and figures rather than the propaganda guidelines which they have been force-fed for a long time. These instructions are cooked somewhere in Brussels, in NATO laboratories. This is why Mitrofanova’s interview was banned. It would not have been taken down if they didn’t fear her prestige and intelligence.
If there had been anything in her interview which they could repudiate, they would have done their best to broadcast it as a chance to ridicule her or denounce her statements as fake. They did not find anything of the kind. Mitrofanova did not utter a single word that was untrue. They were at a loss. Bulgaria’s political authorities, which profess NATO’s anti-Russia logic, saw that the interview would put them against the wall, that they had no arguments to dispute what Ambassador Mitrofanova said. That’s why they have taken the interview down. There are no other reasons.
Conclusion of the
By mid-September 1943, the Red Army managed to inflict heavy defeats on the enemy in Left Bank
The Soviet troops were tasked with eliminating Nazi fortifications on the left bank of the Dnieper, expanding the conquered bridgeheads, and subsequently carrying out an operation to liberate Right Bank
On September 26, the Soviet troops started the Lower Dnieper strategic offensive operation that was carried out by the forces of Steppe Front (later renamed 2nd Ukrainian Front) under the command of Army General Konev, the Southwestern (3rd Ukrainian) Front under Army General Malinovsky, and the Southern (4th Ukrainian) Front under Army General Tolbukhin. The offensive was carried out without preliminary preparation; the tasks of the troops, including their regrouping, were set during the ongoing battles.
In total, the Soviet side had more than one and a half million soldiers and officers, 25,000 guns and mortars, more than 1,000 tanks and self-propelled guns, and 2,000 combat aircraft. Opposing them were the 1st Tank and 8th Field Armies of Army Group South and the 6th Field Army of Army Group A consisting of more than 770,000 personnel, 8,000 guns and mortars, 800 tanks and assault guns, and 1,000 aeroplanes.
By mid-October, the enemy’s Zaporozhye bridgehead was destroyed. On October 23-25, Melitopol,
During the Lower Dnieper offensive operation, Soviet troops achieved significant successes within an
The Red Army strengthened its military success during the Dnieper-Carpathian strategic offensive operation that began on December 24, 1943 and ended with the expulsion of the enemy from
Question: What is your response to the news in the media that, according to the Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs of the Latvian Ministry of Internal Affairs, about a thousand Russian citizens living in this Baltic country who have not complied with the anti-Russia requirements of local migration legislation may be subject to deportation in the near future?
Maria Zakharova: This topic has stirred up not just the regional media, but the media worldwide. Russian citizens who have not signed up to take a language exam to renew their residence permit and who do not have close relatives – citizens or “non-citizens” of Latvia – are deprived of their residence permits and ordered to “voluntarily” leave the territory of this Baltic state.
Today, more than a thousand of our compatriots living in
Formally, this category of persons retains the right to appeal against the decision by the migration service, both pre-trial and in court. The period of stay of Russians who use this option will be automatically extended while their appeal is under consideration. In addition, it is possible to request that departure be delayed by up to one year if there are compelling reasons (health conditions, the need to care for sick relatives, or property issues). However, this does not override
According to human rights activists, Russian citizens who have not undergone “filtration procedures” have already begun to receive notifications instructing them to appear at the migration service before January 10, 2024 to receive and sign for official notices of deportation. After receiving this document, the person concerned is obliged to leave the
Of course, I will update you on the political work that will continue and on
If the ruling regime in
We will strengthen measures of influence against
I want to say this again: we do not leave our people behind. We protect people who are bullied on the grounds of their nationality.
Question: How would you comment on Moldovan Prime Minister Dorin Recean's statement that Russia's decision to simplify the process of granting Russian citizenship to Moldovan nationals is “a bid to recruit cannon fodder for its war in Ukraine?”
Maria Zakharova: They don’t understand what they are saying anymore. They have reached a logical and possibly even a mental impasse. With their own hands, they are making the lives of their citizens worse. They are doing everything so that Moldovan citizens suffer from the entire range of measures they take. They disparage their own people by denying them the right to their own national language.
When they see that other countries are helping their citizens and compatriots, they become enraged. I would say they show wild animal instincts, but I don’t want to offend animals. The Moldovan authorities' Russophobia is taking on increasingly grotesque forms.
It is interesting how the people in Chisinau who said all of that will explain to their citizens the ongoing mass distribution of Romanian citizenship to Moldovan residents.
Most people in the Republic of Moldova feel sympathy, if not love, towards Russia. They still see our country as an attractive place to study, work, get medical treatment, travel, and find opportunities for their own future. It is no coincidence that the Moldovan diaspora in Russia accounts for several hundred thousand people.
Question: Earlier this week, the United States and Finland signed a defence cooperation agreement. It provides the US with access to several military facilities in Finland and includes holding joint military exercises. Sweden and the US also signed a similar agreement: the American contingent can be deployed at 17 military bases in Sweden. What, in your opinion, is the US-led NATO trying to achieve? How can it affect the situation in the region in the future?
Maria Zakharova: Yesterday, we published a comment on these steps taken by the US and Finland and said that the Finnish Ambassador to Moscow was summoned to the Foreign Ministry. He was notified that the current Finnish authorities will bear the responsibility for turning a zone of neighbourliness in the region into a zone of possible confrontation. This was not our choice. We did everything in our power not to just make proposals but to develop neighbourly relations with Finland. Everybody understands that perfectly.
I would like to reiterate that we have warned about all of this from the very beginning. Control over the region has de facto been handed over to Washington. NATO members are actively expanding militarily into the territories of these two countries, even though Sweden is not even a member yet.
The Americans will have maximum access to military facilities in Finland and Sweden, with unlimited opportunities to use them for their own purposes. However, these purposes may conflict with the goals of Finland's residents, the population of this country, and the state's national interests. All of this is happening with impunity. The American military will face no consequences for their actions, as they can only be subject to criminal prosecution by their own authorities. There is no control over their actions in these countries.
Clearly, they are increasing their military presence in a region that was once peaceful. But who actually benefits from this? Finland? Sweden? The people who live there? Certainly not. They are being forced into a situation they do not want.
We are warning them that we will take any necessary measures to protect our national security.
Question: Given the recent developments in the Red Sea and the Suez Canal, is Russia offering our partners and shipping companies the Northern Sea Route as an alternative and safe route?
Maria Zakharova: You are correct. We are witnessing an escalation of conflict in the Gaza Strip and a worsening navigation environment in the Red Sea.
This further highlights the need to diversify international maritime routes, including by using the Northern Sea Route as the shortest route from Europe to Asia. Let's consider the statistics: out of the world's 17 major ports, 11 are located in Asia. Experts predict that India and China will account for around 40 percent of the global economy by 2040.
The Northern Sea Route is already in operation. According to the route's administration, around 1,000 permits were issued to ships to use the Northern Sea Route waters in 2022. Only 31 applications were rejected, mostly for vessels under the Russian flag.
In line with the Northern Sea Route Development federal project, the relevant Russian agencies responsible for its operation are taking necessary measures to ensure safe navigation.
As a coastal state, Russia carefully considers all aspects of the Northern Sea Route's operation and will continue to do everything possible to ensure the safety of navigation, while also protecting the fragile ecosystem of the Far North, in accordance with Russian regulatory acts related to navigation along the Northern Sea Route.
Question: Recep Tayyip Erdogan said that Türkiye was ready to revive the Istanbul process to achieve a settlement in Ukraine. Has Russia received any signals from Türkiye? To what extent is this idea viable today?
Maria Zakharova: It is not Russia that should be on the receiving end of these signals, but the country that was pressured by the United States to block any talks with Russia. We have commented on this topic many times already.
If Ankara wants to demonstrate its good will and help Ukraine move towards peace, it is free to do so. We can only welcome any initiative to this effect. The problem here is that Washington and London have not just prevented but firmly opposed any attempts by Kiev to take this path. Stopping or scaling down arms supplies, sending less money or cutting short all the funding for this bloodbath could be a way to end this escalation. We understand perfectly well what this massive, horrendous, bloody and corrupt deal called the Ukraine Conflict means for Washington and London.
Question: During her appearance on Pro TV, Maia Sandu said that she believed that Russia would make another attempt to destabilise the country next spring. Will statements of this kind help Moldova become an EU member?
Maria Zakharova: Listening to a head of state, who also holds a passport of another country, perorate about meddling in her country’s internal affairs is a very strange experience. It is quite ridiculous, to tell you the truth. This kind of a two-faced approach borders on a bipolar disorder.
We are tired of hearing groundless accusations against Russia from senior Moldovan government officials. We have been hearing them regularly. But we always respond and will keep doing so. Even the people of Moldova can see that this is becoming a chronic condition.
There are several dimensions to this anti-Russian logic adopted by the Moldovan leadership. They are seeking to throw the situation within the country off balance. The country’s pro-Western leadership does not need or want stability in Moldova’s relations with Russia.
The second point here is that there is always the option of justifying their own missteps in public administration, their inability to deliver on their campaign promises and blame what they call the “arm of Moscow,” i.e., the Kremlin for everything by coming up with more far-fetched allegations.
We can see that the approval ratings for senior government figures in Moldova have been declining. These people are trying to find a pretext or come up with a narrative to explain why this is happening.
It remains to be seen whether anti-Russian statements and Russophobic actions can help Chisinau become an EU member. All the announcements so far and President of France Emmanuel Macron’s comments after the EU summit do not amount to anything legally binding or create any obligations. This was purely a political gesture. I can once again refer to Emmanuel Macron, who said that full membership is something entirely different. If history is any guide, the negotiating process can drag on indefinitely with new requirements and recommendations surfacing along the way and without leading anywhere.
We can see that many countries have been negotiating for years on their path to a possible EU membership and have been willing to meet all the requirements, only to be rejected regardless.
Question: Today is International Human Solidarity Day. It is observed on this day at the initiative of the United Nations as a reminder to governments around the world that they must respect their commitments to international agreements. In which cases you can say that countries definitely failed to respect their commitments?
Maria Zakharova: Let me remind you that the International Human Solidarity Day was established in accordance with a UN General Assembly resolution in 2006 to promote solidarity in the fight to eradicate poverty. The resolution identified solidarity as one of the fundamental and universal values that should underlie relations between peoples in the 21st century.
Among other things, this day must serve as a reminder to governments that they must respect their commitments to international agreements. Unfortunately, this remains a matter of speculation for many. In fact, Western countries have produced the concept of a rules-based order. No one approved any of these rules, set them on paper or listed them. We have not held a single briefing without talking about the way they violate international law. Today, we dwelled extensively on this subject. Everything we said exemplifies the failure to respect commitments under this document.
Regardless of any international days or other celebrations, Russia is committed to international law. We believe that the rules-based order concept seeks to replace international law. In addition, it constitutes an attempt by the collective West to cover up its illegal practices.
Russia proceeds in its foreign and domestic policy from universally recognised principles and norms of international law and calls on all other countries to respect them.
Question: The French Le Monde published an article alleging that the leadership of the Russian Ministry of Defence is trying to rebrand its presence in Africa by changing the Wagner Group into the new Africa Corps. Can you comment on this report?
Maria Zakharova: As we have repeatedly said, no Russian law includes the concept of a private military company, corporation or a similar entity. Any country that invites or hires Russian security specialists, instructors or the like, does so as a private initiative. It would be a good idea for the Western media to remind everyone of this as well.
Question: White House spokesperson John Kirby said the United States has raised “concerns with the Israeli government” about particular incidents that have led to civilian deaths in Gaza. He also said that Israel does not have a goal “to go out and slaughter innocent people.” What is your comment on these statements?
Maria Zakharova: I would say it is a statement made by someone who has no idea whatsoever of decency, honour, humanism, law, or legality, or has lost it. Lack of conscience can be the only explanation for such statements.
Question: Can you also give an overall assessment of the US stance on Gaza, given that the US vetoed another ceasefire resolution and the US Secretary of State visited Israel with military support?
Maria Zakharova: If you are asking about our assessment of the US approach to the Gaza crisis in light of the recent veto on another Gaza ceasefire resolution and other similar moves, we can say that the US leadership, the US establishment and the decision-makers are taking an anti-Semitic approach.
Both the Israelis and the Palestinians are Semitic people. Everything the US does is directed against both Israelis and Palestinians. US policy in the region is leading to deaths on both sides, and further escalating the crisis in the Middle East. Their policy does nothing to de-escalate the situation, but only worsens it and creates more risks for the future of the region, which could lead to fatal results.
Question: The Russian Foreign Ministry has published a statement on Russia’s response to the latest package of EU sanctions. The new package includes a No Russia rule to prevent re-exports. Does Russia plan to introduce a No EU rule in response?
Maria Zakharova: If someone near you gets sick, you should help them, offer them medicine, while also taking some preventive steps to protect yourself from infection. I don't think it is a good idea to get as sick, or infected on purpose. This is a good analogy. The European Union’s Russophobiс efforts are a sign of malaise – a mental problem, which also shows in the lack of logic, morality, legality or scruples.
As you said, we have talked a lot about this today. We are perfectly aware that the reason for this is not the people in the European countries deliberately trying to make things worse for Russia and, consequently, for themselves. No. This concept comes from outside, imposed through politicians that Washington and London have placed in various European agencies and countries to sabotage relations and create crisis conditions on the European continent. We should not copy this behaviour. We must not turn into something that is alien to us, something we oppose. We do not cancel cultures, countries, or peoples. This is not what we do; this is alien to Russia as a country, a nation, a civilisation. It is alien to our culture and history. Whatever form it takes, cancel culture has no place in Russia. We are against it and we will defend ourselves in every possible way. We will oppose adverse phenomena such as nationalism. We will censure it, reject it and fight it in every possible way. We will also fight its manifestations such as segregation and other illegal actions.
We never target any country or nation through cancellation or aggression. This is an important point. At the same time, we see that, unfortunately, this essentially nationalist ideology is gaining momentum in the collective West.
I understand that in your question, you were not just referring to the No Russia slogan or meme itself. As far as I understand it, your question refers to the ban on re-exporting sensitive EU products to Russia.
It is obvious to everyone that the ban will not be limited to the current short list of goods. Brussels will seek to expand this list in the hope of undermining Russia’s mutually beneficial trade and economic ties with our friends and partners, including Türkiye. However, there is no doubt that, as before, such attempts by Brussels to control third countries’ trade ties with Russia will only lead to an increase in administrative burden on EU exporters and make them less competitive.
Question: Under a recent agreement with Finland, the Pentagon will have access to 15 military bases in that country. Could this affect Russia’s willingness to resume strategic stability talks with the United States?
Maria Zakharova: The defence cooperation agreement between Finland and the United States was commented on in a relevant material on our website. I have already given it attention today. There is nothing to add here, as I have already commented on this topic in full.
Question: Are there any plans to evacuate Russian citizens from Lebanon, including diplomatic staff, in the event of an invasion of southern Lebanon by the Israeli army? How do you assess the risks of the conflict expanding into Lebanese territory?
Maria Zakharova: As a country and as a foreign policy agency, we are doing everything in our power to prevent tension and hostilities in the region from escalating further. The situation in the border area between Israel and Lebanon is directly linked to what is happening in the Gaza Strip and other Palestinian areas. The few days of the humanitarian pause in Gaza proved that. All of this has indeed confirmed that view. During that period, there was quiet in southern Lebanon and northern Israel.
The key to stabilisation in the Lebanese-Israeli border area may be a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas and a political and humanitarian solution to the Palestinian problem based on the international legal framework for a Middle East settlement. We continue to urge on all those on whom such a choice depends toward this.
As for the security of our foreign missions staff, this is being dealt with by relevant specialists.
Question: What is your comment on the statement of the EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell, according to which Armenia and Azerbaijan joined the European Magnitsky List and then the disappearance of these countries from the list?
Maria Zakharova: We have indeed heard about some kind of “revision” by the EU officials of the statement issued on December 17, 2023, by the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on a number of third countries being added to the EU's “human rights sanctions.” In its initial version, Azerbaijan and Armenia were included in the list of third countries, but after some time they miraculously disappeared from it.
In my opinion, it would be more appropriate to address this question to the tricksters in Brussels who play fast and loose with different versions of their documents.
As for our opinion, I should like to point out that all of Brussels’ efforts to make its anti-Russian restrictions look like they comply with international legal standards by dragging third countries into its sanction measures by any means necessary is an idle, unconstructive and unpromising endeavour. Whichever way you look at it, the EU’s unilateral restrictive measures, imposed in circumvention of the UN Security Council, are a flagrant violation of international law.
The story with the appearance and then disappearance of Azerbaijan and Armenia from the list of countries supporting the EU’s “human rights sanctions” is just the most vivid example of neo-colonial thinking in the policy of Brussels and what the Western community, led by the United States under the auspices of Brussels, wants from interfering in the settlement process between the countries.
We have said that the only goal and objective there has nothing to do with the settlement and normalisation of Armenian and Azerbaijani relations and the consequences of the long, decades-long crisis. There is only a desire to once again occupy some anti-Russian “point,” to take another anti-Russian “high ground,” to consolidate once again on anti-Russian positions in the immediate vicinity of our country, to prevent anything positive, constructive and effective that was developed under the aegis or with the assistance and mediation of the Russian Federation from being carried out.
In an attempt to force our neighbours to follow its sanctions, including anti-Russian policies, the European Union is already doing everything it can, including even outright forgery. I sincerely wish everyone involved that this will be a lesson that we should be on guard against this EU and NATO double-cross.
We have seen the corresponding refutation from the capitals that they do not support the sanctions in question. I repeat once again that in any case the EU’s unilateral restrictive measures are a flagrant violation of international law.
Question: Yesterday evening, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan gave an interview to the Public Television of Armenia. Could you please comment on the statements concerning the Russian Foreign Ministry and generally on Moscow’s stance both on the negotiations on the Karabakh issue and Russia’s obligations as a CSTO ally?
Maria Zakharova: We assume that Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan will take up President Vladimir Putin’s invitation and will visit St Petersburg on December 25 and 26 to take part in the Supreme Eurasian Economic Council meeting as well as the traditional pre-New Year CIS leaders’ meeting. We could address all relevant questions there.
Our position on all aspects of the Armenian-Azerbaijani settlement process has been stated on numerous occasions and in detail by President of Russia Vladimir Putin, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, and commented on by the Presidential Executive Office as well as the Russian Foreign Ministry. I suppose you are perfectly well aware of this; I will not repeat myself.
Moscow is guided by the allied nature of our relations with Armenia; we uphold our unwavering commitment to resolving all issues that may arise in a peaceful and professional atmosphere of partnership.
Question: At the beginning, you mentioned that Sergey Lavrov will continue touring the region after leaving Morocco, and promised to expand on this. What other countries will he be visiting and when?
Maria Zakharova: I will keep you guessing.
Question: The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is expanding, having now reached the Red Sea, where Yemen’s Houthis are targeting international navigation routes. The United States plans to conduct an operation there involving ships from countries participating in this plan. What do you think needs to be done to end this conflict and prevent it from expanding in the region? I know you have just mentioned this, but maybe you could talk about it in more detail.
Maria Zakharova: That’s a powerful question, and a properly addressed one. You know why? There is absolutely no sarcasm here. Our position is consistent; we are not changing it for momentary advantage. We have indeed considered both the realities on the ground and changes as they occur, yet our position is based on principled foundations.
Speaking of principled foundations, what is this principle? It includes the interests of the people in the region and the peaceful coexistence of long-feuding nations that, sadly, have fought each other and had massive problems. We proceed from the fact that the decisions (I am talking about the plan or a global road map) are contained in international legal documents, Security Council and General Assembly resolutions, and decisions by the relevant conferences.
Much of this has been implemented, including with assistance from Quartet of international Middle East peace mediators. Regrettably, these efforts to carry out the countries and peoples’ agreements (reached primarily at the UN) and everything formalised in the binding Security Council resolutions, as well as General Assembly resolutions was blocked by the United States’ unilateral actions, which replaced international legal formulas and norms for resolving the situation in the Middle East with their dominance (as they claim). They saw it as another testing ground to implement their own vision of the situation, pushing everything and everyone aside. They pushed the quartet of moderators aside, promising things to Israel as their strategic ally and guaranteeing security, and chose to resolve issues by violating and bypassing international law, supplying weapons and funding and making constant assurances of its own “power.”
This all led to a collapse, including the realisation that one particular country, which is not part of this region, for some reason constantly assumes the moderating functions to regulate the entire course of international relations, preventing de-escalation both in the short and long terms.
One should understand – and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has mentioned this – that it is essential to develop and harness additional diplomatic tools. As you know, the Quartet did not comprise any countries in the region. Obviously, these new diplomatic tools should be expanded by adding regional players. Efforts should be made to implement everything that has been agreed on. This is the two-state solution with two states co-existing peacefully, with East Jerusalem as the capital of the Palestinian state. Everything is available to make it happen.
Regrettably, the process is hampered by Washington’s political will to impose its own view of developments in the region.
Question: Pro-Western sentiment has been picking up steam in Serbia while activists from pro-Western parties have been trying to use force to determine the outcome of the election, for example during the recent municipal and parliamentary elections. What does the Foreign Ministry think about this situation and what kind of future do you see for our relations with Serbia in this context?
Maria Zakharova: Russian observers took part in monitoring the election to the National Assembly of Serbia – the Narodna skupština, as well as the vote in the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina, Belgrade and several municipalities on December 17, 2023.
Representatives of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, the CSTO Parliamentary Assembly, Russia’s Central Election Commission, as well as Foreign Ministry experts concluded that voters expressed their will in accordance with the law and in keeping with international standards. According to preliminary data, the ruling Serbian Progressive Party won about 130 seats in the National Assembly out of a total of 250 with the voter turnout at almost 60 percent, while its main coalition partner, the Socialist Party of Serbia, won 18 another seats. All these results speak for themselves.
My second point in the context of your question is that Serbia and the Balkans in general have been subject to a Maidan-style scenario to impose the will of the West for many years now. These so-called protest rallies are nothing more than attempts to bring people into the street for purposes that have nothing to do with democracy. In some cases, we witness overt graft and attempts to fulfil the Western interests by unconstitutional means that violate domestic law. All this demonstrates that the West is intent on engineering a Maidan-style uprising in the Balkans.
Where can this lead? I believe that Ukraine offers an example, both for the people and the state, of things to avoid.
I think that the Serbs and the people of Serbia will be able to see through all these attempts. They can see what the West did to Ukraine and many other countries, and they remember very well what the West did to Serbia and the Balkans in general.
Since you raised this issue, I believe that people in any country must stand up for their sovereignty at all levels. This is what it means to be a citizen – to defend your country’s sovereignty and national interests.
Question: The Pope has approved blessings for same-sex couples. How will this affect Russia’s relations with the Vatican considering our commitment to traditional values?
Maria Zakharova: I believe that this is an internal affair for the Vatican, so you must ask them about it.
We did note, however, that the corresponding document emphasises that this does not alter the fundamental doctrine of the Catholic faith.
We do hope that this decision will not affect Russia’s relations with the Vatican in any way. We currently maintain constructive and mutually respectful ties, including in terms of our joint efforts to settle several humanitarian issues related to the Ukraine crisis.
You know our position on this matter as set forth in the Presidential Executive Order Establishing the Basic Principles of State Policy for Preserving and Strengthening Russia’s Traditional Spiritual and Moral Values. I think that everyone, including you, know this document. This matter has been addressed in our laws and regulations.
Question: Germany, as promised, began redeploying one of its tank brigades to Lithuania. According to plans, this process will take several years. What threats will it pose to Russia in the Baltic region? How will it affect Russia’s relations with Lithuania and Germany?
Maria Zakharova: German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius described the signing of this agreement as “historic.” I don’t know what he meant and what history he wanted Lithuania to recall. The analogy that suggests itself is with the period from 1930 to the late 1940s.
Germany has decided to undertake these commitments. I am referring to the plan to deploy German military equipment and manpower by 2027, provided the Lithuanians create the necessary infrastructure. These German commitments are over and above the existing NATO plans.
I would like to remind you that NATO’s German-led tactical battle group is already stationed in Lithuania. What does this mean? First, NATO coordinates a rapid build-up of its armed forces and military infrastructure on its eastern borders. Second, this is evidence of its global hypocrisy. They reproach or even accuse us of aggressive activities on NATO’s borders, but it is they that are closing in on us from the West. They are also building up armaments and armed units in the area. NATO’s aggressive intentions are self-evident as is its accumulation of a huge military potential on our borders. Third, this escalates military tensions. Russia will take the NATO countries’ intentions and actions into account in its military planning.
But what do the people of Lithuania think about all this? Do they understand what this means? They withdrew from the USSR because they wanted to be free and independent. They did not want to be treated like small change or be at someone’s beck and call. But they have ended up being an absolutely dependent nation. Their present condition is a far cry from what they were in the Soviet Union where they enjoyed equality. The USSR and its authorities went out of their way to preserve and promote Lithuania’s culture, historical heritage, industries, science, and education system. But what is their current status? They are being used, like Ukraine and many other “points” on the map in someone else’s interests. Is there anyone in the FRG who promotes, for example, science in Lithuania? Is there anyone in the FRG who thinks about educating Lithuanian children and young people for them to become well-rounded people? Is there anyone in the FRG who promotes arts and culture in Lithuania? Far from it! All they do is building up their military potential. Lithuania is being turned into a jumping-off ground for the German military.
Question: The outgoing year was rich in events and man-made and natural disasters. What were the most pleasant or unpleasant, the happiest or saddest events in diplomacy and in the ministry’s work?
Maria Zakharova: I think that the ministry staff, including in the Central Office and foreign missions, have different opinions on this matter. I will try to make it personal and also to say a few words about my impression of the overall mood based on the discussions we hold at the ministry.
To begin with, opinions differ, but I personally would like to mention the adoption of the new, extraordinary version of the Foreign Policy Concept of Russia. I will not go into detail. You read it and our comments regarding it. In my opinion, it is the event of the year for Russian diplomacy.
Another remarkable event was the second Russia-Africa summit held in St Petersburg and the decision to enlarge BRICS, the rotating chairmanship of which Russia will assume in less than two weeks, on January 1, 2024.
I will say a few words about my feelings and impressions. I am aware and have a sense of a fundamental change in our confrontation with the West. It is obvious and apparent in all spheres, including on the ground, where our men are proving the correctness of our stand with arms in hand, fighting and giving their lives to make real the Foreign Policy Concept which was adopted this year. I can feel this shift in the conduct and perseverance of the Global Majority, which we can see on international platforms, at multilateral summits and in international organisations.
We can also see this in the reporting of the biased Western media, which are grievously upset at having fallen for the trick and at what it has led to. You can see this everywhere. We can feel and sense it.
I think that Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will review the foreign policy results of the year in more detail and will present our forecasts during the traditional annual news conference. It will be held at the beginning of next year. We will notify you about the date at a later time.
Question: Happy New Year!
Maria Zakharova: Thank you, but it is too soon for that. We will meet again next week, that is, for a briefing.
Question: You have said that Jews and Palestinians are both Semitic people and that antisemitism therefore makes no sense. You have mentioned Josep Borrell, the garden and the jungle. We talked about this before on many occasions.
There are words that are used seldom, such as Zionism and Zionists. They were probably used by Soviet propaganda or in Soviet ideology more often. Maybe we should start using them again now when one nation regards other nations as a jungle, when thousands of children are being killed and nobody seems to notice this in the West?
Maria Zakharova: I think that the world should stop playing with words and using double standards.
If there are human rights, not only people of a certain ethnicity or nationality but absolutely all people must have them. Everyone must have human rights. When it comes to protecting children, we must protect all children regardless of the blood that runs in their veins.
I have said that before but not from the rostrum of the Foreign Ministry. Let me do this now.
I suggest that everyone, absolutely everyone in the world take the quickest nationalism test there is, completely free of charge, to detect the presence of nationalism and if you are immune to it or not. Ask yourself: Do you need to know the nationality of a suffering child to feel sorry for him or her? If the answer is yes, you have caught the virus.
Question: How does Russia feel about the growing US presence in the Red Sea? Does it have anything to do with President Vladimir Putin’s visit to Saudi Arabia and the UAE?
Maria Zakharova: I have already commented on this issue.
I would just add that any foreign presence should have a purpose and lead to a result. We have seen the United States increasing its presence in the region, which included attacks on countries, aggression against sovereign regional states, interference in internal affairs such as colour revolutions and arms supplies, manipulating conflicts in the region. We also see what this has led to.
Over the past few decades, America’s growing presence in the region has not contributed to the resolution of a single crisis; if anything, it has led to escalation. With each step, long-standing conflicts have flared up with renewed force. We saw the US augment its military, political, and financial presence in the region. They made grand plans involving the use of hybrid schemes to resolve long-standing crises. Unfortunately, we see where all this has led to.
A terrible crisis has been unfolding before our eyes since October 7. There is no prospect of its immediate end or at least de-escalation. It has reached a precarious balance; God forbid it spreads further.
On our end, we are trying to make every effort to prevent that from happening. Every step should be considered in terms of what it is intended to achieve. What purpose will the US presence in the region serve? Greater stability and security in the region, resolution of the crisis? Or will it end with the opposite, as always?
Question: Russian Ambassador to Switzerland Sergei Garmonin said Russia would not participate in the annual World Economic Forum meeting in Davos in 2024. What is the reason for this decision?
Maria Zakharova: The reason is that the 2024 Davos Forum organisers have once again failed to issue an invitation to Russia to participate. However, this approach on the Swiss side did not really upset us. Russia has nothing to lose from not participating in Davos. On the contrary – WEF will suffer reputational costs, while we are building our own platforms.
As a reminder, Russia hosts the St Petersburg International Economic Forum, which is an annual event. In 2023, it brought together over 17,000 participants from 130 countries (amid Russia’s isolation as proclaimed by the West). There are other formats also worth mentioning – Eastern Economic Forum, Krasnoyarsk Economic Forum, Yalta International Economic Forum, Open Innovations Forum, and Russian Energy Week.
The international RUSSIA EXPO forum and exhibition now underway at Moscow’s VDNKh is another event worth seeing.
While organising an array of international economic meetings, our country is also active in major economic forums held in countries that do not rely on segregating lines and illegal sanctions as a panacea.
We have ample opportunities to discuss key issues on the global economic agenda, investment and mutually beneficial multifaceted cooperation with our partners who are open to mutually respectful dialogue.
Question: The New Year and Christmas are approaching. The following has been reported: “German customs warned that it might confiscate Christmas presents from Russia. Even books and toys might be seized at border checkpoints. What do you think about this? Could Russia respond in kind by banning gifts from unfriendly countries by calling them the wrong kind of gifts?
Maria Zakharova: What is happening in Germany reminds me of the movie “How the Grinch Stole Christmas.” Do you remember? I get the impression that the German leaders are playing roles in the sequel – “How the Grinch Stole Christmas-2” or 3, or 5 or 23.
This is absurd, mental illness, it’s ridiculous. This is what the German government has become. The laughingstock of the whole world. I wouldn’t rule out that they like it that way. There are different kinds of perversions. This question should be addressed to the people of Germany. Do they like the way their government is behaving?
Question: The Soviet Union was a sovereign state and could effectively resist the US-led collective West. It had a sovereign economy, Gosbank (State Bank) and the right to issue its own money that was tied to its assets rather than foreign currency. In turn, the West behaved with restraint and care because Soviet nuclear missiles had flight assignments and were targeted at US cities until 1994. Was the Soviet Union dismembered before it fell into colonial dependence or did this happen after the collapse?
Maria Zakharova: I am flattered that you consider me responsible for everything that happened at that time even though I was a small child then. If you rely on my literary knowledge, it’s still an issue for scientific debate.
I really believe that such discussions should be conducted at historical or historiographical venues. The only thing I want to say is that I liked and still like many things in the organisation of the Soviet state. There were many amazing things.
VDNKh, that we talk about so much today, demonstrated genuine, real achievements rather than something fake and invented. It is great that this practice is coming to life again now.
But there is a problem here. There is one indisputable fact against the backdrop of the good, correct and necessary things that you mentioned, things that many people know from their own lives or from books and films. For all of these good things, the Soviet Union came to end. It collapsed. We should look for the ratio of who was to blame for this, why and to what extent, both inside and outside. But given that, and considering the external influence, the system was not strong enough to give an appropriate response. I do not like to recall this. It is a tragic page in history, in part, in the history of my Fatherland as well, but your question suggests this conclusion anyway.
Question: Iran and Russia are already working to finalise a bilateral treaty on strategic partnership. Can you please update us on the status of this comprehensive long-term Iranian-Russian cooperation agreement? When will the countries sign it?
Maria Zakharova: I would like to confirm that the text of the Russia-Iran treaty on comprehensive strategic partnership has been practically agreed upon. We hope this fundamental interstate document will be signed at an upcoming highest-level meeting.
This event will definitely become an important landmark in the centuries-long history of relations between our countries.
Дополнительные материалы
-
Фото
 Русский дом.mp4)