Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, July 17, 2025
17 July 2025 19:33
1229-17-07-2025
Ukrainian crisis update
The Kiev regime continues to carry out terrorist attacks against civilians and civilian infrastructure in Russia.
Over the past week, over 120 people were injured by enemy artillery and UAVs; 21 died, including one child, while 88 were injured, including three children.
I will cite a few facts that demonstrate the monstrous nature of the Kiev regime:
The Belgorod Region. On July 10-11, two women and a man were killed when the Armed Forces of Ukraine attacked Shebekino. Another civilian was killed by a drone attack on a car in the village of Novaya Tavolzhanka. On July 13, five people were injured when a drone detonated in Shebekino. Another civilian was injured by a UAV strike on a car on the Arkhangelskoye-Shamino road. On July 14, a boy was fatally wounded by a drone in the village of Shchigorevka.
The Bryansk Region. On July 12 and 15, two women were injured in drone attacks in the villages of Lomakovka and Sluchovsk.
The Voronezh Region. In the early hours of July 15, the enemy launched a massive UAV attack on Voronezh killing one civilian and injuring 21 more, including four children. Two more people were injured in one of the districts of the region.
The Kursk Region. It is with deep sadness that we learned that Anatoly Minashkin - the boy wounded by an enemy drone targeting a beach in Kursk on July 8 - died on July 9 during transportation to a Moscow hospital. The five-year-old boy demonstrated exceptional courage during the Ukro-Nazis' barbaric attack, covering his mother with his own body and suffering severe burns. The responsibility for the young hero's death also lies with the Western sponsors of the Kiev regime - who, utterly unperturbed by the devastation they enable, continue to supply the Banderite regime with deadly and destructive weapons, flouting human rights with callous indifference.
On July 10, a 73-year-old pensioner was killed by a drone attack on a residential building in Kursk. On July 11, a UAV wounded four people in the village of Sukhodol. On July 14, two Emergencies Ministry employees lost their lives while demining the area.
The Lipetsk Region. In the early hours of July 11, two people were injured when a UAV dropped on a farm grounds; one of them died.
The Tula Region. An Emergencies Ministry rescuer died during a relief effort following a nighttime drone attack on Tula on July 11; one civilian was injured.
The Kherson Region. On July 11, the Banderites dropped two aerial bombs on a five-storey residential building in Alyoshki, effectively razing the structure. The rescuers' effort to find survivors under the rubble were hampered by Ukrainian drones. On July 13, a woman and two men were also injured in Alyoshki.
DPR. On July 9, a man and a woman were injured in Gorlovka by the explosion of a Lepestok mine. On July 11 and July 14, three more Gorlovka residents were wounded in UAV attacks. On the night of July 16, the city centre came under heavy fire: 20 rockets from multiple launch rocket systems struck the area, leaving three people injured.
For these crimes, they receive the punishment they deserve. Russian courts continue to sentence Ukrainian neo-Nazis and foreign mercenaries.
For atrocities committed in Kursk Region against civilians and Russian personnel, the following captured members of the Ukrainian Armed Forces received lengthy prison terms: Yury Sinkevich (15.5 years), Maxim Starinets (15 years), Konstantin Brovchak (16 years), Vladimir Dmysh (16 years), Alexey Babenko (17 years), Bogdan Didok (16 years), Roman Zhmuydin (16 years), Maxim Zolotarenko (15 years), Sergey Pachkov (15 years), Dmitry Verbitsky (16 years), Alexander Vysotsky (16 years), Sergey Baranyuk (16 years), and Sergey Valchuk (14 years).
Look at these people, including those who have long terms. If you see their years of birth, you will see that many of them are very young: they are the same people whom Vladimir Zelensky called "children." How much this resembles the Hitler Youth of Nazi Germany: souls and destinies twisted and crippled by those on Bankovaya Street, who eagerly pocket millions and billions from the West to perpetuate this tragedy.
Sniper Artyom Moroz from the banned neo-Nazi Azov Battalion was sentenced to 24 years in prison for murdering two residents of Mariupol in March 2022.
British mercenary Adam Wilson Ennis was sentenced in absentia to 14 years and placed on the international wanted list.
Amid this monstrous dehumanisation, the Kiev regime led by Vladimir Zelensky chose to celebrate the Day of the Baptism of Kievan Rus-Ukraine on July 15. This holiday was introduced by Zelensky in 2021, shifting the commemoration from the traditional Orthodox date of July 28, when the Orthodox world honours the Baptism of Rus in 988.
However, the regime needed to undermine canonical Orthodoxy, step by step. On this occasion, Zelensky delivered a pompous speech, never mentioning the Kievan Rus-Ukraine but presenting this date as a symbol of the interconnection of eras and generations, reflecting the high values preserved by the Ukrainian people and their supposed ability to "overcome difficult trials."
But he never mentioned that these trials were brought upon the Ukrainian people by his own actions, as he diligently fills his pockets with Western dollars and euros. Nor did he acknowledge the harsh reality: Ukraine has long since become a colony of the West and risks losing its statehood entirely.
Vladimir Zelensky has also failed to say beyond the shadow of doubt that he was ready to sacrifice millions of his citizens and Ukraine itself for keeping his powers.
Both the freedom of faith and the canonical Orthodoxy went into this furnace of his monstrous idea of how Ukraine should be fitted out. Actually, is there still Christianity in Ukraine at all?
All this propaganda hullabaloo is to conceal the clearly visible Kiev regime's intent to grossly distort the facts of the past and falsify the history, as well as to Ukrainise some outstanding figures of the Old Russian state: Great Princes of Kiev (Oleg the Wise, Prince Igor, Equal-to-the-Apostles Princess Olga, Prince Vladimir Svyatoslavovich (Saint), Yaroslav the Wise, Vladimir Monomakh, Mstislav the Great). All this can only emphasise the maniacal desire to make the Kievan Rus-Ukraine the "sole heir" of the real Kievan Rus.
There is no doubt that the entire pseudo-quasi-history by Vladimir Zelensky is doomed to failure. No matter how hard they try on the Bankovaya Street, they are incapable to replace the real history with an imaginary one. It will not work. The real confirmation to this is the empty churches taken over by the regime from the canonical Orthodox Church. They are empty all over Ukraine. Now they can take the walls but not the soul.
Ukraine's top officials are doing their best to impose on the believers their own view, in particular, about holiday dates, on how they should be celebrated or should not be celebrated at all.
Yet, they fail to achieve the desired result, they only show that they resort to violence even to destroy the freedom of religion.
How many words and statements have we heard over the past months and years from Westerners, from Western leaders, that Ukraine is allegedly fighting for its sovereignty and that it should be helped in this regard. Why are they allegedly fighting for their sovereignty? Let's look at the facts.
Thirty-five years ago, on July 16, 1990, the Supreme Soviet of the Ukrainian SSR adopted the Declaration of State Sovereignty in which Ukraine "solemnly declares its intention of becoming a permanently neutral state that does not participate in military blocs and adheres to three nuclear free principles: to accept, to produce and to purchase no nuclear weapons." It also promised equal protection of the law to the republic's citizens regardless of the language they speak, among other things. These are the features of Ukraine's sovereignty that reaffirm its sovereignty. Later, reference to this Declaration was included in the Act of Declaration of Independence of Ukraine of August 24, 1991. These provisions were included in the Constitution of Ukraine adopted on June 28, 1996 as well.
However, those who grabbed power unconstitutionally on the heels of the February 2014 armed coup have long since ceased to observe any of the above. They undermined the principles of sovereignty on which its sovereignty relied and deprived Ukraine of it altogether. Kiev's rejection, with the assistance of the West, of the legal foundations of Ukraine's existence as an independent peaceful state became a deliberate policy of the Bandera followers who established a neo-Nazi dictatorship and sought to destroy everything Russian, and became a threat to the security of Russia, all of Europe and the world at large.
Considering this, the complete and irreversible eradication of the entire set of causes that have led to the Ukraine crisis remains the main prerequisite for achieving a final and just settlement. The sooner the curators in charge of Bankovaya Street who are sitting in London, Paris, Berlin, and Brussels understand this, the better. I'm not sure the people on Bankovaya will ever understand it, though.
On July 10-11, a conference with the participation of 5,000 delegates from 70 countries and 40 international organisations was held in Rome. This event has been held since 2017 and is devoted to reforming Ukraine.
Despite its name, this forum has focused on providing military aid to the Kiev regime for the fourth consecutive year. That is, not on rebuilding Ukraine, but on destroying it. The tone of the discussion on this topic was set by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, who made it unequivocally clear that the investment funds must be used to ensure Ukraine military and technical superiority. She also conveyed that the €800 billion under the Readiness 2030 plan could be spent on Ukraine, among other things. She proposed using the underutilised capacities of EU's defence industry enterprises to ensure EU's defence capability and strongly promoted the idea of placing defence orders with the Ukrainian armament and military equipment market as a quick and inexpensive way to boost Europe's defence capabilities. According to von der Leyen, this kind of assistance to Zelensky's regime will allow NATO members to easily meet Washington's requirement to bring their defence spending to 5 percent of GDP.
I believe that if someone were to hold an international cynicism championship, this situation would have won the grand prize. The first place doesn't quite cover it given the circumstances. It should be a special prize in a special category. They started by saying they needed to defend Ukraine. Then they said Ukraine was a kind of a military outpost. Now they are saying they need to place military orders in Ukraine with the help of Ukrainians, and to drum up some money via Ukraine in order to not even sustain NATO, but to wire these funds to Washington.
Speaking of expenditures on Ukraine rebuilding effort, absolutely different amounts were mentioned in Rome. To reiterate, this was not the main point. The main point was made by Ursula von der Leyen. Don't read too much into what she said. Take everything she said at face value instead. For them, Ukraine is another way to pay their dues to Washington, which raised NATO membership fee for crisis-ridden European economies to 5 percent of GDP.
Prime Minister Denis Shmygal, who wrote a letter of resignation on July 15, mentioned $1 trillion, of which $540 billion are supposed to be covered by frozen Russian assets, and the balance, he said, would be covered by the EU.
Zelensky offered the most pointless and meaningless speech of all. He made full use of trite insinuations about "Russia's relentless drone attacks," and importuned his allies for more funds to reinforce air defence systems and to produce interceptor drones and missiles. He encouraged the audience to provide systematic and regular assistance to the Kiev regime and to turn it into an effort resembling the post-WWII Marshall Plan for Western Europe. In other words, Europe is openly telling the people on Bankovaya Street that it will use Ukraine to pay whatever it owes to Washington. However, Ukraine keeps asking Europe for more money. This is a hell of a corrupt tie-up between Brussels and the Kiev regime, the West, all their political elites and circles, and Bankovaya Street.
Zelensky pushed ahead the initiative to create a "coalition for recovery." Apparently, a coalition of the willing does not cut it anymore. Now, they need a coalition for recovery, which means its members should be willing to engage in that effort as well. He encouraged his partners to pay up and to maximise their spending on Ukraine, which "is in the midst of a winterisation process and has to pay for it with its own money." Its "own" money? What kind of its "own" money was Zelensky talking about? If it's about his money, though, it's a good place to start looking. I'm sure there's plenty to supply Ukraine with heat and much more. That pocket could feed several continents.
These pleas fell on deaf ears. It was agreed in Rome that the European Flagship Fund for the Reconstruction of Ukraine announced by Ursula von der Leyen could be used as the main instrument for attracting private investment. Reportedly, its initial capital will amount to around €200 million. In all, the volume of investment announced during the conference did not exceed €10 billion. Well, that sounds right, because these funds will be used to rebuild Ukraine at a time when hundreds of billions are being spent to kill Ukrainians. To put that in perspective, in 2024, Berlin managed to raise €16 billion in "promised money," and €60 billion a year earlier in London. So, Rome ended up as fairgrounds of empty promises. What else was there to expect? Everyone is clear that they are being encouraged to invest in a territory (Ukraine) haunted by off-the-chart corruption, lawlessness and an utter and total lack of independence. We are talking about a country that has plunged itself into the abyss of being treated by the West as a colony.
I would also like to speak about the "coalition of the willing" summit. These formats can be really confusing. Who are they? "Coalition of the willing"? "Coalition of the recoverers"?
On July 10, the "coalition of the willing" had its sixth summit in a hybrid format. Representatives of 32 nations and international organisations attended. Its masterminds - UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron - led the discussion from the Northwood Headquarters of the British Armed Forces. They were joined via videoconference by Vladimir Zelensky who was in Rome at the above mentioned Ukraine Recovery Conference 2025, as well as US President's special envoy Keith Kellogg and US Congress senators Lindsay Graham (an extremist and terrorist) and Richard Blumenthal who were watching this get-together live for the first time.
The forum solidified the formula for foreign assistance to Ukraine immediately after a peace agreement is reached and stressed the need to set up "Multinational Force Ukraine." Its mandate includes restoring the combat capacity of the Armed Forces of Ukraine land troops by experts in weaponry, military training and logistics. Keir Starmer and Emmanuel Macron also announced plans on joint air patrols with Ukraine and also at sea as part of "an anti-mine group" allegedly to restore the strength of the Ukrainian army and send some kind of a "strategic signal" to Moscow. Emmanuel Macron also announced plans to increase the potential French-British contingent to be deployed in Ukraine after a ceasefire from a brigade to an army corps to reach about 50,000 troops.
The creation was announced of a permanent multinational operative headquarters of the Multinational Force Ukraine under the UK-French leadership that will be rotationally based in Paris and London, as well a "coordinating center" in Kiev to be headed by a two-star British general. Can anyone talk about Ukraine's sovereignty given all that?
That said, the final joint statement and press release lack any mention of possible support of the above plans by the United States. Nevertheless, the British and the French are still entertaining the idea of involving the Americans in their schemes by stressing the "reassurance" character of the Multinational Force Ukraine and not "auxiliary" as it was called earlier.
They have arranged this brouhaha with the only thing on their mind - to ask a question, and a very practical one rather than a rhetoric one. Were the words "talks" and "peace" voiced at that event, or recorded, or may be pondered by someone? A short while ago they were screaming that they needed a truce, that everything should be put on hold and negotiations should start. They actually demanded a place for themselves at that negotiating table. Just a couple of weeks later it turned out that while speculating on some kind of ceasefire during all that time they were preparing the establishment of the Multinational Force Ukraine headquarters. The question arises if they can be trusted at all, and what is really on their minds?
We have repeatedly underscored the absolute inadmissibility of deploying units of foreign armed forces in Ukraine under any flag whatsoever. We regard this as preparation for foreign intervention and will consider such multinational forces as legitimate military targets.
The aforementioned facts, among others, confirm the ongoing necessity of the special military operation to denazify and demilitarise Ukraine and eliminate threats emanating from its territory. As the Russian leadership has affirmed, all objectives will be met.
Smuggling of Western-made weapons by the Kiev regime
We have repeatedly addressed this issue. The smuggling of Western weapons remains a highly lucrative business for Bankova Street, generating billions of dollars in monthly revenue. These are the very funds that Vladimir Zelensky solicits from the West to cover budgetary shortfalls. While thousands of young Ukrainians perish, the Ukrainian junta continues to enrich itself. Illegal trafficking is entirely controlled by organised crime, shielded by corrupt officials, the command of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, and Ukrainian intelligence agencies.
The scale of smuggling is staggering. Even by conservative official figures - a mere fraction of the actual volume reported by Ukraine's State Border Guard Service - Ukrainian law enforcement intercepted over 2,100 units of armaments, predominantly small arms and anti-tank missile systems, during attempted illegal exports to EU countries between January and April 2025. Just consider: missile systems are being smuggled out of Ukraine! How does that strike you? Yet this is merely the tip of the iceberg.
Let me remind you that as far back as April 2024, Interior Minister Igor Klimenko admitted there were between one and five million small arms in civilian hands across the country. How did Ukraine's population acquire them? Were they provided by recruitment offices? No - these are illicit acquisitions. Stolen, purchased, or otherwise unlawfully obtained.
Arms smuggling abroad follows multiple routes. One key land corridor runs through southern Poland, after which the weapons "dissolve" across Europe. Criminal networks also exploit transit infrastructure into Hungary, Romania, Poland, and Slovakia. Moldova remains a major hub for illicit arms shipments from Ukraine, while the Balkans have become a full-scale smuggling nexus. Transactions occur not through shadowy online channels but in plain sight. Finland, NATO's newest member, has now emerged as another transit point. Maritime routes - from Odessa port to Bulgaria, Turkiye, Montenegro, and African states - are actively exploited, alongside air shipments from western Ukraine to the Middle East.
Instances of Western weapons appearing across the globe have become increasingly frequent. The magnitude of this issue has intensified to such a degree that even Western intelligence agencies have been compelled to acknowledge it. Allow me to cite several recent examples.
On May 17, 2025, during an Interpol-led operation, the largest shipment of German small arms in recent years was discovered at the Port of Bar in Montenegro, with an estimated value exceeding 30 million euros. These are staggering quantities!
In late May, the US Department of Defence initiated an investigation into the use of Western-produced weapons by the terrorist organisation Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (a banned entity), as well as tracing the supply routes for military-grade equipment. It transpired that these weapons originated from Ukraine. During a US military counter-terrorism operation in Syria, seized items included American-made M141 hand grenades, M72 rocket-propelled grenades, and Javelin anti-tank missile systems - all delivered to the UAF via Western military aid from Poland. At present, American defence officials are also probing the use of Ukrainian-sourced weaponry in the Sudanese internal conflict.
Smuggled Western arms from Ukraine have already been deployed in criminal gang conflicts across Western Europe - in France, Britain, and Germany. There are documented cases of firearms with Ukrainian provenance being used during anti-government protests, notably in France and Germany throughout 2023-2024. This, not to mention the far graver prospect of terrorists exploiting such weaponry for their own ends.
We believe the sponsors of the Bandera regime in Kiev ought to consider the likelihood that, at some stage, the very weapons they supply to Ukraine may be turned against them - by their own proxies. These concerns must be central to the ongoing debate about further Western military aid to Vladimir Zelensky's clique. It is equally crucial for taxpayers in Western nations - whose elites are not only bankrolling continued bloodshed in Ukraine but also planting a time bomb on their own soil - to grasp this reality. How long before detonation? That this bomb will explode is beyond doubt.
Rampant corruption within the upper echelons of the Kiev junta, coupled with the mantra that "war excuses all," renders any genuine oversight of Western military assistance impossible. Smuggled arms and ammunition will continue surfacing - now and in the future - wherever it suits those seeking to artificially destabilise the situation.
Statements by Polish President Andrzej Duda about the Volhynia Massacre
On July 9, 2025, the outgoing Polish President Andrzej Duda granted a lengthy interview to the RMF24 television channel, in which he said that he might believe Vladimir Zelensky's claims about his lack of knowledge regarding the Volhynia Massacre because this issue had not been raised in Soviet schools. I would recommend to the Polish president and other people to try raising other issues in their conversations with Zelensky as well, such as mathematics or literature. If they did, they would have discovered that mathematics and literature had not been taught at the schools Zelensky attended, or maybe that he never bothered to learn them. We have published an extensive comment on this issue in our Antifake section, but I would like to revisit it.
I can't be certain about what Vladimir Zelensky learned at school, but it is a fact that he has become the champion of those who have embraced Nazi ideology. Unlike him, we know and can provide basic facts about the Volhynia Massacre.
The Volhynia Massacre is the murder, in 1943-1944, by Ukrainian nationalists of about 100,000 peaceful Soviet civilians, predominantly Poles but also Russians, Byelorussians, Jews and people from other ethnic groups who lived in the Soviet Union, such as Ukrainians, who did not share the man-hating ideology of OUN-UPA (an extremist organisation banned in Russia). We don't distinguish between the victims of that tragedy based on ethnicity. All of them were Soviet citizens killed by Nazi accomplices, who deliberately exterminated people of certain ethnicities. The current Ukrainian government has the same man-hating ideology. On the other hand, it is not a Ukrainian government but a puppet regime.
The Polish elite, including President Andrzej Duda, which has been sitting on its hands for years instead of trying to curb the rise of nationalist sentiments in Ukraine, has betrayed the memory of its forefathers who were killed by the Bandera men during the war. Warsaw is mindlessly following the path of the collective West, forgetting its own history or engaging in historical manipulation. They remember or "forget" facts depending on what suits them best at any given time.
It is the West with its Russophobic ideology that nurtured today's Nazis in Ukraine and brought them to power in 2014 as a result of a state coup, in which Polish leaders took part as well. Until 2022, the West did its utmost to fan the flames of war and increase the suffering of Ukrainians and other ethnic groups at the hands of Zelensky's gang. Russia has consistently protested against these neo-Nazi practices in Ukraine at all these stages. Hitler's accomplices were criminally persecuted in the Soviet Union. Russia has continued the policy of protecting the historical truth and investigating the crimes perpetrated by Hitler's forces and their accomplices.
Unlike President Duda, we don't need to invent childish excuses, saying that some people don't know about the crimes perpetrated by the Bandera men because, as President Duda said, grandfathers in Western Ukraine hardly bragged to their grandkids about stabbing their neighbour with a pitchfork and smashing her baby's head against the barn. Such butchers and killers were, and are, persecuted in the Soviet Union and Russia in accordance with the law. It is in Canada that they are applauded in parliament - I mention this just in case the Polish president didn't know. It is in Ukraine, where Poland is sending money and weapons, that these butchers and killers are glorified and monuments are erected to them.
This is a conscious choice in favour of reviving Nazism rather than a lack of education or historical amnesia, allegedly because nobody taught this in Soviet schools. No, school teachers spoke with children about that, and we provide links to history books, textbooks and other scholarly works published in the Soviet Union in our Antifake section.
Moldova update
We are closely following developments in Moldova. The country's authorities continue to push the far-fetched idea of European integration, brainwashing the population into believing it will save the republic (let that sink in) from the so-called Russian threat.
On July 4, Chisinau hosted the first Moldova-European Union summit. The organisers clearly intended to frame it as a historic, fateful event, symbolising Moldova's irrevocable rapprochement with the EU. In reality, however - as Moldovan political analysts noted - this "promo" came across as tired and meaningless. The official segment lasted less than two hours, since there was little to discuss. The handful of Brussels delegates offered no breakthrough solutions, leaving participants to trade hollow praise, rehearse flattery, and adopt a joint declaration stuffed with worn-out clichés about "commitments," "aspirations," and the ever-convenient Kremlin threat.
Meanwhile, the longest section of the declaration focuses on security and defence cooperation. This fact only confirms what we've long emphasised: the West is pulling out all the stops to transform Moldova into a NATO outpost for potential confrontation with Russia. And they're doing it with the full compliance of Chisinau's authorities, who are systematically eroding the country's constitutional neutrality. But how can they claim Moldova as "theirs" when its leaders are now Romanian citizens themselves, insisting that the Moldovan language be called Romanian, and rewriting Moldovans into Romanians? Let's not forget: Neutrality is enshrined in the country's Constitution.
Here's more proof.
On July 10, Moldova's parliament ratified an intergovernmental agreement with Germany on the equipment assistance program for foreign armed forces - a deal signed back in May by the two countries' defence chiefs. The pact includes stationing a Bundeswehr advisory group in Moldova. So how, exactly, does this boost education in Moldova? How does it advance EU integration - as Chisinau keeps promising voters? Let's not forget: the EU is, first and foremost, an economic bloc. What does any of this have to do with improving Moldova's economy? Nothing. It's pure deception.
On July 11, Denmark pledged roughly $8 million to strengthen Moldova's defence capabilities - funding that won't buy farm machinery, fertilisers, or loans for local industry. Instead, it serves one clear purpose: advancing Moldova's militarisation for NATO's benefit.
Moldova is further accelerating its integration with NATO countries, conducting over 30 joint military exercises with alliance forces in 2024 alone.
Why? The answer is obvious. Moldova is being groomed to become the next Ukraine. Tellingly, on July 13, Moldovan media reported four Moldovan officers killed near Kherson. According to reports, ten servicemen had been sent to a Ukrainian Armed Forces training ground - supposedly to "gain advanced experience." Mission accomplished, it seems.
The crackdown against the opposition continues unabated. On July 10, a Chisinau court extended the house arrest of Gagauzia's leader, Evghenia Guțul, for another 30 days - until August 12. On July 11, the Moldovan Prosecutor's Office escalated pressure against opposition MP Marina Tauber (Victory Bloc), demanding a 13-year prison sentence on far-fetched charges of "illegal financing" and putting her on the wanted list.
All this is happening amid Moldova's forcible "European transformation." If you think this means progress for Moldovan science, education, or industry, you are wrong. What it really delivers is the systematic crushing of dissent, and the betrayal of the country's national interests and historical legacy.
Chisinau's regime is desperately diverting public attention from its socio-economic failures. No time to address Moldova's real problems - to develop its science, industry, arts or culture. There's only one priority from Brussels: fast-track Moldova into NATO's orbit as a staging ground against Russia.
An installation titled 'State Terror in Soviet Moldova: Span, Victims and Perpetrators' is occupying Chisinau's central square from July 5 to 27. Even within Moldova, independent experts have dismissed it as a collection of inconsistent historical fabrications bearing little connection to the country's actual past.
In fact, Moldova's aggressive pro-Western propaganda has backfired spectacularly. Recent polls reveal that 60 percent believe the country is headed in the wrong direction, 77 percent advocate for balanced relations with both Russia and Europe, and a striking 78 percent insist on maintaining permanent neutrality.
Brussels' destructive policies enjoy no popular support among friendly Moldova's people - nor will they ever.
Moldovan authorities' plans to restrict constitutional rights of their citizens
We are expressing profound concern over the plans of Moldovan authorities to once again curb the constitutional right of thousands of Moldovan citizens living in Russia to take part in the national parliamentary elections. I would like to remind everyone that the right to vote is the fundamental right of every citizen in a democratic country.
Chisinau's 2024 explanations about security threats on Russian territory were baseless and politically motivated. The entire world became convinced that they were groundless. The Russian Federation has an impeccable experience of establishing polling stations for citizens from dozens of foreign states and guaranteeing the safety of voters, commissions and observers.
For decades, Russia has been ensuring successful and transparent voting processes for citizens of other countries on its territory. Our infrastructure and law enforcement system reliably protect the voting process in accordance with international standards.
We can see that almost 20,000 Moldovan citizens living in Russia (the entire Moldovan diaspora has 300,000 members) have registered ahead of the September 28 election. If Chisinau once again confines them to just two polling stations, then part of these people who have already stated their desire to vote would literally lose their constitutional right. It would be better to say that this right would be stolen from them. Meanwhile the number of registrations from the territory of our country continues to increase.
Moldovan legislation allows to open additional polling stations abroad, including the Russian Federation. We would like to confirm that there are all essential legal grounds for establishing them on September 28. There are no organisational or legal barriers for opening polling stations in Russia. The Russian side is ready to provide all necessary conditions and is ready to collaborate with Moldovan electoral agencies for promptly addressing all issues, including technical ones.
Even human rights organisations in Moldova, including those financed by the European Union and the United States, believe that official arguments on declining to open polling stations in the Russian Federation are unjustified. This confirms the politically motivated nature of Chisinau's decision. Of course, a refusal to open additional polling stations this year has nothing to do with security or logistical aspects. This is the deliberate policy of the party that rules the Republic of Moldova and the President, in the first place. This policy aims to exclude some of the Moldovan diaspora's votes for precisely political reasons.
Objectively speaking, considering voter turnout at three previous elections, as well as current requirements, it is necessary to open at least nine to ten polling stations in key Russian cities. This obviously meets current demand and Moldovan election standards.
We are urging Moldovan authorities to display a responsible attitude, to honour their own legislation and international obligations in the sphere of voting rights. Russia is ready for an immediate dialogue and practical cooperation for opening polling stations, and it is ready to guarantee their transparent and safe operation.
The British authorities' continuing pressure on dissenting media
The British authorities continue to harass dissenting media and journalists, using the most indecent methods of intimidation, psychological and administrative pressure and blackmail.
On July 11, 2025, the police detained and conducted a lengthy interrogation of RT's Lebanon Bureau Chief Steve Sweeney, a British citizen who had travelled to Britain to visit his family.
The interrogators wanted the journalist, who was detained under the pretext of "terrorist activity," to say that his RT management had forced him to circulate unreliable information or opinions he doesn't share. That's how they coined it. His personal belongings, including mobile phones and a laptop, were taken from him. Unable to find solid evidence for his detention, the police released Sweeney but ordered him to leave his home country.
The actions of the British security services can only be described as police harassment and open pressure on members of the media whose professional activities do not align with London's political narratives.
Such demonstrations of political censorship are designed not only to intimidate the journalists who are detained to send a message to others, but also to demoralise those who don't support Britain's current policy. It is notable that such repressive measures are applied to subjects of the British Crown, which should be seen as a warning and a black mark for all dissenters in Britain and beyond.
This incident is further proof of Britain's transformation into a police state with zero tolerance for alternative views, and total political censorship.
30 years after the Srebrenica tragedy
July 11 marked 30 years since the tragic events that took place in Srebrenica during the 1992-1995armed conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
We believe that all innocent victims of that conflict should be commemorated appropriately, with due consideration for the fact that it is an extremely sensitive subject for people in Bosnia and Herzegovina and neighbouring countries, as we have pointed out on numerous occasions at various platforms. We regard the efforts by some political and religious circles, supported by the collective West, to formalise a biased, one-sided and extremely dangerous interpretation of the 1995 events as counterproductive and harmful to the reconciliation process. We believe that attempts to demonise the Serbian people are absolutely unacceptable.
In this context, the decision to designate July 11 as the day of commemoration of the Srebrenica "genocide," set out in the openly anti-Serbian resolution of the UN General Assembly adopted in May 2025, causes concern. This is yet another irresponsible attempt to deepen divisions and increase the conflict potential in the region, undertaken by those who aggressively seek to further their geopolitical objectives.
I would like to remind you that Russia has consistently called for an objective investigation into the illegal actions perpetrated in the Balkans against all ethnic groups, including Bosniaks, Serbs and Croats, so that the culprits are called to account and receive the punishment they deserve, regardless of their ethnicity or religion.
50th anniversary of the USSR-US Soyuz-Apollo mission
Nearly half a century ago - on July 15, 1975 - the world observed with anticipation the historic joint flight of the Soviet manned spacecraft Soyuz-19 and the US Apollo spacecraft as it unfolded in real time.
The symbolic handshake in orbit epitomised the profound truth that, despite geopolitical divisions, a genuine commitment to cooperation in space can yield meaningful, ground-breaking results.
The foundational principles of collaboration established by Soyuz and Apollo were later reflected in other major multinational projects, such as the International Space Station, which has now operated successfully for over a quarter of a century.
Russia, as a pioneer in space exploration, continues to uphold the proud traditions of its cosmonautics and remains committed to constructive engagement with all interested participants in space activities. The accumulated shared experience provides a solid foundation for advancing constructive and equitable cooperation in orbit - free from artificial dividing lines, closed alliances, or unilateral standards.
A key prerequisite for the implementation of such international projects is the preservation of space as a domain of peace. Russia consistently advocates for preventing an arms race in outer space and averting its transformation into an arena of armed confrontation. In this context, it is of paramount importance to unite international efforts towards the swift commencement of negotiations on the development of a legally binding international instrument to halt the arms race in space - one that prohibits the deployment of any type of weapons, the use of force, or threats of force against space objects or through their means.
We regard as the basis for such an instrument the Russian-Chinese draft treaty on this subject, tabled at the Conference on Disarmament, alongside the 2024 consensus-adopted report by the Group of Governmental Experts on the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space. Substantial contributions towards fostering favourable conditions for space cooperation are also expected from Russia's international initiative - a political commitment against being the first to deploy weapons in space, which has already been joined by 37 states.
On July 16 this year, the documentary Soyuz-Apollo: The Force of Attraction premiered at the Khudozhestvenny cinema. The film chronicles the legendary "handshake in space" - the docking of Soviet and American spacecraft in Earth's orbit. I will not delve into details, but having watched it yesterday, I can unequivocally recommend viewing it during its midnight screening this Thursday or the daytime broadcast on Saturday on Channel One.
Attending the premiere were participants of the historic Soyuz-Apollo programme, including twice Hero of the Soviet Union Vladimir Dzhanibekov. The documentary itself draws from the memoirs and personal interviews with the very cosmonauts who executed that iconic orbital handshake - individuals who, regrettably, are no longer with us.
Unveiling of a monument to Vitaly Churkin in East Sarajevo, Republika Srpska (Bosnia and Herzegovina)
On July 8 this year, a ceremony was held in East Sarajevo, Republika Srpska, Bosnia and Herzegovina, to unveil a monument to Vitaly Churkin, an eminent Russian diplomat who served as the Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the United Nations from 2006 to 2017.
The bust was commissioned by the leadership of Republika Srpska as an expression of gratitude from the Serb people in Bosnia and Herzegovina for Russia's decisive veto at the UN Security Council in 2015 against a British resolution that sought to impose collective responsibility for war crimes during the Bosnian conflict of 1992-1995 solely upon the Bosnian Serbs.
The solemn event, timed to coincide with the 10th anniversary of Russia's vote at the Security Council, was attended by Vitaly Churkin's widow, Irina Churkina, representatives of the Serbs in Bosnian and republican government institutions, and diplomats from the Russian Embassy. An address from Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov was read out. The ceremony was widely covered in Russian and regional media.
We perceive this occasion as a tribute to Vitaly Churkin's long-standing efforts to uphold international law and defend the constitutional rights of Bosnia and Herzegovina's two entities and three constituent peoples - and as a genuine expression of profound, heartfelt affection for this man.
In this year marking the 30th anniversary of the Dayton Peace Agreement - whose signing was significantly facilitated by Vitaly Churkin's contributions - this symbolic and deeply meaningful initiative reflects our shared vision with the people of Republika Srpska in advancing a constructive agenda to reinforce trust, peace, and stability in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the wider region.
We extend our gratitude to the project's conceptual author and sponsor - Moscow sculptor and full member of the Russian Academy of Arts, Aidyn Zeinalov.
The 80th anniversary of the US first nuclear tests and nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
On July 16, 1945, the Americans conducted the first ever nuclear weapons test at the Alamogordo Bombing Range, New Mexico, marking the transition of the atom on the military footing. The United States sought to obtain a new type of weapon to secure its hegemony and to dictate its terms to other countries. It was no coincidence that the date of the tests was chosen to be the day before the opening of the Potsdam Conference, where US President Harry Truman attempted to use this fact to put pressure on the Soviet Union.
However, the US leadership deemed that wasn't enough and dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, on August 6 and 9, 1945. Using nuclear weapons against civilians was completely unwarranted from a military perspective and was, in fact, a barbaric test of a new weapon in real conditions.
The responsibility for militarising the atom lies entirely with the United States.
The 80th anniversary of the Potsdam Conference
Eighty years ago on July 17, 1945, a conference of the leaders of the three Allied powers - the Soviet Union, the United States and Great Britain - opened at Cecilienhof Castle in Potsdam, a Berlin suburb.
The Potsdam Conference was the last time the leaders of the Big Three met. It had a decisive political significance for the fate of post-war Europe and the whole world.
The Allies sought to prevent another German aggression, establish peace and security in Europe, and delineate fair post-war borders, thus reconstituting independence and sovereignty of enslaved countries and peoples and ensuring their right to determine their own future. To achieve these goals, an agreement was signed on the basic principles of the Allied Control Authority in Germany as the supreme authority of the victorious powers and on the exercise of supreme authority in Germany by representatives of the Soviet Union, the United States, Great Britain, and France.
The Yalta Conference decisions and proposals drafted by the European Advisory Commission were used to agree upon the main approaches to Germany. They provided for denazification, demilitarisation, democratisation and decentralisation, as well as the complete disarmament of that country and the abolition of its armed forces, SS, SD, and Gestapo units.
In accordance with the resolution adopted by the Allies at the Moscow Conference in 1943, a decision was made in Potsdam to prosecute the main German war criminals by the International Military Tribunal. Separate agreements established the procedure for paying reparations and established a Council of Foreign Ministers of the Soviet Union, the United States, Great Britain, France and China, which was in charge of drafting peace treaties with former Nazi Germany's satellites, such as Italy, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Finland.
The Allied powers' decisions concerning territorial issues were of great importance for the post-war arrangements in Europe. A new Polish-German border was drawn, and Königsberg (the city of Kaliningrad since 1946) with its contiguous land was transferred to the Soviet Union. Faithful to its allied duty, the Soviet government confirmed its commitment to participate in the war against Japan.
The Potsdam Conference was a compelling example of constructive cooperation between the great powers, which was instrumental in defeating Nazism and was intended to guarantee post-war peace and security. It showed the possibility of resolving contentious issues through talks despite ideological differences and disagreements. The agreements reached by the leaders of the three powers were enshrined in the Protocol of the Conference of August 1, 1945.
On July 17, as part of the History of Russian Diplomacy series and on the initiative of the Foreign Ministry, Marka plans to issue a postage stamp dedicated to the 80th anniversary of the 1945 Berlin (Potsdam) Conference.
The Strong Figures festival
As you may be aware, our country has been hosting the Strong Figures International Festival of Intellectual Sports since 2019. It has long been a platform of high standing for humanitarian cooperation in the field of sports.
Prominent statesmen, Olympic champions, and employees of diplomatic missions participate in competitions in a wide variety of sports as part of national teams from foreign countries. The main goal of the festival is to develop international cooperation in the field of amateur and military-applied sports.
In 2024, representatives of 32 friendly countries, including military attachés from 23 countries, took part in the sporting events.
Several major events will take place in 2025.
On July 18-19, a golf tournament between the Russian national team and the world team will be held at the Moscow Country Club, Moscow Region. Representatives from 15 friendly countries, including India, Indonesia, South Africa, Vietnam, Bangladesh, Morocco, Ghana, and Uzbekistan, to name a few, have confirmed their participation. A round table on international sports cooperation is also planned to be held as part of the event.
In November, an international tag rugby tournament will be held with the participation of foreign teams.
The festival is being held with the support of the Ministry of Sport, the Ministry of Digital Development, Communications and Mass Media, the Ministry of Defence, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in conjunction with the Government of Moscow and the Government of the Moscow Region.
We encourage Russian and foreign media members to cover this event.
Answers to media questions:
Question: Despite the well-known socioeconomic challenges in EU member states - including rising public debt and the growing burden on the EU economy - the European Commission continues its policy of massive financial support for Kiev, as seen at the recent Ukraine recovery conference in Rome. At the same time, Brussels turns a blind eye to rampant corruption in the country. So, what do you think the European Union is really trying to achieve?
Maria Zakharova: I commented earlier today on money being funnelled "from their own pockets into their own pockets" and someone else's pockets being dipped into.
For reference - the Ukraine Recovery Conference, held on July 8-10 in the Italian capital, saw yet another round of billion-euro financial pledges and commitments from the European Union to the Kiev regime. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen stated that Brussels plans to cover 84 percent of Ukraine's external financing needs this year and pledged continued support in the years ahead. Furthermore, officials did not rule out the possibility of allocating 100 billion euros from the EU's multiannual budget (2028-2034) for targeted funding to Kiev.
So where does this "altruism" come from? You likely already know the answer. Just follow the money and ask: who benefits? This unprecedented financial scheme to finance the Kiev regime enriches only the parties involved in it: the international financial corporations managing the flood of credit, Western "investors" snatching up what little remains of the previously plundered Ukrainian assets for pennies (or outright for free), and the Western defence industry, substantially revitalised by EU policies of militarisation and prolonging the Ukrainian conflict. And finally - or perhaps I should have put them front and centre - the corrupt officials in Ukraine and, to no lesser extent, corrupt officials in Brussels (and not only), who profit handsomely from the arrangement.
Now, follow the losers - who's least likely to benefit? First and foremost: the citizens of Ukraine. Killed, robbed, or forced to watch it happen to their kin, powerless to stop it. Then, the people of EU member states - ordinary teachers, doctors, builders, factory workers, and shopkeepers who go to work every day - left footing the bill for Ursula von der Leyen and Co.'s reckless policies. Never allowed to pause and ask why, even if they try. But no one suffers more than ordinary Ukrainians. Those who survive will be shackled to debts not for five years, but decades. At best, they will be relegated to a disenfranchised workforce - stripped not only of hope for economic prosperity, but even of their own identity.
Tellingly, at the Rome conference I mentioned, European Commissioner for Enlargement, Slovenia's Marta Kos, declared that Brussels' ultimate goal is to help Ukraine become a "European nation." But what did she mean by that, exactly? Geographically, Ukraine has always been European. Geopolitically, it claimed sovereignty in the 1990s and has shaped itself as a European state ever since. Culturally and religiously, it has always been part of European civilisation. So framing Ukraine as a project - something that "needs to become" or "needs help becoming" European - is identity erasure in disguise.
To pay off these EU debts, Ukrainians won't just have to give the shirts off their backs - they'll be forced to surrender their identity. Later, they will be told what they must become to break the dependency being thrust upon them today.
Question: On July 12, 2025, Major General Christian Freuding, head of the working group coordinating military aid to Ukraine at the German Defence Ministry, stated that the Ukrainian Armed Forces may receive the first long-range systems under German-Ukrainian military cooperation by the end of this month. How would you comment on this statement and assess the actions of the German authorities?
Maria Zakharova: It's remarkable how they've completely abandoned any talk of democracy or human rights. There is no concern whatsoever about who will be killed by their weapons. Civilian casualties don't seem to matter, nor do the fates of children. Incredible.
We have repeatedly drawn attention to Berlin's attempts to conceal its growing desire to strike deep into Russian territory - by proxy, through Ukraine - while offloading all responsibility for the consequences onto others.
The harsh lesson of 1945, when Nazism was defeated, seems to have faded from the minds of certain hot-headed figures in Germany.
The aggressive stance towards Russia was openly reinforced by German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius, who said in a July 14 interview with the Financial Times that German troops were "prepared to kill Russian soldiers" if any NATO member were attacked. One wonders: which NATO country is Russia allegedly threatening and going to attack? History shows it was NATO member states - in their previous incarnations - that attacked our country. Germany itself invaded the USSR in 1941. Let us not forget that.
We have made it clear at the highest level that Russia has no intention of attacking NATO countries. What's more, analysts have rightly noted the striking similarity between Mr Pistorius's rhetoric and the propaganda cliches of Nazi Germany, which similarly used fearmongering to justify its militarisation and aggression.
As for Germany's reported support for long-range weapons production in Ukraine, this may indicate plans to localise the assembly of Taurus cruise missiles or similar systems within Ukraine's military-industrial complex, despite Berlin's public reluctance to supply such weapons directly. No matter how well these schemes are concealed, the truth will come to light. The first time our air defences intercept one of these missiles, it will be possible to trace its origins. And we have already warned of the consequences.
There is no doubt that the use of long-range systems is impossible without the direct involvement of military personnel from the countries that produce them, whether through NATO satellite data, flight path programming, or operational planning. In effect, German military personnel would be directly involved in planning and executing strikes against Russia, should the Taurus system or its variants under any other name be deployed. This would carry serious consequences.
President Vladimir Putin outlined Russia's position clearly in November 2024 in response to Western countries giving Ukraine the green light to use their long-range systems against Russian territory. That position has not changed.
If Western-supplied weapons are used to strike deep inside Russia, we reserve the right to target military sites in the countries that provide such weapons. Should the conflict escalate further, our response will be swift and symmetrical.
Question: What is your opinion of Lvov Mayor Andrey Sadovoi's proposal to exchange the remains of Soviet soldiers for Ukrainian prisoners of war? This proposal is connected with the Hill of Glory site, which has been demolished and desecrated by the Kiev regime.
Maria Zakharova: If I may, I'd like to share a full quote from the so-called mayor of Lvov, Andrey Sadovoi, as it speaks for itself: "The Hill of Glory, a relic of the Soviet occupation era, no longer exists in Lvov. Today, the exhumation of the burial site has been completed. A total of 355 remains have been recovered. All of them - including NKVD agent Kuznetsov and Putin - will be reinterred at the Goloskovskoye Cemetery. We are prepared to exchange these remains for Ukrainian defenders. The exhumation was carried out with all the necessary permits and under supervision of experts. During the process, discrepancies were revealed between the number of headstones and actual burials, and very few personal belongings were found - only buttons, fragments of uniform, shoes, and guards' badges. The metal garlands from the columns and the surrounding fence have been transferred to the Territory of Terror Museum. The "eternal flame" installation will also be relocated there."
Let me remind you what the Hill of Glory memorial truly represents. It is not merely a burial site of Soviet soldiers who took part in the liberation of Lvov in 1944. It also holds the graves of more than 5,000 Russian soldiers who died in the Battle of Galicia during World War I, as well as those who succumbed to wounds and illnesses in Lvov hospitals. I would also remind the so-called mayor of Lvov that over 15,000 residents of Lvov attended the monument's inauguration in 1915. One can only wonder how many Lvov residents have come today to witness the desecration perpetrated by the current Bandera-aligned authorities. Perhaps they should, so they can see firsthand what their heritage has been reduced to.
What the Kiev regime has done in Lvov goes far beyond vandalism. It constitutes a crime against humanity and marks a new low in the moral degradation of a neo-Nazi regime that now trades in the remains of those who once liberated Europe from Nazism.
The proposal by the mayor of Lvov to exchange the remains of 355 Soviet soldiers, including Heroes of the USSR Nikolay Kuznetsov and Stepan Putin, for Ukrainian prisoners of war is not politics, not strategy. It is dehumanisation in its most disgraceful form. What comes next? Will they dig up graves in cemeteries based on nationality? Will they dig bones out of the ground, lay them out and offer to take them away simply because the names on the headstones end in "-ov"? What next?
The Lvov authorities speak cynically about "permits" and "supervision by experts," but the reality tells a different story: the remains were unearthed by excavators, mixing the remains of fallen heroes with the soil. What's left in place of the memorial is ruin. The metal elements of the fences and the Eternal Flame were sent to the so-called Territory of Terror Museum - an institution that shamefully equates Soviet liberators with Nazi occupiers.
The mayor's proposal to "exchange the remains for defenders" is not a subject of negotiation, nor a genuine offer; it is a moral outrage. Soviet soldiers who gave their lives to liberate Lvov from the Wehrmacht troops in 1944 have now been reduced to bargaining chips. Let us remind the Lvov authorities: their own ancestors fought in the Red Army. Today, their descendants are desecrating the graves of their own grandfathers.
The treatment of intelligence officer Nikolay Kuznetsov is especially cynical. His grave has been desecrated three times - in 2007, 2017, and 2023 - while his relatives have spent decades pleading for his reburial in Russia. Each time, Kiev refused, even then insisting on a "prisoner exchange" as a condition.
The Kiev regime, acting like a NATO stooge, appears willing to dishonour even its own ancestors to pledge loyalty to foreign patrons. They resemble werewolves from thrillers and horror films.
Question: The BRICS Journalists Association, which was added to the European Union's sanctions lists in July of this year, has sent an appeal to UN Secretary-General António Guterres and UNESCO Director-General Audrey Azoulay, urging them to condemn such measures and take steps to halt the EU's persecution of journalists. Do you believe such appeals can help resolve this issue? What support could the Russian Foreign Ministry provide in this regard?
Maria Zakharova: Such appeals have become - and must remain - an effective instrument for apprising international institutions and bodies of violations of the rights of media professionals. Yet this mechanism can function only under one condition: that these very international institutions act in good faith and in an impartial manner. Were that the case, then upon receiving such a signal - not solely from states but also from non-governmental organisations - they would be capable of forming a comprehensive picture. Although, in my view, that picture is already abundantly clear. Equipped with such data, they could indeed provide tangible assistance to journalists. As things stand, however, they act as though none of this concerns them - as if they are entirely unaware of the information placed before them.
To our knowledge, this is by no means the Association's first open appeal to senior international officials, such as UNESCO Director-General Audrey Azoulay. For instance, in March 2025, the leadership of this non-governmental organisation called on her to condemn the systematic killings of Russian journalists perpetrated by militants of the Kiev regime. You are perfectly well aware that Ms Azoulay does not respond to such appeals - whether they originate from civil society or from state institutions. It makes no difference to her. She neither sees nor hears. And she certainly takes no effective action, even though the issue in question falls squarely within her mandate. What is most striking is the manner in which they ceaselessly refer to procedural rules regarding the receipt of information, claiming to rely on materials from non-governmental sources. Well, here are precisely such non-governmental sources. Why, then, do they disregard them?
Clearly, there has been a reaction. The European Union, for example, responded in July 2025 by imposing its illegitimate and, in this instance, profoundly immoral sanctions against the journalists' association.
Brussels - having wholly abandoned even the faintest vestige of conscience - is brazenly attempting to silence those who expose injustice, lawlessness, and concrete facts. At the same time, those who ought to respond with urgency - providing a qualified and proportionate reaction to such arbitrary actions and highlighting the flagrant violation of fundamental international obligations concerning media freedom and the safety of journalists - remain conspicuously silent. On occasion, they may issue utterly vacuous formal replies, but for the most part, they simply disregard the information entirely.
And yet, the leadership of these international organisations proves astonishingly swift - one might say eager - to swallow whole any fabrication presented to them by biased Western NGOs, without so much as a cursory effort to verify facts and circumstances. Suddenly, they require no time to scrutinise, no need for analysis. They immediately construct their positions on the basis of such Western sources - invariably adopting an anti-Russian stance. And not merely anti-Russian. In fact, any nation that stands outside the Western ideological mainstream becomes a target. This constitutes proof - evidence - of the destabilisation of the international framework designed to uphold freedom of access to information and freedom of expression. It is directly linked to the abandonment of impartiality and equidistance by those who, until quite recently, considered themselves the system's "custodians" - or even its architects.
We will continue this work. We will persist in demanding that such multilateral institutions discharge their mandates honestly, transparently, and with integrity. We will continue to expose instances of biased, politically motivated conduct by officials as they carry out their responsibilities. And we will ensure that appeals such as the one you have referenced are not shelved, ignored, or buried. We will cite them and will incorporate them into our work.
Question: Not long ago, President of the European Council Antonio Costa and President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen said the EU was ready to invest at least €2.5 billion in Armenia to improve "sustainability," they said, and to include it in regional and economic initiatives. This sounds delusional, but still what do you think about it?
Maria Zakharova: It appears the issue is about the money that Brussels has repeatedly promised to provide to Armenia. I think Yerevan is better positioned to say how well this promise is being held and whether they've received the amounts promised to them. We're not going to look into their pockets. That's between them and the EU institutions.
Even today's briefing clearly shows that this is a textbook case. The European Commission, the EU, and NATO habitually make generous promises and, under the guise of providing financial aid, they ensnare other nations and continue controlling processes skimming the cream and being the only party that benefits from it. What's more, they often count the same amounts multiple times as if it were new batches of aid. Recently, EU's High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas had the following to say, "How is it even possible that we're the ones who are paying, but the aid won't count as provided by us. That's just wrong." So, even they sometimes get lost in the spin of the manipulations they themselves concoct within NATO groups or between NATO countries.
Tricks like promising a certain amount of money and issuing half of what was promised, or giving nothing at all claiming that issuing money would run against the existing terms and conditions, or that some vague and arbitrarily defined principles or requirements weren't met are all part of the Western financial aid game. Brussels often does this to other countries.
At the same time, the EU is diligently and deliberately creating an environment encouraging its foreign partners to obtain EU aid. The methods are all too known and include tweaking access conditions for goods entering the EU market, baiting countries into taking supposedly easy-term loans (much has been said about this, and books have been written, too), and creating an EU grant-fed, pro-Western civil society that has nothing to do with democracy and merely acts as a recipient of EU funds, aka a grant-eater.
Financial and economic assistance has long been used by the EU to gain leverage over the domestic and foreign policies of third countries rather than a vehicle for providing help or supporting growth. In fact, this constitutes interference in other countries' internal affairs.
We are convinced that aid aimed at the socioeconomic development of third countries and the implementation of major infrastructure projects must rely on completely different approaches. It must respect sovereignty. It must honour cultural identity. It must be respectful of the foreign policy and economic interests of the countries it aims to help. And, of course, such aid must not be used to harm other countries, or to artificially introduce instability into regional affairs, or to slow down progress. The formats Brussels is now trying to embroil Yerevan and other countries into, including its recently launched EU Black Sea Strategy, are, unfortunately, aimed at the outcomes mentioned above.
Question: Recently, the European media has been claiming that the flow of migrants and refugees from North Africa - particularly Libya - arriving via the sea to our countries (especially onto Crete more recently) is caused by a hybrid war waged by Russia to destabilise the EU. These reports claim that Russian military personnel who stayed in Libya or are currently active there, including existing or former private military companies, are being used for this purpose. The publications cite intelligence from the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, and other countries. I would like to hear what you think about this. Does Russia have any clear plans for its military presence in Libya as it applies to resolving the situation there?
Maria Zakharova: Do these articles also claim that Russia killed Muammar Gaddafi?
Question: No, of course not. We know who killed Gaddafi.
Maria Zakharova: You know that because, first, you're an educated person; second, you're an independent journalist; and third, you witnessed those events.
Rest assured that young people aged 15-20 don't know this. They will buy any story you sell them. Just five to seven years ago, at the annual Mediterranean conferences in Rome whose participants discussed Libya and migration, no one would even think of suggesting that Russia was to blame for Italy's, Greece's, or Mediterranean Europe's migration problems. Everyone knew who the culprit was. It were those who destroyed the statehood of littoral or neighbouring North African and Middle Eastern countries, those who incited the Arab Spring, and those who dismantled sovereignty and murdered lawfully elected leaders plunging those countries into chaos, internal strife, and civil wars. And now they're free to spew nonsense of that kind.
Indeed, we've seen such publications carried by a number of media outlets. But this is not the first time we've seen them. This is a deliberate, purposeful and systematic effort aimed at promoting, on the one hand, fake claims and, on the other hand, a certain frame of mind, an indoctrination of the philosophy that Russia should be blamed for that, too.
This is, indeed, ludicrous. You and I understand that. But for someone who is untrained to sieve through incoming news, this information may not look unusual. What is the root cause of these crises? The root of the migration crisis was created by the collective West led by the United States and the top NATO countries. We are talking about military interventions in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Afghanistan.
We are convinced that migration flows going along this route stem directly from irresponsible and reckless interference by Western countries in the internal affairs of sovereign states with the aim of destabilising them and forcibly changing what they like to call "undesirable" governments.
We believe that the countries that were deeply involved in such interference and in fomenting conflicts must be held accountable for the consequences. Mass flows of migrants and refugees are among the most serious fallout of this policy. Naturally, we're talking about illegal migrants, because they can't be stopped or offered legal ways to cross the border. They are fleeing the misery in their home countries. Ironically, they are fleeing towards what was promised to them. Many of them initially supported illegal regime changes in their countries, because they believed in democracy. Later, when they saw what it actually led to, they ran towards those who had promised them the sweet life.
The most effective way to address the migration problem, I believe, is to eliminate the root causes that are forcing the people to leave their homelands.
We operate on the premise that the successful resolution of this issue lies in political stabilisation in the migrants' countries of origin. That is where order must be restored rather than someone coming up with secret and covert hybrid operations. These countries need support to promote their socioeconomic development, nation-building, and combatting terrorism in the countries where the West has held its experiments.
Russia advocates for the international community's more focused and coordinated efforts seeking to identify political settlement to lingering conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa. It is essential to expand multilateral cooperation in this area, with the UN playing a central coordinating role, in order to effectively address issues related to mass displacement of refugees and migrants.
We must see the root causes and discuss them openly, rather than come up with yet another media campaign seeking to impose on Russia, or to assign to it, responsibility and the crimes it didn't commit.
Question: Deputy of the Supreme Soviet of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic Andrey Safonov has stated that NATO definitely has a plan to attack Transnistria but is unlikely to implement it now because the West's other scenario provides for surrounding Transnistria and forcing it to surrender. Would Russia support Transnistria in the event of deterioration or an impending threat from NATO?
Maria Zakharova: The statement made by the Transnistrian deputy you have mentioned can be interpreted as a response to the relevant advisory issued by the Foreign Intelligence Service of Russia about the probability of Moldova abandoning its neutral status. We have spoken more than once about the creeping militarisation of Moldova, in which NATO is playing a decisive role alongside the EU.
Of course, one would like to believe Moldova's statements about their commitment to a peaceful settlement. But the facts point in the opposite direction: Moldova is using the assistance of its Western handlers to build up forces for an armed resolution of the Transnistrian conflict. At the same time, they are working towards strangling Transnistria economically. We are aware of this.
We firmly believe that progress towards a comprehensive and durable Transnistrian settlement is only possible through the establishment of stable peace and tranquillity on the Dniester. That is what Russian peacekeepers are doing in the region, contrary to allegations. Incidentally, we will soon mark the next anniversary of their deployment in the region for peacekeeping purposes.
I would like to reaffirm that Moscow is closely monitoring the situation in Transnistria and is ready to respond appropriately to any scenario, even the most unfavourable one.
Therefore, I would like to ask you to quote my response to your question in full and as a whole.
Question: Many experts believe that the statement Donald Trump made on July 14, 2025, has given the green light to the Kiev regime's increased terrorist activity in the territory of Russia. As you have pointed out on numerous occasions, they acted similarly before. But this time Zelensky's hands have almost officially been untied. What do you think about that? How would Russia counter that?
Maria Zakharova: Zelensky's hands are always groping for money. So, whether his hands are tied or not, a bit of money will untie them no worse than Harry Houdini or David Copperfield would have done. He has a clear instinct for that.
I would like to draw your attention to the comments made by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and members of the Presidential Executive Office in connection with President Trump's statements you have mentioned.
It is clear that the Kiev regime regards such decisions by the collective West as a signal to continue the war, as a rejection of peace aspirations and negotiations. The promise of more weapons for the Kiev regime can provoke an escalation of its criminal terrorist activities, which we discussed at length today when we talked about the disappearance of Western weapons sent to Ukraine. Moreover, these terrorist attacks are perpetrated by the Ukrainian armed forces, security services, nationalist structures and terrorist organisations that are involved in the conflict on the side of the Kiev regime.
Of course, we have drawn attention to the terrorist essence of the Kiev regime more than once. We provide facts virtually every day and report on the punishment meted out to the perpetrators of terrorist attacks. The Kiev regime makes no secret of its involvement in terrorist attacks. It even takes pride in them. They are part of its state policy. At the same time, they confirm that they use Western weapons to carry out their terrorist attacks on civilian facilities and infrastructure, targeting innocent civilians, including women and children, journalists, government officials, politicians, public figures, and public sector personnel who provide support and assistance, namely doctors and rescue workers.
In the context of Russian achievements on the battlefield and the imminent defeat of the Ukrainian armed forces, the probability of terrorist attacks perpetrated by the Kiev regime and their desire to respond with terror is growing. At the same time, the West continues to supply more weapons and money. How does this relate to the Western statements and lamentations about negotiations and the table where they, in particular, the EU, should have a seat? Have they forgotten about this? And what about human rights, which they have spent decades talking about? Have they lost interest in that subject?
I would like to remind everyone that we don't accept the language of ultimatums, blackmail and threats. We will take the necessary steps to ensure our security and protect the interests of our country. In this context, it is becoming increasingly important to achieve the goals of the special military operation - the demilitarisation and denazification of Ukraine.
Question: Despite the historical tensions in Russia-Germany relations, until 2022 Germany was our closest European partner. After the Cold War, both countries actively pursued a comprehensive partnership. Today, Berlin is the EU's most active supplier of weapons to Ukraine, and Defence Minister Boris Pistorius openly calls for "killing Russians." Do you see any prospects for restoring relations between Russia and Germany? And what would that require?
Maria Zakharova: The way you frame this question makes it sound as if Russia is somehow responsible for the emergence of such figures in German politics. That is not our responsibility.
Historically, we have done everything possible to build relations with a peaceful and prosperous Germany based on mutual respect. We forgave what no person, no nation, should be expected to forgive. We forgave the deaths of tens of millions of our people. We forgave the torment inflicted on our country, on our people. We forgave the burning of towns and villages, the destruction of museums, the torture of civilians and children. We forgave the way we were treated - not just as second-class citizens, but as people considered unworthy of life itself. We forgave it all.
But we did not forget. That is why we preserve memorials, produce films and teach our history. We did not forget, but we forgave. And again, we extended a hand of friendship, respect and cooperation. We showed how, through forgiveness, it is possible to build normal, mutually respectful, mutually beneficial relations. We proposed many joint projects.
We said: if historical resources are so essential, let us cooperate and make peaceful, mutually advantageous use of what we have, without descending into yet another spiral of dehumanisation and brutality. We ensured our resources were supplied on fair terms. But above all, we sought to preserve what makes us human.
And what did we get in return? What everyone is seeing today. To me, the most alarming thing happening in Germany is the complete amnesia regarding its own past. The country has forgotten its recent history, including its reunification. The fact that the country was divided did not happen by some global accident, but as a consequence of the crimes it committed. Germany has forgotten who played the decisive role in making its reunification possible. It was our country, our people, those who had every right not to forgive, but did, who also helped bring the German people back together. Even that has now been betrayed. They have betrayed themselves.
You ask what needs to happen now. At this very moment, we hear official voices in Berlin calling for the destruction of our statehood, of our country, of our people, collectively and individually. This obsession has become a driving force for those currently running the show in Germany. They are systematically erasing anything connected to Russia - in the media, in culture, education, the economy, finance - you name it.
German weapons are being used to attack Russian territory and Russian people, the very people Germany owes an eternal debt to, including for the lives never born because of what happened.
Plans are being discussed to launch local assembly of Taurus long-range cruise missiles in Ukraine - weapons that, as we all understand, require the direct involvement of Bundeswehr specialists. That would mean German officers participating directly in military operations. This isn't covert - it's open. Do German voters, who recently expressed support for restoring relations with Russia, understand where their reckless leaders are dragging them?
Do they realise this? It seems many of them voted for peace and against militarising relations with Russia. What happens next? Will German voters later claim they were deceived once again? They were deceived 90 years ago, when they were sold a so-called democratic choice that led not to an immediate catastrophe, but to the collapse of their country on a historical scale.
It is obvious that those we once called revanchists, who used to hide quietly in the shadows and occasionally crawl out, have drawn no lessons from history. Today, representatives of the German authorities are once again attempting to speak to Russia in the language of ultimatums and so-called strength. This is absurd, offensive and morally repugnant.
Just think about it: they've even decided to categorise victims of World War II along ethnic lines. The Nazis did the same - dividing people into those allowed to live, those meant to be slaves, and those to be exterminated. For that, they paid the price. Yet now, 80 years later, we see Berlin dividing victims and heroes of the war by ethnicity. Even the blockade survivors in Leningrad are reportedly receiving payments based on ethnicity. This is a disgrace.
I believe that many ordinary Germans - educated, thoughtful citizens - are deeply concerned. They sense that another catastrophe may be coming. I was once asked by a German journalist: "When will you save us again?"
I replied: "When you start saving yourselves."
So if your question is about improving relations with Germany, it should not be addressed to us - it's a question for Berlin. But before anything else, Germany must save itself from yet another catastrophe, the likes of which it has already experienced more than once. And now, it seems, it stands at the brink again.
Question: President of the PRC Xi Jinping at his meeting with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stressed that Russia and China should unite the Global South countries and develop the world order in a more just and rational way. How does the Russian side view the role of the Global South in the system of international relations? What plans does Russia have for promoting the role of the Global South countries in improving the global governance?
Maria Zakharova: The Russian Foreign Policy Concept sets out the goal of focusing creative efforts in the geographical vectors which have obvious prospects for expanding beneficial international cooperation. They primarily include the neighboring CIS countries, the rest of Asia, Africa and Latin America. All of them refer to the Global South and East.
Many of these countries tangibly raise their voice in world affairs and conduct an independent policy with an emphasis on national interests. They regard Russia's actions on the international arena through the lens of restoring historical justice. They recognize our contribution to the fight against manifestations of neocolonialism and to the formation of a more balanced world order on a multipolar basis.
We consistently develop a trust-based political dialogue with them and deepen our contacts through the CIS, SCO, ASEAN and the GCC. We have held two Russia-Africa summits (1, 2), we actively interact within BRICS and are developing an infrastructure of interstate ties in all areas immune to the pressure from unfriendly countries.
As for relations with China, we literally answer such questions every day both at the top level and at the level of heads of government, government agencies and our briefings. Speaking in the context that you have mentioned, we see each other as priority partners on the world arena.
Moscow's and Beijing's approaches to the principled matters of the contemporary world order either coincide or are close enough. The Russia-China nexus is a major stabilising factor in world affairs. While the adherents of unilateralism in international relations are trying to hold their positions, we stand for building a just and multipolar world order backed by the Global South. We regard creation of a single space of equal and indivisible security in Eurasia as an important step toward this goal.
Russia and China fruitfully interact in the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. It has asserted itself as an attractive and influential interstate association. We are also making our cooperation closer with the countries of the Global South and East at the United Nations, in the G20, APEC and other international platforms.
BRICS is naturally among them. One of the key objectives of cooperation within the association is to help reform the international architecture with a view to increase the role of the World Majority countries in the decision-making on the global agenda issues.
And it should be understood that BRICS has never been opposed to any other multilateral formats. It is not an aggressive block. This association has never been conceived for replacing or substituting for the existing international institutions.
The BRICS member states consistently champion stronger central role of the United Nations with strict observance of its Charter and other rules of international law in their entirety and complexity.
Question: On July 14 this year, US President Donald Trump stated that if Russia and Ukraine fail to reach a peace agreement within 50 days, the United States will impose 100 percent tariffs on Russian goods, alongside secondary sanctions against countries purchasing Russian oil. Simultaneously, Washington intends to supply Ukraine with "the most advanced weaponry" via NATO, with the Alliance itself covering the costs of these deliveries.
Do such actions by the United States not contradict its leader's claims regarding an imminent resolution to the Russian-Ukrainian conflict? In your view, what are the underlying motives behind these steps?
Maria Zakharova: First, I have already commented on this matter in part.
Second, I would again draw attention to the remarks made by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov during his news conference following the SCO Foreign Ministers' Meeting on July 15.
Third, you have noted that every day, we observe a stream of disparate pronouncements from Washington - whether from the White House or the State Department. But should we really cross-reference each new statement with previous tweets, written declarations, or verbal assurances? One might as well abandon all work and devote oneself entirely to piecing together their contradictions.
For this reason, I consider such an exercise counterproductive and utterly futile - measuring "in millimetres" who has deviated from which position, who has edged closer to whom amid this US domestic rhetoric, including on international affairs. It is practically impossible. The volume of statements is staggering. They oscillate between dissonance, mutual contradiction, occasional alignment, and fresh inconsistency. Analysing them serves no purpose.
Our position on the situation surrounding Ukraine is clearly articulated. We have principled approaches and a genuine desire to resolve matters. Initially, we envisioned a political and diplomatic path, but once the West chose another way - we responded accordingly.
Should requests for negotiations arise, we have already stated our readiness - both in 2022 and now in 2025. At present, Ukraine has left the process in limbo. They speak of needing a stable and sustainable ceasefire, yet they either evade the next round of talks or remain unable to specify when they might be prepared to proceed.
Regarding the sanctions you referenced: our country and our international partners have faced an unprecedented volume of sanctions and restrictions - no longer dozens, but thousands. Secondary sanctions are now beyond counting. There are so many of them that, frankly, new sanction threats are met in Russia with indifference. The West has boxed itself into a corner. Rest assured, we will respond - based on the reality. To us, this is no longer news, though they insist on presenting it as such.
What, then, is new? This is their policy. They are implementing it. Naturally, no one entirely disregards the drawbacks of the current global economic framework. We know how to counter sanctions. We have observed that, in recent years, domestic tools and mechanisms have been refined, enabling us to replenish and substantially compensate for unmet needs, lost opportunities, or vanishing capacities.
We achieve this through various means - I will not enumerate them here. I believe you are well acquainted with these measures. We have learned how to respond effectively and maintain that all such actions are unlawful. In any case, we categorically reject the threat factor. I am not certain if I have said anything new; I have merely reiterated what we have informed you of on numerous occasions.
Question: A meeting of the SCO Foreign Ministers was held in China, during which comprehensive preparations were made for the upcoming summit in Tianjin. Several draft resolutions were signed, including the draft Declaration of the SCO Council of Heads of State in Tianjin and the draft SCO Development Strategy for the next decade. The Chinese side also announced the dates for the summit. What are Russia's expectations for the forthcoming SCO summit? How does Russia assess China's role as the chairing country?
Maria Zakharova: I would draw your attention to the comprehensive news conference by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov following the meeting of the SCO Council of Foreign Ministers in Tianjin.
The session of the SCO Foreign Ministers Council constituted a decisive phase in the preparatory process for the summit, which is scheduled to take place on August 31 - September 1 in Tianjin. The tone for the discussions was set during the meeting between President of the People's Republic of China Xi Jinping and the foreign ministers. The Chinese leader articulated his strategic vision for the Organisation's future trajectory and delineated priority objectives for deepening multifaceted cooperation. As part of China's current chairmanship, approximately 100 events have already been conducted in furtherance of these aims.
In response, Russia's Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, speaking on behalf of all his counterparts, reaffirmed the collective commitment to securing substantive outcomes at the forthcoming meeting of the SCO Council of Heads of State.
During the Foreign Ministers Council meeting, the ministers examined a package of documents and resolutions earmarked for submission to the leaders of the member states. Their finalisation will continue through inter-agency consultations and discussions among national coordinators.
The full transcript of Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's remarks has been published on the official website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation and across its social media platforms.
We are convinced that the results of the forthcoming summit in Tianjin will serve to further consolidate the SCO's role as a cornerstone in the establishment of a system of equal and indivisible security across Eurasia - an essential pillar in the construction of a more equitable and multipolar world order.
We are equally confident that these outcomes will impart renewed impetus to the Organisation's qualitative advancement, elevating the SCO to a new level - as Sergey Lavrov aptly remarked, "a level that goes up indefinitely."
Question: Could US President Donald Trump's threats to impose 100 percent tariffs on Russia and its trading partners affect trade and economic relations between Russia and China, particularly the supply of Russian energy resources to China? How resilient is cooperation between Moscow and Beijing to such threats?
Maria Zakharova: You are asking whether such threats could influence our relations. These threats have already been voiced. Was this the first such threat? No, it wasn't. Were these threats vague? No, they were well-articulated, direct, and clearly aimed at achieving specific outcomes. And what did they lead to? Nothing.
If you are asking about the potential implementation of such threats, it would be premature to comment on an event that has not yet occurred. The logic of Russian-Chinese relations, developed over decades - and repeatedly highlighted by President Vladimir Putin - reflects a strategic and deliberate choice by both Moscow and Beijing to build a long-term comprehensive partnership.
Were Moscow and Beijing aware that there would be threats? Yes, they were. Did we hear about these threats? Yes. Did we read about how we are being threatened? Certainly. But we chose the path we believe to be right under these circumstances. Moreover, we remain committed to this course, as it enables the effective advancement of the comprehensive national development of both states. This model of respectful, mutually beneficial cooperation is increasingly attractive to our like-minded partners in the Global South and the broader World Majority. A "collective immunity" to various external pressures is actively developing.
Even in the political discourse, political vocabulary, Russia and China have formulated a response to such threats. If you are talking about verbal threats, then our verbal response has also already been given: "back to back", "shoulder to shoulder", we resist these threats. There is even a special term for it.
Of course, we have to respond to external challenges with balanced, well-considered decisions. But the main course towards the financial, trade, economic, technological, and cultural sovereignty of our countries remains unchanged. China, as far as I know, adheres to the same principled stance. This friendly country can speak for itself. As is known, China is more than capable to respond to any challenge.
The joint statement adopted by the leaders of Russia and China during President Xi Jinping's visit to our country in May, 2025, reaffirms our mutual support in preventing any attempts by external forces to hinder the normal development of our trade and economic partnership and interstate relations, or to interfere in our domestic affairs.
Moreover, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's recent visit to China, his talks with Foreign Minister Wang Yi, and his meeting with President Xi Jinping further confirmed the alignment of Moscow's and Beijing's positions on key global issues and our willingness to use the internal momentum of Russian-Chinese relations not only for the benefit of our two nations, but also for the benefit of the entire international community.
Question: In his video address on the Day of the Baptism of Kievan Rus on July 15, Vladimir Zelensky said that this holiday is "A bridge through time, resting on three immovable pillars: Ukrainians were here, Ukrainians are here, Ukrainians will be here." How does Russia assess the words of the head of the Kiev regime?
Maria Zakharova: Vladimir Zelensky was the one to cut down the pillars of this bridge by continuing to kill the citizens of his own country. In this sense, his comparison is highly appropriate, because it is clear who delivered a blow to this bridge and destroyed these pillars: Vladimir Zelensky and his own regime supported by NATO and Western handlers.
Question: Vladimir Zelensky has signed a law suspending Ukraine's commitments under the Ottawa Convention on anti-personnel mines. How does the Russian Foreign Ministry assess this Kiev's step?
Maria Zakharova: I addressed this issue in detail at the previous briefing. We commented on it even before the law was passed, and now it has happened.
Question: Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Moscow had proposed holding a third round of negotiations with Ukraine, but received no response. Have there been any signals from Kiev in recent days? Is the Russian Foreign Ministry still expecting a reply?
Maria Zakharova: I am not aware of any new signals. What I can say is that the Russian delegation is ready to travel to Istanbul for the third round of talks. We hope that Kiev will act in accordance with the agreements previously reached and resume negotiations.
Question: Estonia is known to occasionally engage in provocations near Russia's borders. Recently, the first HIMARS firing exercises were held on the Estonian island of Saaremaa, close to St Petersburg. The training missiles struck sea targets at a distance of up to 15 kilometres. Does the Russian Foreign Ministry view this as preparation for closing the Baltic Sea to our country?
Maria Zakharova: Estonia has been one of the nations - or rather, regimes - that has shown the most hostility towards our country for several years.
Together with other Baltic regimes, Tallinn is propagating myths and fakes about the "threat from the East," pushing for a continued increase in defence spending and channelling vast resources into building what is known as the Baltic Defence Line.
We view Estonia's military build-up - including the emergence of HIMARS systems there and the firing exercises - as part of a broader and very dangerous trend: the militarisation of the Baltic region, which until recently was considered one of the most peaceful in the world. Today, we see combined arms deployments on the "eastern flank," the stationing of additional strike forces and resources, expanded transport and logistics infrastructure, firing exercises, and intensified combat training - with defensive simulation scenarios now replaced by simulated offensives. As far as NATO is concerned, our country is the enemy.
Russia, unlike the reckless Baltic regimes, is not interested in fomenting militaristic rhetoric and hysteria, but will undoubtedly take these growing external threats into account and act in accordance with its own national interests.
Question: The organisers of the annual Vilnius Marathon said Belarusians and Russians will not be recognised as winners or receive prizes, even if they reach the finish line first. What is the Foreign Ministry's assessment? Why haven't international agencies commented on this?
Maria Zakharova: There is only one possible assessment of a move like this. If sports prizes are awarded based on nationality, it means the country that introduces, encourages, or fails to resist such rules is infected with Nazism and racism. These appear as signs of some kind of "Lithuanian Reich".
Question: The United States warned that if Lebanon does not agree to disarm the Lebanese resistance, the country will become part of "Greater Syria." What is Russia's assessment of this "proposal"?
Maria Zakharova: Russia's stance on this issue remains unchanged. We support Lebanon's sovereignty and territorial integrity.
As for the Americans' plans, the question is best addressed to them.
Question: The Russian Foreign Ministry has promptly and firmly reacted to the latest portion of the Trump administration's threats regarding secondary sanctions. We can clearly see this, including in the context of the busy schedule of Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, who has held meetings with President of China Xi Jinping and Foreign Minister of Iran Abbas Araghchi in the past few days. Does the outcome of these meetings indicate that the strengthening of friendly interstate ties with key allies allows Russia to coordinate a common attitude with its partners in Asia Pacific and the Middle East regarding the possible tightening of the US sanctions regime, including for the buyers of Russian hydrocarbons?
Maria Zakharova: I would like to say "Yes" to your question. You have formulated it clearly. I would even say that it sounds as if you have borrowed it from a BRICS or SCO declaration. It is true that our cooperation with our allies and partners and collective efforts within the SCO or BRICS are aimed at strengthening economic ties with each other not just for our own benefit but also to counter global imbalances and as a reply to the illegal sanctions, which are damaging the global economy, global logistics and, consequently, security.
You have mentioned the latest outbursts and statements made in Washington. Various statements have been made there. We've seen a lot of different things over the past few months. There were outbursts regarding tariffs and personal statements.
US President Donald Trump has recently reaffirmed that they are pleased that everyone is talking about America, so keep this in mind. He said that everyone was talking about them, and that it's great. So, it's important to listen to what they say as well. They make no secret of that.
As for China and our contacts, I have already spoken about that at length today when replying to a question of your Chinese colleague.
During our contacts with China, which is our largest trade partner, we discuss, in part, the build-up of practical bilateral interaction against the backdrop of the increased Western sanctions pressure. We assess the situation in global trade in order to minimise losses for our bilateral relations and the global economy. At the same time, it is safe to say that the line for strengthening our relations of comprehensive partnership and strategic cooperation with China, which our heads of state have approved, won't be changed, and that the agreements reached between Moscow and Beijing at all levels will be implemented in full, regardless of any obstacles erected by the proponents of the illegal sanction games.
As for the second part of your question, in addition to the bilateral meetings you have mentioned, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has also attended a number of multilateral events, including ASEAN ministerial meetings in Malaysia and SCO meetings in China over the past week.
These meetings have shown that our partners are seriously concerned about the consequences of the ongoing "tariff wars" and illegal sanctions and restrictions. However, the idea of formulating a collective regional response to the potential risks was not openly addressed at these venues.
It is notable that an absolute majority of Asian countries have not joined the illegal restrictions against Russia and understand that such restrictions are harming the global economy, finance and logistics, as well as global security.
Question: We are closely monitoring developments in Kyrgyzstan. A month ago, the Head of the National Chamber of Commerce and Industry Temir Sariyev called for special status for Kyrgyz citizens in Russia. A week ago, a monument to the renowned Russian scientist and explorer Pyotr Semenov-Tyan-Shansky was dismantled without explanation in the city of Balykchi, Issyk-Kul Region. What might be the motivation behind these questionable actions permitted by Bishkek in relation to our country?
Maria Zakharova: I prefer not to comment on these statements.
Regarding the monument, we have clarified the situation. The dismantling of the monument to Pyotr Semenov-Tyan-Shansky in the city of Balykchi, Issyk-Kul Region, is related to its planned restoration and redevelopment of the surrounding urban area, where its current location was deemed unsuitable. Once reconstruction is complete, the monument is expected to be reinstalled in a new city park.
The Russian Embassy in Kyrgyzstan is closely monitoring the matter and remains in contact with the Kyrgyz authorities.
Question: Moscow School No 1539 has a remarkable museum dedicated to the heroic Moscow volunteer militia. Schoolchildren, along with the children and grandchildren of former militiamen, actively participate in search and recovery efforts. Nearly all of these brave men perished defending Moscow, and many remain unidentified or missing. Yet, year after year, dedicated search teams continue their work, uncovering the fates of the fallen and bringing their stories back to life. The museum's collection steadily grows with new artefacts. Among the most recent additions are binocular glasses used by one of our soldiers to spot the enemy advancing towards the capital, and a German helmet, riddled with bullet holes.
Given the increasingly militaristic rhetoric coming from Germany, perhaps it's time to send them this helmet, not as a quiet gesture, but as a solemn and proud reminder. A symbolic gift from the children and grandchildren of our soldiers to the descendants of those self-proclaimed German "civilisers" - a message about how such ambitions have ended before, and how they could end again.
What is your view on such an initiative?
Maria Zakharova: Do you really think they don't understand? The issue isn't that the helmet is riddled with holes - it's that too many of them today seem to have holes in their thinking. That's the real problem.
What they need isn't a relic from the past as a reminder, but a new kind of "helmet," one that might shield their heads from harmful external influences. Judging by the statements made by certain figures in the German political establishment, it's clear something is wrong upstairs. How else can their behaviour be explained?
I've already spoken extensively on this today. These individuals ought to live with a deep sense of responsibility for their nation's history so as not to repeat it, and do everything possible to preserve the memory of the past written in blood by their compatriots and by previous generations of German politicians who, as the Nuremberg Tribunal determined, were indeed criminals. Yet instead of reflection, we hear talk of "killing Russian soldiers," of militarising Ukraine, of manufacturing weapons on the very soil they once looted and defiled - now repurposed as a staging ground for inflicting a so-called "strategic defeat" on us.
You suggest sending them a helmet? Absolutely not. What we should do - and what we are already doing - is opening museums within our schools and universities. We must know our own history, and instil it in the next generations so that no threats, intimidation, or flattery (because they'll try every tactic) can shake our understanding or weaken our resolve. This is what we should do. And this is precisely what we are focused on. So no, we won't be sending them anything.
One of the questions I hear most often from citizens, journalists, and the public is this: How do you find the strength to stay composed in the face of such outrageous statements, such hostile rhetoric, and such unacceptable accusations against our country? And to be honest, there are moments when you wonder - maybe it's time to respond more sharply.
But each time, I remind myself that we owe it to our ancestors, those who endured, who triumphed, who showed extraordinary patience, to uphold the standard they set. In their honour and memory, we will respond to slander and provocation not with emotion, but with facts and purposeful action. We will safeguard our heritage and stand firm, just as those who secured our present once entrusted us to do.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
