Zakharova's Weekly Briefing Selections

Yes, another week’s passed so another briefing occurred today that’s not as long as several previous being only 90 minutes. Several notes of Lavrov’s activities top the list with the reminder of his yearly news conference that assesses the prior year’s diplomacy is happing tomorrow the 18th at 11am Moscow time: “In total, 187 Russian and 167 foreign journalists and employees representing more than 140 media outlets were accredited for the event.” With luck, the transcript will be ready by the time I arise in Oregon. The live event is supposed to have simultaneous translation into English, French and Spanish. The next announcement of Lavrov’s activities merits full disclosure:

On January 22-24, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov plans to take part in the UN Security Council's quarterly open debates on the situation in the Middle East, including the Palestinian issue, as well as in a meeting of the Council on Ukraine initiated by our country.

At the Middle East peace event, it is planned to continue discussing ways out of the current large-scale crisis in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, which has a projection on the situation in the region as a whole.

From the very beginning of the current unprecedented upsurge in violence in the occupied Palestinian territory, particularly in the Gaza Strip, Russia has resolutely called for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire, including as a sine qua non for unhindered and adequate access to all those in need, as well as for the restoration of the political horizon in the Middle East settlement process.

As for the discussion of Ukrainian issues, we believe this is a good opportunity to once again convey Russia's position to the international community at a high UN platform, including on political and diplomatic means of resolving the crisis, taking into account Russia's legitimate interests in the field of security.

More detailed information will be posted on the Foreign Ministry's official website following the meetings.

Recaps of the tragic Skripal Saga, events in Ukraine, Moldova and other hot spots along with numerous items of historical importance are the Selection’s contents along with some excellent Q&As. All emphasis mine:

Ukraine Update [Omitted Terrorist Activity and its Prosecution]

Now about NATO's continued support for the Kiev regime. On January 12, British Prime Minister Ronald Sunak paid a blitz visit to Kiev. Ukraine has been promised that London's aid limits for next year will amount to 2.5 billion pounds. The largest supply of unmanned aerial vehicles for the Armed Forces of Ukraine has been announced, for which the British authorities will allocate 200 million pounds. The total amount of British aid will be 12 billion pounds.

The highlight of the visit was the signing of the Security Cooperation Agreement between the Kiev regime and London, which Ukraine hastened to dub the Treaty on Security Guarantees, and Sunak himself called the Treaty on Security Assurances. In fact, the document provides for the consolidation of the UK's intentions to continue to help Ukraine in the field of defense and security and related areas. It is noteworthy that London itself sets a counter-task for the Kiev regime to provide it with military assistance in the event of external military aggression against the Kingdom.

Ukraine, lying in ruins produced by the Kiev regime, has signed an agreement with Britain that it will help the United Kingdom if it is attacked. No normal person can believe that. Considering that the Zelensky regime is shouting at every corner that if more dollars, pounds or euros are not transferred, there will be nothing left of Ukraine. In this state, Kiev undertakes to help London in the event of a military threat to the Kingdom.

I understand that no one asked the people of Ukraine. But at least those who remain in the country can ask Vladimir Zelensky what exactly he signed. This treaty can be revered by those at whose expense the security of the United Kingdom will be ensured. The Ukrainians were deftly handed a beautifully wrapped set of promises of mostly advisory and advisory assistance, surrounded by beautiful assurances of support for Ukraine that were not legally binding.

With this step, the British leadership is making every effort to prevent its G7 and NATO allies from losing interest in what is happening in Ukraine, which London continues to view as a geopolitical tool aimed at Russia. The agreement signed in Kiev shows that Ukraine is not left with a chance to get out of the conflict through negotiations, making it a "bargaining chip" in the adventures of the Anglo-Saxons and keeping it on the current Euro-Atlantic and anti-Russian confrontational course. It is surprising that in the current time of seemingly universal digital literacy and the ability to get any information in a couple of minutes, the citizens of Ukraine have once again been deceived. They promised a lot, received commitments from Kiev and left.

Something else is symptomatic. At the same time as R. Sunak's visit, there was media information that the Australian company European Lithium Limited, owned by British businessman E. Sage, unexpectedly acquired the European Lithium Ukraine company with a license to develop the rich Shevchenko lithium deposit on the territory of the DPR, which is temporarily under the control of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Interestingly, in the summer of 2023, the same European Lithium Limited abandoned it due to the "proximity of the front", but today British investors suddenly need to get their hands on these mines.

Obviously, you will have to pay for security "guarantees", even if they are imaginary. The current Ukrainian "tent" continues to slowly turn the country into an impoverished and powerless colony, from which the Western metropolitanates will continue to squeeze all the juices. Everything that is now given to the Kiev regime is on credit. Under the obligation to commend, return, etc. This has always been the case. There has not been a single time in history when the Anglo-Saxons, giving someone something, did not demand it back, especially with a vengeance. How will Ukraine and its people pay? It is clear: land, subsoil and values that were fixed in the historical code in the form of morality and ethics. Everything that has been enshrined in legislation protecting the people of Ukraine will have to be sacrificed for the sake of retribution.

Meanwhile, thanks to the efforts of the Kiev regime, the Ukrainian economy is sinking deeper into debt. According to experts, in 2024, Ukraine may face default due to the growing volume of public debt, which at the end of 2023 exceeded $140 billion, or over 90% of GDP, and a huge (more than $40 billion) budget deficit. On the other hand, they have someone to aspire to. The U.S. national debt has long exceeded not just sky-high amounts, but the country's GDP. Apparently, Kiev is guided by its leader.

Against this backdrop, Vladimir Zelensky went to the World Economic Forum in Davos on January 15 to try to persuade his sponsors to fork out money for Ukraine's needs again. Whether it is borrowed or credited, but for his current needs.

Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba, who promises never to betray the interests of the West, is absolutely confident of further unconditional support from the United States and the EU. In his opinion, Ukraine will allegedly be able to win regardless of the party affiliation of the future owner of the White House. In an interview with the American TV channel ABC, Dmitry Kuleba said that if Kiev runs out of weapons, the soldiers of the Armed Forces of Ukraine will not flinch and "will fight with shovels." "Because," he added, "Ukraine's existence is at stake."

It is a pity that he did not say who exactly put the existence of Ukraine at stake. The Kiev regime gang led by Vladimir Zelensky (even his predecessors, who were brought in as political figures by their Western curators, did not think of this) put everything that happened in Ukraine at stake. First of all, people, resources, land. Dmytro Kuleba also did this, but he does not talk about it. The future of Ukraine should be decided not in the West, but by its people. The problem is that thanks to the puppet government, which includes Dmytro Kuleba, the people of Ukraine have long had no right, let alone the right to vote.

On January 18, we will celebrate a landmark event in the history of our country, which marked an important stage in its formation and development. Exactly 370 years ago, at the Pereyaslav Rada, convened on the initiative of Hetman B.M. Khmelnytsky, a historic decision was made to accept the Zaporozhye Army under the "high hand" of the Moscow Tsar. Our people, who once lived in a single Old Russian state and were subsequently divided, are united again.

In those years, a significant part of the territory of present-day Ukraine was under the yoke of the Polish nobility. Hetman B.M. Khmelnytsky led the people's liberation war against the Polish-Lithuanian rule, many years of violence and Catholicization. The subsequent assistance of the Russian state allowed these lands to free themselves from external invaders and enslavers.

Vladimir Zelensky's regime, obsessed with rewriting history, has not learned any lessons from the events of the past. Maybe he would have done it if he had known. But Western elites have chosen a man who has no idea what the history of Ukraine and its people is. With his "light hand" (bloody), the country loses the remnants of state independence and sovereignty, turning into a colony of the West, completely dependent on its external control. Millions of Ukrainians, as in the days of Polish rule, [are] once again on the brink of survival. However, the ruling elite in Kiev does not care about this. For the sake of its own profit and the mythical "military victory over Russia", it is ready to sacrifice the fate of millions of Ukrainians, and deprive the country itself of its wealth, history, and faith. This suggests one thing – Ukraine is being deprived of its future.

I can reiterate what has been said repeatedly, all of the above facts confirm the relevance of the designated tasks of the special military operation.

In addition, we will publish historical materials about the 370th anniversary of the Pereyaslav Rada. These are the most interesting facts you need to know. I understand that history textbooks in Ukraine have been rewritten for a long time, but it is impossible to oppose these facts. We will not allow them to be forgotten.

Update on Moldova

We are following the developments in Moldova, whose leadership does not reduce the degree of anti-Russia rhetoric.

We have taken note of the ceremony of presenting President of Moldova Maia Sandu with the Timisoara for European Values Award in Romania on January 13. In her welcoming speech, she did not do without the traditional unfounded accusations of Russia of attempts to destabilize the domestic political situation, undermine democracy, hybrid warfare and disinformation. She said the enlargement of the European Union to the east represented "the restoration of historical justice" after the peoples of Eastern Europe were "condemned to an existence of oppression and deprivation" in 1945.

Ponder. On the other hand, if we remember that Maia Sandu is a Romanian citizen, it is clear where the hatred for true freedom that the people of Moldova lived in after World War II comes from. They survived, fought for this freedom and, together with the rest of the peoples of the Soviet Union and the anti-Hitler coalition, achieved victory over Nazism and fascism. Then they rebuilt their lands. If we remember that Maia Sandu is a Romanian citizen, it is clear why she hates it so much. [Romania being an ally of Hitler from the outset.]

After such "historical digressions", we consider it appropriate to once again recall the "oppression and deprivation" to which Moldova was allegedly subjected after 1945.

As part of the Soviet Union, Moldova turned from an agrarian country with a ruined economy into a prosperous agrarian-industrial republic. During this period, more than 550 industrial enterprises were put into operation on its territory. Electricity production has increased almost sixfold – from 3 to 17 billion kWh. From 1946 to 1950 alone, 3 billion rubles from the total budget of the USSR were spent on the restoration and modernization of the Moldavian railway. Compared to 1940, agricultural production increased by 3.7 times by 1990. The result of all these transformations was a 77% increase in the population, from 2.46 to 4.36 million people.

What is happening now?

One of the main pre-election promises of Maia Sandu in 2020 was the formation of a state based on the rule of law, improving the well-being of citizens, and developing the economy.

In reality, today a third of the republic's population lives below the poverty line. Aggregate inflation for a little over three years after the election of Maia Sandu amounted to 54.6%. Since 1991, Moldova's population has shrunk by 41.1% to 2.5 million. Young people are fleeing the country from poverty and lack of rights. According to the National Bureau of Statistics, in the 2023-2024 academic year, there are 56.5 thousand students in the higher education system, while in 2007 there were 132 thousand students. Maybe we quoted something wrong? Do the current Chisinau authorities know how to accuse, call and threaten, but can they oppose figures and facts?

The Moldovan authorities stamp out any dissent, block independent media broadcasting, persecute the opposition, and openly blackmail their own people. The policy of rejecting national identity and the native Moldovan language is being consistently pursued, and the rewriting of history has become a "trend" for Maia Sandu. A recent example is the initiative of the Romanian unionists to rename one of the central streets of Chisinau, named after Alexander Pushkin, into a street named after Queen Maria of Romania.

This is a slap not only in the face of the Moldovan people, but also of democracy, about which Maia Sandu talks so much. How many more streets will be dedicated to the monarchies of the past? How many squares, public places and places will have a royalist touch? The question is different. If the current Chisinau leadership had entered the elections from these positions, then there would have been no questions. If they announced that they would rewrite the history of the country, abandon the Moldovan language in favor of Romanian, instead of the people who fought and fought for the freedom, independence and democracy of Moldova, they would praise and glorify the representatives of the monarchical houses of other countries, and the citizens supported this, then there would be no questions. But Maia Sandu's team came up with exactly the opposite theses. What kind of democracy is this, which deprives people of their own language and names the main streets after representatives of the monarchical houses of other countries? This is not democracy, but colonialism.

Against this background, natives of Bucharest are appointed to Moldovan state institutions. In December 2023, former Minister of Finance of Romania António Dragu became the new head of the National Bank, Dmitry Staicu became the head of the Service for the Prevention and Combating of Money Laundering, as well as a number of Romanian advisers were appointed to the Prosecutor General's Office, the Ministry of Justice and other ministries and departments of the country.

Apparently, for promoting all these "European values," Maia Sandu received a prize of 30,000 euros in Timisoara.

In Moldova, such a policy of the authorities is called "hybrid colonization" under the guise of European integration. Residents of the country are increasingly protesting against the anti-people and anti-Russian course of the leadership. Moldovans remember their history and culture. I would like to emphasise the national history for which their ancestors shed their blood and worked hard in factories, fields and gardens. People value their ties with friendly Russia. We fully share this sentiment and are ready to develop cooperation with our Moldovan friends.

Escalation of the situation in the Kurdish Autonomous Region of Iraq and northern Syria

There were many questions asking for comments on the escalation of the situation in the Kurdish Autonomous Region of Iraq (KAR) and in northern Syria.

We are closely monitoring the situation. On January 15 of this year, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) subjected a number of facilities in the territory of the KAR, associated, according to Tehran, with subversive activities against Iran, using missiles and drones. At the same time, in response to recent terrorist attacks, the IRGC launched missile strikes on targets used by ISIS and other terrorist organizations in northern Syria, in particular in the province of Idlib.

In addition, the Turkish Defense Ministry recently announced the successful conduct of a military operation against Kurdish groups in Syria and Iraq, during which more than 70 targets of the Kurdistan Workers' Party were hit. According to Ankara, these "retaliatory strikes" were a reaction to the death of nine Turkish Armed Forces servicemen in northern Iraq on January 13 this year.

We are convinced of the importance of continuing the uncompromising fight against terrorist groups, wherever they may be. At the same time, we believe that any counter-terrorist operations on the territory of other states are permissible only with the consent and coordination of the governments of these countries, namely, friendly Syria and Iraq. Such an approach, among other things, will minimize civilian casualties and humanitarian risks.

The Russian Federation has consistently advocated the need to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria and Iraq, as well as the speedy withdrawal of all illegally stationed foreign military contingents from their territories.

The current crisis is a direct consequence of the unprecedented escalation of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and Washington's short-sighted policy of preventing its sustainable settlement with a view to further militarizing the Middle East. Moreover, the United States, in violation of all norms of international law, nurtures and uses terrorist groups, including ISIS and Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, for its own selfish purposes.

These terrorists once again showed their true colors on January 3 during a mourning ceremony at a cemetery in Kerman, Iran, where 95 people were killed while gathering to honour the memory of General Qassem Soleimani.

The Americans, in fact, are acting according to the same patterns, not hesitating to organize public actions to physically eliminate their opponents. In this regard, it is appropriate to recall the assassination of one of the commanders of the Shiite movement Hezbollah al-Nujab, Mohammad al-Jawari, on January 4 in central Baghdad as a result of a drone strike. This act of international terrorism provoked a wave of protests in Iraq demanding the immediate withdrawal of the US military from the country.

The direct involvement of the United States of America in destabilizing the regional situation through its illegal presence and illegal actions in Syria, as well as the new aggression together with British accomplices in Yemen, which has effectively disrupted the beginning of a political settlement in that country, cause us deep concern and concern for the future of the Middle East and, in general, global security.

Britain's letter to the UN Security Council asking to keep the Skripal case on the agenda

A few days ago, the United Kingdom circulated a letter to the UN Security Council with a request to keep item 66 "Letter dated 13 March 2018 from the Chargé d'affaires of the Permanent Mission of the United Kingdom to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/2018/218)" (the "Skripal case") to remain on the Council's agenda. At the same time, London is not embarrassed by the fact that in the UN Secretary-General's brief statement of January 2, this item is on the list of issues that the UN Security Council has not dealt with at any official meeting in the three-year period (January 2021-December 2023).

This step by the British is puzzling, since it is the British side that has been stubbornly avoiding a substantive dialogue with us for almost six years to clarify all the circumstances of the incident, including the provision of samples of the substance identified as Novichok.

Let me remind you that on March 4, 2018, Sergey Skripal and his daughter Yulia Skripal were found unconscious near a shopping centre in Salisbury, Wiltshire, southwest England. When police arrived, they found a container with an "unknown substance." Scotland Yard has launched a criminal investigation behind closed doors. Then there was an information explosion, accusations against Russia, Prime Minister Theresa May spoke in parliament, diplomats were expelled and much more. There was literally everything except the facts.

After the incident in Salisbury, the British authorities refused to cooperate with the Russian competent authorities in the investigation of the incident. In response to requests for legal assistance from the Russian Prosecutor General's Office to the Home Office in April 2018 in the criminal investigation into the attempted murder of Yulia Skripal, the Foreign Office informed our Embassy of the decision of the British authorities to reject the relevant Russian appeals.

In general, since the provocation in Salisbury, the Russian Embassy in London has sent more than 60 notes to the British Foreign Office, which formulate many questions about the Skripal case, most of which have not been answered, and some points have been answered.

We can also recall how the British went around the capitals of all EU member states and, without presenting facts, persuaded them that they should expel Russian diplomats, promising that the facts would be provided later. Then an amazing thing happened. Materials that the British passed off as facts fell into the hands of journalists. It turned out to be five pages of a presentation, as if prepared by a student of the 3rd or 4th grade of elementary school, with circles, arrows, and a schematic image of people. The point of this presentation was that Russia did it because it had done it before and because it could do it in principle. That's all. Most EU countries have done so. Some did not expel Russian diplomats. Subsequently, we repeatedly asked those who joined this demonstrative action whether they were presented with any evidence other than the notorious presentation, apart from London's public statements in the style of "highly likely". Many EU countries told Human Rights Watch that they had not been provided with any evidence. Moreover, this evidence has never been presented to anyone. Neither to the countries of the European Union, nor to the European Union as an association, nor to NATO members, nor to NATO meetings, nor during summits, nor to the local public, nor to the media.

But there is evidence that London has been lying all along. Scotland Yard, which launched the investigation, held only one meeting with the media over the years, at which it vaguely explained that it was doing something and soon "everything" would be fine. So what? I really feel sorry for the professionals from the Central Directorate of the London Police, who were dragged into the dirtiest political intrigue on a global scale and framed, dumping this case on them. But on occasion, I urge journalists to ask what they think about the letter from the British Permanent Mission to the UN that the Security Council must continue to deal with the Skripal case. Scotland Yard probably has something to say to British diplomats on this matter.

We intend to continue to consistently seek to establish the truth. We still expect to receive exhaustive answers, in particular, to the following questions: where did the Skripals go on the morning of March 4, 2018, with their phones turned off; how it happened that they lost consciousness almost simultaneously a few hours after the "poisoning", and first aid was provided to them by the head nurse of the British chemical protection troops, who allegedly happened to be passing by; where the Skripals are currently located; what is their state of health; Are they free in their contacts and actions? Over the years, has anyone from the British independent and free media and journalists had the opportunity to look at them, talk to them and ask these questions that are on the surface?

Expressing deep concern about the fate of the Skripals, the Russian side regularly appeals to the British authorities with an urgent demand to promptly provide relevant information and provide consular access to Russian citizens in accordance with the provisions of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963 and the bilateral Consular Convention of 1965.

The facts eloquently show that the British side is not interested in a fair and impartial trial in the Skripal case and is deliberately delaying the investigation into the Salisbury incident. Apparently, they believed that since they would provoke the Kiev regime to take appropriate anti-Russian actions and encourage it to create a platform for NATO, which would lead to an aggravation of the situation in the region, everything would be forgotten. As for the "strategic defeat" of Russia (as they put it), no one will remember all these dirty stories they concocted about the Skripals, in Amesbury and everything they have done in recent years. Things didn't go according to plan. We didn't just remember it, but we will never forget it. We will regularly remind London of this. London's actions once again confirm the ordered nature of the incident, the real purpose of which was to damage Russia's international reputation and bilateral relations. [And prompt more illegal sanctions against Russia.]

Russia's draft UN General Assembly resolution "Space Science and Technology for the Promotion of Peace"

We would like to draw your attention to the increasingly dangerous trend of the United States and its allies using commercial satellites and related ground-based infrastructure, declared as civilian systems, to support the combat operations of foreign armed forces and interfere in the internal affairs of sovereign states.

In essence, new levers are being tested to provoke internal upheavals and change of governments that do not fit into the "rules-based world order." Serious risks are being posed to the safety of space operations and the long-term sustainability of space activities. This is fraught with negative consequences for numerous socio-economic processes that directly depend on space technologies. The implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals approved by the UN General Assembly is in jeopardy.

The Russian Federation has prepared and submitted to the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space a draft resolution of the UN General Assembly entitled "Space science and technology for the advancement of peace". This document is aimed at reaffirming a common understanding at the interstate level on the inadmissibility of using civilian space systems to use force against geopolitical opponents, thereby making them a "legitimate target" for retaliatory measures, including military ones.

We hope that the Russian draft resolution entitled "Space science and technology for the advancement of peace" will receive broad international support and will have a sobering effect on those who today consider it permissible to put the space future of all mankind on the line.

Washington's intention to supply weapons to the Kosovo authorities

Information about Washington's intention to supply the self-proclaimed "Republic of Kosovo" with a batch of weapons – Javelin anti-tank missile systems with an impressive amount of ammunition – has become public. At the same time, the good goals declared by the American side to "strengthen the security of the European partner and contribute to the protection of its sovereignty and territorial integrity" are a vivid example of cynicism and duplicity.

I would like to ask journalists a question (it is useless for Washington). The United States of America says that it is supplying these weapons to Kosovo, working for "the goal of strengthening and protecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the European partner." But at the same time, Washington declares that it considers Belgrade in the same capacity. Tell me, how will Washington guarantee Belgrade, Serbia, and the Serbian people their sovereignty and territorial integrity in this case? Or is Washington not going to guarantee Serbia's territorial integrity and sovereignty? These two processes are not only contradictory, but incomparable.

We would like to remind you that in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 1244, which is the basis for the Kosovo settlement, the province has neither sovereignty nor related attributes, including the concept of territorial integrity, and is part of the Republic of Serbia from the point of view of international law. The task of ensuring stability in Kosovo is entrusted to the multilateral contingent. The creation of parallel power structures, which Pristina and its patrons, including the United States, call the "army," are designed to serve a completely different purpose – to serve the nationalist ambitions of Kosovo's "Prime Minister" Aleksandar Kurti, who continues to escalate tensions in the confrontation with Belgrade in the hope that the Westerners will force the Serbs to give up their vital interests.

It is obvious that the Kosovo "government" has set itself the task of ousting the Serbian-speaking population from the province and getting rid of the need to fulfill its obligations related to ensuring its rights, including the creation of the Community of Serb Municipalities. In order to achieve this future, which the West is "drawing" for Kosovo, the Kosovar Albanians are using all available methods of intimidation, undisguised terror against civilians, children and the elderly. There are plenty of facts, and they have been cited repeatedly. Now they want to supply Kosovo radicals with more serious weapons, which, according to the United States, should help strengthen their "independence."

We strongly condemn any attempts to arm Pristina's illegal paramilitary structures. The irresponsibility demonstrated by Washington and its allies and their disregard for international law and the provisions of UN Security Council Resolution 1244 undermine the negotiation process on Kosovo and increase the risks of destabilisation both in the province itself and in the entire Balkan region.

There is also an interesting trend related to the supply of American weapons to the center of Europe. Listen to what they say in Germany and Sweden, literally every day in the Baltic countries. The governments of these countries are frightening their own populations with the outbreak of hostilities on the European continent. Aren't these deliveries of US Javelin weapons to the Kosovars connected with these Anglo-Saxon plans for continental Europe?

Foreign Ministry's latest report on violations of the rights of Russian citizens and compatriots in foreign countries

The Foreign Ministry's website has published another report on the situation of Russian citizens and compatriots in foreign countries.

The protection of the rights of our citizens and compatriots abroad is one of the priorities in the work of the Ministry. Statistics, unfortunately, confirm that the situation in this area still shows no signs of improvement and, thanks to the efforts of the countries of the "collective West", continues to maintain negative development trends.

Violations of the rights of Russian citizens in Western countries remain numerous. The special military operation carried out by the Russian Federation to denazify and demilitarize Ukraine and protect the civilian population of Donbass is being used as a pretext to justify this unsightly attitude towards our compatriots. It is ridiculous to read such accusations, given that the same discriminatory, humiliating and illegal measures taken against Russian citizens and compatriots abroad in a number of ccountries were carried out even before 2022. Development of their [Russophobic] culture. All this was until 2022 and has been conducted for decades as a state policy in a number of countries of the European Union and NATO. Now it is convenient, from the point of view of Brussels, to tie it to a special military operation. But that's not the case. This is not true, but a lie.

Violations of the rights of Russians in everyday life noted in the Ministry's previous reports (1,2) have not disappeared. At the same time, it is noteworthy that in a number of countries waging a "sanctions" trade war against Russia, the facts of discrimination and persecution of Russians do not receive any attention from their official leadership, relevant institutions and international organizations.

It is also quite obvious that the West's Russophobic attitude and support for the neo-Nazi regime in Kiev have given a powerful impetus to the efforts of Poland, the Baltic states, Ukraine and a number of other countries to intensify, under the pretext of "condemning Russian aggression," the fight against monuments and memorials in honour of Red Army soldiers who died in the battles for the liberation of Europe from Nazism. In this regard, other areas of "activity" of these states, which are generally aimed at rewriting history and whitewashing collaborationism, have also received an impetus. We would like to note that attention is paid to such actions not only in this report, but also in the Ministry's recently published regular report on manifestations of the glorification of Nazism in the world.

At the same time, in a number of countries (primarily in the Baltic states, the United States, Canada, and Ukraine), members of the Russian-speaking community who want to preserve cultural, linguistic and historical ties with Russia are subjected to pressure and repression by the authorities. Not because it is their political reputation, but because it is part of their own, native, blood culture. Public figures who advocate building constructive relations with our country and uphold the need to preserve genuine historical memory are subjected to persecution, pressure, and repression.

The authorities of Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and the Kiev regime have "succeeded" the most in Russophobia, which are making the most active efforts to squeeze the Russian language out of all institutions of the educational system, thereby restricting the right to receive education in the native language of the part of the population (and a very significant one) for whom Russian is the native language. In addition to this, the Baltic states are openly preparing for the mass deportation of Russian-speaking residents [Ethnic Cleansing/Genocide as was the case in Donbass], apparently hoping in this way to finally solve the "Russian question" and the unprecedented, especially for the 21st century, problem of mass statelessness on their territories. The problem of statelessness in the Baltic countries should be solved in a different way, not by deportations, but by issuing this citizenship on the basis of all the international obligations of these countries.

For its part, the Russian Foreign Ministry will continue to take all possible diplomatic measures to protect the rights of Russian citizens. In light of the ongoing Russophobic campaign, unprecedented in scale and intensity, which in practice has taken the most diverse forms of aggression against Russians and immigrants from our country, special channels of communication with compatriots in various applications and messengers created by Russian missions abroad continue to operate.

We have no illusions about the true intentions of a number of countries of the "collective West" with regard to Russian citizens and Russian-speaking communities. [It would be helpful if those “illusions” were openly voiced.] Despite this, we will make every effort to protect the rights of our citizens and compatriots. To this end, we will continue to monitor the situation and record data on discriminatory manifestations in foreign countries in order to draw the attention of the leaders of these countries, both bilaterally and multilaterally, to such violations and demand that they comply with their international legal obligations towards our compatriots.

The current state of affairs convincingly confirms that manifestations of intolerance in the Euro-Atlantic area, which have already reached the stage of outright xenophobia and racism (Russophobia has become one of the largest among them today), need serious monitoring and active international legal steps and actions. It is obvious that the states of the "collective West", which have proclaimed themselves "models of democracy", have not been able to get rid of discriminatory and racist sentiments, as evidenced by the situation with Russian citizens in these countries….

To the 140th Anniversary of the Birth of I.M. Maisky

January 19 marks the 140th anniversary of the birth of the prominent Soviet diplomat, public figure, historian and publicist Ivan Maisky. He devoted almost a quarter of a century to the diplomatic service: he worked in responsible positions in the Soviet embassies in Japan (1927-1929) and Finland (1929-1932), headed the permanent mission in Great Britain (1932-1943).

I.M. Maisky made a significant contribution to the work of international conferences, including the Crimean (Yalta) and Berlin (Potsdam) conferences, which laid the foundations of the world order in the post-war period.

As Deputy People's Commissar (since 1946 – Minister) of Foreign Affairs and a member of the Board of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the USSR, I.M. Maisky headed the Inter-Allied Reparations Commission in Moscow, whose tasks included the development of a detailed plan for collecting compensation from Germany for the damage caused during the war, including the return of looted and illegally exported from the territory of the USSR.

Since 1947, I.M. Maisky focused on scientific work at the Institute of History, and then at the Institute of World History of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. He is the author of many works on international issues, the history of a number of foreign countries and the foreign policy of the USSR, among them; “Mongolia on the Eve of the Revolution” (Moscow, 1959); "Memoirs of the Soviet Ambassador" in 2 volumes (Moscow, 1964); "Memoirs of a Soviet Diplomat, 1925-1945" (Moscow, 1971); "People. Events. Facts" (Moscow, 1973) and others.

Of particular interest is the "Diplomat's Diary" published in 2006 with the assistance of the Foreign Ministry's IDD, [IDD and the Russian history portal are two vital websites for those researching Russia] which contains detailed reports on the contacts and meetings of Ivan Maisky during his work abroad and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. They reveal I.M. Maisky as an outstanding personality, a deeply erudite diplomat, politician and brilliant stylist. This book can serve as an example of the high art of diplomacy, both for the younger generation of diplomats and for a wide range of readers.

Interest in the personality and works of I.M. Maisky continues abroad. In 2015, Yale University Press published three volumes of his diaries in English.

His services to the Motherland were marked by the Order of Lenin, three Orders of the Red Banner of Labor, the Order of Friendship of Peoples and other government awards. A memorial plaque is installed on the façade of the house where I.M. Maisky lived in Moscow.

On the 370th anniversary (1654) of the Pereyaslav Rada, which marked the reunification of Malorossiya (Ukraine) with Russia

In the 16th-17th centuries, after the conclusion of the Union of Lublin between Lithuania and the Kingdom of Poland and the formation of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Catholic nobility pursued an aggressive policy of Polonization and Latinization in relation to the inhabitants of the Old Russian lands, accompanied by the seizure of significant land holdings. Under the threat of losing religious and national identity, the liberation movement of the Orthodox population of the Dnieper region grew, and prerequisites were formed for the formation of a nucleus of supporters of getting out from under the yoke of the Lyakhs and reunification with Russia.

On January 8 (18), 1654, in the city of Pereyaslav, representatives of the Zaporozhian Cossacks, headed by the Ukrainian hetman Bogdan Khmelnytsky, announced their decision to pass, as they said then, "under the arm" of the Moscow tsar. Thus, the Ukrainian Cossacks, who rebelled against the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, decided to finally leave the Polish-Lithuanian state, the actual independence from which was already obvious.

At that time, the leaders of the uprising considered other options for the future of Ukraine. It is known, for example, about initiatives to reconcile with the Polish king or even about the possibility of coming under the patronage of the Turkish sultan. But in the end, it was unity with Russia that became a truly historic choice.

The outstanding Russian historian, geographer and philosopher L.N. Gumilev wrote about the events of that time as follows: "The common super-ethnic affiliation of Russia and Ukraine was of paramount importance. Against this feeling of unity, like waves against a rock, the rational plans of strong-willed, intelligent power seekers were shattered. Two close ethnic groups – the Russian and the Ukrainian – were united not because of, but in spite of the political situation, since the people's "will" or "not will" invariably broke those initiatives that did not correspond to the logic of ethnogenesis. [Some will find this short essay interesting, “Where was she, the country Khazaria?”, and surprise, it’s in English.]

On January 8 (18), 1654, the Pereyaslav Rada adopted the historic act "to be with Moscow", i.e. to become part of the Russian state. The peculiarity of the Rada was that it represented all the lands of Ukraine, divided into military-administrative units (Cossack regiments). At the council, a charter of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich on the acceptance of the Ukrainian people under the high royal hand was read. B. Khmelnytsky, the Cossack elder and the local population swore allegiance to Russia.

The Cathedral of the Cossacks of the Zaporozhye Army undoubtedly became a turning point in the history of all Eastern Europe and the future space of the Russian Empire.

On March 14 (24), 1654, the text of the agreement between the representatives of the Hetmanate and the Russian Tsardom was signed, and on March 27 (April 6) it was approved by Alexei Mikhailovich. This treaty went down in history as the March Articles. It enshrined the transfer of the Zaporozhye Sich to the Russian state and defined its rights and privileges.

Centuries of struggle for the return of all the lands seized from Kievan Rus were still ahead. Only after the bloody wars with the Poles in 1667, according to the Andrusov truce, the Left-Bank Little Russia was ceded to the Muscovite state, and in 1686, according to the "Eternal Peace", Kiev and its surroundings were returned. The northern Black Sea region, or Novorossiya, was conquered from Turkey in the wars of 1768-1774 and 1787-1791. Right-bank Little Russia became part of Russia as a result of the partitions of Poland in 1793 and 1795. Galicia and Northern Bukovina were returned in 1939-1940.

During the fierce battles for the liberation of Soviet Ukraine, the Order of Bogdan Khmelnytsky of three degrees was established in memory of her great son on October 10, 1943 by the Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. The Order was awarded to commanders and soldiers of the Red Army and Navy, leaders of partisan detachments and partisans who showed special determination and skill in operations to defeat the enemy, high patriotism, courage and dedication in the struggle for the liberation of the Soviet land from the German invaders.

The decision of the Pereyaslav Rada clearly demonstrated the will of the united people, divided during the years of the Mongol-Tatar invasion, to live in a single state and had a beneficial effect on the entire life of the Ukrainian people. Ukrainian culture began to develop more freely. In the face of the Russian people, Ukrainians have found a true friend and a reliable defender.

Unfortunately, today the term "reunification" is practically forgotten in Ukrainian official historiography. The Kiev regime's rejection of the centuries-old traditions of friendship, brotherhood and partnership with Moscow, as well as the whipping up of anti-Russian hysteria in Ukrainian society, are openly encouraged by Kiev's Western curators, who are pursuing the goal of distorting our common history and creating an image of Russia as the main enemy, which allegedly hindered Ukraine's original development. However, the attempts of the current authorities in Kiev to reject their past, to renounce fraternal ties with the Russian and Belarusian peoples have so far brought nothing but total dependence on the West and plunging into the abyss of poverty and humiliation to the Ukrainian people.

The 80th anniversary of the complete liberation of Leningrad from the Nazi blockade

There is a huge amount of historical materials, chronicles and documentaries, and we at the Foreign Ministry, unfortunately, cannot avoid recording them as our principled position on preserving history. Why do I say "unfortunately"? Because this is our reaction to the global attack of the Anglo-Saxon liberal diktat on historical facts.

January 27, 1944 in the history of the Great Patriotic War was marked by the final lifting of the blockade and the complete liberation of Leningrad. The Battle of Leningrad went down in history as one of the longest, fiercest and bloodiest battles.

During the counter-offensive operations of the Soviet troops during 1941-1942, repeated attempts were made to liberate the city. On January 18, 1943, as a result of Operation Iskra, it was possible to break through the encirclement and provide a narrow "corridor" on the southern shore of Lake Ladoga 11 km wide for supplies and evacuation of the population.

The complete liberation of the city became possible a year later as a result of the Leningrad-Novgorod strategic offensive operation. It was successfully carried out by the forces of the Leningrad Front (commanded by General of the Army L.A. Govorov), the Volkhov Front (General of the Army K.A. Meretskov) and the 2nd Baltic Front (General of the Army M.M. Popov) in cooperation with the Baltic Fleet (Admiral V.F. Tributs) and the Long-Range Aviation (Air Marshal A.E. Golovanov).

During 1944, in the course of active offensive operations, Soviet troops liberated the Leningrad, Novgorod and part of the Kalinin (now Tver) regions, threw the enemy back to the borders of Estonia and Latvia. Finland, which in alliance with Nazi Germany had plans to seize part of Soviet territory, was forced to declare its withdrawal from the war and conclude an armistice agreement with the USSR. The successful offensive in the northwestern strategic direction was the prologue to the victorious advance of our troops in the European theater of operations.

An analysis of German military documents shows that the Nazis and their accomplices hatched plans to wipe Leningrad off the face of the earth, and to subject its population to complete extermination, including by cutting off supply routes, destroying food supplies, and creating conditions for famine. The order of Hitler's command was very clear: to keep the city under siege, to blockade it harshly, not to accept capitulation, to shoot those who crossed the front line, to lead to the total annihilation of the inhabitants. To carry out his inhuman plans, the enemy spared neither effort nor weapons: more than 150,000 shells were fired at the city on the Neva and more than 107,000 incendiary and high-explosive bombs were dropped. Residential areas, hospitals, maternity hospitals, museums, palaces, scientific and educational institutions were subjected to barbaric bombing and regular artillery shelling.

The blockade of Leningrad, unprecedented in its duration and grave consequences, lasted 872 days – from September 8, 1941 to January 27, 1944. Up to 4,000 people died of exhaustion in the city on the Neva River every day. Tens of thousands of survivors of the siege died during the evacuation.

In 2022, at the request of the Prosecutor General's Office of Russia, the St. Petersburg City Court recognized the actions of the occupation authorities and German troops, together with their accomplices – armed units formed on the territory of Belgium, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, Norway and Finland, as well as individual volunteers from among Austrians, Latvians, Poles, French and Czechs – as "war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide of national and ethnic groups, who represented the population of the USSR, the peoples of the Soviet Union."

The courage and heroism shown by the residents and defenders of Leningrad during the siege years became a symbol of unprecedented resilience, mass self-sacrifice and patriotism. By the decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR of December 22, 1942, the medal "For the Defense of Leningrad" was established, which was awarded to about 1.5 million people. In 1945, the city on the Neva River was awarded the Order of Lenin and the title of "Hero City", and in 1965 - the "Gold Star" medal.

Since 1995, the memorable date of January 27, 1944 has been celebrated as the Day of the Lifting of the Siege of the City of Leningrad. In 2014, the amended name "The Day of the Complete Liberation of Leningrad from the Nazi Blockade" was approved by law as it most fully reflects the role and contribution of the civilian population to the defense of the city.

Quite a bit of educational material above with a few smaller notices omitted to allow space for the Q&As that follow:

Question: The Polish Foreign Ministry has said that Warsaw agrees to the deployment of German troops on its territory if Berlin wishes to do so. What does Russia think about such statements?

Maria Zakharova: This is yet another element of the global Russophobic course of NATO countries and this particular country.

Let me remind you that about 10,000 US troops are already stationed in Poland. There is also a multinational NATO battle group, which includes military personnel from the United States, Britain, Romania and Croatia.

It is obvious that calls for the deployment of additional foreign troops on Polish territory, which are not necessary if these countries are oriented towards peace, should be seen only as an attempt to further increase the level of tension in Europe, to prolong the situation of this global collapse of pan-European security, which has become a demonstration of the impossibility – due to the position of NATO (and the Anglo-Saxon duo that "rules") – for Europeans on their continent to agree on rules coexistence, cohabitation and cooperation. Perhaps this is done in order to add even more fuel to the fire.

I would like to remind you that it was only in December 2023 that Germany and Lithuania signed an agreement to increase the Bundeswehr's military presence in the Baltic republic to the level of a brigade. It seems that Polish leaders do not want to lag behind their neighbors in demonstrating loyalty to the "big brothers" from Berlin and Washington.

I would like to emphasise once again that the increased activity and military potential of NATO and its member states near the borders of Russia and the Union State of Russia and Belarus is provocative and leads to a complete degradation of the European security architecture. Such steps, of course, will not remain without a corresponding response from the Russian side.

I wonder if the Polish leadership plans to seek compensation for the costs of maintaining the German contingent as part of the financial demands that Warsaw makes on the Germans for the occupation during World War II? That's a good question to ask them.

Question: The World Economic Forum is taking place in Davos. In your opinion, are there any significant documents and concepts that have been approved and signed over the past few days in the absence of the Russian delegation?

Maria Zakharova: You know, the funniest thing (I think it's really funny) is that this year's World Economic Forum in Davos is being held under the motto "Restoring Trust." It's not a joke, it's true. That's the motto. Under this slogan, it was planned to address such issues as ensuring security and cooperation in a divided world; shaping growth and employment for a new era; the development of artificial intelligence as a leading force in the economy; a long-term strategy for climate, nature and energy.

We have just talked about the loss of any prospect of restoring security on the European continent in the near future.

But, as you understand, Davos is still a European platform (of course, with the participation of the North Atlantic component). First of all, they discuss the European continent and its trade, economy, and so on. How can we talk about the restoration of trust when a number of NATO countries declare almost as an obvious case about hostilities in the "European theater"?

I have just quoted the statements made by Poland. As well as those that were in Sweden, in Germany and are made regularly. It is useless to talk about the Baltic at all. This is the first point.

The second point. It is absurd to discuss the restoration of trust because of the actions of NATO, the United States, Britain and other countries that show themselves as aggressors every day, for example, by striking at Yemen. Did it add anything to the restoration of trust? No.

Another blow to trust occurred when they came to the UN Security Council and demanded that it once again issue them an "indulgence" for strikes, and, failing to receive it, distorting the meaning of the Security Council's work, they struck at a sovereign state the next day.

As we said today, they are supplying weapons to the illegally proclaimed government of Kosovo, which has no right to engage in any military cooperation activities separate from Belgrade, because it is part of Serbia. What kind of restoration of trust are we talking about?

But beyond that, there is another important topic that should be devoted to Davos: the conduct of the trade war by NATO countries. This topic could be formulated closer to reality: the implementation of a trade war by the world minority against the world majority. A lot could be discussed: not just sanctions as a tool, but illegitimate, illegal sanctions tools that the "collective West" has been resorting to for many years in cases where it cannot maintain competition and "get ahead" of its competitors in this "competition." Within the framework of the same "topic", it would be possible to consider the issue of blocking the instruments of monetary and financial transactions created by the collective West and using them for the purpose of waging trade wars.

An excellent topic would be "the destruction of global energy cooperation on a peaceful and legal basis." Here is a more realistic topic for Davos. It is not at all clear who will restore trust with whom, given that even during the pandemic, when the world should have united, because this virus affected everyone: "both the poor and the rich, and people with different skin colors, skull shapes, different ages, different social status and cultural identities." Nevertheless, the collective West did everything to use this historical moment, this tragedy of humanity for the additional segregation of people by all indications. There were frauds around vaccines, and the non-admission of drugs from other states to licensing, and in fact their inaccessibility in a number of regions of the world. This is all just hypocrisy and yet another staged acting, which Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov spoke about in his article published a year ago in the Izvestia newspaper. [Lavrov’s article is English here.]

You asked about the documents. At the forum, these issues were discussed by political and economic representatives on the basis of their own calculations and materials of various financial organizations. All this is divorced from reality. There are things that really are not and should not literally reflect some of the needs of today, because they are future-oriented. Then they should be based on realistic forecasts. If people call the forum "restoring trust" and at the same time increase NATO military contingents around the world, unilaterally strike at sovereign states, deploy their troops against the will of independent states, how can we talk about restoring trust in the economic sphere? All this is happening against the backdrop of a trade war that the Westerners have been waging for many years….

Question: On Saturday, it became known that a missile fell 500 metres from a Panamanian-flagged tanker carrying Russian oil. The incident took place 90 miles from the Yemeni port of Aden. What is the Foreign Ministry's assessment of this incident? What could be done to resolve the situation as soon as possible?

Maria Zakharova: We have seen the corresponding Reuters report. I am referring to the materials on January 12 of this year regarding the mistaken shelling of an unknown tanker allegedly carrying Russian oil in the Gulf of Aden. However, the Russian Foreign Ministry has not received any official information on this matter.

We have consistently advocated the safety of international sea routes, passenger and cargo traffic, including in the Red Sea and the Bab el-Mandeb Strait.

At the same time, as we warned, another military adventure by the United States and Britain in the region – strikes on Yemen – has led to an even greater escalation. A necessary condition for stabilising the situation on this strategically important transport artery is an early cessation of the bloodshed in the Gaza Strip and the intensification of efforts aimed at a comprehensive political settlement of the Palestinian problem on the well-known international legal basis, as well as the settlement of the Yemeni crisis through a full-fledged dialogue with the participation of all influential military and political forces in this country.

It is necessary to stop the endless military adventures carried out by NATO, which call themselves "coalitions", while not having a mandate from the UN Security Council and acting contrary to international law. I say this not only because adventures are not a good thing in themselves, but also because they are not very good at it. Over the past decades, they have shown an inability to improve the situation, to put the people out of their misery or to resolve the crisis. Quite the opposite. The situation that is now developing in the region is already catastrophic. Unfortunately, it is deteriorating every day due to the fact that Washington, London and Brussels are collectively engaged in denying their own responsibility for yet another collapse in the region. And the lack of acknowledgment of one's own mistakes leads to their repetition and aggravation….

Q: Kim Yo-jong, the sister of the DPRK leader, told the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA): "In the event of even a minor provocation, our troops will immediately undergo a baptism of fire with fire." Did you discuss this and other regional security issues during Sergey Lavrov's meeting with the DPRK Foreign Minister?

Maria Zakharova: During the discussion between Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and his counterpart Choe Son-hui on the situation on the Korean Peninsula and in Northeast Asia, they reaffirmed their mutual commitment to a political and diplomatic settlement of tensions in the region that are escalating as a result of the irresponsible and provocative actions of the United States and its satellites.

In the near future, we will publish the final report on the negotiations. They have not done this yet, because the visit of the DPRK Foreign Minister is still ongoing. By agreement of the parties, we will publish the comment after its completion.

Question: What do you think about Estonian Prime Minister Karl Kallas's statement that Russia will again pose a serious threat to the eastern flank of NATO countries within three to five years?

Maria Zakharova: We have already talked about this today.

A threat to all members of the NATO-centric axis is posed by all those who do not "zigzag" to the West, supporting these neo-colonial values, who call the truth the truth and the lie a lie, who defend the basic principles of humanity and our civilization. Those who find the courage to say and stand up for (as we have always believed) the obvious. For example, that there are two sexes (male and female), that children are born boys and girls. All those who, at the state level, either individually or as a socio-cultural community, advocate the preservation of the values of our civilization, its achievements and experience, pose a threat to them. This is an important point. It's not us who threaten them, it's them who see us as a threat. Over the past decades, they have come up with a fantasy world of non-existent values and called them neoliberal.

This concept is based on the substitution of concepts. For some reason, they equated freedom with diktat, including digital and informational freedom. They consider it possible to "cancel" culture and put on a pedestal only those works of art that meet or serve their interests. Anything that doesn't fit into their neoliberal world, they perceive as a threat.

The second point is the endless "awakening" and hysteria being thrown in through the states (the Kiev regime, the Baltic regimes, Poland, and now, unfortunately, Germany and Northern Europe) that the European continent will inevitably be shaken by (as they put it) "some global events." If these are their plans, let them say so themselves.

We have always stood for cooperation, peace, indivisible security, and overcoming real, not imaginary, threats together. We have never allowed and will never allow our sovereignty and independence to be threatened. We talked about it openly. At the same time, we have always called for a search for common ground and opportunities to reach a compromise.

But if what is now periodically voiced through such characters as Karl Kallas, Swedish Civil Defence Minister Karl-O. Bulin, or some political figures in Germany, if this is their plan, then let them say so openly. Honestly, apparently, they have not been able to do it for a long time. But at least they will stop talking about the fact that someone wants to attack them, someone threatens them. No one wants to attack them, no one threatens them. If they feel threatened by their fragile world of neoliberal values, that's their problem. If they want to destabilise the situation on the continent and in the world globally and definitively, this is their position….

Question: The balance of power in the Middle East has become clearer. The U.S. is an ally of Israel on the one hand. On the other hand, there are various forces operating militarily and politically against the US and Israel from Iran to South Africa and Latin America. Can Russia play a role in uniting these forces?

Maria Zakharova: First of all, I do not entirely agree with your assessment of the situation and (as you put it) with the balance of power. You mentioned that the United States is an ally of Israel in the region. But it seems to me (and I am speaking on the basis of documents) that the United States has other allies in the region. At least, that's how they are defined in bilateral documents. It is difficult to agree with your assessment of the situation.

The second point. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has repeatedly stated that Russian diplomacy rejects methods of "separating the parties" in order to pit them against each other at a new level and exacerbate contradictions.

Russia does not call on its partners to be friends against anyone. Moreover, it does not form any blocs directed against anyone, be it Israel or anyone else. The main goal of our efforts in the region at the current stage is to promote general de-escalation. First of all, it is necessary to stop the bloodshed in the Gaza Strip and, together with our constructive international and Middle Eastern partners, to help resolve all aspects of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict by political and diplomatic means on the basis of a universally recognized legal settlement.

I invite you to Sergey Lavrov's news conference tomorrow. I think this will be one of the central topics. You may even elaborate on your question. It is really relevant and very important….

Question: On January 15, at a briefing by the Russian Defence Ministry, it was stated that the scale of dual-use research carried out in the United States and the global biological risks it creates raise the question of conducting an independent international investigation. Will the Russian Foreign Ministry push for such an investigation and work on a legally binding protocol to the Convention that would be binding on all BTWC member states, primarily the United States?

Maria Zakharova: In cooperation with the relevant agencies, the Russian Foreign Ministry is carrying out systematic work in the international arena to counter US military biological activities abroad, including those carried out in violation of the BTWC on Ukrainian territory. We are talking about this in detail. I think this is a well-known fact. The relevant claims against Washington and Kiev were presented in detail by us at the consultative meeting on Article V of the BTWC in Geneva on September 5-9, 2022.

In accordance with Article VI of the BTWC, the UN Security Council convened open meetings of the UN Security Council on October 27 and November 2, 2022 in New York to consider the draft resolution of the UN Security Council prepared by the Russian side on the establishment of an international commission to investigate the issues presented in the Russian complaint to the United States and Ukraine regarding compliance with obligations under the BTWC in the context of the activities of biological laboratories on Ukrainian territory. The UN Security Council's consideration of the draft resolution was accompanied by an unsubstantiated campaign by Western delegations accusing Russia of "propaganda and disinformation" and unilateral statements anticipating the conclusions of the UN Security Council. The United States, Great Britain and France voted against the draft, 10 non-permanent members of the Council abstained, as a result of which the Russian initiative remained unimplemented.

Our questions to Washington and Kiev regarding this activity remain unanswered on the merits and still need to be resolved. We continue to work at the relevant multilateral platforms (primarily within the framework of the BTWC and the UN) in order to resolve the current situation and remove the questions and grievances that we (and not only we) have.

The situation in Ukraine clearly demonstrates the need to urgently strengthen the BTWC, primarily through the development of a legally binding Protocol to the Convention with an effective verification mechanism. Consistently, in cooperation with like-minded states, we are in favour of resuming negotiations on this document. We also continue to push for the implementation of Russian initiatives aimed at strengthening and institutionalizing the BTWC.

And so another selections comes to a close. It will be curious to see if some of these Qs get asked of Lavrov tomorrow. Perhaps the last Q&A is the most important looking forward as one of the few remaining areas of competence within NATO is its development of bio-genetic weapons which are much less costly to produce as they require little of their industrial base which is being destroyed due to Neoliberal Doctrine. That all three NATO UNSC members vetoed the draft IMO is an admission of guilt. The appropriate ridiculing of Davos and its agenda was proper. A lot of projection by NATO is happening, and what’s happening in Moldova and Serbia are additional fronts being waged by NATO against Humanity. Much of NATO’s projection is related to the many elections slated to occur in 2024 that have the potential to greatly alter Europe’s current chemistry; scaring the public is a very old ploy to try and force citizens to vote a certain way.

*
*
*
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!