Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, December 25, 2024

Plane crash in the Kazakhstani city of Aktau
Sergey Lavrov's Interview with Russian and Foreign Media
Ukrainian crisis
Maxim Grigoryev’s book The Kiev Regime’s War Crimes
NATO Security Assistance and Training for Ukraine command opens in Germany
Developments in Moldova
The seizure of the Moscow House in Riga by Latvian authorities
Foreign Ministry’s regular report on the violations of the rights of Russian citizens and compatriots in foreign countries
IAEA Director General’s statements about the Iranian nuclear programme
United States expands sanctions against Russian companies and vessels
The results of Russia’s CIS chairmanship
Russia’s BRICS chairmanship outcomes
Foreign Policy Meetings in Memory of Vitaly Churkin
Information and Press Department: Year-end review

Maja Sandu’s “confessions”
Ukraine’s ability to create nuclear weapons
The possibility of European peacekeeping forces’ deployment in Ukraine
Australian mercenary detained in the special military operation zone
The operations of RT
Washington’s role in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict
The “final decision” to the Palestinian question
Israel’s threats to other countries
Zelensky’s statements about other leaders
Meeting of the “Friends of Peace” group on the Ukraine crisis
US military assistance to Taiwan
The possibility of signing a treaty to replace the New START treaty
Contacts with President-elect Trump team
The Kiev regime’s attempts to derail negotiations
Letter to Father Frost
Russia’s views on the external actors’ participation in the division of Syria
Contacts with Trump’s new foreign policy team
The possibility of talks with Ukraine
Kiev’s reaction to Moscow-Bratislava contacts
The Azerbaijani president’s initiative on dissolving the OSCE Minsk Group
Situation around Nagorno-Karabakh
Russia’s contribution to Armenia’s school meals programme
New Year greetings to the people of Armenia
US attempts to destabilise Belarus
The Russian embassy in Syria and contacts with current political forces
Reaction to the Baltic states’ Russophobic policies
Russia-Abkhazia relations
The crisis of the UN
UNESCO’s reaction to letters regarding the safety of Russian journalists
New Year greetings

Plane crash in the Kazakhstani city of Aktau

We express profound sorrow upon receiving the news of the tragic crash involving an Azerbaijani Airlines aircraft, which was en route from Baku to Grozny, on the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Preliminary information suggests that Russian citizens were among those on board.

We extend our heartfelt condolences to the bereaved families and wish the injured a swift recovery.

The Embassy of the Russian Federation in Kazakhstan, alongside the Consulate General of the Russian Federation in Uralsk, maintains close communication with the relevant authorities of the Republic. Our diplomats have been dispatched to Aktau to verify information and to coordinate assistance for the surviving compatriots.

We remain in close contact with our agencies, as well as with those of Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan.

Sergey Lavrov's Interview with Russian and Foreign Media

On December 26, at 11 am Moscow time, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will engage in a live session answering questions from both Russian and international media on pressing foreign policy matters and the current international agenda.

I would like to highlight that this session is not a substitute for Sergey Lavrov's annual news conference, typically conducted in January (details of which will be communicated separately). This format is simply an opportunity to address numerous queries we have received and to underscore key issues as the year draws to a close.

Traditionally, the broadcast will be available on the official platforms of the Russian Foreign Ministry – on the website and across the Ministry's social media accounts, with simultaneous translation into English, French, and Spanish. We encourage you to tune in and watch. Several Russian media outlets will also air this interview on their platforms.

Incidentally, a noteworthy detail has emerged. When organising the interview, we invited various media organisations, including one from Germany, to participate. However, they did not respond immediately, citing the need to consult with Berlin (either with their editorial office or some other German "entities"). The following day, they informed us that the management of this German media outlet had prohibited its Moscow-based correspondent from participating in an interactive dialogue with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. Can you guess the reason? The justification provided was intriguing – the "Christmas agenda." It appears that this German channel, which reports on international affairs, currently has no questions regarding international relations, allegedly due to a focus on the holidays. This is despite the fact that the event, from the perspective of Catholic Christmas, falls on a post-holiday date, which need not necessarily be a non-working day. The German press, therefore, seems uninterested in obtaining first-hand news from Russian officials, effectively being blocked from doing so.

Not long ago, there was an uproar among German journalists, the Deutscher Journalisten-Verband (the professional association of German journalists), and authorities in Berlin over the withdrawal of accreditation for a German journalist. I would like to remind you that this action by the Russian side was a reciprocal measure following similar actions taken against Russian correspondents from Channel One. Typically, they turned the situation on its head, focusing not on Moscow's reciprocal actions but on Russia's supposed aggressive stance towards German journalists. Curiously, when this reciprocal measure was enacted, German officials alleged that Moscow was supposedly "obstructing the free press of Germany." How can Moscow impede German journalists when it is their own editorial offices preventing them from performing their primary duties and working within our country? Where is the freedom of the German press? Where is the independence of German journalists if they are prohibited from carrying out their work?

This situation raises a pertinent question: if an interview with the head of the foreign policy department of the accrediting country holds no significance for the German media, what role do these journalists serve in Russia at all? Against this backdrop, which may seem surprising to the uninitiated but entirely predictable to those who follow the situation, no one in Germany can justifiably accuse us of allegedly restricting the activities of German journalists in Russia.

This scenario exemplifies how a German journalist's activities in Russia were curtailed by the editorial office of a German media outlet. Whether this was a decision made independently or influenced by the German Foreign Ministry or intelligence services is for them to resolve internally. The fact remains: under the guise of the "Christmas agenda," a German journalist in Moscow was barred by their editorial office from attending a press conference with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. This is an instance of German media self-censorship, effectively barring German journalists from engaging in genuine, live, and authentic media events characterised by direct communication. This is a restriction on freedom of speech, indicating that German journalists are generally not permitted to partake in such events or to hear the truth.

Ukrainian crisis

There is another tragic anniversary date in the history of contemporary Ukraine or what is left of it after the West decided to “mess around” with it.

Twenty years ago, on December 26, 2004, the first signs of the crisis, that we are witnessing today, appeared in Ukraine. Following the orange revolution organised by the West (they gave out orange flags, vests and other symbolic items), a revote of the second round was held, and, in fact, an unconstitutional third round of presidential election.

The legal chaos in Ukraine continued in 2014, when an unconstitutional coup d’etat was arranged, and reached its peak in 2024, when a decision was made not to hold another presidential election, but to use the “expired not-president.”

When all these manipulations just began back in 2004, some of real analysts said that all of this would end poorly for Ukraine, not only because it would partially or completely lose independence, autonomy, sovereignty, or damage its bilateral relations with its neighbours, but because the results would be fatal. This is what happened. The Kiev regime has turned into a terrorist one.

As the New Year and the inauguration of Donald Trump approach, the Ukrainian Nazis have intensified their terror against the civilian population of Russia (and their own country, since that is what they call them, despite the fact that these people no longer consider themselves such). Over the past week, Russian air defence forces have shot down more than 500 drones over our regions.

On December 18, the enemy attacked the Kamensky factory in the Rostov Region with six American ATACMS operational-tactical missiles and four British Storm Shadow cruise missiles. Eight of them were shot down by air defence missile systems, one was deflected from its target and damaged the technical structure of the plant in its crash. In response, on December 20, the Russian Armed Forces hit a command post of the Ukrainian Security Service and the Luch design bureau in Kiev with long-range precision weapons.

Kiev and the West’s attempts to shift the focus of attention from its terrorist attacks to Russia’s alleged responsibility for damaging the premises of several foreign diplomatic missions in Kiev are absolutely groundless. According to the Russian Defence Ministry, problems for diplomats are created by the unprofessional use of Western air defence systems by Ukrainians. Russian missiles only hit military targets.

On December 20, the Ukrainian Armed Forces launched a massive missile attack on social facilities in Rylsk, Kursk Region, using the HIMARS MLRS. Six civilians were killed, including a 13-year-old child, and 14 people were wounded, including a pregnant woman and her 14-year-old son, as well as 17 cultural heritage sites were damaged, including three Orthodox churches: the Assumption Church built in 1811, which is one of the most revered in the region, and two 19th century monument churches: the Church of the Ascension and the Church of the Intercession.

On the same day, the Ukrainian Armed Forces repeatedly shelled and attacked Gorlovka in the DPR with UAVs, wounding at least two civilians, and five more on December 21. On December 20, HIMARS missile strikes were carried out on a busy area in the centre of Donetsk wounding one woman. On December 23, the Ukrainian Armed Forces cynically shelled the Donetsk City Hospital.

On December 21, the Ukrainian Nazis carried out a mass attack on residential buildings and civil facilities in Kazan using eight fixed-wing drones, six of which were shot down by air defence or suppressed by electronic warfare. There were no victims. This time, the terroristic nature of the attack was noted by The Daily Mail, a British newspaper, which noted its similarity to the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York. How much time should pass for the British press to begin to suspect something? There was no condemnation of the attack. The Kiev regime’s terrorist attacks are similar to what the terrorists did to New York back then, and that’s all. The terrorist nature of the Vladimir Zelensky regime is obvious to its sponsors. They know who they are transferring money to and supplying weapons to. They are accomplices to these crimes, and in many cases, direct customers.

Russian military personnel are receiving more confirmations of orders from the Ukrainian Armed Forces command to brutally treat civilians in the Kursk Region from radio intercepts.

All those involved in these and other atrocities committed by the Kiev regime will certainly be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law.

Russian courts continue to impose sentences on Ukrainian neo-Nazis and mercenaries for war crimes.

Latvian and Georgian mercenaries, Krists Antsans and Vano Sabashvili, involved in combat operations on Ukraine's side, have been sentenced in absentia to 14 years of imprisonment.

Oleg Abdyukov, a militant from the Azov neo-Nazi group, received a sentence of 24 years for firing a grenade launcher at a civilian vehicle in Mariupol in March 2022, resulting in the deaths of two civilians.

Furthermore, three Azov members, Yevgeny Lavrenko, Dmitry Klusenko, and Denis Fedirko, who launched a high-explosive fragmentation bomb at the village of Agrobaza in the DPR on March 13, 2022, were each sentenced to 24.5 years.

The Russian Investigative Committee has initiated a criminal case against Lucas Ribeiro de Jesus, a Brazilian national, on accusations of participating as a mercenary in the Ukrainian armed forces' incursion into the Kursk Region, as well as torturing and murdering two Russian servicemen.

The prosecution has sought a life sentence for Nikolay Berianidze, a Georgian citizen captured by the Russian Armed Forces, charged with participating in combat on Ukraine's behalf as a member of the Azov neo-Nazi unit and killing three Russian servicemen in Mariupol in March 2022. The detained accused remains in custody awaiting a court decision.

Criminal proceedings regarding mercenary activities on behalf of the Ukrainian armed forces have been referred to court against Lithuanian citizens Rimas Armaitis and Albertas Glazauskas, alongside Georgian citizen Avtandil Kadzhai. All three individuals are currently subject to international warrants.

Russian law enforcement agencies will persist in their efforts to ensure that Ukrainian Nazis and foreign mercenaries are held accountable for war crimes and other violations.

We observe the West striving with utmost vigour to escalate the crisis, showing no regard for those in Ukraine.

Western instigators in the conflict against Russia continue to devise strategies to further exacerbate the Ukrainian crisis. Among them is the British Secretary of State for Defence, John Healey, who, in an interview with the Times on December 18 this year, suggested that British troops could be sent to Ukraine masquerading as combat instructors. He noted that London intends to provide Ukrainian authorities with all necessary resources to “fortify” the frontline and engage in negotiations from “a position of strength, not weakness.” Reports also indicate that Britain has transferred an additional consignment of arms to Ukraine valued at $280 million.

The Biden administration is poised to announce its latest aid package for Ukraine under the Security Assistance Initiative, worth $1.2 billion, comprising air defence interceptors and artillery ammunition. However, as underscored by a US publication citing anonymous Ukrainian officials, Washington's decision to bolster support for Kiev was belated: the relinquishment of territories and NATO membership is imminent.

Simultaneously, Patrick Turner, NATO's representative in Ukraine, revealed in an interview with Interfax-Ukraine, a Ukrainian news agency, plans to bolster NATO's presence in the country by 2025, admitting that such a presence tripled in 2024 and has persisted “in one form or another” for 26 years. Patrick Turner further disclosed that the so-called new NATO assistance centre for Ukraine in security and training, headquartered in Wiesbaden, Germany, is already operational. Meanwhile, reports confirm that Germany has delivered the IRIS-T SLM missile system to Kiev.

NATO nations have long abandoned any pretence. They act openly and audaciously. The only step remaining is for them to acknowledge their overt encouragement of global terrorism. For reasons unknown, this acknowledgment remains pending, although it is widely recognised that without their intelligence, finances, and armaments, the Kiev regime would be incapable of executing terrorist operations on such a global scale. We are well aware of NATO's actions. Their true aim is apparent – to utilise Ukrainian territory as a staging ground for hybrid aggression against Russia. Consequently, they seek to redefine the global order to align with their own rules, which dictate that they are right while others are not and lack equivalent rights.

These Western and Kiev regime plans and actions were among the main reasons to initiate the special military operation.

Concurrently, Washington is entirely shifting the responsibility for Kiev's sustenance onto its European allies – the European Union, which is grappling with escalating fiscal and economic challenges. Reports suggest that NATO will assume the role of coordinating military aid deliveries to the Kiev regime, supplanting the United States in this function.

Western countries continue to use their taxpayers’ money to finance Zelensky’s gang. According to RIA Novosti, the West has allocated about $238.5 billion to the Kiev regime from February 2022 to early December 2024, and Kiev’s spending in the same period amounted to about $274.6 billion. The effect of these investments can be judged from the situation on the battlefield, where the Russian armed forces firmly hold the initiative.

Had Western experts honestly analysed the situation, they would have to admit that the weapons and money the West continue to pour into the Kiev regime are not bringing any long-term dividends for people in the Western countries but are worsening the situation in the EU countries. The regime’s combat reserves are deteriorating by the day, while its demands are growing.

So far, Brussels is planning to keep the “Ukrainian burden” on Europeans for years to come. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said at a plenary session of the European Parliament on December 18, 2024, that Brussels planned to start accession talks with Kiev next year. Why is she doing this, considering that she lives in Europe too? The answer is simple: she is doing what Washington wants. Like in the case of US COVID vaccines, which she forced the EU countries to buy although they cost a fortune, she will force them to pay for the bloodbath in Ukraine. She doesn’t care about the consequences of such actions for Europe.

Europe is being forced deeper into the trap of overspending on Kiev under the pretext of combating Russia.

There is a growing number of online reports about the use of torture in the secret prisons of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU). There is photo evidence of the beating and torture of SBU Colonel Alexander Kvitko, who collected information about the misappropriation of humanitarian aid by the Zelensky regime. It has been reported that tortures, including plastic bag choking, were used to coerce the colonel into confession, following which he was charged with treason and informing Russia about the Ukrainian plans to create a dirty bomb. As we see it, the Kiev “Gestapo” did that to cover up the fact of large-scale corruption in government agencies, which has been public knowledge for years.

Why are the human rights institutions silent? Where is the Human Rights Watch? Where are the concerned citizens from Hollywood who “care” about countries the names of which they can’t even pronounce? Where are all those who praised Zelensky and bestowed all manner of awards, medals, diplomas and commendations on him? There is documentary evidence of the above information about what is happening in Ukrainian prisons. They are more than ordinary prisons; they are the Gestapo torture chambers.

Meanwhile, there is an ongoing exodus of Ukrainian citizens from the country. They are fleeing from Ukraine to avoid falling victim to the criminal illegitimate regime. Some images are truly horrible. This is not mobilisation but the extermination of the Ukrainian population against the backdrop of concrete measures and statements about lowering the draft age in Ukraine.

Evidence of this terrible essence of the rotten Kiev junta emerges every day. The current scandal concerns the 221st Brigade of the Ukrainian armed forces, where servicemen were beaten and humiliated on a daily basis. There are regular reports about the corrupt international schemes which Washington and Kiev used to misappropriate humanitarian aid, weapons and technical assistance. Taken together, it is solid proof in favour of the special military operation and the importance of achieving its goals.

Maxim Grigoryev’s book The Kiev Regime’s War Crimes

We tend to rely on facts in our statements and quote directly from our sources every time we need to make a point. You will hardly find a briefing during which I did not use the “direct quote” collocation or failed to credit my sources. We also add hyperlinks to the transcripts of our briefings. By clicking on them, you can discover the documents and figures we refer to.

Quite often we share facts about the Kiev regime’s war crimes during our briefings. In this context, let me mention that there is a new source of information which stands out as a model in terms of collecting evidence exposing the Kiev regime for its crimes. I am talking about a book by Maxim Grigoryev and Dmitry Sablin. Titled the Kiev Regime’s War Crimes, it presents first-hand accounts of people who suffered from the Ukrainian Armed Forces, as well as evidence of crimes perpetrated by the Ukrainian neo-Nazis and their accomplices in 2023 and 2024. This is more than just a collection of documents, witness accounts and reports. The book presents a chronicle of these two years, since it contains testimonies by people who experienced these horrors and who describe what the Kiev regime has done to them in layman’s terms.

This is not the first book. In fact, it is part of a series and was preceded by Ordinary Fascism: War Crimes of the Ukrainian Security Forces (2014−2016), Ordinary Fascism: Ukrainian War Crimes and Human Rights Abuses (2017–2020), and Ukraine's Crimes Against Humanity (2022−2023).

This book presents facts about the criminal actions by the Ukrainian Armed Forces. They are horrifying: premeditated civilian killings, torture, beatings, lootings, bombing, shelling and destroying civilian sites, including hospitals and churches. And the list of the crimes committed by the Ukrainian neo-Nazis goes on and on. The International Public Tribunal collected all the evidence about these monstrous atrocities, while Maxim Grigoryev and Dmitry Sablin reported these facts in their book.

The fact that this book relies on witness accounts and testimonies by those who suffered from the armed ruffians operating under the Kiev regime’s command makes it even more valuable.

Reading about the crimes perpetrated by the Ukrainian Nazis and seeing them may be hard and daunting. But we must know about them. After all, these facts prove beyond any doubt that the decision to launch the special military operation was justified and timely, since it was designed to save people who had been facing this humiliating treatment for many years from a regime which was established with the aim of scaling up and perpetuating this harassment and efforts to cancel the culture of these people, while defying common sense and morale.

Today, Russian military personnel are there to defend civilians in the Russian regions, and to stand up for the dignity of Russian citizens and compatriots in Donbass and Novorossiya, our historical regions. They are also there to defend the truth while the world may well end up losing this truth out of its sight as it moves into a post-truth stage.

It is our common objective to do everything it takes to ensure that all who are guilty in perpetrating these crimes are held to account. These atrocities by the Kiev regime have no statute of limitations. It goes without saying that we will continue sharing information about them.

NATO Security Assistance and Training for Ukraine command opens in Germany

In July 2024, Washington hosted a NATO summit, with the participants adopting multiple decisions to ramp up support for Ukraine. For example, they decided to establish the NATO Security Assistance and Training for Ukraine (NSATU) command. Its headquarters is currently located in Wiesbaden, Germany.

The alliance announced the other day that the new command had become fully operational and was functioning accordingly. It will coordinate all Western military assistance for the Kiev regime, including weapons deliveries and training personnel for the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

It may be a paradox, but NATO continues to deny its involvement in the conflict. NSATU will operate on the territory of a NATO member country, and this allegedly means that the alliance is merely helping uphold Ukraine’s sovereignty. This is the way they explain what is going on. This was how they did explain to their people and to foreign citizens the existence of concentration camps and ghettoes on the territory of Germany, as well as the extermination of people and their resettlement on territories, reserved especially for “inferior” races. Throughout history, the Germans have been able to explain various things, and now they are explaining this aspect.

In reality, NATO is becoming more actively and deeply involved in the Ukraine conflict. The creation of special agencies providing military assistance for Ukraine means that, NATO supplies and supports not just the Armed Forces of Ukraine in this conflict, but also the essentially pro-Nazi terrorist regime. What does the German side want to explain? What are they trying to justify while opening this command? Do they think that this is not obvious, and that nobody can guess what it is? We are calling things by their proper names. A coordination centre for assisting the terrorist Kiev regime that is based on neo-Nazi concepts has opened on German territory. This is exactly how this is called.

Germany experienced a major ordeal in the 20th century. The Nuremberg International Military Tribunal obliged Germany to draw the relevant conclusions and to correct mistakes. Many Germans, especially those in East Germany, did exactly how they were told. Moreover, Germany produced an entire galaxy of outstanding anti-Nazi activists who took their homeland’s sufferings close to heart. However, not everyone chose the right side in history. Many people continued to support the Third Reich’s concepts. They were unable to raise their head in the past but now have become quite active. However, they won’t succeed.

Developments in Moldova

The Moldovan authorities, bolstered by Western patrons, persist in disregarding the neutral status of the republic as enshrined in the Constitution, transforming it into a platform for confrontation with Russia.

The trajectory for intensifying military and political collaboration with NATO is outlined in the country’s updated doctrinal documents – the National Security Strategy and the National Defence Strategy. Chisinau posits that only through the “new modern approach to neutrality and strengthening of ties with NATO” can the peace and security of the nation be maintained amidst a non-existent “Russian threat.” This, however, is hardly surprising, as this “script” is as old as the leaflets from the Second World War. It has been extensively trialled, first in Eastern European nations, then in the Baltic States, and now in Moldova. In 2025, a new individually tailored programme for the Republic’s partnership with the alliance is set to be implemented.

In May this year, Moldova became the first nation to sign a security and defence partnership with the EU, which has effectively become a NATO adjunct. Concurrently, Chisinau is broadening bilateral security cooperation with alliance members. This year alone, intergovernmental agreements in this domain have been signed or updated with France, the United Kingdom, and Romania. Such agreements have been concluded with Italy, Norway, and Sweden at the defence ministries’ level. Negotiations are underway to finalise similar agreements with Germany and Denmark.

Meanwhile, Moldova is undergoing unchecked militarisation. The once peaceful, industrious Moldova, which takes great pride in its cultural heritage, is now being frenziedly thrust not just into a war footing but into a state of self-destruction. Armoured vehicles, radars, UAVs, anti-drone systems, anti-tank grenade launchers – who are these intended for? This is merely a partial list of what has been supplied to the Moldovan armed forces this year by Western nations, including via the European Peace Facility. We read the official title and realise it might as well say the “European War Facility.” Who requires all these armaments (tanks and drones)? Those who travel to Russia to earn a living, who toil and remit money back to Moldovan citizens and their families – do they need tanks? Certainly not. They require tools for labour, education, and sustenance. They need alleviation in their lives, not an escalation towards self-destruction.

In tandem with Moldova’s rearmament, efforts are underway to convert it into a logistical hub for supplying the Ukrainian armed forces. This is the true purpose of all these activities – not for the benefit of Moldova’s citizens, but for the West and NATO. The alliance allocates significant funding to modernise Moldova’s military, transport, and logistics infrastructure. A firing range in Bulboaca and a military air force base in Marculesti are being refurbished to align with the bloc’s standards. A new military base is under construction in the village of Bacioi near Chisinau. Information is surfacing about plans to establish production facilities for Western defence corporations within the Republic, to station F-16 aircraft – transferred by the West to the Kiev regime – on Moldovan airfields, and the EU’s readiness to finance an overhaul of a segment of Moldova’s railway network as part of the “solidarity corridors” project.

The frequency of joint exercises between the Moldovan armed forces and NATO contingents is on the rise, aimed at enhancing their interoperability. This year, the Moldovan armed forces have engaged in approximately 30 military exercises and reservist training sessions, with nearly all involving NATO personnel.

In an effort to rationalise the pursuit of closer ties with the alliance, the Moldovan leadership repeatedly asserts that the country’s neutral status is supposedly insufficient to ensure its protection. They have gone so far as to claim that only NATO membership can guarantee the Republic’s security. The script is old, the phrases are rehearsed, and the tune remains unchanged.

However, this perspective is not widely held among Moldovan citizens. According to surveys, over 60 percent of Moldovans believe that neutrality is the best means of preserving military and political stability, and more than 70 percent oppose the country’s accession to NATO.

We wish to remind that at the end of 2021, Russia demanded reliable legal security guarantees, precluding NATO’s eastward expansion and the inclusion of former Soviet republics into the bloc. These demands were fully applicable to Moldova as well. It is evident that the alliance’s ambition to extend towards our borders by absorbing and utilising Ukraine–and now Moldova – remains unchanged, as does the strategy to impose a “strategic defeat” on Russia.

These plans are not fated to materialise. The West, being in the minority, will not succeed in reversing the objective trends shaping a new world order. We hope this realisation will dawn soon, particularly upon the Moldovan authorities.

The crux of the matter is that they are merely termed “Moldovan” authorities. In reality, they are de-facto Romanian, and thus entirely Western. They are not even pro-Western; they are not for Moldova, in its sovereign capacity, to opt for any EU or NATO-centric model or aspiration. The current Moldovan authorities do not regard the Republic as a sovereign entity; their objective is to integrate it into Romania and, via Romania, into NATO. Consequently, all actions undertaken are targeted at eradicating Moldovan identity, culture, language, industry, and defence sector.

As we previously stated in the last briefing, the Maia Sandu regime intends to exploit the energy crisis in the country as a pretext for a military resolution of the Transnistrian issue. They categorically hold Russia “accountable” for the cessation of gas supplies and are seriously contemplating the possibility of forcefully seizing the Moldovan regional power plant in Transnistria. This was extensively discussed by the Foreign Intelligence Service of Russia.

It is apparent that under such a scenario, the Russian peacekeeping presence in the region will be imperilled, and the residents of the Moldovan Transnistrian Republic will find themselves as hostages.

Ultimately, the aggravation of the situation could lead to dire consequences – the emergence of another hotspot of instability in Europe. Is this Maia Sandu’s vision for the country? What for? This is a question for her. Why? Because she is an agent of Western influence. But for what? If she has any regard for her country.

Conversely, how often have we seen individuals commit grave errors, only for it to emerge that these were deliberate actions against the country they professed as their homeland, were elevated to power to serve its interests, but “disappeared” and were revealed as recipients and beneficiaries of Western grants and salaries, realising themselves on platforms of international NATO-centric organisations or foundations aligned with NATO. That is, they conducted their destructive “works” and absconded to collect the “rations” promised in advance.

The seizure of the Moscow House in Riga by Latvian authorities

Our legal services are working to protect Russia’s property interests in Latvia and seek a judicial review of the hostile takeover of the Moscow House business and cultural centre in Riga. On December 23, 2024, we filed an appeal to the Constitutional Court of Latvia against the gross infringement of the seizure of Russian property on the Latvian legislation and international law.

Some might say that we are too naïve to demand that or think that Latvia’s judicial system would adopt a fair verdict. No, we are not that naïve. But we must do this to protect our rights at the international level, which calls for appealing to the relevant national institutions.

We are not only operating in the private law sphere to contest Riga’s barbaric actions. The Investigative Committee and the Prosecutor General’s Office of Russia are working on these cases as well. We have no doubt that those guilty of criminal acts (we regard the seizure of the Moscow House in Riga by the Latvian authorities without any compensation to the Russian party as a violation of fundamental property rights) will be called to account and justly punished.

The legal protection of the Moscow House will be continued in 2025 with the use of all available methods and legal mechanisms.

Foreign Ministry’s regular report on the violations of the rights of Russian citizens and compatriots in foreign countries

I would like to inform you that the Foreign Ministry’s regular report on the violations of the rights of Russian citizens and compatriots in foreign countries is available on its website.

We register numerous violations of the rights of Russian citizens and compatriots and discrimination against everything connected with the Russian world in Western countries under the pretext of the Russian Federation’s special military operation for the denazification and demilitarisation of Ukraine and the protection of Donbass civilians.

Inspired by the encouragement of the neo-Nazi Kiev regime by the collective West, Poland, the Baltics, Ukraine and several other countries are energetically waging an indefatigable war against monuments and memorials that commemorate Soviet soldiers that fell liberating Europe from Nazism. The above countries have also stepped up efforts to rewrite history and whitewash collaborators.

The champions of these Russophobic activities are the authorities of Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Ukraine. Their efforts to eliminate the Russian language in the national education systems have reached an unprecedented level and are also restricting the right of people, including citizens, to receive an education in their native language. There is also the threat of large-scale deportation of Russian speakers from the Baltic states. These patently illegitimate activities have affected thousands of people, including the elderly who have lived their whole lives and worked to the betterment of these countries. And now they are being forced to leave them.

Finland and Moldova are actively restricting Russian language education and adopting various bans in a bid to catch up with the leaders of the Russophobic movement.

International institutions are sitting on their hands. The OSCE remains silent because Western countries have blocked its operation, and other structures, including UN bodies, and all the special envoys and special rapporteurs stay silent. They have lost their tongues, but we will speak out.

This situation has shown that anti-Russia policy can earn forgiveness for the most flagrant violations of human rights.

The Foreign Ministry will continue to take every possible measure to protect the rights of Russian citizens and compatriots. We will also register all of the growing number of acts of discrimination in foreign states to address them in bilateral and multilateral formats and ensure that the authorities of the relevant states comply with their international legal commitments regarding our compatriots.

We are doing this because we are writing history so that future generations know what happened in the first quarter of the 21st century. As I have said, this is a modern-day chronicle that looks to the future. Future generations will rely on it to present charges to those who have destroyed everything that has to do with human rights, morals and morality in international relations, as well as international law.

IAEA Director General’s statements about the Iranian nuclear programme

There has been a mounting wave of speculation and far-fetched allegations in the West regarding Iran’s nuclear intentions. This time, they resulted from reckless statements by IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi. He made them in an interview with ANSA, an Italian news agency, on December 16, 2024, when he decided to speculate for everyone to hear by saying that considering that Iran has uranium at 60 percent, it “is thus practically at the same level as nuclear-armed states.”

Iran haters of all kinds rushed to make a sensation out of this statement by the IAEA head by twisting it to fit their own momentary agenda, while omitting an important point Rafael Grossi made to make himself clear when he said that military-grade uranium has to be enriched at the level of 90 percent. This is obvious not only for specialists but also for anyone who could be interested in reading this interview and understanding its meaning. However, someone opted for taking things out of context and dissecting this interview. This got the ball rolling.

Of course, unbiased observers understand that these manipulations are designed to exploit the IAEA as an accomplice or even the initiator of the political attacks targeting Tehran. However, their only goal consists of presenting the Islamic Republic’s nuclear programme as the main threat for the Middle East in order to justify fighting it with any means, including using military means, no matter the cost and until there is nobody left.

It seems that the like-minded and politically biased Western figures, spin doctors and manipulators are trying to avoid responsibility for the blatant violations by the United States and European countries of UN Security Council Resolution 2231 and the fact that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on the Iranian Nuclear Programme has been in deep hibernation mode. However, it is becoming increasingly difficult for them to justify their actions.

However, the December 17, 2024, UN Security Council meeting, which was timed to coincide with the release of the Secretary General’s latest report on the implementation of this resolution, crossed all the t’s and dotted the i's. The primary causes explaining why the nuclear deal is in crisis are obvious to everyone. They stem from the illegal actions by the US-led West. The international community understands in all clarity that the Western countries were the ones who derailed the effort to restore the deal, while Tehran has signalled its readiness to return to the JCPOA many times as long as Washington, Brussels and London would make reciprocal steps at the same time. Today, it is clear that this is not the kind of plans our opponents have on their minds. Nuclear non-proliferation is something that is alien to them.

We believe that the IAEA Director General must take all this into account the next time he feels the urge to perorate in public by saying that there was still room for using the spirit of the initial agreement with Iran, while the agreement itself is no longer needed. If we look at it this way, it turns out that the Agency has condemned the nuclear deal.

But there is one point where Rafael Grossi was spot on when he said that if the US and Europe do not intend to fulfil their obligations under UN Security Council Resolution 2231, there are still the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the NPT Safeguards Agreement between Iran and the IAEA. Tehran complies with their provisions. Moreover, there are no quantitative limits for the peaceful use of nuclear energy neither in the treaty nor in the agreement, as long as the IAEA oversees all nuclear-related activity in the country. Despite the Western insinuations, the Iranian nuclear programme has always been subject to the most rigorous and intensive inspections. Who carries them out? The IAEA, since this is its role. There is a plethora of reports to this effect. I think that Rafael Grossi should have focused on this point in his interview.

We hope that the IAEA will be able to ensure impartial and unbiased monitoring as part of its technical mandate without trying to pursue a political agenda or giving in to the sophisticated traps laid by the West. We do understand the West’s motives. This could pave the way to building a solid track record in the IAEA’s constructive cooperation with Iran. We have advocated for strengthening it at all times.

We adopted this position not only because it reflects the agreements in spirit and letter, but also considering the gist of the matter. After all, this is what providing genuine security guarantees is all about. They were put on paper, and must be implemented. Moreover, this must go beyond articulating a political concept and offer a hands-on solution for dealing with this issue.

United States expands sanctions against Russian companies and vessels

On December 18 this year, the US Department of State announced new so-called sanctions against a number of entities previously subject to restrictive measures under the Protecting Europe’s Energy Security Act for participating in the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline project.

I would say this deserves the Grand Prix for achieving the utmost absurdity. Until recently, in words or in deeds, in one way or another sanctions were at least conceptually justified, or better still, imposed on those who violate, destroy or undermine something. This, however, is a civilian infrastructure project based on an agreement reached by all parties. It has a peaceful purpose and is not prohibited under any laws. I think this is the first time when sanctions are imposed on someone building civilian infrastructure amid attempts to undermine it through terrorist attacks and sabotage. As we understand, the West is not making any efforts to identify or locate the masterminds or perpetrators of this crime.

This time, several Russian and foreign companies and ships have been targeted by the restrictions imposed by one of Mr Lame Duck Biden’s orders.

I am sure that there could be better uses for the consistency that Washington is showing in creating a semblance of defending Europe’s energy security. Again, it is totally absurd to protect Europe’s energy security by imposing sanctions on companies that build pipelines while refusing to investigate terrorists who destroy those pipelines. Even the EU leaders recognise that for decades, a stable and guaranteed supply of relatively cheap energy resources from Russia has been the key to Europe’s industrial development and economic prosperity – in particular, Germany, as the powerhouse of European industry, has taken full advantage of it. Nord Stream 2, a gas pipeline developed by an international consortium as a token of a long-standing partnership, was to serve the same purpose. Was the project prohibited under any international laws at the development stage? Did it run counter to the letter and spirit of international agreements? Of course not. The only country that was against it was the United States. For that country, Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 were a royal pain in the neck.

The Americans, putting on a show of supposed concern, hindered the construction in every way they could, despite having no authority to do so and acting contrary to the EU countries’ national legislations and international law. I don’t even want to talk about American laws now – we know how they work. We have repeatedly quoted top US officials issuing direct threats against the project. The threats were made by President of the United States Joe Biden and the then Under Secretary of State, Ms Nuland. On September 26, 2022, the Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 pipelines were partially disrupted by a terrorist bombing.

Despite the artificially created obstacles, Russia continues to seek an effective, transparent and depoliticised investigation into that act of sabotage. It is imperative to identify the responsible parties and bring them to justice. We regularly raise this issue, including in the United Nations Security Council.

In this context, the consequences of the European countries’ Russophobic policies aimed at severing the longstanding mutually beneficial cooperation with our country in hydrocarbon trade have jeopardised the well-being of the European Union – not the supranational association, but the member states in their national capacity. The heavily peddled energy security issue has become, if anything, even more acute. President of Russia Vladimir Putin spoke at length about European countries’ economic results during his recent televised conference. What he cited was not restricted information – those statistics should be available in the EU countries in question, where deindustrialisation is gaining momentum: in Germany and other countries.

The Russian President has also repeatedly stated that Russia takes a responsible approach to fulfilling its contractual obligations to export energy resources and is ready to continue supplying gas to its clients, including through the Nord Stream pipeline branch that survived the attack. However, we have not yet received any signals from our European partners, primarily Germany, indicating their readiness to resume the imports.

Not only that – as soon as the German media start asking this question to their government, they find themselves in the crosshairs rather than in the spotlight. They face intimidation and pressure. The question is, why is Germany behaving like this? Why has it disrupted its cooperation with Russia, and why has it not ensured the security of Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2? I am talking not so much about technical security, but about political security. Why was Germany unable to defend its sovereignty in an existential project? Those who ask these obvious questions in Germany immediately feel the full force of Western democracy.

In 2024, according to preliminary estimates, Russian gas supplies to Europe (both natural gas and LNG) will increase by 18 percent from last year’s level, reaching about 53 billion cubic metres. In the current conditions, this is another vivid confirmation of Russia’s reliability as an energy exporter and cooperation partner.

Unlike European politicians and their overseas bosses, Russia realises its responsibility not only to comply with its own obligations, but also to ensure global energy security, and makes a practical contribution to upholding it.

The results of Russia’s CIS chairmanship

Russia’s 2024 CIS chairmanship is coming to a close. Approved by President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin, the chairmanship concept set forth ambitious integration objectives that have been successfully accomplished.

Intensive work continued to ensure the sustained development of interstate collaboration at the CIS platform and to enhance its prestige on the international arena. About 250 scheduled multi-level events of Russia’s chairmanship, including all meetings of supreme CIS statutory bodies, took place. The sides approved an impressive package of documents aiming to strengthen mutually beneficial ties between CIS countries still further. Their subject matter encompasses all aspects from the economy and culture to politics and security.

The year of Russia’s chairmanship featured intensive contacts between foreign ministries. The sides held 17 consultations between foreign ministries on various issues, including culture, education, sport, the information sphere, countering new challenges and threats and arms control. CIS foreign ministers met twice − in April 2024 in Minsk and in October 2024 in Moscow. They passed about 30 decisions aiming to strengthen ties between our states still further. They include five joint statements on important issues such as facilitating Eurasian security, the unacceptability of applying unilateral restrictive measures in international relations and ensuring safe working conditions for journalists. The texts of these documents are posted on the Foreign Ministry’s website.

During its CIS chairmanship, Russia prioritised efforts to expand the economic potential of CIS countries and those of the entire region as a key factor of guaranteeing the prosperity of the people. Economic events accounted for over 33 percent of CIS events. They helped maintain food and energy security, incentivised business operations, eliminated trade barriers, expanded the transport and logistics sector, industrial cooperation, innovations and digitalisation.

Security issues and coordinated efforts of regional states to jointly counter traditional and new challenges and threats figured prominently among the priorities of Russia’s CIS chairmanship. On October 8, 2024, Moscow hosted the CIS Heads of Government Council Meeting, with the participants approving a 2025−2027programme of cooperation between CIS member countries in the sphere of deradicalisation. Its approval became a significant step in this field. The programme is intended to facilitate a consolidated policy for preventing the legitimisation of radical and extremist movements and launching an interfaith dialogue.

The sides traditionally focused on expanding cultural and humanitarian ties. They implemented numerous large-scale projects, including the Phygital Games of the Future and the World Youth Festival, as well as the Forum of Creative and Academic Intellectuals of the CIS Member States. The projects involved representative delegations from CIS countries. Samarkand and Tashkent (Uzbekistan) and Gyumri (Armenia) successfully hosted events of the Commonwealth’s cultural, youth and sport capitals.

The sides fulfilled a packed action plan to hold the Year of the Volunteer Movement in the CIS throughout 2024 and to popularise volunteer activities, especially among young people.

Preparations for celebrating the 80th anniversary of the Victory in the Great Patriotic War are a key priority of Russia’s chairmanship. The Moscow summit participants passed an appeal by the heads of CIS states to the people of CIS countries and the global public at large, approved a standard anniversary medal and the honorary CIS title City of Labour Glory.

We aim to continue fruitful work with our CIS partners throughout 2025. We wish every success to Tajikistan, due to chair the CIS after Russia, in implementing the 2025 cooperation priorities, set forth by our Tajikistani friends in their chairmanship concept, within the organisation’s format.

This amounts to basic general information. We are following statements that will be made at the top level. Our heads of state are to sum up these results, and we prioritise their assessments.

Russia’s BRICS chairmanship outcomes

This year was unique for BRICS. It was marked by new members joining it and went under the motto, “Strengthening Multilateralism for Just Global Development and Security.”

Our chairmanship took place against the backdrop of escalated tensions in international relations and irreversible changes across the international system. However, despite these challenges, the BRICS role as a sustainable and sought-after format for multilateral interaction, and a core foundation of a new, fairer world order based on the sovereign equality of states and consideration of each other’s interests was confirmed. Our strategic partnership showed that BRICS is not a confrontation tool, but a cooperation space designed to address global challenges, and is based on respect for the right of each country to determine its own future.

During the year, 250 meetings were held in various Russian cities, including over 30 ministerial-level meetings which reviewed practically all areas of cooperation between BRICS countries. The year of Russia’s BRICS chairmanship came as an important step towards strengthening coordination in the international arena on matters of global governance and financial system, and combatting common challenges facing our countries. We have laid the foundation for continued consolidation of the association by expanding interaction with partner countries and Global South and Global East countries. The practical implementation of the Russian chairmanship’s initiatives will foster cooperation and help effectively address global challenges.

The Kazan summit in October 22-24 came as the high point of Russia’s BRICS chairmanship. Without exaggeration, it was a significant international political event not only in 2024, but also in the first quarter of the 21st century. The summit was attended by 41 foreign delegations (35 countries and six heads of international organisations, such as the CIS, the SCO, the EAEU, the Union State, the New Development Bank, and the UN). The summit resulted in adopting the substantive Kazan Declaration, which reaffirmed the fundamental commitment to strengthening BRICS strategic partnership, reflected the commitment to improving the effectiveness of global governance institutions and the role of developing countries in making key decisions. A common position on the unacceptability of imposing illegitimate sanctions in violation of international law and restrictive and politically-driven trade practices was put on record.

The World Majority countries welcomed the Kazan summit with great enthusiasm and provided clear assessments. The summit is seen as a landslide common success. The BRICS countries have convincingly demonstrated the absolute untenability of unilateral restrictions and the futility of attempts to impose international isolation on our country.

The BRICS ministerial meeting in Nizhny Novgorod, including an expanded session with the participation of the countries from the Global South and Global East, was an important event of the first half of Russia’s BRICS chairmanship. The foreign ministers discussed the multipolar international order, regional crises, and measures to counter the newly arisen challenges and threats, which fact was included in the final joint statement.

Great emphasis in 2024 was placed on harmonious integration of new BRICS members such as Egypt, Iran, the UAE, Ethiopia and Saudi Arabia, into BRICS interaction. Almost all of them energetically joined the work, showed constructive approaches to cooperation, and supported our flagship initiatives.

Developing partner country category modalities and agreeing on the list of presumptive candidates approved by the BRICS leaders at the Kazan Summit came as a great success. As was earlier announced, Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Thailand, Uganda, and Uzbekistan have confirmed their bid to join BRICS in this capacity. All of the above countries are regional players of high standing, strive to pursue independent international policies, and advocate mutually beneficial and equitable practical cooperation. We look forward to receiving feedback from four more countries soon.

During Russia’s Chairmanship, we adopted a substantial package of agreements on countering corruption and other criminal offences, fighting cross-border crime, terrorism, extremism, and the trafficking of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances and their precursors. There has been progress on Russian initiatives aimed at making financial systems more transparent, minimising risks and threats in countering money laundering and the financing of terrorism, strengthening public-private partnerships, as well as youth engagement. We continued working on creating a register of BRICS contact points for the exchange of information on computer attacks and incidents. We adopted documents for strengthening international cooperation on fighting corruption and repatriating assets and proceeds from corruption, as well as raising awareness on corruption-related matters. The participants agreed a position paper on countering terrorism which sets forth the main tracks for interagency interactions in the immediate future.

There was also the adoption of a statement by BRICS Heads of Space Agencies on the use of outer space for peaceful purposes. Russia put forward a proposal to develop an international framework for ensuring safety in space and creating the BRICS Space Council.

As part of its BRICS Chairmanship, Russia put forward several initiatives for strengthening economic cooperation on a wide range of matters among the participating countries. In particular, this included making supply and value chains more resilient, countering protectionist practices, promoting e-commerce, and establishing contacts between special economic zones. In addition to this, there was an initiative to establish an investment arbitration centre within BRICS in order to better protect mutual investment and devise a reliable mechanism for settling investment-related disputes. We are currently exploring opportunities for drafting a convention governing investment in order to streamline investment protection mechanisms and attract more investors.

BRICS countries coordinated their approaches to implementing the BRICS Cross-Border Payment Initiative. A feasibility study has been carried out for assessing the possibility of setting up the BRICS Clear single depositary and clearing infrastructure. Efforts are underway to establish a BRICS re-insurance company. There was also support for projects dealing with investment and technology platforms.

Russia suggested creating a BRICS Grain Exchange as part of its efforts to promote food security. It could help in setting justified and predictable price indicators for agricultural products and commodities.

A Framework for Climate and Sustainable Development has been adopted on the sidelines of the BRICS Climate Agenda in Modern Conditions Forum. It is designed to help BRICS countries fight climate change without undermining their economies. It was also Russia’s initiative to have the BRICS Contact Group on Climate Change and Sustainable Development adopt a Memorandum of Understanding on BRICS Partnership on Carbon Markets. Once this partnership is launched, BRICS countries will be able to share their best practices in creating carbon markets and work together on climate projects, including with carbon units.

Improving transport connectivity within BRICS is a key priority. An effort to establish regular dialogue on transport and create a permanent BRICS logistics platform is expected to enable the participating countries to discuss various projects in this sector, including reviewing transport routes and establishing a re-insurance pool for ensuring reliability in the transport sector.

Russia focused on efforts to expand the Energy Research Platform, which is expected to streamline cooperation for ensuring global energy security.

There was also the first meeting of the heads of geological services. The initiative to establish a Geological Platform is in the discussion phase.

The proposal to establish a BRICS platform for precious metals was just as important. It will help us expand our cooperation in a sector that has vital importance for our financial markets.

Other instrumental steps included developing the International Competition Law and Policy Centre. Its mission consists of launching an interstate platform for promoting fair competition among the participating countries.

Our work in healthcare included the creation of an Integrated Early Warning System for Preventing the Risk of Mass Infectious Diseases to enhance the BRICS countries’ potential for promptly detecting and responding to healthcare challenges. We paid special attention to the problem of resistance to anti-microbial drugs. In addition, our countries’ medical communities will have an opportunity to publish their initiatives and the results of their research in the BRICS Health Journal, the first issue of which was published during Russia’s chairmanship in 2024. The first meeting of the BRICS Working Group on Nuclear Medicine and the first BRICS International Forum on Nuclear Medicine were held this year.

One of the main goals is to enhance the efficiency of research and promote cooperation in this sphere. In particular, joint research projects have been implemented within the framework of 13 BRICS working groups in a broad range of research areas, from astronomy to materials science. They will soon be complemented with projects on humanities, such as history, sociology, political science and linguistics.

The BRICS Young Scientists Forum and the BRICS Young Innovator Prize have been convened on the sidelines of the 4th Young Scientists Congress to promote international scientific and technological cooperation and to attract more young scientists to addressing current national tasks. The BRICS Young Innovator Prize selected best projects that can contribute to the development of global science and the economy. This year’s winners are scientists from Brazil, China and Russia.

The BRICS Media Summit held this year was attended by the heads of the leading media outlets from the group’s states and other countries. They discussed the role of the BRICS media community in strengthening stability in the multipolar world and the technological aspects of the BRICS countries’ information cooperation.

The BRICS Sports Games were held in an open format for the first time. That landmark event was held in Kazan and was attended by athletes from over 80 countries. Russia, which held BRICS Chairmanship this year, has proposed drafting an interstate programme for the further development of the games. The inaugural International Blind Football Tournament was attended by professional teams from the BRICS nations and other countries.

The development of cultural and humanitarian cooperation was promoted at the BRICS Film Festival and the BRICS Culture Festival. The relevant ministries approved the establishment of an Alliance of Folk Dance and an Association of Film Schools. The first BRICS Creative Innovation Forum has been held this year for the first time as well.

Our expert community convened the BRICS Academic Forum, the BRICS Civil Forum and a number of other events attended by civil society members. It has been decided to establish the BRICS Civil Council as a permanent platform for interaction between the BRICS countries’ civil societies. Active efforts helped ensure young people’s engagement in the BRICS agenda at the BRICS Youth Summit, the BRICS International Youth Camp and the BRICS Young Diplomats Forum.

On January 1, 2025, Russia will hand BRICS Chairmanship over to Brazil, whose main theme will be Strengthening Cooperation in the Global South for More Inclusive and Sustainable Governance.

We wish Brazil every success and hope that the discussion and implementation of the numerous initiatives advanced during Russia’s Chairmanship will be continued.

Foreign Policy Meetings in Memory of Vitaly Churkin

On February 19-22, 2025, Moscow will host the 3rd Foreign Policy Meetings in Memory of Vladimir Churkin, a youth forum organised by the Alexander Gorchakov Public Diplomacy Fund. The project’s goal is to preserve the memory of outstanding Russian diplomat Vitaly Churkin, to implement his foreign policy legacy, and to develop young scholars’ research.

International affairs professionals aged 18 to 30 from Russia and foreign countries will attend the event.

The programme includes lectures and roundtable meetings involving major statespersons and public activists, leading scholars studying international relations, prominent political analysts, historians, and journalists.

The third forum will centre on discussing such topics as track two diplomacy (an instrument to create trust measures aimed at settling a conflict or reducing tensions by conducting informal talks), challenges to strategic stability and non-proliferation efforts, the current situation in the Middle East, developing AI, and UN reforms.

Applications from participants are open through January 12, 2025. More details are available on the Gorchakov Fund website.

Information and Press Department: Year-end review

Many assess performance using figures, and today we have encountered numerous statistics. My colleagues and I have concluded that we have not merely words but also figures to present. Let us examine the annual outcomes in the field of diplomacy – not a diplomatic year, but an informational year for the foreign policy service.

The Foreign Ministry remains the most widely represented foreign policy entity in the digital sphere. We are dedicated to disseminating objective information about our country and its foreign policy around the clock. This is achieved across more than 12 domestic and international online platforms, utilising 22 accounts in five languages. You might wonder why I use precise numbers yet say “more than.” It is because we are constantly enhancing our capabilities and launching new accounts.

According to preliminary data, over the past year, our materials have been viewed by more than 0.5 billion users from around the globe. This is the strongest evidence of their relevance, illustrating that we are read, heard, and watched, signifying that interest in Russia’s position on key international issues is not waning. All the Russian Foreign Minister’s remarks, his news conferences, and interviews, along with our briefings, are broadcast live on multiple platforms simultaneously, including domestic services such as VKontakte, Rutube, and Odnoklassniki, as well as in foreign languages.

In the concluding year, we have continued to refine the tools of digital diplomacy. Notably, we launched the Foreign Ministry’s Telegram channel in French, which is already attracting interest from residents of African and European countries who seek information untainted by Western censorship.

The ministry-wide digital network is expanding: currently, all Russian foreign missions maintain online resources on social networks. The total number of accounts has already surpassed the 1,200 mark. The complete list is available on the Ministry’s website.

We persist in countering the disinformation of the collective West by publishing rebuttals and maintaining a section titled Published Materials That Contain False Information About Russia, which has become our hallmark. We have supported civil society initiatives in data verification, particularly welcoming the establishment of the Global Fact-Checking Network. The second international forum, Dialogue About Fakes 2.0, held on November 20, 2024, in Moscow under the banner of combating fakes, occupies a special place. This year’s event attracted representatives from many countries, including those regarded as unfriendly. We provided assistance and participated actively in it.

We have paid particular attention to defending historical truth. Not a single briefing has taken place without appealing to historical truth, defending it against falsehoods and attacks, or discussing significant dates in world history relevant to the present. There has not been a single public statement from us where we did not address the direct connection between past actions and events and the consequences of uncorrected errors or history being rewritten in light of recent events.

We attach great significance to the Great Patriotic War (World War II, as it is known globally). This is not by accident; we observe numerous attempts to rewrite history on the eve of the 80th anniversary of the Great Victory. We shall not permit it! We will continue to tell the truth about the heroic deeds of the peoples of the Soviet Union and cite facts about the heinous crimes of the Third Reich and its collaborators.

We meet in this hall almost weekly. Another intriguing statistic: in 2024, 47 briefings took place. Of these, five were off-site briefings: on the sidelines of the World Youth Festival in Sochi, at the St Petersburg International Economic Forum and the Legal Forum in St Petersburg, at the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok, and at the Fourth Eurasian Women’s Forum in St Petersburg. Do you know how many questions you asked at these briefings? I could hardly believe it myself – more than a thousand questions were asked, and you received an answer to each of them.

We also engage in a “closed” format, which is not visible but no less effective. We receive dozens to hundreds of questions and appeals daily, which we strive to answer promptly.

In the concluding year of 2024, the Department prepared approximately 2,500 comments, interviews, and answers to media questions, which were posted on the Foreign Ministry’s website news feed and sent to the target audience. I won’t even attempt to quantify the direct answers to questions you receive daily; they defy enumeration or calculation.

A critical aspect of our work is promoting objective information about Russia’s regions, the historical and cultural heritage of our country, the wealth of traditions and moral values, and its economic and tourist potential.

This involves, among other things, a well-established format: press tours for foreign journalists organised by the Information and Press Department of the Foreign Ministry. In 2024, there were nine such tours. Foreign correspondents visited Moscow and St Petersburg, the Kaliningrad, Kirov, Moscow, Pskov, and Tver regions, the Republics of Adygea, Mari El, and Tatarstan, as well as the Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Area. A separate tour involving media representatives of compatriots was organised in the Pskov Region.

This is brief but important and, I hope, mutually beneficial.

Answers to media questions:

Question: During a recent news conference, President of Moldova Maia Sandu admitted certain mistakes that had been made during her first presidential term, including lack of dialogue with the population in the Russian language. What would be your comment on this statement?

Maria Zakharova: This is over-the-top cynicism and a string of dog-hearted lies. Cynicism and lying are two related things. They constitute manipulation. We have seen and heard this sort of repentance before. Many politicians in the collective West regularly make similar statements. They support everything good on record, but their actions speak the opposite.

I will remind you about the slogan that Vladimir Zelensky had when he was running for president. Remember? He was standing on his knees, humbly begging for the forgiveness of other people’s mistakes. How many crimes, not merely mistakes, has he committed since then? What did he promise to the people of Ukraine? First, he promised peace, a peaceful life, no more bloodshed, a peaceful future and development for Ukraine. He deceived them in every way. Second, he ran on the promise that, since people speak Russian from the start and it is a mother tongue for millions of Ukrainian citizens (if not literally all of them), there is nothing wrong or strange in preserving it, and he would do that. He offered examples from his own life and the life of his family where everybody have spoken and will always speak Russian. He lied to the citizens of Ukraine.

It seems that Chisinau decided to copy the behaviour of the Westerners and those who kneel before them. I can give you some specific examples so you can see that I have facts that can beat all these false claims.

On the same day, December 19, members of the Moldovan parliament adopted, by the majority of votes and in the first reading, a bill on amendments to several regulatory acts against electoral corruption. What amendments are those? In particular, they extend the Code of Audiovisual Media Services with a paragraph prohibiting the broadcasting and rebroadcasting of programmes that “originate from countries waging unlawful and unjustified aggressive wars against other states,” on the territory of Moldova. Some interesting wording we see here: if a war is justified, one can wage it, but if it is unjustified, one must not. What does this novelty boil down to? Apparently, this initiative targets primarily Russian-language and Russian, for that matter, media content.

Another example is the updated version of the Moldovan parliament’s website. Perhaps Maia Sandu is not aware of this. I will tell you. Guess in what single language is the Moldovan parliament’s website available now?

Question: Moldovan.

Maria Zakharova: Correct, you would have mentioned the Moldovan language. This language is now called Romanian in Moldova. Do not forget. I repeat, the website of this country’s Parliament features only the Romanian language (as they call it) that has replaced the Moldovan language by a decision of Maia Sandu.

What about the Russian language? Everything runs counter to her statements. This is a monstrous manipulation and a lie misleading the people.

Here is one more fact. Two weeks ago, Moldova’s Minister of Health Ala Nemerenco wrote with regret on her social media account (that is banned in Russia) that the Russian language had been imposed on her. She also expressed indignation over the preponderance of the Russian language in the national parliament; in fact, she has not heard so many conversations in Russian since the “sad Soviet times.” What kind of “sad Soviet times” is she talking about? Is Moldova experiencing merry times today? I would like to recall that 80 percent of Moldovans speak Russian to a varying extent and use it in their daily life.

Moldovan authorities continue to encroach on the principles of freedom and democracy (this is a reason to feel sad) and to pressure the opposition (this hardly sounds funny either). The national parliament’s agenda includes legislative initiatives aiming to complicate the procedure for registering political parties. If approved, it would be possible to register these parties only with the consent of “puppet” agencies, including the Constitutional Court of Moldova, the national Ministry of Justice and the country’s Information and Security Service. Does this sound funny? One wants to cry, while comparing this situation to the so-called “sad Soviet times.”

They are actively inciting revanchist sentiments. On December 17, 2024, Moldovan representatives once again voted against the UN General Assembly’s resolution on combating the glorification of Nazism. Why are they doing this? Is this a principled position of the state? Of course not. This amounts to a “superstructure” imposed on Moldova in the form of Maia Sandu and her regime. Are they making decisions? No one in the country even knows what exactly Maia Sandu is doing.

I would like to remind you that a tremendous number of countries supported the document. Why? This is very interesting. Moldovan Foreign Minister Mihai Popsoi explained a decision to vote against the document and stated that those promoting the resolution were killing children, mothers and absolutely innocent people every day. In all, 119 countries voted for the document. Does Chisinau seriously believe that all states supporting the resolution kill women and children? How are these aspects interlinked? This amounts to some completely monstruous abracadabra.

One can ask the following question: When the Moldovan Foreign Minister votes on other resolutions and solidarises with other partners, does he analyse the position of any specific state (with which Moldova votes), and does he try and find out whether it is aggressive, and whether it is killing someone? Are they doing all this? Of course, not. This particular resolution is hampering their efforts because it states expressly that monuments to heroes cannot be demolished and replaced with monuments to Nazis, that racial supremacy is a banned ideology, that xenophobia is bad, and that the segregation of people along ethnic lines is unacceptable, etc. The West does not need this, including on Moldovan territory. This is why authorities in Chisinau now vote against this document.

At the same time, memorials to “Romanian heroes” (this is how pro-Romanian activists call Nazi accomplices who really killed women and children and were eventually tried by the Nuremberg Tribunal) are regularly unveiled in Moldova with direct official assistance. This is quite regrettable.

Another artificially inspired upsurge in Russophobic passions in Moldova shows that the anti-popular regime of Maia Sandu is simply unable to offer anything else to the society except the hackneyed myth about the Russian threat. Consequently, Moldovan authorities are repeating a mantra about an “evil Russia” and using it to adopt decisions that completely run counter to the interests of the Moldovan nation.

This is by no means repentance, but deception and window dressing.

If she spoke Russian more often or will do so in future, how in that case legislation limiting Russian-language broadcasts be passed simultaneously? In that case she would ban her own broadcasts. All this therefore is falsehood and a pack of lies. This has nothing to do with repentance and admitting one’s own mistakes.

Question: Kiev has announced that it can create nuclear weapons in a few weeks. Do you think these statements are consistent with the Memorandum on Security Assurances in Connection with Ukraine’s Accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons which it signed? Does Moscow have guarantees that Ukraine will comply with it?

Maria Zakharova: You had several points. Let us elaborate on each of them.

First, whatever the Kiev regime says they cannot create nuclear weapons on their own in several weeks. This is a fact.

Second, it would be better for the Kiev regime to get ready for the heating season instead of talking about nuclear weapons. Heating and feeding people are a priority.

Third, it is only possible to build nuclear weapons in Ukraine if Vladimir Zelensky’s terrorist regime gets important components for this work from outside, from other countries.

Now let us go into more detail. The statements you have mentioned are nothing else but another manifestation of the terrorist nature of the Nazi regime, which manipulates the topic of nuclear weapons, using it as a threat. As for the possible, hypothetical topic of transferring nuclear technologies to the Kiev regime, those responsible for this (hypothetical participants or developers in this scenario) must understand the consequences for themselves, because we are talking about violating the non-proliferation regime.

I would also like to once again note the statement President of Russia Vladimir Putin made at the news conference on November 28, 2024 in Astana following the state visit to Kazakhstan and the CSTO summit: “In this case we will use all – and I want to stress it – all weapons Russia has, all of them. We will not let this happen.” I think that this is the starting point for everyone who wants to elaborate on this topic.

Question: There was an article in an American magazine saying that EU countries might consider sending their troops to Ukraine only if the line of contact stabilises. What do you think about this prerequisite? What will the European military do in Ukraine if the situation stabilises before they arrive there? President of France Emmanuel Macron has been an active proponent of the idea to deploy a European peacekeeping force in Ukraine starting 2025. What is your assessment of his role in this process? How could this benefit him?

Maria Zakharova: We treat all planted media reports and allegations on sending military forces to Ukraine as provocations. They can pursue all kinds of objectives, while retaining their provocative nature in terms of both form and substance.

I think that this time, the objective consisted of escalating an already tense situation around the Ukraine crisis. Why would they do that? This can be due to the fact that more and more voices can be heard, including in NATO countries, making strong and resonating calls for peace, achieving a political and diplomatic settlement and launching talks. It seems that this compels the Western war party to offer an alternative to these discussions and proposals. This is why they are trying to hype up the public by planting stories of this kind in the information space.

Let me remind you that peacekeeping forces can be deployed to any conflict zone only with the agreement of all the parties involved, as well as subject to the UN Security Council adopting a decision to this effect. At this stage, there were no discussions, let alone specific actions, along these lines.

We have not seen any initiatives by the Kiev regime to find ways for settling this situation. Quite the contrary, in fact.

The preceding question focused on allegations about the Kiev regime creating a nuclear weapon, should it have an appetite for acting this way, in the near future and taking other aggressive steps. Even if we leave aside the daily offensive statements by Vladimir Zelensky, this person is clearly inadequate. I think that all experts in physiognomy, or should I say facial expressions, will understand this by just looking at Vladimir Zelensky.

The Kiev regime has done nothing to bring about a settlement in this situation. Vladimir Zelensky and his gang have focused on getting more weapons, money, and military hardware from the United States and its allies. Their goal consists of continuing the hostilities, and they have been open about it.

Let me remind you that the ban on holding peace talks is still in place, and nothing suggests that this may change any time soon. I am referring to the fact that the United States pressured the Kiev regime into committing itself not to hold any talks.

By the way, the EU diplomacy chief, Kaja Kallas, who has stepped into Josep Borrel’s anti-Russia role, has echoed this sentiment. She believes that it would be premature to talk about peace in Ukraine. She believes that “any attempt to push for negotiations too early would actually lead to a bad deal for Ukraine.” Therefore, they think that a peace settlement would be what they called a bad deal for Ukraine. We already know this, considering the stubborn desire the West has for waging the war in Ukraine until there are no Ukrainians left.

Kaja Kallas said that the EU was not ready to discuss the deployment of a peacekeeping force by arguing that there has been no progress in moving towards launching a negotiating process.

Let me note that for the Western countries the hypothetical question of whether foreign military units could be deployed in Ukraine is also part of their domestic political agenda. This is true for France, that much is clear.

Unfortunately, we can describe the French foreign policy in recent years with the words everywhere and nowhere, or dealing with everything and nothing at the same time. There were all these sporadic statements and contradicting messages. Why are they acting this way? It may be that these efforts are designed to distract their public from the socioeconomic challenges the country faces. It may well be that we are dealing with France’s attempts to establish itself as a global power without much to show to back this status. However, they need to consolidate this status. But how can France do this, considering that as a permanent member of the UN Security Council it has been camping on Washington’s positions? How can it show its ability to come up with initiatives of its own? It is by coming up with statements of this kind that they pretend to present new initiatives. However, these initiatives never materialise.

Question: The media have reported that the Russian military have detained an Australian mercenary, Oscar Jenkins, in the zone of the special military operation. What can you say on this score?

Maria Zakharova: I can tell you that the Australian authorities have requested information about this. We are currently checking information on the detained Australian citizen. We are monitoring the situation together with the relevant agencies. We will certainly share any facts, if there are any.

I would like to emphasise that if we receive any corroborating information, the blame for this situation will be placed on Canberra, which is openly condoning the recruitment of Australian mercenaries for Ukraine.

Regrettably, the Australian political establishment has not revised its hostile stance towards Russia. Canberra is obediently following the Russophobic policies of the collective West. It has contributed about $600 million in support to the Kiev regime, including $500 million spent on military assistance. This has only contributed to the devastation of Ukraine and the deaths of a large number of Ukrainian citizens.

Like the Liberal-National government of Scott Morrison, the current Labour government of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese firmly stands on anti-Russian positions and regularly confirms its readiness to comply with Washington’s orders.

Regarding the current and overall situation, the captured foreign mercenaries will be called to account. We regularly inform you about the mercenaries’ crimes and their punishment in accordance with the Russian legislation, especially when they are involved in acts of atrocity against civilians.

I wonder if the Canberra authorities ever thought that they would have served their country better if they allocated a few thousand or tens of thousands of dollars from the $600 million Ukraine package to organise the training and employment of Australians, including those who agree to become mercenaries.

As I said, they have allocated $600 million, which is a huge sum. It looks fantastic, but Australia has really allocated $600 million for Ukraine. Why hasn’t it allocated a small share of that sum for national development so its citizens would not seek employment abroad because they are unable to apply their skills at home? That is my question for Canberra. I believe that many Australians are asking this question now, after they have seen a video of their compatriot (which still needs to be checked), and wondering how this could happen.

This has not happened overnight. Australia has lived under the US yoke for years, turning a blind eye to the recruitment of its compatriots as mercenaries, who agree to fight in other countries, where some die and others are called to account for their crimes in accordance with another country’s legislation. As many as $600 million has been spent to “support” war in Ukraine. The is having a devastating effect on Ukraine and on Australian citizens.

I see Western countries holding charity events for some projects and stinting money or refusing to allocate any funds for the environmental agenda. They are cutting spending on culture and education. They see themselves as heroes when they manage to allocate a few million dollars to support developing countries. They hold PR campaigns on food security, campaigning for a war on hunger on other continents. And at the same time, they spend huge sums to help kill people rather than to improve their lives. I look at these vast sums and can’t believe that they are being squandered like this.

Question: Happy belated birthday to you from our entire team! We wish you health, happiness, and fulfillment of your dreams.

Maria Zakharova: Thank you, I congratulate you, too.

I can see how your family is growing (I mean the RT family), how many interesting projects you have, and how you are expanding your broadcasting network. I congratulate you on these achievements, as well as on the upcoming holidays, and wish you strength. Congratulations for everyone, but for you this is especially relevant due to the fight against the inhuman aggression and hatred that the Western mainstream and, unfortunately, part of civil society are waging against you. It is unimaginable that even your fellow journalists have started a bullying campaign against RT. I wish you strength to overcome it. In many cases, it is harder for you, because you are truly on the information frontline, and a war has been declared on you.

Question: Thank you very much. 2024 has certainly been a year of wars and conflicts, with a significant share of them in the Middle East. While US President-elect Donald Trump promises to put an end to what he calls chaos in the Middle East, many residents and politicians in the Arab world blame Washington for these wars. How does Moscow assess the US role in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict?

Maria Zakharova: This role is segmented and varied. Why? Different administrations came, and approaches to the situation in the Middle East were different. Many had opportunistic interests. Some used the situation in the Middle East as part of electoral processes, some had purely commercial goals, and some had interests related to national identity. Some simply lobbied for this or that philosophy. Many representatives of various administrations had their own course.

Unfortunately, they were all dominated or united by neglecting the international law, and largely, by the desire to squeeze out the mediation efforts that were initiated and approved on an international legal basis, and in particular the quartet, from the process. A lot has happened due to the fact that a number of American politicians in power did everything to somehow blur international conferences’ decisions on a settlement in the Middle East, though these results, outcomes, decisions were recognised by the parties to the conflict, mediators or the international community.

However, there is, so to speak, a “check word” (there is such an expression). The United States is highly active in the region. Certain countries and points on the Middle East map attract the US’s efforts. Have a look there: has it become better, more economically stable, financially secure, or safer in any sense? You will be able to answer yourself. No. Perhaps there was a positive example many years ago. But I cannot give you examples of this in the contemporary history (if we take the last 25, 30, 35, 40 years). Perhaps you know some. I can’t find any. On the contrary, everywhere in the Middle East where the US went wishing to solve an issue by itself or use its developments, new hotbeds of conflict, tension, and sometimes just bloody confrontation have appeared.

Question: What is your stance on the Israeli-American initiatives aimed at achieving the final solution to the Palestinian issue and moving away from the establishment of a Palestinian state?

Maria Zakharova: The phrase “final solution” evokes some of the darkest practices in the history of the West. We are all too familiar with those who sought to “finally solve” a matter – it was the Third Reich that coined this term in relation to the Jewish issue. This approach resulted in the Holocaust, a genocide that claimed the lives of countless Jewish people and others as well. Once the Nazis began addressing one issue, they extended their efforts to many others, leading to a catastrophic chain of events that nearly brought our civilisation to ruin.

Today, we witness the West attempting to “finally resolve” what they perceive as the Russian question: targeting Russia, the Russian-speaking population, and the broader Russian world. They speak about it openly. They unleashed a bloody conflict in Ukraine, where Russians and Ukrainians are being pitted against each other, with Russian-speakers turned against their own. Efforts have been made to “cancel” Russian culture and isolate our country in general. Recall George W. Bush Jr.’s infamous remark, suggesting that the task of Ukrainians is to kill as many Russians as possible. This ideology, reminiscent of past attempts to “resolve” final questions, is now being applied to the Palestinian people, who have long been victims of political ambitions, missteps, and crimes.

Let me emphasise once again that even framing the issue in such terms is unacceptable. Phrasing it this way in the current context evokes dangerous connotations with some historical events. There is a foundation in international law, including the UN Security Council resolution, mediation efforts, and the legitimate national interests of ensuring security. However, history shows that no attempt to “finally resolve” a national question has ever resulted in anything positive for the proponents of such ideologies.

Question: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has issued a warning to the Houthis, threatening a major military operation, while Mossad chief David Barnea has suggested dealing a strike against Iran. How does Russia view this rising tension? In its opinion, are there potential avenues to defuse the situation and avoid a descent into full-scale war?

Maria Zakharova: We have observed and heard discussions about the idea of “direct strikes” against sovereign states, particularly Iran and other nations. Some of these plans have been carried out, while others have been deferred for future consideration.

I’ve already asked this question, and it’s not hypothetical: has the implementation of these strategies led to any improvement anywhere? I don’t recall any such examples. It seems to me that the West, fixated on this single approach (which they believe is effective), should reconsider the situation they’ve created in the Middle East. They’ve also attempted to influence the situation in Ukraine through provocations and military force. Perhaps they should reflect on their own mistakes and draw lessons before further destabilising regions and expanding their influence. It’s clear that, in no case, has the situation improved as a result of these actions.

Question: I would like to remind you that some time ago, Vladimir Zelensky admitted to having offered Robert Fico a financial incentive for Slovakia to endorse Ukraine’s NATO membership. The amount in question was €500 million, sourced from Russia’s frozen assets. Earlier, you mentioned Australia and $600 million. In my view, the sum here is also quite substantial. How would you evaluate Mr Zelensky’s actions in this context? Is there a likelihood he might attempt similar approaches with other European politicians?

Maria Zakharova: I have observed and heard a myriad of things, including the employment of “commercial proposals” in international dealings. For instance, resolving conflicts based on certain business models, with promises of investments in exchange for relinquishing certain claims. There are attempts to engage through humanitarian aspects. Various models exist, and many are effective.

However, I must say, I have never encountered such a direct, insolent, and offensive statement to the leader of another nation from this “nutcase,” as Zelensky has become, quite frankly. Especially when it pertains to statesmen.

On the other hand, Zelensky is no longer the president, as he lacks such authority. Why is this the case? Undoubtedly, he is deluded by a combination of factors. His drug dependency has become quite apparent – not due to intelligence reports from special services of certain countries, but because everyone can see it through his pupils, eyes, and facial expressions. Secondly, his unhealthy ambitions, which have been fostered by Western handlers and have been “elevated” to the level of absolute pathology. These two elements render him entirely delusional, as well as his pronouncements.

Yet, there is another reason for Zelensky’s overtures to Robert Fico, offering money, and so forth. He judges others by his own standards. He believes that just as he has taken and continues to take money, as was done before him (notably by his colleagues on Bankovaya), so does everyone else. He is utterly convinced of this. Corruption in Ukraine is a scourge acknowledged by all. The West openly acknowledges its severity. It is no longer about mere theft. In the West, there exists the concept of a “state sponsor of terrorism” or a state that supports terrorism, a terrorist state – definitions vary. Presently, there exists (or should be introduced by the same West) an additional concept concerning Ukraine – a corrupt state.

When discussing the officials on Bankovaya, everything converges. The state is both a terrorist and corrupt regime. All of this is embodied in the figure of Zelensky. He genuinely believes that the manner in which he lives, and the way the political “get-together” in Ukraine has subsisted for years on Western funds, so should, could, or does everyone else.

In my opinion, this stems from the depths of his subconscious. He believes such a communication format is feasible with world leaders. After all, it was done to him. The West elevated him to this status and placed him on a pedestal. And if he – as the West would have him believe – is a star of global magnitude, a political luminary of the Universe, then it is acceptable to sell out for money, to sell his state and national interests. This is what Zelensky believes. From these alleged “heights,” but in reality from the depths, he engages in dialogue with everyone else.

Question: I would like to join my colleagues’ congratulations and congratulate you on your personal New Year, on the upcoming 2025 and wish you all the best.

Recently, the Friends for Peace group on the Ukraine crisis has held another meeting in New York, which was attended by representatives of 17 countries of the Global South, including China, Brazil, Algeria, South Africa, and Türkiye. The parties jointly assessed the latest and further developments of the crisis. Do you think that the countries of the Global South can currently play a constructive role in resolving the conflict?

Maria Zakharova: We always highlight the sincere desire of the Global Majority members not in terms of exclusivity, but in terms of the practical application of the role in resolving various world situations.

We have seen many examples when representatives of various countries of the Global South and the World Majority proposed various concepts or philosophical views on the situation around Ukraine, and put forward initiatives and proposals. We thanked them every time emphasising their constructive attitude, because they said that it was necessary to achieve peace and settle the crisis, unlike the West, which has been spitting aggressive rhetoric all this time. The contrast was so obvious. We drew our conclusions.

On the one hand, the West that assigned itself to be the leader of the free world, as they call it, was completely unfree and promoting unfreedom for others.

On the other hand, there are the countries of the Global South. Many of them were dependent colonies for hundreds of years, and were oppressed. The West denied them the very understanding of freedom. They openly spoke about freedom from Western pressure, in favour of peace, and if they spoke about struggle, then only about the struggle for peace.

Now about the Group of Friends. We really see and note the sincere desire of the Group of Friends participants to make a constructive contribution to the political and diplomatic settlement of the Ukraine conflict.

We saw the press release following the meeting of the Friends for Peace group on the Ukraine crisis on December 18. It includes several important points, in particular, the need to consider the “legitimate concerns of countries,” which implies, among other things, taking into account Russia’s security interests.

Of course, time will tell how the group’s further work will go and how it will be implemented in practice. Today its participants demonstrate a view on the solution to the Ukraine crisis that is alternative to Vladimir Zelensky’s dead-end peace formula. This indicates that the categorical, unilateral, aggressive, and escalation-oriented approach of the Kiev regime and the West does not find understanding among the countries of the Global South. They spoke about this, proposing various initiatives, and now, implementing the functions they have assumed as part of this group, they also profess a similar approach.

We hope that the Group of Friends will consider ways to address the root causes of the Ukraine crisis based on the purposes and principles of the UN Charter in their entirety, totality and interrelation in their future work.

President of China Xi Jinping also spoke about this.

Question: Recently, the first shipment of US Abrams tanks, previously purchased by Taiwan, arrived on the island. On December 20, incumbent US President Joe Biden announced $571 million in military aid to Taiwan. On the same day, the US Department of Defence also announced that the State Department had approved $295 million worth of arms sales to Taiwan. What is your assessment of these actions on the part of Washington?

Maria Zakharova: I would answer your question in two parts.

First, Russia’s position of principle on the Taiwan issue is well known, invariable and was documented at the top level on many occasions.

We proceed from the fact that there is only one China, the PRC Government is the only legitimate government representing the entire China and Taiwan is an inalienable part thereof. In addition, Moscow and Beijing consistently support each other on issues related to the defence of sovereignty and territorial integrity, and cooperate closely in the area of security.

As for the new supplies, this is undoubtedly another component characterizing, above all, the West and its genuine aspirations. New arms deliveries to Taiwan by the United States are a gross and hypocritical violation of the internationally recognised (including by the Americans themselves) the One China Principle. Such actions are fraught with the danger of escalating the situation in the Taiwan Strait and in the entire region.

It looks like Washington is deliberately “adding oil” in order to “play with fire” in the long term. This is a tactic that has been perfected by the Americans in other parts of the world. It has been used for decades, including in Ukraine, when they tried to turn it into “anti-Russia” and use it as a tool. The Americans have already used this tactic in quite a few places. This is just another example.

Question: The New START Treaty will expire in 2026. Last week, US Principal Deputy National Security Advisor Jon Finer said that Washington was ready to talk with Russia to maintain strategic stability and to discuss nuclear arms control without preliminary conditions. Is Moscow ready for such contacts, and is it considering, in the current conditions, the possibility of signing a treaty that would replace the New START?

Maria Zakharova: We don’t think that this US official has said anything different from similar statements made earlier by members of the outgoing US administration.

We have provided many replied to such probes, both through diplomatic channels and publicly, including at the highest level. Russia’s consistent and firm stance has not changed: arms control issues cannot be considered separately from the current military and political realities. Washington is destroying a reasonable and acceptable basis for this hypothetical dialogue by proposing a discussion on ways to maintain strategic stability while also declaring its intention to inflict a “strategic defeat” on Russia.

To me, this looks like a dichotomy. There are probably partners with whom Washington can discuss this issue in this way, but we aren’t one of them.

Moreover, even the wording of that proposal is questionable because it has been put forth by the outgoing administration. There’s no use talking seriously or hypothetically about such important and even momentous issues, or commenting on statements made by those who will leave their offices in Washington within days.

The history of our relations with the United States shows that every new US administration substantially, and sometimes radically, changes America’s approach to strategic stability and arms control. We have even seen new administrations making a U-turn on many other issues. That is what we should bear in mind.

Question: Keith Kellogg, who has been picked by President-elect Trump as his special envoy for Ukraine, plans to visit several European capitals in early January as part of Trump’s initiative for a peaceful settlement in Ukraine. Some sources say that he might also visit Moscow. Has the Trump team contacted Russia through diplomatic channels?

Maria Zakharova: No, it hasn’t. I would like to draw your attention to the statements made by Presidential Aide Yury Ushakov, who said that no contacts were maintained with the Trump team through diplomatic channels during the transition period. Nothing has changed in this sense.

It would be reasonable to make such comments after the transition of power and the appointment of new officials in the US administration.

Question: Donald Trump has said that he was looking forward to a meeting with his Russian colleague, Vladimir Putin. Do you think that Kiev might take steps to prevent this meeting?

Maria Zakharova: Any comments on official contacts between the presidents of Russia and the United States should be made after inauguration and the relevant appointments.

Since Ukraine is a subject nation, the Kiev regime carries out terrorist attacks on a daily basis at the request of those who pump money through it, supply weapons and is interested in continuing or escalating the conflict. It is doing so to influence those who call for a political and diplomatic settlement, to derail peace initiatives, to intimidate those whose opinions differ from those of the outgoing Biden administration, and so on. Each terrorist attack claims lives, destroys civilian infrastructure, and damages the aspirations of those for whom peace is the main goal. But there is no connection to potential future contacts. We will discuss them in due time.

Calls for discussing peace initiatives made in Budapest are immediately followed by aggressive rhetoric from dysfunctional Zelensky and terrorist attacks that are carried out to support his aggressive stance. As for Prime Minister of Slovakia Robert Fico, he himself has been a subject of an assassination attack. This is another real-life example of what you say. The Kiev regime is using terrorist attacks to influence those who speak out against conflict escalation and for a political and diplomatic solution. Kiev is doing so because conflict escalation benefits those who pay money to Zelensky or “pump money” through him, who “created” him and brought him to power, who prohibited him to talk with Russia and ordered him to walk out of negotiations, who don’t need Ukraine to prosper but want to use it in their own interests.

Question: It is only a few days before New Year’s Eve. According to the Russian Public Opinion Research Centre, more than one-third of Russians would ask Father Frost for Russia’s Victory in the special military operation. Ms Zakharova, what would you personally ask of Father Frost?

Maria Zakharova: You question is somewhat ambiguous.

Of course, all wishes and aspirations are focused on Victory and peace. But since you are addressing me in an official capacity, I can tell you that Russia is not asking for Victory. We are bringing it closer.

If I could ask the heavens for anything, I would ask for strength and blessing in achieving this goal. Our goals are determined and clearly formulated. We are bringing them closer. You know that.

Question: The Israeli officials in the occupied territories in southern Syria are forcing the local population to declare their wish to join Israel. What is Russia’s stance on these actions and the occupation of Syrian land considering that the territory occupied right now is already twice larger than the territory of the Golan Heights?

Maria Zakharova: I have already heard that people are forced to become citizens, to renounce their own ethnicity and culture, and are even forced to give up their mother tongue or, when it is impossible, their language is renamed. Somebody is writing the same script to be staged in different regions of the world.

We have already commented on the involvement of external actors in carving up Syria or seizing its territory.

Our view is that it is necessary to preserve the unity and territorial integrity of the Syrian state. We call for all responsible members of the international community to abide by this approach. Our view is that the dissolution of Syria would become a serious challenge to the security of its neighbours and the Middle East in general, with long-term consequences that can spill over to other regions. This must not be allowed to happen.

Question: Russian Presidential Aid Yury Ushakov stated that several countries have already offered to host talks between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump after he is inaugurated as the US President.

Does the Foreign Ministry consider the possibility of a preliminary meeting between Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and the future US Secretary of State (presumably, Marco Rubio), and is this possibility being worked on? What does the Russian Foreign Ministry generally think about Marco Rubio as a nominee for the Secretary of State?

Maria Zakharova: We have repeatedly commented on this, including today. Up until the inauguration of the US President and official appointment of the new administration and the foreign policy team, any comments regarding contacts, talks and building relations are premature and inappropriate. This is a generally recognised diplomatic practice.

As concerns specific nominees, it is a prerogative of the respective country, the nation and the president elected by this nation, to make such appointments. There is nothing to comment. When these sovereign appointments have been made, we will be able to address this topic.

Question: On December 19, President of Russia Vladimir Putin stated that he is willing to discuss the resolution of the conflict in Ukraine with Vladimir Zelensky, provided he proves his legitimacy through the presidential elections. Which representatives from Kiev does the Foreign Ministry consider potential participants in negotiations if the conflict is resolved peacefully? Is Moscow exploring options for talks with other Ukrainian officials in the event that Vladimir Zelensky refuses to hold elections?

Maria Zakharova: The issue here is broader than simply naming individuals, positions, or other specifics, as the situation is much more complicated.

I would like to draw your attention to today’s interview with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on the Rossiya-1 channel, during the 60 Minutes programme hosted by Yevgeny Popov and Olga Skabeyeva, where he also addressed these topics.

Let me remind you that Russia has never ruled out the possibility of achieving the objectives of the special military operation through peaceful political and diplomatic means. President Vladimir Putin has reiterated this on several occasions, including during the Direct Line you mentioned. These are not just statements from the Russian President and the Foreign Minister, but a fundamental approach to Russia’s foreign policy, particularly in the context of the situation surrounding Ukraine.

Concrete proposals for initiating negotiations and finding a way out of the current situation were presented in the initiative put forward by President Vladimir Putin, which he announced on June 14 of this year at the Foreign Ministry. The Kiev regime has shown no interest in ending the conflict. This is not about the Ukrainian people, but rather those who have been installed as authorities to govern them, a move orchestrated by the West.

We have seen no positive changes in the rhetoric of the Kiev regime. All its actions demonstrate a lack of political will for peace. Vladimir Zelensky’s self-imposed ban on negotiations with Russia, established by his directive on September 30, 2022, remains in effect. Moreover, after his presidential term ends on May 21, 2024, he will no longer be a legitimate president, as per the Constitution of Ukraine. This means that any agreements signed by him could be declared invalid by the Ukrainian side at any time.

The Verkhovna Rada, which maintains its legitimacy under the Ukrainian Constitution, is authorised to represent official Kiev in international negotiations. This is not merely our assertion; Ukrainian experts also acknowledge it.

However, following the Direct Line with the President of Russia on December 19, the Speaker of the Rada, Ruslan Stefanchuk, stated that Kiev is only willing to negotiate on its own terms. This is not a partnership; it’s a unilateral stance. Negotiations cannot be based solely on the terms of one side. If they continue repeating these positions, as they have with previous mantras that led them to the brink, it shows that the parliamentarians are also unwilling to compromise, and thus not prepared for negotiations.

Unfortunately, this is the response we have seen. Unfortunately, for whom? Primarily for Ukraine and the Ukrainian people, who are being shot even on their way to military enlistment offices. Or those who try to protect them are also shot.

I was compelled to revisit the history of this issue and repeat everything. Because this is not a simple yes-or-no question, nor about a specific position or individual, but about what the Kiev regime is stuck in — this swampy situation. The reason for this is clear. They are not independent. They do not base their actions on national interests or firm convictions about the fate of the Ukrainian people. Instead, they rely on the shaky ground of presumed Western support and the promise of future arms and financial supplies, once again exposing their inability to stand on their own.

Question: Vladimir Zelensky responded to the visit by Prime Minister of Slovakia Robert Fico to Moscow by accusing him of maintaining ties with Russia. What does the Foreign Ministry think about Vladimir Zelensky’s statements on Moscow’s diplomatic contacts with Bratislava in the context of Robert Fico’s visit to Moscow, as well as about Russian gas transits through Ukraine and plans to stop them after January 1, 2025?

Maria Zakharova: I have already commented on this matter, as you have rightly noted. I can say that this was an inadequate response by an inadequate person who is trying to cling to power – I am referring to Vladimir Zelensky, of course. He is doing everything to make his agony last, which means prolonging the agony for his entire regime. This is our assessment, as we have said many times.

Question: What does Russia think about Ilham Aliyev’s proposal to dissolve the OSCE Minsk Group? He reiterated it during his interview with Dmitry Kiselev.

Maria Zakharova: We have already commented on this matter. However, considering that these statements were made, I suggest that we revisit this topic.

Let me remind you that the Minsk Group’s American and French co-chairs stopped talking to the Russian co-chairs in February 2022. It was their initiative to act this way.

All other matters aside, once these communications were suspended, and when Armenia recognised Karabakh as an integral part of the Republic of Azerbaijan following the Armenia-Azerbaijan-EU-France summit in Prague on October 6, 2022, and with the radical shift in the situation on the ground in September 2023, the mandate of the OSCE Minsk Conference on the Nagorno-Karabakh Settlement became irrelevant. But it was the effort by the West to block this format that started this process. The actual changes in the situation, including on the ground, came later.

Therefore, all the structures affiliated with the Minsk Conference, including the Minsk Group, the High-Level Planning Group, and the office of the Personal Representative of the OSCE Chair-in-Office on the conflict dealt with by the OSCE Minsk Conference must be dissolved. We believe that the best way for adopting this decision would be for Baku and Yerevan to make a joint proposal to cancel these institutions.

Question: I wanted to ask you to share Russia’s opinion about Ankara’s actions. It prevented the Islamists and terrorists in Idlib from being defeated, and then helped them stage an offensive and oust Bashar al-Assad. Türkiye infringed upon its commitments to Russia and Iran within the Astana Process. How can it be that in the regions where we used to see Russian flags, there are now Turkish flags, first in Karabakh, and now in Syria?

Maria Zakharova: What do you mean? Where did you have a Turkish flag apart from Syria?

Question: In Karabakh, to give you one example. It happened in Shusha, and in other places too.

Maria Zakharova: As far as I know, there are now flags of Azerbaijan in Karabakh. Does this mean that you have nothing against an Azerbaijani flag in Karabakh? Or this is the question you wanted to ask me? Is this clear to you?

Question: I am one of those Armenians who cannot agree less with what you said about Nikol Pashinyan recognising something.

Maria Zakharova: All I did was share the perspective of Armenia’s leadership, not ours, on this matter. I mentioned the decisions by the Armenian leadership on recognising Nagorno-Karabakh as Azerbaijan’s territory.

You keep switching roles on this matter. First, your express your personal disagreement, but then start inquiring about what we think about the way one country views the actions of another country. Why would you do all that if not for fulfilling someone’s agenda? I cannot see any sincere effort on your behalf to act as a journalist.

This region is going through tragic times. For many years, the Armed Forces of Russia prevented this region and this country from falling down the cliff. But what we have today is a tragedy. Look at what is going on. What can and needs to be done to prevent the situation from spiralling out of control at a global scale? This is what everyone is trying to understand.

Meanwhile, you opted for bold brush strokes. Your question is not based in fact, I believe. Let me reiterate that we must view the overall situation as a tragic development. We must do everything to prevent any escalation or degradation. This is what Russia has been doing for all these years.

Question: I agree with you. Indeed, Russia did everything to prevent escalation, but there was another specific country which did everything for this escalation to happen.

Maria Zakharova: In this case, I will refer your question to this other country.

Question: As per the instruction of Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin, from 2024 to 2028, Russia will allocate over $25 million from its federal budget to provide food for Armenian school students. Since 2010, the Russian Federation has collaborated with the UN World Food Programme and the Armenian government to implement the National School Meals Programme. How much has Russia spent in total on this initiative for Armenian school students? Additionally, are there any other programmes planned to support Armenia with Russia’s participation and funding?

Maria Zakharova: You are indeed correct in recognising that the initiative to establish and enhance the National School Meals System has been underway since 2010. The cumulative funds allocated by Russia, including the anticipated funding for 2024-2028, exceed $68 million. Due to Russian financial support, primary school students in over 1,000 schools are benefiting from nutritious and balanced meals. Solar panels have been installed in almost 100 schools, and the savings from energy costs – approximately $390,000 – are being redirected to further develop school infrastructure and student nutrition.

Within the framework of the World Food Programme, Russia actively leverages the capabilities of other UN entities. We provide regular updates on these efforts. Through the United Nations Development Programme, we are advancing rural development and eco-tourism, enhancing skills and creating employment opportunities for youth, bolstering Armenia’s resilience to climate change, and addressing the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Since 2021, a project has been initiated to assist the most affected regions in post-conflict recovery. This involves providing housing, supporting agricultural producers, and facilitating the reintegration of former combatants.

In cooperation with UNICEF, we are enhancing the efficiency of delivering essential services and ongoing care for children and adults with disabilities. Through funding from Russia, UNIDO is executing projects to bolster the competitiveness of export-oriented industries.

This is by no means an exhaustive list of projects supported by Russian funding in Armenia via international organisations. Other initiatives span crucial sectors such as transportation, energy, environmental protection, disaster risk reduction, healthcare, including neonatal care, and combating HIV/AIDS outbreaks.

As for your question regarding similar initiatives in other countries, indeed, we routinely discuss school meals as an exemplary model of our collaboration with international organisations, particularly within the UN framework, with specific reference to Central Asian nations, for instance.

Question: With the New Year approaching in a few days, what are your wishes for Armenia and the Armenian people in 2025?

Maria Zakharova: I believe it is important to note that the leadership of our country has extended New Year greetings to the leaders of the Transcaucasian countries, including Armenia. These messages contain best wishes, and considering the holiday context of these interactions between heads of state and government, all sentiments are conveyed from one state to another.

I wish every fraternal nation, and indeed the Armenian people as a fraternal nation, along with all the inhabitants of the South Caucasus, wellbeing, peace, prosperity, and the overcoming of existing challenges.

Peace is my wish for all. However, this wish transcends regional boundaries; it is universally addressed. I express this sincerely, from the depths of my heart.

From a practical perspective, in diplomatic terms, Russia remains committed to offering all possible assistance towards Armenian-Azerbaijani normalisation, strengthening economic and transport links, and fostering trust-based relations founded on mutual benefit within the region through both implemented and forthcoming measures.

Question: The United States has issued an advisory urging its citizens to leave Belarus immediately. How do you qualify this? Some speculate that it could be linked to a potential coup d’état in Belarus, while others suggest it might be connected to plans for a Ukrainian military incursion into Russia through Belarus.

Maria Zakharova: We qualify this advisory, like previous ones, as a provocation orchestrated by the United States. This is not the first advisory of that kind issued by the US State Department. Washington issued similar “warnings” in August 2023 as well. This is their favourite tactic which they use to ratchet up tensions and to make veiled threats in the run-up to important, primarily electoral, processes in the countries that have failed to “pledge allegiance” to them.

Presidential elections in Belarus will take place on January 26, 2025. Incumbent President Alexander Lukashenko will run for re-election alongside other contenders.

Reports indicate that Western “democratisation” foundations that have close ties with Western special services are working to stage an extensive - clearly, it will not be a one-time event - propaganda campaign to incite protest sentiment in Belarus and to step up support for the fugitive Belarusian opposition members, who have repeatedly urged the West to take action against the citizens of Belarus. One has to really debase oneself to beg for imposing tough sanctions on their own people.

Against this background, the above US State Department’s advisory represents an attempt to destabilise the situation in the Republic and confirms Washington’s longstanding strategy of interfering in the internal affairs of Belarus, as well as its push to overthrow the legitimate government in that country.

These fake claims represent an American tool to stir the anti-government sentiment. In our view, the sociopolitical and socioeconomic situation in Belarus is stable. The authorities are ensuring high levels of security and law and order. The systematic outreach to the people and the efforts to upgrade the political system undertaken as part of the constitutional reform have led to a significant decline in the protest potential and to greater mutual understanding between the authorities and constructively-minded sociopolitical forces. Belarusian “political emigrants” (actually, individuals who strongly encouraged the West to take action against their own nation) settled down in neighbouring Poland and the Baltic countries. They have lost every bit of credibility by doing so and lost their standing in the eyes of their compatriots and not only them. Even the West now sees them as traitors.

My wish is for the elections in Belarus to take place in a peaceful atmosphere.

At the same time, amid the failed attempts to rock Belarusian society from within, one cannot rule out new Western attempts, including through the use of the Ukrainian military and illegal armed formations controlled by the West, to pull a reckless adventure in Belarus. It can be anything, including a move involving the military. We are aware of the aggressive rhetoric by the US State Department and other agencies.

We would like to once again remind Western “strategists” and their Ukrainian underlings that the Russia-Belarus Treaty on Security Guarantees within the Union State signed by the presidents of Russia and Belarus on December 6 in Minsk lays out an extensive list of mutual obligations to ensure defence, and to protect sovereignty, independence and constitutional order of Russia and Belarus, as well as the integrity and inviolability of the territory and the outer border of the Union State. For this purpose, all available forces and means will be used, including those designated in the revised version of the Basic Principles of State Policy of the Russian Federation on Nuclear Deterrence approved on November 19. During the signing ceremony, an announcement was made about an agreement to deploy Oreshnik missile systems in Belarus in the second half of 2025 allowing Minsk to independently choose targets.

In other words, Russia will provide its ally with the necessary assistance to eliminate internal and external threats. Any attempt to implement an aggressive scenario against Minsk is fraught with the most devastating consequences for the perpetrators and the masterminds.

Question: Some countries are making their relations with the new Syrian government, and some of them have decided to open their embassies there. Has Russia taken any steps in this regard? Have you planned to open your embassy there or have you started new relations with them?

Maria Zakharova: There seems to be a misunderstanding. Perhaps what you have seen is fake news.

Russia has not changed the status of its representative mission in Syria. The Russian Embassy in Damascus continues to operate. It is not closed.

Question: Have you started your relations with them?

Maria Zakharova: Russia maintains contacts with all functioning political forces that openly state their position. We have stated this repeatedly. I can confirm it once again.

Question: You have already spoken about Latvia and, should I say, its brutish behaviour. I am not even going to look for synonyms here because this sort of conduct has nothing to do with politics. It is unbearably painful when somebody spits in the backs of our veterans, bullies our children and seniors. My question is not only from me as a citizen of Latvia (which I remain and, hopefully, I will soon become your fellow citizen) but also generally from all our compatriots who are still in Latvia and in the Baltic states. Why are we still not using the entire arsenal of administrative tools if not to suppress but at least to oppose this neo-Nazi regime, and the ethnolinguistic genocide? It hurts me to read the feed and see the news that the exports from these countries to Russia are growing again. It has grown by 65 percent this year alone. It would be logical if we were selling, but buying from the countries that are our open geopolitical enemies…

Maria Zakharova: Allow me to answer your question part by part, although it seems to be mainly a complaint.

First. Concerning actions, they go beyond statements and press releases. I will remind you that we have a national programme of assistance with voluntary relocation to the Russian Federation for compatriots living abroad. There is a lot of work handled by competent organisations of the Russian civic society – in particular, the Russian Legal Association and the International Association of Russian-Speaking Lawyers. The Foundation for Support and Protection of the Rights of Compatriots Living Abroad also plays a colossal role and is a unique human rights mechanism.

Second. We resort to all available international judicial mechanisms against unfriendly states that systematically discriminate against Russians. In particular, there are opportunities provided by the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination of 1965.

Pre-trial claims have already been filed against Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia for the severe violation of the rights of Russians, in breach of the aforementioned Convention. We have consistently reported on this matter and addressed it publicly, including during the briefing on October 30 of this year, in connection with the situation involving the Morozov family, who were forced to flee Latvia due to the derussification policies pursued by the country’s authorities.

Let me remind you that derussification is a discriminatory violation of the rights of the majority of the Russian population, involving the denial of citizenship and the issuance of non-citizen passports. It entails the complete elimination of education in the Russian language and its forced removal from all areas of public life, against the will of the people. It also involves shaping the public perception of Russians as an internal enemy. This is the persecution and prosecution of public figures on fabricated charges simply for standing up for what is obvious – the Russian language, culture, and the rights of fellow compatriots. It also involves the persecution of ordinary people who refuse to abandon their identity, who reject Russophobic mantras, and who, seeing the illegitimacy and inhumanity of the situation, do not want to align themselves with the ideology of Russophobia. This is especially true of the Baltic countries.

This also includes the glorification of Nazism. Criminals from the Waffen-SS and other accomplices of Adolf Hitler in Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia are almost revered as national heroes or semi-gods. Streets are named after them, monuments are erected, ceremonial events are held in their honour, and their photos appear in school textbooks. Monuments are built for surviving SS men, while memorials to Soviet soldiers who fought against Nazism are being demolished across the Baltics. Those who celebrate Victory Day face real punitive measures.

Nothing will be let drop or forgotten. The Baltic authorities will be held accountable for all of this.

The list of unfriendly countries facing legal claims for discriminating against Russians will not be limited to the Baltics. We will provide detailed comments in due course. Rest assured, this work is already in progress.

The second area is economic countermeasures. The sanctions imposed by Russia have negatively affected nearly all sectors of the Baltic States’ economies. These are retaliatory measures. The most significant losses have been in the transport, logistics, and transit sectors, which were once key contributors to the budgets of these countries. Today, due to a sharp decline in government purchases from Russia and Belarus, many companies in the transport sector, particularly in Latvia and Lithuania, are on the brink of collapse. This is not our choice; we are simply responding. A year ago, the total uncovered losses of the state railway company Latvian Railways amounted to 47 million euros, and the company has been witnessing large-scale layoffs for several years, reducing its workforce by over 2,000 employees. A similar situation is unfolding with the airline AirBaltic, which reported financial losses exceeding 88 million euros in the first half of 2024. This company is also facing the threat of bankruptcy.

I would like to emphasise once again that we were open to interaction. We are neighbours, with a shared history that contains far more positives than issues. Any problems could have been overcome. We sought to develop relations at various levels – state, private, and simply to engage with the people of these countries without the constant aggressive barriers, both physical and political. However, the Baltics became a testing ground for anti-Russian, Russophobic narratives, as the West calls them. As a result, we had no choice but to respond.

In the context of renouncing Russian energy carriers, the Baltic states are facing an unprecedented increase in utility rates, as well as transportation costs, and a catastrophic drop in the standards of living.

All of this makes people look for a better life beyond the Baltic countries. People are being washed away from there. About a quarter of the population has left in recent years. Banks and restaurants are closing in Latvia, and the tourist flow has dropped sharply.

If you think that I enjoy myself saying this, that is not true. This is only because we are finally reciprocating, while understanding clearly that there must be a different way. Unfortunately, the Baltic States did not use it. We are not talking about rabid nationalists or simply crazy people. We are talking about the people living in all these countries that have different political views. They certainly did not intend to live in hostility with their compatriots, people with whom they share a common history. They wanted to use all the opportunities offered by Russia (its resources, culture, history, potential, and so on), meanwhile developing relations with their Western neighbours. But they were forcibly turned away.

According to the statements made by Latvian politicians themselves, the once lively Old Riga began to resemble a cemetery. Once again, this is not my quote. I am citing those who live there. Remember how many Russians came for the New Year holidays. And what does it mean to travel to another country? Hotel businesses are growing, and the tourist potential is developing: restaurants, and public places associated with culture, history. This is a natural, friendly influx of investment. This is not a conquest, but the very interaction in the humanitarian sphere that everyone dreams of.

The Baltics have received all of this from us. And then all hell broke loose: visas are denied, stop lists are introduced, real estate is taken away, and persecution begins. All kinds of events have already happened, and not only in relation to Russian citizens, in relation to their own citizens, those who have citizenship. We have heard a lot over these years.

And now, we are responding. Not a single unfriendly attack from Vilnius, Riga or Tallinn will remain without a proper response from our side.

Answering your question, the third block. If you or your subscribers, readers, your audience have a list of measures that could be taken, please give them to us.

Question: What do you think about the state and prospects of Russian-Abkhazian relations, given the current situation in the republic?

Maria Zakharova: Abkhazia remains one of our closest allies by virtue of our close historic, political, economic, social and cultural ties.

Russia continues to assist Abkhazia in security, socioeconomic development and in other important areas on the conditions set out in numerous legislative and contractual documents between our countries. Guided by humanitarian considerations, Russia, in response to an official appeal by the Acting President of Abkhazia, Badra Gunba, took a decision on the social transfer of electricity to Abkhazia from December 23 until the end of February 2025. This was done in view of the crisis situation in the republic's energy sector, provoked, among other things, by the wear and tear of local networks and uncontrolled mining of cryptocurrencies.

At the same time, it is obvious that allied relations imply a balance of mutual obligations. We expect Sukhum to pass it’s part of the way too in compliance with the abovementioned bilateral documents with respect to harmonising legislation, creating necessary conditions for Russian investments, etc.

We know that the Abkhazian society has a great demand for strengthening allied relations with Moscow. We hope that following the early presidential elections scheduled for February 15, 2025, the leader, who will continue to work in close tandem with Russia on the progressive development of Abkhazia and bilateral relations will be elected.

Question: I join you in congratulations. From the bottom of my heart, I wish you many glorious years. Remain steadfast in the battle for the Fatherland.

Maria Zakharova: Thank you! I also wish you all the best for the coming holidays and in the New Year.

Question: What do you think about the way the United Nations has been working these days to guarantee respect for the main principles of international law as set forth in the UN Charter and other legal instruments in the context of the Ukraine conflict? Can the international community treat questions Russia’s Permanent Representative Vasily Nebenzya and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov raise regularly at the Security Council meetings in a reasonable manner and take important decisions within the UN?

Maria Zakharova: I believe that we must look at the gist of this matter. Everyone is talking about the United Nations facing a crisis, but hardly anyone talks about what actually caused it.

How long will you – I do not mean you specifically, since I am talking in general – keep turning a blind eye to the reason which prevents the UN from being effective? The reason is that the West has monopolised everything. Look at the way the UN Secretariat is staffed. Look at the agenda, in this case over the past two and a half years, considering that there was hardly an item on the agenda which did not mention Ukraine in one way or another, regardless of whether it dealt with the situation in the region or international security, or not. Everything starts with Ukraine.

Meanwhile, for eight years civilians got killed in Donbass and there were all these human rights violations, but no one seemed to notice that. No one paid any attention to the fact that people were denied basic human needs, including the right to live, not to survive, and receive education. Maybe we should start with access to food, salaries and social benefits to which these people were entitled. For eight years, not a single Western country mentioned Ukraine in any specialised UN frameworks. And when Russian representatives raised these matters, many of them were told that they had no right to do so.

These are just two examples of this crisis. There is also the fact that the UN Secretariat has been basically taken over by the West with people sticking exclusively to the Western idea of global dominance, or rather an aggressive pro-NATO vision, serving in all the key positions. This means that the Anglo-Saxons must be at the helm and use the tools and institutions at their disposal to influence others. This way, they can rely on their own rules instead of international law when shaping the world order. This includes, among other things, the effort to permeate the agenda with the Ukraine topic.

These are just two examples of the West causing challenges for the UN.

Giving people a proper burial was an urgent task in the hungry, cold and horrific years after World War II – we call it the Great Patriotic War. You may remember that people had to be buried along roads by simply shovelling earth over holes in the ground because giving people a proper burial was impossible. There was this urgent need to bury all the corpses, let alone identify them. This was the kind of tasks people faced at that time. And it was at this historical juncture that the United Nations, a complex institution, was established. It got its headquarters built, and all the countries sent their delegates there. Can we prevent its demise today?

It was established during the years of hardship, while we failed to insulate it from the West’s destructive influence in the years when the world (at least several years ago) found itself on the brink of a series of crises, leaving the UN almost paralysed. They have not destroyed the UN completely so far, but succeeded in preventing it from performing its work in a constructive manner and with integrity. This is where the primary cause of its ineffectiveness lies.

I have already used the bicycle metaphor. If it is not moving, it does not mean that it is broken. Maybe someone is not working the pedals, or maybe there is an iron rod blocking the wheels. Take it out, work the pedals, and the bicycle will start moving. This is a mechanism, a tool. And you must use it accordingly. This is what Russia has always been calling for. They must stop putting spokes in the wheels. This has a destructive effect which not only makes the international community and the United Nations less responsive, but has a destructive effect on them.

You asked whether we could expect the international community to adopt an adequate response and understand what is going on? Of course. Some can resist the West in their national capacity, while others lack this capability.

We have referred to the Middle East as a case in point during today’s briefing several times. There is no other way. Otherwise, they will once again enslave everyone and, in this particular case, once again plunge us back into the neo-colonial era.

However, even among Western countries, there are quite a few actors who have been reasonable and adequate in their assessment of the situation. However, people get persecuted for taking this position. This is what happened as recently as just several years ago. And people get killed. Robert Fico, as well as other political figures, faced assassination attempts. Look at how they transformed Ukraine into a terrorist state which carried out a series of terror attacks in Europe and other continents. But we must resist. We can see the corresponding, reasonable statements coming not only from the Global Majority, but also from within NATO-centric countries. And you know our position well.

Question: Thank you very much. We will stand our ground.

Question: Allow me to wish you a happy birthday on behalf of our editorial desk and on my own behalf.

Question: In letters addressed to UNESCO Director-General Audrey Azoulay Russian media organisations have urged the body to cease sidestepping instances of violations against Russian journalists' rights. These letters were penned in response to the omission in UNESCO's draft report on journalist safety, which neglected to mention several cases where Russian media personnel were injured or killed while performing their professional duties. Has there been any response from the UNESCO Director-General’s office regarding these letters?

Maria Zakharova: I have observed a reaction from the UNESCO Director-General’s office only within the context of the meeting of the International Programme for the Development of Communication (IPDC). Audrey Azoulay herself was absent. Her representatives were present and had to address this barrage. Another point to consider is that her mandate is nearing its end. Her tenure is concluding. We will have to see how the new Director-General approaches this matter.

However, I believe the message has been conveyed. As you have rightly pointed out, it was not just our country that reacted; numerous delegates within the IPDC framework, countries represented through Permanent Delegations to UNESCO in Paris, national media corporations from various countries, and journalists’ unions have expressed their support. Many have voiced their disapproval of the report, supporting not only Russia's stance – due to our amicable relations – but because of the blatant neglect and the segregation of journalists into “right” and “wrong” categories. The notion that some journalists should be mentioned in the event of death, while others are omitted even when murdered, incited their indignation and rejection. Hence, they backed us. I believe this message has indeed been relayed.

Question: As you promised at the previous briefing, could you share your wishes and greetings to the Russian and foreign diplomatic corps, and to Russians? I would like to hear it from you personally.

Maria Zakharova: Increasingly, people around the globe are choosing to wish for peace for themselves, their loved ones, and for all of us. What does this indicate? I think it highlights something very significant.

We have become less self-centred. Yes, through such formidable trials and challenges that we never anticipated encountering in our lifetime, considering that our forebears already paid a steep price. Perhaps it is through this means, but we have become less egotistical. We think not merely about our personal priorities. I am referring to individuals worldwide. I read what they write, listen to what they say, and observe what they strive to communicate.

An increasing number of people wish for peace for all. They recognise that this is the fundamental value. More individuals are coming to understand that it is not merely their personal desires that should dominate. It is crucial that wishes for goodness, well-being, peace, love, and prosperity be extended to as many people as possible. This is the power and assurance that these wishes will materialise even on a personal level. This is what I wish.

I wish for peace and that this wish for peace touches each of us. When expressing it, we should direct it to the entire planet, ensuring it is not just self-serving but also universal. Naturally, I wish for Victory for us, for our country, and for our people, which we are striving to bring closer.

***

I believe I have conveyed everything in these words, but acknowledging your truly challenging mission – because journalism is no longer merely a profession; it is a perilous mission that endangers life and well-being – I wish you patience, strength, and unwavering determination to defend the truth. Happy upcoming holidays!

Table of Contents

Дополнительные материалы

Фото

Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, December 25, 2024

Table of Contents

Дополнительные материалы

Фото

Поделиться ссылкой на выделенное