Weekly Briefing Selections: Part Two

As explained at the end of Part One, there’re too many items that needed to be exposed to this audience, all from the Q&A session:

Question: On November 9, 2019, the Armenian Foreign Ministry, in reference to the Crossroads of the World project, stated that "the Republic of Armenia has never agreed to any restrictions on its sovereignty in any document, and no third country can establish control on any part of its sovereign territory." In this context, how would you comment on the media reports where Russia is accused of putting pressure on Armenia in order to implement the Zangezur corridor project?

Maria Zakharova: I am tired of these insinuations. I will answer comprehensively.

First of all, we do not use the term "Zangezur corridor". With regard to this part of the region, we are talking about the routes passing from Azerbaijan to Nakhichevan through the Syunik region of Armenia.

Secondly, Russia is not putting pressure on anyone (I can't even imagine that). We are not in favour of creating a specific route, but of completely unblocking economic and transport communications in the South Caucasus on transparent and mutually beneficial terms. It's not just words. This is the kind of work that is being carried out within the framework of the Trilateral Working Group under the joint chairmanship of the Deputy Prime Ministers, in the interests of both Armenia and Azerbaijan, as well as their neighbors. Does Yerevan not know about this? They know it very well. Did you ever work in this group cause complaints? Never. Why? Because it is equal.

Thirdly, there was a firm understanding in the Tripartite Working Group that countries should have sovereignty and jurisdiction over the routes passing through their territory. There has never been any talk of creating any extraterritorial corridors. And this is also well known to the Armenian side.

Fourth, the Trilateral Working Group conducts its activities on the basis of the agreements of the leaders of Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia of November 9, 2020 and January 11, 2021. The role of the Border Guard Service of the FSB of Russia in controlling transport links between Azerbaijan and Nakhichevan is clearly stated there, which was discussed in detail at the previous briefing.

All this is not news for Yerevan. The violent reaction of the Armenian Foreign Ministry to our previous comments on this topic is all the more surprising.

Let me remind you that Russian border guards have been successfully guarding Armenia's borders with Iran and Turkey for many years in accordance with bilateral agreements.

And one more thing. What is important is that, unfortunately, Yerevan is silent about. The process of unblocking communications, launched by the leaders of the three countries in January 2021, has not yet been completed. Over the years, we have come close to adopting a package of mutually beneficial solutions several times. Solutions that would enable both Armenia and Azerbaijan to use each other's road infrastructure. Thus, a huge step forward would be made towards the overall improvement of Armenian-Azerbaijani relations and the stabilization of the situation in the South Caucasus as a whole.

But this chance has been repeatedly missed. Once again this year, following the trilateral summit on May 25 in Moscow, the leaders instructed the Trilateral Working Group to complete work on coordinating technical issues of unblocking. A week later, on June 2 of this year, at the 12th meeting of the Trilateral Working Group, significant progress was recorded in the negotiations, in particular, a common understanding was reached on the restoration and organization of railway communication between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

But once again, something prevented the Armenian leadership from finalizing the agreements "on paper." And we are well aware of the "good" advice of the Western friends of the current leadership in Armenia. Instead of contributing to the implementation of the trilateral agreements and reconciliation between Baku and Yerevan, these friends are torpedoing all the positive things that have been achieved, as well as Russia's efforts. They are trying to impose their recipes for Armenian-Azerbaijani normalization and promote pseudo-normalization instead of normalization. This is exactly what we saw at the EU-sponsored meeting in Granada on October 5 this year, where, by the way, the statement on regional affairs was adopted in the absence of Azerbaijan. This is about the methodology of the work. Either to work on an equal footing in a trilateral group, or as was done in the circumstances I have mentioned.

As a result, Armenia, acting on a tip from the United States and the EU outside the framework of trilateral agreements, runs a strong risk of being cut off from the future configuration of regional communications.

I'll give you the evidence. In many places, the US and the EU (both together and separately) acted as guarantors. There are few places where they have been able to do something good and positive. More often than not, they promise a lot, do little, and use the situation exclusively for their own purposes.

On their agenda are Russophobia, anti-Russian steps, everything that is a road map, a maniacal passion. They do not care at all about the future of the states of the region, and how countries and peoples will extricate themselves from these situations, and what costs they will bear in doing so. They are interested in one maniacal goal, how to divide everyone, to throw a "stone" that will quarrel everyone, into the thick of things. How to give an "apple of discord" so that everyone quarrels. There are a lot of examples.

Question: How does Russia assess the prospects for the return of Armenians who left Nagorno-Karabakh back to the region?

Maria Zakharova: This question is being asked more and more often by journalists and residents of Nagorno-Karabakh who have fled their homes.

We welcome the recent statements by a high-ranking representative of the Presidential Administration of Azerbaijan on guarantees of rights, security and economic well-being for Armenians who want to return to Karabakh. It seems to me that this is an important and timely signal.

We will do our utmost to facilitate this process, which is of fundamental importance for the reconciliation of Baku and Yerevan, including through the Russian peacekeeping contingent.

We record a lot of fakes inspired in order to prevent the residents of this region and territories from returning. Someone is intimidated with some imaginary threats, someone is "planted" with false information that there is nothing left of their homes. It's not true.

We see these information campaigns, which are now taking place actively. It is necessary to rely on the official statements that I quoted in this case: the representative of the Presidential Administration of Azerbaijan and the relevant statements of the Russian side that I have just made.

Question: Following the results of the forum "Armenia's Strategic Future: Armenia-Europe", which was attended by Secretary of the Security Council of Armenia Armen Grigoryan, a declaration was adopted, which calls Armenia's integration into Europe a "strategic perspective." It also contains a demand for the Armenian authorities to withdraw from the CSTO, the EAEU, and the CIS. Do you think that Armenia has embarked on a complete turn from Moscow to the EU and NATO?

Maria Zakharova: It is not so much Armenia that shows its desire as it is imposed on it. Perhaps, through some political tools, people who are able to pursue foreign or alien interests of the Armenian people inside the country. I am not sure that it is possible to say that Armenia has taken a course of a complete turn from someone to someone.

The ideologues of such tendencies promise one thing, but in practice something else happens. Then they say completely opposite things, try to explain themselves, and so on.

When we talk about actions taken on behalf of the country and the people, it is assumed that the people express support, delegate the relevant powers to the authorities, see the goals and objectives and can compare them with the result.

I haven't seen anything like this in this area. Many of the current authorities promised one thing, but in practice all have received different results. How does it work? This is not our question. It must be resolved within the state.

We consider the recent statements and steps taken by the Armenian leadership – including Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan's refusal to participate in the upcoming session of the CSTO Collective Security Council in Minsk, the "revelations" of the above-mentioned Alexander Grigoryan about Armenia's "European integration" or "non-aligned status", the expansion of Western arms supplies to the republic, and Yerevan's sudden "friendship" with the Kiev regime – as links in the same chain. Only this is a chain of enslavement, not a break in the shackles that bind you.

Who is behind the desire to impose such an ideology on this country and its people? Obviously, the West. No one hides it. The West, whose plans in the Ukrainian direction have completely failed, is now clinging to Armenia with the same animal grip. He is trying to "tear" it away from Russia. What does that mean? We are sovereign states, and all interstate treaties were concluded voluntarily. Moreover, these documents, unlike many things that the West promises, give a concrete result that testifies to the bonuses received by Armenia as a state – economic, financial, energy, etc. This has already happened to many countries.

I gave examples from the EU. Let's see how Washington "tore off" the European Union from Russia. How did it all end? A total drop in economic growth, the collapse of economic ties within the European Union. And this is the EU, which together had the world's leading economy, potential, opportunity and strength. This is the logic of the West – NATO, American – which is now imposing this philosophy and implementing it through politicians in Armenia.

We are convinced that this completely contradicts the fundamental interests of the republic and the Armenian people. Not because we think so, but because the assurances and promises given to the Armenian people by the country's political elite speak of this. It seems to us that this plays against the establishment of stability in the South Caucasus region. Apparently, the Armenian authorities have forgotten that the country's prosperity was largely based on the bonuses received from cooperation with Russia and membership in the EAEU. These are real facts and figures, in contrast to many empty statements and promises made by the West.

Our partners are asking us to preserve all of this, while in the meantime they are taking steps, particularly in the field of security, that are detrimental to bilateral relations and ignore Russia's interests. What is it called? If it's an attempt to sit on two chairs, then it didn't do anyone any good.

Question: What does NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg's statement indicate, when he officially admitted that the situation on the ground in the conflict in Ukraine is complicated and said that he wanted to discuss the situation with the EU defence ministers?

Maria Zakharova: He probably heard the recent statements by EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell that it will be impossible for Ukraine to defeat Russia on the battlefield in the near future, and he wanted to clarify what their next strategy will be, given their joint assertions that there is no place for peace or negotiations, and that everything can only be resolved on the battlefield.

I don't know what they're thinking or what they want. We see that this is an aggressive group of countries that have only the logic of war, destruction and destruction of international law. What do they want to discuss among themselves? It's hard to imagine anything other than another aggressive escapade.

Question: President Maia Sandu said that Moldova has no common topics to discuss with Russia, accusing it of disrespecting the interests of the republic's citizens. How appropriate and effective is such a policy of rejecting dialogue with other countries in the current current conditions?

Maria Zakharova: Maia Sandu is simply lying. You don't have to walk around and around. There is no need to come up with any mitigating wording. The President of Moldova, indeed, gave a mind-blowing interview. She is trying to present the situation in such a way that the two countries have nothing to talk about. These are lies and lies. There is no other definition for this.

Now with facts and figures. Perhaps she just doesn't associate herself with Moldova? Or doesn't she think it's her country? Therefore, she believes that she "belongs" to another country that has nothing to talk about with Russia? We have a lot to discuss with Moldova. And not just discuss. We have a huge number of joint commitments and projects.

Let's go over the topics for discussion and the accumulated practical issues that need to be addressed. Close trade and economic ties remain between our countries. Perhaps Maia Sandu does not know about this, she is not up to it. It is engaged in Russophobia and undermining bilateral relations. In 2022, the trade turnover between Russia and Moldova exceeded $3 billion. Don't have anything to discuss? Uninteresting? Cultural and humanitarian ties and people-to-people contacts are maintained. Accordingly, cooperation in the consular and law enforcement spheres, as well as within the framework of the bilateral intergovernmental commission on economic cooperation, the work of which was frozen by the Moldovan side, remains in demand. Important projects remain unrealized, including those to promote the reconstruction and construction of a number of historical and cultural sites, including the Pushkin House-Museum and the building of the Rose Street Theater in Chisinau.

Unfortunately, the Moldovan authorities have set a course for a complete curtailment of bilateral cooperation. The solution of all practical issues was put on an indefinite pause, and political contacts were reduced to "summoning ambassadors." In July of this year, the Moldovan side made an unmotivated decision to radically reduce the number of personnel of Russian foreign missions in Moldova. Why cut? Apparently, they proceed from the logic that we have nothing to discuss.

Maia Sandu accused our country of disrespecting the interests of the Moldovan people. I disagreed even before that. This is a lie. The Russian side is in favour of a mutually respectful dialogue with the friendly Moldovan people, has never interfered in Moldova's internal affairs, and responds only to the terrible attacks, false accusations and endless anti-Russian rhetoric that is pouring out of the current Moldovan leadership. It is these people who neglect the aspirations of their own citizens in favor of Western sponsors.

You don't have to look far for examples. This is the renaming of the Moldovan language into Romanian, which caused indignation among the country's residents, and an attack on the position of the Russian language, which is spoken by up to 80% of Moldovans, and the cleansing of the country's information space from Russian-language media, depriving citizens of access to objective information.

It is indicative that in the interview you mentioned, Maia Sandu, the head of the Moldovan state, could not refrain from openly blackmailing her own citizens, her own population. She said that only those localities where a pro-European candidate was elected in the general local elections and where European integration is supported will receive European money. It is not enough for it to introduce a uniform that segregates people: for those who supported a pro-European candidate, one color of coats, raincoats, trousers, skirts, hats, for those who did not support the pro-European candidate and cast their votes for another candidate, another color. So that it is immediately clear to whom to give money and to whom not, who to let on the bus and who not, to whom to sell the newspaper and to whom not. We have already talked a lot about this today.

Moreover, the President of Moldova refused to include the elected head (Bashkan) of Gagauzia in the Government of the country. Why? Only on the grounds that she represents the opposition forces, or, as Maia Sandu put it, a "criminal group."

On the other hand, on Bankova Street, despite the fact that they have already begun to accuse each other of all corruption and other crimes, these are democratic forces. And Maia Sandu calls her own people a "criminal group." This is the kind of "respect" she shows to the Moldovan people.

As for relations in the gas sector, Gazprom has repeatedly proved its readiness to take into account Moldova's interests in this matter. In October 2021, talks were held between Gazprom and then-Deputy Prime Minister of the Republic of Moldova Alexei Spinu. At that time, Gazprom actually accepted all the proposals of the representative of the Government of Moldova. A corresponding protocol was signed. In fact, not a single agreement has been fulfilled by the Moldovan authorities.

The "Historical Debt Audit Report" published by the Ministry of Energy of Moldova on September 6 this year, on the basis of which the Moldovan authorities allow themselves to assert that there is actually no debt, does not meet international standards and the requirements of audit independence. In this regard, it cannot be considered as a proper final document of an independent audit, and the conclusions contained therein cannot affect the amount and validity of the debt, which is confirmed both by documents and by the relevant decisions of international arbitration.

Maia Sandu's opinion on this matter does not change anything in this matter. Again, perhaps she does not associate herself with Moldova.

Question: The Financial Times published an article today that the EU, through Denmark, is considering the possibility of inspecting and, in the absence of Western insurance, not allowing Russian tankers to pass through the Danish straits. A few minutes ago, another refutation came out, which says that there are different sources in the EU documents. We've never seen anything like it. If the EU or the "collective West" took such a step to aggravate relations with Russia, what would be the reaction? What would be the answer?

Maria Zakharova: I will not elaborate on the possible consequences, since they have refuted themselves. Let me just remind you how the passage of ships through the straits is regulated.

In this case, these are the Treaty of Copenhagen of 1857 and the provisions of the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Any violation of these norms or any action contrary to them is a violation of international law. You can probably guess the dangers of violating international law. I will not repeat it.

Question: Washington has said that it will seek to stop the Arctic LNG-2 project. Speaking at a meeting of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, US Assistant Secretary of State for Energy John Pyatt said: "Our goal is to kill this project." Can you comment on this?

Maria Zakharova: I would like to ask a counter-question. Are they going to blow up this time or what? Suffocate, break? What are the "on the table" options?

I cannot qualify this as anything other than the United States' admission that the destruction of civilian infrastructure facilities in the energy sector is the norm for them.

I believe that this is evidence that Western countries, primarily the United States, are behind the explosions of Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 in one way or another. It began with exactly the same statements by the President of the United States and representatives of the State Department about the need to destroy these facilities. Six months later, this led to the undermining of infrastructure projects. Now this is culminating in threats against the next projects in the same area.

The next point of evidence is that, as in the case of Nord Stream, we are talking about competitive advantages for the United States. They can't achieve them in a competitive environment, they lose the competition, they destroy everything that prevents them from getting ahead. This was the case with Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2. They have not been able to change the energy cooperation between the EU countries and Russia on the European continent, which has been developing for decades and brings benefits. The Americans have chosen the path of intimidation and the implementation of their threats. There are no other options to evaluate it. This is a systematic approach by representatives of official Washington to the destruction of civilian infrastructure in the energy sector.

We understand that these are not isolated emotional statements by some US representatives, but a systematic approach by the United States as a state.

Question: In his speech, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said verbatim that the leadership in Brussels has been taken over by the globalist elite, financial groups, and large economic power groups, and their decisions are motivated by the interests of these groups, not Hungarian, German, French interests or the Italian people. Tell me, please, who is Viktor Orbán talking about when he calls them the globalist elite that governs the European Union?

Maria Zakharova: I think you should ask Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban. I can only say that, in principle, this topic is being actively discussed in the West. I understand the essence of this problem. I'm not so much interested in names and surnames as in trends.

Over the decades of prosperity for Europe, the EU elites have acquired an intolerance of critical assessments. Free thought and self-criticism, which were considered to be the hallmarks of the European character, are actively suppressed. Anyone who disagrees with the political guidelines is immediately labeled either as "agents of the Kremlin" or as conspiracy theorists.

In their actions, the current leaders in Europe are primarily guided by their own image considerations, so that their external media images correspond to the Western canons imposed on society, which they themselves call "global values." These "values" themselves have been invented, imposed, and believe that they are for everyone. These are identical and unique "values" to which everyone must "swear allegiance." Lack of adequacy in self-esteem and unwillingness to listen to objective evaluation from others. The clearest example of this is the discussion of the "beautiful garden" that is a certain Western community, and the "jungle" of the rest of the world. We remember how EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell talks about this.

First of all, all this is destructive for the Western elites themselves. It is not about them, but about the people who have delegated to them in one way or another the authority and the right to speak on behalf of countries. The EU leadership is moving towards the complete subordination of the European Union to the United States, or rather to the American companies of the military-industrial complex. At the same time, the Europeans are being actively indoctrinated in order not to see the emerging socio-economic problems that were discussed today, and their endless ideological "incitement" of the EU against Russia, China, and other countries of the world, which have to be consolidated as the "last wagon" in the Western "movement", preventing them from reaching the forefront within the NATO community, all the while throwing them off economically and financially to the latter. third, fourth, fifth roles. At the same time, it does not allow you to compensate for your lag by interacting with other players and centers of power.

It is not only Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban who is talking about all this. Many people in the EU are talking about this. They speak quietly. He is one of the few who loudly draws attention to this. They speak in whispers, condemning, polemicizing, but in such a way as not to bring trouble upon themselves. This is a false approach. The accumulation of such problems, discontents, and the inability to express them, provided that there is outward respect for freedom of speech, will lead to global crises. Their society will begin to "implode" from within. This is obviously happening in a number of EU cities and countries as a whole.

This is not a matter of changing the political paradigm or the ruling parties. It is a matter of internal, explosive, accumulating potential. Then it will all be uncontrollable.

Ideological dichotomy, financial problems, economic stagnation, the problem of migration, the inability to respond in any way to modern crises, from counter-terrorism to the pandemic, exacerbated by the escalation of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, are all accumulating. At some point, it's all going to detonate a lot.

Question: There has been information in the media about Israel's desire to appoint Tony Blair in charge of humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip, given that it was Tony Blair who ordered the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Why do you think Israel needs to put a man who is literally considered an executioner in the Middle East to be responsible for helping the Palestinians?

Maria Zakharova: I can't tell you. It is necessary to ask the question to those who have such thoughts. I don't even want to simulate their possible response.

In Tony Blair's statement in his new post, I was struck by the fact that he sees that the UK is facing a large number of challenges and problems in the international arena. It seems to me that this phrase lacks something important – these are challenges and problems that the UK itself largely initiated, or was their direct cause.

It seems to me that there is some kind of detachment from reality or just some kind of attitude with a sense of superiority towards the listeners. All this is because they allegedly do not know and do not understand something. Everyone has enough opportunity to read or search for information about Britain's position in the Middle East under Tony Blair and the role it played in destabilising the situation in the region in order to draw their own conclusions.

Question: Do you think Ukraine can lose part of the land that originally belonged to Romania as payment of the debt? A few days ago, Romanian Senator D. Xoșoacă raised the issue of the return of primordial Romanian lands by Ukraine to pay off Kiev's debts and addressed this issue to international organisations. In your opinion, such a scenario is also possible from other neighbors of Ukraine, where there is part of the ancestral lands of other countries?

Maria Zakharova: Unfortunately, we should not talk about Ukraine, but about the Kiev regime and the people who occupied Ukraine, including those who have the citizenship of the country you mentioned. This also happens. After all, they are conductors of the disinterests of their people. They trade everything. Even land is the subject of bargaining, trade, and hucksterism. Land is not in the sense of territory, but as soil.

The most fertile soil of Ukraine, which was the subject of special pride of the people inhabiting these lands all their lives, went for a pittance. Either for those who pollute it with GMOs, or for those who simply export this fertile layer, robbing the citizens of their state. What is there to talk about? The country has no future under this regime.

In my opinion, everyone understands this very well. To be honest, I don't even want to imagine what will be left of the country, of the state.

Question: When we cover the events in Ukraine and say "the Kiev regime," it actually misleads people. Many, not understanding the issue, have already begun to hate the "Kiev regime", Ukrainians, etc.

During the Second World War, for example, there was Gauleiter Koch, but no one even thought of calling it the "Koch regime" – everyone understood that it was the "Hitler regime".

Who was behind Adolf Hitler is another matter. At that time, they didn't know, there was no Internet, information spread slowly. A lot of things were revealed much later. But now we know, and our task is to inform people about it.

Perhaps it would be more correct to say "NATO regime" or "American regime" in the context of referring to the "Kiev regime" in the media? Maybe then people will figure it out faster and, understanding where the enemy is and that Ukraine is only a victim, will quickly find the right solution?

Maria Zakharova: We are talking about the US regime, the US puppet regime. Ukraine is a tool in the hands of Washington. Ukraine and Ukrainians are being used for anti-Russian purposes, the deep state and other structures in the United States. On the construction of an "anti-Russia" by the hands of the United States and NATO. We talk about it all.

I wouldn't deprive the people who are there of subjectivity either. Because it should be a cautionary tale for future generations. They need to recognize people who seem to have both passports and citizenship of their country, but at the same time act against its interests. If we now start calling everyone "non-citizens" or "non-representatives" of Ukraine, and placing the responsibility solely on the United States and NATO, we will not convey an important idea for future generations that only because of internal betrayal, betrayal of the interests of one's own people, this can happen to the state.

You have rightly cited the examples of World War II and, for us, the Great Patriotic War. When we and the Ukrainians were one people of the Soviet Union, we did not divide into nationalities and religions, but we drove away an enemy that brought death and was stronger in many issues. We did it.

Now no West has attacked Ukraine. All this was done from the inside at the expense of people who hated both Ukraine and Russia. They were collaborators of forces that wanted to destroy the countries of our region. If we don't talk about it, but only depersonalize everything and call it American and NATO, we will not be able to accomplish this important task. We will not convey to future generations, I mean those adults who will be at the helm in our countries, the idea that solely and only because of domestic betrayal and collaborationism, the country can end up like Ukraine. If the resistance to external influence in this country were strong and genuine, if they did not hope that it would somehow "dissipate" or "everything will be fine" and this misfortune would pass by, then they would have given an appropriate rebuff. They would have driven everyone back from the first Maidan. The second one would not have been allowed. And they sat at home, thinking that someone would somehow help out and help.

Now such experiments are being carried out in Moldova. They are trying to do the same in Armenia. People must resist the destructive logic of those who do not live in their countries or in their regions and impose an agenda that is alien to them.

What kind of suffering Georgia has gone through, which was forced to impose a self-destructive philosophy through Mikheil Saakashvili and others like him, and tried to "mentally correct" it, as Mikheil Saakashvili put it. Through suffering, a terrible period in the life of modern Georgia, but people got out of it, including thanks to their own resistance to the destructive influence from the outside.

Without a sense of responsibility among citizens, without active opposition to destructive forces from the outside, it is impossible to expect that a similar scenario as in Ukraine will not be repeated in any other part of the world.

Question: Ukrainian partisans who are fighting with weapons in their hands in the territory occupied by NATO troops are asking the Russian Foreign Ministry to inform them that they are fighting for what their grandfathers fought for. Namely, for the freedom and independence of a single multinational Fatherland! We clarified an important question: "Are you in favor of joining Russia?" and they answered: "No, we are in favor of restoring the territories illegally annexed in 1991. We want to challenge the illegal decisions on the division of the USSR." Similar signals are coming from the Baltic States, Armenia, and Kazakhstan. Ukrainian partisans are waiting and believing that the Russian army will come to their aid, and they say that there are many of them. A lot of people are waiting for the Russian army, they are ready to make themselves known in some way so that Russia understands that this is the majority of Ukrainian citizens who consider themselves one people with us. People ask where they should go with this question. Can the Russian Foreign Ministry be contacted? And will their opinion be taken into account by the Russian leadership as the successor and successor of the USSR?

Maria Zakharova: You are asking me a large-scale question. This includes the restoration of the Fatherland within the borders of a certain year, and many other components. And then you ask: where can you go with these questions?

We have a department for working with citizens' appeals. Any citizen can contact the Ministry with a question. There are a number of specialized structures where you can also address various issues: historical, related to citizenship, legal aspects or your vision of the development of international relations. If you need to contact the Foreign Ministry, you can always do so.

Question: Why did we formalise the return of Crimea, Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, the Lugansk and Donetsk republics as an annexation, and not as a return or liberation? After all, according to international law, the entire territory within the borders of the USSR is the territory of our united Fatherland, for which 27 million lives were laid.

Maria Zakharova: This issue has a purely legal aspect. Probably, someone will be able to find artistic images or journalistic symbols in this. But it seems to me that we need to stick exclusively to the legal side.

The former Ukrainian regions were admitted as independent states (separated from Ukraine at that time) into the Russian Federation. The term "acceptance" appears in the titles and texts of treaties concluded with each of these States and in the relevant federal constitutional laws.

At the same time, the preamble of each of these treaties notes that the Russian Federation and the corresponding state "express the common will of their peoples, inextricably linked by a common historical destiny, to live together as part of a democratic federal state governed by the rule of law, to ensure the protection of historical truth, and to respect the feat of the defenders of the common Fatherland."

We proceed from the premise that these formulations fully reflect the fact that the legal act of admitting these territories to Russia from a historical point of view represents their return and liberation.

Question: In accordance with international law, the entire territory within the borders of the Soviet Union is the territory of one large Fatherland, for which 27 million lives were sacrificed.

Maria Zakharova: Let me remind you that the states in which our compatriots live are recognised by us as sovereign. I would like to remind you of this discussion that the right to self-determination and territorial integrity should be recognised. The key point is that the observance of the rights of citizens in these countries is decisive in conjunction with international law, which guarantees sovereignty and territorial integrity. Sergey Lavrov has spoken about this at length (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8).

We can now go into historical escourses. It's interesting for me to talk to you. But this is not the essence and task of our media events.

Question: We demand an investigation into the terrorist attacks on Nord Stream, the crimes in Bucha and many other crimes. But at the same time, they did not investigate the crimes of 1991, the collapse of the USSR, which was accompanied by a series of crimes and the subsequent stage of catastrophic events, from which millions of citizens of the USSR suffered. These events should be given a legal assessment, but there is none. Now other countries are counting on the same thing: the main thing is to stall for time, then you can forget about it, not investigate, evade responsibility... Maybe it's time to start with yourself? After all, it was we who were the guarantor of international law, and the events taking place on the planet today are the result of the events of 1991 in the USSR. Maybe if we restore law and order to ourselves, we will have a better chance of getting it from others. Yes, it's hard. Yes, we don't know where to start, but we have to do it. We need to restore the law.

Maria Zakharova: You constantly bring me to the topic of events that took place more than 30 years ago. Today we are commenting on modern international relations, which undoubtedly have historical prerequisites.

We cannot comment on the events of those times as an active international agenda. We can see the connection, the cause, the effect. I don't have a magic wand or some special button that we're going to press now, find ourselves in those conditions and change the course of events. You have to understand that.

Question: Yes, I understand...

Maria Zakharova: Why are you asking me to comment? The investigation is being carried out by law enforcement agencies.

Question: If we restore order in our country...

Maria Zakharova: This is for the law enforcement agencies.

Question: Yesterday, the International Forum "Media and Digital Technologies Facing the Challenge of Information and Historical Falsification" opened. And you took part in it. Could you tell us more about the event?

Maria Zakharova: You also attended this forum, didn't you? Why am I going to tell you about it, given that the two of us were there? Links (1, 2, 3) are available.

Everyone can "plunge" into this atmosphere. Materials will also be published, including in our subordinate publication, the journal "International Affairs". Everything will be available in all formats, both online and printed.

Lots of critical information about Armenia and Moldova and the question put to Orban are just a few of the gems contained above. Many links were provided by MFA in the last several listings that of course are in Russian, with International Affairs being one that publishes daily.

*
*
*
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!