Global Times & Maria Zakharova on Another Illegal Attack by Outlaw US Empire

The West ignores the Outlaw US Empire and its miniature British poodle’s illegal attack on Ansarallah Yeminis after the UNSC Resolution that didn’t authorize any such action was approved just as was done before with Libya and Iraq. Global Times noticed and published an editorial condemning the Empire’s behavior and again blamed it quite correctly as being the source of conflict most everywhere. Later in the day Maria Zakharova’s first weekly briefing of the year had her raise the issue and also deal with it in the Q&A session. So, after providing the editorial’s relevant sections, although I do suggest reading it all, I’ll post this week’s selections from Zakharova’s briefing, which will mostly focus on the overall Palestine/West Asia situation.

Today's Global Times editorial provides another perspective not yet seen in Western media, "Impossible to restore peace to the Red Sea via military means". As with the UNSCR regarding Libya:

The air strikes took place exactly one day after the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution regarding the situation in the Red Sea, giving the impression that the UN resolution gave the green light for the US and UK actions. It must be pointed out that this is an illusion. The US and the UK may have deliberately created and strengthened this illusion, but it is far from the truth. The resolution was proposed by the US and Japan and passed with a vote of 11 in favor to none against, with four abstentions. It demanded "that the Houthis immediately cease all such attacks, which impede global commerce and undermine navigational rights and freedoms as well as regional peace and security." Russia, China, Algeria and Mozambique abstained from the vote.

The Red Sea is an important international trade channel for goods and energy, and its stability is related to the common interests of the international community. China emphasized that "No country should misinterpret or abuse relevant provisions in this resolution to create new tensions in the Red Sea." Unexpectedly, what China was worried about became a reality the next day. After the attack, some US allies in the Middle East, including Jordan and Oman, expressed concern that the situation might get out of control. Yemen's neighbor Saudi Arabia also called for avoiding escalation of the situation. There is also a lot of opposition in the US. Nabeel Khoury, former deputy chief of mission at the US embassy in Yemen, said on X (formerly Twitter), "US/UK bombing campaign in Yemen is another failure of Biden diplomacy."

The current situation in the region is dire. A cease-fire between Palestine and Israel has not yet been achieved, and the spillover conflict in the Red Sea is further escalating and expanding. The Supreme Political Committee of the Houthi armed forces of Yemen claimed that all "interests" of the US and Britain are now "legitimate targets." Retaliation and harassment against the US and the UK will start another cycle of attacks, and multiple spillover conflicts are possible. In short, the possibility of the situation deteriorating has increased and deepened, and this outcome requires all parties to do their best to avoid it.

It needs to be said that the development of the situation to this point has been both accidental and inevitable. It is the US that has pushed the situation to the current stage step by step according to its own style and behavioral logic. The skewed stance of the US in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict has led to the conflict becoming protracted and caused spillovers. When dealing with Middle East issues, which are intertwined with contradictions and have complex historical latitudes, the US' strategy is thoughtless, even crude. [My Emphasis]

And more is directed at the Outlaw US Empire for causing it all. The editorial makes the further point that the Empire has only one tool to deal with everything--using its military--as it clearly lacks any degree of diplomacy, which is the main reason why the Chinese esteemed Kissinger so highly. China’s POV is understandable.

Maria Zakharova’s weekly briefing again covers many topics and is quite long, the video being 2:20, which seems to be the norm recently. Only the Russian version is available; and since it’s a Friday, I doubt the English transcript will be filly available until Monday. Most of what you’ll read is from the Q&A, but first is the statement on the illegal attacks:

US- and UK-led coalition strikes on Yemen

According to available information, on the night of January 12, the "international coalition" (it should be called an illegal coalition) led by the United States and Great Britain launched missile and bomb strikes on a number of facilities on the territory of sovereign Yemen, controlled by the Houthi movement Ansar Allah. In particular, it is reported about the bombing of the areas of the airports of Sana'a, Hodeida and Taiz, the port of Midi in the province of Hajjah. In response to these attacks, the Houthis announced their intention to retaliate against American targets in the region. Our fears were confirmed that the US position in the UN Security Council on the Red Sea is just a pretext for further escalation of tensions in the region.

We strongly condemn these irresponsible actions by the United States and its allies. A large-scale military escalation in the Red Sea region could cancel out the positive trends that have recently emerged in the Yemeni settlement process, as well as provoke the destabilization of the situation in the entire Middle East region.

As we warned, the Anglo-Saxons are trying to use UN Security Council Resolution 2722, which was adopted the day before under the pretext of ensuring the safety of navigation in the Red Sea, to justify their aggression. The Americans have been using such unscrupulous methods that run counter to international law for a long time. Everyone remembers the consequences of their military adventures in Libya and Iraq, which were also unleashed by distorted interpretations of UN Security Council resolutions. The people of these countries and the entire region are still feeling the devastating consequences of the illegal military interventions of Washington and its henchmen.

We call on the international community to strongly condemn the attack on Yemen undertaken by a group of countries without a UN mandate. We share the concerns expressed by our regional partners, in particular Saudi Arabia, and call for intensified international efforts to prevent further escalation of the situation. We proceed from the premise that this adventure by the forces of the illegal "coalition" poses a direct threat to global peace and security. Guided by this understanding, we demanded the urgent convening of a meeting of the Security Council, from the rostrum of which our principled assessments of these illegal actions will be announced.

Now for Q&As:

Question: How can the Russian Foreign Ministry comment on Bloomberg's report?

Maria Zakharova: This is something new. Tell me, just wondering, this is really something extraordinary for me, how can Reuters allow competitors to be quoted?

Question: Sometimes this happens.

Maria Zakharova: From the bottom of my heart, I wish you to quote yourselves in the new year.

Question: How can the Russian Foreign Ministry comment on Bloomberg's publication with reference to the US National Security Council document that the White House allegedly approved the confiscation of Russian assets totaling ₽300 billion?

Maria Zakharova: It seems to me that in this case there is no better phrase than the unforgettable, winged phrase (which, I think, has already become a real world slogan) by Vladimir Chernomyrdin: "It has never happened before, and here it is again." The theft of state, private, and public property became the hallmark of the Anglo-Saxons. Washington and London have been doing this for decades. Before that, it was called something else – piracy. Then it was legalized. Now, in my opinion, this is piracy of the 21st century.

We have repeatedly commented on this issue. I can do it again. There is nothing new in Washington's principled attitude towards such things. The U.S. was initially among the main proponents of the seizure of Russia's sovereign reserves and was able to draw its satellites – primarily from the Group of Seven – into this egregious step. Now, against the backdrop of growing difficulties in providing financial support to the Kiev regime, the work of Westerners to find any sources of funds for its maintenance has intensified, and this will be considered in a practical plane. I call on everyone, and now I appeal to the media and speakers, to talk not about frozen assets, not about the blocking of assets, but about theft and theft. Let's call a spade a spade.

In an effort to seize seized Russian state property, the White House clearly wants to create a semblance of a legal "cover" for the planned theft. Once again, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that this has nothing to do with Washington's principled position on the situation around Ukraine. Nothing of the kind. They used to do the same thing.

In Russia, five properties were similarly blocked (now we are speaking directly), seized by Washington. They are objects of property with diplomatic immunity. These are facilities in New York, near Washington, San Francisco and Seattle, for which money was paid at one time. They have been our property since the days of the Soviet Union. We paid the corresponding fees and taxes for them. For decades, no one on the American side has had any remarks or complaints about this. But they were nevertheless seized, seized in a raider way.

The Americans, including by means of information influence, are trying to induce, first of all, the EU (where a significant part of the frozen domestic funds is located) to be the first to commit illegitimate actions so that it assumes all the inevitable negative economic, legal and moral consequences of such a step. In this regard, Washington's interest is in prolonging the conflict in Ukraine, which, among other things, lies in forcing its satellites to sooner or later go for such a radical escalation and consolidate Europe's isolation from our country.

Let me remind you of a historical example from ten years ago. After all, the European Union adopted sanctions against Russia after the anti-constitutional coup in Ukraine under pressure from the United States. Joe Biden, who was then US Vice President, openly and publicly stated that he had forced the EU to take such anti-Russian measures. And the United States refrained from such sanctions against our country for several years, increasing bilateral trade and economic turnover. Now we see Washington's attempt to impose another anti-Russia decision on the European Union in order to consolidate the EU's isolation from our country.

It is also worth recalling that the eventual withdrawal of our sovereign reserves is fraught with disastrous consequences for the financial and investment spheres of those States that, contrary to the warnings of sensible experts, will take such a step. The Russian side is not interested in such a development of the situation, but it is ready for any options, including those that provide for adequate responses to the next unfriendly actions.

We were predicted that it would be impossible to take retaliatory measures. As you can see, we do. We were predicted that the sanctions, to which Russia would not be able to respond, would finish us off and tear us to shreds once again. That didn't happen. Quite the opposite. President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin spoke about this again recently.

I would like to draw your attention to the fact that Sergey Lavrov also commented on this issue at a news conference following his visit to Tunisia: "According to our information, the Americans are explaining to the Europeans in closed contacts how to change the laws in order to steal everything. See. Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanov, commenting on a similar topic, said that if such a confiscation takes place physically, then we also have something to confiscate in response."

I can reiterate today that retaliatory measures will be taken. They will be noticed, felt, and painful for those who unleash another round of trade, economic and financial war against our country.

Question: My question is less relevant, since we are talking about the US statement of January 5 of this year. Do you have any comment on the White House's statement that Russia has begun attacking Ukraine with missiles supplied from the DPRK?

Maria Zakharova: We must understand why such statements are being made. This is due to the failure of the Ukrainian campaign. I'm not even talking about a "counteroffensive," but about the failure of Washington's Ukrainian campaign in general. It is obvious to everyone that all this has led to exactly the opposite results. Instead of building democracy in Ukraine, everything that was left there collapsed. Instead of the prosperity of the Ukrainian people, Washington not only led the Ukrainian people to a dead end (which, by the way, was not so bad), but brought them to a cliff and threw them off.

Washington's Ukrainian adventure has led to the destabilization of the region, to catastrophic and fatal consequences for Ukraine. Such statements are designed to somehow keep the topic afloat, to have a reason to accuse our country (without any facts) and to continue the anti-Russian political campaign.

We are rebuffing the hybrid aggression that has been unleashed by the hands of NATO led by the United States and Britain, by the hands of the Kiev regime. We are rebuffing everything they are doing in the name of their hegemonic, imperialist goals. We are defending our country, our people. We will continue to do so. Within the framework of international law.

Such statements will be made all the time. Do not think that this topic will "go away". They need the escalation of the situation around the Korean Peninsula like a bloody nose against the backdrop of the monstrous failures of US foreign policy in the Middle East, North Africa and other regions of the world. Against the backdrop of the failure of the Ukrainian campaign, the Americans will need demonstrative actions around the world.

One of their targets is China. Therefore, they need to destabilize the situation in the Asia-Pacific region. For this purpose, the problem of the Korean Peninsula has existed in the minds of the "American hawks" for many years. I wouldn't use the word "minds" at all, just "American hawks." I think that we will hear more than one statement of this nature….

Question: Latvia threatens to expel more than 1,000 Russians who have failed the Latvian language test. Will Russia be able to fully accept these people? Will they be provided with benefits and assistance when they return?

Maria Zakharova: The Latvian authorities have announced that these measures will affect 1,167 people. They will be expelled in the near future within the framework of the repressive migration law implemented by Riga. It's not just a number. 800 people are over 60 years old. On the issue of human rights, humanism, respect and everything that Latvia has assumed as a commitment within the framework of, for example, the OSCE. These are what the country called the "Western values" it has been striving for.

People have already been deprived of the right to a minimum social package and access to free medical care in Latvia. This is what the Nazis and Fascists did to national groups and certain faiths and religions in the 1930s in Western Europe. Then they came up with the idea of a "ghetto" – a compact settlement to which people were taken and restricted all possible rights for them. Today, these practices are being implemented in a new, hybrid format. But the essence is the same – the segregation of people on the basis of nationality. There is no other.

By the way, this is not a final figure. In the near future, the number of Russian citizens who failed to "legalize" on time, as they call in Latvia, may increase to 2.2 thousand people.

The Russian Emergencies Ministry and other relevant agencies and regions have been instructed to prepare to resolve issues related to the placement of employment and pensions for Russian citizens who may be expelled from Latvia. We have repeatedly stated that Russia will continue to expose the neo-fascist essence of Latvia's repressive regime to the international community, as well as to take measures to influence such a policy of the Latvian authorities.

I would like to emphasise that the country's leadership has given all the instructions so that people who are segregated on the basis of nationality can receive all the necessary support in their historical homeland.

Question: You rightly recalled the events of 2011, when the Western coalition carried out aggression against Libya using a UN Security Council resolution. At the time, some countries, including Russia and China, abstained. This was used as a pretext to commit aggression. On Resolution 2722, several countries, in particular Russia and China, also abstained. It turns out that the West is once again finding a pretext to legitimize its actions. Did Russia take into account the possibility that there would be aggression after all?

Maria Zakharova: We have already talked about this today. The pseudo-activities of the United States in the UN Security Council were aimed not at constructive work in the name of the people of Palestine, the settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and stabilization in the region as a whole, but solely to legalize its unilateral actions. Russia's Permanent Representative to the UN Vassily Nebenzya has stated this. Today they said it again.

Now to the mechanics. Many will ask why Washington needed the resolution adopted the day before, which does not give them a direct opportunity to strike. To use the terminology laid down therein, no one is giving the United States, Britain or anyone else such rights. Why did they do it? Explain.

For the United States of America, it is important to influence the domestic audience (especially since it has already begun the pre-election period). In order to be able to combine words such as "bombing of Yemen", "Security Council" and "resolution" in one sentence, they made this "fuss" in the Security Council. Most Americans know nothing about international law, the Security Council, or what is written in the resolution. People have no time, they are not initiated, and for the most part they are not sufficiently educated, they do not read much. Long ago we switched to this "clip" consciousness of "tweets" of 140 characters. It can be "sold" to them, as well as informationally implanted in the consciousness. Like, there was a conversation in the Security Council, some words were said, the United States seemed to be behind it. This is an opportunity to combine this story in the report of the mainstream media (such as CNN and the like) and "sell" it to the average person in its domestic market.

In the Arab world, no one will buy into this. Everyone understands perfectly well what Yemen is, what the United States is in the region, and that the bombing that has now begun has nothing to do with the decisions of the UN Security Council. And it will work for a domestic American audience. That's what everything is done for.

At the beginning of the briefing, I spoke about Iraq. There was not a single resolution that legalized the actions of the coalition and the United States in the occupation, bombing and seizure of Iraq. All the resolutions that have been adopted have been the opposite. None of them legalized the criminal acts that the United States then committed. Washington constantly threw in draft resolutions approving its actions. They were vetoed.

Why did the U.S. do this? First, to create the impression among domestic audiences that their "righteous" actions are endlessly vetoed by countries such as Russia and China. At that time, France was also joining, which retained sovereignty in international affairs. The number of vetoes was used by the United States as an argument that it was not heard or understood.

Secondly, they "tested" this topic through Iraq, creating a feeling among the domestic audience that it was on the agenda of the UN Security Council. Although there was no topic for the Security Council at all, because it was invented by Washington's ideologues – allegedly Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Then they brought a test tube to put all the "puzzles" together into a common picture and to convince that the Security Council had been provided with irrefutable evidence of the presence of WMD in Baghdad.

At that time, this worked for the domestic audience of the countries of the "anti-Iraqi coalition". Now they can't "pull off" this scenario. No one will believe them. No one will allow a resolution to be "passed" and a test tube, an envelope or another package with some "junk" to be brought to the Security Council hall, which they will pass off as pseudo-evidence. But at least they needed to get something for the domestic audience. This is a technology they use all the time….

[Somebody’s been monitoring the debate that occurred here and at Moon of Alabama at the end of the year related to an answer Lavrov provided to a very contextually complex question.]

Question: I have a question about Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's interview on December 28, 2023 with the Rossiya-24 TV channel and Rossiya Segodnya Director General Dmitry Kiselyov. His statement on the Middle East and Gaza raised a number of questions. Some even referred to the inaccuracy of the translation. Like, they translated from the English version, etc. The comparison of the special military operation with the punitive operation that Israel is conducting in Gaza raises the question. Could you explain what was meant in this interview?

And yet, the UN Charter gives the right to any nation that is under occupation to resist by any available means. Does Russia recognize the right of the Palestinian people to wage an armed struggle against occupation?

Maria Zakharova: Our support for a two-state approach to the settlement speaks for itself. It has never been questioned and has a solid foundation.

We recognize this right and back up our recognition with concrete diplomatic, international legal and international action. I do not see why we should return to this subject. This is not just a matter of our vision of this situation from the point of view of justice, law, and jurisprudence. This approach, in addition to all of the above, is formed from the point of view of the future of the region. No one has ever proposed another solution that could lead the region out of the terrible, terrible, long, protracted phase of the conflict. We really see that there is no alternative to this two-state solution. Everything has been tried. International players have tried strength as well as economic bonuses. What's more? We tried ideological, psychological, and informational possibilities. Nothing has come out of this for decades and has not led to proper results. Maybe try what the World Majority insists on (let's be honest)? This position, which is shared by Russia, is also supported by the world majority. Perhaps we will try to give him an opportunity to implement his vision of how the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should be resolved. Let us not again follow the lead of the United States, which imagines itself to have the right to single-handedly create the fate of nations and millions of people at its own discretion. I don't see a topic for any answer here, based on our basic position.

As for Sergey Lavrov's interview on December 28, 2023, I can only read this passage. I don't see anything there that could raise any questions. You just need to start from this text.

I'll take another look. Perhaps you will send me fragments that may have raised some doubts in the translation or interpretation of other media. Then we'll make some material. I would like to work with those sources that allegedly gave a wrong interpretation. Send me these fragments and see what can be done to ensure that the truth prevails.

Q: At the recent UN Security Council meeting on Ukraine, China called for the resumption of peace talks. What or who, in your opinion, is the main obstacle to starting them today? In addition, many experts say that the shelling of Belgorod with the help of NATO weapons, which caused the death of civilians, could lead to a reduction in financial support for Kyiv from the West. What do you think about such forecasts?

Maria Zakharova: The first point. It has already been documented who is to blame for the failure to resume peace talks. These are the Anglo-Saxons, Washington and London, the President of the United States or the Prime Ministers of Britain. They are the ones who need to ask the questions: who originally developed and approved such a concept? The ruling regimes in the United States and Britain that have banned the Zelensky regime from holding talks. According to the Ukrainian officials themselves (they call themselves so, and this is how they are recognised by the West itself) of the Kiev regime, as Ukrainian MP Dmitry Arakhamia said, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson was the first to dissuade or insist on the Kiev regime's withdrawal from the negotiation process in April 2022.

In the autumn of 2022, under pressure from the United States, the Kiev regime and Vladimir Zelensky legislated their inability to participate in the negotiation process with our country. That's who is to blame.

The second point. You asked whether the use of NATO weapons against civilians, in particular in Belgorod and Donetsk, could stop further funding of the bloodbath by the West. The problem is that, as I said today, human rights are guaranteed only to those whom the West considers to be a human being. In the West, no one considered the people of Donbass as people. Moreover, the Westerners encouraged all the statements of the political leadership of Ukraine that the residents of Donbass are not people. They called them "specimens," "subhumans." As soon as they weren't called names. Before Vladimir Zelensky, Petr Poroshenko said that the people of Donbass would sit in basements, their children would have no future, and people who swore allegiance to the Kiev regime (and, accordingly, to the West) would receive a full package of social guarantees and security.

And before that, there were such extremist statements on the part of the "figures" in Kiev, which did not represent the national interests of Ukraine (they contain the unifying idea of the coexistence of different people, peoples, linguistic groups, representatives of different faiths), but the Western idea that Ukraine should become a toolkit against Russia, used to inflict a "strategic defeat" on Russia, as the West puts it.

The problem is that they don't consider the population of Ukraine to be people. Now the rhetoric against Russians has also begun to be openly encouraged (and they call all residents of Russia, representatives of different regions, different nationalities, nations and nationalities, representatives of different religious groups) Russians. They are deprived of the right to life, security, their own views, their civilisational and sovereign development, and so on. Hence the story of the "cancellation" of Russia, which dominates NATO at the ideological level and is being implemented in practice in the West.

How can you "cancel" people and culture if you consider them equal, free, and recognize their right to their own history and point of view? How is it possible to demolish monuments to people who were not just on the right, but on the "bright" side of history? How is it possible to endlessly conduct information campaigns against the vast multi-ethnic people of our country? This is because it is based on the racist logic of neocolonialism, which has simply entered a new historical turn. That's the problem. It's not that they don't understand that these shells are being used against civilians, but that they don't consider them to be human beings.

You represent a Chinese media outlet. They feel the same way about the Chinese. They say that China "has no right" and then list what it is for: development, equal rights in trade, technological advantage that it has achieved through its own work. The same information campaign was carried out against the Chinese, accusing them of the global pandemic. In this way, entire countries and peoples are "cut down" who, from the point of view of Western ideologues, historically, on the basis of nationality, according to racial theory, do not have the same rights as "white people." That's the problem.

As you may recall, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell said that they (several Western countries) are a "beautiful garden", while all the others are "jungles", and that they need to be protected from the jungle. That's it. They do not want to know that this "garden" lives thanks to the rest of the world and the world majority, and that it is this "beautiful garden" that has been maintaining this "beautiful garden" for centuries, which has already become a parasite on the body of countries and peoples. Moreover, they do not want to tell their own population about this.

Question: What is Russia's position on South Africa's lawsuit against Israel filed with the International Court of Justice?

Maria Zakharova: The massive civilian casualties in the current escalation of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict are outrageous and deeply regrettable.

Russia proceeds from the unacceptability of targeted violence against civilians and the deliberate destruction of medical facilities and other civilian infrastructure. Our country calls for strict compliance with international law, an immediate ceasefire in accordance with the decisions of the UN Security Council and the UN General Assembly, the opening of humanitarian corridors, the adoption of measures to eliminate the humanitarian catastrophe in the conflict zone, and the resumption of direct Palestinian-Israeli negotiations leading to a sustainable settlement based on the principle of two states living in peace and security. In this regard, we understand the motives for South Africa's appeal to the International Court of Justice.

The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, adopted in 1948 to prevent the recurrence of the atrocities committed by Nazi regimes, is designed to protect humanity from the most terrible international crime. The accusations of violating it are extremely serious.

Of course, Russia will closely follow the progress of this process, as well as the Court's advisory opinion on the broader issue of the legal consequences of Israeli policies in the occupied Palestinian territories.

We hope that the International Court of Justice, as the main judicial organ of the UN, will show objectivity and impartiality. It is important that the judicial proceedings do not exacerbate the conflict, but contribute to the achievement of a Palestinian-Israeli settlement on the universally recognized basis of international law.

Question: Russia is taking an active part in international efforts to resolve the conflict in Gaza, but it continues. Does Moscow have any ideas, plans, or options to stop it?

Answer: Ifyou want to clarify in such a veiled way whether we have a magic wand, then no. This is the case when a solution is possible, but you need to work hard and honestly. That is what we are calling for.

The unprecedented escalation of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict has confirmed the validity of Russia's position, which is that a consolidated response from the international community is required to counter acute challenges and threats, including crises in various parts of the world. Moreover, this consolidated response should be developed not under the conditions of some "rules" that no one knows, but on an international legal basis.

International and regional efforts to end the war in Gaza have not yielded the desired results because a number of external actors are acting on the basis of their own agenda. I wouldn't even call it a "national agenda" because no one asked the people of these countries.

Look at what is happening now with regard to Yemen. Who made these decisions in the United States? The Americans themselves are wondering if anyone asked someone something, given the current condition of US President Joe Biden and the whereabouts of Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin. Who consulted whom? Who, where and how developed these solutions?

These are not national decisions of the countries that constantly interfered in the settlement process in the Middle East, and at some point simply "squeezed" everyone else from implementing their individual agenda. These are some kind of political games of a narrow group of elites. What is needed is not rivalry, but a creative synthesis of various constructive ideas on the basis of international law.

Another lesson from the current crisis is the complete unviability of one-man "mediation" (and I can't call it mediation, it's a diktat), let alone attempts to monopolize brokerage functions in the diplomatic process in the Middle East. It is all this that has brought the situation to its current catastrophic state.

Perhaps such a scenario is desirable for some. This question also needs to be asked. Maybe this is how someone in the White House, the Pentagon and the State Department sees the development of global processes? All of this is happening not inside or on the borders of the United States, but "outside." Another issue is that Israel is not just the closest ally, but a special country for the United States. Is it possible that for the sake of its own geopolitical distorted understanding of dominance, Washington is ready to throw the people of Israel and the country itself into the furnace? These questions are still waiting to be answered.

Based on this, the Russian Foreign Ministry has come up with an initiative to hold consultations with key players in Moscow in order to harmonise their positions on resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. We continue to raise the issue of establishing an effective mediation mechanism in the Middle East settlement, in which the States of the region would play an important role.

In this context, I would like to draw your attention to Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's interview with Rossiya Segodnya on December 31, 2023, in which he outlined in detail our principled position on this matter.

We also invite you to Sergey Lavrov's news conference on January 18. I think this topic will be one of the priorities.

Question: Western countries are trying to blur as much as possible the provisions of the draft UN Convention on Countering the Use of Information and Communication Technologies for Criminal Purposes, which has been submitted by Russia. Could you tell us about the main provisions of the Russian project? What is the overarching objective of the Convention?

Maria Zakharova: The United States and its allies are systematically obstructing the efforts of Russia and our like-minded partners to implement UN General Assembly Resolution 74/247, which calls for the development of a universal convention on countering the use of information and communication technologies for criminal purposes. In 2019, they voted at the UN against Russia's idea to draw up such a treaty, and with the start of negotiations in the relevant Special Committee in 2022 (created at the initiative of our country and with the support and co-sponsorship of another 46 states), they are blocking its work in every possible way. Another evidence of such sabotage was the recent informal consultations in Vienna in December and the other day, which showed the inability of the Americans to come to an agreement.

Your question was, what was the reason? Western countries are clinging with all their might to the Budapest Convention of 2001, which is convenient for them and harmful for the majority of the world. (Council of Europe Convention on Combating Cybercrime), which allows unauthorized interference in the information space of sovereign states. Therefore, Washington and its comrades have set themselves the task of disrupting either the entry into force of the convention under development or the fulfillment of obligations under it in the future.

It is the Anglo-Saxons and Europeans who are preventing the future document from being aimed at combating a wide range of crimes in the information space, including those related to the spread of terrorist and extremist ideas, drugs, weapons, illegal medicines, etc. what does this have to do with criminal justice matters if everyone is equal before the law). Apparently, they believe that representatives of the 47th to the 95th gender have an advantage over the law. Must there be some logical basis for this?

All this is voiced by a harmonious "chorus" of 40-50 voices at the meetings of the Special Committee. We know very well that pressure is being exerted on other delegations that are taking a constructive position, blackmail is being carried out, and visas are not being issued to our negotiators on purpose. Unfortunately, the Chairman of the Special Committee, Fernando Mebarki, and her secretariat do not put a barrier in the way of these destructive methods of the Westerners. Unfortunately, this is also the reality of today's United Nations.

Our task, primarily as the initiators of the negotiation process on the convention, is to implement the mandate of the UN General Assembly and submit for its approval a comprehensive and relevant document that will make it possible to effectively combat various kinds of criminals who move or "transfer" their illegal activities to the digital space. The future treaty should establish uniform standards and mechanisms for international criminal justice. This, among other things, is important from the point of view of "pulling up" the level of states that are lagging behind in digital terms and have become victims of the technological neocolonialism of the West.

At the end of January, the final meeting of the Special Committee will begin in New York. We are committed to constructively but firmly defending the interests of Russia and our like-minded countries, and this is the majority of developing countries that are really interested in effective international law enforcement cooperation in the field of ICT.

It’s clear Maria was dissatisfied with the answer she gave to the Lavrov answer that caused so much controversy as well she should be. The only one capable of clearing the air on that is Mr. Lavrov, and I hope he’s asked that during his presser on the 18th, which of course will be reported here. In other geopolitical news, Australia’s trade with China has rebounded: “China-Australia trade sees 9.8% growth y-o-y, exceeding pre-pandemic level; strong momentum expected for 2024 as more exports to resume.” That would appear to sink the Quad since Biden refused to attend its two “summits,” plus there’s additional news about Russia-India relations growing closer than ever. The Big Picture shows the Neoliberal West as a shrinking island intent on plundering itself since the Global Majority won’t allow that anymore. One other item of news that Pepe Escobar posted to his Telegram that also has a graphic I can’t reproduce:

🔹Iran 🇮🇷 and Russia 🇷🇺 merged their financial message transfer systems in January 2024, allowing their banks to make direct payments bypassing the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications (SWIFT) system, in another step towards de-dollarization. This direct interbank transfer mechanism allows companies in both countries to trade in their respective national currencies instead of using the US dollar or euro.

🔹The deputy head of the Central Bank of Iran, Mohsen Karimi said commercial banks of both countries can establish brokerage relations with each other and settle in Russian rubles or Iranian rials. Both Iran and Russia are subject to US sanctions, which have motivated the emerging allies to craft their own path in the global economy. Plans are in the works for a joint investment committees between the sovereign wealth funds of Russia and Iran.

🔹In June 2023, Iran’s🇮🇷 financial messaging system SEPAM was accepted by the Asian Clearing Union members as an internal financial messaging system. At that time it was revealed that all banks of Russia and over 100 banks in 13 other countries have been connected to Irans SEPAM. The Russian system for the transfer of financial messages, SPFS, has been linked with Iran’s SEPAM and the messages between the two systems are sent on the basis of the SWIFT standards.

🔹In December 2022, Russia’s 🇷🇺 2nd largest bank, VTB, launched a new service allowing both individuals & businesses to transfer money to & from Iran. At that time Russia & Iran were already working out mechanisms to implement oil 🛢 & gas swap deals as both countries were unifying their banking systems for trade in ruble/rial currency pair.

It’s pretty clear what’s going to happen: The Outlaw US Empire will steal Russia’s assets and the Global Majority will expand its financial clearing system so it completely bypasses Western choke points thus destroying the Western banking system.

*
*
*
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!