Selections From Maria Zakharova's Weekly Briefing

Again, the Weekly Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova is quite long, so I’ve made some selections that reflect the state-of-the-world not being reported on. Most of today’s selections come from the briefing’s Q&A portion. For new readers wanting to devour the entire briefing, it generally appears translated into English at the Ministry of Foreign Affair’s (MFA) English language site a few days later, and the whole catalog of this year’s briefings can be found there too. The difference between the Russian and English sites besides the language are the number of items listed, the English site being far smaller. And now for the selections:

Double standards of the International Olympic Committee

We are accustomed to the double standards of the West and their absence in the West. But this does not mean that we are ready to put up with it.

The inconsistency and political bias of the leadership of the International Olympic Committee have caused the Olympic movement to find itself in a deep crisis, on the verge of existence.

Against the backdrop of the approaching start of the 2024 Olympic Games in Paris, the question of the participation of Russian athletes in them in a "neutral status" is still open, the decision on whose admission will be made by the IOC.

The revelations of IOC President Thomas Bach that representatives of the Committee appealed to Ukrainians in order to monitor the statements of Russian athletes on the Internet and in the media in order to identify judgments and comments that could serve as a basis for refusing admission to the Olympic Games were the height of dishonesty. This, as we said earlier, is "the height of dishonesty". In fact, this is a criminal statement, a logic that does not just run counter to, but directly opposes all the documents that regulate the work of Thomas Bach. We are talking about collusion with the Kiev regime, which encourages racial and national intolerance. We are talking about aggressive nationalism, about the course to destroy everything Russian, including by the hand and using the institutions of the International Olympic Committee.

We are convinced that by such unscrupulous, unlawful and illegal, as well as immoral actions, the IOC leadership discredits itself and undermines the Olympic Charter and splits world sport. Can we say that they have also discredited themselves? I think that it is impossible. They have discredited themselves repeatedly. It seems to me that this verb has only one form and it is inappropriate to use it endlessly with varying degrees. First of all, we are not talking about the fact that they have once again "smeared themselves with tar", but about the fact that they are destroying the Olympic movement, which they did not create themselves.

Fundamental principle 4 of the Olympic Charter states that "the practice of sport is a human right. Everyone must have access to the practice of sport without being discriminated against in any way with regard to internationally recognized human rights within the competence of the Olympic Movement." What do we see in practice? Other. For purely political reasons, some countries that are objectionable to Westerners are actually excluded from the world sports family by the efforts of international sports structures.

These dual approaches, biased, illegal, and in violation of the law, approaches of the IOC are also manifested in the fact that over the past decades, international sports officials have repeatedly turned a blind eye to various armed conflicts in the world that took place during the preparation and holding of the Summer and Winter Olympics. They have opened them only now. And only one eye, given that they do not notice other conflicts, clashes and humanitarian disasters. Let me remind you that NATO's aggression against Yugoslavia in 1999, the military operations of the United States and its allies in Afghanistan from 2001 to 2021, Iraq in 2003-2011 and since 2014 in Syria. Where was the IOC then and where is it now in the context of the situation in the Gaza Strip?

US court's acquittal in the case of the attack on the Cuban Embassy in Washington

We would like to support our Cuban colleagues.

The fact is that on April 30, 2020, an armed attack was carried out on the Cuban Embassy in Washington. The Cuban diplomatic mission was fired at from an AK-47 assault rifle. Fortunately, no one was injured. But the Embassy building was damaged. The attacker was then detained, after which the investigation went on for four long years.

This process ended only on May 1 of this year, when the US court acquitted the accused. The court, despite the proven facts, decided that at the time of the crime, the attacker was allegedly in a "state of insanity", did not control his actions and therefore was "innocent".

This is not the only crime of this kind committed against the Cuban diplomatic mission in Washington. This is happening in the context of the US authorities' escalation of an atmosphere of threats against the government of the Island of Freedom. This happens regularly. On September 24, 2023, two bottles with a flammable mixture were thrown at the Cuban Embassy in Washington. It is indicative that American law enforcement agencies have not yet found and detained the criminal.

We share the public assessments given to this verdict by our Cuban colleagues. It turns out that the notorious American Themis can cover up anyone who commits such crimes against the diplomatic institutions of states where governments objectionable to Washington are in power. This decision of the American court sets a dangerous precedent. In fact, we are talking about giving such persons a "license to kill" because it leaves them unpunished. I want to say more, justifies them.

In addition, it once again "highlighted" the obvious problems in the United States with the observance of diplomatic immunity, the protection of the rights of diplomatic missions, and their inviolability. We have repeatedly drawn attention to this in relation to New York, Washington, San Francisco and Seattle. Let me remind you that Russian missions were operating there before they were illegitimately closed by the US authorities.

It remains only for us to remind you of the obligation of the host country to ensure the security of diplomatic missions of foreign states located on its territory in strict accordance with international obligations.

We hope that sensible people in the United States will hear us. But we would also like to hear it not only in the United States, but also in other Western countries, where, unfortunately, attacks on Russian diplomatic and consular missions, including diplomats, are carried out regularly. And just as regularly, those who committed it remain either unfound or unpunished.

Question: How would you comment on the ongoing protests in Georgia and Armenia and the reaction to them in the United States and the European Union?

Maria Zakharova: We always say that the domestic political life of a country is an internal affair of a sovereign state. In this case, indeed, the Western reaction is not so much surprising as striking in its "stability".

This is another "double standard". This example demonstrates everything in the best possible way.

Official representatives of the United States and the European Union do not stop attacking the Georgian authorities for allegedly mistreating demonstrators, and they do it in different ways: they say that the Georgian authorities are contrary to the values of the United States, that this will not help to join the European Union. They intimidate, intimidate, drawing attention to the "cruel treatment of demonstrators".

What do we see in the context of Armenia? The deathly silence of the West against the backdrop of mass detentions carried out in Armenia with the use of brute force. As if the West was excluded from this agenda. Only one "note" was included. Everything else does not seem to happen.

We see that literally on command, the American and European media are promoting demonstrations in Georgia in every possible way. They make reports of such a level that the participants in these demonstrations appear as heroes. They do not just present them as demonstrators acting in line with the law in these reports and comments by the Western mainstream media. They forgive them everything, whitewash any illegal actions. They do not see any violation of the law.

At the same time, the Western mainstream seems to be "glossing over" the protests in Armenia. He pretends that nothing is happening there. These events in Armenia are presented in the Western media as not reflecting the will of the Armenian people and allegedly orchestrated from the outside. It's amazing. The presentation does not meet any standards.

For clarity, I would like to quote European Commission spokespersons Peter Stano and State Department Mark Miller. Speaking about the events in Tbilisi, the EU member said: "We call on the government (of Georgia) to ensure the right of people to protest." A State Department spokesman echoed him: "We condemn the use of violence against peaceful protests. We call on the authorities to allow peaceful protesters to continue to exercise their right to freedom of expression."

What do they say about Armenia or other countries? No problem. We have repeatedly caught the Westerners by the "hand" in such duplicitous assessments. This is not even political selectivity, but manipulation of public opinion at home, abroad and on international platforms.

Question: On May 7, President of Moldova Maia Sandu in an interview with Yury Dudu (recognised as a foreign agent in Russia) essentially admitted that during her 3.5 years in power, she had not been able to achieve success in fighting corruption, improving the well-being of Moldovans and strengthening democratic values. She blamed some "external circumstances" for this, primarily Russia's actions.

In the same interview, Maia Sandu said: "Gazprom told us that the debt was $700 million, and the debt of Moldovagaz to Gazprom turned out to be $8 million." And "it's one thing when commercial terms are met, it's another thing when they come and say, 'You have such a debt,' but the debt never existed." Thus, she confirmed the position of Chisinau on the non-recognition of the historical debt to PJSC Gazprom. How would you comment on this?

Answer: This is an interview where two loneliness met. Dialogue on an equal footing.

This interview has already been commented on in Moldova itself and dismantled into dozens of memes. Obviously, it was conceived as a pre-election PR campaign designed to increase the falling ratings of Maia Sandu.

In fact, it turned out the other way around. Maia Sandu's statements caused consternation among Moldovans, which turned into ridicule, reproaches for incompetence and hypocrisy. Independent political analysts note that the outrageous feature of this interview is that Maia Sandu did not know the facts and was forced to answer many questions in the sense that she "does not remember the details exactly" and avoids answering. Why did she come for an interview then? In particular, Maia Sandu found it difficult to name the criteria by which representatives of the Moldovan diaspora will be allowed to vote by mail in some countries in the upcoming presidential elections in October, while in others, in particular in Russia, they will not. This is now one of the key topics of discussion in Moldova. On this question, she was not ready to give answers.

A flurry of criticism from the expert community was caused by Maia Sandu's arguments about the authorities' allegedly unbiased policy towards the Moldovan media and the lack of censorship in the country. This causes Homeric laughter. Since 2022, under far-fetched pretexts and without a court decision, the broadcasting of 13 Russian-language TV channels in Moldova has been suspended and over 60 Internet resources have been blocked. The ground is being prepared for the closure of nine more local TV channels and radio stations. According to Maia Sandu, all these are "media disinformation", and she is allegedly regularly criticized on all TV channels. This, apparently, are the very Western values to which it strives.

This interview was a demonstration of the reasons why things are rapidly deteriorating in the Moldovan economy. Incompetence.

According to official data, in January-February this year, Moldovan exports decreased by 12.5% compared to the same period in 2023, and imports - by 7.5%. The national debt reached almost $6 billion. For a country with less than 3 million people, this is a significant amount. At the same time, trade with the EU countries decreased by $94 million. This is an indicator of how Moldova is "waiting" in the European Union.

Against the backdrop of the collapse in the economy, the outflow of the able-bodied population, primarily young people, from the country continues. According to Moldovan sources, in 2000 1.4 million people were employed in the country's economy. According to forecasts, in 2024 their number will decrease to 880 thousand.

According to the latest sociological surveys, 65% of residents consider the situation in Moldova to be "alarming and tense", and 42% believe that the situation resembles a "horror movie". The level of distrust in President Maia Sandu exceeded 60%. According to Moldovan experts, in the minds of citizens, the "European project of M.G. Sandu" is associated with poverty and lawlessness, and its real face resembles the final of the recent Eurovision Song Contest.

Regarding the topic of Moldova's debt to PJSC Gazprom. Why are we commenting on this nonsense and nonsense that she tried to promote in this interview? For one simple reason, since what was said was related to our country and was an absolute lie.

We have repeatedly commented on this topic. There was plenty of texture. The so-called "historical debt audit report" published by the Ministry of Energy of Moldova on September 6, 2023, on the basis of which the Moldovan authorities declare the actual absence of debt, does not meet international standards and requirements for audit independence. It cannot be considered as an appropriate outcome of an objective financial analysis. The conclusions contained therein cannot affect the amount and validity of the debt, which is confirmed both by documents and by the relevant decisions of international arbitration.

Maia Sandu's opinion on this matter does not change anything in this matter. Why didn't she refer to this? Wonder. Apparently, she does not want to talk about it.

Question: During a recent briefing by the European Commission, representatives of the Western media expressed strong dissatisfaction with the fact that European countries still have access to the RT and Sputnik websites, in respect of which Brussels imposed a complete ban on broadcasting back in 2022. How would you comment on this?

Maria Zakharova: This is absolute, total surrealism. Such polemics within the walls of the European Commission are madness. If we are talking about the fact that they support democracy, freedom of speech, pluralism of opinions, then how can they discuss and observe the situation when some journalists foam at the mouth to prove to officials the need to establish a total information blockade against their fellow journalists?

Journalists of the pro-Western wing call literally for the commission of reprisals against any unwanted media. Not the police or law enforcement agencies, but the journalists themselves. All this is happening within the walls of an institution that has made it its historical mission to protect democracy, freedom of speech and pluralism of opinions.

This is a clear symptom of the irreversible devaluation of democratic values in such countries and, in fact, the rejection of these values and their destruction. Given that the EU has always touted media freedom and pluralism as one of its greatest achievements, it is also a sign of the EU's own deep decline.

In fact, the ideals of liberalism have been betrayed and "trampled" not only by European bureaucrats, but also by the targeted media, accustomed over the years and "trained" for a lot of money to obediently follow the mainstream approved by the political elite. They are so used to it, they have been tamed and trained for such an anti-Russian "rag". This is Russophobia, commissioned materials and payment, which should come on time in the form of salaries, grants and other pleasant "bonuses". The fact that the truth suffers, and that there is nothing left of the truth on their pages for a long time, is the least of their concerns.

That is why the concept of "independent journalism" can no longer be applied to such media. But this is not the only thing. The true reasons for the mentioned skirmish may be much more prosaic. It's just that RT and Sputnik successfully compete with biased media in the EU. Audiences in the European Union have a natural need, at least for an alternative point of view. But in fact, they are tired of the mainstream, which is "chased away" to them from year to year.

We see that the materials of the above-mentioned media outlets – RT, Sputnik and others – are in growing demand around the world as suppliers of interesting, relevant and up-to-date information. The growth in the coverage of domestic broadcasters, caused by noticeable changes in the media preferences of the population of these countries, hits the pockets of their Western colleagues. Therefore, they came up with the idea of strangling our media with the hands of their own journalists using political censorship, economic indicators and other administrative measures.

Despite the tremendous pressure from the authorities of Western countries, despite all these bans and blockages, stigmata and marginalisation, monstrous labelling, and the beating of our journalists, both literally and figuratively. They are threatened, beaten while covering some events, forcibly detained on far-fetched pretexts, interrogated, etc. Our journalists are mentioned in some reports and reports, and they use language that cannot be used in relation to media representatives from any other countries. But it does apply to them. They are literally squeezed out by all means: physically, virtually. But despite the above, they do not give up and are not going to do so.

They understand that there is a huge demand for their activities around the world. The world needs objective information, because it is simply impossible to live in a state of post-truth. And they will continue (judging by their statements) to expand their audience and work even in such toxic, and now life-threatening conditions. The truth will make its way, including through the efforts of Russian journalists and the media.

Question: Do the recent contacts of Russian diplomacy with the leaders of African countries (in particular, from the Commonwealth of Portuguese-speaking countries) mean that Russian foreign policy is currently focused on expanding the influence of the Russian Federation on this continent?

Maria Zakharova: With regard to African and other continents, we are not engaged in expanding influence, but expanding cooperation. For some, perhaps, these are the same thing, for others they are different things. I don't want to make comparisons now. I am talking about what is the task of our country – expanding cooperation.

Russia's foreign policy, foreign economic and humanitarian activities are currently focused on the systematic and comprehensive development of relations with Africa on the basis of equality and mutual respect in line with the agreements reached between the leaders of Russia and African states at the Russia-Africa summits, as well as during regular working contacts. A few days ago, President of Guinea-Bissau Urmanuel Embalo visited our country on the Great Victory Day.

In November of this year, a Russia-Africa ministerial conference is planned in Sochi, where we are also waiting for the Portuguese-speaking African countries.

I would like to remind you that the Russia-Africa summits began long before today, and not as a response to the illegal restrictions imposed on Russia by the West, the West's hybrid trade war against our country. We had something to offer Africa. Therefore, this format of the summit matured then. Now, at the moment, two such summits have already been held. This year, in a few months, the Russia-Africa ministerial format will be held in Sochi.

Russia offers an honest and equal partnership without politicisation, without pressure, without interference in the internal affairs of other countries and, in particular, Africans. Our country helped many to gain independence and free themselves from colonial oppression. These are all known facts. We are developing our relations in this direction. They have a solid historical foundation.

Q: Tokyo plans to propose to Washington the concept of "extended deterrence" in the Northeast Asian region, which includes Japan's neighboring countries, especially China and North Korea. It also means a commitment by the United States to use its nuclear and conventional forces to "deter its neighbors" with the U.S. "nuclear umbrella." How would you comment on this from the point of view of Russia's security interests?

Maria Zakharova: It is difficult to say that it was Tokyo that initiated such schemes. We are dealing with Washington's strategy of using Japan and its other satellites as obedient conductors of US interests in the Asia-Pacific region, including building a network of US-centric "configurations" in the Asia-Pacific region, which are clearly being formed to exert pressure on Russia, China and North Korea. It is clear that such actions create significant challenges to our national security. China will speak for itself, we speak for our country. This is true.

We have repeatedly pointed out the serious risks to regional security and global stability arising from Washington's deliberate actions to draw its Asia-Pacific allies into increasingly destabilising schemes of "extended deterrence," including its nuclear component. In particular, we are seriously concerned about the agreements reached by the United States and the Republic of Korea on joint nuclear planning, accompanied by statements about a "nuclear-weapon-based alliance," as well as the undisguised intention to bring Japan into this format. In fact, we are talking about the transfer to the Asia-Pacific region of a number of elements of the practice of NATO's "joint nuclear missions" and attempts to give the emerging "triple alliance" of Washington, Seoul and Tokyo the status of a "nuclear alliance" on the model of the North Atlantic bloc.

All this leads to an increase in the conflict potential in the region, spurs tension and provokes a further arms race. But most importantly, the countries (Japan and South Korea) must understand that if they are drawn into these nuclear alliances, they will never be able to control the corresponding types of nuclear weapons. The lives of their peoples will be made dependent on the opportunistic interests of the United States, as has happened in different parts of the world more than once.

We note that Tokyo's increased involvement in these schemes of military cooperation with the United States against the backdrop of the policy of forced remilitarisation taken by the Fumio Kishida administration is fundamentally at odds with Japan's international obligations and the restrictions imposed by the country's Constitution. We call on Tokyo to strictly observe its post-war peaceful and nuclear-free status, with which Japan joined the UN – by the way, thanks to the Soviet Union.

We intend to carefully monitor the further evolution of Japan's military-political and military-technical cooperation with the United States and other Washington's allies in order to create additional dangers and threats to Russia's security in this context. If necessary, we will respond to them appropriately.

Question: On May 12, Maxim Reshetnikov said that this year it is planned to sign updated agreements on the promotion and protection of investments with the People's Republic of China, as well as with the Republic of Indonesia, the United Arab Emirates and Mongolia. We understand that their main goal is to stimulate bilateral investment as a component of Russia's foreign economic activity. Do you think these agreements can be viewed not only as a platform for economic cooperation, but also as a "window of opportunity" for expanding political and diplomatic relations with these countries?

Maria Zakharova: Updating the agreements governing investment cooperation with our foreign partners is designed to help promote Russia's foreign economic interests. In practical terms, we are talking about reorienting export supplies, attracting investment in the domestic economy, expanding our presence in the markets of Asia, Africa, the Middle East, Latin America, as well as creating the appropriate transport, logistics, payment, and insurance infrastructure.

In the context of the global crisis of trust provoked by the Westerners, which has accelerated the rethinking and reformatting of world economic relations, it is an absolute priority for us to promote the construction of sustainable cooperation mechanisms with our foreign partners based on the principles of constructive, respectful and mutually beneficial cooperation. Of course, this work also contributes to strengthening political and diplomatic relations with a wide range of interested countries.

Question: Is Russia interested in restoring the Fatherland within its borders at the end of 1945?

Maria Zakharova: We have repeatedly discussed these interesting historical issues. I have already answered them.

Question: Is Russia interested in this?

Maria Zakharova: I have already answered you about the formulation of such questions during briefings by the Foreign Ministry spokesperson. You can convene a "round table" - we will discuss it at it.

[Here’s the linked answer]: Question: What is the basis of Ukraine's sovereignty if, according to Law 1409 on the secession of union republics from the USSR of 1990, secession did not take place, Ukraine did not comply with the legal procedure? At the time of 1991, the law was in force, and even now we have not been able to find a document repealing the effect of this law. Why does Russia not follow the path of challenging the sovereignty of Ukraine, for example, in court?

Answer: This is hardly a question for me. I think that legal experts and lawyers who deal with such things should help here. We are the agency that implements the foreign policy course approved by the leadership of the state. And we have been working for quite a long time on the basis of continuity. To reiterate, I will be happy to ask this question to our legal experts as a matter of discussion.

Question: Perhaps you will be able to initiate a discussion of this issue?

Maria Zakharova: I am not sure that this is a matter for the Russian Foreign Ministry.

Question: It has been said more than once, including by President Vladimir Putin, that Ukraine's sovereignty is based on the Declaration of Independence. Why do we not initiate the procedure for the restoration of a united Fatherland on the basis of international law enshrined in the results of 1945, since it is of paramount importance in relation to declarations of independence?

Maria Zakharova: To reiterate, this issue can be discussed as much as you want as a debatable issue.

I can only repeat that in Article 1 of the Treaty on the Principles of Relations between the RSFSR and the Ukrainian SSR, signed on November 19, 1990, the two republics recognized each other as "sovereign states".

The 1990 Treaty was replaced by the Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Partnership between the Russian Federation and Ukraine of May 31, 1997 (Article 39), which was denounced by Ukraine and terminated on April 1, 2019. [My Emphasis]

Well, that was much shorter than most recent Selections. The briefing was held prior to the assassination attempt on Slovakia’s PM Fico, which is why there’re no questions about it. As I noted up top, items left on the cutting room floor like the very long Ukraine update will be available in English in a few days. The situation in Georgia finds its parliament passing the foreign agent law, which is not nearly as restrictive as the US law but is opposed by the Outlaw US Empire, thus the reasons for the demonstrations. In Armenia, many want Pashinyan to resign as PM for a multitude of reasons. In Moldova, Sandu is ruining the economy and is competing with Ukraine for poorest European nation. If the election’s fair, Sandu will be ousted. Georgia’s PM may veto the bill, but Parliament has the votes to override. The message is clear that the PM is a Western agent and needs to go. Georgia has a historic affiliation with Russia for hundreds of years and would be a solid ally were it not for Western Color Revolution crap. And for my American readers, remember that innocent by reason of insanity. I do wonder who paid the criminal’s legal bills. And speaking of criminals, the two top criminals—Trump & Biden—are going to debate each other. Maybe they can get a third criminal—Netanyahu—to moderate.

*
*
*
Like what you’ve been reading at Karlof1’s Substack? Then please consider subscribing and choosing to make a monthly/yearly pledge to enable my efforts in this challenging realm. Thank You!