Zakharova's Weekly Briefing Selections

A new concept: the dictatorship of liberalism.

Back in Moscow from New York, Maria Zakharova gives her weekly briefing that lasts almost three hours—the presentations are long along with most Q&As. As a result, the update on Ukraine will again be omitted along with most of the presentation topics. Again, I remind readers that want to read the entire briefing in English to wait about 72 hours for the transcript to appear at the MFA’s English site. Readers will note the usage of a new term '“the liberal dictatorship” that’s being used more often by all sectors of Russia’s government and analytical institutions which is similar to the terms “illiberal democracy” and “inverted totalitarianism.” Given the Outlaw US Empire conforms to no law, not even its own, and makes up “rules” that serve its own interests of the moment as it goes forward, it’s clear that its Diktat is a form of totalitarianism enforced by its hegemony. This short essay describes the term’s fundamentals. But the term also appears within the title of a book well outside contemporary time, Origins of liberal dictatorship in Central America: Guatemala, 1865-1873. The author’s Introduction doesn’t provide a definition but links the idea to Comte’s positivism. This article explores “The Myth of Pervez Musharraf’s ‘Liberal Dictatorship’ in Pakistan”, saying “The late military leader’s rule was a story of contradictions.” And here we have a very recent article published in the wake of the Trump assassination attempt, “Liberal "Democracy" is Killing,” which is perhaps the best of the sources to read after the first. The context of Zakharova’s rhetoric will also provide insights as to its definition. That said, here’re the selections:

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's participation in meetings of ASEAN, the EAC and the ARF

On July 26-27, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will take part in regular meetings of the foreign ministers of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in Vientiane in various formats: Russia-ASEAN, the East Asia Summit (EAS) and the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF). Again, we are talking about Vientiane, Laos. So that they do not perceive it incorrectly, do not confuse it. Please note that the event will be held in Laos.

The Association remains the "core" of multi-vector processes of interstate cooperation in the wider Asia-Pacific region. We consider it to be one of the key partners in the context of implementing the initiative of the President of the Russian Federation to build a new Eurasian security architecture. The task is to reach a mutually beneficial algorithm for peaceful joint development on the continent that is comfortable for all participants by combining the cooperative resources of both individual countries and multilateral mechanisms.

At the upcoming events, we intend to present our assessments of the regional situation, including the strengthening of the conflict potential in the Asia-Pacific region against the backdrop of the West's policy of militarising the region, the introduction of NATO's force potential here and the expansion of the network of bloc mechanisms. We will continue to promote the creation of a fair and equitable model of the world order, where ASEAN is a natural partner of the SCO and the EAEU. All three organizations work in a common coordinate system of positive cooperation, moving towards strengthening interconnectedness in various areas.

This year we are celebrating the 20th anniversary of Russia's accession to the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia, the so-called Bali Treaty of 1976.

During the Russia-ASEAN ministerial events, we look forward to a substantive dialogue on the entire range of issues of cooperation with ASEAN in the field of politics and security, trade, the economy, and socio-cultural spheres. The ministers will discuss the implementation of the Comprehensive Action Plan for the Implementation of the Russia-ASEAN Strategic Partnership for 2021-2025 and launch the preparation of a new similar document for the medium term. We plan to focus on the development of high-tech and knowledge-intensive sectors, smart cities, cooperation in the fields of digitalization, energy, etc.

The agenda of the meeting of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the EAS will focus on the preparation of the summit in Vientiane in October of this year, as well as the "inventory" of the "road map" of the association's activities for 2024-2028 adopted last year organizations in the Asia-Pacific region.

At the ARF session, we expect to approve the forum's programme for the coming year, adopt a thematic statement on the safety of ferry traffic, as well as work plans, including on emergency response.

With the support of ASEAN, we will continue to promote practical initiatives in the field of international information security, which is one of Russia's priorities at this venue.

Developments in Moldova

As the presidential elections in October 2024 approach, the Maia Sandu regime is increasingly using anti-Russia rhetoric as the main, in fact, the only, election slogan.

On July 10, Moldovan President Maia Sandu said that "the Kremlin's desire to return thieves to power" is a threat to Moldova. Simply put, she came up with another nonsense. She is talking about the opposition, about the citizens of their state, who, despite threats and repressions, everything that is happening on the part of the Maia Sandu regime on the territory of Moldova, call a spade a spade, try to preserve the country, its history, culture and ethnic identity. Now they are directly called names.

At the same time, official Chisinau continues the policy of "erasing" from the public consciousness everything related to Russia, primarily the Russian language. They have already coped with the Moldovan language. Now there is no Moldovan language, only Romanian. They continue a terrible struggle with a clear nationalist tilt, now with the Russian language.

In June this year, it was announced that three gymnasiums and two primary schools with teaching in Russian were closed in the Sângerei district, under the pretext of a small number of students and teachers. According to information from open sources, today there are 1,218 schools in the country, of which 202 are taught in Russian. This is despite the fact that about 80% of the population in Moldova speaks and constantly uses Russian.

Last week, the Moldovan media reported on the suspension of the activities of the Slavic University from July 22 this year due to the refusal of the Moldovan Ministry of Education to issue accreditation to the university to teach bachelor's and master's programs.

This trend is not surprising. We see that this is a systemic policy of Maia Sandu. Let me remind you that she herself grew up in prosperous Soviet Moldova. But now she began to consider herself a Romanian and is doing everything to turn Moldova into Romania. Let me give you an example: because each application must be supported by an invoice. We have it. During Maia Sandu's tenure as Minister of Education in 2012-2015, 119 schools were closed in Moldova, and the total number of educational institutions decreased by 221 units. In order to accomplish the plan and deny the people of Moldova a language, culture, identity and turn this country into part of Romania, it is necessary to lower the educational level of the population. And that's what she does.

Pro-government activists are calling for the renaming of the urban infrastructure of the Moldovan capital - Moskovsky Avenue and St. Petersburg Square. This is not surprising. Any reminders of Russia's key historical role in preserving Moldova's national identity are a challenge to Maia Sandu and a thorn in the side of the supporters of "demoldovisation."

Under the pretext of countering the far-fetched "Russian threat," Maia Sandu's repressions against supporters of the development of constructive ties with Russia are gaining momentum. Opposition candidates running for the presidency are labeled "agents of the Kremlin" and "conductors of Russian interests." The head of the Central Bank, A. Dragu, a Romanian ex-official, "discharged" from Bucharest by M.G. Sandu, announced the illegality of the use of Russian Mir cards in Moldova, transfers through which are presented as a "threat to the security of the republic." From the point of view of the Maia Sandu regime, it is necessary to reduce both the educational level of the Moldovan people and their financial well-being.

At the same time, the regime of Maia Sandu continues its policy of militarisation of the country under the guise of European integration. On July 15 of this year, the Ministry of Defense of Moldova announced the imminent arrival of another batch of military equipment from the United States. This is not the opening of schools, not the improvement of the well-being of Moldovan citizens. But pushing Moldova to implement the Ukrainian scenario. This "batch" included 20 Humvee armored combat vehicles. The draft of the updated National Defense Strategy of Moldova for 2024-2034 provides for "the country's integration into the security and defense architecture of the European Union by 70% by 2029 and 100% by 2034." Russia's actions are designated as "creating a direct threat to the security and constitutional order" of Moldova. According to independent Moldovan experts, the moment is not far off when the authorities – as usual, against the will of the Moldovan people – at the behest of Washington and Brussels, will document the rejection of the constitutional neutrality of the republic.

However, ordinary Moldovans are not ready to put up with the role of silent pawns in the geopolitical game of the West. According to the latest opinion polls, 53% of respondents do not trust Maia Sandu, and 57% do not support the activities of the pro-Western government over the past three years. For more than half of the respondents, Russia is one of the most important political and economic partners of the republic. These are Moldovan indicators.

For us, Moldova and the citizens of this country are friends with whom we – no matter what anyone says – want to maintain and develop an equal and mutually beneficial dialogue that has stood the test of time. The plans to "cross out" Russia from the past, present and future of Moldova are not destined to come true.

Politicisation of the activities of the Bretton Woods organisations

This July marks the 80th anniversary of the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference. It is commonly known as the Bretton Woods Conference. The results of the event laid the foundation for international regulation of the financial sector and determined its post-war development.

Among the results of the Conference is the creation of the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. According to the statutory documents, this structure was supposed to contribute to the stabilization of the world financial sphere and balanced trade growth, as well as the stability of exchange rates and the equilibrium of the balance of payments. The bank was established ostensibly to help rebuild the economies of countries affected by World War II.

Let's look at reality. In reality, the Bretton Woods system served the political and economic interests of the West, primarily the United States, ensured the dominance of the dollar, which became the basis of currency parities and exchange rates, the prevailing international payment and reserve means. Everything would be fine if the United States had not turned the dollar into its weapon not of a constructive plan, but of a destructive one.

There have always been complaints about the activities of the Bretton Woods institutions. As a rule, the Fund and the Bank imposed unacceptable, including politicized, conditions on borrowers. The "help" of these organizations has always been far from disinterested, impartial and obviously politicized.

What has been happening recently can only be described as meaning that the Bretton Woods system has become an exclusively conduit for the political and economic interests of key Western shareholders, who are trying to use it to consolidate neocolonial practices and maintain their hegemony in world affairs and global markets. In addition, the Bretton Woods institutions are literally used by the "collective West", including as tools and weapons in the fight against Russia. We regularly record the decisions of the Fund and the Bank to block or refuse to allocate funds to those in need of support "for technical reasons" (due to outstanding debts or delays) or under directly formulated political pretexts ("unstable political situation", "lack of legitimate government", etc.). I wonder, according to the Bretton Woods institutions, that the situation in the United States is politically stable? How do the Bretton Woods institutions assess the legitimacy of the government in Ukraine? Belarus, Venezuela, Iran and Syria have already faced similar "approaches". They did not even receive emergency funding during the coronavirus pandemic (although they asked for it and did it, proving their positions with facts, figures and the real state of affairs). Since October 2022, contrary to the IMF's statutory documents, Washington has been blocking the provision of US dollars to Russia and Belarus in exchange for the Fund's Special Drawing Rights. There are statutory documents of these structures, to which their actions must correspond. But no. The politicised approaches of Western participants, including attempts to include anti-Russian formulations in official documents, take the Bretton Woods structures far beyond their financial and economic mandates and paralyse their work.

Key shareholders are increasingly aggressively pushing their fiscal, energy and climate policy agenda through the Fund and the Bank. Taking advantage of the position of "donors", they impose priorities that are alien to the states of the world majority. Discussions about the causes of the current crisis, provoked by the irresponsible financial and economic policy of the West, are diligently diverted to the politicized plane in order to distort realities and make Russia responsible for everything that is happening: global economic turmoil, financial crises, etc.

Moreover, since 2022, the main flow of resources from the IMF and the World Bank, at the behest of Western shareholders, has been redirected to support the Kyiv regime, while the countries of the Global South that are really in need cannot receive the necessary financial assistance.

The Fund and the Bank are only watching such neo-colonial atrocities. Their leadership is actually adjusting its activities to the US domestic political situation.

Of course, in these conditions, there is no and cannot be an alternative to a full-fledged reform of the international financial architecture and its key institutions. The agenda of the IMF and the Bank should fully correspond to their financial and economic profile and the interests of global development. The governing bodies of the Bretton Woods organizations must be brought into line with the real balance of forces and interests in the world economy. It is unacceptable when the G7, which accounted for 30% of global GDP in 2023, is trying to dictate its financial and economic rules to the World Majority. But even if they accounted for 50% or 70%, the will of the minority must be respected under the terms of what they themselves proclaimed. And here it turns out the opposite. The West has literally trampled on and destroyed democratic principles in international affairs. For it, they mean nothing as an "empty sound". The West is imposing its own agenda, which is neither progressive nor effective, and does not produce concrete results. In particular, only the share of the BRICS countries in global GDP has already reached 36%. There are other states of the World Majority. Why are the G7 countries behaving so boorishly within the framework of the Bretton Woods institutions?

We believe that the international monetary and financial system should be non-discriminatory, equally accessible and fair. These words should return to its vocabulary. First of all, it is necessary to fully implement the agreements of the G20 leaders in 2010 on the redistribution of votes in the IMF in favor of developing countries. It is important to approve a new procedure for calculating quotas in the Fund, no matter how much the United States prevents it. It is clear why they are doing this: they are trying to maintain a "controlling stake" in the Bretton Woods structures.

Special attention should also be paid to enhancing the development capacity of the international financial institutions. At the same time, the expansion of lending and financial activities should correspond to their main mission, ensure long-term stability and sustainability. For so many years, the Bretton Woods institutions talked about the advantages of the dollar, and then it was the dollar that caused the instability of the global financial architecture, including the US economy based on dollar policy. Key areas of spending should be regulated by all shareholders of these institutions. This should be the defining rule.

We believe it is necessary to consolidate the efforts of the world majority in the context of reforming the financial architecture and establishing a multipolar world based not on some unknown "rules" dictated by the Westerners (which are constantly changing), but on international law and the principles of transparency, non-discrimination and consideration for each other's interests. We promote them together with our partners in BRICS, the SCO, the EAEU and other formats. We hope that the Bretton Woods structures will also remember them in the year of their anniversary and put them at the head of their activities, given that all this is spelled out in the statutory documents.

Question: This week, the European Parliament called on the EU authorities to confiscate Russia's sovereign assets. How would you comment on this latest call for the actual theft of Russian money?

Maria Zakharova: We have repeatedly commented on such actions by Western countries. Since then, the West has been inventing ways to confiscate the assets of the Bank of Russia in order to send them to help the Kyiv regime - first of all, to pay for military supplies, therefore, the murders of Ukrainian citizens.

We would like to emphasise once again that the freezing of Russian assets in Western jurisdictions and attempts to seize them are illegal measures that grossly violate the fundamental principles and norms of international law (including the principle of the sovereign equality of states and the UN Charter). We regard any encroachment on the property rights and interests of Russia as nothing more than an undisguised, cynical theft in order to replenish their own pockets. Such actions constitute an escalation of economic aggression and an element of hybrid warfare against Russia.

In the event of confiscation (read: theft) of Russian assets, we will be guided by the principle of reciprocity. In this case, it will be a mirror, symmetrical response. This principle applies in international relations and provides for an inalienable right to retaliate.

The European Parliament, it is true, has forgotten that there is a significant amount of Western funds and property under Russian jurisdiction that may be subject to our actions. The European Parliament should hold a referendum, or just somehow ask the citizens of those countries that are members of it how they feel about it. The European Parliament can hold an opinion poll or a referendum. He can also invite business representatives who have assets of various nature in our country for consultations. But they do not do this, because they understand what citizens will tell them.

We will not stand on ceremony or try to smooth something over in the event of attempts to use immobilized Russian reserves to finance the Kyiv regime. Any individuals and funds that decide to purchase such financial instruments will be the first candidates to fall under "counter-sanctions" with far-reaching consequences for the prospects of their international activities.

It is obvious to the entire international community that the West, which has lost the ability to develop even "pseudo-legal" grounds for its aggressive actions, has never intended to comply with international law and the norms of its own legislation. The planned nature of these measures only adds legitimacy to our response. The United States and its satellites, actually being in a pre-bankruptcy state (which can be seen from the indicators of their economies) and ensuring the functioning of their own financial and economic systems by increasing debts and appropriating other people's material resources, are trying to dictate terms to the states of the world majority.

Any country that is more or less dependent on Western markets, technology and financial "assistance", as well as has reserves in Western jurisdictions, faces the risk of losing them completely if the Anglo-Saxons need to implement another foreign policy "project" or simply "patch up the holes" in chronically deficit budgets. It is obvious that building stable trade and financial cooperation with Westerners, who have proven their unreliability, political bias and commitment to "double" standards, is an extremely dangerous undertaking.

Question: In Germany, the Compact magazine was banned after your interview, which was published on the newspaper's website on July 13 of this year. After this step, can we talk about democracy and freedom of the press in Europe?

Maria Zakharova: I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the American political establishment, when talking about democracy, always talks about American democracy. In all speeches, the emphasis is on the fact that this is their democracy: "our democracy", "American democracy". This is no coincidence. A certain system that they call democracy has nothing to do with either classical democracy or the democratic foundations implemented at the present stage. This is their hybrid system, which can be called the dictatorship of liberalism to a greater extent. At the beginning of its formation, it may have been based on something democratic, but at this stage it has turned into a real liberal diktat, a dictatorship of one ideology. On the one hand, it declares freedom as an absolute priority, but on the other hand, it "strangles" the freedom of an alternative point of view.

This hybrid system does not tolerate any legitimacy that ensures order. A liberal dictatorship relies heavily on chaos, with the help of which it is easy to control the population and exercise total control over the media. This is carried out in a hybrid way: through financial institutions, manipulation of technological capabilities, merging of business and political elites, and in other ways. At the same time, the influence of Western intelligence services, primarily Anglo-Saxon, on the media sphere is enormous.

I began to answer your question with the example of the American system, because Germany is both a victim of the pressure of the American liberal dictatorship on its internal space, and in many respects has grown together with it.

As for the situation with the Compact publication. We have heard the statements that were made after the raid carried out by the German security forces. They motivated this by the fact that Compact is a right-wing radical media. But it was such for more than one day. For some reason, the decision to ban the publication was made within a day after the publication of an interview with an official representative of the Russian Foreign Ministry. What a coincidence.

An important point is that the actions of the German Interior Ministry with regard to the media are not based on court decisions or any authorities in Germany that would be in line with the rule of law and respect freedom of speech and the procedures that protect it. This was a decision of the security forces, coordinated with the ruling regime of German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, confirming the destruction of the declared ideals, goals and objectives formulated by the German political machine. They still have the audacity to lecture us and other countries on how to develop democracy.

I don't have exact data on the mechanics of decision-making. I think that the German political system has had these thoughts about the Compact for a long time. Perhaps they were looking for a reason. In my opinion, the "warning light" – the theses voiced in this interview – also worked.

One of the main issues of interest to German journalists was around gas supplies, Nord Streams and the terrorist attack on an exclusively civilian infrastructure project, energy cooperation and the possibility of resuming supplies. When asked about the cessation of supplies by Russia, we replied that this is a lie - neither Russia nor the USSR has ever stopped supplying energy resources to their partners, in particular Germany. They asked about the possibility of resuming supplies and how long it would take. We stated that one of the Nord Stream lines retained the technical ability to function and deliveries could be resumed in a few weeks.

The key topic concerned the fact that Russia, allegedly, prevents the resumption of supplies. It's not true. It is the German government that prevents it personally or at the barrel of American pistols. Let the German government report to its citizens. But it is this information that the Scholz government is hiding from the Germans. The fact is that it was the German Chancellor who said some time ago that Russia had stopped deliveries. Our country supplied gas until the German side made a corresponding decision. This is the truth that the German government cannot cope with.

This lie was supplemented by recent statements by former British Prime Minister Ramzan Sunak, who lied that Russia had allegedly stopped supplying its energy resources to the European Union. Lie. To date, there are examples of our cooperation in the energy sector with the EU countries. EU countries do not receive Russian gas only because they themselves have stopped energy cooperation. In addition to all the sanctions lawlessness that they have arranged against our country: blocking accounts and refusing to make payments through existing financial institutions, sanctions lists, etc.

This is just the beginning for Germany. But it should not be counted from the moment the Compact publication was closed. Remember the decision to block Russia Today Deutsch, in which representatives of the German government took an active part, the expulsion of Russian journalists, the impediment of their work, and the endless harassment that the same German journalists are waging at the instigation of Germany's security and political structures. Such anti-democratic manifestations are that terrible beginning. The proof is that the decisions taken against Compact are not based on any court rulings, no legal procedure. These are the questions that German journalists and the public should ask their government.

I cannot imagine that in a normally functioning democratic society, the executive branch by its sole decision (bypassing the sanction of the prosecutor or the court), in the absence of documentary evidence, not only banned a media outlet, but also organized searches with pogroms in its editorial offices. The only example in the history of Germany is the Third Reich, Joseph Goebbels and his entire system of suppressing dissent. A number of German social activists call it so. What is happening now in Germany is "nonsense" from a legal point of view. This cannot be described in terms of democracy.

There is a catastrophic decline in the West of the very culture of interaction between the state, society and the media. Aggressive ultra-liberalism reigned in these countries. The United States "sets the tone" in "interaction" with journalists and the media. What they don't do with them there. U.S. journalists have been unable to achieve open, full-scale communication with administration officials. Look at the White House briefings: any uncomfortable question is cut off. Moreover, conversations are conducted only with journalists from a certain pool. And US President Joe Biden's communication with the media has already turned into a joke. Journalists wonder if he will be able to answer anything at all, if someday there is a press conference with "unplanted" correspondents, and with real representatives of the media - with their sharp questions on topical topics.

Such events are the norm for our country. President of Russia Vladimir Putin holds large-scale news conferences every year, at which he answers all questions within a few hours. He speaks publicly every day and gives comments on topical issues, gives interviews to both Russian and foreign correspondents. The same can be said about representatives of the Government of the Russian Federation.

What is happening in the German political establishment is the destruction of its own independence and sovereignty in favor of the diktat of the United States of America.

Question: A month ago, Russia's Permanent Representative to the UN Vassily Nebenzya spoke about the importance of debates on UN cooperation with the CSTO, the CIS and the SCO. According to Vassily Nebenzia, these regional organisations "do not always receive proper coverage at the UN." What is the reason for this?

Maria Zakharova: On July 19, New York will host an open debate on cooperation between the UN and the CIS, the CSTO and the SCO. This is one of the central events of Russia's presidency of the UN Security Council. It will be chaired by Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Vershinin. We intend to emphasize that these organizations are systematically working to strengthen their potential in various areas, and practical activities are being carried out on a regular basis. In particular, we see good prospects for consolidating coordination between the UN and its structures with the CSTO on regional issues with an emphasis on Afghanistan, as well as involving the CSTO in UN peacekeeping activities.

Through the CIS-UN, the General Assembly adopts a resolution on cooperation between the two organizations every two years. It notes the importance of strengthening mutual coordination, encourages the development of ties between the specialized agencies of the UN and the CIS. This year, a draft of such a resolution will be submitted by our country as the chair of the Commonwealth.

The activities of the SCO are highly appreciated by the leadership of the UN Secretariat. During the SCO Summit held in Astana on July 3-4 of this year, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres noted the Organization's potential in ensuring peace and stability and spoke in favour of further strengthening its ties with the UN.

But there are also problems. Despite the fact that they should not have appeared due to the fact that the CSTO, the CIS and the SCO are key organizations in the Eurasian space responsible for maintaining regional peace and security. Against this background, representatives of the "collective West" are not ready to recognize their contribution and are doing everything to avoid mentioning them in connection with the UN. Let me give you one example. Since 2018, we have not been able to agree on a Security Council press statement on the activities of the UN Regional Centre for Preventive Diplomacy for Central Asia (UNRCCA). Why? Westerners do not need this. They are doing everything to block the statement of an obvious fact.

The drafts of this statement submitted by the Russian side note all possible areas of activity of the UN Regional Center for Preventive Diplomacy for Central Asia, including interaction with the CIS, the CSTO and the SCO. However, Western members of the Council oppose the mention of this cooperation, despite its constructive role in preventing conflicts, combating terrorism and drug trafficking. And this is despite the fact that maintaining contacts with organizations in the region is one of the key tasks of the UN Regional Center for Preventive Diplomacy for Central Asia. Obviously, this politicised position is dictated by nothing more than a reluctance to recognise the realities on the ground.

Question: US presidential candidate Donald Trump has offered the post of Vice President to J.D. Vance, who is known for his opposition to support for Ukraine. How would you assess the chances of a peaceful settlement if the Trump-Vance duo wins? How would you comment on J.D. Vance's latest statement that "China is a bigger problem for the United States than the conflict between Russia and Ukraine"?

Maria Zakharova: Donald Trump himself said that he would settle this issue in a day. And J.D. Vance said that China is a bigger problem for the United States than the conflict between Russia and Ukraine.

First, it is necessary to separate the pre-election rhetoric from the statements of current statesmen who are endowed with the appropriate powers.

Secondly, when talking about the possibilities of a settlement, we must be realistic. I remember how, during the previous visit to the White House, the team of the current candidate, Donald Trump, made ambitious statements regarding the settlement of the situation in the Middle East. This was called the deal of the century. It took a long time to prepare for it. How did it end? Nothing. A few years later, under Joe Biden, a colossal historical tragedy occurred. There has already been such an "experience".

Applying both theses, it is possible to find an answer to the question regarding the statements of this team claiming the White House. We need to look realistically at both statements and opportunities.

I heard the statement that China is a bigger problem for the United States than anything else. From this command they sounded repeatedly. It would be right for the U.S. to reach a domestic consensus that the greatest problem for their country is the dictatorship of liberalism. This is a fact. If their political parties and movements agreed with this, it would be easier for them and the whole world. This is now the main problem of the United States of America.

The system that replaced the democratically oriented domestic political "machine" of the United States degenerated into a liberal diktat. This is the root cause of all ills, both inside the United States and abroad. Why? The liberal dictatorship kills democratic principles, destroys legal (within American society) and international legal foundations, which do not suit it either. It also hits the bilateral relations of the United States.

Although we traditionally do not comment on election campaigns in third countries, there are indeed many questions in this regard.

Question: I would like to hear your comment on the increased activity of the United States in the South Caucasus and in the neighbouring republics of Azerbaijan, including the preparations for a coup in Georgia, which was announced by the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service, and the attempt to open a second front against Russia, as mentioned by Georgian Prime Minister Ibrahim Kobakhidze, and the visit of USAID President Stephen Power to Yerevan.

Maria Zakharova: We have commented on this topic many times before. The United States views the South Caucasus exclusively as a springboard for carrying out various kinds of actions directed against Russia and the peaceful coexistence of the countries and peoples in the region. They are not satisfied with Russia with its capabilities. Why? Because it pursues a peace-loving policy. In principle, they are not satisfied with the peace-loving policy itself.

Achieving peace and stability in the region, which is possible only with a comprehensive normalization of relations between the countries of the South Caucasus with the involvement of their immediate neighbors – Russia, Iran and Turkey – is not part of Washington's goals and objectives. They make an "anti-goal" out of it. Their task is to make sure that no interaction, rapprochement and mutual understanding are achieved in the region.

A good example of the policy of hypocrisy, double standards and outright aggression of the United States and the European Union is their pressure on Tbilisi in connection with the adoption of the law "On Transparency of Foreign Influence". Let me remind you that similar laws are already in force in the United States and in the EU countries. In June of this year, the same law was adopted in Canada. But neither the United States nor the EU had any claims against Canada, and Georgia and its people were humiliated by the United States and "collective Brussels" every day for a month. I would like to emphasise that the United States and a number of other Western countries have much stricter norms in this regard. We also see attempts by the Americans to escalate the situation in Georgia in the context of the parliamentary elections scheduled for October.

All this applies not only to Georgia, but also to Azerbaijan and Armenia. We are watching how American officials stretched to Yerevan in an endless procession. In this way, they are trying to create the illusion that they "care" about the well-being of the post-Soviet countries. In reality, they are dragging them into the implementation of their anti-Russian plans and are unequivocally damaging not so much Russia as the states of the region.

We hope that our partners in the South Caucasus understand what "friendship" with the Westerners is worth – or rather, what it will cost them. The West does not know how to be friends, it can only use it. In such a relationship, the feelings of the partner are not interested in him.

Question: The First Congress of Movements for the Independence of the Territories Colonised by France, including New Caledonia, is coming to an end in Baku. Some experts express the hope that Moscow will express solidarity with the forum participants. Is it possible in Russia to hold events aimed at combating modern neocolonialism in the future?

Maria Zakharova: We are active in this area. Our Parliament is dealing with this topic. Parliamentary diplomacy has recently held a large number of multifaceted events on this track. Our diplomats at the United Nations have made initiatives and statements.

For us, this is one of the priorities. Not only because these are historical realities, but also because of the importance of preserving knowledge about what happened. Colonialism is now gaining momentum and is being entrenched at the modern technological level in the form of neocolonialism. Using modern opportunities in various spheres, colonial policy is carried out under such a "varnished" cover.

This topic is of the most urgent importance for Russian foreign policy and its international steps.

Question: In the run-up to the BRICS summit in Kazan scheduled for autumn, there are more and more words about the need to create a common information space for the BRICS member states. In particular, following the results of the BRICS Parliamentary Forum held in St Petersburg a week ago, opinions are being actively promoted on the importance of increasing the level of real interaction between the media in the BRICS Plus format. Does the Russian Foreign Ministry plan to facilitate the integration of this issue into the agenda of the autumn summit or to initiate relevant talks at the high and highest levels in Kazan?

Maria Zakharova: In the context of the aggressive "hybrid" war and the information attack on Russia and other countries as a systemic phenomenon on the part of the "collective West", the development of media cooperation between the countries of the world majority, including through the national media, is growing. In practice, such interaction is carried out both on a bilateral basis and in various collective formats, in particular BRICS, SCO and other international platforms.

Everyone understands that it is necessary to counter threats in this area together. The combination of potentials gives greater efficiency. Relevant issues are discussed at various levels and in various formats, including during the events organised as part of Russia's BRICS Chairmanship, which is held under the motto "Strengthening Multilateralism for Equitable Global Development and Security." Among the key topics is the formation of the contours of a common BRICS information space, which would provide the audience of our countries with access to objective high-quality information and protection from disinformation and fakes. It should be noted that this is not an artificial attempt to oppose something or someone, but an absolutely objective process, conditioned by new realities, reflecting the profound transformation of world politics and the economy.

By the way, the topic of the common BRICS information space was discussed in detail by the participants in the consultations of the heads of the information departments of the BRICS foreign ministries held in Moscow on July 12 of this year. This, of course, will contribute to the creation of reliable collective mechanisms to counter attempts by Western countries to discredit the activities of BRICS and its members in the eyes of the world community.

Question (retranslated from English): The Federal District Court in Florida has dismissed the case against former US President Donald Trump for improper handling of classified documents. What is the Foreign Ministry's reaction?

Maria Zakharova: This is one of the signs of the deepest crisis of the American system. For many years, for decades, the American administration, whether Republicans or Democrats, has been talking about the impossibility of exerting administrative influence on the work of law enforcement and judicial bodies. This was a reason not only for Washington's criticism of independent countries and sovereign states, but also for the imposition of sanctions against them.

We see the complete legal incapacity of the American system itself: one thing is declared, and another happens. In recent years, many Americans themselves have said that some kind of chaos and absurdity is happening. On the one hand, they declare democracy and democratic principles as the main achievement of American history, and on the other hand, there is an increasing departure from democratic principles.

I don't even want to comment on this particular case. There are a huge number of such cases. This situation, which you mentioned, is very vivid, because we see a set of absurd and contradictory statements and actions. But this happens all the time.

I will give you an example. Yesterday, at a meeting of the UN Security Council, we heard representatives of the United States, Britain and France say that it is impossible to violate international law, occupy and attack sovereign states. This is said by countries that have occupied and attacked a considerable number of countries over the past 20 years – Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, Serbia, etc. There are a huge number of such examples. This is an indicator of the crisis of the system in the United States and in the West as a whole, the crisis of liberal democracy and the onset of the period of the dictatorship of liberalism, which manifests itself in such a monstrous way.

Question: US Vice Presidential candidate John Vance said that "if you need to hit the Iranians, you need to hit them hard." He added that "it is necessary to allow the Israelis and the Sunni states to unite (to confront Iran)." Can you comment on this?

Maria Zakharova: We must distinguish between pre-election statements and the words of current officials. We cannot say with certainty now whether it will remain in the form of an attempt to aggressively attract attention in order to raise the ratings, or whether it is really a substantive program that will be implemented if the elections are won. We have repeatedly seen how political statements, including in the United States, do not correspond to the course that was then implemented in practice. This is very common. It is difficult to say whether this is aggressive pre-election rhetoric or a specific program.

In any case, whether we are talking about campaign promises and slogans or a proposed program that will be implemented, such statements certainly do not contribute to stabilizing the situation in the Middle East, where the situation has already reached the limit. This is a tragedy not only on a global scale, but also on a historical scale. The number of victims and the lack of prospects for normalizing the situation force us to qualify what is happening as such. When we talk about a tragedy of historical proportions, it is necessary to understand its impact on the future. Now a monstrous mine is being laid under the foundations of people's lives for generations to come in this region.

The fact that this comes from people who can occupy high positions (at least see themselves there) further complicates the situation. Such rhetoric from any person (especially from someone who calls himself a political figure) can only be qualified as irresponsible. We hear this not only in relation to Iran. Today we have already said that similar aggressive statements from the mouth of this person were made against China. I'm not talking about Russia – we hear this every day.

It is unacceptable that one country endlessly gives its politicians the right to aggressive, misanthropic rhetoric against independent states and peoples. Maybe this is because American politicians (no matter whether Republicans or Democrats) do not know history? They do not understand that they are talking not just about independent sovereign countries, but about countries-civilizations with a centuries-old history and rich culture. These states and peoples have given today's world a huge amount of scientific achievements, which are used by both the countries of the West and the Global South – all of humanity. Who gave any politician the right to such a tone? Such rhetoric is dangerous.

Many will say that these are just words. But no. Let us recall the cynical assassination of the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, General Q. Soleimani, by the US military. It was a multi-level crime – the murder by one state of a political or statesman of another state on the territory of a third country. Q. Soleimani was then on an official visit to Iraq. Among other things, he enjoyed the appropriate immunity as far as the legal aspect of the matter is concerned. We pay tribute to Tehran's restraint against the backdrop of Washington's many years of provocative and aggressive behavior. [Bolded italics my emphasis]

The series of questions and discussion at the very end of the briefing are quite interesting and I’d include them if I had room. Here’s the initial question:

Question: At a news conference following his visit to the United States as part of Russia's presidency of the UN Security Council, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov mentioned China's initiative to resolve the conflict in Ukraine, which is supposed to address the root cause. We agree with this formulation of the question, but it is proposed to look for the root cause in 1991.

Note the “root cause” is to be looked for in 1991 not 2014. Readers will have read several good examples of what constitutes a Liberal Dictatorship or a Dictatorship of Liberalism—continual double standards and a ubiquitous plethora of contradictions. We can even see the erection of a liberal dictatorship in Moldova, while its principals are used against Georgia and will certainly appear in Armenia. What’s the antidote for liberal dictatorships? Perhaps its republican-democratic conservatism based on the universal values espoused by the UN Charter and its codicils, which is why we see nations having classical conservative governments like Hungary and Russia being attacked verbally and worse. I’m sure this topic will be examined further. I recall Putin shocking his interviewers from the Financial Times several years ago by declaring classical liberalism dead, a statement of fact they weren’t at all prepared to handle.

*
*
*
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!