This Q&A is from today's weekly7 briefing by Maria Zakharova and complements this interview:
"Question: On May 28, Deputy National Security Adviser to the President of the United States Dalina Singh said that Washington and its partners are ready to use sanctions and export control tools to stop trade between China and Russia in goods and technologies that "threaten the security of the United States and its allies," as well as to take additional measures to prevent Russia from "using the shadow fleet of tankers to supply oil in circumvention of the price ceiling," established by the "Big Seven". What does the Russian Foreign Ministry think about these statements and what can Russia do to prevent US interference in relations between Moscow and Beijing?
"Maria Zakharova: These actions can be qualified in different ways, based on the goals, objectives and real steps taken by the collective West.
"You mentioned the United States of America. But they are not alone. They crush their "allies", "comrades in NATO misfortune".
"We consider such steps by Washington as interference in trade and economic relations between sovereign states. It can also be characterized as compensation for one's own failures in the economy. Probably, this is a desire to somehow make up for lost time or their own lag in certain areas of the economy, science and technology through such illegitimate methods. This can be qualified as waging a trade war, as part of hybrid aggression, a hybrid war against our country, against other states, as a policy of deterrence, inflicting a "strategic defeat". There are quite a lot of terms and words that could describe it. We have no problems with terminology. And the whole world is experiencing problems with reacting to such a destruction of world economic ties.
"We believe that the uncontrolled abuse of sanctions tools by the United States will ultimately lead to the international community gradually abandoning the use of the financial and logistics infrastructure of the West. No public and regularly repeated threats by representatives of the US administration to use unilateral illegal restrictive measures against the Russian Federation will force our country to abandon mutually beneficial cooperation with partners from third countries, including China, which fully complies with the norms of international law. I am singling it out because it was mentioned in your question, but this applies equally to everyone who is ready to build relations with us on such a basis.
"We categorically reject attempts at artificial, politicised interference in the functioning of global energy markets. We strongly condemn such politically motivated measures as the establishment of price ceilings, the introduction of unilateral restrictive measures on the transportation and sale of oil and other raw materials from any country or group of countries, and attempts to create "cartels of buyers". The funniest thing is the demand to reduce the price. Or a declaration that purchase prices will be formed not by supply and demand, not by the seller, but by the buyer or the buyer's cartel. This, of course, is the craziest thing.
"As we can see today, such unfair and illegitimate practices lead to the destruction of the mechanisms of international energy cooperation that have been developed over several decades, the fragmentation of markets, a significant increase in the cost of energy and, as a result, inflationary pressure. As a result, this leads to the degradation of the global security system, including the energy system.
"Responsible participants in international economic relations have to correct the consequences of such short-sighted steps. In this context, Russia is actively cooperating with constructively minded partners both in bilateral and multilateral formats. Today I spoke about Eurasian economic cooperation.
"The supply of Russian energy resources to the countries of the Global South has a steady upward trend. Western countries, accustomed to manipulating energy prices for the sake of their own domestic political situation and geopolitical ambitions, are forced to reckon with this reality. Hence such nervous statements by the United States about taking some "additional measures to prevent Russia." Moreover, it is far from being of a market nature, aimed solely at creating competitive advantages for themselves and ousting other key players from the world market, including Russia.
"Russia is consistent in its actions and is traditionally aimed at maintaining global energy security in the interests of the development of states and their constructive cooperation on the basis of mutual respect and international law.
"Separately, I would like to say that now we also have to disavow the lies of world leaders that Russia allegedly undersupplies energy resources to Western markets (this is what official London has allowed itself to do). Absolutely not true. We supply to everyone who wants and with whom we agree on the price and the form of delivery. We do not have a single deal that would be blocked on our part for some political opportunistic reasons. This has never happened. For us, these are market relations of mutually acceptable trade and economic cooperation, financial and economic benefits.
"It was the West that tried to stop all this and put it under its own control. When this failed, it literally "cut off" from the other side the possibilities for the normal receipt of our energy resources. I am talking about the European Union, which, it turns out, has become a victim of US policy in this area.
"We have built stable ties and contacts with them, as well as the appropriate infrastructure. For many years, we have heard how the United States has been urging the European Union not to receive Russian energy resources, not to develop cooperation, not to build relevant projects. After failing to dissuade and intimidate the EU, they undermined Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2. The evidence is a statement by US President Joe Biden and former US Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland.
"Of course, there must be a final investigation. Our own is being conducted on this matter. In the Nordic countries, the investigation was stopped. Although they stated that they would definitely hold it. Germany, apparently, is also curtailing the investigation. The Russian proposal in this regard, sent to the UN Security Council for an international investigation under the auspices of the Secretary-General, was blocked by the Anglo-Saxons. But our investigation will still continue and will be completed. Obviously, the United States of America is behind this."
strong words at the end regarding nordstream 1 and who is behind this... based on the financial sanctions and those who are on the receiving end - it seems europe does not have its own short or long term interests in mind...
Humanity is energy starved. Perhaps it doesn't look that way to Americans cruising around in their enormous SUV dinosaur-burners, but to rural South Asians cooking dinner with burning dried cow dung, the global energy deficit is a constant reality. Maybe the Europeans can afford to please their American masters by thumbing their noses at the Russians and saying "To hell with your bread! We will eat American cake instead!" (not recommended, but there is no accounting for taste), but there are plenty of buyers in the world who will jump at the chance for cheap blue fuel. The demand far outstrips supply, so trying to sanction the supply is beyond ridiculous. It is baffling how the Empire's managers imagine that could work.
The only explanation I can think of is that westerners are habituated to seeing the world = USA + Europe + (a couple insignificant former British Empire outposts). That the world has nearly another 7 billion people on top of that completely slips westerners' tiny, insular little minds. Perhaps westerners have completely forgotten what tangible, non-finance economic activity is? They don't do much of anything productive anymore so that wouldn't be a surprise.
Many of the development projects are energy related, the massive solar farm in Mali that the solar subsidiary of Rosatom will build is one example. I expect China's method of greening the deserts and reversing desertification will mushroom in the proper regions of Africa. This year's special guests for the SPIF that begins next week are Bolivia and Oman, which I find curious. The success of Russia/China soft power over the Empire is growing rapidly. 2024 was deemed pivotal, but we've yet to see the changes that will justify that prediction.
I am long nat gas and LNG. It will play out for the next few years at least. It is possible that the martyrdom of Saint DJT will precipitate as GOP House and Senate. I am not holding my breath since US Presidential campaigns usually do not get started until September.
Chances for another NATO brain fart are not clear, but more body bags being sent home might become noticeable.
Big Serge (Witte) called it right a few years ago. The attrition will go on with more to come. Individual NATO members will do what they can until the US Presidential election is done, which may not deliver any clarity. The Russians will keep on going militarily and have signaled their financial responses for more confiscatory attacks of stupid. I do not wish to live in exciting times.
thanks karl.. the question remains - who is running things? the politicians, or the corporations, or something un named in all of this?? here is the relevant quote for me asking this -
"As practice shows, the business community as a whole is much more responsible and objective in assessing the ongoing processes than the politicians of Western countries. "
Yes, but who hires the politicians? The Donors through their legalized bribes as has been the case here since the 1870s when the circular money pathway was first established with the Federal government giving railroads capital that flowed back to the politicians in the form of bribes since campaign donations were yet to become massively commercialized via media after WW2. And the banks got in on it as they were the ones who bought the land given to the railroads to subsidize their construction.
yes, i implied this in my comment, but i also implied it may be some grander scheme from some group even higher up then these corporations.... lets say those who run the fed or boe perhaps who have a longer term vision...
I don't see any "long term vision" from the West. Look at its so-called security policy and you'll see it hasn't really changed since the Cold War began. The initial "control" policies that worked through IMF, World Bank, etc., remain the same. There's no understanding that those polices are losing their effectiveness as it appears the attitude is if it ain't broke don't fix it. And we see these old Cold Warriors like Biden running the same policies that were in place 50+ years ago because they can't come up with anything new. And IMO, that's actually good as the Global Majority works on ways to defeat those ancien policies.
i do agree with you here karl... i suppose the long term vision is to maintain dominance however you can maintain it, but the cracks are very apparent here in 2024...
How do you maintain Primacy when you're no longer Top Dog? IMO, a decent comparison is Formula One racing--you can't keep still and rely on your best today as you know you'll need a better car tomorrow as the competition's very intense. You either move forward or get left behind in a cloud of tire smoke.
This Q&A is from today's weekly7 briefing by Maria Zakharova and complements this interview:
"Question: On May 28, Deputy National Security Adviser to the President of the United States Dalina Singh said that Washington and its partners are ready to use sanctions and export control tools to stop trade between China and Russia in goods and technologies that "threaten the security of the United States and its allies," as well as to take additional measures to prevent Russia from "using the shadow fleet of tankers to supply oil in circumvention of the price ceiling," established by the "Big Seven". What does the Russian Foreign Ministry think about these statements and what can Russia do to prevent US interference in relations between Moscow and Beijing?
"Maria Zakharova: These actions can be qualified in different ways, based on the goals, objectives and real steps taken by the collective West.
"You mentioned the United States of America. But they are not alone. They crush their "allies", "comrades in NATO misfortune".
"We consider such steps by Washington as interference in trade and economic relations between sovereign states. It can also be characterized as compensation for one's own failures in the economy. Probably, this is a desire to somehow make up for lost time or their own lag in certain areas of the economy, science and technology through such illegitimate methods. This can be qualified as waging a trade war, as part of hybrid aggression, a hybrid war against our country, against other states, as a policy of deterrence, inflicting a "strategic defeat". There are quite a lot of terms and words that could describe it. We have no problems with terminology. And the whole world is experiencing problems with reacting to such a destruction of world economic ties.
"We believe that the uncontrolled abuse of sanctions tools by the United States will ultimately lead to the international community gradually abandoning the use of the financial and logistics infrastructure of the West. No public and regularly repeated threats by representatives of the US administration to use unilateral illegal restrictive measures against the Russian Federation will force our country to abandon mutually beneficial cooperation with partners from third countries, including China, which fully complies with the norms of international law. I am singling it out because it was mentioned in your question, but this applies equally to everyone who is ready to build relations with us on such a basis.
"We categorically reject attempts at artificial, politicised interference in the functioning of global energy markets. We strongly condemn such politically motivated measures as the establishment of price ceilings, the introduction of unilateral restrictive measures on the transportation and sale of oil and other raw materials from any country or group of countries, and attempts to create "cartels of buyers". The funniest thing is the demand to reduce the price. Or a declaration that purchase prices will be formed not by supply and demand, not by the seller, but by the buyer or the buyer's cartel. This, of course, is the craziest thing.
"As we can see today, such unfair and illegitimate practices lead to the destruction of the mechanisms of international energy cooperation that have been developed over several decades, the fragmentation of markets, a significant increase in the cost of energy and, as a result, inflationary pressure. As a result, this leads to the degradation of the global security system, including the energy system.
"Responsible participants in international economic relations have to correct the consequences of such short-sighted steps. In this context, Russia is actively cooperating with constructively minded partners both in bilateral and multilateral formats. Today I spoke about Eurasian economic cooperation.
"The supply of Russian energy resources to the countries of the Global South has a steady upward trend. Western countries, accustomed to manipulating energy prices for the sake of their own domestic political situation and geopolitical ambitions, are forced to reckon with this reality. Hence such nervous statements by the United States about taking some "additional measures to prevent Russia." Moreover, it is far from being of a market nature, aimed solely at creating competitive advantages for themselves and ousting other key players from the world market, including Russia.
"Russia is consistent in its actions and is traditionally aimed at maintaining global energy security in the interests of the development of states and their constructive cooperation on the basis of mutual respect and international law.
"Separately, I would like to say that now we also have to disavow the lies of world leaders that Russia allegedly undersupplies energy resources to Western markets (this is what official London has allowed itself to do). Absolutely not true. We supply to everyone who wants and with whom we agree on the price and the form of delivery. We do not have a single deal that would be blocked on our part for some political opportunistic reasons. This has never happened. For us, these are market relations of mutually acceptable trade and economic cooperation, financial and economic benefits.
"It was the West that tried to stop all this and put it under its own control. When this failed, it literally "cut off" from the other side the possibilities for the normal receipt of our energy resources. I am talking about the European Union, which, it turns out, has become a victim of US policy in this area.
"We have built stable ties and contacts with them, as well as the appropriate infrastructure. For many years, we have heard how the United States has been urging the European Union not to receive Russian energy resources, not to develop cooperation, not to build relevant projects. After failing to dissuade and intimidate the EU, they undermined Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2. The evidence is a statement by US President Joe Biden and former US Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland.
"Of course, there must be a final investigation. Our own is being conducted on this matter. In the Nordic countries, the investigation was stopped. Although they stated that they would definitely hold it. Germany, apparently, is also curtailing the investigation. The Russian proposal in this regard, sent to the UN Security Council for an international investigation under the auspices of the Secretary-General, was blocked by the Anglo-Saxons. But our investigation will still continue and will be completed. Obviously, the United States of America is behind this."
strong words at the end regarding nordstream 1 and who is behind this... based on the financial sanctions and those who are on the receiving end - it seems europe does not have its own short or long term interests in mind...
It is madness! Madness, I say!
Humanity is energy starved. Perhaps it doesn't look that way to Americans cruising around in their enormous SUV dinosaur-burners, but to rural South Asians cooking dinner with burning dried cow dung, the global energy deficit is a constant reality. Maybe the Europeans can afford to please their American masters by thumbing their noses at the Russians and saying "To hell with your bread! We will eat American cake instead!" (not recommended, but there is no accounting for taste), but there are plenty of buyers in the world who will jump at the chance for cheap blue fuel. The demand far outstrips supply, so trying to sanction the supply is beyond ridiculous. It is baffling how the Empire's managers imagine that could work.
The only explanation I can think of is that westerners are habituated to seeing the world = USA + Europe + (a couple insignificant former British Empire outposts). That the world has nearly another 7 billion people on top of that completely slips westerners' tiny, insular little minds. Perhaps westerners have completely forgotten what tangible, non-finance economic activity is? They don't do much of anything productive anymore so that wouldn't be a surprise.
Many of the development projects are energy related, the massive solar farm in Mali that the solar subsidiary of Rosatom will build is one example. I expect China's method of greening the deserts and reversing desertification will mushroom in the proper regions of Africa. This year's special guests for the SPIF that begins next week are Bolivia and Oman, which I find curious. The success of Russia/China soft power over the Empire is growing rapidly. 2024 was deemed pivotal, but we've yet to see the changes that will justify that prediction.
All true.
I am long nat gas and LNG. It will play out for the next few years at least. It is possible that the martyrdom of Saint DJT will precipitate as GOP House and Senate. I am not holding my breath since US Presidential campaigns usually do not get started until September.
Chances for another NATO brain fart are not clear, but more body bags being sent home might become noticeable.
Big Serge (Witte) called it right a few years ago. The attrition will go on with more to come. Individual NATO members will do what they can until the US Presidential election is done, which may not deliver any clarity. The Russians will keep on going militarily and have signaled their financial responses for more confiscatory attacks of stupid. I do not wish to live in exciting times.
thanks karl.. the question remains - who is running things? the politicians, or the corporations, or something un named in all of this?? here is the relevant quote for me asking this -
"As practice shows, the business community as a whole is much more responsible and objective in assessing the ongoing processes than the politicians of Western countries. "
Yes, but who hires the politicians? The Donors through their legalized bribes as has been the case here since the 1870s when the circular money pathway was first established with the Federal government giving railroads capital that flowed back to the politicians in the form of bribes since campaign donations were yet to become massively commercialized via media after WW2. And the banks got in on it as they were the ones who bought the land given to the railroads to subsidize their construction.
yes, i implied this in my comment, but i also implied it may be some grander scheme from some group even higher up then these corporations.... lets say those who run the fed or boe perhaps who have a longer term vision...
I don't see any "long term vision" from the West. Look at its so-called security policy and you'll see it hasn't really changed since the Cold War began. The initial "control" policies that worked through IMF, World Bank, etc., remain the same. There's no understanding that those polices are losing their effectiveness as it appears the attitude is if it ain't broke don't fix it. And we see these old Cold Warriors like Biden running the same policies that were in place 50+ years ago because they can't come up with anything new. And IMO, that's actually good as the Global Majority works on ways to defeat those ancien policies.
i do agree with you here karl... i suppose the long term vision is to maintain dominance however you can maintain it, but the cracks are very apparent here in 2024...
How do you maintain Primacy when you're no longer Top Dog? IMO, a decent comparison is Formula One racing--you can't keep still and rely on your best today as you know you'll need a better car tomorrow as the competition's very intense. You either move forward or get left behind in a cloud of tire smoke.
yes and there is a lot of smoke here to confuse matters!!