Kiev-led armed units and neo-Nazis continue staging terrorist attacks on the liberated territories of the Lugansk and Donetsk People's Republics and the Kherson Region. On the night of July 13, 2022, Ukrainian armed units dealt a massive blow to Lugansk with nine rockets fired from US HIMARS multiple rocket launchers.

On the night of July 12, Ukrainian armed units shelled Novaya Kakhovka in the Kherson Region. They hit depots that were holding ammonium nitrate and medications adjacent to civilian facilities and heavily damaged a hospital, residential buildings and other city infrastructure. Seven people were killed and about a hundred wounded.

On July 11, Ukrainian militants attacked the DPR's Amvrosievka regional centre at a time when volunteers from the Young Republic volunteer organisation were distributing humanitarian aid among local residents. Again, there were victims: three killed, 39 injured.

Donetsk and its suburbs continue to be targets for continuing strikes. The fire is selective; it is aimed at residential areas, shops, markets, medical institutions and other socially important facilities. The Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) are using US-supplied HIMARS multiple launch rocket systems in most cases. They are acting with direct assistance from the United States, which supplies Kiev with intelligence information and has tacitly sent instructors to help Kiev's fighters to "aim correctly." We find confirmation of this in numerous reports on Ukrainian social media and the Western press.

The marked intensification of Ukrainian artillery is linked with the supplies of this type of heavy weapons. Judging by what we see, Kiev has ordered its artillery units to use these systems against civilians without hesitation.

Unfortunately, every day, we update the list of cities and villages in the DPR, the LPR and the Kherson Region that are suffering from these barbarous attacks. The overseas sponsors of the Kiev regime feel very comfortable with this situation. There is no other explanation for Washington's intention to supply Ukraine with another four HIMARS systems, ammunition and spare parts announced on July 8. The US allocated about $2.7 billion for these weapons in its overall aid package, which is valued at more than $40 billion, which Washington intends to spend on "strengthening the defence capability of the armed forces of Ukraine." According to the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, these costs are already higher than Australia's military budget of about $32 billion, and they continue to grow. The Americans demand that their allies adopt a similar approach. We understand that new horizons in equipping and arming Ukrainian neo-Nazis will be set at the fourth meeting of the Contact Group on the Defence of Ukraine led by US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin. The meeting is scheduled to take place in Rammstein via videoconference on July 20.

Recently, Defence Minister of Ukraine Alexey Reznikov spoke about Kiev's intention to launch a counteroffensive in the south of the country soon. Alexey Danilov, Secretary of the National Security and Defence Council of Ukraine (NSDCU), recently talked about "the goal set by President Vladimir Zelensky to liberate the entire country." These statements are designed to persuade the West of the need to continue supplying Kiev with arms. With this objective in mind, Kiev plans to enlist about a million people, some of whom will be recruited from abroad. Diplomatic offices were instructed to mobilise Ukrainian citizens in the recruitment age range, which is from 18 to 60 years old. It would be interesting to watch how this will be done in the EU countries, for instance, in Nice. According to the Western press, about 40 percent of the refugees have chosen to live in Nice. Of course, it's common knowledge that Nice is a place to which people without money or prospects usually go. We hope the global media, the press and journalists will not ignore these mobilisation measures.

It may be that the EU's failed migration policy and the behavior of the "refugees" themselves have prompted the West to encourage Kiev to start mobilising Ukrainians abroad to simply get rid of them by sending them home. It is impossible to do this legally under Western law. We would like to hope that global publications will closely follow this mobilisation campaign.

In addition, Warsaw has also volunteered to help Kiev get the army it needs by declaring its intention to deport all Ukrainian draft dodgers. This is the real attitude towards the refugees, a kind of a catharsis of humanitarian law and humanism. When the willingness to continue helping people who left their country runs low, it is better to expel them and force them to fight. These are signs of moral decline and the criminal ideology of the Western regimes. In this context, we noted a report in the Daily Mail about the start of training sessions for the first groups (about 600 people) of Ukrainian military personnel at a military base for ground troops near Manchester, Britain. Under the agreement with Kiev, they are to undergo a three-week training session to learn how to use Western arms that are being supplied to the army. This is a real hybrid war. At one time, the Kiev regime and the forces linked with it tried to ridicule our statements that they were simply being used as a tool. Now it is becoming obvious that they missed an important point in understanding what was going on. Today, the Kiev regime is being turned into a weapon not only against Russia but also against its own country because nobody is thinking about the fate of its citizens anymore. The European media report that these training sessions are already being held or will soon be hosted by other NATO countries as well.

No matter how hard the United States and its allies may be trying to build up Kiev's combat capacity, Russia will continue its special military operation. All of our goals and objectives will be carried out.

Arria-formula meeting of the UN Security Council on neo-Nazism and radical nationalism in Ukraine

On July 11, 2022, Russia convened an informal Arria-formula meeting of the UN Security Council members on Neo-Nazism and Radical Nationalism: Exploring Root Causes of the Crisis in Ukraine. The purpose of the gathering was to discuss the origins and preconditions for the Nazi ideology taking root on the territory of Ukraine. We continue to hear and read stupid and sarcastic remarks like "Nazis in Ukraine? Give me a break," "What kind of nationalistic logic is this?", "Where are the stripes on their sleeves?" With this approach, we could assume that if Vladimir Zelensky does not do the Hitler salute, there can't be any nationalism, Nazism or neo-fascism in Ukraine.

Such logic shows a grave misunderstanding of the historical realities and developments at the present stage. It feels like a high-school classroom with stupid chuckles at the back, where no one listens to the teacher or bothers to do their homework; no one aspires to self-development, but is always ready to laugh when serious problems are discussed.

We have been talking about this situation for years; for the last eight years, we spoke about it almost daily. Before 2014, we provided numerous examples of neo-Nazism spreading in Ukraine, and not only in Ukraine. Look at how Europe is "infected" with this neo-Nazi bacillus today. Europeans even admit it themselves. Read human rights organisations' reports, listen to European parliament members and human rights activists who cite concrete examples of meetings - not some underground cells, but major public organisations; the promotion of bills, the legalisation of literature and ideology, participation in pogroms, the ethnically motivated desecration of graves and places of worship. We haven't invented anything. All we say has factual confirmation spread by public figures in Western countries, but you can just continue to laugh.

Russia's report, supported by archival and recent videos, thoroughly described the fusion of Nazism with militant nationalism, and how that led to the spiraling of radical views in part of Ukrainian society and provoked - with robust external support - the illegitimate coup d'état in 2014, which resulted in the persecution of Russian-speaking Ukrainians and other events.

The invited speakers, including Sergey Kozhemyakin, a human rights lawyer from Donetsk, and Kirill Revin, an investigator with the Ministry of the Interior of the Donetsk People's Republic, provided concrete facts and first-hand evidence to illustrate the point. The video of this meeting is available on the internet. We will by all means repost it on the Russian Foreign Ministry's social media accounts. Head of the Foundation for the Study of Democracy Maxim Grigoryev commented on a number of his own interviews with affected residents of Donbass, while historian Alexander Dyukov, a research fellow at the Institute of History of the Russian Academy of Sciences, among other things, highlighted the anti-Semitic and racist nature of Ukrainian nationalism. A passionate presentation was made by Wilhelm Domke-Schulz, a German documentary producer whose films - including the one depicting the events in Odessa in 2014 - are prohibited in Europe.

This is a "laughing matter," of course: barring facts from being made public and sneering at a genocide. The EU countries, including Germany, have banned documentaries made by their own filmmakers, and that's what is making one laugh. People in the EU watch their own propaganda and news sponsored by NATO and Brussels institutions. If this is all they have, there is no way they could figure out what's really happening. Most representatives of the Western media have never set foot in the actual intra-Ukrainian conflict area in the past eight years. Occasional reports from the sites of clashes were never widely disseminated.

The Arria-formula meeting brought together representatives of all UN Security Council member states. Our opponents from Western countries felt uncomfortable, carefully avoiding the announced topic and, as usual, focused on condemning the special military operation and using hackneyed phrases about "rampant Russian propaganda." At the same time, many delegations showed genuine interest in the speakers' information about the real situation with the spread of neo-Nazism and radical nationalism in Ukraine and their historical background. Parallels were drawn with the crimes of colonial regimes and the resurgence of racial supremacy ideas.

The Russian initiative has made it possible to convey an objective assessment of the events taking place in Ukraine and the social phenomena emerging there to UN Security Council members. Given the stubborn disregard for this information by the Western media, we consider it important to continue the practice of holding such informal meetings on the UN Security Council platform.

US State Department posts a report online titled "To vilify Ukraine, the Kremlin resorts to Antisemitism"

An astounding report titled, "To Vilify Ukraine, The Kremlin Resorts to Antisemitism," was posted on the US State Department's website. This "masterpiece" looks very much like the fake propaganda that Secretary of State Blinken talked about when he said that Russia is forcibly keeping 1.5 million Ukrainian citizens on its territory and is handing out Russian passports to them. Those who might understand the difficulty of issuing passports to 1.5 million people will find these comments ridiculous. We regard in the same vein the Japanese officials' statements that the venue for the G7 summit in Hiroshima was chosen for a reason that is related to a possible Russian nuclear strike. We are well aware of the fact that the United States carried out nuclear strikes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. To date, this is the only episode of using nuclear weapons against civilians rather than as part of hostilities. Tokyo forgot this many years ago. They were told to relegate it to oblivion. Today, this kind of compilation of facts is a classic information-based mind game. Yet another report to the effect that Russia is using anti-Semitism to vilify Ukraine is part of the same paradigm. Clearly, it is no longer possible to completely hush up the story about neo-Nazism. In this regard, they are resorting to tricks to change the narrative. They leave the words where they were, but change the emphasis.

On July 11, this "immortal paper" was posted on the State Department's official website. The document claims that Russian officials and state-run media are spreading fake stories about the atrocities and massacres committed by the nationalist battalions and the Nazi nature of the Ukrainian leadership simply to justify the "war" against Ukraine. We have been dealing with this topic and, as they say, "spreading" materials for a long time now, long before February. We call on the international community to conduct its own investigation and to pay attention to documents and to send to Ukraine, as Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has repeatedly said, their correspondents in order for them to see the problem with their own eyes and to figure things out. Here, it is presented in a way that implies that Russia has only been using this collection of facts since February.

After the February 2014 coup, the radical nationalist forces that were already present in that country reinforced their position in Ukraine. In 2014, they were heavily used during the coup. The radicals began to openly preach the ideas of ethnic intolerance, including anti-Semitism, which, however, is not all there was to it. Nationalism is a broader concept that includes intolerance towards a variety of ethnicities. "Founders" of Ukrainian nationalism such as Semyon Petlyura, Yevgeny Konovalets, Stepan Bandera, Roman Shukhevich, Yaroslav Stetsko, Andrey Melnik and other war criminals are imposed on society as moral compasses. As a reminder, nationalist battalions Azov, Aidar and others have been incorporated into the Ukrainian armed forces. Ten years ago, they were seen in Ukraine and internationally as a fringe element, a standalone force that existed separately from the government. But the coup was carried out with the direct involvement of the nationalists who had been trained specifically for that and were subsequently incorporated into Ukraine's armed forces.

After President Zelensky's advent to power in 2019, no improvements in fighting nationalist ideology, including anti-Semitism, have occurred. The illegal actions of right-wing radicals and nationalist groups directed against people of various ethnicities, including Jews, remain unpunished. Religious and memorial sites are being desecrated. Nobody is aware of that or what? No one in the West or the State Department has heard about this? Here are some hard documented facts.

The distribution of xenophobic pamphlets by the Galician Youth organisation in Lvov (May 2021), threats by nationalists to Hasidim on a visit to Uman to celebrate the Jewish New Year (September 2021), graffiti on an information stand outside the Jewish cemetery in Boguslav, the Kiev region, swastikas on the gates of the synagogue in Nikolayev (October 2021), and the annual music festival, Let's Repeat Koliivshchyna (the uprising of the Haidamaks in the 17th century when about 10,000 Jews were killed) in Kiev in October are among the most obvious signs of anti-Semitism. Deputy Mayor of Shepetovka (Khmelnitsky region) Yury Vakhotsky saying in September 2021 that the tragedy of Babi Yar is "divine retribution to the Jews for the Holodomor," and head of the Batkivshchyna party branch in Khmelnitsky, Alexander Sholovey, saying that the longer he observes the celebration of Hanukkah, "the better he understands Hitler," were all met with a wide public outcry. Where are we all living? These things never happened? Is it all made up? Nobody ever heard the State Department say that? There are scores of examples of this.

Can anything like this happen in countries that in every possible way deny and condemn the manifestation of nationalism and xenophobia at the state level? Even if it does happen (thugs and scum who break the law can be found anywhere), an official response usually follows, since this is outlawed at the state level. Of course, officials, politicians and community leaders who are a direct part of a country's government cannot afford to do this. In Ukraine, things are different. This is not something that comes exclusively from below or locally. These things are encouraged at different levels. Just read Ambassador of Ukraine to Germany Andrey Melnik's revelations.

As follows from the Unified Register of Judicial Decisions of Ukraine (I hope the State Department can afford a couple of mouse clicks to get familiar with it), the local courts have not handed down a single sentence under Art. 161 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, "Violation of Equality of Citizens Depending on Their Race, Ethnicity or Religious Affiliation," since 2014. That is, there has been no precedent at all? As a rule, cases related to discrimination, anti-Semitism and xenophobia are reclassified by the investigating authorities as domestic disorderly conduct.

Indicatively, only two UN member states, Ukraine and the United States, have been voting against the annual resolution of the UN General Assembly "On countering the glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance." Why do only two countries systematically vote against a resolution condemning neo-Nazism? There must be an explanation. Where are all these "devil's advocates" who claim that neo-Nazism does not exist in Ukraine? Explain this, too.

Against this background, it is not surprising that Ukraine decided to withdraw from the Agreement on Perpetuating the Memory of the Courage and Heroism of the Peoples of the Member States of the Commonwealth of Independent States in the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945. However, this does not prevent President Zelensky from claiming that he allegedly honours the memory of his grandfather, who fought in the Red Army and liberated the Soviet Union and Europe from Nazism. This is all lies and deceit. You can say anything you want in word, but you don't do as you say. We make this clear: a false agenda and a simulation of policy aimed at supposedly racial, religious and ethnic equality. In fact, through the steps it has taken every day over the years, this political elite has done nothing but strengthen nationalism in Ukraine.

Referring to the citizens of the country against whom he imposed the sanctions, President Zelensky said that not all people are human and some are just "species." You can talk forever about this phrase being an artistic expression. I admit that each person can make a mistake or not express themselves as clearly as they would like thereby creating some ambiguity, but this immediately becomes clear. A person can cite his other statements and, most importantly, take practical steps to justify himself. In the case of Zelensky, the opposite is true. The phrase about the "species" is in line with the policy pursued by current and previous Kiev regimes. Zelensky is endlessly trying to convince the public using this ethnic theme, that there is no anti-Semitism in Ukraine because he himself has Jewish roots. This is a case of frightening logic. It begs the question: is there homophobia in Ukraine? If the Kiev regime's answer is "no," is it then connected with the current president?

Developments in the Republic of Moldova

The continuing efforts of the European Union and NATO to fully integrate Moldova into their anti-Russian campaign and to develop its territory under the guise of security assistance have not gone unnoticed in Russia.

On July 8, head of the EU Delegation to Moldova, Janis Mazeiks, said on the Tema TV programme on the Primul in Moldova channel that the EU, although not requiring Moldova to impose sanctions against Russia, "would be glad" if Chisinau joined them. Moldova is not a member of the EU. The European Union and all liberal Western regimes constantly declare freedom, independence, sovereignty, and exclusively voluntary solidarity, yet here are such statements: they do not demand, but "would be glad." Apparently, if Chisinau does not join, they "will not be glad." Thus, they publicly reminded the Moldovan leadership of the need to respect the notorious "Euro-solidarity." True solidarity means voluntariness, equality and freedom of expression, and not the use of pressure to create a semblance of solidarity exclusively in line with Brussels' anti-Russian policy.

On July 11, they signed an agreement on the establishment in Chisinau of the so-called EU Support Hub for Internal Security and Border Management in the Republic of Moldova. According to publicly available information, representatives of security, defence and law enforcement departments of all the EU countries and relevant European agencies will work at this hub.

At our previous briefing, we commented on the plans to supply Western armaments and military equipment to Moldova at the Europe Peace Foundation's expense. Unfortunately, the efforts by the European Union and NATO to militarise Moldova seem to be supported by certain forces in Chisinau. The country's Minister of Defence, Anatolie Nosatîi, spoke about this, in particular on July 7 during the Territory of Freedom programme on RLIVE TV. At the same time, it was noted that the Moldovan authorities do not see any direct threats to the country at the moment. Here comes the question: from whom, then, should they defend themselves, and how will this contribute to the country's security and neutrality?

We would like to once again draw the attention of Moldova to the risks of mindlessly following the advice and recommendations of Western "partners," which does not involve analysis and one's own interpretation of the situation. Experience shows that anti-Russian sanctions are above all affecting the people of the countries whose leadership adopted them. There is no need to prove it.

As for the military and military-technical "assistance" provided to Chisinau, its main purpose is to secure the interests of the West. It has nothing to do with Moldova's security.

Aftermath of military operations of the United States and its European allies

Western countries continue to circulate statements about the need to collect some kind of reparations from Russia and expropriate - in other words, misappropriate - Russian public and private assets abroad. Sometimes they add "for rebuilding Ukraine." And sometimes you just need to take everything away and rob once again. Similar statements were made, for example, at an international conference in Lugano, Switzerland, on July 4-5.

In this context, the Russian Foreign Ministry has prepared visual information materials on the consequences of the military adventures of the United States and its European allies over the past couple of decades. I understand that Western regimes removed all mirrors long ago so as not to have to face their own reflection. But we have a few left. Take a look and see how the historical record looks. Not the distant past, but the modern record. The article is posted on the website of the Russian Foreign Ministry under the corresponding banner. It clearly, with reference to authoritative sources, provides data on material damage to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, and Syria, inflicted by the United States (and others). For example, American aggression in Iraq. Yes, Washington invented and fabricated everything. The work was divided almost equally between Washington and London, but many more countries joined. Now everyone has forgotten, but Ukraine participated in the anti-Iraq campaign. An interesting fact. Do you know who took part in it on behalf of the Armed Forces of Ukraine? Now we hear statements that "Ukraine is a peaceful state," "wants to live in peace," "never attacked anyone," and so on. Let me remind you that sniper Nadezhda Savchenko was part of the anti-Iraq coalition from Ukraine. The same one who later was "for peace" and "for pacifism." At first, she was a "victim of Moscow", then she returned home and became a victim there. And for real. It would be nice if Washington and its satellites read about themselves, and if everyone else read about them.

It is impossible to remain indifferent to the losses suffered by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia as a result of the NATO Operation Allied Force (March 24 - June 10, 1999). Over 2,000 civilians, including 88 children, were killed by NATO countries during 78 days of barbaric bombing of civilian infrastructure. Republika Srpska of Bosnia and Herzegovina was the victim of similar international lawlessness during the Alliance's Operation Deliberate Force (August 30 - September 21, 1995). The economy, environment, and health of the civilian population of the Balkan region suffered irreparable damage due to the use of depleted uranium munitions by the United States, the consequences of which still affect these areas today. Besides the inhabitants of these and neighbouring states that are suffering from the consequences of chemical and biological experiments, soldiers from NATO countries were also victims. They had no idea what their governments had in store for them.

The American military machine also visited untold suffering on the region of the Middle East and North Africa. Over 205,000 civilians were killed in the US-led invasion of Iraq. But no one knows the exact number to this day. No one counted, because, as President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky says (at the suggestion of Western regimes), not all people are people, there are "species." Someone's life may be invaluable and require heroisation, while someone else's life may not be counted. In 2017, the city of Mosul was almost wiped off the face of the earth by carpet bombing and shelling, and in Syria, the city of Raqqa was completely destroyed. At the same time, the Americans not only won't help to restore what they barbarously destroyed, they are also preventing such work from being organised at the international level in every possible way, by sponsoring "moderate" terrorists and extremists and by imposing sanctions. They sanction a country which is still in ruins, even during the pandemic, without even giving it the opportunity to recover on its own.

We do not claim to present a complete calculation of the losses incurred, but even a conservative estimate puts it trillions of dollars. These are speculative calculations. The scale of destruction.

We invite everyone to have a look and draw their own conclusions about Western countries' real willingness to invest in the restoration of the territories they have destroyed, provide some compensation, and answer for what they have done. We hope that our material will become the starting point for people to look into it more deeply for themselves.

Approval of UN Security Council Resolution on international humanitarian aid for Syria, including a cross-border mechanism

On July 12, 2022, the UN Security Council approved Resolution 2642 on international humanitarian aid for Syria, extending the use of the Bab al-Hawa border crossing to deliver cross-border supplies to Idlib for six months. This decision reaffirmed the need to promptly expand internal [transport] links between Damascus and other regions of the country, to step up efforts under the projects to restore civilian infrastructure within a short timeframe, and to alleviate the unilateral anti-Syria sanctions.

This resolution is based on Russia's draft, which several days earlier was vetoed by the United States, the UK and France. This showed yet again that these three Western countries were unwilling to seek compromise solutions in the UN Security Council and were openly urging the politicisation of purely humanitarian matters related to providing comprehensive aid to the Syrian people.

As a reminder - this is a matter of principle - international humanitarian efforts do not require a UN Security Council resolution because they are regulated by the relevant legal norms, including, primarily, the governing principles of providing humanitarian aid, which are written into UN General Assembly Resolution 46/182. The main requirements in such cases include respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country receiving aid, as well as the coordination of humanitarian efforts with the country's government.

In this specific case, approval of the resolution was required to continue the delivery of UN cross-border supplies bypassing Damascus, which were initiated in 2014 as an extraordinary and temporary measure. Moscow has always insisted that this special mechanism must be removed in the end while aid for Syrians should be brought in line with the situation on the ground and comply with international humanitarian law, especially as other key provisions of UN Security Council Resolution 2585, which was unanimously approved on July 10, 2021, have not, in fact, been fulfilled.

We believe the world community and the UN humanitarian office will be taking effective measures in the next six months to fully and honestly fulfil all provisions of this UN Security Council decision without exception. In this connection, we attach special importance to the regular discussions between the involved parties as part of the informal interactive dialogue at the UN in New York. This will allow us to provide the needed aid without discrimination or conditions to all Syrians who need it, without exception, and effectively concentrate on how to quickly restore water and electricity distribution infrastructure, medical and education institutions, and residential housing in coordination with the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic.

Russian humanitarian aid delivered to Afghanistan

On July 13, transport aircraft of the Russian Aerospace Forces, with the assistance of the Russian Foreign Ministry, delivered 16 tonnes of medicines and essential goods to Kabul. Residents of remote provinces affected by the recent devastating earthquake in the southeast of the country will receive necessary medicines, as well as tents and blankets.

Russian Ambassador to Afghanistan Dmitry Zhirnov participated in the handover ceremony.

The Afghan authorities expressed their deep gratitude to Russia.

Suspension of Russian helicopter repairs in the Czech Republic and Bulgaria

According to the available information, a number of NATO and EU countries continue supplying weapons and military equipment to the Kiev regime, and plan to arrange for their repair at industrial facilities in Eastern European countries. As a retaliatory measure, Russia has decided to suspend the aircraft maintenance certificates previously issued to the Czech company LOM PRAHA, s.p. and the Bulgarian companies TEREM-LETETS EOOD and AVIONAMS JSC.

Design and technical support services for the major repair of Mi helicopters, subscription services for sets of maintenance and repair documentation, and supplies of spare parts and components are thereby discontinued. These enterprises have been deprived of the right to provide technical maintenance and repair Russian-made helicopter equipment.

In this connection, Russia will no longer bear any responsibility for the safe operation of helicopters repaired at these enterprises.

Online chronicles of reprisals against Russian media and journalists by Western countries and internet companies

For several years, we have been compelled to write regularly about the West's efforts to suppress Russian and undesirable to the authorities Russian language media that were preventing the political elites of the "advanced democracies" from manipulating public opinion in their countries as they saw fit. However, it is difficult to find a name for what happened and continues to happen almost every day since February 24 of this year simply for lack of any historical analogy. The closest definition that occurs to us in an attempt to describe this notion would be "mediacide based on ethnic origin and political conviction." In other words, this is an attempt to destroy the very notion of media pluralism through the totalitarian cleansing of one's information space, including the digital space, from all alternative views on global events. This primarily concerns all Russian, Russian-language and Russia-affiliated media without exception. An entire arsenal of reprisals and restrictions is used against their distributors at the same time. The main enemies include Russian journalists, military correspondents, editors-in-chief and bloggers that provide not only a one-sided, Western interpretation of events but also alternative reports. The leaders of public opinion are in the same category.

In effect, the West wants to deprive its people once and for all of the opportunity to critically analyse the flow of news and replace it with monochrome propaganda coverage. In the process, they continue to talk about the intransient value of freedom of speech. This is not just the expression of model hypocrisy typical of the rhetoric from a neo-liberal political class. They are doing this under the obvious influence of self-hypnosis in their exclusiveness and permissiveness.

We do not see any point in arguing with these pseudo proponents of freedom of speech with their obvious signs of personality disorder. We will start publishing chronicles of the most striking facts of reprisal and harassment of the Russian media and journalists on the Foreign Ministry website that have occurred since the recognition of the independence of the DPR and the LPR and the start of the special military operation to defend Donbass. It is impossible to mention everything every time. This material will be accessible to all those who are not indifferent to the status of freedom of speech in the world. We want to explain in practical terms what "mediacide" as regards Russian and Russian-language media and journalists means. We will regularly update this information because we realise that there will be many reasons for doing so in the near future. This exorbitant hype in harassing the Russian media will not abate. Why? Because the Western regimes have taken a course towards the complete cleansing of the media space from everything that does not fit in into their vision of the world.

Amendments in the Anti-Fake section on the Foreign Ministry's website

The Anti-Fake section existed on the Foreign Ministry website for a long time. We cited examples of publications demonstrating how different media publish fake reports. We also provided materials rebutting these fakes.

We launched this section in 2017. We conducted thorough research and analysed with facts many publications. The situation changed drastically after February 2022. As Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said, a hybrid war was declared on us (this happened long ago but now it has entered its active phase). This was more obvious than ever before in the information space. It looked like information terrorism. It was impossible to analyse every publication. I remember well the questions asked surreptitiously by Western journalists: What's wrong with your anti-fake reports? No fakes at all? We didn't update this section because there were so many fakes that we couldn't cope with analysing them. But we heard the message and made conclusions.

Today, we will carry at 3 pm (Moscow time) a number of reviews of the foreign media publications that replicated incorrect information in our Press Service section - Publications and Denials - Examples of publications replicating incorrect information about Russia. We will publish such reviews regularly, make a digest of this information and present a global view of what countries and regions carry distorted information and how. Today, we will write about publications in the media of Germany, Greece, Belgium and Sweden.

"The order" was accepted and will be carried out.

Anniversary of the start of the Berlin (Potsdam) conference (July 17 - August 2, 1945)

The Conference of the leaders of the three allied powers - the USSR, the US and the UK - opened in Potsdam, the suburb of Berlin on July 17, 1945. They recorded the political results of World War II and adopted decisions on the world's postwar arrangement.

It was confirmed at the Conference that supreme power in Germany would be exercised by the commanders-in-chief of the armed forces of the USSR, the US, the UK and France, each in his own occupation zone. The conferees finally harmonised the main principles for the activities of the Allied Control Council in Germany as the supreme body of power of the victors.

Proceeding from the decisions of the Yalta Conference and the proposals drafted by the European Consultative Commission, the participants decided that Germany ought to undergo de-Nazification, demilitarisation, democratisation and decentralisation. The decisions as regards Germany provided for its complete disarmament, the abolition of its armed forces, the SS, the SD and the Gestapo and the destruction or surrender of its ammunition and armaments to the allies. It was decided to punish war criminals and transfer them to the International Military Tribunal. The allies recorded this intention at the Moscow Conference in 1943.

At the Potsdam Conference, they reached agreement on reparations from Germany. It was decided that each power would receive reparations from their own zones and at the expense of German assets abroad, while the USSR would receive an additional 25 percent of the industrial equipment withdrawn from the Western zones.

The participants established a Council of Foreign Ministers of the USSR, the US, Great Britain, France and China to draft peace treaties with Italy, Romania. Hungary, Bulgaria and Finland. They also discussed a number of territorial issues, including the transfer of Konigsberg (Kaliningrad since 1946) to the USSR. The agreements reached by the leaders of the three powers were confirmed in the Conference's Protocol of August 1, 1945.

Address by the Civic Assembly of the Krasnoyarsk Territory in connection with the demolition of the monument to Soviet soldiers in Klaipeda

On July 8 of this year, members of the chamber of national and cultural autonomies of the Krasnoyarsk Territory Civic Assembly, sent a collective address to the leaders and all residents of the Republic of Lithuania in connection with the demolition of the monument to Soviet soldiers in Klaipeda. They urged the Lithuanians to put an end to vandalism of the Combat Glory monuments to Soviet soldiers and to prevent from being consigned to oblivion the exploits of our ancestors that truly freed the world of fascism.

It was noted in the address that a monument to perished Red Army soldiers was wrecked in Klaipeda on July 5 of this year. The memorial has graves of 695 Soviet soldiers, including seven Heroes of the Soviet Union. The latter include Efim Belinsky who was born in the Krasnoyarsk Territory. The residents of this region cherish the memory of Belinsky and all those who perished on the battlefield. The authors of the address recalled that deliberate extermination on the territory of today's Lithuania concerned 370,000 civilians, 230,000 Soviet POWs and another 200,000 citizens of other Nazi-occupied countries. Over 137,000 Soviet troops perished in the fighting for Lithuania's liberation.

The Assembly members emphasised the following lines: "Today, over 1,200 Lithuanians live peacefully in the Krasnoyarsk Territory, their Siberian homeland. Overall, representatives of 159 ethnicities united by common history live in this region. The residents of the Krasnoyarsk Territory know how much Lithuanians respect the memory of their ancestors and how carefully they look after the graves of their compatriots in Siberia. Those who destroy monuments to the soldiers who freed Lithuania are wrecking the foundations of their own national culture and identity."

Days of Russian Spiritual Culture in France

Against the background of the untenable, savage and barbaric attempts of the collective West to cancel Russian culture, Russia continues to show the world examples of a constructive, unifying approach to cultural issues, the consolidation of all who sincerely appreciate art, see its everlasting, all-conquering beauty and are ready for a cultural exchange on a mutually respectful and constructive basis.

The success of the Days of Spiritual Culture of Russia in France, which took place in early July at the Russian Orthodox Spiritual and Cultural Centre in Paris, is the latest example of this. The events were organised by the Russian Ministry of Culture with the support of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Masterpieces of world classical music performed by young Russian musicians, including outstanding works by the Russian composers Pyotr Tchaikovsky and Sergey Rachmaninoff, were presented to a wide French and foreign audience. The opening ceremony of the Days of Spiritual Culture included the concert Music is the Poetry of the Air attended by Sergey Rachmaninoff's great-granddaughter Alexandra Conus Brochard. The visitors also had a chance to see unique exhibits displayed at the Sergey Rachmaninoff: I am a Russian Composer exhibition organised by the Russian National Museum of Music.

The year 2023 will mark Rachmaninoff's 150th birthday. In the run-up to this significant date, numerous events devoted to the life and work of this outstanding composer, conductor and musician will be held in our country and abroad.

Bulamarg (Nightingale) International Literature Award

The annual Bulamarg (Nightingale) International Literature Award, organised by the Embassy of the Republic of South Ossetia in the Russian Federation and the award's board, has begun accepting applications, including from authors writing in Russian, for its 2022 edition.

Let me remind you that the award board introduced a separate category for Russian-speaking authors in 2020, with the aim of strengthening friendly relations between South Ossetia and Russia, familiarisation with the rich historical and cultural heritage of the two peoples and its promotion, following the spirit of commitment to the Russian World.

Novels, stories, poems, collections, non-fiction and memoirs can be nominated for the award. Topics about prominent figures in Russia and Ossetia, the most important historical events and contemporary life are encouraged. Everyone from ages 14 to 41 years old is welcome to participate.

Applications for the literary competition will be accepted until October 30, 2022, with details available on the website.

Answers to media questions:

Question: Senior Policy Advisor to the US Helsinki Commission Paul Massaro said that Ukraine should be allowed to hit targets in Russia, Belarus and Crimea. Are his words direct proof that the United States is behind Ukraine armed forces' barbaric actions? How does the Russian Foreign Ministry assess calls like this by American officials?

Maria Zakharova: It seems to me that these statements are showing that those who make them have lost all reason.

Aggressive calls for hitting targets in Russia have become increasingly more frequent in the United States and, in particular, law-makers and officials on the so-called Helsinki Commission in Congress. Not only does the senior adviser of this notorious commission say this but also a more influential person - former Commander, US European Command and former Supreme Allied Commander Europe, General Philip Breedlove - echoes him. A few days ago, he baldly recommended that the Crimea Bridge be attacked.

American officials are avoiding giving guarantees that the advanced missile systems which are being supplied to the Kiev regime will not be used by the Ukrainian armed forces to hit targets on our territory, and they also describe as legitimate the barbaric shelling by Ukrainian armed groups of cities and villages in the Donetsk and Lugansk people's republics, and of areas in Ukraine which have been liberated.

By so doing, the United Sates has become a party to the conflict with all the ensuing consequences, something that our officials, experts and statesmen have said on more than one occasion. Of course, this is a dangerous path and it is destabilising the situation in the world.

Question: Earlier, the White House said that it was working directly with the Russian authorities to secure the release of US nationals Brittney Griner and Paul Whelan who have been detained in Russia. What progress has been made on this issue? Are negotiations being held on exchanging American nationals for Russians imprisoned in the United States?

Maria Zakharova: You are well aware of the fact that real work is not accompanied by media hype, while what you are talking about is a classic information campaign. We regret that the United States has chosen this path instead of maintaining a confidential, professional dialogue. The American public, which takes such an interest in the fate of its fellow citizens, should realise this. The more people talk into a microphone in Washington to voice their opinion on the matter, the less they are involved in real effective work. If they had worked to help their citizens, they would not have had time to talk. Most importantly, they know well, just like in other situations, that sometimes this simply obstructs their work. This is another information campaign to present the aforementioned "detained persons" as everything but what they are - the victims of arbitrary treatment. I want to remind you - we said this many times - that there is significant evidence and many documents proving that Paul Whelan was duly sentenced for espionage as he was caught red-handed; as for Brittney Griner, the court is looking at her case and it is premature to discuss any options for her return home before the trial is completed.

The planted fake stories about the "horrors of Russian prisons," which as part of the information campaign are being promoted in the United States amid emphatic demands that the "innocent US citizens" be promptly released, will not help solve anything. They should make up their minds as to what they want. Do they want to work on the matter? We are prepared to. Or are they just seeking media attention or engaging in information campaigns? This is their choice but we are not going to take part in it.

We are calling on the US authorities not to exploit this sensitive issue that affects the lives of real individuals. We recommend that they stop trying in vain to put pressure on us and urge them to concentrate on practical work via existing channels. There is no other way to achieve anything.

Question: At present, Liz Truss is one of the forerunners in the UK's prime minister race. In her article for The Telegraph she listed "Vladimir Putin losing in Ukraine" as one of her priorities in case she is elected to high office. What does the Foreign Ministry think of the fact that Russia and help to Ukraine have become key items of the Conservative Party's election campaign? Will Liz Truss's election as UK prime minister change Russia's approach to relations with Great Britain?

Maria Zakharova: The statement you mentioned speaks of her utter aggressiveness and unhealthy ambitions. Let us take a look at what has been happening in Britain. The economic, socioeconomic, financial and security situation continues to deteriorate on a number of tracks. The persons you mentioned were part of that government, part of Boris Johnson's team. They must somehow come up with an agenda taking into account what is going on now, which is of their own making. And so they have to find an approach to the election campaign, and many of them resort to anti-Russia rhetoric and aggression merely to avoid explaining to their voters what went wrong and why they took certain decisions that affected Britons' lives. That is why they use such unstable, aggressive and at times misanthropic rhetoric. There is no place for such stunts in a discussion of socioeconomic problems: promising to see Russia defeated, to show something to Moscow and make our life worse. You'd better make your life better, try it after the mess you've made. Your ratings will quickly go up and many people will reach out to you once you get your house in order and show good and stable results. As of now, there is nothing to look at.

Recently I have read European, EU newspapers, in particular, from Luxembourg. They state straightforwardly (this is not a purely British outlook but it is united Western space, anyway) that it is the worst prime minister who has left the country in tatters. These are not our assessments; they come from the Western press. Therefore, just one recommendation: let them deal with their domestic problems. In view of the developments in Britain and in the overall Anglo-Saxon duet, I am surprised that they invoke foreign affairs at all in their campaign statements. This is such a critical time there that the only thing they need is to explain how they are going to take their countries out of the crises they caused themselves. The fate of the world, particularly in countries they do not border on, can wait, I think.

Question: What does the Foreign Ministry think of the bill submitted to the Verkhovna Rada on recognising the independence of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria? Do you believe the West will embrace this initiative? What will be the response from Moscow?

Maria Zakharova: I think it is further proof of the undeniably extremist ideology and even insanity of those who are writing the history of Ukraine under the Kiev regime. There is nothing more to add.

Question: US President Joe Biden is visiting Saudi Arabia, the largest oil exporter in OPEC, this week. Is Washington's oil diplomacy a cause for Russia's concern? Do you see the attempts to reduce dependence on Russian energy and, consequently, a possible price fall as a challenge?

Maria Zakharova: Do you know what Russia's real concern is? Russia is concerned about the destabilising behaviour of the US in the world. The current US administration's unreasonable moves have pushed the world to the brink, towards energy and food disasters and a security crisis. Another issue of concern to Russia, as you said, is the absolute inconsistency of, not just moves (that much is clear) but, the very conceptual programming of the US policies at home and in international affairs.

The point is that we do not see any consistency even at the level of concepts or doctrines. We understand that it is difficult to be consistent in the implementation of decisions amid crises, for example, because crises call for emergency decisions to get out of a deadlock. However, there must be at least some consistency in drafting programmes, analysing developments and formulating a paradigm, a development concept for your country and the world. That inconsistency is obvious to us, and I believe to others as well. I will provide concrete examples. I have posted several relevant items and opinions on my Telegram account.

So, what do we see now in the vision of the US? The paradigms of green transition, energy transformation and green economy are connected, in part, with President Biden's visit to the Middle East. Have these paradigms been abandoned? Are they no longer a working model? Has the concept failed? Has it been buried or laid aside? Will it be revised, or is it still effective? If it is, because nobody has cancelled it, I have a big question about the declared goals of the visit. It is said that the goal of the trip is to fuel anti-Russia sentiment, that the US President will try to convince the countries he tours not to develop relations with Russia in certain spheres and to increase the production of hydrocarbons. But the statements or concept of transition to green energy by 2035, which have not been terminated, do not concur with US calls for increasing hydrocarbons production in other countries. This is strange. The environment and nature don't need visas and have no state borders. At the very least, we are not aware of them. Maybe Washington is preparing a new doctrine? It is perfectly clear that these issues cannot be country-specific, and so it looks strange when the concept is laid aside, revised or complemented with opposite provisions. All this is cause for concern.

As for Russia's relations with the countries in the region, we highly value our successful years-long energy cooperation with Saudi Arabia. Our countries co-chair OPEC+, which is playing a major role in stabilising the oil market.

There are multiple reasons for the hikes in energy prices, including oil. The root cause is not Joe Biden's visit to Saudi Arabia but poor judgement in Western energy policy, which has led to the underfunding of the hydrocarbon sector in recent years. The concept was different. Illegal restrictions in the energy sphere, which the US has been using for political reasons so often, have also hit the market badly. They have been adopted not only against Russia but also against Iran, Venezuela and other countries. Washington has been conducting an irresponsible, provocative and speculative policy in this sphere around the world for years.

There are limited reserves for increasing production, and so prices will depend on the market. Prices could go still higher if the G7 try to implement their reckless plan of setting a cap on oil prices. Economists have pointed this out. That plan is anti-market, reckless and irrational.

Question: What does Russia's think about Iran's desire to join BRICS? Could Iran's neighbours join the group as well?

Maria Zakharova: The 14th BRICS summit was held successfully on June 23-24. It was held in the BRICS+ format within the framework of the High-level Dialogue on Global Development. The countries with emerging markets demonstrated their solid intention to strengthen cooperation with BRICS. All the participants, including Russia, appreciated the fact that the President of Iran attended that meeting.

The final declaration set forth the policy of the further strengthening of the five countries' cooperation with developing countries in the outreach and BRICS+ formats.

Discussions on expanding the group intensified at the initiative of China's chairmanship. We support this idea, as we have pointed out on numerous occasions. BRICS will now need to determine the modalities of the process, that is, coordinate its principles, criteria, standards and relevant procedures. After that, the five countries will need to come to agreement on enlarging the group, following which they can start discussing potential candidates in the developing world.

Anyway, we are aware of the growing interest in the group and its capabilities.

Question: US President Joe Biden has started a tour of the Middle East. The Washington Post previously wrote that the US leader was planning to use his trip to try to expand the group of countries that will support America in its confrontation with Russia and help it win the competition with China. How does Moscow plan to counteract such plans harboured by Washington?

The Kremlin has announced President Vladimir Putin's visit to Tehran. Can it be said that Russia and Iran are trying to form a coalition in the Middle East to oppose the West?

Maria Zakharova: We have repeatedly said that, unlike the West, we do not profess the ideology of "being friends against someone else." We pursue friendly relations, partnerships, alliances based on equality and mutual respect and serving the interests of the participating countries, peoples and businesses. There are no examples I know of where modern Russia would seek friendship and union with one country against another.

We are interested in the realisation of the people's interests. That's what we're doing. If there is potential for economic cooperation, for greater security, for better ways to counter new challenges and threats, these, too, can be reasons to connect. But we do not aim to rally against any country or to spite anyone. We are now witnessing an amazing example of such an association that is rallying against certain countries. This is the logic of a NATO-centric world: to be friends and show solidarity against something - not for the sake of something. This logic is not a natural response to development, or joint projects, but unthinkingly predetermined to unite against someone else. We have never been interested in this approach. We've never used it.

As for the US President's tour of the region, I have partially commented on it. It's not over yet. We will comment afterwards, if we have a reason. With regard to its confrontation with Russia and China, the United States has been discussing this issue outside the Middle East, too. They have declared it as their global policy, and are reaching out to everyone. Moreover, they have different reasons, but the methodology is the same. I am referring to their reasons for opposing Russia and China; their methods and toolkit are the same.

I would say, the world, the international community has clearly shown its true attitude to this in the past few months. This rallying against others, the Western cancel culture and bullying, unfair competition and an inability to pursue normal relations due to the weakness of their own systems (hence the use of the above methods) is not the choice of most countries of our planet. This opinion has been unequivocally aired from various regions of the world.

The G20 Foreign Ministers Meeting has just taken place. The overwhelming majority of countries were in favour of discussing current problems, addressing the issues on the agenda, rather than striking closed-door deals against someone simply because the countries that glorify this ideology cannot pursue normal relations, have forgotten diplomacy (maybe they have not been good at it in recent years) and cannot stand up to the competition, which they themselves have talked about so much.

Question: We are now witnessing a substantial rapprochement between Ankara and Yerevan. This week, the leaders of both countries even spoke by telephone for the first time. The Turkish side also suggested holding a regular meeting in Ankara or Yerevan to normalise relations with Armenia, thus abandoning the negotiating venues in Moscow and Vienna. What does the Russian side think about these talks and the sides' striving to maintain direct contacts?

Maria Zakharova: To be frank, we should not be guided by the Western concept that history began only this morning. History is something unique because it deals with the past. Indeed, we have to respect it.

I would like to recall that Russia invariably supports the process of normalising relations between Armenia and Türkiye, launched in Moscow on January 14, 2022, at this stage and with Russian mediation. We are ready to continue supporting Armenian-Türkiye dialogue and to provide it with all possible assistance. We assume that this meets the interests of regional stability and economic prosperity.

I would like to note once again that Russia did not facilitate the normalisation of relations between both countries in 2022 alone.

Question: The European Commission has published its explanations on sanctions with regard to Kaliningrad. It was noted that only transport by road of sanctioned Russian freight was prohibited, and that railway transits were possible, with due control. How will they implement these measures? It is believed that the United States largely determines the position of Vilnius and exerts a certain pressure on it. We would like to hear your comment: how will the Russian side respond to Lithuanian actions in the future?

Maria Zakharova: We have provided an initial comment, posted on our website. Experts are now working. If necessary, we will comment further on this issue.

Regarding US pressure on the position of Vilnius, one did not have to wait for the current aggravation of our relations with the European Union in the form of Kaliningrad transit. This situation has persisted for many years. Indeed, the United States and the United Kingdom maintain special relations with Baltic countries and Poland. These countries largely implement policy, imposed on them by the Anglo-Saxon duet, rather than their own.

Question: The Nord Stream gas pipeline has been shut down for routine maintenance. Earlier, Germany feared that Moscow would not reactivate the Nord Stream pipeline following the technical operations. Can you comment on prospects for resuming the operation of the pipeline? Will the pipeline be able to operate in its usual mode, as before?

Maria Zakharova: As you have noted, this is routine maintenance, scheduled for July 11-21. I would like to draw your attention once again to the fact that this situation did not begin today or even in early 2022. This is a routine annual maintenance procedure to ensure the pipeline is working effectively, safely and reliably. I would like to note that the schedule of these works was coordinated in advance with partners involved in gas transportation and deliveries. In this connection, we consider any speculation on this matter to be inappropriate. We have cited the relevant facts for this purpose.

Regarding the pipeline's future operations, much will depend on our partners, including their demand for gas and efforts to alleviate the negative impact of the illegitimate restrictive measures and unilateral sanctions on the pipeline's operation. What happened with the repair of a Siemens turbine in Canada is a case in point.

Question: The delegations of Russia, Türkiye, Ukraine and the UN met in Istanbul on July 13 to discuss a solution to the so-called grain problem. What is your opinion of that meeting, its outcome and the promise to sign the final document next week?

Maria Zakharova: A detailed discussion on that issue was indeed held at the four-party meeting you have mentioned. The parties have coordinated some elements of possible agreements, which their defence departments are now discussing in the capitals of Russia, Ukraine and Türkiye. After that, contacts should continue in a similar format.

Question: Indonesia has hosted a meeting of the G20 foreign ministers, and, as the host country, it had to turn a blind eye to the G7 countries' demarches towards the Russian delegation. You were part of the delegation. How did it look to you? What is the outlook for the G20 summit meeting in November?

Maria Zakharova: We have said many times, and I would like to repeat now that we are grateful to Indonesia, as the host country, for the excellent organisation of the event held at the highest level to discuss the current global problems, everything the world is now facing through the fault of the Western regimes.

We have a positive view of the outcome of the G20 Foreign Ministers' Meeting held on July 7-8 under Indonesia's chairmanship. The stories about the alleged boycott of Russia, published in the Western media, especially before the event, were a total lie. There were such plans, and the guidelines and message points were probably sent to media outlets in advance, but something went wrong. In fact, everything went wrong. The majority of participants refused to boycott Russia and are fed up with the words boycott, isolation and unilateral measures, and not only theoretically. Many practical tasks are facing the world, including the G20 countries. Must the world refuse to see them to keep up a certain country's unhealthy feeling of superiority?

The attempts to present Russia as an outcast that is to blame for all the global problems have failed, panicking their proponents. I saw Western journalists running hither and thither, trying to formulate the idea that, since the boycott of Russia had failed, it was Russia that was boycotting someone. They more or less used a stopwatch to register the time when Sergey Lavrov left the room, what talks he held and with whom. At the same time, Western journalists didn't seem to notice that other delegates left the room as well to hold talks on the sidelines of the G20 meeting. It looked ridiculous and I would even say grotesque.

And then they used the "big guns": several news conferences were held, including by the Americans and Annalena Baerbock, who tried to revitalise that subject but only became still more confused about who boycotted who.

Everything turned out as it should. Two days after the event, the Western media had to admit that the G20 meeting proved that a united anti-Russia front on the international stage was not an objective reality but a sick fancy of the West. It has no connection whatsoever to life, practice and daily routine. It is only another attempt by the Western mainstream media to keep a myth alive. They are doing their best to achieve that goal, actually forcing countries and politicians to adopt an anti-Russia agenda and align with their decisions. Many countries have stated openly that they are experiencing unprecedented pressure. Meanwhile, the Western regimes describe themselves as liberal and democratic and claim to respect international law. They did try to isolate Russia and are using force to pursue their agenda. And they are angry and panic still more when they fail to achieve their goal.

An active and substantial contribution made by the Russian delegation to the discussions, and the highly intensive bilateral talks Sergey Lavrov held on the sidelines of the G20 Foreign Ministers' Meeting have proved convincingly that the isolation of Moscow has failed. It was a ridiculous plan. Not a single global challenge can be dealt with effectively without Russia, including the issues of strategic stability, food and energy security. What we need to talk about now is not only how to deal with these issues and overcome these crises but also about who has created them in the first place. The Western regimes tried to make the world believe that Russia was to blame for everything. But global media and communication capabilities don't let this fake news last. I have read many foreign leaders' statements urging the Western regimes to put an end to this rhetoric and such actions, which are increasing, multiplicating the crises they themselves have created many times over.

Russia's position has been accepted and supported by countries with emerging economies. Like Russia, our partners from these countries (according to simple arithmetic, they make the majority: G20 minus G7 equals 13) have provided a realistic and balanced assessment of the ongoing geopolitical transformation and have openly pointed out the role of the West and its failure to live up to its own promises, which has increased global turbulence and crises in many areas. The leading Western analysts have made impressive statements in Bali. For example, American economist and Nobel Prize winner Jeffrey Sachs, who was invited to address the ministers, noted that it was the collective West that was pursuing a policy of confrontation based on Cold War principles and was creating new seats of tension, which is the cause of all the other problems in the global economy.

We would like to point out the balanced and substantiated character of Indonesia's G20 Presidency. It was largely thanks to Jakarta's efforts that the July 7-8 meeting in Bali focused on dealing with the global problems through multilateral mechanisms, with the G20 as an integral part, despite our Western colleagues' frenzied efforts to use Ukraine to set the group against Russia. We hope that the wise and balanced policy of Indonesia's Presidency will allow the G20 summit, to be held on November 15-16, to uphold the need for taking practical action within this format in order to restore stability in the global economy, trade and finance. I am sure that the Western intrigues will continue. An approach based on concrete and multilateral actions is necessary to satisfy the basic needs of billions of people in the developing countries, which have no connection to the geopolitical games of the West and only want to live and survive.

For our part, we will continue with our active target-oriented efforts within the framework of the G20 aimed at encouraging a collective response to global socioeconomic challenges.

Question: According to the Foreign Intelligence Service, Poland is preparing an expansion to Western Ukraine to create a quasi-state on the lands that they call Eastern Borderlands. Is there a risk that Romania will also begin an open expansion into Moldova? In such a case, Transnistria would inevitably be involved. Is Russia ready for such challenges?

Maria Zakharova: You began with citing the Foreign Intelligence Service statement. It would be the right thing to work with their assessments in this area too. We will also follow them with interest.

Question: Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said in an interview that thanks to Boris Johnson, the United Kingdom is now in the backseat of European politics. The actions of the outgoing British prime minister were focused on PR and stirring up confrontation between Russia and Europe. Does the Foreign Ministry expect that with a new prime minister, relations between Russia and England will improve, and the absence of the, so to say, "brawler" Johnson will facilitate the dialogue between the EU, the UK and Russia?

Maria Zakharova: Are you expecting that in the near future, there will be relations not between Russia and the United Kingdom, but between Russia and England? You have an interesting point of view. Your analysis is impressive. See, Russian journalists say everything is possible. And it is not a slip of the tongue.

It is impossible to name an era when the relations between the United Kingdom and Russia were easy. At the moment they are undergoing a deep crisis for obvious reasons. The ideology of the Anglo-Saxon world that is focused on its own domination, dictating their point of view and values together with the neo-colonial approach and manifestations of hegemony and imperialism makes a normal dialogue impossible. This approach - from one centre of power - does not include a dialogue. The modern world is built on the principles of dialogue, equality and mutual respect for each other's interests.

An election will be held and the British political system will be reset. It is their issue, their country. The agenda will include (and this is a reality) the semi-disintegration, given the statements of a clearly disintegrative nature, rather than integrative, that have been voiced and been an agenda for the British regions for many years.

London is doing everything to preserve a pretty facade. But there is also the meaningful part of this story. It is at the least absurd to talk about the UK's domination in the world given that their regions are announcing independence referendums here and there.

I think that they should decide on their course for themselves, with their politicians and see what to put stakes on in future, either the aggressive logic of neo-colonial expansion (or pseudo-domination), that is, a complete disassociation from reality, or a realistic and pragmatic approach. It is for them to decide.

We have always said that we want and are ready to develop normal relations with all countries in the interests of the people. It is not up to us when London will understand the beauty of a pragmatic approach.

Question: Sergey Lavrov said at a recent offsite meeting of the United Russia Party's General Council Commission on International Cooperation and Support for Compatriots Abroad in Minsk that "system-wide and comprehensive efforts to neutralise and suppress" such dangerous trends as "propaganda of a new form of racism - Russophobia - and other xenophobic ideas" are particularly relevant today. What concrete measures and steps will be taken to achieve this goal? What role will compatriots' organisations play in combating xenophobia and discrimination against Russian citizens abroad?

Maria Zakharova: Today, in the context of the unprecedented and barbaric surge of xenophobia , including Russophobia, aggressive attacks and threats, discrimination against Russian citizens and compatriots abroad because of their nationality, language, citizenship and views, system-wide and comprehensive efforts to protect their rights and legitimate interests are highly relevant indeed. The Russian Foreign Ministry and Russian foreign missions are at the forefront of this effort. We have significantly intensified cooperation with the Office of the Commissioner for Human Rights in the Russian Federation, the Civic Chamber of the Russian Federation, Rossotrudnichestvo, and the Foundation for Supporting and Protecting the Rights of Compatriots Living Abroad. We are stepping up cooperation with human rights and public organisations, in particular, with the Association of Lawyers of Russia, and the International Association of Russian-speaking Lawyers.

Russia's overseas missions have special channels of communication with Russian diasporas and citizens to be able to promptly respond to their concerns. All incoming information is accumulated and systematised, and the necessary consulting services are provided. Reports of discrimination are sent to the relevant international bodies for them to take measures, as well as to Russian law enforcement agencies.

The office of the Russian Foreign Ministry's Commissioner for Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law annually publishes relevant reports on violations of the rights of Russian citizens and compatriots in foreign countries (the latest one released on June 14, 2022), and on the situation with the glorification of Nazism, the spread of neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to fueling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance (October 22, 2021). Right now, an updated version of the report on the situation with the glorification of Nazism is being prepared, which will reflect these problems.

We have noted that our compatriots and their coordinating bodies have become more active in this regard. They have moved from appeals for goodwill towards actively defending their own rights. They are creating legal aid and counseling centers, legal pages in the media and online, and offering legal and practical assistance to our fellow citizens. Combining efforts will undoubtedly help to better defend the interests and rights of the Russian-speaking community. A powerful consolidated diaspora can do a lot. Naturally, we support such initiatives in every way we can and provide assistance to Russian communities. The fact that Russian communities abhor any discrimination (in relation to Russians or otherwise) is evidenced by the decisions of the World Coordinating Council of Russian Compatriots that met in Moscow on June 16-17, 2022. The participants unanimously adopted a statement concerning the surge of Russophobia and anti-Russian sentiments in a number of Western countries, and aggressive attacks on the rights and fundamental freedoms of the Russian-speaking population.

NEWSLETTER

Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list

Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, July 14, 2022