Maria Zakharova's Weekly Briefing: Selections

Long Read as usual

Another week has passed since Maria’s Weekly Briefing words graced this site. Again, numerous item were omitted because of the length of her performance, with some not being trivial. Focus today will be on Ukraine, Palestine and Geopolitics generally. There are several instances of great wit capable of generating applause, guffaws, consternation, and perhaps disbelief. As usual, I’m omitting the Nazi punishment segment of the Ukraine report as what follows it is far more important. Some material has already been shared at MoA, but the vast majority appears below:

The investigation of crimes committed by Ukrainian neo-Nazis will continue. None of them will escape responsibility and punishment.

Now let's talk about their sponsors. The United States is trying to find funds to keep its Kiev wards afloat. On December 6, Secretary of State Antony Blinken announced the allocation of another $175 million. for military assistance to the Armed Forces of Ukraine. The next "package" will include ammunition for air defense systems, artillery, and HIMARS MLRS. In total, since the beginning of the special military operation, the total amount of funding for Kyiv from Washington has amounted to about $113 billion. Half of them went to military needs, the rest to support the government and the economy. This is what Washington officially declares. In fact, this is a real criminal scheme to withdraw money (the whole world already knows).

But even it, given that it was practically legalised by the Biden administration, cannot work indefinitely. Washington can no longer afford the attraction of unprecedented generosity to kill civilians. On December 10 of this year, White House Office of Management and Budget Director Stephanie Young said in an interview with the American television channel CBS that the United States had about $1 billion left. to replenish its own stocks of weapons and ammunition. The Kiel Institute for the World Economy calculated that in August-October of this year, Ukraine received 2.11 billion euros, the lowest amount since January 2022.

Washington officials are showing wonders of cunning and cynicism in trying to convince taxpayers that the money was not wasted, but that it was well spent. Antony Blinken said that 90% of the funds allocated to Kyiv were actually invested within the United States for the development of the American military-industrial complex, becoming a stimulus for the American economy. I wasn't even ashamed to say it. As well as to develop the idea that, as it turns out, assistance to Ukraine is "a win-win situation for everyone, so it is necessary to continue it." If this is such a great domestic American investment, maybe it was necessary to invest 100% "in the United States" and not touch Ukraine? Now this money should go to the development of the American economy in the form of direct investment.

This shows that they are not just hypocritical and misleading, but have already lied so much that they are ready to prolong their political, financial and strategic machinations under any pretext. They are ready to do any nonsense, as long as they give money.

In fact, Washington has once again shamelessly admitted that Ukraine is nothing more than a way to line their pockets tighter. No one in the capital of the "leader of the democratic world" has ever cared about the fact that the cost of such investments is estimated at hundreds of thousands of human lives, crippled destinies, destroyed by the state of Ukraine, and Ukrainian land contaminated with depleted uranium.

Then I have a question for Antony Blinken. How do such "successful" domestic investments (as the Secretary of State said, 90% goes to support the American military-industrial complex) relate to food security, which the United States is so worried about and which has become part of the machinations around Ukraine? Countries can't even pay, physically transfer money for fertilizers. All of Washington's "games" have led to a slowdown in global economic, financial and logistical processes. It turns out that all of this is just part of the domestic investment in the United States. Why didn't they say earlier, when everything was being started, that, first of all, it was about how to redistribute American taxpayers' money within US state corporations, financial structures, pyramid schemes and business communities that are closer to the White House. This is what should have been said when Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland was handing out buns on the Maidan.

Today, on December 12, Vladimir Zelensky again went to Washington with his hand outstretched. This is being done with the knowledge of President Joe Biden. The stated goal is to "underscore the United States' unwavering commitment to supporting the people of Ukraine." Is this part of 90% of domestic investment? Or does it fit into 10%? In short, nothing new. Against the backdrop of fierce discussions in the US Congress, Vladimir Zelensky will once again beg the owners and producers of his terrible tragicomic show not to stop generously sponsoring the Kiev regime. In fact, they are trying to persuade the White House to care about Ukraine more than about the Americans themselves. I wonder how he will quote Antony Blinken.

There is another reason for this trip. According to Ukrainian telegram channels, it became necessary to close the issue of transferring all strategic enterprises, subsoil and land of Ukraine to the management of the transnational corporation "BlackRock" in exchange for its assistance in obtaining a new large-scale package of military and financial assistance. Why does the Zelensky regime need this? The Ukraine that used to be will never be returned. He cares only about his political (and not only) survival. Without money and American aid, this cannot be done. There is no need to say how the new "package" will be used in a thoroughly corrupt country. Everyone understands.

At the last briefing, we mentioned the "European integration" draft law "On Amendments to Certain Laws of Ukraine Regarding the Consideration of the Expert Assessment of the Council of Europe and its Bodies on the Rights of National Minorities (Communities) in Certain Areas", which was submitted by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine to the Verkhovna Rada on November 24 of this year.

Even though it is blatantly racist and discriminatory towards the Russian language, it provoked fierce rejection from nationalists and activists only because it had some meager rights for the Russian language, and even then five years after the abolition of martial law. In today's neo-Nazi Ukraine, such a document could not be adopted.

The mythical "Russification" frightened the neo-Nazi deputies so much that they drafted an even tougher draft law on the Russian language, which was approved by the Verkhovna Rada on December 8 and signed by Vladimir Zelensky on the same day. Such a speed of lawmaking is explained not by concern for the rights of national minorities, but by blind faith that this document will open the way for the Kiev regime to the longed-for European Union.

That is why the approved law provides for the opportunity for national minorities speaking the official languages of the EU to receive basic and specialized secondary education in their native language, private educational institutions allow higher education in their native language, the quota is reduced from 90% to 30% of the total duration of programs and programs in the state language for television and radio broadcasters broadcasting in the languages of the EU countries. It is allowed to distribute pre-election campaign materials, as well as indoor and outdoor advertising in the relevant languages, etc.

The rights granted by the new law do not apply only to the Russian language, which is native to millions of Ukrainians. If the original government bill provided for some rights for him 5 years after the abolition of martial law, now the restrictions are indefinite. The Russian language in Ukraine has been legally deprived of the right to exist.

If the European Union is satisfied with the adoption of such a "law" in Ukraine, which not only blatantly discriminates, but destroys the native language of millions of people (the official language of the UN), then it will demonstrate its real and true face – that is, its disregard for democratic principles, humanitarian values, fundamental rights and freedoms of people and national minorities, about which we have spoken a lot. Now they will appear in all their ugliness.

Vladimir Zelensky's regime is not only destroying the Russian language, but continues to wage a frantic struggle against history and erase from the memory of the people of Ukraine any mention of a common past with Russia. On December 9 of this year, the Kiev city authorities barbarously demolished a monument to the hero of the Civil War, the head of the Red Army division, Nikolai Shchors.

The Nazis did the same in 1941 in Zhytomyr, blowing up a sculpture of the outstanding military leader. The behavior of the Nazis of the 20th century and the neo-Nazis of the 21st century is identical. The same enemies. With such heinous acts of vandalism, the Kiev junta not only destroys the historical memory of the people, but also tries to divert their attention from pressing problems.

At the same time, there are still people in Ukraine who continue to honor the history of their ancestors. They know her. Residents of two villages in the Ivano-Frankivsk region opposed the demolition of monuments to Soviet soldiers who died, including at the hands of the OUN and the UPA.

No matter how hard the Westerners and their Kiev wards try to harm Russia, to pit people inside Ukraine, those who have gone mad from the nationalist "frenzy" against those who know their history, to eradicate our history, culture and language from the consciousness of the people, they will not succeed. These are not empty words. There is a historical truth behind this. In the same way (by burning books, changing the fonts in publications, banning poets, writers, philosophers, exterminating millions of people in gas chambers, shooting, burying alive), the Nazis wanted to change the consciousness of man so that he would give up what was dear to him and what he considered sacred to himself. They wanted to "rewire" the peoples of Europe. As Mikheil Saakashvili recently said, "to make a mental adjustment."

They failed. The world has paid a heavy price. This is a costly lesson that we and many in this world have learned well. We remember and know how such experiments ended. In Ukraine, it will end in the same way. For this reason, the special military operation will continue until the tasks set by the Russian leadership are fully completed.

I would like to draw your attention to the fact that today Ambassador-at-Large of the Russian Foreign Ministry Roman Miroshnik gave a briefing on the crimes of the Kiev regime, during which he presented new facts of targeted actions by the Zelensky regime against civilians. Traditionally, the briefing is available in several languages (English, French, Spanish). It is also posted on the Foreign Ministry's official social media accounts.

Parallels of Sweden's aid to Nazi Germany and Ukraine

Swedish Foreign Minister Thorb Billström said that the EU should transfer 50 billion euros to the Kiev Nazis. Not less, but you can do more. Take it and select it without preconditions, without approvals, without delay. According to Billström, Sweden will reject any package compromise proposals related to the ever-widening gaps in the European budget. The money should be quickly transferred to Vladimir Zelensky. Period.

On December 8 of this year, an exhibition of historical documents opened at the Federal Archive Agency, from which it follows that Sweden had already demonstrated such zeal during the Second World War (for us, the Great Patriotic War) – and this despite the fact that at that time Stockholm officially adhered to a policy of neutrality. This is evidenced by the now declassified documents. Some of them are presented at the exhibition "The Great Patriotic War. November 19, 1942 – November 7, 1944", which I spoke about on December 8 of this year.

I will quote excerpts from the report of the People's Commissar of the Navy of the USSR N.G. Kuznetsov to the People's Commissar of Foreign Affairs of the USSR V.M. Molotov on the facts of Sweden's violation of neutrality at sea (Sweden at that time tacitly supported the Third Reich, publicly declaring neutrality):

- Sweden's violation of its neutrality is expressed in the forms of direct non-fulfillment of the obligations assumed as a neutral state, in accordance with the norms of positive international law and unilateral benevolent actions in favor of fascist Germany, the provision of services to Germany and Finland;

- According to available information, there is an agreement between Germany and Sweden to guarantee the safety of German ships along the east coast of Sweden.

How relevant the phrase sounds: "Sweden's violation of its neutrality complicates the combat activities of the Red Banner Baltic Fleet, and contributes to the prolongation of hostilities." I sincerely recommend all employees of the Swedish Embassy in Moscow to go to the exhibition to get acquainted with the position of their country at the moment when humanity was supposed to unite to fight Nazism and fascism in the middle of the 20th century. Perhaps they will realize what true neutrality is, how dangerous it is to renounce it, and will see that their countries are abandoning neutrality in favor of supporting Nazism. That was the case in the 20th century, and it is the same now.

But let's get back to Billström's interview. The Swedish Foreign Minister pays considerable attention to the future membership of the kingdom in NATO. And Sweden, in general, already has one foot (if not "up to its ears") in the alliance. As Swedish leaders at various levels have repeatedly noted, in one way or another they have aligned themselves with the bloc's policies.

If we compare the documents of the era of the Great Patriotic War and the special military operation, it turns out that Stockholm has "one foot" in the collaborationist past together with the Nazis, and the other in the future of NATO.

I would not say that the situation in which Sweden and its Foreign Minister Thomas Billström find themselves now is enviable.

Statements by the President of Finland

We have taken note of President of Finland Sauli Niinistö's recent interview with the German media, in which the Finnish head of state calls for talking to Moscow from a position of strength, clearly and harshly, and also opens up about his long-standing convictions that one should always be on the alert with Russia.

Throughout almost the entire period of Sauli Niinistö's presidency, Russian-Finnish relations have been based on the principles of constructive mutually beneficial cooperation with invariable consideration for the interests of both sides, and have been distinguished by high bilateral trade and intensive cultural and humanitarian exchanges.

This cooperation was based on the traditional regular bilateral political dialogue, including with the participation of President Sauli Niinistö. This was the case when Finland pursued its national course in international affairs and politics. And when Helsinki went limp under pressure from the United States, problems immediately began. But they did not arise from Russia, it is not with us that you need to be "on your guard". We have guaranteed bilateral, mutually beneficial and mutually respectful cooperation and have been implementing it for decades.

Judging by his previous statements (before he switched sides), Sauli Niinistö made special mention of the trusting relations he had established with the top leadership of Russia and assured of friendship. It is becoming obvious that all these years the Finnish president has been misleading his voters and the international community. He pretended to be a good neighbor to us, waited for the moment to throw off his mask. These are questions for him.

Apparently, the moment he had been waiting for had arrived. Finland has joined NATO, and there is no longer any need to pretend "under the umbrella" of this aggressive anti-Russian military bloc. Now, apparently, you can reset the masks. There is a feeling that along with the masks, Helsinki threw off everything that was on them.

Danish Ambassador Jan Henningsen's interview

Yesterday, our website posted our comment on the summoning of Danish Ambassador Jan Henningsen to the Russian Foreign Ministry. We were immediately bombarded with questions about what had happened.

I will be happy to answer them. The Danish ambassador recently gave an interview to the Berlingske newspaper, in which he claims that "no one can feel safe in Russia" and that "the principles of the rule of law do not apply here." Let's leave aside the complete lack of respect for the host country, Europe has long forgotten about the rules of diplomatic decency. This is not traditional etiquette, but a norm of behavior for a person who is accredited in the state. Let us consider a specific case that Jan Henningsen cites as evidence: the Carlsberg case.

The Danish ambassador forgot to mention something. Namely, that the arrested top managers of the company associated with Carlsberg, according to the investigation, committed a gross violation of the criminal legislation of the Russian Federation and by their actions caused multimillion-dollar damage to our country, acting in the selfish interests of the Danish legal entity. Isn't the rule of law and the rule of law what the European Union calls for and what the Western community is proud of? We cannot allow such violations. Therefore, such attempts will continue to be suppressed, and violators will be punished to the fullest extent of our legislation, which is quite liberal in this area. Is it different in Denmark?

For a clear understanding of the state of affairs with regard to the Russian assets, Carlsberg would recommend that the Danish side carefully study the Decrees of the President of the Russian Federation No. 302 dated April 25, 2023 and No. 520 dated July 16, 2023, according to which the shares in the authorized capital of Baltika were transferred to the Federal Agency for State Property Management for temporary management. Baltika, a subsidiary of the Danish concern, is not owned by the state. The Russian Foreign Ministry, for its part, has already commented on this issue.

The ambassador also forgot to mention that dozens of large Danish companies continue to operate in Russia, despite pressure from the authorities, choosing their own interests and their clients, as well as Denmark as a state, given that they pay taxes there. Or does the ambassador represent not Copenhagen, but the United States? Danish companies operating in Russia have owners and shareholders. Did the ambassador ask about their interests before giving an interview?

The ambassador also kept silent about how the operational activities of their enterprises were complicated by the anti-Russian sanctions of the EU and the destructive actions of the United States, which Denmark actually or politically joined, applauded and fully justified.

One could say something about the fact that one of the most terrible man-made terrorist attacks against international infrastructure (with the participation of capital from Russia and EU countries) took place in the exclusive economic zone of Denmark. This is the most powerful, terrible and brazen terrorist act in the history of the world against a civilian object. It has poisoned the Baltic Sea and left the European Union without energy.

I appeal to the Ambassador of Denmark and his leadership. Will we ever know what happened in your "safe" country? After all, we are talking about a special economic zone. Will anyone ever hold those involved accountable for the Nord Stream explosions? Will it put the discussion back on track? Will he move away from microphones to endlessly "grind water in a mortar"? Will he tell you how and what happened there? Or do you have the strength and courage only to insult our country once again in the Western media? And there are no official representatives of Denmark to tell what happened to Nord Stream. Then I'll tell you.

Denmark's refusal to provide legal assistance in investigating sabotage on the Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 gas pipelines

In December of this year, the Prosecutor General's Office of Denmark refused in response to the request of the Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation for legal assistance in investigating sabotage on the Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 gas pipelines. This did not come as a surprise. We were guessing how it would end. This only confirmed the policy of the Danish authorities to conceal the truth about the true customers and perpetrators of the terrorist attacks.

The Danish side, as in March of this year, referred to the absurd assertion that the fulfillment of the Russian request could allegedly jeopardize Denmark's security. Wow! In other words, when gas pipelines are blown up in Denmark's special economic zone, it's normal, it's part of security. Something that is a habitual, routine thing. And when you ask what happened, it's no longer safe. A kind of theater of the absurd.

Despite the obstacles that are being created, the Russian side will continue to seek an effective, transparent and depoliticized investigation of the terrorist attacks with the participation of the competent Russian agencies and PJSC Gazprom, involving, among other things, international structures.

On fascist marches and the glorification of Nazis in Europe

To the question of the parallels that are becoming more and more apparent if we compare the history of the 20th century and the Second World War with today. At the briefing on December 6, we talked about the release of the Foreign Ministry's latest report on the glorification of Nazism, the spread of neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.

We would like to return to this topic today, because this document talks about a number of shameful annual events in Europe. We talk about it, but in Europe they are silent about it. Most often, we condemn them after they have been held, and we note that there is practically no reaction to this in these countries. But these "events" also deserve to be preemptively attracted to the attention of the international community. Perhaps, at least for now, the organizers and authorities of the states where this is allowed will feel the indignation and indignation of the world majority.

Let's start with Bulgaria. "Lukov" march. It is usually held in February. It is timed to coincide with the date of the extermination in 1943 of the leader of the pro-Nazi Union of Bulgarian National Legions.

Latvia. Marches of Waffen-SS veterans are held annually on March 16 with commemoration ceremonies for Latvian SS legionnaires.

Poland. Every year on November 11, Polish nationalists hold "independence marches" that gather several hundred thousand participants. Interestingly, the mayor of Warsaw, R. Trzaskowski, has repeatedly spoken out against the marches, claiming that the organizations behind it have all the "signs of fascism." However, his efforts were blocked by the Polish government. According to media reports, this procession in recent years has turned into one of the largest gatherings of European far-right forces. Please note, not only Polish, but also European. In December 2022, the investigation was dropped against law enforcement officers who did not prevent participants from shouting anti-Semitic slogans, in particular, "Death to Jews." In June 2021, after the press published information about the allocation of a government grant to the Independence March Association, more than 160 public figures of the country supported an open letter to the Minister of Culture of Poland calling for "stop financing fascism."

In the city of Hajnówka, a large number of Belarusian Orthodox Christians in Poland, there is an annual march in memory of the Polish war criminal Richard Rice, who led the attacks on the Belarusian inhabitants of the region in 1946. Dozens of Belarusians became victims of the crimes, which, even according to the Polish authorities, bore signs of genocide.

Italy. Perhaps Prime Minister Giuseppe Meloni will be interested in this, since she supported (and we have all heard this fiery speech) the new "heroes" of Ukraine. On October 30, 2022, on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the "march on Rome" of the Blackshirts of the National Fascist Party, a memorial procession was held in Predappio, the birthplace of B. Mussolini. Fascist slogans and corresponding symbols were used, which in Italy can be easily purchased on the Internet. According to the organizers, the event brought together about 4,000 people (according to official information - 2,000), while only 8 of them were detained by law enforcement forces. The march is regular and annually gathers several thousand radicals.

Spain. Since 2007, members of far-right organizations have held an annual march in February with a demonstration of fascist symbols in Madrid in memory of the fallen soldiers of the Spanish volunteer Blue Division. This formation fought as part of the German troops, like the 250th division of the Wehrmacht, on the territory of the USSR in 1941-1943, participated in the blockade of Leningrad. This is a special cynicism – they honor their "heroes" immediately after the world-famous Day of the Lifting of the Siege of the City on the Neva River on January 27.

Those whom the Spanish and Anglo-Saxon media are increasingly calling "brave and fearless warriors" are in fact responsible for the siege and the monstrous tragedy of Leningrad. On a par with the Nazis and the Finns. Therefore, to describe their "heroic feats" in Russia is a real blasphemy, a mockery of the memory of hundreds of thousands of Leningraders who died of hunger and bombing. The "Blue Division" prolonged the tragic blockade, which took a huge number of lives of peaceful Leningraders. We will never forget that.

I have just listed some of the annual neo-Nazi and ultra-nationalist events in the European Union. There are many more of them. These are the most well-known. And what does anyone in the EU think about this? Maybe some reports, reviews, analytics are being published? No nothing. Only occasionally do we hear the voices of individual anti-fascist organizations that understand what will be done to them if they suddenly show "excessive activity." Someone makes such sacrifices. Then, too, the flywheel of repression is turned on against them. Where are all the officials in Brussels? They don't see it? It is the task of anti-fascist and thoughtful people, organizations, the media, states and all those who understand how this can end to take all legal measures to denounce the organizers and participants, as well as to block such marches, marches and gatherings by legal means. The global task is to make such monstrous events unthinkable in Europe.

Second anniversary of the transfer of draft agreements on security guarantees to the United States and NATO

I would like to remind you that over the past few years, the United States and its European allies have consistently destroyed the international security system, understood as a set of treaties and institutions. They did not support any of our substantive initiatives. They refused to ratify the adapted CFE Treaty, swept the Treaty on European Security (2008), did not discuss the draft Agreement on the Foundations of Security Relations between the Member States of the Russia-NATO Council (2009), and avoided providing guarantees that the air defense system would not be directed against the Russian Nuclear Deterrence Forces. The Americans withdrew from the bilateral Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty under far-fetched pretexts, repeatedly violated the Open Skies Treaty, and then withdrew from it, making it impossible to continue the Treaty on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms between Russia and the United States with their confrontational actions.

In order to prevent further degradation of the European security situation caused by the irresponsible actions of the West, we proposed to sign the Treaty on Security Guarantees with the United States and the Agreement on Security Measures with NATO on December 17, 2021. These documents clearly spelled out the legally binding elements of ensuring the principles of indivisible security: the non-expansion of NATO, the non-deployment of threatening weapons systems near our borders, the consolidation of a moratorium on the deployment of intermediate-range missiles, and the return of the configuration of the alliance's forces to the situation at the time of the signing of the Russia-NATO Founding Act in 1997.

There was no movement towards him. The indivisibility of security, as a key principle determining the behavior of states in the military-political sphere, was essentially rejected by the United States and its allies. The result is known.

We will determine how we will continue to build relations with our European neighbours after the implementation of the goals and objectives of the special military operation.

The history of US aggression against Nicaragua

Only recently, on November 9, we talked about Russian-Nicaraguan friendship in the context of the wreath-laying ceremony at the memorial to the hero of the Nicaraguan revolution, Carlo Fonseca, who was brutally murdered 47 years ago by the punishers of the pro-US puppet regime of Angelo Somoza.

Today is another occasion – another, albeit not a round date – the 79th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between our states. On this day, we wish our colleagues at the Russian Embassy in Managua, our friends at the Nicaraguan Embassy in Moscow and the Nicaraguan Foreign Ministry further success in their work so that next year we can celebrate the anniversary date with new achievements for the benefit of the peoples of the two countries.

We would also like to draw your attention to the new material in the "Historical Materials" section of our Ministry's website. It tells the story of the U.S. invasions of Nicaragua, the long road to true sovereignty and independence of that country, and the sacrifices that Nicaraguans had to make on the altar of freedom.

Let me quote just a few episodes of this anti-neocolonial struggle.

After David Ortega was elected president in 1984, the United States imposed a trade embargo against Nicaragua. Then came the Iran-Contra scandal when it was revealed that the CIA had been selling weapons to Iran (in violation of the UN blockade) and using the proceeds to support Nicaraguan counter-revolutionary militias, the Contras. Cocaine was also used to pay for weapons for the Contras, as well as to divert weapons destined for other countries.

The Decision of the International Court of Justice of June 27, 1986 in the case of Nicaragua v. the United States of America, which was not recognized by Washington, established that:

• The United States, by training, arming, equipping, financing and supplying the Contra forces, acted against the Republic of Nicaragua in violation of its international obligation not to interfere in the affairs of another state;

- The United States, having carried out a series of attacks on Nicaraguan territory in 1983-1984, in particular the attacks on Puerto Sandino on September 13 and October 14, 1983, the attack on Corinto on October 10, 1983, the attack on the Potosí naval base on January 4 and 5, 1984, the attack on San Juan del Sur on March 7, 1984, the attacks on patrol boats in Puerto Sandino on March 28 and 30, 1984, and the attacks on San Juan del Norte on April 9, 1984, acted against the Republic of Nicaragua in violation of its international obligation not to use force against another State;

- By directing or permitting overflights over Nicaraguan territory and by committing the said acts, the United States acted against the Republic of Nicaragua in violation of its obligation not to violate the sovereignty of another State;

- By laying mines in the internal or territorial waters of the Republic of Nicaragua in the first months of 1984, the United States acted against the Republic of Nicaragua in violation of its obligations not to use force against another State, not to interfere in its affairs, not to violate its sovereignty and not to interrupt peaceful maritime trade.

By issuing a manual in 1983 entitled "Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare" and distributing it to the Contras, the United States encouraged them to commit acts contrary to the general principles of humanitarian law.

As we can see, Washington's foreign policy toolkit has not changed for decades – complete disregard for international law, interference in internal affairs, violations of humanitarian law, and terrorist attacks. Nicaragua survived in the 1980s with the help of the USSR. Now Nicaragua, like many other states, supports Russia in our resolute fight against hybrid aggression (we say the West, but we understand that it is at the head) of the United States.

Question: The Spanish media are now paying considerable attention to the court case against two employees of the Spanish National Intelligence Centre, who were detained in September of this year for regularly selling CIA data. A protest was lodged with the U.S. ambassador in Madrid. As a result, three employees of the American diplomatic mission, officially accredited to the NRC as representatives of the special services, were expelled from Spain. What can you say about this?

Maria Zakharova: These are all contrasting elements for the diversity of this landscape, which has been well fertilised by American propaganda. In the sense that all accusations are always aimed only at our country. Stories about hackers and spies are invented. They have gone so far as to accuse our ambassadors of espionage. What we haven't read over the years.

Every time I was accused, I asked how many American intelligence officers were abroad, seconded to American or British embassies, or from other NATO countries. We have not heard of any of their law enforcement agencies or special services being shut down. On the contrary, every year more and more budget is allocated. Judging by the announcements, there are regular recruitments in terms of personnel. This means that they work somewhere, including abroad, and are engaged in some kind of activity. Although no one has ever talked about it. From time to time, scandals in the "noble family" also happen. Here's one of them.

The fact is that the United States does not distinguish between adversaries and allies. They apply the same measures of influence to both of them, illegally interfere in internal affairs, and openly try to control the national elites. This is a phenomenon of the same order as the scandal that unfolded a few years ago with the wiretapping of German Chancellor Angela Merkel's mobile phone by US intelligence services. And not only Angela Merkel was on the strict "control panel" of the US intelligence services, but also other high-ranking European politicians. It was a wide-ranging electronic espionage by the US NSA, carried out in NATO and EU countries. How did it all end then? No one even apologized or said that this would not happen again, that it was wrong. No. On all sides, everyone was silent. Maybe there were a couple of publications and that's it. The topic was completely "closed", focusing again on Russian hackers and "Russian spies".

This is a manifestation of the very "rules-based world order" that many European capitals are advocating at Washington's behest, without understanding where it will all lead. These "rules" are not written or formulated anywhere. They will be formed by order of the Anglo-Saxon "duo". These rules will be enforced by their satellites, whom they call allies, but in fact they treat them worse than they used to treat slaves.

As we can see, one of the basic rules of this "world order" is that "a reliable ally is a well-knit ally." The second rule is that "there is a hegemon, and there are all the others. Everything that is "due to Jupiter is due to no one else."

Question: How would you comment on the draft law prepared by the European Union that would allow EU member states to block gas imports from Russia on their own?

Maria Zakharova: We are aware of the information published on the official online resources of the EU. So far, we are talking about plans in the near future to complete work on a draft regulation regulating the domestic gas market, which, as noted, will give member countries the right to impose restrictions on the supply of natural gas, including liquefied natural gas, from Russia and Belarus at the national level.

This is yet another discriminatory measure against our country and the destruction of the economies of the EU countries. At the same time, all this is in line with the EU's policy of politicized rejection of Russian energy resources, and also "hits" the EU itself, as it undermines the economy and development of its member countries. This is yet another attempt to create a pseudo-legal scheme to damage the competitiveness of the Russian economy. They will not succeed. They have not been able to do this before, and they will not be able to do it now.

The fact is that most of the anti-Russian measures taken in the European Union, including in the energy sector, boomerang on their initiators. The socio-economic situation in the EU member states suffers the most. Sometimes also in third countries, primarily developing countries, which may find themselves in even tougher competition with the EU for gas supplies. European officials, of course, do not want to be responsible for such unpopular decisions, so they leave their implementation "at the mercy" of European capitals. In those of them where Russophobia has been elevated to a cult, energy supplies from Russia have already been completely abandoned. But this is apparently not enough for them. The order is even larger. The more pragmatic EU countries should also be forced to take this step. Classic mutual responsibility. Some continue to have the audacity to be guided by their economic interests, buy Russian gas and develop. Those who have already renounced it envy them in impotent anger, but cannot do anything about it, since they have already sworn allegiance to this "deep state" in Washington.

On the whole, the European Union is once again demonstrating absolute unscrupulousness and servility towards Washington. They themselves were the initiators and all sorts of agreements and enshrined free trade, competition and the liberal market as principles. Now everything is going under the knife. The proposal to abandon Russian gas is presented as a measure to decarbonize, "green" the economy. They've already gotten to that point. At the same time, they are supplying weapons to the Kiev regime. Do you understand where the "greening" of the economy is, where is decarbonization, and where is the environment? I am referring to the endless supply of not only depots or arsenals, but the use of shells, including depleted uranium shells on the battlefield.

Of course, this measure does not affect the supply of American liquefied natural gas, which has turned into a "molecule of unfreedom" for the EU members. This is what the U.S. has been striving for. They have not been able to do this by legal means. At first, they tried to persuade their NATO and EU satellites to give up Russian gas voluntarily, and then the United States switched to political pressure. There is a lot of evidence of this: all the statements, interviews, articles of American ambassadors to the EU countries with threats against the governments of these countries. When it didn't work out anyway, they switched to global provocations in the zone of the internal Ukrainian crisis. And it didn't work. Nor did the "staging" of a pro-American regime on the territory of Ukraine, which for many years did everything to complicate gas supplies to Europe and make them unstable, shifting all the blame on Russia.

At the same time, Russia has shown itself to be the most stable supplier of energy resources in history. None of this worked. Then they switched to a plan to impose their own liquefied natural gas by directly declaring the US president that the Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 infrastructure projects would be destroyed. Six months later, this is what happened in a terrorist attack.

At a time when the supply of energy resources, including LNG, is limited, and the demand for hydrocarbons in the Asia-Pacific region is growing at a faster pace, any bans on Russian gas imports in the EU countries will only lead to a geographical reorientation of Russian exports to new, rapidly developing markets. In the case of liquefied natural gas, due to its mobility, this scenario seems to be the most realistic.

Russia is not going to abandon large-scale plans in the field of LNG. The development of appropriate infrastructure is one of the main priorities in the energy sector. We intend to increase the annual production of LNG from the current 33 to 100 million tons per year, and the planned volume of investments in the industry exceeds 6 trillion rubles.

Question: US Deputy National Security Adviser Jere Feiner said that the United States wants Russia to negotiate with Ukraine on Kiev's terms in 2024. What do you think about such statements?

Maria Zakharova: It's just another piece of nonsense. Perhaps John Feiner has forgotten that he said literally before that "it is necessary to wage the war to a victorious end" (as we say, "to the last Ukrainian"), because this is exactly what the United States has turned the situation in Ukraine into.

We also remember, and we all know very well, that it was the countries of the Anglo-Saxon duo that literally banned Vladimir Zelensky from holding talks. At first, as representatives of the Kiev regime are now saying, it was British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who dissuaded the Ukrainian delegation from holding talks, destroying the negotiation process. Then, under the influence of the Biden administration, these talks were banned at the legislative level by Vladimir Zelensky himself.

No one understands what kind of talks with Ukraine "on Kiev's terms" John Feiner has in mind. It is also unclear what he is talking about. It seems to me that they need to grind something up within themselves, re-inventory their American position and state it more clearly and articulately. Before that, we heard only mutterings about the "battlefield", "Kyiv's victory is about to happen", "Russia's strategic defeat" and with all the ensuing conditions. Now they start mumbling something else.

Let them decide within themselves what they want, taking into account the realities, look at how many people are left in Ukraine, count the money in the pockets of their voters, and then begin to formulate a concept.

I would like to draw your attention to the latest statements by Washington and Brussels. After all, they continue to say that they are not interested in finding a truly just, sustainable and comprehensive political and diplomatic solution to the Ukrainian crisis. They still continue to bet on a "strategic defeat." Do they believe that if they declare their intention to inflict a "strategic defeat on Russia," will anyone here take them seriously?

It seems to me that in the course of the "inventory" of their position, they need to cross out the things that in no way justified themselves, but literally undermined the logic of their actions. It is necessary to remove all these "formulas of peace" (in fact, "formulas of war") that they have invented in order to mislead the international community, especially the countries of the Global South.

The result of such an inventory should be a sensible and realistic understanding of the situation that really exists, and not the bilateralism that they invented and imposed on their own media. Then, apparently, reading their own in the retelling of American journalists and political scientists, they believe in the same thing.

Question: The Economist reports that the United States has unofficially told Israel that the operation in Gaza must be completed before the New Year. This was unofficially stated by US Secretary of State Antony Blinken during his visit to Israel. Meanwhile, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken recently said that there is a gap between the Israeli government's stated intentions to protect civilians and the growing casualties observed on the ground. At the same time, Washington not only did not abandon the idea of providing military assistance to Israel. In addition, he was the only country in the UN Security Council that vetoed a draft resolution demanding an immediate ceasefire in the Gaza Strip on December 8. What do you think about the changeable behaviour of the United States?

Maria Zakharova: We have commented on this many times.

Let me remind you of the drama unfolding in the UN Security Council. In less than 24 hours, the draft resolution prepared by the UAE received the support of an overwhelming number of UN member states: 102 countries became its co-sponsors. During the vote in the Security Council on December 8 of this year, 13 delegations voted in favor, while the United Kingdom abstained. Who brought all this work to naught?

The United States again used its veto on the Brazilian project, as it did on October 18 of this year. This means the continuation of the monstrous bloodshed, the catastrophic destruction that will take place and is taking place, in the words of the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the UN, R. Mansour, "not by mistake, but by decision." The decision of one country is the United States.

You said that The Economist cites unofficial sources. I would like officials to comment on all this.

We hear so many different statements from the United States accusing them of aggression, they poke their noses into other people's affairs, that they could easily comment on their own affairs.

I think this is a good reason. Indeed, we hear (I have just spoken about the situation around Ukraine) diametrically opposite statements by the United States on the inconsistency and absurdity of the provisions they contain. All this was in the context of Ukraine: either to achieve Russia's defeat "on the battlefield", or to negotiate on terms favorable to the Kiev regime, then the negotiations should again be forgotten and sink into oblivion, then again the negotiation process, but on the terms that "not Russia" would dictate. Such "swings" are constantly there. It's the same here.

You're absolutely right. I think this is a good reason to force the United States to speak out very openly on all the issues that concern the international community. Whereas the United States of America is (as it presents itself and insists that it is) the main defenders of democracy and its champions. All this should be done not only in the domestic format, but also in the international arena. After all, 102 countries are the very democracy that the United States cares so much about. I would like to hear them on this matter.

Question: Last week, Vladimir Putin visited the UAE and Saudi Arabia. Literally the day after him, Sergey Lavrov visited him. Over the weekend, the President of Russia had a telephone conversation with Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu. Today, Sergey Lavrov spoke with his Iranian counterpart. All this creates a sense of powerful diplomatic work aimed at resolving the conflict. Is there any progress there, despite the US position that blocks the resolution? Did the parties involved in the negotiation process manage to bring their positions closer together? What differences do they still have?

Maria Zakharova: What kind of rapprochement are you talking about? Russia, the UAE and Saudi Arabia?

Question: Yes, in the process of peace in the Middle East.

Maria Zakharova: I have just shown by the example of the work on the resolution that we are united on fundamental issues. Let's call it the World Majority. 102 states that were ready not only to support, but to become co-sponsors of the resolution. Of course, this is the majority. Even if there are some arithmetic errors, we are well aware that this is a reflection of the will of the World Majority. We were ready and showed a common position together with these countries, including the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, which should have been enshrined as binding on everyone in a UN Security Council resolution. I don't see any reason to comment on any disagreements.

Your question concerns the acute crisis in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict zone. We have nuances in connection with our bilateral relations and the status of these bilateral relations with countries that are part of and parties to the conflict. Also due to the fact that Russia is a permanent member of the UN Security Council, etc.

However, on global issues – the vision of the current situation and the root causes that need to be addressed in order to resolve this crisis – we certainly show common approaches. There is no need to "play" or look for words that could be used as a demonstration of contradictions. It's superfluous now. The main thing is the will and determination to act in the interests of the peoples who are facing an unprecedented increase in aggression, escalation of conflict, etc. There may be different nuances in certain aspects, but in the global context, we speak from the same position.

You said that these visits demonstrate significant diplomatic efforts. We are developing an excellent dialogue with these countries in all areas, from politics, the economy, finance, and the regional and international agenda. And it didn't stop. Thank you for your appreciation. I do not want to refuse such praise for Russian diplomacy. But we should definitely not conclude that the implementation of these meetings and negotiations is exhausting. No way. This is the progressive, uniform development of our relations with these countries, which has already become a wonderful tradition. It is this quality of our relations that is characteristic of dialogue at the highest level, as well as at the level of our governments and individual departments. This includes coordination at international venues, including on such topics as multipolarity, not so much of an applied and practical nature, but of a vision of the future and the philosophy of the future. We have well-established dialogue platforms.

A few days ago, Sergey Lavrov made a major speech as part of political science discussions in the region. This is another confirmation that we are actively present there. It is important that we do not have any misunderstandings on this matter.

During these visits, the main attention was paid to the settlement of the acute crisis in the zone of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Russia's efforts were focused on the task of an immediate ceasefire. That will make it possible to avoid further casualties and provide the necessary assistance to the population of the Gaza Strip, which has been living in a dire humanitarian catastrophe for more than two months.

I would like to emphasise once again that the fundamental approaches of Russia and the Arab countries coincide in this matter. We are closely cooperating, including at UN venues, in order to promote our common vision of ways to de-escalate the situation in the conflict zone.

We are discussing these issues in an open and confidential manner with the Israeli side. You see contacts at the highest level. Our embassies are open. We have a number of tasks that are on the agenda of both Russia and Israel in practical terms. We are grateful to the Israeli side for its assistance in organising the evacuation of Russians and their families from Gaza. These are our citizens and their Palestinian family members. We provide assistance to our compatriots. The Israeli side is also grateful to Russia for the release of the hostages and its work in this area.

Russia is working closely with all those who can assist in resolving this issue. We continue to coordinate with all interested parties, including Israelis, in order to provide urgent humanitarian assistance to the residents of the Palestinian enclave.

Question: In the first days of the special military operation, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that it would be easier for Moscow to come to an agreement with the Ukrainian military. The head of the Foreign Intelligence Service, Sergei Naryshkin, said that there is more and more information about a possible change of power in Ukraine. In this regard, the name of the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine V.F. Zaluzhny is mentioned. In your opinion, is it possible to conduct meaningful negotiations with Kiev if this military man comes to power?

Maria Zakharova: The Ukrainian military should not be confused with Washington's Ukrainian puppets. These are different types. If we are talking about those who carry out national policy, who act in the interests of Ukraine as a state and Ukrainians as a people, then they can really be qualified as the Ukrainian military. If we are talking about "figures" paid for by Washington, many of whom have already been rejected within the Ukrainian community, who were directly financed and fully associated with the actions of Washington and London, then they can only be called "puppet heroes."

One more important point. Unfortunately, all those whom you mean as true patriots of Ukraine, no matter what position they take in relation to our country, but at least people who acted in the interests of their country and people, look at how many of them have already been killed inside Ukraine by the Ukrainian authorities, shot "accidentally". That's how it happened. Either deliberately, or simply disappeared, or are in torture chambers without understanding where they are, what will happen to them in the future. This is to start a conversation on this topic.

A possible replacement of Vladimir Zelensky with Viktor Zaluzhny or any other figure... You know very well that this will not change the situation. All of them are puppets in the hands of their "masters" (the United States and its satellites, Britain). It is almost impossible to single out an independent figure from this circle.

In addition, the very possibility of negotiations with Russia is legally prohibited in Ukraine. A set of meaningless ultimatums that are out of touch with reality, including the invented "peace formula," is being persistently promoted as the basis for a settlement. They didn't come up with it, but the United States is on their behalf. And now they are promoting it as their own. This is necessary in order to mislead the international community, to create the illusion of some kind of movement towards peace, but in fact to create a trap for all countries and states that truly want peace and are ready to reach out to some semblance of a negotiation process as parties supporting it.

In fact, we are talking exclusively about the possibility of catching countries in order to then pass them off as parties that are in solidarity with the position of the Kiev regime and the West as a whole on this situation.

As for the statements made by Washington, London and Brussels, the basic guidelines have not changed. At the same time, there is some kind of endless verbal "husk", contradictory. Basically, they have not abandoned the concept of inflicting what they claim is a "strategic defeat" on us, while they are endlessly juggling words. Only recently has it turned out that the United States is not helping democracy in Ukraine, as Secretary of State Antony Blinken said, but is boosting the American economy with its investments. Can you imagine that they have come to such contradictions, how can you listen to what they have to say?

All this requires on their part a certain "inventory" of their position, taking into account reality. That's the problem. They don't want to perceive reality. We see that the West is not interested in finding a truly just, sustainable and comprehensive political and diplomatic solution to the Ukrainian crisis and is making a futile attempt to reincarnate the story of inflicting a "strategic defeat" on us, as they put it. It's all in vain. Until they change their position, we will continue to comment on this.

Question: How would you comment on the Iranian Foreign Ministry's statement that the UN Security Council has shown its complete ineffectiveness and inability to perform its main functions to preserve peace and security, and that the US veto power has led the Security Council to a dead end on the Palestinian issue?

Maria Zakharova: It seems to me that in this case it would be better to start answering your question with an example. If you have a watch that works and someone walks up and hits it with a hammer, it doesn't mean that the watch has been shown to be ineffective. This means that someone has demonstrated their stupidity. In this case, it is the United States, which has demonstrated everything it usually demonstrates. In this case, they once again hit the mechanism.

This is not a U.S. polemic with other countries that do not share the U.S. approach. This is not a disregard for the opinion of our colleagues in the UN Security Council chamber. This is a blow by the United States to the mechanism laid down in the UN. Quite so. Not on the walls or the authority of the UN, but on the mechanism. The resolution was co-sponsored by more than a hundred States directly residing in the region. They expressed their unanimous opinion in writing, recorded it and asked the international community to make it binding on all, which they have every right to do. No one dares (literally, no one dares) to contradict this situation without reason, solely for the sake of their own, opportunistic vision of the situation. And in such a demonstrative and boorish way.

The Security Council and its mechanism are working. But we are well aware of who is blocking the work and distorting the foundations that were laid by the creator of this unique mechanism in international relations.

I will enumerate what is the key to the effectiveness of an organization: constructive interaction of all its members. In other words, mutually respectful consideration of interests based on the UN Charter. Everything is listed there. I will not announce all this again. For those who are interested, it can re-familiarize themselves with the Charter and understand what are the principles laid down in the creation of the Security Council and other UN bodies. The reasons for the difficulties that the Security Council periodically encounters should be sought not in some "imperfections" in its working methods, but in the unwillingness of the "collective West" led by the United States and Britain to abandon the logic of "zero-sum games."

We can clearly see how they do not want to work on compromises. They don't want to force themselves to even think that they might compromise and hurt themselves. Not to go against their national interests, but simply to infringe on them. That is, not to demonstrate sufficient exclusivity. That's what they talk about on a regular basis, voicing all these slogans about global domination.

They continue to use their numerical advantage in the Security Council to push through decisions that are beneficial to them and block inconvenient initiatives. They refer to the fact that this is not a numerical advantage, but democracy. That's what most people think. But that's not the case. The fact is that they form this numerical majority, as a rule, from countries that are part of the NATO bloc. And there, as you understand very well, a single geopolitical, military-political ideology is the only one that has been resolved, corrected and approved. There can be no deviation from it. Unless you abstain or, for example, do not participate in the voting (if we are talking about an optional presence in the hall).

But it is obvious that it is not the countries that vote within the Security Council (when we are talking about the Western bloc), but the NATO ideology, which is simply implemented through a number of states. They do not voice their policies, much less the will of their peoples. They are voicing an ideology developed within NATO Brussels and enshrined at the conceptual level, which was handed out to them as a manual for action. They have no right to refer to the fact that the majority of countries support them, given the bloc subordination of NATO member countries to a single ideological concept.

But this scenario doesn't always work. We saw the development of the situation on December 8 of this year, as I have already said. We are well aware that the UN Security Council needs to be reformed, but it must lead to an increase in the effectiveness of its work. We talked about the underrepresentation of entire continents and the fact that all this should be taken into account. But this should work to increase efficiency. Now we understand what is the cornerstone that hinders the effective work of the Security Council. You can say "the collective West" or the United States. But in fact, these are not so much countries and their country bloc associations, but the ideology of exclusively global domination and achieving the implementation of this ideology at any cost. That's what gets in the way.

Question: President Vladimir Putin pointed to the national liberation nature of the "battle for sovereignty" that we are waging. At the last briefing, you described the signs of colonial dependence in the economy and much more. Is it possible to clarify when and how we got into such dependence?

Maria Zakharova: Are you sure that I should clarify when and how? I would say that the chronology should be described by historians. This is stated in many studies. We have talked a lot about this as a trend that has characterized the West's attitude towards our country over the past centuries. History shows how we try to resist this. This should be viewed not only as isolated historical events, but as a chain of confrontation with this predatory essence of the West against our country.

Why? In answer to the previous question, I have just said that colonial aspirations have not yet been eradicated. The same methodology of the period of the slave system, imperial domination and the hegemony of the West as the only point (as they considered themselves) that had the right to rule the whole world remained. Everything worked out for them. And, unfortunately, on the African continent, and in Asia, and in Latin America. For centuries we did not succumb, we did not become either a colony or a semi-colony, we were not conquered, we were not ready to go even to such a soft colonization by delegating our levers of control to the West. We constantly resisted it. We were in favour of cooperation, of interaction on an equal footing. But, first of all, this equality has always been an obstacle for the West (I have already answered the previous question as to why). And secondly, they are not ready to interact and cooperate on an equal basis. They only want to dominate, without considering the interests of those they are dealing with.

In answering your question, I would not single out one specific date or one specific epochal event. It seems to me that there are a huge number of them. This is also the current stage, about which even today there has been a lot of talk. This includes the Cold War, World War II (for us, the Great Patriotic War), the beginning of the 20th century, and the war with Napoleon (for us, the Patriotic War). And before that, there were campaigns against Russia, all with the same goal – to make us dependent, either by force, or by cunning, or by these very staging under the guise of cooperation, but in fact to subjugate us. Each time we resisted it.

The “Smashed Watch” analogy was excellent as well as explaining what the specific tool is used—Ideology. Blinken’s lame lament reminded me of Obama then Clinton’s “It’s the economy, stupid.” Someone wrote “War is the health of the state.” Since the Outlaw US Empire’s losing, then that ought to be a great insight for those wanting to change course and policy. The Historical Materials page that’s linked here and above in the Nicaragua discussion, although in Russian is an excellent short history that informs readers about some of the Outlaw US Empire’s Imperialism prior to the Civil War. Again, some important material was omitted. If you can’t translate the Russian, the official English translation ought to appear at the MFA’s English page tomorrow or Thursday.

*
*
*
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!