Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, July 9, 2025

 

Sergey Lavrov’s schedule

 

We addressed this matter in detail during our previous briefing. By way of supplementary information, I will briefly outline forthcoming engagements involving Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

On July 10–11, in Kuala Lumpur, Sergey Lavrov will participate in the regular meetings of foreign ministers under the auspices of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), encompassing the Russia–ASEAN format, the East Asia Summit, and the ASEAN Regional Forum on Security.

Detailed materials will be published on the website of the Russian Foreign Ministry and its official social media accounts.

On the sidelines of the ASEAN events, the Minister will hold a series of meetings with his counterparts.

On July 11–13, Sergey Lavrov will visit the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea for negotiations as part of the second round of strategic dialogue at the level of foreign ministers.

On July 14–15, in Tianjin (China), Minister Lavrov will attend a meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) member states.

This session will serve as a pivotal preparatory stage for the SCO summit, scheduled for August 30–September 1 in the same city. Discussions will focus on the current state and prospects for further development and enhancement of the organisation’s activities, alongside other pressing issues.

 

Terrorist attacks by the Kiev regime in Kursk and Rylsk

 

On the evening of July 8, as Russia celebrated the radiant holiday of the Day of Family, Love, and Fidelity, the Ukrainian Nazis demonstrated boundless inhumanity by launching two deliberate drone strikes on the city beach in Kursk, where numerous city residents, including children, were relaxing. The Ukrainian neo-Nazis knew precisely whom they were targeting. Three men perished, including one during a second cynical attack while assisting in the evacuation of beachgoers. Seven individuals were wounded, among them a five-year-old boy. The casualty count may yet rise.

That same day, the neo-Banderites struck civilian infrastructure in Rylsk with drone attacks — targeting the infectious diseases ward of the central district hospital, an emergency medical services building, and the administrative premises of an agricultural enterprise. Two women sustained injuries.

We extend heartfelt condolences to the families of the deceased, the injured, and all victims of these merciless terrorist acts against our country’s civilian population.

We urge the rational segment of the international community, still capable – despite the censorship imposed by the West and Bankovaya Street – of recognising the atrocities committed by the Kiev regime, to unequivocally condemn these blood-soaked crimes.

What, then, is the worth of so-called human rights institutions if they remain blind to deliberate strikes on urban beaches, resulting in civilian deaths and child casualties? Western sponsors supplying arms to the Kiev regime must acknowledge their direct complicity in terror against Russian children, women, and civilians – rendering them accomplices to the war crimes of Vladimir Zelensky’s regime.

 

Ukrainian crisis

 

Faced with mounting pressure from our armed forces along the entire frontline, the Kiev regime, unable to achieve any tangible results on the battlefield, has resorted to shameless acts of terrorism against civilians and non-military infrastructure in Russia.

Over the past week alone, approximately 160 people have suffered injuries due to artillery and drone attacks. Tragically, 17 people have been killed, and more than 140 injured, including eight children. I will briefly highlight a few recent examples of crimes committed by the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

In the Belgorod Region, on July 3-4, at least 16 people, including two children, were injured in drone attacks. On July 6, a man and woman lost their lives when a UAV struck a civilian vehicle on the Shebekino–Belgorod motorway. On July 7, another UAV strike in the Borisovka village injured three people, including an eighteen-month-old child.

In the Bryansk Region, on July 3, a man was killed and a woman injured when a drone targeted a civilian car in the Aleshkovichi village. Another person was wounded in a kamikaze drone strike in Lomakovka.

In the Kursk Region, on July 4, one person was killed and two injured when a drone dropped an explosive device on a civilian car in Ryzhevka.

In the Lipetsk Region, on July 3, debris from a drone intercepted by air defence systems fell on a residential building in the Lipetsk Municipal District, killing a woman born in 1954 and injuring two other civilians.

In the Zaporozhye Region, three people, including two children, were wounded in drone strikes on Konstantinovka. One child is still in critical condition. On July 7, a 19-year-old man was killed and at least six others injured following a shelling attack on a residential area in Vasilyevka.

In the Kherson Region, on July 4, a kamikaze drone struck the emergency department of the central district hospital in Alyoshky, causing extensive damage. On July 6, Ukrainian forces used artillery to destroy a hospital in Novaya Kakhovka. On the same day, a woman born in 1938 was killed and a man born in 1944 was injured in Kakhovka.

In the Donetsk People’s Republic, the Ukrainian Nazis launched a HIMARS missile strike on Donetsk using shrapnel warheads, killing four civilians and injuring four others. More drone attacks in Donetsk and Gorlovka injured three more people. On July 7, a man was killed in Gorlovka as a result of continued shelling.

In the Lugansk People’s Republic, a targeted terrorist attack on July 3, orchestrated by Ukrainian special services in the centre of Lugansk, killed Manolis Pilavov, former mayor of the city (2014–2023), and injured three others.

The Moscow Region. Two people were injured by falling fragments of the Ukrainian drones downed in the Sergiev Posad District on July 4.

The Rostov Region. An old woman was killed in a residential house in Dolotinka village by a falling enemy UAV in the night of July 4.

Punishment will ensue for all of this. Russian courts go on issuing sentences to Ukrainian neo-Nazis and mercenaries.

The following Ukrainian militants were sentenced to lengthy prison terms for their crimes against civilians and Russian servicemen in the Kursk Region: Yevgeny Kalashnik (16 years), Vladimir Gorbatko (16 years), Sergei Kapshuk (16 years), Alexander Prokopenko (16 years), Vladimir Popovich (16 years), Andrei Milentiev (15 years), Nikolai Teslya (15 years), Grigory Mikushev (15 years) and Sergei Smulko (13 years).

Georgian mercenaries Georgy Gogadze and Gela Eradze, as well as the militant with dual Swiss-Israeli citizenship Motola Avi Doron were sentenced in absentia to 14 years in prison each. They have been placed on the international wanted list.

The Russian Investigative Committee has established that on January 24, 2024, Russian Il-76M military aircraft with 65 Ukrainian POWs, Russian officers who guarded them and the crew on board was downed in the Belgorod Region on order from commander of the Ukrainian 138th Air Defense Missile Brigade Nikolai Dzyaman and his military unit superiors. This military criminal was earlier sentenced to life imprisonment for his order to shoot down the A-50U aircraft in the Krasnodar Territory on February 23, 2024, which killed 10 people. Nikolai Dzyaman has been placed on the international wanted list.

Western arms supplies to Ukraine continue. Washington’s earlier decision to suspend arms supplies to the Kiev regime while the Pentagon audits its arms depots was followed by a statement on their resumption. The effects of such steps have yet to be evaluated. We can say for sure that continued arms supplies to the Kiev regime will not, to put it mildly, promote peaceful settlement of the conflict, which the international community, including the Western wing, seems to be urging everyone. Throughout all the time, we have been proceeding from the primacy of political and diplomatic settlement in Ukraine.

European bureaucrats continue their narrow, self-serving policy of escalation. The well-being of millions of ordinary Europeans seems to be the last thing on their minds – let alone that of Ukrainians. They show little regard for their own citizens, whose wallets are being shamelessly emptied by Brussels officials who never quite remember to explain where all those involuntary contributions end up. And where do they go? To kill children and civilians.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz keeps up the steady flow of hypocrisy, arguing that supplying the Kiev regime with Taurus cruise missiles is somehow a necessity. In a July 1 interview with a German TV channel, he emphasised the weapon’s technical complexity, insisting that training soldiers to use it takes at least six months. If Berlin does supply the Armed Forces of Ukraine with Taurus missiles, he claimed, it won’t be German soldiers using the weapon – just Ukrainians, who allegedly already operate similar cruise missiles supplied from Britain and France. But behind these verbal acrobatics lies the Merz government’s thinly veiled ambition to have a direct hand in striking deep into Russian territory. Berlin doesn’t seem to care what that actually means: Germany’s de facto entry into a war with our country. But they should.

Meanwhile, the Swedish government tried to free up funds to boost support for Kiev’s neo-Nazis by slashing humanitarian aid and overall international development assistance to the poorest countries, primarily in Asia, also on July 1. They had once positioned themselves as ardent champions of human rights, reaching out to nations across Asia, Africa, and Latin America, lecturing them on how to embrace democracy and hold elections to alleviate suffering. They loudly proclaimed the primacy of human rights – until everything changed overnight. No more advocacy, no more concern for the people who had been counting on the promised assistance.

This year alone, the cuts in aid will save Stockholm around $177 million – money they can now redirect to the Kiev regime, pushing Sweden’s total assistance to $957 million in 2025. The move might have been understandable if they’d shifted funds from aiding the needy in Asia to helping Ukrainians with food, water, medicine, or even education and public administration. But no—Stockholm would rather spend this billion on killing as many Ukrainian citizens as possible. This is their idea of “respecting” human rights in Ukraine.

Justifying this “generosity” at the expense of the world’s neediest is cynicism. Sweden argues that, with the US slashing its foreign humanitarian aid budget, its own contribution wouldn’t reverse the humanitarian crisis in those regions anyway, whereas Ukraine remains a “policy priority.” Translation: “We’ll finish you off to spare you further suffering.” That’s what Sweden is actually saying. Their so-called priority means the interests of the corrupt neo-Nazi regime in Ukraine matter more than those of the poorest nations the West has spent decades exploiting.

However, across the ocean, confidence in the success of the Ukraine “project” is waning. As reported on July 5, 2025, by a Western news agency, the American investment firm BlackRock had halted its search for investors to contribute to a Ukrainian recovery fund already at the start of the year. The fund was allegedly set to be announced at the forthcoming conference in Rome on July 10–11, focusing on the recovery of Ukraine. A remarkable story. On the one hand, they fabricate – it is now abundantly clear – false narratives about seeking investors for this supposed revival, reconstruction, or restoration of Ukraine. On the other hand, they allocate even more funds towards lethal weaponry that devastates Ukraine and claims the lives of its people.

The stated reason is the lack of interest amid growing uncertainty concerning Ukraine’s future. Earlier projections had estimated raising approximately $500 million for the fund from nations, international development banks, and other sponsors, alongside $2 billion from private investors. Yet, as we observe, the Americans – skilled in evaluating investment risks – have opted to revise their plans and refrain from investing in an utterly futile endeavour. Not because we do not wish to see Ukraine as a prosperous, stable, and peaceful country (quite the opposite – this is not merely a desire but an absolute necessity for us), but because we fully comprehend that the West’s declared militarisation is not aimed at constructing a stable, prosperous, or developed state on Ukrainian soil, but rather at exploiting it as a tool. As French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot recently remarked at an economic conference, Ukrainians ensure their security – whether he referred to the West’s security or solely to France’s remains unclear. However, let us recall, no one has ever threatened them.

On July 2, 2025, Vladimir Zelensky signed an order revoking the Ukrainian citizenship of the canonical Primate of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, Metropolitan Onufry. This was done by a man – I refer to Vladimir Zelensky – who proclaimed the decommunisation of Ukraine’s public space. It turns out that he is enforcing the worst of communist practices: depriving people of their right to religious freedom, faith, and their own worldview. Furthermore, he revokes citizenship itself. What is this, if not the worst kind of policy? Under communist rule, there were both positive and negative aspects. Having declared decommunisation, Vladimir Zelensky for some reason actively enforces the very worst elements of communist governance across Ukraine.

The pretext used was the Security Service of Ukraine’s accusations against Onufry, alleging his “continued support for the policies of the Russian Orthodox Church and its leadership,” “deliberate obstruction of the Ukrainian Church’s canonical independence from the Moscow Patriarchate,” and his alleged possession of Russian citizenship. Commenting on his decision, Vladimir Zelensky asserted that Ukraine has no place – nor will it ever – for “individuals working against Ukrainian independence in all its dimensions, including spiritual independence.” In that case, the first step should be to rid Ukraine of Western proxies. Who, if not they, stripped Ukraine of its independence by orchestrating unconstitutional coups, bribing Ukrainian officials and politicians? Who, if not the West, has dictated the Kiev regime’s actions, depriving Ukrainians of any democratic rights or freedoms?

It is precisely Vladimir Zelensky and his band of anti-church inquisitors – this faction – that trample religious freedoms in Ukraine and rob the country of spiritual independence. Quite the “term” they have invented. In their zeal to eliminate Ukraine’s largest religious denomination, with the shameful silence of specialised international bodies and most Western human rights advocates, they have embarked on yet another lawless act. They are doing everything to decapitate the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and justify a new wave of violence and repression against Orthodox Ukrainians.

They recognise that such fervour in dehumanisation may prove perilous. On July 2, 2025, Ukraine’s Verkhovna Rada declined to extend the contract of the Commissioner for the Protection of the State Language, Taras Kremen. Mr Kremen admitted that he wished to remain in office to continue issuing fines for violations of language legislation, but evidently, he had become too odious a figure even for contemporary Ukraine, prompting deputies to dismiss him.

During the five years that Taras Kremen held the position of “Sprechenfuhrer,” became known not so much for promoting Ukrainian identity as for consistently opposing the use of the Russian language. He publicly supported measures such as banning Russian in educational institutions during recess, advocated for eliminating the study of Russian in schools, and called for renaming settlements with Russian-language names. He also claimed Russian-speaking Ukrainians did not exist and promoted the idea that “Ukraine is for Ukrainians,” often associated with neo-Nazi discourse. Under his leadership, the number of schoolchildren studying Russian in Ukraine dropped dramatically: In 2022-2024, this figure plummeted from 455,000 to just 768. This is not necessarily due to a lack of interest, but rather restrictions. Many parents understand that this will be accompanied by social pressure and fears of possible repercussions.

Kremen also believes he played a key role in increasing the number of complaints related to violations of Ukraine’s language legislation. According to his own data, over 1,000 such complaints were filed in the first half of 2025, or 348 more than in the same period of 2024. The highest number of reports came from Kiev (582), followed by Odessa (178), Kharkov (171), Dnepropetrovsk (138), and Kiev Region (54). These figures reflect Ukraine’s current state policy, which they are proud of.

Despite these efforts, many citizens continue to speak Russian in their daily life. Attempts to categorise Ukrainian residents as “correct” or “incorrect” based on language do not help promote the state language; in fact, they contravene the Ukrainian Constitution, which prohibits discrimination and ensures the protection and development of the Russian language. This has not yet been cancelled. Such steps only increase the split in society, encouraging people to spy on each other, and to hate each other.

Reports in the media suggest that the Ministry of Justice has proposed actor and director Alexander Zavalsky as Kremen’s successor. Zavalsky previously opposed forced ukrainisation, stating that motivation, rather than coercion, should drive language acquisition. While these views appear balanced, past experience offers reasons for skepticism. Ukrainian public figures sometimes adopt moderate positions before entering office, only to shift once in power.

During his presidential campaign, Vladimir Zelensky also used to say that the rights of Russian-speaking citizens must be protected and language laws revised to make them more humane. However, his presidency has seen the passage of different legislation, such as the laws On Comrehensive General Secondary Education, On Indigenous Peoples, On National Minorities (Communities) of Ukraine, and On Preschool Education, which institutionalised discrimination against the Russian language. So, hopes for a significant policy reversal regarding the status of the Russian language and the rights of Russian-speaking Ukrainians appear limited. This will be determined not by statements, but by tangible actions.

Regarding the matter of allied relations – or what they refer to as “unity and solidarity” – the outgoing Polish President Andrzej Duda signed legislation on July 2 of this year, designating July 11 as a “day of remembrance for Poles – victims of genocide committed by the  Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) and  the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA)  (recognised as extremist and banned in the Russian Federation) in the eastern territories of the Second Polish Republic.” Kiev was swift to denounce this action as a “stab in the back,” yet it refuses to confront the evident truth: not all of Europe is willing to endure the escalating wave of Ukrainian neo-Nazism. Such denial is futile. Indications suggest that Warsaw remains resolute – prepared even to obstruct Ukraine’s potential accession to the EU and NATO until Bankovaya Street addresses Poland’s profoundly sensitive issue regarding the Volhynia massacre, as recently indicated by President-elect Karol Nawrocki.

In this context, Polish media reported on July 2 of this year the dismantling of a Ukrainian-led criminal syndicate in Poland, involved in the abduction of illegal migrants and extorting money under threats of murder and organ harvesting. It appears Poles have no desire to wait until they themselves fall victim to the very Ukrainian neo-Nazis they once supported. Or rather, become victims once again, as their ancestors did during the Volhynia massacre. Public support in Poland for Ukraine’s EU membership has plummeted: a June survey revealed that only 35 percent of Polish citizens are in favour, compared to 85 percent two years ago – a nearly two-and-a-half-fold decline in the number of those wishing to welcome Ukraine to European integration structures.

Concerns have been raised in Germany – albeit not at the highest level – regarding the dissemination of neo-Nazi ideology and the promotion of total militarisation within Ukrainian society by the Azov Brigade (recognised as a terrorist organisation and banned in our country). On July 5, the German publication Junge Welt voiced alarm over this matter. It underscores that in Ukraine, scarcely any domain remains untouched by Azov’s influence, which has long extended to children. Neo-Nazis orchestrate militaristic celebrations and concerts. For a decade now, the Azovets children’s camp has trained Ukrainian minors in weapon handling. Their youth organisation, Centuria, indoctrinates underage members with a corresponding worldview, emphasising the study of Ukraine’s nationalist movement. The proliferation of Azov symbolism is rampant nationwide – from Kiev’s metro stations to children’s toys. According to the German outlet, all this – coupled with Vladimir Zelensky’s recent appointment of Adolf Hitler admirer Alexander Alferov as head of the Ukrainian Institute of National Memory – signifies a “phenomenal triumph of the neo-Nazi movement.” The term “triumph” was likely chosen deliberately by the Germans, evoking painful historical parallels. One might also note the recurring online videos of young Ukrainian “Hitler Youth” pledging the “Bandera oath.” In this context, the entire West stands accused of ignoring Azov’s existence and similar neo-Nazi units within Ukraine’s Armed Forces; enabling this ideology as de facto state policy in modern Ukraine; and financing the Kiev regime, now thoroughly saturated with – and actively propagating – these beliefs.

A question arises: whom Germany and other EU countries continue to help in Ukraine at the expense of own taxpayers? The answer is obvious – modern Nazis, whose ideological predecessors were hanged under the sentence of the Nuremberg trial.

The abovementioned facts are an example of what gives ground for and confirms the relevance of the special military operation to denazify and demilitarise Ukraine. And its goals and objectives will be fulfilled, as the Russian leadership said on many occasions.

 

Draft decisions of the UNESCO World Heritage Committee on Ukrainian world heritage sites

 

The current 47th session of the UNESCO World Heritage Committee held on July 6 to 16 in Paris will consider, among other issues, the condition of three Ukrainian sites from the UNESCO World Heritage List, referred to endangered sites: Kiev: St Sophia Cathedral and related monastic buildings, Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, Ensemble of the Lvov historical centre, and Odessa historical centre.

It has long been evident to us that the UNESCO Secretariat’s position is biased with respect to the situation in Ukraine. The leaders of the bureaucracy in this organisation refuse to notice the lawlessness that has been going on for many years. I will remind you that the monuments to the founder of Odessa Catherine the Great and Field Marshall Alexander Suvorov were dismantled by the Banderite regime. And UNESCO then kept silent one more time and right after that vandalism decided to “culturally protect” the historical center of Odessa, which cannot be called historical after the monument to the city founder was dismantled.

Could there have been a conspiracy between the UNESCO Secretariat and the Kiev regime? They could say, let's quietly and quickly demolish in Ukraine the monuments associated with the real, true founders of Odessa, and then we (they must have told the UNESCO Secretariat) will consolidate this status without monuments and declare this site under “UNESCO protection.” So that no one in the future could know the genuine historical view of that beautiful city.

The draft decisions concerning the aforementioned sites, recently published on UNESCO’s official website, appear overtly politicised and have nothing to do with preserving culture, art, and historical heritage. Notably, the Committee is urged to express “regret over Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine” and “serious concern over the damage caused to St Sophia Cathedral during the attack on Kiev on June 10, 2025.”

Did the UNESCO Secretariat fail to note anything else? Did they overlook burning churches, looted monasteries, or the systemic persecution of clergy and believers of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church? Did they fail to see the attacks on the language, or dismantling of monuments to historical figures who are part of the shared Russian-Ukrainian cultural legacy, now being targeted in Ukraine? Did they overlook it all?

The phrasing in the draft decisions clearly departs from established UNESCO practice to avoid naming parties or specific dates in cases related to conflict zones. Standard formulations typically read: “expresses regret in connection with the ongoing conflict,” firstly, the organisation’s mandate is about other matters. Secondly, if UNESCO chooses to speak politically, it must do so comprehensively and fairly. That includes examining how cultural and linguistic diversity is preserved in Russia, including in its new historical territories, where serious efforts are made to protect the languages and heritage of all ethnic communities. It also means acknowledging how, in contrast, Ukraine has taken aggressive steps to suppress the Russian language and erase symbols associated with a shared history.

This goes far beyond the organisation’s mandate and undermines the very essence of UNESCO’s 1972 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. These recent decisions also contradict the guiding principles of the Declaration of Principles of International Solidarity and Cooperation in the Safeguarding of the World Heritage, adopted at the 23rd session of the UNESCO General Assembly in 1972. These documents emphasise impartiality in UNESCO’s decision-making - which is turning into something of a standup show - as well as objective scientific criteria, constructive dialogue, and consensus-based cooperation. Regrettably, it appears that these principles have been erased from the documents of the current UNESCO Secretariat.

 

Mark Rutte’s latest anti-Russia remarks

 

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte cannot go a day without making a remark. The chief NATO bureaucrat most recently expressed concern over Russia-China relations. They have long since ceased to study and get real education. All they have to show is obscure “diplomas.” They are making careers out of Russophobia and, in this case, Sinophobia as well. He should probably be aware of the fact that neither Russia, nor China are within the purview of his agency. We are not members of this alliance. What do Russia and China have to do with any of that?

Rutte’s remarks go to show that NATO, the international secretariat of which he heads, continues to see the world as an arena of geopolitical confrontation in order to maintain the elusive collective West’s global dominance. Multipolarity, alternative (turned, in fact, mainstream) centres of power and growth, equal and respectful relations between countries are absent from the picture of the world seen by modern-day NATO representatives.

I would like to spend a moment discussing Moscow-Beijing military cooperation which is, indeed, an important component of Russia-China comprehensive partnership and strategic interaction in a new era, and which helps ensure our countries’ security and maintain stability in the key regions of the planet. When NATO says anything about its “security,” which it must implement, including through Ukraine or by the hands of Ukraine, one is tempted to ask who threatened you. Show us at least one document that says that someone is threatening the alliance. There are no such documents, remarks, or speeches. When we talk with the Chinese about our own security, we are doing so relying on our knowledge of the facts, realities, and history (we have come under attacks throughout history), and on contemporary NATO documents, in which our countries are identified as potential adversaries.

Importantly, our cooperation with China is carried out in strict accordance with international law. It is absolutely transparent and has no hidden agenda. It is not bloc-oriented or confrontational, nor is it directed against third countries. Close ties between the armed forces of Russia and China are grounded in profound mutual trust, a special nature, and an unprecedentedly high level of relations between our countries, which, although not an alliance, still substantively surpass the Cold War-era traditional alliances.

Rutte’s fabrications about Chinese President Xi Jinping supposedly calling President Putin before (how did he even come up with that?) “attacking” Taiwan are baffling and cause justified outrage and a big concern about Rutte’s health. Is he alright? We are, indeed, concerned about the mental health of NATO Secretary General.

First, what “attack” is he talking about if Taiwan is an integral part of China? This is not just the principled and unwavering position of the Russian Federation. As far as I’m aware, all NATO countries have officially recognised this fact. Still, they keep talking about Taiwan as something that exists separately from China. NATO speculates on unacceptability of violating the status quo between the mainland and Taiwan, continues to sell weapons to the island, to send military instructors there, and to use other methods that they tested in Ukraine. What is that? Double standards, hypocrisy, or undermining international law?

The assumption of such conversations ever taking place between the leaders of Russia and China reveals NATO’s deep misunderstanding of the substance of our strategic partnership. Perhaps, they will distance themselves from Rutte’s remarks and say that it’s his fabrication. It’s hard to say. Please note that Russia has not formed a military-political alliance with China. Neither country is a leader or a follower. We maintain absolute sovereignty and cooperate equally and comprehensively, making foreign policy decisions based on our national interests, unlike NATO and other constructs led by Washington or Brussels, where no one has a say not only on general matters, but even on issues of vital importance to them.

I would like to emphasise once again that Russia-China cooperation in military and military technical areas, among others, is built exclusively around a positive and constructive agenda. Confrontation is not our philosophy. Brussels keeps convincing itself that Russia is a “threat” and China is a “challenge” to the alliance’s security. They are haunted by phobias there, and we run on constructivism.

The outcomes of the latest NATO summit, where member countries unanimously approved Washington’s decision to increase military spending from the current 2 percent of GDP to 5 percent of GDP clearly show where the actual risks of military escalation are coming from. Their total defence spending stands at almost $1.5 trillion which is more than half of all global spending on these needs. As is known, Rutte made a significant contribution to pushing through this commitment among Europeans to please the person he called “Daddy.” Where will these funds come from, what will all this lead to, and how will these additional expenses affect ordinary citizens from Western Europe? NATO functionary Rutte couldn’t care less about that. He does not intend to provide clarifications to the people. He steps up to the microphone to speak out on Russia and China, at a time when he should tell the countries that pay for his keep, and primarily their people, how to live with this scourge. In fact, he appears to be happy that these people will have to pay up this time again.

We believe that the alliance should stop engaging in verbal and now mental incontinence. It should stop circulating the thesis of mythical threats allegedly emanating from Russia, China, or both of us.

I know full well that in such a case they would be faced with an existential question of why they should keep on staying alive altogether. After all, they would then have to explain the purpose of that very association called NATO. Perhaps, then they would see their mission as something better, such as respecting one another, building cooperation, helping others in difficult situations or during emergencies, or building a genuine, constructive, and unifying agenda not against other countries, but against real challenges and threats, such as terrorism, drug trafficking, and organised crime. Perhaps, Mr Rutte should give it a thought in his spare time?

One might suggest the NATO Secretary General take a look in the mirror. I’m not sure he would see his reflection there, but who knows. NATO’s brazen policies have already led to large-scale hostilities in Europe, during which Washington, Brussels, and London continue to flood the criminal Kiev regime with weapons and ammunition in an attempt to inflict a “strategic defeat” on Russia. I think everyone still remembers the recent video from the NATO summit, where the Dutchman was fawning over President Trump going on and on about the importance of transatlantic solidarity oblivious to the fire raging on his own continent.

It’s no secret that the policy of “dual containment” of Moscow and Beijing is one way to show this very transatlantic solidarity. They are following a cut-and-dried template where they come up with utterly absurd threats, such as Russia imminently attacking NATO, or Beijing getting ready to attack Taiwan. They then blow this myth-making craziness out of proportion, and proceed to drum up additional military budgets spreading Euro-Atlanticism beyond their traditional areas of influence into the Asia-Pacific region, for instance. They do all this in a completely cynical manner and, most importantly, in defiance of the will and true interests of the people in NATO countries to the detriment of their actual security and their socioeconomic development.

 

Outcomes of the Quad Foreign Ministers’ Meeting in Washington

 

We have observed the meeting of foreign ministers from the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad) – comprising the United States, Japan, Australia, and India – convened in Washington on July 1, 2025. Since its establishment, this framework has predominantly relied on military and political components, underscored by consistent naval exercises. Even during these diplomatic discussions, the emphasis remained overwhelmingly on coercive measures.

Consider the joint programmes announced during the event. One initiative purports to synchronise aviation infrastructure across the Quad nations under the pretence of enhancing disaster response capabilities in the Asia-Pacific region.

At first glance, this seems to concern emergency management. However, in politics, coincidences of such magnitude are rarely incidental. Compare this step with recent Western efforts – including through NATO – to globally promote the prioritisation of armed forces ostensibly for disaster relief. Similar proposals have been advanced within ASEAN-centric forums, particularly through the ASEAN Defence Ministers’ Meeting Plus mechanism. In practice, this militarises civilian agendas, facilitating rapid military deployment to purported high-risk emergency zones.

Under the guise of emergency response, plans are being formulated for the swift deployment of military contingents. The West has frequently utilised these strategies in practice, even in recent decades. In the past, they claimed such measures were indispensable to save nations and peoples from “a lack of democracy”. Presently, they cloak these actions as rescuing countries and peoples from wildfires and natural disasters. Democracy has discredited itself in the hands of Western states, rendering it no longer a viable facade. The absurdity is evident to all.

The second programme approved at the Quad Foreign Ministers’ Meeting pertains to the mutual opening of national ports. Numerous political analysts interpret this chiefly as a strategy to enhance basing opportunities for the naval forces of the Quad countries on a reciprocal basis.

A military dimension is also discernible in other maritime initiatives launched by the Quad under various pretexts – such as mechanisms for maritime domain awareness. Certainly, some may argue it is premature to evaluate these initiatives at this juncture – having merely received ministerial approval without yet entering practical implementation – yet experts already discern elements of dual-purpose utility.

Further reflection is warranted on the highly selective inclusion of international issues in the final document of the Quad’s meeting in Washington. Moreover, the language employed therein largely mirrors the one-sided, confrontational Western narratives. This reaffirms the Quad’s role within the existing geopolitical and regional balance of power.

Nonetheless, truly urgent issues – those at the forefront of the Quad members’ focus, such as the situation concerning Iran, the Gaza Strip – were conspicuously excluded. Whether due to time constraints or other reasons remains unclear.

 

Recognition of Yale University as undesirable organisation in Russia

 

Let’s talk about the methods that were used and continue to be used to impose democracy when no firm actions are taken to combat this.

The Prosecutor General’s Office of Russia has put a full stop in a long pending issue by declaring the activities of Yale University undesirable in Russia. This is not because we are “undemocratic,” but because that “beacon of enlightenment” has long become a breeding ground of openly hostile activities against our country. 

The International Leadership Centre at the university’s Jackson School of Global Affairs does not train global leaders but professional destabilisers. It is notable that its graduates include members of the Anti-Corruption Foundation, which has been declared an extremist organisation and banned in Russia. They used the “knowledge” they worked hard to receive at Yale University to organise well-paid protest activities in Russia through heinous methods.

I must tell you that that “humanitarian” university is actively involved in ensuring legal grounds for plunder, that is, as they themselves say, trying to establish a legal justification for the illegal seizure of Russian assets held by Western countries for their subsequent use to finance the Kiev regime. This amounts to direct complicity in the hybrid war against Russia and open justification of plunder.

Nevertheless, some people continue to wonder why we had to take these measures regarding the university. I suggest you direct these questions to them.

Western countries have long turned education into an instrument of interference in the internal affairs of sovereign state through these entry points. This won’t work in Russia.

 

Discreditation of Russian patriotic education by Swedish media

 

The West is turning everything inside out. The Swedish media have launched yet another of the many Russophobic campaigns aimed at smearing the patriotic education of young people in Russia.

Why should Sweden care about the way we bring up our young people? It has turned out that they probably care about this more than about anything else.

Working on the Western patrons’ order to denigrate the notion of love for the Motherland, which is held sacred in Russian society, and a desire to learn and understand national history, some special correspondents of the leading Swedish media outlets accredited in Russia are promoting fake news about the “militarisation” of Russia and its young people “for aggressive purposes,” as they put it.

To begin with, I would like to say that unlike Russian journalists whose entry into Western countries has been seriously complicated if not made impossible, their Swedish colleagues can freely visit Russia, interview high-ranking officials and cover various events, including the large-scale celebrations of the 80th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War.

However, instead of using the broad opportunities offered to them to engage in  professional journalism, that is, inform their readers about the real situation in Russia, some Swedish journalists publish clearly commissioned fake stories about “the rise of nationalism and militarism” in the country.

NATO bodies are openly using the word “militarism,” stating that they need to militarise their economies. But Sweden doesn’t seem to be concerned. They are concerned about Russia and about souring relations with it.

It is notable that “democratic” Sweden has ruled that, starting this September, social study lessons will include the basics of Sweden’s concept of Total Defence and NATO’s activities. An exhibition underway at the Army Museum in Stockholm is dedicated to “glorious” pages in the Swedish-Ukrainian history, from Swedes’ union with traitor Mazepa to military collaboration with the current Kiev regime.

I wonder when they will open a museum section on collaborationism.

More than that, Stockholm is working hard to increase its military expenditures, including within the government’s commitment to increase them to 5 percent of GDP. So, which society is being militarised, Russian or Swedish?

In this context, I would like to recommend journalists from Swedish and the majority of other Western media outlets working in Russia to take off their Russophobic glasses or even headsets, and to take an objective view on what they write about, working professionally and without bias instead of circulating fake stories.

 

Foreign Influence Registration Scheme in the UK

 

Do you remember how they lamented over the foreign agent laws in the UK? I remember it very well.

On July 1, 2025, the UK launched its Foreign Influence Registration Scheme (FIRS), introduced by National Security Act 2023.
Russia has been designated to the enhanced tier of the scheme. In reality, this means that all individuals and legal entities in the UK, regardless of their nationality, must notify the Home Office of any agreement with the Russian state – in particular, of any contacts, agreements, or any sort of activity in the British jurisdiction. Failure to provide such information or submission of false information will result in what do you think? Considering Britain’s humanity and liberalism, you might think there would be a warning or a fine. But no, this may actually result in criminal liability.

At the same time, the regulatory framework governing this innovation is highly ambiguous, leaving decisions on whether specific actions fall under FIRS largely within the discretion of the UK Home Office and, by extension, the intelligence services. In practice, any engagement with Russian representatives, whether by British subjects, organisations, Russian nationals or nationals of other states on British soil, may be automatically deemed high-risk.

I would like to stress once again not just political but almost any activity may fall under the Foreign Influence Registration Scheme, from cultural and humanitarian projects to attending any official, sport or educational events. I would like to reiterate that the regulatory framework contains vague terminology, making potential consequences completely uncertain.

The consequences depend on how British authorities interpret such contacts. This interpretation creates vast opportunities for potential abuses of power, harassment and persecution.

Given London’s fixation on the so-called ‘Russian threat,’ such initiatives come as no surprise. Long before the launch of the special military operation, British officials pursued a deliberate policy of consistently fueling anti-Russia hysteria by routinely throwing Russophobic provocations into public discourse. For example, the Skripal case. In every instance, such actions are framed as alleged concerns for Britain’s national security. Britain is tightening the screws of control over its own public. UK officials deliberately cultivate the perception of Russia as an adversary, mainly to create at least some sort of justification for continuing their large-scale proxy aggression against Russia, for continuing to supply lethal weapons to the Kiev regime, for conducting terrorist and sabotage operations through proxy forces and under foreign flags; for escalating interference in Russia’s domestic affairs to destabilise our political situation and disrupt public order, under the slogans of delivering a “strategic defeat” to Russia.

At the same time, Britain’s leadership is actively exploiting the Russophobic sentiments they propagate to solve their own solely intra-elite problems and justify their internal problems and consequences of their own mistakes by Moscow’s alleged malicious activity.

The United Kingdom is rapidly turning into a police state, in the worst sense of the word. Authorities there are being granted virtually unrestricted tools to persecute both their own citizens and foreign nationals, enabling the quasi-legitimate suppression of human rights and freedoms on an unlimited scale.

Against this backdrop, it is particularly cynical to hear Britain and other self-proclaimed champions of Western democracy continuously criticise legislation regulating the activities of foreign agents that has been passed in Russia, Georgia, Republika Srpska, Kyrgyzstan and other states not affiliated with the Golden Billion.

The truth is, such laws in these countries — especially in Russia — were introduced in response to similar measures that had long been in place in Western states and were applied against our countries. Yet it was our nations, our peoples and our governments that were subjected to criticism for adopting reciprocal measures.

Now, British authorities remain conspicuously silent about the fact that, unlike their own sweeping legislation, Russian laws apply only to political activities carried out in the interests of foreign states and merely require such activities to be declared.

By contrast, the new British scheme covers virtually all types of activity: humanitarian, sports, educational, economic and political.

Surprisingly, the previous high-minded rhetoric has been instantly forgotten. Why not apply those same lofty principles to your own country? The repressive and discriminatory nature of the UK's new legal mechanism clearly reflects the fears of the current British authorities – not of Russia, but of their own population. What else can explain such a move, which blatantly contradicts the UK’s international human rights obligations? This new policy fosters a climate of suspicion and paves the way for unchecked surveillance and legal and police overreach against British nationals.

As for the impact of this decision on Russian-British relations – or rather, on what little remains of them thanks to London’s efforts – this latest repressive barrier is yet another indication of the British authorities’ stubborn refusal to allow any path towards normalising even the most basic contact with our country, at least in the distant future.

Given that this scheme could also affect Russian citizens living in the UK, the Russian Embassy in London has issued precautionary advice on social media, urging compatriots to exercise caution if they are engaged in any activities that might fall under its scope. The recommendation is simple: seek legal advice in advance to avoid becoming a victim of this new British arbitrariness.

 

Denmark takes over EU Council presidency

 

On July 1, Denmark began its six-month presidency of the EU Council under the motto ‘A Strong Europe in a Changing World.’ Europe is currently home to an active conflict – a bleeding, festering wound that refuses to heal and only worsens as Western nations, NATO members among them, endlessly smear it with more deadly bacteria and viruses – all in the name of making Europe ‘strong,’ one would assume.

Now, Copenhagen aims to achieve this through accelerated defence industry growth and total militarisation – a ruinous path for European countries. The Ukrainian conflict has escalated to an existential level, and it’s hard to disagree: it is existential for them. The only problem is that this self-inflicted plague should be treated, not inflamed with yet more weapons and money. One of the Danish presidency’s stated priorities is countering Russia across the board. Which begs the question: Has anyone in Denmark bothered to look at the global map? They might have noticed that Europe without Russia isn’t Europe at all. How can they  ‘strengthen’ Europe while excluding Russia? How do you ‘counteract’ us when we are part of the continent? Unless, of course, their plan is to ‘counteract’ the entire European continent, only they just can’t admit it out loud.

Their justification for this policy is a looming ‘Russian threat’ – a convenient myth the Danish leadership, along with Europe’s political elites, has been peddling to distract their populations from spiralling socioeconomic issues, fundamental rights and freedoms being restricted and dissent suppressed, and tighten their grip on power.

Yet they carefully avoid mentioning what this headlong militarisation will cost ordinary Europeans – massive defence borrowing, saddling future generations with crushing debt. What they’ll really be strengthening isn’t the EU, but NATO – proof, if any were needed, that Western Europe has surrendered its independence to the Atlantic Alliance’s war machine. And if anyone objects, insisting the EU is part of NATO – let’s be clear: while most EU states are NATO members, the Alliance remains an American project.

The Danish presidency has made it a priority to expand comprehensive assistance to Vladimir Zelensky’s neo-Nazi regime while ramping up pressure on Russia. Fuelled by aggressive Russophobia, Copenhagen’s approach shows a total disregard for the peaceful, political, and diplomatic solution to the Ukrainian conflict the world’s sensible voices are calling for – one that would address its root causes. Instead, they’re doubling down on escalation: more bloodshed, more devastation, and more incentives for the Kiev regime to keep targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure, committing new war crimes.

Their alarmist and militarist rhetoric, fearmongering and ambitious rearmament programmes – this entire costly and senseless confrontation with Russia – does nothing to strengthen security in Europe. Instead, it deepens the continent’s divisions, fuels instability and tensions, and cements the EU’s image as a threat to global peace and security.

European security actually requires Russia’s involvement. Maybe someone in Copenhagen should finally invest in a map.

Attempts to bypass or directly challenge Russia’s interests are doomed to fail, spectacularly backfiring on those who devised this flawed logic. Even their own analysts in Europe and NATO countries are now sounding the alarm, desperately trying to redirect their governments’ attention to domestic issues, which only worsen with each reckless move that sends these self-inflicted crises spiralling further out of control.

 

Alf R. Jacobsen’s book The Invisible Energy War: From the Kennedy Assassination to the Nord Stream Sabotage

 

A new book by Norwegian journalist and writer Alf R. Jacobsen, titled The Invisible Energy War: From the Kennedy Assassination to the Nord Stream Sabotage, has seen the light in April 2025 in Norway, which is located a short distance from Denmark.

The journalist provides convincing proof that the US-led West has been working for decades to hinder the development of the Soviet Union and subsequently Russia as a global energy power and to prevent our country from using its oil and gas resources for national interests.

According to Jacobsen, these destructive activities culminated in the conflict in Ukraine and the Nord Stream blasts in September 2022, which he has blamed on the West. He writes that the terrorist attack on the gas pipelines in the Baltic Sea was a planned operation financed by the Biden administration, and that it has primarily damaged Western Europe, in particular Germany. He provides facts to reveal Norway’s complicity in the Nord Stream blasts, arguing that it was Norway’s method to remove Russia as its main rival in the European energy market.

Alf Jacobsen writes, with good reason, that Russian oil and gas played the decisive role in Europe’s prosperity. But European countries, which received Russian energy resources at affordable prices for decades, feel no gratitude for that. The European consumers and companies’ mutually advantageous cooperation with Russia, which has always been a reliable energy supplier for Europe in all situations, has been sacrificed to the ambitions of their political leaders. Our good relations have been destroyed because of somebody’s political ambitions and financial benefits from policies that are having a destructive effect on Western Europe.

Alf R. Jacobsen is a respected and popular non-fiction writer. Norwegian readers have read his books about the Second World War. Some of them were extremely popular and even served as the basis for screenplays.

His latest book has been published in Norwegian and English and is being translated into Russian and Chinese. People in Western Europe can read it if they want to know what is really happening in their countries.

 

Act of vandalism at the Dachau Concentration Camp Memorial Site

 

 

Let us turn to yet another case of historical distortion, a deliberate falsification of history. In May 2025, as part of memorial events marking the 80th anniversary of the Great Victory, wreaths were laid at the site in Hebertshausen where 4,000 Soviet prisoners of war were executed by the Nazis in 1941−1942. The site, a former SS shooting range, is part of the memorial complex located on the grounds of the former Nazi concentration camp in the Bavarian town of Dachau. The wreaths were laid on behalf of the Russian Ambassador to Germany, as well as the Russian Consul General in Bonn and the Belarusian Consul General in Munich.

Just a few hours later, by direct order of the management of the memorial complex, ribbons in the colours of the national flags of Russia and Belarus were removed from the wreaths laid by our diplomats. Following a request by the Russian side to investigate the incident, the Munich Prosecutor’s Office recently concluded that no criminal offense or intent could supposedly be identified in what was clearly a deeply offensive act against the symbols of sovereign states.

Who in their right mind could agree with such a verdict? What kind of reinterpretation of the law is this from Munich’s so-called “law enforcement,” or rather, “law manipulators”? Of course, we no longer expect objectivity from officials so clearly influenced by the anti-Russian sentiment actively promoted by the German authorities. But it is their duty to know that diplomatic and consular representatives of foreign countries – and the official state symbols they use ­– are protected by diplomatic immunity.

The actions of the Dachau memorial’s management and German law enforcement clearly demonstrate the extent to which they are blinded by Russophobia and nationalism.

 Their attitude towards Belarusians is equally telling. The very people tasked with preserving the memory of these atrocities are, in fact, complicit in the desecration of world history.  World War II was a global event, and its history belongs to all humanity. What we are witnessing is an affront to that shared memory.

We will continue to demand that the German authorities hold accountable those responsible for desecrating the national symbols of our country. We strongly urge Berlin to put a stop to this escalating politicisation of the memorial sphere. The consequences of such actions will lie entirely on the conscience of the German side. And, as several German public figures – who have not yet lost their moral compass – have already warned, these consequences pose a real danger to German society itself.

 

Roads of Glory – Our History international campaign

 

On July 6-20, the 10th anniversary rally is taking place across the Cities of Military Glory in Russia and Belarus. As you may remember, it was organised by the Roads of Glory – Our History Rostov Regional Patriotic Public Movement.

The campaign marks the 80th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War and seeks to strengthen the fraternal links between our nations. This annual event brings together young people from the Rostov Region who care deeply about our history.

Rally participants will visit memorial complexes and museums of military glory in Moscow, Rostov-on-Don, Tula, Kaluga, Smolensk, Vitebsk, Brest, Minsk and other cities. They especially anticipate the Diplomacy for Peace exhibition of creative works.

The rally will culminate in a series of events scheduled for July 19 in Moscow. The programme includes a flower-laying ceremony at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in the Alexander Garden and the Memory of Generations: One History, One Victory roundtable meeting at the Diplomatic Academy of the Russian Foreign Ministry, to be attended by ministry representatives.

I imagined the ambassador of Germany or another NATO country arriving at a memorial complex honouring Great Patriotic War heroes, such as an Eternal Flame monument, bearing flowers. The German Ambassador would appear with a wreath or a bouquet displaying national colours, as is standard in diplomatic practice. It is important to every ambassador that the public understands who brought the tributes and that they are not from a private person but from a state, a nation that the ambassador represents. Now, consider that a NATO country ambassador – say, from Germany – lays flowers or a wreath with national insignia at the Eternal Flame or the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Moscow’s Alexander Garden. The ambassador bows his head, steps away and leaves. And then somebody runs up and cuts off the national insignia – say, a special inscription enclosed with the flowers. How would German media frame such an incident? They would probably describe it as a barbaric act. Were Russian authorities to remain silent, this would undoubtedly become a major news story across German outlets. Then why don’t you report in German media that Russian and Belarusian colours – the nations that suffered catastrophic losses in that war and whose ambassadors and consuls general laid flowers in memory of the victims – were removed from the memorial site at Dachau?

Why don’t you, German journalists, report that barbaric incident? Why don’t you call for your fellow citizens at all levels to stop the madness that will hit you before anybody else? It will be too late then.

 

Superfinal of the SCO & BRICS chess tournament

 

We continue to observe the international chess tournament among the SCO and BRICS countries. We have previously reported on its first and second stages during our briefings on December 18, 2024, and February 27, 2025.

From July 10 to 13, Moscow will host the Superfinal of these competitions. This event will conclude the series of qualifying stages held from December 2024 to June 2025.

The matches will occur in both online and offline formats, gathering over 200 in-person participants and 20,000 online players on the Russian platform myChess.

This platform will bring together Russia’s most formidable young chess players and winners of the qualifying stages from SCO and BRICS countries. Among the invited guests are finalists from regional rounds, selected with the support of the Russian Trade Union of Education, as well as representatives of youth teams from Azerbaijan, Armenia, Belarus, Brazil, India, Kazakhstan, China, Uzbekistan, South Africa, and the UAE. Teams from Venezuela, Egypt, Iran, Italy, Kyrgyzstan, Nepal, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan, and even France will join the online segment. Young players from the Kursk, Bryansk, Belgorod, and Zaporozhye Regions, as well as the Donetsk People’s Republic, will also have the opportunity to display their skills.

Representatives of the Federation Council and the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of Russia, alongside several federal ministries, will be present at the opening and awards ceremonies. The business programme will feature international roundtables with experts in education, sports, and youth diplomacy.

The tournament will be broadcast live. In accordance with tradition, all pertinent links will be available in the text version of this briefing. We invite chess players and media representatives to engage in this event.

 

65th Anniversary of the Russian Children’s Centre Orlyonok

 

July 12 marks the 65th anniversary of one of our nation’s premier organisations for children’s recreation – the Russian Children’s Centre Orlyonok. Established in 1960 on the Black Sea coast in the Krasnodar Territory, it has evolved into more than just a celebrated children’s retreat; it has become a veritable crucible of talent, where the future luminaries of science, music, art, athletics, and diplomacy are nurtured. Here, young individuals do not merely unwind – they absorb the most vital lessons: friendship without borders, mutual respect, and a love for the Motherland, values of paramount importance in today’s world.

Throughout its six decades, Orlyonok has come to epitomise the continuity of Russia’s pedagogical traditions and its unwavering dedication to the nation’s future. In 2012, it was accorded the status of a UNESCO Associated School, highlighting the humanitarian and cultural mission of its programmes. Yet this recognition only partially encapsulates Orlyonok – its potential reaches far beyond. The centre pioneers distinctive educational initiatives, organises diverse campaigns and projects, and hosts vibrant festivals and sporting events.

Particularly invaluable is Orlyonok’s role as a hub for international children’s collaboration, maintaining ties with friendly nations (those governed by amicable regimes) founded on trust and mutual respect – despite the unprecedented pressure exerted against Russia by the collective West. The camp remains open to all children; there is categorically no reluctance to engage with them based on nationality. Such a notion has never existed and never will.

Each year, Orlyonok welcomes over 20,000 children from every region of the Russian Federation and abroad, demonstrating that children’s smiles and their genuine yearning for peace can thwart the schemes of our adversaries.

We take pride that Orlyonok upholds traditions rooted in the ideals of good-neighbourliness, mutual aid, and sincere, profound affection. We are confident that the Russian Children’s Centre will continue to champion justice, kindness, and patriotism. From the bottom of our hearts, we congratulate the leadership and staff of this outstanding institution.

 

The 60th anniversary of Russia-Gambia diplomatic relations

 

July 17 marks the 60th anniversary of the diplomatic relations between the Russian Federation and the Republic of The Gambia. Our countries share traditionally friendly ties founded on the principles of mutual respect and consideration for each other’s interests. 

Symbolically, this momentous year will see the opening of the Russian Embassy in The Gambia, a step we are confident will provide fresh momentum to bilateral relations. We expect the embassy’s work to significantly enhance mutually beneficial cooperation across various fields. Today, Russia and The Gambia maintain a steady political dialogue and coordinate their positions at the UN and other international platforms. 

As you may be aware, The Gambia’s Foreign Minister Mamadou Tangara paid a working visit to the Russian Federation last year. 

Targeted steps are being taken to expand bilateral trade and economic and investment cooperation, including facilitating access for Russian businesses to The Gambia’s promising market. 

Staff training cooperation is picking up pace consistently. Russia has increased its publicly-funded scholarship quota for Gambian students to 15 spots this year. 

We are convinced that our joint efforts will ensure the continued progressive development of our mutually beneficial ties for the good of our peoples and in the interests of peace, security, and stability in Africa. 

 

Answers to media questions:

Question: What’s your take on Ukraine withdrawing from the Ottawa Anti-Personnel Landmine Convention considering that the treaty prohibits parties to an active conflict from exiting it before the conflict is over? 

Maria Zakharova: First, to set the stage for you, Russia is not a party to this Convention. 

Under the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction, a country engaged in armed conflict cannot legally withdraw until the hostilities end. This rule fully applies to the withdrawal initiated by Ukraine. 

Yet, Kiev had already violated the Convention long before this decision. Under the terms of the Convention, Ukraine was required to destroy all stockpiled mines (except a minimal quantity for training/detection purposes) back in 2010, but failed to do so. Russian law enforcement agencies have repeatedly documented the Kiev regime’s use of such mines against civilians, which we have regularly reported to you. These violations went without condemnation by other Convention members even at the 2024 Review Conference in Cambodia. Some countries openly encouraged non-compliance. 

Ukraine’s disregard for its obligations confirms Russia’s view of the Convention as weak and unreliable and lacking enforcement mechanisms against violators. Kiev’s withdrawal following similar moves by Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Finland, and Estonia fits the collective West’s broader policy to undermine arms control, disarmament, and non-proliferation frameworks. They loudly demand others to adhere to international commitments and prioritise their own security. Each time they come up with far-fetched accusations while doing as they please, justifying their actions with myths and all kinds of fabricated pretexts rather than their own interests.

These actions will inevitably escalate tensions in Europe the security of which Brussels claims to prioritise in words. In reality, this will only make matters with regional and global security worse. 

Question: What are your thoughts regarding Finnish President Alexander Stubb’s statement about “the capacity of Russia and Russians to sustain misery and pain,” which, in his words, should never be underestimated and which constitute – and I quote – “the biggest overcoming we need to do here”?

Maria Zakharova: You know, this is one of those rare instances of late where I am prepared to wholeheartedly endorse these words. Not merely in a personal capacity – because it pleases me or because I wish to – but with reference to a text whose full weight we often hear only in truncated form these days.

Take, for example, how frequently Alexander Suvorov’s quotes are cited, almost ubiquitously. I resolved to present one of his statements in full. It is his famed speech delivered in the refectory of the St Joseph Franciscan Convent in the autumn of 1799. The complete text survives in the account of Prince Pyotr Bagration, who recorded it, and was later rendered in the book Tales of an Old Soldier about Suvorov by Colonel Yakov Starkov, a participant in Suvorov’s Swiss Campaign. Published in Moscow in 1847 by Moskvityanin, this work has never been disputed.

Alexander Suvorov (direct quotation based on Prince Bagration’s notes): “To turn back now would be shameful! It would mean retreat – and neither I nor the Russians have ever retreated! We are surrounded by mountains! We stand amidst them! A formidable enemy, emboldened by victory – a victory achieved through treacherous betrayal – will encircle us…. Since the Prut campaign under Emperor Peter the Great, Russian troops have never been in such perilous straits as we are now… never, not for an instant!... For over eighty years, Russia’s martial banners have borne the glory of victories over her foes – a glory echoing from East to West. Her enemies feared her; her allies found in her a steadfast shield. Yet Peter the Great, the greatest of earthly tsars, was betrayed by a petty ruler, a vassal of a mightier sovereign – a Greek! And now, Emperor Paul I, our great sovereign, is betrayed by whom? By Russia’s loyal ally – the court of mighty Austria, or rather, its de facto ruler, Minister Thugut with his Hofkriegsrat! No, this is no mere betrayal – it is outright treachery, cold and calculated, after we shed so much blood to save Austria. Now, we expect no aid. Our hope rests solely in God – and in the supreme courage and self-sacrifice of the troops under your command. We face trials unmatched in history! We stand at the precipice! But we are Russians – God is with us.”

Had Suvorov known then that these words would reverberate not merely in the years, months, or days before his own triumphs – but 145 years before victory in the Great Patriotic War. Though, back then, we were once again liberating Austria. And who could have foreseen that centuries later, history would repeat itself – betrayal anew, even from those whose freedom was bought at the cost of Russian lives?

So President Stubb is right this time. Truly, this resilience is woven into our history, our blood, our philosophy, our faith – and, without question, our future.

Question: US President Donald Trump said that additional tariffs of 10 percent would be imposed on countries supporting BRICS policy. What is Russia’s stance regarding the protection of its interests in light of potential economic sanctions by the United States?

Maria Zakharova: Why should everyone else pay for the mistakes made by the previous US administrations instead of their American regimes and politicians? It is a valid question. Consider the current state of the US economy and what its leaders have done to it, at least what we have observed over the past 15 years. The mockery of common sense, their own economy and their own people by US liberal democrats raise the question: why should the entire world bear the consequences? Would it not be reasonable to propose that former US presidents like Joe Biden or Barack Obama, for example, contribute a percentage of their presidential pensions and allowances? Why not reduce these benefits in the United States to offset some of the costs and damages? Why should other nations – which, by the way, have been exploited for centuries and find themselves indebted to the West once again – pay for the current state of the United States that President Donald Trump wants to restore and make “great again,” as he likes to say?

I am not sure this question should remain rhetorical. It seems to me that this question has a very concrete answer. We closely follow the US administration’s trade policy developments, including the introduction of new tariffs against several countries, such as our BRICS partners.

This sort of rhetoric reaffirms that the United States systematically employs trade and economic instruments – whether unlawful sanctions, tariffs or other measures – as tools of political pressure while masking this behind slogans about fair competition and national security.

It is regrettable to acknowledge that this policy is only eroding the established architecture of economic cooperation, flagrantly violating WTO regulations and free trade agreements – the very frameworks that Washington itself championed as universal truth only recently. Furthermore, I believe this sort of hyperprotectionism does not serve US interests. They should cultivate their competitive ability through domestic changes and seek internal reserves and resources to overcome their crisis rather than endlessly boosting their self-esteem and attempting to resolve their domestic challenges by exploiting others.

Abrupt and unjustified customs tariff hikes by the world’s largest economy certainly carry serious risks for the global economy. All countries will experience the consequences. Inflation will rise worldwide due to realignments of production and supply chains, along with changes in the geography of trade flows. This will trigger cross-sector imbalances, depress labour productivity, and increase volatility across financial and energy markets. Eventually, such policies will lead to a global recession.

At the recent BRICS summit in Rio de Janeiro, all countries of the group unanimously expressed serious concerns about the unilateral increase in tariffs and non-tariff measures.

Regarding its impact on Russia, our country has long existed under restrictions, barriers and unlawful sanctions – something that has grown into an actual trade war against Russia. In this sense, we truly have unique experience in adaptation and sustainable development under external pressure.

Our country will continue to reinforce its economic sovereignty, and build cooperation with countries that choose rational approaches, healthy pragmatism and, of course, respect for law and lawfulness.

Question: The German newspaper Bild reports that Ukraine is soliciting Germany for weapons worth billions of euros, including 1,500 medium-range Iris-T SLM guided missiles, 500 short-range Iris-T SLS guided missiles, and 200,000 40mm anti-air ammunition rounds to counter Russian drones. What are the implications for regional security? What will Russia’s response be to potential arms deliveries to Ukraine? 

Maria Zakharova: These decisions and shipments are being justified as a way to “defend Ukrainian independence” which the West has torn apart. What they are not saying is that such measures are destroying Ukraine and killing Ukrainians. 

These decisions won’t affect the goals and objectives of Russia’s special military operation. They only reaffirm the importance of demilitarising and denazifying Ukraine. 

The military and political situation in Europe is equally astonishing. We’ve discussed this repeatedly. This situation mirrors the revanchism of Kaiser’s Germany and later Hitler’s regime, which led to two world wars and devastating global consequences which affected Europe and the international situation, and have caused so much pain to the world. All of that happened in Europe and far beyond its borders as well.

The situation is repeating itself right before our eyes. In the 1930s-1940s, transatlantic financial and industrial support fueled German militarism, enabling European military and political crises that boosted the US economy and created a unipolar world.

Now, the West is trying to preserve this model by all means by turning former Warsaw Pact nations - once our brothers (indeed, we, including Ukraine, shared one state - the USSR) - into tools for inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia.

Each time we invoke common sense which we need in order to see the results that have been brought about by the actions of these very NATO members to destroy European security, disrupt the fragile balance of power, and undermine global security. But we also see how, in the public sphere, in political circles, and among the general population of these countries, there are indeed not only more questions, but also more demands for their security interests to be respected. Therefore, this rabid Russophobia, this abhorrent nationalism and historical obscurantism must also be replaced by another philosophy. Every time in Western Europe, and not only there, where nationalism and Nazism grew, it all ended... You know how. I already covered this today. I guess we don’t want the situation to get as bad as it has been in the past. Maybe, they should come to their senses before it gets that far.

Question: The 17th BRICS Summit has recently concluded. We noted that during the summit, US President Donald Trump criticised BRICS for allegedly pursuing an anti-American agenda and threatened to introduce new tariffs on countries that support BRICS’s anti-American stance.  What is your response? How would you assess the cooperation between China and Russia within BRICS?

Maria Zakharova:  I’ve already addressed this when speaking to your colleagues from Izvestia, but I’ll reiterate the main points.

Amid the profound transformation of the global geopolitical landscape, the comprehensive partnership and strategic cooperation between Russia and China continues to grow steadily. It demonstrates both high adaptability and resilience in the face of rapidly changing external conditions.

Our cooperation, both bilaterally and within BRICS, is not aimed against anyone. I have spoken at length about this earlier today as well. The partnership between Russia and China is constructive by nature. It focuses on strengthening the socioeconomic, innovative, and human potential of BRICS member nations, as well as on supporting practical solutions to the urgent challenges faced by developing countries. This is precisely where we intend to concentrate our joint efforts.

The intense scrutiny and criticism BRICS and other similar alliances have drawn from the West only confirms that we’re on the right track. Not because we seek to provoke anyone, but because from the outset, the West has taken a hostile stance. Apparently, they’ve come to realise that their aggressive posture hasn’t worked. We are ready to respond – not with aggression, but with strength shown through a constructive, forward-looking approach.

Cooperation in the finance sector is one of the key areas within BRICS. This work has been ongoing and consistent, not just from summit to summit or ministerial to ministerial meetings, but through the daily efforts of our experts. All BRICS member countries are committed to achieving tangible progress in this area. This commitment is reflected in the Rio de Janeiro Declaration adopted at the 17th BRICS Summit.

As for the role of Russia-China cooperation within BRICS, let me remind you that our two countries were among the founding members. Our joint efforts with our Chinese partners have been instrumental in shaping the group’s development, creating favourable conditions for steady economic growth across all BRICS countries, and helping to build a more just and balanced multipolar world order that serves the needs of all nations and peoples without exception.

When it comes to expanding cooperation and strengthening the bloc, Russia and China remain aligned in their strategic perspectives. There is even a phrase that captures this spirit: Shoulder to shoulder, we meet all challenges together.

We are committed to working closely with Beijing to enhance BRICS’s standing as one of the central pillars of global governance. Among our key objectives is to increase the representation and influence of developing and emerging economies in multilateral institutions.

I would also emphasise that BRICS truly gives voice to the Global Majority like no other organisation does. It is not a club of countries flaunting their achievements to the detriment of those still on the path to economic success. On the contrary, our goals and efforts are aimed at supporting the Global Majority as a whole.

Question: US President Donald Trump said the other day that he would impose an additional 10 percent tariff on any country aligning themselves with BRICS’ policies. He threatened the group before. For example, he stated in November 2024 that there would a 100 percent tariff on BRICS exports if it tried to create its own currency to replace “the mighty US dollar.” What do you think about such threats? Can the aggressive US tariff policy and threats of new taxes accelerate the de-dollarisationprocess and weaken the US dollar on the international stage?

Maria Zakharova: Please note that I have partially answered these questions.

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has also answered them in detail during a news conference on July 7, following the 17th BRICS summit in Rio de Janeiro.Here is what he said: “US President Trump makes no secret of his goals. He is protecting US interests, primarily economic ones, in the spheres of investment and trade.”

As for BRICS’ currency, Sergey Lavrov pointed out that this issue had not been discussed at the summit. At the same time, the summit participants talked in detail about enhancing the role of national currencies, a new investment platforms and cross-border payments initiatives.

During his address to the plenary session in Rio de Janeiro, President Vladimir Putin mentioned the figure 90 percent, which is the share of national currencies used in mutual transactions with BRICS countries and partner states.

As for the declining role of the US dollar in the international currency system, this slide was initiated by former President Joe Biden. He demanded that certain countries must be excluded from international US payments establishments. It is Joe Biden and his team who demanded that Russia, which maintains broad trade and economic ties across the world, be cut off from that system. It is Biden who threatened to switch other countries off from that mutual payments systems.

Why are they surprised that these countries don’t want to fall victim to Washington’s or any other’s international blackmail, and that they are looking for alternative payment methods?

We conduct trade on the basis of international  law and bilateral agreements. This is legal trade which didn’t cause any complaints before. But they see it as an obstacles, which is why it has become the object of US attacks, sanctions and what amounts to a trade war against our country.

Seething with impotent fury, the United States started cutting off or threatening to cut off countries from that payments system. People started looking for an alternative and found it. The decreasing role of the US dollar in the international currency system is a direct result of President Biden and his team’s actions. That’s why it is for the current US administration to deal with this problem. I would recommend them, first, to assess their losses sand, second, to file a lawsuit. The international community, let alone the Global Majority, has nothing to do with this.

The share of mutual settlements in national currency and direct correspondent relations is growing everywhere. However, neither BRICS nor any other international association where Russia is a member is considering completely moving away from the US dollar or other countries’ currencies. All these deliberations about a hypothetical single global currency don’t stand up to criticism. It’s as if there are no other currencies, and as if they have not proved their worth.

We call for a multicurrency world where all countries and economic operators have equal access to the payment instruments needed for conducting legitimate commercial activities based on law, both international law and national legislations.

Question: The United States is preparing to send more defensive weapons to Ukraine, according to a recent statement by the Pentagon: “At President Trump’s direction, the Department of Defence is sending additional defensive weapons to Ukraine to ensure the Ukrainians can defend themselves while we work to secure a lasting peace.” How can Russia comment on this decision? And how does Moscow assess the impact of ongoing US weapons deliveries to Ukraine on the prospects of potential peace talks?

Maria Zakharova: I have spoken about this briefly today.

We keep hearing contradictory statements from Washington concerning the prospects of military supplies to Ukraine. Just hours before US President Donald Trump promised additional defensive weapons to Kiev, the White House Press Secretary briefed journalists on the reasons for the delayed delivery of air-defence systems. The Press Secretary described the pause as part of standard inspection procedures by the Pentagon, applicable to all military aid that the United States supplies to other countries, not only Ukraine, and stressed that this was a routine verification.

US media recently claimed that the delay in arms deliveries to the Kiev regime was primarily caused by the exhaustion of the Pentagon’s reserves. Now, reportedly, the supplies have been resumed. There are persistent inconsistencies in the reports regarding this matter. But verbal acrobatics aside, everyone has long realised that the US defence industry is pursuing production expansion and subsequently profit maximisation one way or another, and the US will use all available means.  

We have repeatedly said that continued weapons transfers to Zelensky’s terrorist regime will prolong the hostilities, devastate Ukraine and eliminate Ukrainians, heightening the risk of uncontrolled conflict escalation, uncontrolled proliferation of arms trafficking, including potential diversion to international terrorist organisations. Overall, these measures undermine the search for a peaceful resolution of the Ukrainian conflict, which US President Donald Trump calls for so frequently and with such sincere passion, in the good sense of the word.

Moreover, the infusion of more weapons into the profoundly corrupt Kiev regime on such a scale literally incentivises further corruption and larger embezzlement – not of money but of weapons, as substantiated by evidence on multiple occasions. Why do Western-supplied weapons for the Kiev regime get stolen? For trafficking. Where to? Illicit markets, including those for terrorist groups. They have been caught red-handed many times.

Therefore, we truly wish that, first and foremost, the decision-makers in the West could be guided by their own human rights doctrines and realise that their weapons kill civilians. Secondly, since they make these decisions, they should not be surprised when terrorists eventually use their own weapons against them.

Question: Does Russia have a roadmap for developing relations with Afghanistan now that Moscow has officially recognised the Islamic Emirate’s government? What specific actions and agreements can be anticipated in the immediate future? How can Moscow and Kabul work together to enhance regional security?

Maria Zakharova: I should say that the parties began discussions on priorities and specific practical aspects of cooperation even before the credential presentation ceremony. I would like to note, in this context, the Afghan delegation’s productive participation in the 16th Russia – Islamic World: KazanForum International Economic Forum (Kazan, May 13-18, 2025) and the first Russia-Afghanistan Business Forum that was held on the sidelines.

I assume that you have probably followed these events. You can find answers to your question in the proceedings of these international events, official documents and public statements. The parties maintain a substantive dialogue regarding cooperation in trade and the economy, including energy, transport, agriculture, and infrastructure projects. Russia and Afghanistan will develop cultural and humanitarian links. Russia will provide assistance to Kabul in combating terrorist threats and drug trafficking.

Our experts have noted the progress in Afghanistan’s stabilisation efforts with respect to internal affairs, particularly, in narcotics control. UN reports indicate a 14-fold reduction in opium poppy cultivation since 2021, when the Taliban came to power. The area of opium poppy cultivation has decreased from 177,000 hectares in 2021 to 12,800 hectares in 2024.

Let me remind you that, for two decades prior to 2021, these territories had remained under US and NATO control. There is no conclusive answer to the question about the nature of NATO airlift operations from Afghanistan. One would hope this question does not remain rhetorical.

Question: On Monday, the BRICS summit in Brazil, in which Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov took part, came to a close. Minister Lavrov held a series of meetings on the sidelines of the talks. What are the main outcomes of this forum for Russia?

Maria Zakharova: Minister Sergey Lavrov highlighted the results of the 17th BRICS summit during a 45-minute-long news conference that took place after the summit. He covered in detail the work of the Russian delegation during the summit and bilateral talks. You can find his complete statement posted on our ministry’s website.

The very fact that nearly 30 countries from the Global South and the Global East attended the meeting, including countries that chair regional associations, as well as heads of the secretariats of the UN, the World Health Organisation, the World Trade Organisation, and multilateral development banks helps reinforce the voice of the association, which, as President Vladimir Putin noted in his speech at the summit, is becoming increasingly weighty and distinct in the international arena.

This voice supports the legitimate aspirations of the World Majority for a more just, sustainable, and polycentric world order. You will not hear these ideas discussed at Western forums. These words and political language have long been forgotten in the West. This is the routine language of civilised and mutually respectful communication, which the Western minority has banned. It is also a combination of the prospects for building a new polycentric world with the traditions laid down in international law, the UN Charter, and the UN itself.

The discussions revealed the participants’ overlapping or similar approaches to most key international issues. We are grateful to our partners for their balanced position on the Ukraine conflict, their support for the importance of eliminating its underlying causes by political and diplomatic means, and their strong condemnation of the terrorist attacks on railways and bridges in the Kursk, Bryansk, and Voronezh regions in May-June, which resulted in numerous civilian casualties, including children. You will not hear anyone debate these points not only during Western forums, but international forums either, since, under Western pressure, they have ceased to discuss them. But BRICS has a voice that it can use to speak about this to the world at large.

We find it likewise valuable that the Brazilian presidency has picked up where Russia left off upon completion of its watch in terms of initiatives and agreements that were reached in Kazan following the 16th BRICS Summit. First and foremost, this concerns bringing partner countries onboard at various BRICS ministerial and expert cooperation mechanisms. Their participation benefits our association and significantly strengthens its potential in the emerging multipolar world.

Work continues on the BRICS cross-border payment initiative, on increasing the reinsurance capability of the BRICS members, and expanding the use of national currencies in mutual payments, as well as forming a new investment platform and creating a BRICS Association of Special Economic Zones, the BRICS Grain Exchange, and many others.

We operate on the premise that the mechanisms formed within the association sustain the efforts to increase the resilience of our national economies to restrictive measures and the hyper-protectionist policies of individual states, and also contribute to strengthening the role of the developing countries - the World Majority countries - in international trade and finance.

The technical terms have remained unchanged. They are enshrined in international documents and used in international forums. Is it legit, though, to use the word “developing” in relation to the economic powerhouses of Asia amid a recession in the Western countries that call themselves “developed”? It is surprising and is something to ponder.

We briefly reported that on the sidelines of the BRICS summit, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov held a series of bilateral meetings with Bolivian President Luis Arce, Vietnamese Prime Minister Pham Minh Chinh, his counterparts from Belarus (Maxim Ryzhenkov), Brazil (Mauro Vieira), India (Subrahmanyan Jaishankar), Iran (Abbas Araghchi), Mexico (Juan Ramon de la Fuente Ramirez), and Türkiye (Hakan Fidan), as well as WTO Director-General Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala. These are only the meetings in the format of talks, but there were also what diplomats refer to as pull-aside meetings. They discussed pressing bilateral issues and aligned agendas on key international issues, including at multilateral forums.

Question: The Baltic States are known for their militaristic policies. Now these republics are developing a joint Baltic headquarters.

This body will focus on three key tasks: planning and coordinating mobilisation; ensuring host nation’s support for allies under existing defence plans; and organising combined military exercises.

Meanwhile, Latvia is set to conduct its Namejs-2025 manoeuvres in September 2025 – scheduled alongside Russia and Belarus’s Zapad 2025 exercises, something Baltic strategists clearly view as the bane of their professional existence.

Does the Foreign Ministry believe the Baltic States will emerge as a NATO military-diplomatic centre that must be reckoned with?

Maria Zakharova: When the Baltic States left the Soviet Union, their leaders painted visions of a glorious future: the promised “freedom,” economic miracles, a chicken in every pot, complete with happiness, harmony, and booming growth across the nation. They spoke of “throwing off burdens,” “breaking shackles,” “breaking free,” and finally “spreading their wings.”

In reality, they were cast in the most despicable role of this Russophobic theatre – a mindless aggressive trio with no independent agenda. As NATO’s aggressive members, they were to abandon national interests to dedicate themselves entirely to inciting hatred, dividing nations with aggressive, inflammatory, and increasingly deranged rhetoric that has now reached spectacular heights of absurdity.

This is their sole purpose. Everything that once mattered – the economy, industry, science, culture, and art – has been forgotten. The promises were never fulfilled; worse, they lost what little they had in these domains. Now only aggression remains, these regimes’ only purpose: to endlessly peddle the “terrible Russian threat” narrative, justifying, supporting and promoting every insane NATO, EU, and Council of Europe initiatives that come their way.

These regimes offer up their territories for NATO’s forward deployments, never pausing to ask why, or whether this actually serves their citizens’ interests. Lithuania is now preparing to host a permanent Bundeswehr brigade, while NATO conducts military drills in close proximity to our borders, complete with explicit simulations of attacks against our country.

One of the most egregious examples was the recent Griffin Lightning 2025 tactical exercise. This high-profile multinational NATO operation across Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland rehearsed offensive manoeuvres in the Baltic theatre, including (let this sink in) a simulated assault on the Kaliningrad Region. So much for a “defensive alliance.” So much for “democratic values.” What sort of “civilised behaviour” is this, exactly?

When we speak of “Baltic nations,” we’re really talking about their regimes – those eager volunteers racing to the frontlines of confrontation. With their own hands, they’re dismantling what little remains of security, stability, or balance in the region, practically asking for trouble, while ignoring the glaring reality: that ratcheting up tensions on Russia’s border does precisely nothing to improve their own safety.

Question: In Moldova, the trial of the Head of Gagauzia, Evghenia Guțul, continues. A verdict is expected on August 5. The prosecution has demanded absurdly severe penalties – nine years’ imprisonment followed by a five-year ban on holding public office. Her supporters and party members face criminal prosecution. What is happening? How would you comment?

Maria Zakharova: We are closely monitoring the situation in Moldova, particularly this high-profile case.

The regime, under President Maia Sandu, has made the suppression of dissent, the violation of fundamental democratic norms, human rights, and basic legality its defining features. Those advocating constructive dialogue with Russia are routinely targeted. These actions are accompanied by baseless accusations against our country, alleging interference in Moldova’s internal affairs. The trial of Evghenia Guțul, the legitimately elected Head of Gagauzia, is a glaring example of this lawlessness.

Within Moldova itself, this case has already been labelled a “politically motivated show trial” and an “act of coercion.” Legal observers unanimously dismiss the charges as fabricated, citing evidence that falls apart even without expert scrutiny. The public recognises the glaring inconsistencies. Moldovan analysts assess that this judicial persecution – against the legitimately elected Head of Gagauzia who has been under house arrest since April 9, 2025 – is not merely an attempt to eliminate her politically but also to intimidate dissenters of the Chisinau regime ahead of September’s parliamentary elections in the country. Effectively, it denies citizens their constitutional rights.

There is no expectation that Chisinau will abandon these anti-democratic methods. On the contrary, as the September 28 elections approach, repression under the pretext of combating an imaginary “Russian propaganda” threat will intensify. What Russian propaganda? Dozens of Russian-language media outlets have already been shuttered. The absurdity speaks for itself.

Such anti-popular actions by local authorities provoke widespread rejection among the residents of the republic. It is no coincidence that court hearings in the case of Evghenia Guțul have been accompanied by public demonstrations in support of the incumbent head of the Gagauz autonomy. The prosecutor’s demand during the July 1 hearing that she be sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment provoked outrage among Moldovans.

The actions of the Moldovan authorities against Ms Guțul have led to extreme polarisation in an already fractured Moldovan society. The authorities in Chisinau have accused her of absolutely everything. This is not even about the legal aspects anymore. They claim she undermines so-called “national security,” acts against Moldova, and disrespects the Moldovan people. Excuse me – who renamed the Moldovan language into Romanian? Who is rewriting Moldovans as Romanians? Who, while holding Romanian passports and Romanian citizenship, is doing everything to erase Moldovan identity? That would be Maia Sandu. Perhaps she should be given nine years instead?

This is a concrete set of facts demonstrating the eradication of Moldovan identity, culture, distinctiveness, and self-awareness. I will not even mention history. Who is denying modern Moldovans the right to honour the heroic deeds of their ancestors? Who is mocking Moldova’s history? Who is rewriting it on the fly? Such behaviour warrants at least nine years. It is surreal – straight out of some “looking-glass world.”

The cynicism lies in the fact that the authorities of this country, predictably, are attempting to baselessly blame Russia for everything, alleging that it is somehow inciting protest sentiments in the republic. Imagine any other country – not Moldova – where authorities suddenly declared that your local language no longer exists or that you are no longer the ethnicity you were born as. What would happen in such a country? In Ukraine, internal confrontation erupted, escalating into a bloody, monstrous conflict. How is Russia to blame here? When people in Moldova are being forbidden from even thinking of themselves as Moldovans. They were Moldovan their entire lives – until Maia Sandu decided they supposedly no longer are.

These insinuations, as we can see, are not working. Full responsibility for domestic political stability in Moldova rests entirely with the Chisinau authorities and their Western sponsors. There can be no talk of stability in Moldova now, because the Maia Sandu regime has pushed the situation to the brink, turning it into instability – simply to (I must say this) draw the attention of international structures, which nobody seriously relies on anymore, to what is happening there. They prattle about rights, yet fail to see the concrete problems within their own sphere of responsibility.

Question: On July 7, 2025, during the 59th session of the UN Human Rights Council, a resolution on the Safety of Journalists was adopted by consensus. In your view, how useful will this document be in protecting media professionals from various unlawful attacks?

Maria Zakharova: I would note that the resolution was submitted and actively promoted by EU member states. Frankly, it’s laughable. These very same countries took the opposite stance at another international platform, UNESCO, when there was an opportunity to discuss the safety of journalists in a practical way by simply listing those who had been killed. Not to memorialise them, or to provide compensation, but simply to acknowledge the number of journalists who were deliberately targeted, maimed or killed – acts that should be qualified as terrorism. That is how such attacks have been classified in our country – as acts of terrorism carried out by the Kiev regime and its militants.

Let us recall the car bombing that took the life of Darya Dugina, the assassination of Vladlen Tatarsky and the attempt on the life of Zakhar Prilepin. He miraculously survived, but lost a friend and comrade in the attack. Where were those same EU representatives then – those who worked hard to ensure that nothing of the sort was acknowledged in a parallel document at UNESCO? To make matters worse, that text was submitted by the Kiev regime itself. In other words, the very people responsible for the disastrous deterioration of conditions for media professionals – those who systematically suppress access to information – were allowed to present themselves as defenders of press freedom. It’s the theatre of the absurd, a hall of mirrors. A post-truth world.

The authors of the resolution wax lyrical about the persecution of journalists, restrictions on the media and limitations on access to information. But who are these authors? The same EU members who banned Russian media outlets, expelled Russian journalists, revoked their accreditations, marginalised and vilified them, and even targeted their families, including children. These are the same people who, on paper, claim to care about press freedom. And the Kiev regime, which has openly targeted Russian media and journalists, bragged about their elimination, and even keeps a public registry of those it has silenced, was among the co-sponsors of this resolution. It’s beyond comprehension. And yet no one seems to be alarmed.

In reality, many of the states backing this resolution are enacting exactly the kinds of repressive media policies they condemn on paper. Of the 50 countries that co-sponsored the resolution, 36 have imposed sanctions on Russian media, banning their operations within their borders. How can the same governments propose such a document with a straight face?

The participation of the Kiev regime, which is known for its total censorship, suppression of dissent, and violent targeting of journalists, war correspondents, and public figures, is a particularly glaring example of hypocrisy and double standards. It’s truly beyond the pale.

Instead of pushing resolutions filled with vague generalities and empty good intentions that bear no relation to the actual situation in these countries, they would do better to focus on properly classifying the crimes committed by the Kiev regime against media professionals and civilians. They should work to improve the media environment in their own countries and stop funding a regime that is murdering journalists.

Documents like the one adopted could play a positive role, but only if the authors are genuinely committed to addressing real problems, not simply using such texts as smokescreens to hide their own misconduct or whitewash crimes with theatrical initiatives meant to mislead global public opinion. In essence, this resolution, submitted by Western representatives,  is just another instrument of deception, intended to distract the international community from their own actions. 

Not a day goes by – literally – without us having to point out the total lack of response from the Western sponsors of the Kiev regime to its brutal crimes against the press. Nor is there any reaction from the relevant multilateral institutions, including the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, who remain strategically and shamefully silent about countless violations committed against journalists and media outlets. All these well-documented facts have been submitted to them for consideration.

We urge the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and other international agencies involved in protecting journalists to carefully study the regular reports published by the Russian Foreign Ministry Commissioner for Human Rights, Democracy, and the Rule of Law. This includes the recent second joint report by the foreign ministries of Russia and Belarus, On Human Rights Violations in Certain Countries, available in Russian and English on the Foreign Ministry website. They would also do well to consult the comprehensive section Repressions against Russian Media, which is updated in real time by the Information and Press Department. It presents the real – not imagined – picture of how the rights of journalists are being “protected” by the West and the Kiev regime they continue to support.

Question: Last week we learned that the Russian Federation had recognised the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. Could you please explain the reasoning behind the recognition of this Taliban country?

Maria Zakharova: As you correctly noted, I have already discussed this matter. It would be incorrect to say that “Russia has revised its position.” On the contrary, Russia has consistently advocated for building mutually beneficial cooperation with Afghanistan for the benefit of our nations.

I believe the factors that have shaped our position are obvious. Afghanistan has a uniquely important geostrategic location, which can serve as a critical transit hub for future large-scale energy and infrastructure initiatives. Kabul’s role in addressing regional security challenges is of considerable importance, particularly in such spheres as counterterrorism and the fight against drug trafficking. I would also highlight the deep-rooted cultural and historical ties that unite our two nations.

We regularly highlight this matter. The ruling by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation has opened the door to the possibility of developing a full-fledged partnership with the current authorities in Kabul. The formal act of the presentation of credentials only reaffirms the trajectory that has been taking shape over the past several years.

Question: How does Russia assess the prospects for relations with Azerbaijan after the recent detention of Russian journalists? What signals have been received from Baku?

Maria Zakharova: We are maintaining contact with the Azerbaijani side on this matter, including through relevant law enforcement bodies. We believe that all arising issues should be addressed in the spirit of partnership, through established political and diplomatic channels. This approach genuinely reflects and promotes the core interests of both the Russian and Azerbaijani peoples.

Question: Have Russia and Ukraine completed the humanitarian procedures that were agreed in Istanbul on June 2 and which Russian President Vladimir Putin called a necessary prerequisite for the third round? Has Ukraine proposed any concrete dates?

Maria Zakharova: I understand that your phrasing seeks to subtly raise a key point that many are wondering about: whether a date has been set for the third round of negotiations. Once we have any information and as soon as relevant agreements are reached, we will, of course, inform you without delay. In the meantime, please follow the statements and updates provided by Presidential Aide Vladimir Medinsky, head of the Russian delegation.

Question: Given its strong relations with countries in the region and the United States, what role can Russia play in de-escalating the situation in the Middle East?

Maria Zakharova: This question was discussed in detail by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov during his news conference in Rio de Janeiro on July 7. Our specific proposals to address the concerns surrounding Iran’s nuclear programme have been communicated to all relevant parties and remain fully valid.

With regard to the broader stabilisation in the Middle East, Russia, both as a permanent member of the UN Security Council and in its national capacity, is making every effort to help our partners in the region live in peace and security, and to foster an atmosphere of good-neighbourliness. We are actively engaged in efforts to reduce tensions amid ongoing risks of renewed Iranian-Israeli confrontation, continuing bloodshed in Gaza and the West Bank, as well as armed conflicts in Sudan, Yemen, and other hotspots. Our goal is clear: de-escalation.

As you have rightly noted, Russia enjoys trust-based and close relations with all key actors in the Middle East. We maintain dialogue with each of them and consistently advocate for political and diplomatic avenues to resolve disputes. We are offering assistance in bridging gaps between opposing positions. Should other influential stakeholders, including the United States, express readiness for constructive cooperation towards regional peace in this strategically important region, we remain open to working together, including through the United Nations framework.

Question: On July 7, Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Galuzin met with Armenian Ambassador to Russia Gurgen Arsenyan. According to the Foreign Ministry’s press release, a range of issues on the bilateral and regional agendas were discussed, including the schedule of upcoming Russian-Armenian contacts. Could you clarify what specific contacts are being referred to? Are mutual visits to Moscow or Yerevan expected in the near future?

Maria Zakharova: Given the depth and breadth of the ties between Russia and Armenia, our bilateral dialogue covers many areas. Several high-level visits have already taken place since the beginning of the year.

We only comment on or announce visits once they have been agreed upon by both sides and there is mutual consent regarding their public disclosure. Once we have such information, we will inform you promptly.

Question: Last week there was another occurrence of the ban to enter Armenia. Now for Russian citizen and former Senator Frants Klintsevich. Was the Klintsevich case, as well as cases of the other Russian citizens, who faced the ban to enter Armenia, discussed at the meeting with the Ambassador? If yes, then what was the results?

Maria Zakharova: We discuss it not only behind closed doors but also publicly. We have to comment on the stop list subject in relations with Armenia rather often.

We regard the ban to enter for Russian citizens as an unfriendly step contradicting the allied nature of the Russian-Armenian interaction. We have called on our Armenian partners to stop this vicious practice on many occasions.

The issue was discussed by the foreign ministers during Sergey Lavrov’s visit to the Republic of Armenia in May. Specific steps were proposed during the visit. We are waiting for Yerevan's response.

Question: Russian Telegram channels have published of late some documents on the Ukrainian court’s ruling regarding the contracts between Ukrspetsexport and Azerbaijan that were concluded after the beginning of the special military operation. How would you comment on the Azerbaijan’s arms supplies to Kiev?

Maria Zakharova: I cannot rely on some Telegram channels that describe something in Ukraine as you have mentioned. I will answer in general.

Even without any reference to the name of the country (regardless of weather it is  government authorities or private business in the context of arms supplies to the terrorist Kiev regime) our position in this regard is very well known.

All information on this subject, including reports, is carefully verified. If we speak about unfriendly regimes – it is one thing. If we speak about the countries maintaining a trust-based dialogue and allied relations with us, we naturally pose this question, discuss it, inform them and receive explanations or denial, and work to have the damage (and not only to us) to peace and stability reduced to minimum.

I would like to emphasise it again: arms supplies to the Kiev regime is equal to spoon-feeding terrorists. Moreover, the weapons given to them (which they sometimes resell), which are spread further around the world in the unknown directions, are used to kill children and civilians, purposefully, not by chance, regardless of whether they are adults or children. Not as they say it in the West (it is an ugly expression, but they use it) – as collateral damage or loss, but purposefully destroying the civilian population.

Question: First of all, please accept my sincere greetings on winning the Best Media Manager badge of honour.

Maria Zakharova: I was one of the many, but thank you in any case. It seems to me that this is more a reflection of the ministry’s efforts to promote openness in its work with journalists and the public than my personal merit. This is the benchmark set for us by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, and we are trying to achieve it. The professional community has appreciated our efforts.

Question: Your entire career is connected with journalism but you are also a famous sinologist. In defending your PhD thesis, you explored the Transformation of Comprehending the Symbolism of Traditional New Year Celebration in Modern China.

You paid special attention to the last quarter of the 20th century. I graduated from the Institute of Asian and African Studies this year and I am specialising in China. You lived in China for quite a long time and you know well not only its language but also culture. Has your personal experience during your stay in China helped you in any way in your life? And what should a person who wants to be friends with a Chinese person know about China?

Maria Zakharova: It looks like you have exaggerated my modest achievements in my professional and private life. Above all, regardless of whom you made friends with, you should understand what friendship is. Many see it light-mindedly as being a mate or an acquaintance.

There is a wonderful expression: friendship is responsibility and genuine, sincere love. Friendship is both sacrifice and sincerity. It is some special achievement of humankind.

I think that it is one of the traditional values, which we must pass from generation to generation. When a person, people, social group consider the issue of friendship, the first thing to do is to understand what it is all about.

Given your title, Greater Asia, I think we should talk with you about China separately, if you do not mind.