Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, March 13, 2024
- Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with SCO Secretary-General Zhang Ming
- Continuing preparations for the presidential election abroad
- Ukraine update
- 10th anniversary of Crimea’s reunification with Russia
- 80th anniversary of the liberation of Kherson during World War II
- Dismantling monument to Waffen-SS Galicia Division in Oakville, Canada
- Returning Russian minors from combat zones and their social adaptation
- Developments in Haiti
- 60th anniversary of diplomatic relations between the Russian Federation and the Republic of the Congo
- Slobodan Milosevic’s death anniversary
- Sweden’s increased activity near Russia’s borders
- Russian-Moldovan relations
- Yerevan’s decision to withdraw Russian border guards from Zvartnots Airport
- US trade war against China
- Assessing the risk of the Ukraine crisis escalating globally
- US plans for port construction in the Gaza Strip
- Prospects for a truce in the Gaza Strip
- The Pope’s call for a ceasefire in Ukraine
- Russia’s engagement in the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly
- Settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict
- Russia’s approaches to combatting Islamophobia worldwide
- Armenian leadership’s statements on the CSTO
- France’s initiative to create an alliance for potential deployment of troops to Ukraine
- Detention of a South Korean citizen in Vladivostok on suspicion of espionage
- France’s growing influence in Armenia
- Russian foreign policy
- Involvement of third countries in the Ukraine conflict
- Moldovan authorities’ response to the opening of polling stations in Transnistria
- Outcomes of the Antalya Diplomacy Forum
- Women’s participation in diplomacy
- Russian-Turkish contacts
- Potential visa-free regime between Russia and Iran
- The use of remote electronic voting in Russian presidential elections abroad
- China’s proposal for nuclear powers to abstain from first use of nuclear weapons
- The treaty of final settlement regarding Germany
Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with SCO Secretary-General Zhang Ming
On March 18, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will meet with Secretary-General of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation Zhang Ming, who will head the SCO Observer Mission for the presidential election in the
A wide range of issues related to the organisation’s activities and its development prospects are to be discussed.
In the context of upcoming events at the highest and high levels, special focus will be placed on the practical aspects of comprehensive improvement of the SCO, countering growing challenges and security threats, and promoting trade, economic, cultural and humanitarian ties.
Continuing preparations for the presidential election abroad
Today, the main focus in our domestic political life is on the upcoming election for President of the
Today we will discuss this in detail. Let me note that our foreign missions have been told to inform the Russian citizens abroad that they can take part in the election. The way and the places where this can be done are described in detail. This information is available on the websites of our foreign missions, embassies, consulates general, and permanent missions to international organisations, as well as in the official accounts of Russian foreign missions and on the personal pages of senior employees at our missions.
The election campaign is almost concluding. The work on the ground has already begun. Now I am talking about our polling stations located abroad.
The Russian Foreign Ministry Commission on Elections has done a lot of extensive work, with 288 polling stations established in 144 countries.
I would like to note separately (we see the unhealthy concern with which our enemies and their associates follow all of our official updates on this matter) that the Central Election Commission of Russia has provided information on 295 new polling stations abroad, so that there is no attempt to look for any inconsistencies or to develop conspiracy theories: seven stations at Baikonur were counted, which do not fall within the competence of the Commission of the Russian Foreign Ministry. Our commission administers 288 polling stations.
As I mentioned earlier, 29 election commissions are conducting early voting in 23 countries. As of March 12, 41,894 Russian citizens have already voted. The voting is taking place without any serious incidents. Our on-site employees are ready to help their fellow citizens upon request.
As the voting period approaches, we are recording an increasing number of attempts to interfere with the organisation and conduct of elections abroad and from abroad. I am specifically referring to unfriendly countries. They are doing all they can to prevent our citizens from exercising their civic right to vote and to influence the situation inside Russia during the current elections.
I will cite specific examples to illustrate my point. Social media has been actively disseminating information by different movements about exit polls at the polling stations. This would be acceptable, but in addition to conducting exit polls, these organisations are instructing voters how to spoil their ballots and make them invalid. Usually, exit polls are held after the voting. People anonymously state their perspectives, explain their positions and share their impressions with those around them. However, in this case these people are being told how to vote. This is an obvious attempt to interfere with our citizens’ right to freely express their will, and it is unacceptable and punishable.
In addition, as we learned recently, the Biden administration has instructed American NGOs to reduce the turnout at the March 15-17 elections. I would like to remind the US administration that on March 15-17, we will be electing the President of the Russian Federation, not the United States. You will elect your president in the same year but at a later date. These are different elections. I understand that many liberal democrats in the US are already delegating to us their powers on managing their domestic processes (judging by what they say), but these are still different electoral cycles.
With Washington’s prompting, internet resources are disseminating appeals to Russian citizens to ignore the elections. Leading American IT experts are expected to conduct cyber-attacks on the remote electronic voting system in order to undermine its ability to accurately account for a substantial number of Russian votes. I’d like to emphasise that this is the specific objective of their task.
The Latvian authorities are doing all they can to exert pressure on potential voters. They are generating a lot of information and resorting to highly inappropriate methods, including intimidation. Thus, Head of the Latvian State Police Armands Ruks said that a checkpoint will be installed at the Russian Embassy in Riga to scrutinise potential voters and assess the eligibility to reside in the country (based on a resident permit or a visa). Ruks said that any violations of the regulations will result in immediate deportation procedures. Let me reiterate: Latvia and other Baltic countries claimed to be building democracy (as they said themselves since democracy was their main motive for withdrawing from the USSR). However, they have effectively established a dictatorship of which the USSR couldn’t even dream of. Moreover, the Latvian chief policeman is discussing with his Lithuanian colleagues how to prevent Russian citizens from voting at the elections.
I wonder if the people of Latvia also believe that their fate depends on the voting of Russian citizens. Latvia has its own elections. If you don’t want your citizens to take part in them, you will have to take up this issue with international organisations. But don’t come near our citizens. They have their own rights and they will exercise them to elect the President of their country. The full-fledged voting of Russian citizens abroad will be guaranteed despite any attempts to interfere in the domestic affairs of the Russian Federation.
To obtain up-to-date information about polling stations, their addresses and working hours, please refer to the website of the Foreign Ministry and our diplomatic offices (there is a special banner on every page). I would like to draw your attention again to the official accounts of our diplomatic offices and diplomats who are authorised to provide this information on the social media, as this is their responsibility.
The Kiev regime continues to engage in terrorist activities which are impacting the election in Russia, since these acts of terrorism specifically target civilians and civilian infrastructure. The goal is to intimidate people and discourage them from voting, particularly in the regions in question.
On March 6, the Ukrainian Nazis blew up a car with a teacher from the municipal children's art centre and a member of the district election commission in Berdyansk, Zaporozhye Region. This goes beyond mere interference; it is a direct, violent attempt to disrupt the election. They will not succeed. However, we must (and we will do so) document every instance of these terrorist methods that aim to influence people’s right to express their will during the presidential election. Unfortunately, the teacher died in the incident. This was a failed attempt to intimidate the residents of Berdyansk and the Zaporozhye Region, and to prevent them from coming to the ballot station and taking part in the election of the president of Russia. Nevertheless, they will come and vote. They are determined to vote for the future of their Motherland, the country to which they have forever tied their own fate during the September 2022 referendum.
We are convinced that the residents of the regions that have reunited with Russia will not give in to the Kiev regime’s provocations. This conviction is not based on my own assumptions, but on numerous interactions with the people who said that what the Kiev regime had been doing for seven years, and then for two more years, has not broken them, and will never break them. On the contrary, it is a powerful incentive to defend their freedom, independence and sovereignty, but they will do so now within the framework of applicable democratic principles and norms. The issue at hand is the election of the President of the Russian Federation.
On March 9 and 10, the Banderites launched artillery shells into residential areas of Donetsk, targeting kindergartens, schools and public health institutions. Eleven people were injured, including three children.
On March 10 and 11, the border areas of the Kursk Region came under fire of the Ukrainian forces. Two civilians were killed and two others were gravely wounded in the villages of Kulbaki and Goncharovka.
On March 9, in the village of Rozhdestvenka, Belgorod Region, two people were killed and one was wounded by shrapnel during an attack by three Ukrainian UAVs.
According to the Defence Ministry, on the night of March 9, more than 40 Ukrainian UAVs targeting facilities in Taganrog were shot down in the skies over the Rostov Region.
The Russian law enforcement agencies are carefully documenting these atrocities, and everyone involved will be identified and brought to justice.
Based on the evidence collected by the Investigative Committee, courts continue to hand down verdicts to Ukrainian militants found guilty of grave crimes against civilians.
Electronic reconnaissance group operator Alexander Pecharsky and commander of a motor vehicle unit Sergey Georgiu were sentenced to life in prison for cruel treatment of civilians, the killing of five people and the attempted murder of two people committed by an organised group on grounds of political and ideological hatred.
On March 7, in Donetsk, Chairman of the Investigative Committee Alexander Bastrykin held a meeting of the headquarters for the investigation of crimes committed by Ukrainian formations against civilians and Russian servicemen in Russia and Ukraine to discuss the status of investigations and the outcomes of criminal trials of the crimes committed by the Kiev regime, including recruitment and mercenarism. Charges have been filed in absentia against a number of citizens of Romania, Poland, New Zealand and Norway. In all, about 700 foreign nationals are wanted. The report to Bastrykin says that after Avdeyevka had been liberated, investigators from the Investigative Committee worked with the citizens evacuated to temporary housing in the Donetsk People's Republic who reported crimes committed by Ukrainian militants and pointed out the locations of the Ukrainian forces units that shelled them.
I will say once again what the Russian leadership has said on numerous occasions: not a single Ukrainian criminal will escape punishment. They will be identified and held accountable to the full extent of the law.
The Kiev regime is overcome by Neanderthal Russophobia. It is ramping up the crackdown on those who question the policy pursued by the Kiev regime, accusing them of “betrayal” and “separatism,” among other things. It’s astonishing how cynical they get when they use the notion of “separatism” to serve their interests. Just look at how these people went about the will of the Soviet citizens, in particular, the Ukrainian SSR, who voted to preserve the Union, only to see Ukraine secede from the Soviet Union. All these political figures who advocated for Ukraine’s withdrawal from the Soviet Union later became national heroes. This is despite the fact that in the USSR the rights of ethnic minorities, their rights regarding the protection of their culture, language, and identity were not just preserved, but properly exercised. Nazism, fascism and their reincarnation (not to mention racism) were outlawed, considered immoral and condemned forever and ever.
Those who are so concerned about the problem of separatism in modern Ukraine are the heralds of neo-Nazism. They were the ones to eradicate legal dimensions of everything that is connected with preserving the languages of ethnic minorities, the culture, customs, and traditions of the people from certain subcultures and communities. It’s amazing to witness times change like that and people staying the same. How do they manage to change their assessments passing them off as their principled positions?
Those who are called “traitors” in Ukraine become victims of reprisals. The Banderites are ready to deprive people of everything simply because they are not afraid to call things what they are.
On March 10, we learned that a court in Vinnitsa found an 80-year-old pensioner guilty in absentia of supporting Moscow and sentenced her to four years in prison, with her flat and all possessions confiscated. The woman now lives outside “democratic” Ukraine with her daughter in Russia. However, this inhumane ruling not only marks a first in Ukrainian judicial practice, but may set a precedent for punitive justice in other similar cases based on political and ideological grounds.
President Macron continues to talk about sending European military personnel to Ukraine. On March 7, at a meeting with parliamentarians, he did not rule out the option of sending a French contingent if the Russian army, as was said during that meeting, advances towards Kiev or Odessa.
Clearly, no one asked from which direction the Macron troops would come. We know perfectly well what it is about. Ukraine’s allies have begun to carve up Ukraine. Statements made by Macron and other NATO politicians about sending in contingents, troops or paramilitary units to Ukraine are related to dividing (from their point of view) what remains of Ukraine. This is why they are reluctant to have Ukraine join NATO as a full-fledged member; this is why they keep dallying with this issue, making promises and failing to act.
Ukraine joining the alliance implies the recognition of its borders by all members of the organisation, at a time when not all members of the bloc are ready to recognise Ukraine’s borders. They are ready to occupy and divide Ukraine. Politicians from these countries are openly discussing it. Actually, they will now begin to morally prepare the public in NATO countries and the citizens of Ukraine for such actions.
Indeed, all of this is going on under a different guise and “under a false flag,” a tactic NATO often employs. This is another staged performance aimed at demonstrating “counteraction to Russia.” In reality, though, it is about them beginning to carve up what’s left of Ukraine.
Everyone should once again think about what will become of them if they entrust their future to NATO. It will be the same as always. I encourage those who support the idea of intervention (into Russian territory in the context of Russia) to read the history of France and Russian-French relations. These historical books depict the glorious traditions of our cooperation, such as fighting Nazism and fascism in Europe in the middle of the 20th century. There are other chapters as well that we will never forget. I would not like to put them in the spotlight in order to leave the door to cooperation open. For some reason, Paris keeps bringing up the topic of “intervention.” We remember all too well the instances when French troops engaged on the territory of our country. It was in the early 19th and early 20th century. Perhaps France would benefit from reflecting on the consequences of those actions.
We took note of what CIA Director William Burns had to say on March 11 during hearings at the US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence regarding military aid to Ukraine. The former US ambassador to Russia openly called for helping Ukraine saying it was necessary to step up assistance. He urged lawmakers to make sure this help continues in order to avoid the collapse of the Zelensky regime. According to him, the new aid package would ensure the Ukrainian forces’ ability to launch “penetrating” strikes on Crimea (i.e., civilians and civilian infrastructure) and launch an “offensive” in late 2024 that would provide Kiev with the prospect of holding talks from a more advantageous position.
This is an issue for Ukrainians to comment on, not us. There may be no such thing as a more advantageous position in a situation that America has driven the people of Ukraine into. We’re talking about Washington destroying Ukraine. It is finishing it off. It frightens me to even think about what the head of the CIA, William Burns, implies when he talks about a more “advantageous position” for Ukraine. Statements like that serve no purpose but to incite escalation of the conflict. According to US intelligence agencies, not all Ukrainians have been finished off in Ukraine. Without a doubt, this is part of the global American corruption scheme.
Meanwhile, President Zelensky is trying to plug the Ukrainian traitor hetmans. During his visit to Türkiye on March 8, he visited the Istanbul shipyards where two corvettes are being built on the Ukrainian Navy’s order. He named one of them after Hetman Ivan Mazepa and the other after Hetman Ivan Vygovsky. Apparently, he finds both of them − unscrupulous traitors of national interests − kindred spirits. There’s a saying, “As you name the boat, so shall it float.” Apparently, this is the fate Vladimir Zelensky has in mind for his navy and Ukraine.
The above goes to confirm the importance of the goals that the Russian leadership spoke about when starting the special military operation.
10th anniversary of Crimea’s reunification with Russia
We will soon celebrate what is, without exaggeration, a historic event. The Agreement of the Accession of the Republic of Crimea to the Russian Federation was signed on March 18, 2014. This was a fair and long-awaited solution for both Crimeans and all other citizens of our country.
At the referendum on March 16, 2014, the residents of Crimea made an independent and conscientious choice for themselves and their children. This was a risk because they realised what the Kiev regime had been preparing for them. It would be appropriate to recall today that 96.77 percent of all participants in the referendum voted for Crimea’s accession to Russia. The turnout was 83.1 percent of the total number of voters. In Sevastopol, the accession was supported by 96.5 percent and the turnout was 89.5 percent.
In the situation at that time, this decision required much courage. Nobody has forgotten the promise to send “friendship trains,” packed with nationalist militants, to Crimea. We also remember the numerous attempts by the Kiev authorities to make life difficult in Crimea and to punish its residents for their decision. As Russia has announced many times, the issue of Crimea’s belonging has been resolved. Our position is not subject to revision or discussion.
The politically biased character of the ongoing information campaign against our country is self-evident. The attempts to qualify the expression of the will of the Crimean people as illegal and present Russia as an “occupant” are untenable from the viewpoint of international law. Conclusions by reputable foreign legal experts and international bodies confirm this fact.
It is common knowledge that in 1992-2014, the Ukrainian authorities treated the peninsula and its residents as the last in line. Kiev practically neglected the economic development of Crimea throughout this period. Its infrastructure deteriorated, the humanitarian area was subjected to total Ukrainisation and environmental protection was barbarously ignored.
Since Crimea’s reunification with Russia, the situation has been consistently improving. The transport and utilities infrastructure has been completely rebuilt, and the Crimean Bridge was opened in 2018. The Kiev regime believed that it could not be built, technologically. Nevertheless, it has become a symbol of Crimea’s reunification with Russia. The bridge has become a reality and had to go through many trials.
The new Simferopol Aivazovsky Airport and the Tavrida motorway were built, as well as the Balaklava (Sevastopol), Tavria (Simferopol) and Saki thermal electric power stations. Large-scale construction of gas mains is underway. Practically every month a new residential area is connected to the gas supply. Housing construction is gaining momentum. Social facilities, including sports grounds, are being built at a high pace. Agriculture has received a new lease of life; winemaking is making good progress and the resort-and-tourism sector has become much stronger. All this was achieved in less than 10 years, in the midst of the extremely tough sanctions against our country and the cynical behaviour towards the Crimeans by the so-called civilised countries. The Crimeans were denied visas even for conferences on Crimea held at international venues in Western capitals. In the opinion of the collective West, everyone could speak about Crimea except the Crimeans themselves. Why? Because the democracy of the collective West is American.
The water blockade was lifted with the beginning of the special military operation. Water from the Dnieper River flows freely into the peninsula, making it possible to increase the area of arable land many times over and start reviving rice growing.
The atmosphere of interreligious accord has been reliably maintained in the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol in the past few years. It is supported by the active participation of religious associations in community life in the peninsula. The construction of the main cathedral mosque is nearing completion in Simferopol.
In these 10 years, Russia has managed to overcome a lot and resolve problems that had been piling up for decades since the collapse of the USSR. One thing is clear – we will manage to achieve even more by pooling our efforts. We don’t just believe this. We are working to make it happen.
80th anniversary of the liberation of Kherson during World War II
I would like to say a few words about another date, a date from the distant past that is vividly brought back to life today.
Eighty years ago, on March 13, 1944, the city of Kherson, a significant Soviet industrial and administrative centre, was liberated from Nazi invaders during the Bereznegovato-Snegirevskaya offensive operation. Fierce battles were waged on these Russian lands for control of the largest industrial region of the Soviet Union, which was a coveted prize for Adolf Hitler.
Kherson had been under Nazi occupation since August 19, 1941. The Nazis sought to establish their "new order" there and suppress the morale of the Soviet people through acts of terror, repression, and threats. This is a fact that remains relevant today. From the early days of the German occupation, a large number of Soviet prisoners of war were held captive in Kherson under deplorable conditions. One of the hastily constructed camps consisted of ditches crisscrossing the area, enclosed by a stone fence topped with wire. The ditches were packed with prisoners, who could only stand or sit, if they were fortunate. The prisoners received meagre sustenance, usually a mixture of bran and cold water, served once a day, if they were lucky.
Moreover, the occupying forces did not hesitate to capture children. For many years we did not remind the Germans of the atrocities committed against children under German occupation. And now, when Berlin is once again flooded with blood because of the current German authorities' criminal thoughts, I will remind you of these facts. Eighty years ago, children in Kherson were taken for their blood, not for medical research or to assess the impact of hunger, hardship, and cold on their physical well-being. No, the Nazi occupiers took their blood for the Third Reich soldiers. After liberation, containers filled with children's blood were discovered in the town of Aleshki. Over 17,000 Soviet civilians lost their lives during the years of Nazi occupation in Kherson.
The Nazi occupiers made great efforts to conceal their crimes on the occupied territories. This is evident in the directive issued by the Supreme Command of the Wehrmacht Ground Forces, which categorically prohibited the photographing of executions and ordered executions to be carried out without witnesses. It was only in 2017, after the declassification of archival documents, that the full extent of Nazi barbarism and atrocities came to light.
Nevertheless, the occupiers failed to crush the spirit of resistance among the local population. In Kherson, Soviet anti-Nazi underground organisations operated, while Soviet partisans fought valiantly in the surrounding areas, resisting the Nazis and making significant contribution towards victory. They did everything possible to ensure the victory became a reality.
Children from Karantinny Island were among the hidden centres of resistance, unknown to the general public. Members of the Kherson "young guard" may not have had a name, but their heroic actions spoke for themselves. They executed operations that would be deemed remarkable even by adult standards: draining fuel from tankers, sabotaging equipment at a captured shipyard, setting workshops and warehouses ablaze, unfurling red flags on May Day, damaging telephone lines, aiding wounded Red Army soldiers' escape from captivity, providing them with clothing, and secretly transporting them across the Dnieper.
Following the Red Army's victory in the Battle of Moscow, the kids began to type updates from Sovinformburo on a stolen typewriter and distribute leaflets that exposed German war propaganda. Sadly, their fate was tragic. The Gestapo apprehended and executed them, except for one of the 18 boys, Semyon Tyomny, who survived. He had been sent to Germany for forced labour, but managed to escape, eventually recounting the heroic actions of his fallen comrades. The 16 boys and one girl from Karantinny Island who were killed were posthumously awarded the medal For Courage. Regrettably, the story of the Kherson kids remains relatively unknown outside of the city. In the past, they were always remembered on the eve of Victory Day, but after 2014 the authorities began to miss some years. What is there to be ashamed of? These are the very children who shaped the existence of Kherson in the 20th century. Let us remember your heroes. Nonetheless, a memorial rally was held in their honour in 2021.
The liberation of Kherson during the Great Patriotic War became possible in 1944 thanks to the successful liberation of Nikopol and Krivoy Rog. With the elimination of the Nikopol bridgehead, the 4th Ukrainian Front could commence preparations for the operation to liberate Crimea and the city of Kherson.
The German occupiers had no intention of simply relinquishing control of the city. They evicted residents from their homes, plundered their belongings, and installed mines in historical buildings and other vital infrastructure. The destruction of Kherson was only prevented by the swift advance of our troops and the efforts of the partisans.
It is important to note the words of Colonel Vasily Margelov, the commander of the 49th Guards Rifle Division, who captured Kherson (later attaining iconic status as "Uncle Vasya" of the USSR Airborne Forces): "It matters not the shade of our skin or the shape of our eyes; we are all Russian in the eyes of our enemies." A profound sentiment marking the beginning of a long journey.
As a result of the battle, units of the 6th Reich Army were decimated, securing advantageous positions for a subsequent assault on Odessa.
For their contribution to the operation, 15 individuals, including Vasily Margelov and Alexander Dorofeyev, were awarded the title of Hero of the Soviet Union. All units involved in the liberation of the city were granted the designation "Kherson." On March 13, 1944, a salute of twenty artillery salvoes from 224 guns was fired in Moscow in honour of the victory. The capital hailed the heroes of the 3rd Ukrainian Front. Even today, the people of Kherson still hope for the liberation of their hometown from the clutches of Nazism, just as they did 80 years ago.
Dismantling monument to Waffen-SS Galicia Division in Oakville, Canada
The Foreign Ministry has already commented on the dismantling of the monument to the Nazi Ukrainian Waffen-SS Galicia Division in a cemetery in Oakville (Ontario, Canada) on March 8, 2024. We would like to address this story again.
The dismantling was initiated by Jewish NGOs of Canada, outraged by the blasphemous glorification of Ukrainian Nazi Yaroslav Hunka in the national parliament, who had received the ovation of Vladimir Zelensky and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on September 22, 2023. The Russian Prosecutor General's Office sent Ottawa an official request to extradite the Nazi due to the accusations of genocide of civilians during the Second World War.
We would like to believe that the removed cenotaph honouring the Nazi criminals who tortured hundreds of thousands of innocent people will be destroyed and not take a “place of honour” in one of the Canadian museums. We will keep an eye on this.
We note with regret that the Oakville mayor’s office, as well as the office of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, refused to have anything to do with the dismantling of the monument in line with the ongoing policy of supporting the criminal neo-Nazi regime of Vladimir Zelensky. But this page has already been written in history. Later, Justin Trudeau’s team will fail to be cleared of this.
We are witnessing a successful example of how society can effectively counteract official propaganda aimed at rewriting the history of the Second World War.
We hope that the work aimed at eradicating the visible Nazi presence in the country will continue, and the public will convince the authorities to remove other existing monuments to Nazi criminals from the OUN-UPA (Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists – Ukrainian Insurgent Army). For example, a monument to Roman Shukhevych and OUN-UPA fighters in Edmonton (Alberta). There is a lot to be done in this area.
Returning Russian minors from combat zones and their social adaptation
We have been hearing, seeing, and reading so much speculation alleging that Russia is doing something wrong when it comes to repatriating minors, who are Russian citizens, from combat zones and ensuring their social adaptation. Besides, has the West ever given us credit for doing anything right, to begin with? We have received many questions to this effect and I would like to answer them, as well as to keep this topic in the spotlight considering the way it resonates around the world.
A special flight operated by the Russian Aerospace Forces arrived in Moscow on March 10, 2024, carrying another group of 32 children on board. They came from camps for internally displaced persons in the northeast of the Syrian Arab Republic. Children’s Rights Commissioner for the President of the Russian Federation Maria Lvova-Belova helped organise this humanitarian operation.
The Foreign Ministry and the Russian Embassy in Damascus persist in their efforts to repatriate as quickly as possible all Russian children who found themselves in Syria due to their parents’ involvement in international terrorist activities. According to Ms Lvova-Belova, as many as 414 Russian minors have already been successfully returned to Russia from Syria alone with the help of the Children’s Rights Commissioner.
Russia’s experience is unique in terms of working with family members of foreign terrorist fighters. In particular, we have been working to evacuate Russian children from Syria, Iraq and other countries, and then taking care to ensure their rehabilitation and social re-integration.
Let me remind you that we launched the humanitarian mission to repatriate Russian children from the Middle East back in 2018. As of today, 546 Russian minors returned from temporary detention centres in Syria, Iraq, Pakistan and Türkiye.
In fact, it was in December 2018 that we embarked on an effort to return the children of our compatriots from conflict-ridden Middle Eastern countries and ensure their social adaptation. It is carried out in execution of the Presidential instructions issued on November 23, 2018, and September 1, 2020, in keeping with the corresponding Government directives and with the Presidential Children’s Rights Commissioner playing a coordinating role.
Immediately upon their arrival in the Russian Federation, children are sent to the Healthcare Ministry’s federal children’s clinical hospital for a comprehensive medical assessment.
Concluded in 2022, an agreement with the Moscow Government and its Department of Labour and Social Protection provides for the temporary placement of the returned children with childcare institutions to enable psychologists and child psychiatrists to observe them during a longer period of time for a better insight into their psychological and physiological status and its evolution in order to draft informed guidelines for specialists who will be working with these children in the regions.
Psychologists, medical professionals and members of the Children’s Rights Commissioner’s staff talk to the legal guardians of these children – most often their grandmothers and grandfathers who apply for guardianship – and advise them on accompanying the social integration of these minors, explain the risks and ways of preventing or overcoming them.
There is an ongoing performance assessment by the Presidential Children’s Rights Commissioner regarding the social adaptation of the returned children with a view to identifying the most effective ways and methods. Representatives of all the interested institutions hold interagency meetings on making these efforts even more effective.
Let me once again list all the agencies which contribute to returning Russian children from Syria. They include the Defence Ministry, members of the Russian Armed Forces Group in the Syrian Arab Republic and the National Defence Centre of the Russian Federation, the Foreign Ministry, and the Embassy in the Syrian Arab Republic, as well as the Healthcare Ministry, Nikolai Pirogov Russian Children’s Clinical Hospital, and the Healthcare Ministry’s Russian Federal Centre of Forensic Science.
We are all working together on this matter. I believe that the country must know all the people contributing to this noble, essential and important cause. We must all know their names. Most often, these people stay out of the spotlight, since we cannot show you any recordings or the children, since this could worsen their already challenging condition. There is no way our formal press releases and carefully-worded and restrained statements can convey the huge personal investment people from these agencies, regions and NGOs of our country are making to enable our young citizens to reunite with their Motherland.
The situation in Haiti is deteriorating at a shocking pace. The country is facing the danger of a fragmentation of statehood. The root cause of the crisis is more than a century of destructive interference in Haiti’s internal affairs, above all, by the United States, which used direct intervention and political engineering manipulation, including the baneful practice of forcing residents to adhere to political models that were detached from local realities. These models included, in particular, installing puppets, who did not have public support, in full disregard of the Haitians’ national interests.
I believe that the crisis in Haiti could have happened in Cuba, Venezuela, many African and Asian countries and in the post-Soviet states if they had failed to stand up in defence of their sovereignty. There were numerous instances when the candidates Washington liked were chosen, because they pandered to its wishes contrary to national interests. That candidate was backed and was declared the official leader of the country in question, even though that person didn’t take part in elections or any other democratic procedures. I believe that everyone who is interested in international relations should fix their eyes on Haiti.
Its chronic crisis has acquired a regional dimension. It is not only harming Haitians but also people in the neighbouring Dominican Republic and South and Central American countries, where Haitian refugees are fleeing. We maintain permanent contact with our Latin American partners, who are fully aware of the weight of the problem on their people.
It is notable that the United States, which is forcing “democratic standards” on the region and the rest of the world, is not concerned about disregard for these standards in Haiti, which has no legally elected authorities and it is unclear if elections will ever be held there.
Look at that region. How many elections have been held in Venezuela? Dozens at all levels. I believe that no other country can hold elections better than Venezuela, which has honed this skill to perfection. And every time the Americans say that something did not quite fit. Of course, it is not the elections that they don’t like but their results, which reflect the national will, the choice of Venezuelans. Anyway, the number of elections held there is staggering. What about Haiti? No elections at all. Why does its patron, the United States, remain silent?
Over the past two years, the US administration allocated over $440 million for assistance to Haiti and over $100 billion for aid to Ukraine. Which of them is closer to the United States? I would say, Haiti. Why is Washington giving more aid to Ukraine then? The United States doesn’t care about either Haiti or Ukraine. The United States has interesting objectives. It has formulated them and is now working to achieve them through Ukraine.
Now that the anarchy in that Caribbean country has reached a peak, the United States is once again rushing to force a solution on the Haitian people. At the same time, in a typical effort to avoid responsibility for the problems it created in the first place, Washington has proposed using proxies, the Caribbean and African countries that are supposed to form police contingents to solve these problems. The story is strange, tragic and revealing.
The steps that have been taken so far look like emergency actions to establish at least rudimentary order. These include the high-level meeting of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) on Haiti, held in Jamaica on March 11, which urged Acting Prime Minister Ariel Henry to step down and called for the establishment of a transitional Presidential Council. The situation in the country and the lives of the people there have been horrible for years.
We must ask ourselves why Haiti has been a source of destabilisation in the region for over 30 years. Who stands to gain from anarchy and chaos there? Who is the main beneficiary of the drug traffic running via Haiti and the uncontrollable situation with small arms flooding the country?
I would like to remind you that according to the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, firearms are being trafficked into Haiti mostly from Florida by sea and small planes. Have you ever heard the US Congress, Senate, US NGOs, the State Department, or the Pentagon address the situation in Haiti on a regular basis? I haven’t. The international community is unlikely to form a long-term strategy for a settlement in Haiti without finding answers to these questions. But somebody must start raising these questions with the United States.
A major share of responsibility for overcoming the crisis in Haiti lies with local political forces, which must settle their differences and launch constructive interaction in the interests of saving the country.
Haiti has an impressive history. Its people know how to fight for their national identity, dignity and independence. It was the first country in Latin America and the Caribbean to break off the colonial yoke and enter the path of sovereign development. Its glorious sons, including Toussaint Louverture, went down in the global history of struggle for independence and sovereignty. We have no doubt that the Haitians will be able to solve their problems if they free their country from foreign manipulation.
Russia as a responsible member of the UN Security Council is prepared to facilitate a settlement in Haiti.
March 16 marks the 60th anniversary of establishing diplomatic relations between the Russian Federation and the Republic of the Congo (1964).
Our countries are united by long-standing close ties of friendship. The Congo is one of Russia’s important partners on the African continent. Our relations are based on the principles of mutual respect, trust and consideration of each other’s interests.
Moscow and Brazzaville maintain regular, confidential political dialogue at the highest and high levels. In July 2023, a representative delegation of the Republic of the Congo led by President Denis Sassou Nguesso visited St Petersburg to participate in the Second Russia-Africa Summit, the Economic and Humanitarian Forum, and the Main Naval Parade.
Comprehensive Russia-Congo interaction in trade, economics, and investment is successfully developing, and humanitarian cooperation is expanding. Our countries’ approaches to most issues on the international agenda coincide or are very close.
We highly value the achievements of 60 years of joint work and are committed to the further building up of multifaceted Russia-Congo ties, which certainly meets the fundamental interests of our friendly peoples and is in line with ensuring regional stability and security on the African continent.
Slobodan Milosevic’s death anniversary
Ahead of the 25th anniversary of NATO’s bombing raids on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which we will discuss separately at our upcoming briefings, we would like to remind you of another story that is inseparably linked to this tragic date.
March 11 of this year marks 18 years since the death of President of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia Slobodan Milosevic in the Hague Tribunal’s prison cell. Shortly before his death, he requested to be allowed to go to Moscow for therapy. The request was denied on the grounds that the Russian authorities had allegedly provided insufficient guarantees of his return. The Prosecution also claimed that Slobodan Milosevic was deliberately taking medicines that caused his health to deteriorate. This is a horrific story, for which the collective West has never been held accountable.
The death of the former President of Yugoslavia in the Hague dungeons is the result of the Tribunal’s gross disregard for human rights. However, it was not an isolated incident. We remember the names of dozens of Serbs who were subjected to discrimination by the kangaroo court in The Hague for one reason or another. Many of them died in prison, including Milan Babic and Zdravko Tolimir. Did you hear anything about this from the Western mainstream media? Did the US Department of State or the White House issue a comment? Did anyone express concern at all? Of course not.
The activities of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) were the starting point for the decline of international criminal justice. The Hague has trampled, and continues to trample, not only on the foundations of international law but also on the principles of humanism as such.
Russia has repeatedly pointed out the political bias and one-sided, anti-Serbian interpretation of events by the ICTY in the context of the Yugoslav crisis as it considered cases that fell within its purview. Indicatively, in its entire history, the ICTY has never prosecuted a single US or West European official who consistently worked to partition Yugoslavia and later destroyed the statehood of Libya, Iraq, and Syria. It has failed to implicate a single person or organisation involved in heinous crimes against Serbs. Nor has it initiated proceedings against anyone in Europe who was for years involved in black transplantology or any related nightmarish crime.
Answers to media questions:
Maria Zakharova: We have repeatedly expressed our concern over the extremely negative consequences of Stockholm’s decision to abandon the policy of military non-alignment. We are convinced that this will have highly negative consequences. For many years, we observed these developments in practice. Now it has become a de jure situation. However, this situation has been shaping up systematically over the past few decades. We realised from the very beginning that Sweden’s desire to join NATO would only escalate tensions in the Baltic Sea region and transform it from an area of cooperation into an area of potential confrontation.
This is exactly what is happening now. Swedish authorities cannot ignore the fact that the forces of this aggressive bloc will now use their territory (which joined NATO ranks recently) more actively for conducting anti-Russia military activities, including reconnaissance missions.
As we have repeatedly stated, we will first conduct a comprehensive analysis of all developments on the ground, and then use this analysis to provide appropriate symmetrical responses. Experts will make the final decisions on this matter.
Maria Zakharova: The collective West has fallen into the habit of making personal remarks. They have been practicing this for years – in particular, making derogatory comments, insulting, name-calling and writing nonsense in their hand-scribbled and half-baked memoirs. They are deteriorating and losing any sense of decency, intelligence or responsibility.
In this case, the Moldovan officials are just copycats. They were taught to do this or learned it themselves and began parroting again. Their Western curators have drilled them well. I agree that this sort of rhetoric is absolutely unacceptable and inappropriate. The situation being what it is, Chisinau’s overall helplessness is becoming even more apparent in the face of the real problems – not what is being imagined or caused by the West or the Moldovan leaders in power. This is obviously an attempt to use shocking bogus stories to compensate for an absence of fact-based rational arguments.
In general, turning things upside down is becoming a signature move for Chisinau. Our country has been accused of giving up diplomacy, of aggressive rhetoric, neo-imperial ambitions, and other sins.
Who is giving up diplomacy? Is it Russia, a country that, even with respect to the Minsk agreements, spent seven years getting everyone to sit down at a negotiation table and using all diplomatic resources? Is it our country giving up diplomacy while it uses diplomacy in the context of the Syrian settlement? Is it Russia, a country that has been receiving requests for assistance, including with respect to the Middle Eastern crisis? Now, about aggressive rhetoric. Whose? All we are doing is reacting to the Chisinau officials’ offensive remarks about our country, to the endless falsification of our common history, and the phony agenda.
As for the neo-imperial ambitions, they must have meant another country starting with “R.” It is certainly not Russia. I would try searching for another country in the region starting with “R” which has similar ambitions. Everything points to the fact that the incumbent officials in Moldova are the ones pursuing the neo-imperial ambitions of one of their neighbours (not Russia), blazing a path and engineering conditions for these unhealthy ambitions to bear fruit. They have renamed the Moldovan language and now call it Romanian, taking similar steps in other areas as well.
Unlike our opponents, Russia is open to mutually beneficial and equal cooperation with all countries. We have made repeated offers to Chisinau to resume the bilateral dialogue they cut off, to deal with the practical issues that have piled up. The Moldovan officials are stubbornly evading this, hiding behind the mantras about Russian aggression and unwavering solidarity with the Kiev regime (hopefully, not in the context of drug use). There is no other way to explain Chisinau’s obsessive drive to cut off the ties between our peoples to the detriment of their own citizens.
The statements distorting our common history and Russia’s significant contribution to the formation and preservation of Moldovan statehood are part of the same story. Some recent attempts include claims that in 1812, Russia allegedly “cut Moldova out of the body of Europe”. These claims remind me of the cancel culture promoted in the West right now, something that happens because somebody remembered an event that took place with a person of another gender a long time ago. Absurdly enough, the biggest part of today’s Moldova was part of the Ottoman Empire in 1812 – a fact that the author of these historical recaps, Speaker of the Moldovan Parliament Igor Grosu, who is an educated historian, certainly must have known.
Here are some more facts for pseudo-historians like him. Until 1812, Bessarabia, which accounted for most of what is now Moldova, was a scarcely populated and economically underdeveloped region of the Ottoman Empire. After Bessarabia joined the Russian Empire in 1812, the region knew no wars, pillaging or political infighting for more than a century.
By the time it joined Russia, there were several schools in Bessarabia maintained by their own teachers. But as soon as 1813, a school of theology opened in Chisinau where Moldovan language classes were compulsory. In the early 1820s, primary schools opened in Chisinau, Balti, Bender, and other cities.
In 1814, the first printing company started publishing books in Moldovan, including Moldovan literacy and grammar textbooks.
From 1812 to 1856, the population in the region grew four times over, from 240,000 to 990,000 people.
Between 1814 and the early 20th century, the annual crop harvest grew 18 times over.
Bessarabia became one of the biggest winemaking regions in Russia. By the end of the 19th century, the total area of vineyards was ten times larger than it had been at the beginning of the century.
In the second half of the 19th century, agricultural revenues increased from 3.7 million to 40 million rubles, or more than ten-fold.
Independent Moldovan experts like to make ironic remarks to the effect that today, the only thing increasing at such a rate is Moldova’s foreign debt, as a result of Western countries injecting loans into Moldova without restraint, the loans that are used to buy outdated NATO equipment.
The officials in Chisinau urge us to respect Moldova’s right to choose which part of the world to join. Our respect for this right is manifested in acts rather than words. On our part, we call for the republic’s leadership to genuinely respect the rights and freedoms of the Moldovan people, and not to take away their own sovereignty and language. If the Russophobic officials in Moldova take them away, they will turn their country into the periphery of the European continent. It is not Russia’s doing. We are ready for mutually beneficial cooperation. But the steps being taken by the current leaders in Chisinau are causing direct harm to Moldova and its citizens.
Maria Zakharova: We have seen the statement by the Armenian leadership to this effect. As far as we can tell, they used the corresponding agency-to-agency channels to send a notification on this matter. We have not received anything via diplomatic channels, which leads us to assume that all the decisions will result from these agency-level exchanges.
On a preliminary note, we can say that a series of unfriendly steps and statements by officials in Yerevan serve as a backdrop for this statement by Armenia. This initiative hardly serves the security interests of Armenia and its people, especially considering the mission Russian and Armenian border guards have been effectively carrying out for many years now.
Maria Zakharova: There have been so many strange things happening in the United States in recent days and years. Could it be that their concern with Chinese port cranes stems from the fact that they stand high above the horizon and can be used to spot something from a long distance, which in turn could somehow infringe upon Washington’s security? It seems that we have heard it all.
This demonstrates that the United States leadership and establishment are suffering from a persecution complex. They keep getting this idea that someone is trying to attack or is attacking American democracy and they keep complaining about various people around the world. They have these visions that everyone is intent and focused on interfering in their election and upending what they view as well-oiled domestic politics. I believe that what we have here can actually be described as a persecution complex. There is no other way of describing this attitude considering how much American leaders talk about these phobias.
We have seen the comments by our colleagues from the Chinese Foreign Ministry. They had every reason to point out that these statements by US officials lacked any conclusive evidence. This is how it always works. Russia was accused of carrying out hacking attacks and even of literally electing the president of the United States. Anyone whom the United States views as undesirable or a competitor faces allegations like this. They labelled Cuba a sponsor of terrorism, which led to an outburst of Homeric laughter around the world. Everyone knows what Cubans are like – hard to imagine what kind of terrorists they are sponsoring. The Americans have labels for any country, corporation, business sector, economy or technology and they are quick to apply these labels when searching for an enemy or trying to use imaginary intrigues by their foes to justify their own shortcomings.
All we can do is advise our would-be colleagues in the United States not to judge others by themselves and refrain from throwing around groundless accusations of illegal intelligence gathering and pretended national security threats.
The United States and NATO countries are on a permanent quest to expose spies around the world. They keep demanding that diplomats be expelled and actually get them expelled. In the meantime, they keep evading a simple question: how many American intelligence operatives, spies, and members of special services are working around the world using foreign missions as a cover, or as journalists or NGOs? Why won’t they talk about it? The United States has a formidable worldwide spy network, and everyone knows this. Let them tell us where these people are stationed and what kind of port cranes they use, and what structures cover up their intelligence work.
The UK, France and Germany are their closest NATO allies. But they keep an eye on everyone, as we learned a couple of years ago regarding Germany. Let them tell us how many German, British, French, Italian and Spanish intelligence operatives, spies and agents are working hand in hand with them or against them abroad. Or will they tell us that they do not have a single intelligence officer or spy?
Moreover, if practice is any guide, Washington can rely on a wide range of tools for playing dirty tricks on its economic rivals, and China knows this better than anyone else. We cannot rule out that the sole purpose of all this hysteria is to create a formal pretext for imposing politically tainted non-market restrictions against Chinese manufacturers. But banning Chinese port cranes in the United States and the West would be ridiculous. This would make meme of the year, or maybe of the entire decade.
Maria Zakharova: I would like to return you to reality. This conflict has been underway for more than a year or two; it began earlier than 2022. We are talking about the situation around Ukraine and the trade war the NATO countries, primarily the United States, are waging against Russia. I just said, in answering a question from a Chinese journalist, that they are doing the same with China. In other words, this is not so much about the risks of confrontation but the risks of an open or “hot” phase in the conflict. I doubt anyone would describe the current situation as normal in terms of stability, safety or predictability. The only predictable element is the continuing aggressive statements in the West. Moreover, it would be reasonable to hold an honest discussion in the Western community (NATO or other institutions), even if behind closed doors. Are they ready to do what a certain part of the Western political, military-political and economic elite are pushing them towards? I believe that this discussion should be held without delay, because statements by President of France Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and officials in the United States, Britain and other countries are, first, aggressive and, second, are indicative of the lack of unity between these states. What could this lead to? This could lead to involving countries that don’t need escalation into the conflict and even to an open phase of the conflict on a global scale. For historical reasons, the Western, and mostly the Anglo-Saxon countries, have always been the best at such provocative activities.
Everything you mentioned is a good example of Washington and its NATO allies moving ever further on the path of escalating the Ukrainian crisis. Their goal is not the well-being of Ukraine, which is nothing other than a tool, but chaos and a possibility to resolve their economic problems, redistribute available economic and financial flows, and rake in dirty money not so much from their defence industries as from open corruption. They want to postpone the inevitable collapse of the ideology of unipolarity or the philosophy of Western domination, and to prevent or delay the rise of a multipolar and polycentric world. They have many different goals.
They are deliberately upping the stakes, disregarding the consequences for Ukraine and the whole of Europe and the world. They are pouring gas on the flames of the conflict in an effort to bring “strategic defeat” to Russia. However, we know that this is only part of their real goals and objectives.
We have made hundreds of comments on the subjects you mentioned, just as on the other steps taken by NATO countries to aggravate the situation in Ukraine. The collective West is walking on the brink of a precipice. I would even say that it is doing its best to push the world towards the precipice. The radical ideas planted by some Western politicians, like the latest statements by President of France Emmanuel Macron, are not just evidence of the so-called allies’ widely different vectors and ideas; they are shocking and a reason for the other members of the alliance to refute such plans or at least to deny responsibility and to emphasise their non-involvement or non-complicity in such narratives, because ill-considered provocative actions by one or two EU or NATO countries could take the Ukrainian crisis beyond its geographic boundaries, increase its scale, and allow the situation to go out of control. This provocation could be staged to pull together a coalition of unwilling partners, considering the different stands of the alliance members on the future of everything – Europe, the world, and the situation in Ukraine.
This is how the question should be put: what can be done to avoid the risks of continuing escalation? Not the risks themselves or how we view them, but ways to avoid them. The risks are obvious and frightening to all pragmatic people. How can this be done? The answer is both simple and complex. It is also a test for all those who claim to be committed to global stability and prosperity.
It is necessary to stop supporting Zelensky’s regime, sending weapons to him and allocating any amount of funding for his terrorist plans. Stop giving Ukraine weapons that are killing civilians and targeting civilian infrastructure. Stop planning to deliver a strategic defeat to anyone and waging the war to the last Ukrainian. Have mercy on Ukraine. Nothing describes this horrible story better than these words by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry: “You become responsible, forever, for what you have tamed.”
The West should learn to think not only about their own geopolitical ambitions but also about the legitimate interests of other countries. I know that this calls for gritting your teeth, but you will ultimately have to do this anyway, and the sooner you do it the fewer people will be injured or killed. I don’t think I need to tell you about our attitude to negotiating positions and peace initiatives. I am sure that you are fully aware of it.
Question: What is your take on the US plans to build a seaport in Gaza?
Maria Zakharova: Planted stories like this one turn up virtually every day. I don’t think it’s necessary to even comment on them. If you want a vague answer, please address the US Department of State. Let them try to explain what is behind this information fuss.
What needs to be done right now is to stop the bloodshed and start negotiations in the Middle East that will revitalise the international legal framework. These speculations are not even trash, they are a macabre dance and an insult to a [suffering] people. Now that civilians die every day there, it is their destinies that must be discussed, not some illusory future project. They need peace more than anything. Otherwise, we all know how it will end. But the United States is reluctant to even listen to any formulas that call for a ceasefire. How can you regard initiatives to build civilian infrastructure there when they don’t want to stop the hostilities? This is why I don’t want to comment on it.
Maria Zakharova: I suggest that we speak in practical terms. If we use qualifiers like “chance,” “hope,” and “belief,” then it’s always a possibility. I believe, something else is needed for this, that is, the practical steps to implement chances, beliefs and hopes. But this requires a focus on stability and a search for peace, rather than further escalation or collective punishment for the civilians in Gaza. The main condition for this is to achieve a ceasefire and stop the extermination of the civilian population.
The chances for this would have been higher if the United States had not blocked Russia’s UN Security Council draft resolution on a humanitarian ceasefire in the wake of the October 7, 2023 tragedy. If you recall, the US delegation to the Security Council vetoed three initiatives intended to put an end to the combat operations.
Once again: the number one task in the Middle East today is to impose a truce and a ceasefire. But this is not enough as we know from the history of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. This arrangement will fail sooner or later if it lacks a negotiated framework based on international law.
A truce could at any time relapse into an armed confrontation. We have repeatedly seen this in the past. This is why the Russian Federation is for initiating right away a collective effort to create the necessary conditions for a political settlement of this protracted crisis based on the two-state principle, with Palestine and Israel coexisting in peace and security. Solutions should be found for the fundamental problems within the framework of a comprehensive diplomatic process, including those related to the status of Jerusalem and the holy sites located there. We are very concerned about the situation in that city, given the current developments related to the beginning of the holy month of Ramadan.
We are confident that attempts to resort to half-measures will only further destabilise the situation and inevitably lead to new outbursts of violence, which could easily undermine stability throughout the Middle East. The same can be said for the attempts to take the situation back to the status quo that existed before October 7, 2023. It is assumed that this would be a cure-all for every ill across the board. Unfortunately, this is not the case. What is needed are the specific steps I listed.
Maria Zakharova: We appreciate all efforts. Every day, we see more people, public figures and states making appeals for peace and proposing sincere initiatives based on an objective understanding of reality, not on falsehoods or hidden motives. We are grateful to everyone who speaks out in this vein, without harbouring any ill will, who calls for peace and negotiations and does not try to use the situation opportunistically or to manipulate the circumstances. We are grateful to everyone. We appreciate this.
In fact, people are now revealing their true natures, their true intentions. There are political leaders who advocate the establishment of real peace, and there are others who just slide into this turmoil, calling for escalation with even more disastrous consequences.
We have repeatedly heard statements by the Vatican and the Pope in favour of an early cessation of hostilities, as well as that the Vatican is ready to mediate for a peaceful resolution to the conflict in Ukraine. This is indeed an important, principled position and one that fits into the right side of history.
It is not surprising that the Pontiff’s recent call for talks amid the attempts to put together an anti-Russia coalition by the Western countries ready to send their troops to Ukraine has provoked such a loud reaction, an outcry. We have seen insults, threats, and ridicule hurled at him. But in fact, the Pontiff only voiced what many realistically-minded people knew from the start.
For a long time, we have been seeing a principled and consistent approach from the Vatican. We are grateful to everyone who is calling for peace and is ready to assume a mediating role aimed at a peaceful settlement, regardless of where they are or how they phrase their proposal.
It is to be hoped that the Pope’s words will not remain a lone voice in the wilderness and that those who call for an escalation of the conflict will reflect on the futility of their attempts to consolidate their dominance in this way or to inflict a “strategic defeat” on Russia.
I emphasise that we have repeatedly reaffirmed our stance on peace talks and the primacy of a peaceful solution to the Ukraine conflict, and have commented on it over the years.
Our country immediately responded to the Kiev regime’s proposals for peace talks and joined them at the negotiating table. It was not Russia that walked away from that negotiating table. It was the Kiev regime, which made a decision under pressure from Britain and the United States.
Maria Zakharova: Our current contribution is approximately 6 percent of the budget of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly. The specific amount is always approved with a new budget. I should emphasise that these payments were suspended in 2022 for reasons I will now spell out in more detail. The point is that the discussions on suspending the Russian parliamentary delegation from the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly stem from the obvious degradation of this platform. Some of the members have taken a Russophobic approach, with the effective connivance of the assembly’s leadership. This leads to attempts to restrict the Russian parliamentarians’ rights in violation of the principle of the sovereign equality of participating states and the assembly’s Rules of Procedure, including participation in its annual sessions, as was the case in the United Kingdom and Canada and during the autumn session in Poland.
Maria Zakharova: Judging by the available information, Qatar and Egypt have been mediating talks on a short-term ceasefire between Israel and Hamas and liberating part of the Israeli hostages in Gaza in exchange for the Palestinians imprisoned in Israel. There was a similar deal in November 2023, and back then it did have a positive effect, since not only did it bring about a temporary cessation of hostilities and helped free some of the hostages, but also provided for more humanitarian access to people in the enclave.
We have already said and can reaffirm this today: we believe that humanitarian pauses are not enough. We need to achieve a lasting ceasefire in order to engage political and diplomatic means for settling this conflict.
We have said on multiple occasions that efforts to secure lasting peace in the conflict zone would never succeed without setting a clear political horizon for the Middle East Peace Process. A lasting ceasefire would make it possible to start creating conditions for relaunching the political dialogue between the Palestinians and the Israelis with the view to coming up with a comprehensive solution to all the outstanding issues in keeping with the international legal framework we all know as defined by the resolutions of the United Nations and its Security Council. This negotiating process must pave the way to the creation of a Palestinian State within the 1967 borders with a capital in East Jerusalem, living in peace and security with Israel.
This is what we have been trying to achieve for several months now within the UN Security Council in close cooperation with our Arab partners. However, the United States is blocking all efforts to adopt a document calling for a lasting ceasefire. The US sticks to a politically charged lopsided position on this matter, which does nothing to bring the situation back to normal and makes it even less likely.
Maria Zakharova: Russia expresses its solidarity with the approaches by Muslim countries and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, which have designated Islamophobia as an unacceptable form of racism. We oppose any discrimination and persecution against Muslims for their religion, and stand for ensuring the freedom of worship by respecting not only individual, but also collective rights of the believers. We also oppose attempts to elevate the freedom of expression above other human rights, including those dealing with religion and beliefs.
In this context, we support the UN General Assembly draft resolution on measures to combat Islamophobia, initiated by the Muslim countries. Its adoption is expected to be timed to coincide with the International Day to Combat Islamophobia on March 15. It provides for respecting Islam in keeping with the principle of cultural and religious diversity, as well as creating a mandate of a UN Special Envoy to fight this form of religious intolerance. Russia co-sponsors this resolution.
Maria Zakharova: We have repeatedly commented on this. We have never and will never doubt the sovereign right of every state to determine its foreign policy, including its level of engagement in various international and regional organisations, proceeding from its national interests and commitments. This principle applies unequivocally to the CSTO.
At the same time, we cannot ignore the counterproductive, ultimatum-like and at times offensive rhetoric that currently prevails in the statements made by the Armenian leadership regarding the CSTO, and which is being imposed on Armenian society.
I would like to emphasise that the CSTO unites countries, states, and peoples who worked, over many decades, to create not just the organisation but the security arrangement that ensured peace and stability across a vast territorial expanse. This endeavour was rather challenging given the historical context of the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the subsequent formation of independent statehoods, and the emergence of new international security challenges and threats. I consider it unacceptable to disparage the efforts of the multitude of people that yielded evident results over an extended period of time.
Frankly speaking, it is perplexing to see the insistent attempts by some Armenian leaders to discuss the effectiveness of the CSTO outside the organisation, while the CSTO has all the necessary mechanisms, formats, methods and established cooperation channels for such discussions. But Yerevan officials prefer avoiding a substantive expert dialogue within the CSTO framework. That said, the organisation itself is open and ready for such discussions that can be very effective and based on mutual respect.
CSTO Secretary-General Imangali Tasmagambetov recently confirmed this during an interview with TASS, and his predecessors also demonstrated a positive approach and the effectiveness of relevant efforts.
Regarding the claims against the CSTO, it is worth noting that many of the risks faced by Armenia today could be alleviated if the country’s leadership agreed to host a CSTO’s monitoring mission on its territory. Instead of implementing specific assistance measures offered by the CSTO, the Armenian leadership has opted for alternative methods. Initially, there was some verbal gymnastics about who abandoned whom, suggesting that the CSTO abandoned Armenia. Initial accusations were followed by insults and indignities in a manner so unusual for Armenian society. Subsequently, the Armenian leadership decided to invite a mission from the European Union, which, under the guise of monitoring, focuses more on collecting intelligence against neighbouring Azerbaijan, Iran and Russia, rather than protecting Armenia’s borders.
We are very much aware of the pressure exerted on our Armenian partners by the Western countries, who seek to destabilise the region and use it as a foothold to confront Russia. However, Armenia’s current foreign policy approach can lead to irreparable damage to our allied relations, pose significant risks to the sovereignty of the republic, ultimately destroy the existing effective security mechanisms, and impede the country’s progressive socio-economic development. This is the opinion of the expert community. It is not merely a political assessment but the opinion of experts who have dedicated years to studying and analysing these issues.
Regarding Russia’s stance, we highly value our bonds with the fraternal Armenian people. As reiterated previously, we remain open to trust-based, normal and mutually respectful dialogue with Yerevan on all pertinent issues, including cooperation within the CSTO.
If Yerevan prefers “megaphone” diplomacy, we will continue to comment on this, answering your questions. However, in order to engage in a mutually respectful dialogue and address all the existing problems, we need to use available tools. If the point at issue is the CSTO, we need an expert discussion within the organisation. If the matter concerns bilateral relations, we will try to resolve all pain points through bilateral channels of communication.
Maria Zakharova: President of France Emmanuel Macron’s proposal is nothing but another “soap bubble” initiative of the Élysée Palace. We do not engage with such matters.
Maria Zakharova: The Foreign Ministry is in close contact with the South Korean officials on this issue. In response to an inquiry from the Embassy of the Republic of Korea in Moscow, we are considering the possibility of allowing its consular officers to visit the detained South Korean citizen, Baek Won-soon. Considering the fact that he is suspected of espionage, any additional information regarding the investigation is strictly confidential.
Regarding the impact of this incident on bilateral relations, we have seen that Seoul has taken multiple actions that run counter to the interests of both our nations and do not contribute to the development of bilateral relations.
Countries go through difficult moments and periods from time to time. The question is whether these states are ready for a mutually respectful dialogue to address these issues. Everything depends on the countries’ commitment to finding an effective and mutually respectful solution. We always prioritise this approach.
Maria Zakharova: I have already commented on the statements made by the Armenian leadership when I answered a question from RIA Novosti.
Regarding Yerevan’s contacts with Paris, let me emphasise that any country, in this case Armenia, has the sovereign right to choose its foreign partners and determine the way it ensures its national security. We would like to reaffirm our commitment to this principle. However, it may seem that by turning to France and seeking to expand their military-technical cooperation, Yerevan fails to fully understand the true intentions of its French patrons or the risks associated with allowing France to have a greater military presence in the region.
It would be naive to believe that France is ready or capable of ensuring Armenia’s security. Had this been the case, France would have done so in countries where it was obliged to act this way. In fact, France had a responsibility to fulfil this task on the African continent, as it received funding for this purpose. However, the French mission in these countries failed, and failed miserably. This was not attributable to a lack of political coordination, but rather to the fact that France abandoned its allies and partners in places where it had its military contingents. Its military presence there was not motivated by friendship or goodwill, but by the pursuit of profit for the Republic. France abandoned these countries, leaving them to fend for themselves at a critical moment, and forcing them to urgently look for a way to replace the French to address existential security concerns.
Let us not forget that France’s peacekeeping and mediation efforts have resulted in outright debacles, as exemplified by the inglorious denouement of the French operation in the Sahara-Sahel region. Has the Armenian leadership informed its people about France’s accomplishments over the past years in its mediation efforts or when it sought to ensure security? This would be beneficial for them to know.
As for military-technical cooperation with France, Russia’s attempt to buy the Mistral ships demonstrates that the French cannot be viewed as reliable partners.
It is obvious that the French authorities prefer to hide behind false promises of solidarity and peace-loving rhetoric while pursuing their embittered geopolitical ambitions and anti-Russia policies instead of prioritising the interests of Armenia and its people. To Paris, the future of Armenia and the South Caucasus as a whole are just a tool, a token, a way to sustain its own wellbeing and save face, including against the backdrop of a hybrid war against Russia.
The French presence in the South Caucasus can be viewed as an attempt to gather intelligence and keep an eye on the countries in the region, while also preventing peace agreements between countries there from materialising. They don’t even attempt to conceal it. If peace and security were truly their objectives, France would have done everything to ensure that the agreements between Armenia and Azerbaijan reached in 2021, which were mediated by Russia, were successfully implemented. However, they chose to move in the opposite direction.
Maria Zakharova: The Foreign Ministry plays a crucial role in coordinating and implementing foreign policy under the guidance of the President. In the context of the developments in the United States and elsewhere, the answer to your question is yes. This will remain the case, as it is laid out in the Foreign Policy Concept and other doctrinal documents. To reiterate, the President's foreign policy decisions involve the coordinating role of the Foreign Ministry and the participation of numerous ministries and agencies.
Maria Zakharova: I don’t have that data. I will try to find out. I’m not denying it. I’m just saying that I don’t possess this information at this time.
Maria Zakharova: We strongly disagree with the framing of the question. The right to vote is a fundamental human right and a cornerstone of any truly democratic society. It’s unclear how enabling this right can be seen as a violation of international law or a threat to Moldova’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
It is important to note that about 250,000 Russian citizens live in Moldova, with approximately 220,000 on the left bank of the Dniester River. Setting up polling stations on the grounds of the Russian Embassy in Chisinau alone would deprive the overwhelming majority of registered Russian voters living in Moldova of the opportunity to exercise their will which is guaranteed by the Constitution. This would constitute a significant violation of human rights and democratic norms, to which the Maia Sandu-led regime is committed, at least in its rhetoric.
As a reminder, Russia has invariably provided the Moldovan authorities with the necessary assistance in organising voting for the Moldovan citizens residing in our country, and there is ample evidence to support this. I would like to remind you that during the Moldovan presidential elections in 2020, polling stations were opened in Russia in 10 constituent entities. Strict security measures were adopted, there was no interference, and we provided full, comprehensive, and all-round assistance to Moldova for the citizens of that country to be able to take part in the elections.
I find it strange to even speculate about us not doing so or obstructing the work of diplomatic missions of Moldova or other countries in Russia. Speculating on these matters with regard to Moldova is a strange thing to assume. However, we have observed such hindrances towards Russian citizens and diplomats in Moldova under the Sandu regime.
Furthermore, if Moldova considers Transnistria as part of its territory, it raises questions about the rationale behind them trying to prevent voting there. How would voting there affect the Transnistrian settlement process? Perhaps they genuinely believe that elections in Russia will impact their countries and their regimes. We should ask them this question. We see a similar stance in the Baltic countries. I think about it is worth questioning how enabling Russian citizens in Moldova to vote poses a threat to Moldova's territorial integrity.
We hope that a rational and constructive approach will prevail in Chisinau, and that the Moldovan side will refrain from making destructive decisions and actions that run counter to democratic principles and common sense.
Maria Zakharova: Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov set forth our assessments at his March 2, 2024 news conference after taking part in the above-mentioned forum. You can read the transcript of the Minister’s remarks on our website.
We note the successful organisation of this event that attracted numerous foreign guests and proved its viability once again.
All information regarding the participation of the Russian delegation is posted on the Foreign Ministry website. I can report once again. The Russian delegation, headed by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, met with King of Eswatini Mswati III, as well as the foreign ministers of Türkiye, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Serbia and Slovakia, on the sidelines of the forum. These constructive contacts proved quite useful. We also promptly provided relevant reports on the Foreign Ministry website and its official accounts.
We are confident that, in the current political situation, this international dialogue platform, which has won a reputation for itself, is more suitable for discussing topical foreign policy issues and coordinating positions than similar events that are held as part of Western forums, including the Munich Security Conference that has turned into some kind of anti-Russia, Russophobic and even racist gathering.
Maria Zakharova: This question is more like an interview. If you don’t mind, I will answer it in the same format. I believe it would be appropriate. After I give you an exclusive answer, we will publish it on our website.
I would like to briefly mention that the Russian Foreign Ministry is a co-sponsor/co-organiser and an active participant in the St Petersburg International Women’s Forum, which was initiated by Valentina Matviyenko several years ago. It has been held in St Petersburg for years with great success, bringing together women from all over the world representing diplomacy, politics, global economy, culture and education. The issues you mentioned are high on the forum agenda. Since this issue has an international legal aspect, it would indeed be interesting to explore. Thank you for raising this initiative.
The subtleties of diplomacy through the eyes of a woman have been extensively discussed at the International Women’s Forum in St Petersburg. Today, women are indeed true experts and professionals in various areas of international relations, especially in fields related to childhood, motherhood, childbirth, healthcare issues such as obstetrics, etc. This is just one example.
There is ample research on this subject, and many political movements and parties have built their platforms around it. It is a topic that is discussed on a daily basis at the UN – it is truly boundless. I am ready to give you my answer to this question in an individual format.
Maria Zakharova: Let me find information about your second question.
As for the subjects that were discussed between the ministers, they were specified during Sergey Lavrov’s news conference and the relevant press release.
Maria Zakharova: An easier visa regime is already in effect for persons involved in scientific, cultural and creative activities, including those participating in university and other exchange programmes, under the Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran on Simplifying the Conditions for Reciprocal Travel by Certain Categories of Citizens of the Russian Federation and the Islamic Republic of Iran of November 23, 2015. Visas, including five-year multiple visas, are issued to them pursuant to a host country’s direct written invitation. There are plans to extend this agreement to other categories of citizens.
In addition, the Russian-Iranian Intergovernmental Agreement on Visa-Free Group Tourist Travel for citizens of both countries of March 28, 2017 (for groups numbering from 5 to 50 members for up to 15 days) came into effect in October 2023. We believe that this agreement will be highly relevant in the upcoming tourist season.
Regarding the introduction of a visa-free regime, we are aware of Tehran’s unilateral decision to allow visa-free entry to Iran for citizens of 33 countries. As far as Russia is concerned – our partners have specifically emphasised this in their official documents – this applies to group travel. In other words, they have reaffirmed what is already being used in practice.
Maria Zakharova: I commented on this at the start of this briefing. Let me repeat that the Central Election Commission of Russia has decided against remote e-voting for citizens abroad, given the serious threat of cyber interference by foreign countries in the Russian elections.
Maria Zakharova: First and foremost, we would like to reaffirm the shared commitment of Russia and China to further advancing bilateral relations characterised by a comprehensive and strategic partnership. This level of interaction between our nations enables us to maintain a systematic, effective, and trusting dialogue on international security matters, and to closely coordinate our approaches on a wide range of relevant issues. That said, we can assure you that Moscow and Beijing regard each other’s initiatives with not only special attention but also unwavering respect.
Regarding the specific issue at hand, the proposal set forth by our Chinese counterparts falls within the realm of ideas that need to be examined within the broader context of military-political realities and in connection with other significant factors impacting international security and strategic stability. The rationale behind such a comprehensive approach becomes evident given the ongoing deterioration of the global situation, including the steep decline in relations among the five nuclear powers, as you mentioned.
Guided by these principles, we approach the analysis and discussion of any initiatives aimed at mitigating nuclear risks, irrespective of the format they are presented in.
Our foremost commitment lies in prioritising measures designed to genuinely decrease the potential for confrontation among nuclear powers through eliminating fundamental security discrepancies.
Maria Zakharova: The Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany (also known as the Two Plus Four Treaty) was signed in Moscow on September 12, 1990, by the allies of the anti-Hitler coalition: the USSR, the United Kingdom, the US, and France, on one side, and the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic on the other side. Prior to this agreement, four rounds of negotiations were held in Bonn, Berlin, Paris, and Moscow.
The treaty guaranteed the integrity of a unified Germany’s external borders and its commitment to refrain from making territorial claims against other states. It also mandated the reduction of the Bundeswehr to 370,000 personnel, the withdrawal of Soviet troops from the German Democratic Republic, and the final dissolution of the occupation institutions of the victorious powers. As per this document, Germany renounced the initiation of warfare and the production of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. The treaty also prohibited the deployment of foreign troops on the former GDR’s territory and granted Germany formal sovereignty in both internal and external affairs.
We maintain the stance that all of Germany’s obligations listed in the treaty remain pertinent and enforceable. On our part, we are committed to closely monitoring Berlin’s adherence to the stipulated restrictions.
Дополнительные материалы
-
Фото
