Maria Zakharova's Weekly Briefing: Selections

Ukraine and Armenia situations

Another week has passed, so it’s time for another briefing by Maria Zakharova. Some may wonder why the Russian transcript’s favored over the English. The simple answer is that it’s completed much sooner. Plus, overall content beyond the briefing is much greater at the Russian than English sites. As usual, the announcements cover a very wide gamut of topics, but the focus will be on the Ukraine report, the anniversary of Babyn Yar, and the continuing fallout from Canada’s Nazi worship. From the Q&As, most of the focus is on the Armenian/Azerbaijan situation, where readers will be treated to a very curious conversation over the issue. After that, the issue related to the November APEC Summit in San Francisco and the issue of US troops in Germany will be this week’s selections. For those wanting to read the entire briefing in English, I suggest waiting until tomorrow when the translated transcript will probably be complete. For the Ukraine update, the recitation of those convicted in Russia for their terrorist crimes will be omitted, although the steady procession of trials and sentencings continues.

Ukraine Update:

On October 2, an informal meeting of EU foreign ministers was held in Kiev under the chairmanship of EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (it is high time to rename it the policy of danger) Josep Borrell. He defined the meaning of this "gathering" as a "brainstorming" (I call it the "storming of the brain" of the EU) in the face of an unclear prospect of further financing of the Kiev regime, which the Europeans, albeit in words, promised to continue. It is noteworthy that the foreign ministers of Hungary and Poland did not reach the Ukrainian capital for various reasons. Both Budapest and Warsaw have accumulated a lot of complaints about Vladimir Zelensky's policy.

As it turned out, the "storming of the brain" of the EU did not lead to significant results. European diplomats could not agree on the next allocation of military aid to Ukraine in the amount of 5 billion euros in 2024, now this amount is planned to be agreed by the end of the year. You have to be honest. This is not aid in the amount of 5 billion euros to Ukraine, but money allocated by the West for the murder of Ukrainian citizens by the Kyiv regime. Did this affect the fact that these funds were not agreed upon and the fact that Washington, albeit for a short period of time - only 45 days, left the Kiev wards without pay? Many political scientists answer this question in the affirmative. In the temporary budget adopted on September 30 by the US Congress for the needs of Ukraine, not a cent is laid. This state of affairs seriously alarmed the EU Brussels. Josep Borrell has already promised that the European Union will ask the Biden administration not to cut funding for Ukraine. It is necessary to be clear in the wording. This is not financing Ukraine at all - it is financing the massacre that the Kyiv regime is waging with Western money.

It has been repeatedly said that the EU has long lost its independence, independence and sovereignty. It is obvious that the inhabitants of the European Union do not have the right to vote even within their own countries, because not everyone, even within the framework of this association, is ready to continue to blindly spend money on the maintenance of the Kiev junta mired in corruption, especially given that, despite the efforts of Western sponsors, the Ukrainian budget deficit is growing rapidly.

The "collective West" does not intend to abandon the goal of inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia, as they formulate it. In the German Bundestag, there are calls to transfer Taurus cruise missiles to Kyiv as soon as possible. This was stated by the chairman of the defense committee, Marie-Agnes Stark-Zimmermann. She stressed that she considers the potential strikes of the Armed Forces of Ukraine on the territory of Russia with these missiles justified.

Such a statement, imbued with Russophobia and revanchism, suggests that Berlin has not yet realized what their thoughtless pumping of weapons into the criminal Kiev regime can lead to. In addition, the other day, responding to a request from an opposition party with a request to give a public assessment of the activities of the SS division "Galicia", which during the Great Patriotic War consisted of Ukrainian militants of the OUN-UPA, the German government stated that it was not ready to call Bandera anti-Semites and Nazis in general.

I have the same question for Marie-Agnes Stark-Zimmermann. How does it relate to the SS division "Galicia"? It's so easy to answer this simple question. We will all understand why she advocates the continuation of pumping the Kyiv regime with weapons and considers potential strikes by the Armed Forces of Ukraine on the territory of Russia justified. How? After all, it will not be difficult to answer the question about the attitude towards the SS division "Galicia" and the OUN-UPA as a whole?

What does everything that I have given in the form of direct quotes and facts say? The fact that, it seems, the German leadership has forgotten the lessons of history, although, it would seem, it should have remembered them better than others, to be more sensitive and intolerant of any manifestations of misanthropic ideology, wherever it all happened. But we see the opposite. Berlin denies the generally recognized fact of cooperation of Ukrainian nationalists with Hitler's Third Reich. Hence the logical conclusion: in today's Germany, the rehabilitation of Nazism is in full swing.

There are even more cynical people - the Anglo-Saxons. These, in order to achieve their goals, are ready to exterminate all Ukrainians, to rehabilitate anything: the OUN-UPA and the SS "Galicia". Soon it will directly reach the "heroes" of the Third Reich. Former British Defense Secretary Benjamin Wallace complained that the average age of Ukrainian soldiers is 40 years old and called on Vladimir Zelensky to more actively mobilize young people. Doesn't it remind you of anything? It reminds me of the story of the Hitler Youth. London does not care about the future of Ukraine. After all, at stake is the realization of his cherished dream - this time to inflict a "strategic defeat" on Russia with someone else's hands. And for this you need to throw Ukrainians into battle, regardless of losses, up to the last inhabitant of this once populous republic. If the goal could not be achieved in this way, then the British Isles do not exclude the transfer of their regular military units to Ukraine. I'm not inventing anything now. The point is that this scenario was suggested by the current Minister of Defence of the country, G. Shapps. These are the people who are appointed. It remains a big mystery how this man got into this position, given his track record before. Then either he thought or for him, and hastened to retract his own words. We know that there is something in the language of British defense ministers that many people in the British government have on their minds.

Against this background, attention was drawn to the report of The New York Times of September 29 of this year that the Pentagon hospital in Landstuhl, Germany, began to receive wounded American mercenaries. According to the publication, 14 US citizens who fought on the side of the Armed Forces of Ukraine are currently undergoing treatment there. Was it only The New York Times that unearthed this information? What does the official Pentagon or the US State Department say? They also care about everything that happens in the world and in the most remote regions of our planet. We are talking about American citizens. Maybe we will finally see an official statement from the State Department about what concerns them directly?

We see how the West inadequately forms its policy towards world events, on what Russophobic foundations it is built, how they seek to "help" Ukraine, but in fact kill it. We see that every day the relevance of all the goals and objectives that formed the basis of the special military operation is confirmed.

82nd Anniversary of Babyn Yar:

Last week marked the 82nd anniversary of the Babyn Yar tragedy. In 1941, in just two days on September 29 and 30, 1941, the Nazi invaders and militants of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists killed more than 30 thousand Jews, i.e. approximately 20% of the Jewish population in Kiev.

This punitive action was only the beginning and prologue, which gave a bloody start to the mass executions of old people, women, children, Soviet prisoners of war and underground fighters of all nationalities. From 1941 to 1943, more than 100,<> people were executed, and Babi Yar became an international grave and an ominous symbol of the inhuman cruelty of the Nazis.

This year, at events in Kiev on September 29 this year dedicated to this tragedy, the President of Ukraine said that "it is very important to always remember history." Yes, like those broken mechanical clocks that show the correct time twice a day. One cannot but agree with this. The only problem is that the clock is really broken. Vladimir Zelensky himself is stubbornly trying to forget everything connected with the past of his country and the people to which he considers himself, and indeed his family. On September 22 of this year, footage spread around the world as he applauded in the Canadian parliament to the veteran of the SS division "Galicia" J. Hunke, forgetting for a second that his own grandfather fought in the ranks of the Red Army during the Great Patriotic War and fought against such traitors and collaborators as J. Hunka. Or did he not forget it for a second? Judging by all the other steps of the Kyiv regime, not for a second. This is persistent amnesia.

However, this is not surprising. The glorification of Nazi-Bandera thugs has long been commonplace and the basis of Ukraine's state policy under the Kiev regime. The authorities are trying to erase from people's memory the feat of the Red Army soldiers, their decisive contribution to the victory over fascism. At the same time, Hitler's henchmen are being whitewashed, whose role in the deaths of civilians is not only hushed up, but also purposefully distorted. Festive processions are held in their honor, streets and stadiums are renamed, monuments are erected. What is this? Just historical amnesia? No. I think that this is not a question of the problem of one particular person (even if he is completely controlled from the outside), but a betrayal of the memory of ancestors and a desecration of the history of one's own people and country.

Continuing Canadian Nazi Fallout:

The scandal surrounding the warm welcome that was given in the Canadian parliament to the "veteran" of the SS division "Galicia" does not subside. And not only thanks to all those who saw in the incident the neo-Nazi essence of the Anglo-Saxon elites, but also to those who want to take advantage of a high-profile occasion to declare loyalty to the ideals of the unfinished collaborationist formations. You will say that this cannot be.

Canadian Prime Minister John Trudeau said repentance, and just the other day, all those who took part in this hellish gathering in honour of the Nazi walked around hiding their eyes from their own citizens and the descendants of the victims of Nazism, even from their own media. They seem to have recently transferred all the arrows to the chairman of the Canadian Parliament, saying that it was he who was to blame for everything, and they were all "white and fluffy." The only problem is that this tragedy is much deeper than just the presence of some people in the Canadian government who profess this neo-Nazi ideology. These are not individuals and it is not easy to see Deputy Prime Minister of Canada Heather Freeland (formerly Minister of Foreign Affairs), who was the main link in the formation of Ottawa's Russophobic course and the granddaughter of Nazi Mikhail Khomyak.

Just the other day, Canadian neo-Nazis from the racist association Active Club Canada declared their blood relationship with the SS division "Galicia". They reported that they consider their colleague a "war hero" and accused journalists of persecuting him. That's all right? We all remember how these scandals (including in Canada), when non-governmental organizations engaged in the search for Nazis, or journalists conducting their investigations, unearthed the history of this or that thug of the Third Reich, who settled in one of the Canadian provinces, ended in shame for all those who harbored these neo-Nazis. I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis themselves. They got sentences in one way or another. The whole society triumphed over the fact that justice existed. Let it be decades later, but still.

And what happens now? Against the backdrop of a wild scandal, there are organizations that begin to applaud all this and publicly make actions in support of it. Photos of members of the club laying flowers at the monument to the 1st Ukrainian Division in Oakville, Canada, were circulated on social networks. What kind of division is this? This is the SS division "Galicia" renamed in 1945. On the monument it is indicated - "participants in the battles near Brody".

Such clubs of "activists" are now growing like mushrooms in Western countries. Their total number in the USA, Canada and the EU exceeded a hundred. These are only those that operate completely legally. As noted in journalistic investigations of their activities, in the course of recruiting new members, luring newcomers, recruits, according to their own charter or some provisions, they were forbidden to talk about history and Jews. They act a little differently. In the course of their promotional events, they talk about the values of "brotherhood, community, sport and self-defense." That is, they bypass all those fundamental moments for their organization, which in a normal person should cause rejection, rejection and panic. All this is taken out of brackets, there is a story about "brotherhood and community". That was before. Now they just don't hide their essence. Finally "uncovered". Why? Because they understand that all this goes unpunished. The ideology of entire states is built on this. For this, they give international prizes, you can be at the center of the political agenda in the West and not with a minus sign, but with a plus sign. Grants are given for this, weapons and weapons that were previously banned from being supplied to conflict zones. They felt the strength and moral superiority that the times that their predecessors spoke of, promising the reincarnation of Nazism, were coming. They take advantage of the moment to legalize themselves as a "fighting fist" against the Russians. They feel the situation is not easy, but they see the "green light", remember (and know history well) how it was all during the Second World War. At that time, the Wehrmacht and the SS troops on the Eastern Front also included volunteer formations from almost all European countries.

In the United States and Canada, dozens of monuments have been erected to Nazi henchmen, collaborators, and Nazis. There are streets named after famous collaborators. Monuments to the Galicia Division are erected in Elkins Park near Philadelphia and in Warren, Michigan. No less pompous than in Canada, the Bandera memorial to the glory of the OUN-UPA is located in the summer camp of young Ukrainian nationalists in Baraboo, Wisconsin. There are busts of S. Petliura, E. Konovalets, R. Shukhevych and S. Bandera. Is it that no one in the United States and Canada knows this? Is this unknown in the OSCE? Maybe the UN is deprived of the opportunity to verify this information? Everyone knows everything, but just like back then in the 1930s and 1940s, they are not just silent, but welcome, waiting for the cherished when Russia falters. They can't wait.

Antony Blinken spoke the other day, trying to attribute to the USSR the silence on the Babyn Yar tragedy. In the Soviet Union, the tragedy of Babyn Yar was not easy to survive and survive, so even before the end of World War II (for us, the Patriotic War) in 1945, they decided to perpetuate the memory. During and after the war, films were produced, monuments were erected, poems were written not in the underground somehow, but at the state level. Antony Blinken's terrible lie, but it is at all. It would be better to explain why there are memorials in honor of accomplices in the Holocaust in the United States, why the American authorities allow new Nachtigall battalions of extremist youth to be trained in their own country and in satellite countries? Why and with what money? In accordance with what are the moral and ethical norms of liberal democracy? We live differently.

The One Ukraine-related Q&A:

Question: You have already commented on the statement by White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre that Russian President Vladimir Putin will not be able to hold out in Ukraine longer than the United States, with reference to Bashar al-Assad. Nevertheless, I would like to clarify: if we are talking about which of the parties will be able to hold out longer, is it possible to say that Russia (as well as the United States) is preparing for a long conflict?

Maria Zakharova: Wait, you're Reuters. You should know that the United States of America has explicitly stated that this conflict must be long. You see how NATO has declared as a strategy the transition of this conflict to the long-term phase. Why are you asking me about the readiness of the parties, and whether this conflict will be long-term, and who is ready. This was stated by NATO, this was declared by the United States of America, Great Britain and the rest of the community that swore allegiance to the Anglo-Saxon duo. They said it was their strategy. The blitzkrieg did not work out, they went "for a long time". They said so. Westerners do not care what Vladimir Zelensky thinks, that the Ukrainian people are gone, that they no longer know whom to mobilize and recruit. The main thing is that they care about their own goal. They formulated it as a "strategic defeat" to our country. It didn't work out "quickly" and, as planned, for a month, two - we went "for a long time". What they talk about openly.

The fact that we hear these inadequate statements from the speakers you mentioned. I can't say that Josep Borrell is heading some kind of European, EU diplomacy, it seems to me that he has simply become some kind of inadequate speaker rather than a diplomat. But that's not our problem.

You try to figure out what they mean. It's hard to understand. We try to somehow decipher each quote what is meant by this.

This reminded me of the statements of the Obama administration, which makes up the majority of the Biden administration. Since Joe Biden himself used to be vice president for Barack Obama, who "ruled" for eight years. Now Joe Biden has become president himself. All this liberal-democratic "get-together" migrated under the guise of a new administration to the White House, but in fact being old.

You remember that all these years they have been saying that "Asad must go" ("Bashar al-Assad must go"). They said it. It was a software installation. Now you see the situation with Syria, and with its return to the world of Arab politics, with the restoration of this country. It would be nice if the current administration in the White House came up with and implemented a new slogan "USA must go from Syria finally", which means "the United States of America must finally withdraw from Syria." Syria is a sovereign country occupied by the United States. This reminded me of the maniacal thesis that they constantly "introduced". You can see how it ended. What C. Jean-Pierre wanted to say, try to clarify with her.

Armenia, Azerbaijan, Et al:

Question: How does Moscow assess the actions of the EU mission in Armenia in the context of the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh?

Maria Zakharova: The recent events in Karabakh, including the clashes on September 19 and 20, have clearly shown that European observers have taken a despicable position. At first, they were engaged in exhortation to Armenia and lured official Yerevan into their next trap with promises. Then we became silent witnesses of how the situation developed. It was the Western community, the European Union and the United States that dissuaded and pushed Yerevan off the path of implementing the agreements that were reached through the mediation of Moscow. Brussels was among the first and main "singers" of the fact that it is not necessary to fulfill everything that Moscow, Yerevan and Baku agreed on, but it is necessary to follow some special path. Unfortunately, we can now see where this special path has led.

Russian peacekeepers acted as mediators in reaching a ceasefire. And the European Union watched from the sidelines, not even thinking of helping and assisting in practical terms. Representatives of our country organized the delivery of humanitarian aid to Karabakh after the unblocking of the Lachin corridor, accompanied the residents of Karabakh leaving for Armenia. All Brussels, the EU as a whole (there was still an active role for Paris) looked at all this silently from the outside. Silently, but not quite like that: inciting and telling the citizens of Armenia fables about the fact that they were allegedly betrayed by Russia. No, it was not Russia that betrayed. She was always there, always stopped the bloodshed in this region, always helped financially, economically and humanitarianly. What was agreed upon with the mediation of Moscow, Yerevan dissuaded the European Union from fulfilling. They betrayed the Armenians.

Our military conducted an emergency evacuation by helicopters of more than a hundred victims of the explosion of a gas station near Stepanakert on September 21 of this year.

The European Union has become a provocateur in the region. EU observers did not come under fire, as a result of which Russian peacekeepers tragically died. They only "set fire", and this is the only thing they know how to do in recent decades.

Let's put it bluntly: the EU mission in Armenia does not provide any stability and de-escalation. Its main task is not the security of Armenia and the promotion of normalization of relations between Baku and Yerevan, but intelligence monitoring in the interests of Brussels and provoking the situation. There are more than enough loud false statements at the same time. In yesterday's interview with Euronews, European Council President Charles Michel argued that Russia allegedly betrayed the Armenian people by not responding to Azerbaijan's operation in Nagorno-Karabakh.

I would like to remind Charles Michel and all his adherents that it was the European Union that convened the summits in Prague and Brussels, where the Armenian leadership recognised Nagorno-Karabakh as the territory of Azerbaijan. Or is it not? Although before that, the Armenian leadership stated exactly the opposite things. What? Let me remind you that before that they said that the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh is Armenia.

Why did Charles Michel, while consolidating these agreements, not remember the rights and security of the Karabakh Armenians? Why, during these events in Prague and Brussels, did the European Union not offer to take care (being the curator of official Yerevan) about the safety of the inhabitants of Nagorno-Karabakh?

The European Union, President of the European Council Charles Michel, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell and President of the European Commission William von der Leyen were engaged in one thing – provocations. The European Union and the United States have never cared about the fate of the inhabitants of Nagorno-Karabakh. This is only part of their political game. They cared about our country. The anti-Russian Russophobic approach is at the heart of all their actions. Now they are trying to denigrate the actions of our country, to absolve themselves of responsibility. It is Brussels that is responsible for the fact that all the agreements reached (three agreements between Moscow, Yerevan and Baku) were literally "replaced" by summits on the territory of the EU countries. The position of Yerevan under the influence of the EU was formed as they stated just a few months ago. Before that, they took the opposite position. It is the sovereign right of the authorities in Armenia to form their position. But at least it should be consistent and openly talked about.

Let's see what the results of the next Armenian-Azerbaijani summit under the auspices of the EU members will be on October 5 in Granada.

And one more thing. Yesterday, French Foreign Minister Carlos Colonna, while in Yerevan, made many loud statements that Russia had not fulfilled any "obligations" to normalize relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan. It is not for France to talk about obligations. Let me remind you that Paris was a co-sponsor and guarantor of the implementation of the Minsk Agreements. What did we learn from Mr Hollande later? That they weren't going to do them? If I were Colonna, I would keep quiet about guarantees and obligations to regulate relations between countries where France calls itself or considers itself a mediator. It would be better if she first reported on the Minsk agreements. Let me remind you that it was a UN Security Council resolution.

Let's get back to her statements on this track. Again, a lie, a sluggish attempt by French diplomacy to play on the Karabakh issue, on the difficult humanitarian situation of the Armenian population who left the region.

Now let's talk about what Russia has actually done. Russia stopped the bloodshed on November 9, 2020 Russia agreed on a set of trilateral statements for 2020-2022 (1,2,3,4) - a roadmap for reconciliation between Baku and Yerevan. It was these developments that the EU and the United States then shamelessly copied. And then distort for the sake of their interests without caring about the population of this region.

Russia ensured a ceasefire in Karabakh on September 20 of this year. At the same time, they lose their comrades-in-arms, for whom we deeply mourn.

I would like to ask a counter question: what has France done? What did Brussels and the entire European Union do? On this track, it is useless to turn to Washington. Are there any concrete actions, at least something to present to the world community other than the words of this endless, protracted global PR campaign on a global scale? I have already said that they persuaded the Armenian leadership in Prague and Brussels to "forget" about the rights and security of the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh, which resulted in the current crisis.

When, under the auspices of Brussels (I think, including from Washington), the Armenian leadership in Prague and Brussels assumed new obligations, they did not in any way, either in writing or orally, record the status, security and guarantees of the inhabitants of Nagorno-Karabakh.

It has reaffirmed what we all knew before: Western intervention always results in chaos and suffering for ordinary people.

Question: The media reported that Russia, the EU and the United States held secret talks on the situation in Karabakh in Istanbul on September 17 a few days before the new escalation. According to these media reports, Russia's special envoy to Foreign Minister Igor Khovayev was present. How would you comment on this, did such a meeting really take place?

Maria Zakharova: I don't know about the secret ones. We have been approached by the United States of America and the European Union. They asked for a meeting on their own initiative. I would even say to make some contacts. The purpose of the meeting was outlined. The parties exchanged views on the situation. That's it.

If now the story of this meeting is played out in the Western media as a kind of provocative, then this was the goal of the United States and the European Union - to create another provocation. There is nothing secret about it. It was an ordinary exchange of points of view.

We will watch how the West will present all this now. Then the goals that originally stood before them will become clear.

Question: The issue of shutting down Russian TV channels is being discussed in Armenia, MP from the ruling Civil Contract faction L. Badalyan said on Saturday. Anti-Russian sentiments in other countries have repeatedly begun with such unfriendly steps, in many cases these were real repressions against our journalists and media - we can recall Latvia, Estonia, France, Great Britain, Moldova. How to maintain relations with the Armenian people? It's one thing with politicians, it's another thing with the people.

Maria Zakharova: We have no problems with the fraternal Armenian people. We have helped, are helping and will continue to help. I have just told you how: through the Russian peacekeepers, who not in words, not sitting in warm offices, but there, on the ground, shedding blood, help the Armenian people, humanitarianly, socially, financially, economically. We didn't lose any friends there.

Another thing is that we see a huge number of provocations. We know what the 2000 American diplomats are doing. Can you imagine? 2000 people are the composition of the American embassy in Yerevan. We understand perfectly well what they are doing: mainly spreading fakes and disinformation. It is surprising that the authorities in Yerevan do not notice this. Such a number of people would be justified if they spread humanitarian aid instead of fakes every day. They got up in "human chains", distributed food, help, clothes or something else. No. Over the years, many hundreds of U.S. diplomats have appeared there, engaged in disinformation work in the information space.

Against the background of the fact that two thousand American diplomats are in Armenia, for some reason this does not raise any questions or hints among officials in Yerevan that it is somehow necessary to regulate information flows. But then some deputies from the ruling faction come out and declare the need to block the Russian media. This is all in addition to the fact that Russian journalists are no longer allowed into Armenia. They are announced by people from certain stop lists, etc.

Let me remind you that we all know that the current authorities in Armenia came to power with the main slogan "freedom of speech". Everything else was secondary. And freedom of speech, as a fundamental principle of democracy, does not work in one direction, when only they can speak. And it is also necessary to broadcast this, because these are alternative sources of information. Depriving people for whom this is a really important source of information (only people should determine this), as long as these media operate legally, cutting off these sources is a blow to democracy. Nothing else. And there is no other way to call it. This is a blow to the foundations that make up the political platform of the current authorities in Yerevan. As far as this corresponds to the official position of Yerevan, I think that this question should be asked to the authorities in Armenia. But such statements indicate a departure from democratic principles.

I think that those who want to officially or not block Russian TV channels (I repeat, let official Yerevan comment), but if such thoughts "wander" somewhere, then you need to be aware that with their statements they literally "put an end" to the democratic principles that they declared as a priority.

Question: Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev refused to meet with Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan in Granada. Why do you think the meeting failed? Can this somehow affect Russia's interests? Are there any plans to hold talks on the Russian platform?

Maria Zakharova: It is the sovereign right of each country to determine its position and policy. In this case, as far as I understand, we are talking about a meeting in which we did not participate. I do not consider it necessary to comment on the decisions of the parties. Baku regularly explains and comments on all its steps. I think such questions should either be addressed to the Azerbaijani side, or wait for their comments.

As for the process as a whole, our mediation role was put into practice in agreements (1,2,3,4) – large-scale, elaborate, based on everything: on a combination of history, reality, and the future in every sense of the word.

Another thing is that Western partners got involved here, who began to look for their own benefit. It is always in violation of the harmony achieved by others. This is the main problem. Everything was, everything was possible, taking into account the interests of all. No one can ever be one hundred percent satisfied. But there's diplomacy for that. This is the basic principle of correct, competent communication – to minimise costs and bring together the positions of the parties in terms of the maximum number of points, to create an appropriate atmosphere for mutual consideration of interests. All this was done with the mediation of our country. Everything in which the West performs mediation functions, please contact the co-sponsors of these meetings, processes, negotiations, and so on.

Question: Do you still think it is necessary for Russian peacekeeping forces to remain on the territory of Karabakh until 2025 after this issue is resolved?

Maria Zakharova: It seems to me that your question has an obvious answer. We have talked about this many times. The timing and other issues of the deployment of Russian peacekeepers in the region will be determined jointly with colleagues. If you are talking about the territory of Karabakh, then together with the Azerbaijani side, taking into account the situation on the ground.

Question: Presidential Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov said: "There are plans to develop transport links and logistics in the South Caucasus. We hope that these works, which are extremely important for Azerbaijan, Armenia and Russia, will continue." One of these plans is the Zangezur corridor. Does Moscow have any contacts or messages with the Armenian side regarding the opening of roads there?

Maria Zakharova: I have already spoken about the issue of unblocking transport communications between Azerbaijan and Armenia at the last briefing. This work is carried out within the framework of the Trilateral Working Group co-chaired by the Deputy Prime Ministers.

In particular, a project is being considered to restore the transport route connecting Azerbaijan with the Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic through the Syunik region of Armenia. We see in its implementation a significant potential for moving towards the normalization of relations between Yerevan and Baku. It all depends on the political will of the countries and their readiness to reach concrete agreements.

Question: Do you expect Yerevan to take negative steps regarding the future of Russia's military base in Armenia? And how could you comment on this statement?

Maria Zakharova: First of all, we proceed from our agreements, which are recorded on paper.

Secondly, we will respond to all steps and decisions. Something that analysts can do. We give comments on current, already accomplished events or those that are definitely about to happen. If we talk about the Russian position, it is recorded in the relevant documents.

You know our position, it is legally formalized. I do not consider it necessary to deal with what you are talking about. It is possible and necessary to calculate any options, but then such a development of events can be commented on countless times. Because there are also a lot of probability options. Let's not do that.

Question: French Foreign Minister Carlos Colonna visited Yerevan yesterday. In particular, she said that France is ready to sign an agreement with Armenia on military cooperation. Could you comment on this statement? Some experts say that this agreement could be the first step towards the creation of a NATO military base in Armenia.

Maria Zakharova: She said a lot of things. Some have already commented today. But the most important thing, I think, is to rely on experience. A number of countries in Africa can tell a lot about the military presence of France. Now, due to the absolutely inadequate behavior of Paris, the French ambassadors have been expelled from African states. They were guaranteed security "on the ground" in the form of bases, private military companies, etc. The African continent and a number of countries said "no thanks" for these "efforts". It is said that they were literally left to fend for themselves by France face to face with security problems. Simply because at some point Paris decided that it no longer makes sense to participate in the relevant work. This is a real experience and should be referred to.

There are my comments and expert comments, and there is experience. That's where you need to look and see. That's it.

Most importantly, I think this is another excellent example of how France is fulfilling its obligations. Today I will repeat it for the second time. The Minsk Agreements. There was no need to sacrifice life, deploy French bases and expand NATO. In order to resolve the issues of implementing the Minsk Agreements, it was simply necessary to implement them, to carry out political work with the Kiev regime, to guarantee the residents of Donbass their legal rights, to do what Paris signed. What was made of it? No problem. Neither guarantees of the security of the inhabitants of Donbass, nor the cessation of their persecution on the basis of nationality and language, nor the bringing of the laws of Ukraine under the Kiev regime in order in accordance with the general norms of the EU, with which official Kiev was associated. Paris did not take any of this upon itself and did not do it. They were not even able to return to the residents of Donbass financial transfers and payments blocked by the Kiev regime. Although they promised to do it. They could not find the mental strength to somehow listen to the inhabitants of the regions, political and public figures, and the civilian population. All their lives they blocked the voice, the direct speech of people from these regions, who tried to convey the truth and facts about their lives to Paris and the EU countries. They didn't even want to listen to them. What're you talking about? Here's a guarantee for you.

If official Yerevan considers this a successful experience, then we must admit that they consider the mediation role of France in the implementation of the Minsk agreements to be successful. And this model suits everyone. That's it. Therefore, the question is not in our commentary, but in the experience that Paris has. We must honestly look at these things and not hush them up.

Question: What is being done to withdraw the ex-president and the leadership of Artsakh from the republic? But yesterday there was information about the detention of former presidents. Prior to that, R. Vardanyan and other officials of Artsakh were arrested. What is being done in Russia to release these people and return them to Armenia, like the rest of the population?

Maria Zakharova: Did you confuse the addressee of the question?

Question: No, because you yourself said that the rest of the population was withdrawn...

Answer: They did. Do they need to be withdrawn or what? No, wait, wait a minute. You've got it all mixed up. If you want to ask what Armenia, official Yerevan is doing to help its citizens, which you mentioned, this is to the official representative of the Armenian Foreign Ministry.

If you want to ask what Russia is doing to provide assistance, the first thing you need to remember is that the citizens you mentioned are citizens of Armenia. Some of them renounced Russian citizenship, some initially had only Armenian citizenship.

To date, none of the people you mentioned have Russian citizenship. No one contacted us. There were no formal or informal appeals from the outside (we do not take the information sphere, where a lot is said). Therefore, let us have an honest dialogue on this matter.

Question: In recent days, we have been hearing from Russian officials the justification of Azerbaijan's actions against the civilian population of Artsakh...

Maria Zakharova: Let's not make any statements. If you give a statement, please give a specific example. What do you mean? To engage in declarations under the guise of a question is wrong, it is dishonest.

Question: The Russian side, officials say that Azerbaijan is acting de jure on its territory...

Answer: Wait a minute. Let's start right there. Tell me, please, just wondering, do you recognize the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh as the territory of Azerbaijan?

Question: Personally, I don't.

Maria Zakharova: Then I can understand where this wording comes from. And what do you think about the fact that Yerevan has officially recognized?

Question: Very negatively.

Maria Zakharova: It seems to me that you need to resolve this issue either with yourself or with the authorities in Yerevan. Have a dialogue with them, not with us. We proceed from the official statements made by Yerevan. Do you recognize the government in Yerevan as legitimate? I want to understand your coordinates, where you are.

Question: No, I don't.

Maria Zakharova: Then I think that the answers to the questions do not make any sense. We are with you in different coordinate systems. If you do not recognize either the legitimacy of the authorities in Yerevan or the territorial sovereignty of Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh, which is recognized by the authorities in Armenia, then it is difficult for me to answer your further questions. Because we have divergent positions on basic aspects. Not personal views or assessments, but basic positions. It is useless to have any kind of dialogue and answer questions. If we do not agree that today is October 4, 2023, then what can be the further dialogue?

Question: If you accept the explanation that this is de jure the territory of Azerbaijan, then it turns out that Kiev is also right to kill civilians in Donbass. All these crimes of the Kiev regime against the civilian population are also justified, because this is de jure the territory of Ukraine?

Maria Zakharova: I will conclude the perception of your question with the phrase "just interesting". Everything that happened before, I accept. Everything that comes after is not. We have different coordinates.

We will not find any common ground. I hear from Armenian media representatives a statement that they do not recognize the legitimacy of the current authorities in Yerevan. How can I answer your questions? This is your point of view.

You have answered my clarifying questions. Everything with this became clear to me. I can have historical debates with you or spend my free time in a polemical quarrel. But not the one that the employer allocated to us for the work process.

Question: Today you commented on the issue of the continued presence of Russian peacekeepers, but if the overwhelming majority of the Armenian population has already left Artsakh, what will be the role of Russian peacekeepers before and after 2025?

Maria Zakharova: I would like to say that at the EU summits in Prague in October 2022 and in Brussels in May <>, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan recognised Nagorno-Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan.

I heard your statement today that you do not consider this legitimate. But this decision was made by a person who is the legitimate head of state from the point of view of international relations. Moreover, the Armenian leader simply forgot or did not mention the need to ensure the rights and security of the Armenian population. He did not include it in the agenda of the negotiations. This is a fact. This is not recorded in any document, nor orally. It was not said in any way.

These steps had a radical impact on the Russian peacekeeping contingent stationed in Karabakh. Now, after the relevant decision taken by official Yerevan, voiced, adopted by someone or not, but fixed in the legal plane in international relations, we will resolve and discuss fundamental issues related to our peacekeepers on the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh with Baku.

I would like to draw your attention to our material that we presented yesterday in the media. It contains detailed information about Russian humanitarian assistance to the Armenian population. Please, if you haven't seen it, check it out. We are determined to increase such assistance.

We receive information that some of the residents of Karabakh are thinking of returning. If (they formulate this) conditions will be created for this and their security will be ensured. Therefore, we will assist these processes in contacts with the Azerbaijani side.

Our journalists are not allowed into Armenia for less serious statements. They are blacklisted. You have just questioned the legitimacy of the government in Armenia.

You see how Russian channels are threatened with shutdown, how Russian journalists are threatened that they will never enter the territory of their historical homeland, how they cannot carry out their professional activities. I see it all, and not only me. This causes the deepest, to put it mildly, regret.

We directly raised these issues with Yerevan. Therefore, I understand what a real drama is unfolding now. Therefore, your statements, frankly, also worried me. I can't say anything.

The APEC Situation:

Question: There is a lot of talk about the participation of Russian representatives in the APEC forum in San Francisco. You, Russian Ambassador to the United States Alexander Antonov and Chinese Ambassador to Russia Zhang Hanhui commented on this issue. Will the Russian delegation attend this meeting? And if so, in what composition?

Maria Zakharova: Again, everything is slipping into the "mouse fuss" arranged by the United States.

Let's figure out what is really important and what distracts from it.

The main thing is that Russia has been actively involved in the work of APEC since its accession to this forum in 1998, which is one of the main areas of our multilateral diplomacy and an important platform for practical cooperation in the Asia-Pacific region. Almost all Russian industry departments are closely involved in the APEC processes, and business, civil society, academic institutions and public organizations have their own tracks.

We see APEC as the central platform in the Asia-Pacific region for developing common approaches of the region's economies to issues of economic integration, improving the terms of trade and investment, as well as many of the challenges that our planet is currently facing in this area. We work closely with partners across the entire spectrum of the APEC Putrajaya Benchmarks 2040, and support the course taken towards digitalization and innovation, increasing connectivity, and integrated human resource development.

Now what distracts from the main thing. At the suggestion of Westerners, APEC's constructive activities have recently been increasingly undermined by politicized "stuffing" and confrontational initiatives. Westerners are dragging everything that does not belong to this platform to this platform, just to further introduce a course towards Russophobia, towards their own hegemonism, and endless controlled chaos. In the same series is the shameless abuse of the current American presidency of its obligations.

As we have repeatedly said, we will take into account Washington's position when deciding on the level of our representation at the San Francisco summits in November of this year. Next year, the APEC watch will be transferred to Peru, we have already established good contact with our colleagues, and we hope that APEC will return to positive dynamics, despite all the machinations of Washington.

On US Troops Occupying Germany:

Question: Will the Russian Foreign Ministry raise the issue of the withdrawal of US troops from Germany and the end of the occupation of Germany, which even Russian President Vladimir Putin has described as such? Tell me, please, what steps can Russia, as the legal successor of the USSR, take in this direction?

Maria Zakharova: We are the only ones who raised this issue. They called a spade a spade, speaking of the American base. This is not just an American base, it is the occupation troops, as they are. This is an occupation. Another thing is that all this is supported by those pro-American authorities who come to the leadership of this country in Germany. But that's the way it is, and only Russia called it that. After us, other voices began to be heard. But we were the first to start talking about it.

Regarding which troops in Germany should do what. This question should be addressed to German politicians, public figures, journalists. This is their topic, a question for them. And, among other things, I will not get tired of talking and reminding what Russia did. This is surprising, but the Europeans themselves do not realize that US nuclear weapons are deployed on their territory in many countries, which are not subject to any control by the leadership of European countries. This is a question for the people of these countries. Let their politicians answer these questions.

The politicians will happily provide answers, the real question being are the honest, truthful answers or just more lies and spin to make the questioner go away. During the Cold War, there was all sorts of talk and propaganda about freeing the enslaved Eastern Europeans and bringing them democracy, free speech and Western materialism. It’s not quite 35 years later, but certainly enough time has passed for those three vital promises to become reality. Or is the EU/NATO just another version of the USSR/Soviet Bloc with a very diminished social contract?

*
*
*
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!