(cache)Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova on the sidelines of the 29th St Petersburg International Economic Forum, St Petersburg, June 4, 2026 - The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation

Answers to media questions:

This red folder is here for a reason. I usually carry just one, but this time we are dealing with genuinely exceptional circumstances.

Colleagues, welcome to our weekly briefing. This time it is being held away from our usual venue, here at the St Petersburg International Economic Forum, which is generously hosting both you and us, for which we are truly grateful.

International and interregional relations of St Petersburg and the Leningrad Region

I would like to spend a moment discussing the region where we are now, namely St Petersburg and the Leningrad Region, and its international and interregional ties. The municipal and regional leadership has been consistently expanding diverse interregional and foreign economic ties with friendly countries based on the current geopolitical realities.

In its external engagements, St Petersburg focuses on its major trading partners such as China, India, Belarus, Türkiye, and Kazakhstan. China accounts for over 40 percent of the city’s trade. Major commercial deals have been concluded with Myanmar, the Republic of Korea, Brazil, and Egypt.

The high intensity of St Petersburg’s international contacts can be seen in visits by foreign guests, including the presidents of Cuba, Belarus, Laos, and Myanmar. In addition, St Petersburg Days were successfully held in Belarus and Myanmar; cooperation agreements have been signed with Hanoi, Vietnam, and Vientiane, Laos; St Petersburg business information centres are operational in Chinese cities of Beijing, Shanghai, Qingdao, and Nanning. Regular flights connect the city to Venezuela, Cuba, Abkhazia, and to Brest in Belarus.

The Leningrad Region continues to strengthen multifaceted cooperation with its partners from Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan prioritising efforts to expand export potential, bring in investment, and identify additional opportunities to establish cooperation with our friends from the Global Majority countries. Bilateral economic and humanitarian projects with Cuba and Argentina are underway, and interregional healthcare ties with Abkhazia are getting stronger as well.

Not long ago, the Leningrad Region government signed two agreements and two memoranda of cooperation with their Belarusian partners. Relevant agreements are being prepared for signing with their Mongolian counterparts. Overall, the Leningrad Region has cooperation agreements with territorial units and government bodies in 15 foreign countries, and over 130 agreements at the municipal level.

St Petersburg and the Leningrad Region’s fast pace of strengthening and expanding interregional ties shows that Russian regions are steadily diversifying their foreign economic contacts, actively developing new niches, and deepening cooperation with their traditional partners.

Official visit by Bangladeshi Foreign Minister Khalilur Rahman

On to our traditional segment of the briefing covering the Foreign Minister’s schedule. Today, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will hold a number of bilateral meetings, which we will keep you informed about. A media statement will be issued following those meetings. Now, a few words about upcoming meetings.

At the invitation of Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Foreign Minister of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh Khalilur Rahman will pay an official visit to Russia on June 7-9.

As you may recall, the previous contact between the foreign ministers took place in September 2023, when the Russian Foreign Minister paid a working visit to Dhaka.

On June 8, the ministers will hold talks on current bilateral and international issues. A special emphasis will be placed on our interaction at the UN as Khalilur Rahman has been elected President of the 81st Session of the UN General Assembly.

The ranking Bangladeshi guest’s programme also includes meetings with top officials from the Federation Council, Rosatom State Corporation, and a number of other organisations.

CSTO Council of Foreign Ministers meeting in Kazan

On June 10, a meeting of the CSTO Council of Foreign Ministers chaired by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will be held in Kazan.

During the restricted-attendance session, the ministers will exchange views about the international and regional situation and prospects for expanding cooperation within the CSTO. Foreign Minister Lavrov will brief his counterparts on initiatives aimed at implementing the priorities of Russia’s CSTO chairmanship.

Following the expanded session, the participants will approve documents to be submitted for consideration during the CSTO Collective Security Council session in Moscow on November 11, and adopt a number of joint statements on pressing international issues.

Accreditation for Russian and foreign media members will remain open until noon on June 5. In other words, tomorrow is the last day.

Sergey Lavrov’s upcoming visit to Belarus

On June 14-15, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will pay a working visit to Minsk.

His programme includes an audience with President Alexander Lukashenko, talks with Foreign Minister Maxim Ryzhenkov in restricted and expanded formats, and a wreath-laying ceremony at the Victory Monument to mark the 85th anniversary of the outbreak of the Great Patriotic War.

The participants will cover a broad range of urgent bilateral and international issues. Particular attention will be paid to providing diplomatic support for integration processes within the Union State and to raising the international standing of that association. A schedule of key joint events and bilateral contacts will be outlined as well.

The ministers will discuss practical aspects of cooperation between Russian and Belarusian foreign ministries, including preparations for a joint meeting of the two ministries’ boards in Belarus in the fourth quarter. Among other matters, the meeting is expected to see the signing of a Programme of Coordinated Foreign Policy Actions of the States Parties to the Treaty on the Establishment of the Union State for the next three-year period (2027-2029).

Following the tradition, the parties will compare notes on foreign policy coordination within Eurasian integration associations and various international organisations, as well as in their relations with third countries. The parties will review the status of implementation of joint initiatives, including efforts to counter the sanctions and legal aggression by the collective West, as well as the efforts to establish a new architecture of equal and indivisible security in Eurasia, and to draft a Eurasian Charter of Diversity and Multipolarity in the 21st Century.

International Day of Innocent Children Victims of Aggression

For us here at the forum, these days are packed with events on the global economy, finance, and business. Of course, topics from every field – culture, humanitarian affairs, global logistics – also get plenty of airtime on the sidelines. And I imagine digital transformation, information issues in all their theoretical, philosophical and practical dimensions, are discussed too.

But I want to remind you that June 4 is another date, and one that feels incredibly relevant this year. That’s the International Day of Innocent Children Victims of Aggression.

The day was established by the UN General Assembly in 1982. Let me remind you of the background. Resolution ES-7/8 was adopted on August 19 at the emergency special session on the issue of Palestine. And the choice of June 4 itself was no accident: on that day in 1982, Israeli aircraft struck Beirut and several other Lebanese towns. A huge number of children were among the civilian victims. The General Assembly resolution said it was “appalled by the great number of innocent Palestinian and Lebanese children victims of Israel’s acts of aggression.” Since 1983, the day has been observed every year.

Here’s the really terrible thing. Usually, humanity musters the strength and the will to establish new dates like this on the international calendar precisely to stop a situation from getting worse. To grab people’s attention and, in a sense, make them wake up.

Unfortunately, what we see now suggests that the goal of those who put in so much effort back then (and they did put in substantial effort to document that tragedy and make it a wake-up call for humanity) has not been fully achieved.

Over the years, this issue has been taken up again and again, including in international law. In 1989, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child was adopted. It became the most rapidly and widely ratified human rights treaty in the history of international law. In 1996, the report by Graça Machel, Mozambique’s first Minister of Education and an expert appointed by the UN Secretary-General, was published. That was the first overarching look at what happens to children in armed conflict zones: recruitment as soldiers, sexual violence, destruction of schools and hospitals, and the deep psychological scars left behind. In December of that same year, the General Assembly adopted a resolution creating a special post – the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict.

Just imagine – every five or ten years, international law, and the people who shaped it, came back to this issue, trying to stop the situation from degrading even further. For decades, the international community has been building (or at least trying to build) a legal framework to protect children. UN agencies – UNICEF, the OHCHR (the UN entity on human rights), and the Office of the Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict – use June 4 each year to draw widespread attention to the plight of children in war zones.

This day has long been part of the international calendar, but its meaning has long since expanded beyond the Middle East (even if recent years have confirmed just how acutely relevant it remains there too). This day has become a universal day of remembrance for all children affected by armed violence, no matter where in the world it happens. But it must not become just another day when children are remembered out of protocol, simply because budgets have been set aside. No. This day should be the outcome, the summing-up of the work that all international organisations, intergovernmental and non-governmental alike, and national governments, are doing to prevent violence against children, especially during armed conflicts.

And sadly, on this day, we do have something to say about our children.

The Fallen in the terrorist attack in Starobelsk

At the previous briefing, I pledged that the terrorist attack in Starobelsk would become the central focus of all informational and political endeavours of our entire Ministry, encompassing all embassies, consulates, and permanent missions to international organisations.

Today, I wish to revisit this subject once more – and I will persistently return to it. I would like to address the reaction – or rather, the absence thereof – from the relevant international organisations. Despite possessing a designated date, they could have prepared. After all, their paramount responsibility (as enshrined in their founding documents) is to undertake activities within the framework of which they must exert every possible effort (and indeed strive to accomplish the impossible) to prevent the recurrence of such heinous events. I am, incidentally, referring not solely to Western nations, whose politically motivated actions – or rather inaction, disregard, actual blindness, cynical, brazen, and unabashed falsehoods concerning the cold-blooded murder of children in Starobelsk – no longer astonish anyone. With them, everything is evident; we harbour no questions for them. Their silence is unsurprising. However, these inquiries are directed at the international organisations.

On June 4, 2026, the United Nations, its Secretariat, should have roused themselves. Today is neither Saturday nor Sunday – it is a working day. The employees of this body could have summoned the fortitude to declare that, on the eve of June 4 – the International Day of Innocent Children Victims of Aggression – they would remember those children who perished in Starobelsk as well. I cannot say – perhaps they are embarrassed that these children are 18–19 years of age, and perhaps in their view, they do not quite qualify as children. Let them state so, then, and we will also hear that justification.

We have questions for those very structures which were established – as articulated in the preamble to the UN Charter – to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person.”

Well, they are not safeguarding the human person when they endorse the financing of the Kiev regime, which perpetrates terrorist acts. Yet one cannot simply disregard the worth of the human person when it is feasible and necessary to offer words of condolence and sympathy in connection with the death of children.

In 1989, Audrey Hepburn, an actress of global repute, appointed a UNICEF Goodwill Ambassador, spoke before the employees of the Organisation’s Secretariat and articulated words that became the unofficial motto of UNICEF: “I speak for those children who cannot speak for themselves.” Since then, the mission of all Goodwill Ambassadors has been thus formulated – to speak on behalf of those who cannot do so themselves, ensuring the truth about the suffering of children does not remain in oblivion, unheard, and their deaths unnoticed. It is precisely for this reason that all employees and departments of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of our nation are working – and will continue to work – to ensure that objective information about the terrorist attack in Starobelsk is accessible even where efforts are made to prevent it, by erecting veritable barricades of lies and silence. No, this is not propaganda – it is an endeavour simply to convey information, so that later it cannot be said that no one witnessed this data. This is not an element of information warfare, as is fashionable to say nowadays – it is something that has somehow vanished from the international legal lexicon altogether – our moral obligation to convey the voice of those who cannot do so themselves, to compel the world to listen to them and accept the truth that many would prefer to conceal.

Three young men and eighteen young women, who were studying at the Starobelsk Vocational College of Lugansk Pedagogical University, will never be able to articulate anything further. They cannot, because they are deceased – or, to call a spade a spade, they were cold-bloodedly, cynically, and horrifically killed as a result of a terrorist attack. It is horrifying that there are individuals who launch three charges at an educational establishment and its dormitory, aware that children are present, and then commence shelling those who come to assist and attempt to clear the debris. That is what is horrifying.

This was a targeted attack by the AFU on a civilian facility, on a dormitory where students resided. It was executed by means of UAVs. It occurred in several waves. And the direct perpetrators – the operators and their command – knew precisely who the target was. Consider what became of the American pilot who participated in the bombing of Hiroshima (the Claude Eatherly case). He went mad, as he could no longer reconcile with that reality. I do not know what will become of those who will understand and fully realise that they were shelling, destroying, and demolishing a building under which young men and women were perishing, enduring unimaginable agony.

Twenty-one lives, cut short at their inception; twenty-one dreams that will never be realised. No, they were not perfect – but they were granted life to become what they aspired to be. They can no longer achieve this. The fates of those who survived have been irreparably altered.

Yesterday, I talked to Marina Kim, who is deputy of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation and also a journalist and documentary film-maker. She was visiting Starobelsk in those days and she interviewed the families and survivors. I think she will make a film – a long, real and honest film. Talk to her, interview her. She will tell you about it. She is a mother and a woman. I don’t know where she draws the strength to really share in their grief again and again. But this grief has invaded not only the families that have lost their children. It is a disaster for dozens of families in the Lugansk People’s Republic and in the rest of our country, as well as all over the world. People are sharing in this grief and understand what has happened over there. To quote Audrey Hepburn, “We must speak for the children who cannot speak for themselves.”

I am coming over to my red file. I will tell you about these children. I think their parents will be unable to do this within the next few years. It is impossible. But you and I must do this. I will be showing photographs. What I will say is based on the recollections of their fellow students. Generally, this is about those who knew them personally, their family members.

We have collected this information and are presenting it to you in brief.

LIST OF STUDENTS KILLED IN STAROBELSK

Yelena Martimyanova (19 years) – a second-year student of the Starobelsk preschool education faculty. The best of the best: a bright person, always bursting with positive energy, she was ready to support her friends in difficult situations. She was an extremely open-hearted girl, the life and soul of the party, cheerful and kind. She was very sociable, and she always had the right words to say in any situation. Her warmth and ability to listen to everyone would have made her the kind of teacher the children look forward to every morning.

Taisia Gerasimenko (18 years) – a first-year student of the Starobelsk record-keeping faculty. She was fond of dancing, very active and enterprising. Taisia was always in the centre of faculty life, she performed on stage, was respected by lecturers and students and was full of initiative.

Alina Chekrygina (19 years) – a second-year student of the Starobelsk record-keeping faculty. She dreamed of becoming a record-keeper and office manager. She was always a bright, hard-working and diligent student who knew the value of friendship.

Anna Pogribnichenko (19 years) - a second-year student of the Starobelsk preschool education faculty. She was cheerful, understanding, beloved and creative person. She was attractive, kind-hearted and sweet, bursting with radiant energy. She loved to draw, was a loyal friend and companion, always ready to give a helping hand to anyone in trouble. She could have become a teacher who not only shares knowledge but inspires children through fairy tales, drawings and a kind heart. Indeed, she would have really guided children towards light and a brighter future.

I am not inventing; this is what people say about them.

Maxim Bugakov (20 years) – a second-year student of the Starobelsk computer programming faculty. He was renowned for his optimism, positive attitude and talent. His dazzling smile illuminated lecture-rooms, and his enthusiasm was infectious.

Alexandra Kovpak (18 years) – a student of the Starobelsk pedagogical faculty who dreamed of becoming an educator. She was a creative and bright girl who invariably took part in all faculty events. She was fond of dancing, was a good friend and a diligent student.

Artyom Kovtun (20 years) – a third-year student of the Starobelsk computer programming faculty. He was a very responsible and exemplary student who enjoyed well-deserved authority and prestige. He was a hard-working and well-disciplined guy who loved, dreamed, and was full of creative ideas.

Can you imagine the extent of love people feel when talking about them.

Sofia Fen (19 years) – a second-year student at the Starobelsk preschool education faculty. A wonderful student leader: responsible, always smiling, friendly, there to support and encourage; kind, cheerful, and responsive. She had a true calling to work with children: gentle care and the ability to lead others are what makes a God-given educator.

Darya Serdyuk (19 years) – a student at Starobelsk College who dreamed of becoming a teacher. An activist at the Movement of the First, and member of the college press centre. She was full of mischief, yet also kind, strong, and courageous, and always ready to lend a hand.

She stood up for her loved ones as a true champion. Darya brought positive energy to everyone around her.

You know, when speaking about these young students, people still use the present tense, instead of the past, as if they were alive.

Tatyana Berezhnaya (19 years) – a second-year student at the Starobelsk preschool education faculty. She was a responsible, hardworking, and independent girl: she tried to earn money to live and support her mother. I could not help but mention it. That is what those who knew her say. She was kind, calm, sweet, and always there to help. She had such a quiet smile and kind eyes – I will remember that forever. She had a natural sensitivity, the kind of which the best educators have: those who can understand children without words.

Alexandra Protasova (18 years) – a second-year student at the Starobelsk preschool education faculty. She was kind, always ready to lend a hand, calm, intelligent, and very responsible. She studied diligently, was beautiful and sensible. You could sense her inner trustability. She had a talent for creating order and comfort around herself – exactly like the kind of educator who raises children in an atmosphere of trust and respect.

Alexander Postovets (21 years) – a student majoring in documentation and archival science in Starobelsk. He was patient, persistent, and responsible; he was always ready to help his friends and family. He knew how to find common ground with different people and was not afraid to take on responsibility. Both in studies and work, he always tried to be proactive, attentive, and follow all his tasks through.

Alexandra Butkova (19 years) – a qualified specialist and an integral part of the Starobelsk College community. An excellent student in documentation management and archival science, she was an active participant in college life, a volunteer, and a member of the Russian Student Labour Brigades. Alexandra was strong, courageous, spirited, cheerful, kind, and beautiful. She always stood up for her loved ones and was ready to help anyone in need.

Oksana Tereshchenko (22 years) – a student at Starobelsk College who dreamed of becoming a teacher. She served as the dormitory monitor and took an active role in college life and volunteer work. Oksana was the heart of every gathering, able to support others, resolve conflicts, and help people through difficult times. She was kind, cheerful, compassionate, caring, intelligent, and beautiful.

Veronika Dashchenko (19 years) – a student at Starobelsk College who aspired to become a teacher. Volleyball was an inseparable part of her life, bringing her numerous achievements and recognition. She consistently earned top placements in competitions. An active participant in college life, she was the leader of her group and headed the sports sector.

Yana Prudnikova (19 years) – a student at the Starobelsk College who dreamed of becoming a teacher. Responsible and persistent, she actively participated in the educational process, demonstrated a high level of academic achievement, and possessed strong teaching potential. Yana was proactive, outgoing, and highly sociable.

Anastasia Vasilenko (19 years) – a second-year student at the Starobelsk preschool education faculty. Cheerful, optimistic, and full of life, she was known for her kindness, warmth, sociability, and gentle nature. She always supported her classmates and approached the world with openness. Anastasia’s bright personality and infectious energy inspired those around her. She would have become the kind of teacher who turns every day into a special occasion for children.

Viktoria Zaratuichenko (19 years) – a student at Starobelsk College who wanted to share her warmth and care with kindergarten children. She regarded her studies in preschool education as her path in life. Viktoria was an activist in the Movement of the First and Starobelsk College, a member of the Lastochka volunteer squad, and an excellent student. She represented the college at the regional stage of the Professionals Championship. She was cheerful, radiant, gentle, smiling, kind, and affectionate.

Alisa Bryukhovetskaya (19 years) – a first-year student at the Starobelsk College who dreamed of becoming an elementary school teacher. Kind and cheerful, her optimism inspired those around her. She was a devoted friend and a responsible, diligent student with the potential to achieve great heights.

Irina Zhivotikova (19 years) – a second-year student at the Starobelsk College who dreamed of becoming an elementary school teacher. She approached her studies with dedication, demonstrated strong academic performance, and was deeply committed to acquiring professional knowledge and skills. Irina actively participated in the social life of her group and faculty, enjoyed dancing, took part in numerous events, and consistently showed initiative and strong organisational abilities.

Anastasia Kovalenko (19 years) – a second-year student at the Starobelsk College who dreamed of becoming a teacher. Sincere, and charismatic, her bright personality energised everyone around her. She was always ready to lend a hand and showed genuine care and empathy for others. Anastasia was often the centre of attention, a successful student, and a true friend.

According to Ukraine’s Permanent Representative to the UN, not only are these children no longer alive, but they have never existed. Representatives of the collective Western minority believe that these were not children, youth, or students but they were, and I quote, “members of the military personnel,” essentially generals and the big brass.

I want to say the following to you. They have been manipulating public opinion for so long. They have talked about Bucha for four years. If only any one of them would sit in a chair or stand in front of the camera of any journalist that they keep talking to and show photographs of those who allegedly died in Bucha. Just like we did, with dates of birth, full names, addresses and the places where they studied or worked; who they were, who remembers them and how. We simply want to know that they [Bucha victims] existed. Except they didn’t and they were made up. Because, when an actual tragedy happens, you can tell about every person, show their photographs and name their relatives. Even despite the horrendous pain, these relatives can talk – just like the families of those burnt alive in the House of Trade Unions in Odessa could.

Everything you hear about Bucha is a lie through and through. No representative of the Kiev regime ever held a single event. They have toured all sorts of venues, the Oscars and the Cannes Festivals, but they haven’t told a single story with facts in their hands. These are phantoms, made-up stories that exist only to scrounge money, which then will be embezzled, and to taint it all with the blood of innocent victims. Here is your answer. Whoever dares to say that these children never existed will receive a corresponding response from us.

International officers’ statements sound so cynical and inhumane in this context. Do you know what they told us? When Russia’s Permanent Representative to the UN Vasily Nebenzya and our permanent representatives to other international organisations asked why they had failed to see that, do you know what they answered? You won’t believe it. Here is the UN officials’ word-for-word response: they needed “additional verification.” Do come, verify and visit the hospital. Like Marina Kim, talk to the girl who was buried under reinforced concrete slabs and who managed to get out with multiple injuries. Do talk to her. She will verify everything. She will tell you how the children moaned dying under the rubble. You will be able to verify everything at the scene.

But no. Do you know why they are not coming? There is an explanation, too. Because, as they keep saying, they have to enter “from Ukrainian territory.” How else can they get there? Do you think it’s okay to say that? So cynical.

These are the same people who, with no additional verification, extolled half-baked propaganda fake news about an alleged “Bucha massacre.” How much time did the people at the UN, the UN Secretary-General, or members of the Council of Europe, the European Union or others needed for verification? None. They simply started going there without any verification to tell stories of what allegedly happened. But when we requested the names of those killed (and yes, it would take some time to collect the data), could you provide at least some information about those people? Zero. Nothing.

At the same time, the very same people continue to insist that something still needs to be “verified”. For several years now, we have been unable to obtain the list of victims to which they repeatedly refer. We are told that such a list certainly exists. We have asked them to provide it to us — not some list circulating on the dark web, but a verified one. After all, they constantly claim to rely on verified information, so surely, after four years, the UN must have obtained it.

At one point, we were quietly told on the sidelines that the UN speaks less and less about Bucha these days, although “everyone understands what happened”. Perhaps they do understand, but for some reason they are not acting as they should.

Incidentally, journalists from the BBC, which at the time played a particularly active role in fabricating materials about Bucha, declined to travel to Starobelsk. They had no interest in the story. More recently, however, they have reportedly promised to cover it. We shall see.

Let me remind you that we promptly organised a visit to the site of the tragedy for foreign correspondents. Fifty-one journalists from 20 countries saw the aftermath of this horrific crime with their own eyes. I would like to emphasise this point: it was not a press tour or a propaganda event. It was an opportunity for journalists to visit the site themselves, to see how rescue workers were continuing their efforts, and to speak directly with those who pulled the children from the rubble, so that no one could later claim that the ruins did not exist.

It is no longer news that representatives of a number of once-respected media outlets are far more interested in fakes and fabricated narratives than in real tragedies. That was the case in Minab, where 170 people were killed when a girls’ school was struck by a US missile. It was the case in Starobelsk. It is always the case when the victims are people whom the self-appointed inhabitants of the so-called “beautiful garden” deem unworthy of sympathy, and the perpetrators are either representatives of that supposedly civilised Western world or their protégés and proxies.

But the world is changing. Alongside its political and economic dominance, the West is also losing its grip on the global information space. Tired of the constant stream of lies and Western propaganda, people, including in European countries, are increasingly turning to alternative sources of information. They write to us, bring flowers and candles to our embassies, and speak out in the media.

No one will be allowed to sweep the terrorist attack in Starobelsk under the carpet. We will do everything in our power to break through this information blockade and the process of dehumanisation that accompanies it. The 21 people who lost their lives are not just a statistic. They had names. You know those names now. You have seen them. Behind each one was a life, a talent, a dream, an aspiration.

This is the human rights dossier. Here, in concentrated form, are lives violated, destroyed and distorted, and with them the very principles of human rights and human dignity.

Our permanent representatives have delivered this dossier to international organisations. Our ambassadors are presenting the same materials to the international community.

The world has not only been deprived of the lives of 21 young men and women. By suppressing discussion of this terrorist attack, some are also trying to deprive the world of its conscience.

Children in the context of the Ukraine crisis

Now let us address the theme of children in the context of the Ukraine crisis, a theme they use to cover up all their crimes. They do not see the children they kill themselves, but they invent children allegedly kidnapped by Russia. They have revived this theme with an infernal energy to cover up their crimes in Starobelsk and demonstrate their great love for children. There are again fakes and planted stories alleging that Russia has kidnapped an incredible number of Ukrainian children. How many of them are there, by the way? Does anyone know the exact figure? OK, let’s try to understand the figures involved.

On April 8, 2022, Lyudmila Denisova, the then Verkhovnaya Rada Commissioner for Human Rights, wrote on social media: “Over 121,000 children have been forcibly deported to the Russian Federation.” Have you committed this to memory?

On May13, 2022, the same lady told the media (hold your hats!): “There are over 210,000 children among the 1.2 million Ukrainians who have been deported to Russia.” She may have mixed up the figures. The Verkhovnaya Rada has dismissed her from her position for systematically disseminating data that was at variance with the facts.

On July 13, 2022, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said before a conference on accountability for perpetrators of crimes that the Russian authorities interrogated, detained, and forcibly deported from 900,000 to 1.6 million Ukrainian civilians, including 260,000 children.

On September 15, 2022, the European Parliament approved Resolution 2022/2825(RSP) “Human rights violations in the context of forced deportation of Ukrainian civilians to and forced adoption of Ukrainian children in Russia,” which said: “The Ukrainian Ombudsman, on September 3, 2022, claimed that more than 200 000 children had already been forcibly taken to the Russian Federation.” But it failed to mention the fact that the Ombudsman in question had been dismissed by that time. Obviously, this did not seem important. But the official had been fired for spreading misinformation. Yet, the EP thought this unimportant.

November 2022. Andrey Yermak, the then head of the Ukrainian President’s Office, told a conference on children’s protection held in the run-up to the G20 Summit: “The Russian Federation continues to commit crimes against Ukrainian children. The deportation of children continues.” By that time, the Ukrainian National Information Bureau had identified only 10,500 last names of those children. How come? How can you cite numbers if you have identified no one?

March 2023. Vladimir Zelensky went on record as saying: “16,000 child deportation cases have been recorded, but the real number may be much higher.” But they had 210,000 a year ago. Now 16,000… “But the real number may be much higher.”

April 2023. Sergey Kislitsa, Ukrainian Ambassador to the UN, told the UN Security Council: “More than 19,500 children have been kidnapped from families or children’s institutions and forcibly deported.”

2023. Analytical reports by the European Parliament’s Secretariat (EPRS). These are based on Ukraine-supplied data. “The number of Ukrainian children who have been illegally deported to Russia may reach 300,000.”

March 2025. The Humanitarian Research Lab, Yale School of Public Health, notes in its report compiled under the Conflict Observatory programme (financed by the US Department of State) that “the number of deported Ukrainian children is closer to 35,000.”

March 17, 2025. Head of the Ukrainian Presidential Office Yermak writes in the social media: “As many as 1.6 million Ukrainian children are controlled by Russia – deported or have to live under occupation.”

June 2, 2025. Istanbul. The second round of the Russian-Ukrainian negotiations. The Ukrainian delegation handed over to their Russian counterparts a list of 339 names of children they deemed “kidnapped.”

Now, attention please! A year has passed. This was on June 2, 2025. Today is June 4, 2026. Do you think anyone representing Ukraine’s regime has given us any data additional to this figure of 339? None! Not a single name, not a single proposal, no nothing! Where are the millions, hundreds of thousands, tens of thousands of “kidnapped” children? Where are even the hundreds of them? All inventions!

Over the past three years, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres was incapable of finding anything of substance in this regard. How come? After all, the UN watches over children’s affairs as well. If they listen to all this gibberish at UN venues, let them do at least something, request the relevant materials. Let them submit to the UN an official list rather than just a figure that has been pulled out of a hat. I don’t even know what figure I should rely upon when discussing their position. We don’t know even that. They have failed to provide us with an agreed-upon figure with an explanation as to what they mean. What we have is just 339 last names. And, most importantly, it turns out that everything about these children is different from what they claim to be.

The Russian Commissioner for Children’s Rights, Maria Lvova- Belova, conducted checks that revealed that the Ukrainian list is only 50 percent relevant. It contains the names of many underage children, who have not returned to Ukraine, who live with their parents in Russia, or are staying in third countries. Several children from the list were preparing to reunite with their families at the moment of the list’s presentation. But the main thing is that the children have not been kidnapped by anyone. They have been separated from their families by the conflict, finding themselves on its opposite sides and in a difficult situation. All Russian agencies authorised to assist in the implementation of children’s rights and human rights, relevant ministries and departments are ready to work round the clock to help people in distress, not only children. This is a convenient theme for planting (I think we will discuss this additionally later today), since this involves no responsibility. What I want to say is that the flying-wheel of lies has never stopped.

June 2, 2025, in Istanbul, they gave us the list of 339 names, while Mr Zelensky was saying to journalists in Kiev that “we told them they had kidnapped 20,000 children. They said ‘no’ (he was referring to us).” Somewhat later, he invented a story to the effect that perhaps “several hundred [children] have been kidnapped.”

We are ready to cooperate, if you are looking for someone. This is normal international practice. It involves a huge number of interstate and public organisations, NGOs, etc., which help people to find children, individuals, and so on. One can ask: If on June 2, 2025, Ukraine knew, or was sure, or shared an illusion that they were in search of 20,000 children, what prevented them from submitting the list later? They submitted nothing. They are not interested. Why? Because there is nothing to submit. The whole story has been invented.

September 2025. Addressing a conference on his notorious “peace formula,” Zelensky claimed: “The thousands, tens of thousands of children that in some way or other have been hidden by Russia… it is extremely difficult to find them.” What does this mean? You believe that tens of thousands of children have been hidden somewhere. But you are in direct contact with Russia. Why aren’t you looking for them? Did anyone see anything like this? Just imagine: One of your near and dear, God forbid, has disappeared. You come and say: An individual has disappeared. Who’s that? Who has disappeared? It doesn’t matter. Later you say: A number of other people have disappeared. Who’s that? Just look for them. Look for whom? Give us some “sign-calls,” photographs, or data. Who are we looking for? It’s unimportant. But this is, pardon me, a case of schizophrenia.

November 2025. Vladimir Zelensky, speaking at a meeting with American senators, said: “We know of approximately 20,000 children. Perhaps there are more.” At the same time, Dmitry Lubinets, the then Verkhovnaya Rada Commissioner for Human Rights, claimed: “1.6 million Ukrainian children remain in the temporarily occupied territories.”

December 1, 2025. Yelena Zelenskaya entered the discussion, posting on social media: “We have managed to return 1,859 children.” What exactly does that mean? Who returned them? Then let her specify it. Who returned whom? From where were they returned? No explanation was provided. Perhaps she meant the year 1859. We simply do not know.

February 17, 2026. Dmitry Lubinets stated: “2,000 children have been returned,” while maintaining that “1.6 million Ukrainian children remain in the occupied territories.” Again, from where were they returned? How old were they? Who assisted in the process? When prisoner exchanges take place, we always acknowledge the intermediaries involved. We identify the location where the transfer occurred. Why? Because such work is important. None of the relevant information was provided here.

Morning, June 1, 2026 – just three days ago – Vladimir Zelensky, in an interview with CBS News, stated: “Ukraine has documented the abduction of at least 20,000 Ukrainian children,” adding that “the real numbers are significantly higher.” Where are the supporting materials? Where are the names?

Not a single child was, as they claim, “abducted.” Efforts to evacuate children and reunite them with their families have been carried out through direct dialogue with the Ukrainian side. This process has been observed by the international community. Most importantly, we have never abandoned the mediators’ constructive role in facilitating such efforts.

We are grateful to everyone who has contributed to this work in any capacity. However, I want to tell the world: as of June 4, 2026, after four years of repeated claims by the Kiev authorities that thousands, or even millions, of children had been kidnapped, only 339 names had been provided, and nothing more. Roughly half of these cases proved to be unrelated. The remaining cases are being reviewed by the relevant authorities, but these children were not “abducted.”

As you can see, while this fake story evolved in public discourse – from several thousand, to one and a half million, and ultimately to 339 names – real children were in fact being killed. Yet, for some reason, many in the West choose not to think about them.

According to Foreign Ministry’s Ambassador-at-Large Rodion Miroshnik, in 2024 alone, at least 50 children were killed and 285 wounded in attacks carried out by the Ukrainian Armed Forces on Russian territory. In 2025, 22 children were killed and 271 injured. Speaking at the 61st session of the UN Human Rights Council in March 2026, Miroshnik said: “In 2025 alone, approximately 3,500 people, including around 200 children, were killed or injured in Russia as a result of Ukrainian drone attacks.”

Yes, indeed, these figures may vary. That is understandable, given the barbaric, aggressive, terrorist nature of the Ukrainian Armed Forces’ attacks on civilian populations and infrastructure. The situation in Kursk alone demonstrates this. They are still looking for some people there, though they have their names. Some victims are identified over time. However, these figures do not fluctuate wildly from hundreds to millions. They are based on ongoing, systematic work and documented records. To those who spent four years promoting the narrative of “abducted Ukrainian children” while remaining silent about the children killed in Starobelsk, I would simply urge to remember that there is such a thing as conscience. No matter how deeply it is suppressed, there may come a moment when it resurfaces. But when? Will that happen when it is already too late to change anything, or while there is still time to return to a sense of humanity?

The so-called “children’s issue” has become a tool of manipulation for the Kiev authorities. It serves as a means of attracting financial support and political sympathy while justifying various actions – including terrorist attacks sometimes – in the name of protecting their allegedly “abducted children.”

Ukraine crisis update

In the past seven days, 217 Russian citizens became victims of Ukrainian attacks. Of this number, 182 were injured, including eight minors, and 35, including three children, were killed. Every week, we provide facts, figures, names, specific geographic locations and other examples. You should watch our television broadcasts that show real people who are interviewed live, although they are suffering from pain and sustaining attacks from cyberterrorists of the Kiev regime.

The Belgorod Region. From May 27 to June 3, 2026, strikes by the Ukrainian Armed Forces killed seven people and injured at least 31, including an 11-year-old boy.

The Bryansk Region. From May 28 – June 3, 2026, enemy drones killed two people and injured 12 more, including a six-year-old girl.

The Volgograd Region. On May 29, 2026, Ukrainian drones killed two employees of a chemical enterprise in Volzhsky, and one person was injured in Volgograd.

The Donetsk People’s Republic. From May 27 to June 3, 2026, attacks by the Ukrainian Armed Forces killed 15 people, including three members of a repair team at the Voda Donbassa (Donbass Water) enterprise and eight passengers of the Podolsk – Simferopol bus in Yenakiyevo. (On June 3, we commented on this bloody terrorist attack separately). At least 43 people were injured, including nine first responders from the Emergencies Ministry who were putting out fires caused by drone strikes. Just look at this brutal logic: Apart from hitting social facilities, they return, as true criminals, to the crime scene to finish off those who are trying to help.

The Zaporozhye Region. From May 28 to June 3, 2026, strikes by the Ukrainian Armed Forces killed four civilians and injured 13 more. In the early hours of May 31, 2026, pro-Bandera supporters twice attacked the vehicle pool of the Zaporozhskaya NPP, using drones. One fibre -optic guided drone deliberately pierced the façade of the engine room building of the NPP’s sixth reactor, just ten metres from the reactor. They probably do not understand the repercussions of such attacks; in the event of a nuclear accident, their command centres and drone troops would be wiped out because nuclear fallout would impact Ukraine, in the first place. Don’t they understand this? By the way, they are so concerned about children who were allegedly abducted by Russia. What would happen to these children if the reactor is pierced? Did anyone ask this question? All of them are acting like zombies. This is the first deliberate attack on the critical nuclear infrastructure in history, fraught with a serious risk of a radiation disaster. Six buses and two cars were burned during the above-mentioned attack at a parking lot near the vehicle pool of the Zaporozhskaya NPP.

On May 28-31, 2026, the Ukrainian Armed Forces continued to shell residential areas and civilian infrastructure facilities in Energodar. Artillery and drone attacks targeted a kindergarten and a maternity hospital. Terrorists in the North Caucasus conducted similar attacks. Do you remember Budyonnovsk when they seized a maternity hospital? Do you remember the school in Beslan? Do you remember the Nord-Ost musical? Do you remember when terrorists blew up residential buildings, knowing that defenceless children and entire families were sleeping there? They planted hexogen bombs at night. Current attacks fit the same pattern because terrorism is a phenomenon with clear distinguishing features. I am not saying this for effect. They also attacked residential buildings and school grounds in the Vasilyevsk municipal district and in the cities of Vasilyevsk and Melitopol. Ukrainian neo-Nazis tried to drop explosive devices from drones on the Novorossiya motorway; these devices detonate after their sensors detect moving vehicles and pedestrians. The Ukrainian Armed Forces also attacked petrol tankers.

The Kursk Region. On May 28- June 3, 2026, terrorist attacks by Ukrainian neo-Nazis killed two people and injured at least ten.

There is a continuing search effort underway to locate civilians who have been missing since the Ukrainian armed forces invaded the Kursk Region. There were 446 confirmed deaths among the 2,173 people from the Kursk Region who were included on the search list, while 1,841 people were found. Whenever a person is located, this is reported and registered, and listed. There are 332 people who have yet to be located, and 15 people could be on Ukrainian territory. The Kiev regime bears immediate responsibility for the genocide targeting civilians in the Kursk Region in violation of all the international humanitarian norms, moral tenets, rules and customary IHL and rules of war, as well as the very idea of humanity.

Lugansk People’s Republic. On May 27, 202, the Ukrainian armed forces targeted a secondary school in Svatovo with their firepower. On May 31, 2026, a UAV carrying a payload of remotely delivered mines carried out a strike against a long-haul bus serving the Starobelsk-Moscow route. There were 11 people in the vehicle. The mines did not explode. On June 2, 2026, three people suffered during a drone strike against a public transit bus in Kremennaya. On the same day, two people were wounded in a drone attack in Stakhanov.

Nizhny Novgorod Region. On May 28, 2026, a drone attack damaged a regional court building in Nizhny Novgorod.

Rostov Region. Drone strikes carried out by the Ukrainian armed forces resulted in two civilian victims between May 30 and June 3, 2026.

Kherson Region. Between May 28 and June 3, 2026, five people died and 28 were injured in terrorist attacks perpetrated by the Kiev regime. The Kiev regime demonstrated its utmost cynicism on the eve of Children’s Day when the Ukrainian armed forces carried out a strike on May 28, 2026, against a family who were with their kids at a playground. Two children and their mother were wounded, and the father was killed. On May 31, 2026, a five-year old boy died from a fragment wound to his heart during a drone attack against several apartment blocks in Genichesk…. Can you imagine this? A fragment hit a child in his heart and killed the boy…. This is incredible. The attack left 11 people wounded. There will be retribution in all the possible forms. Let me elaborate on the response in terms of law enforcement.

Russian law enforcement agencies continue collecting evidence for holding the Ukrainian leadership, the Ukrainian armed forces and foreign mercenaries to criminal account for their crimes.

Fighters of the 36th Detached Marine Brigade of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Sergey Mishchenko, 23, Denis Sivets, 22, Gennady Trufin, 23, and Artyom Zhura, 21, were sentenced to lengthy prison terms for perpetrating acts of terror against civilians in the DPR in 2020−2021.

Austin Lee Bishop, a US mercenary who fought for the Ukrainian armed forces, was sentenced in absentia to 14 years in prison.

Of course, all this requires funding, and the West has been footing the bill.

On May 28, the Verkhovnaya Rada of Ukraine ratified a 90billioneuro loan agreement with the European Union for 2026-2027. Nearly two-thirds of the funds are intended for the procurement of military equipment and to satisfy the growing demands of the Ukrainian Armed Forces. It did not take long for Kiev’s corrupt officials and their handlers to begin siphoning off these funds through a wide range of embezzlement schemes.

During his visit to Stockholm on May 28, Vladimir Zelensky secured a new military aid package worth $2.7 billion from the local sponsors. An agreement was also reached on the joint use of the above-mentioned loan funds to purchase a squadron of 150 Gripen fighter jets, including new-generation models. Do you remember the pretexts used to impose sanctions before 2022 – and even before 2014? Of course, you do. The accusations centred on alleged human rights violations. We were told that somewhere within Russia’s law enforcement system, investigators or prison personnel had behaved improperly towards suspects or detainees. On that basis, sanctions were imposed against the entire country. Or take another example. Do you recall the grounds on which Russia as a whole was barred from participating in major international sporting events? An athlete was found to have used prohibited substances, and the response was to punish the national team and the entire country. So let me ask: if it is considered acceptable to impose sanctions on an entire country over alleged human rights violations committed by specific individuals – whether those allegations are justified or not is a separate question – if an entire country can be subjected to restrictions because, in the view of the West, human rights are not being properly upheld, then how can they provide billions of dollars and euros, supply aircraft, and deliver vast quantities of advanced weaponry to those who are responsible for not just violations of human rights, but for the deliberate killing of children on a daily basis? I regularly cite statistics on daily murders of children. Yet there is no answer to this question.

By the way, these latest arms deliveries are reminiscent of Kiev’s now-familiar information campaign aimed at presenting Ukrainians with yet another supposed “wonder weapon.” We have seen this before. Ukrainians were told that HIMARS systems, Abrams and Leopard tanks, and F-16 fighter jets would become game-changing technologies capable of turning the tide of the war.

Yet each time, it became clear that no single weapons system, by itself, was capable of delivering the outcome that had been promised.

Meanwhile, Ukraine is not expected to receive the first 16 Gripen fighters of the older variant until 2027, while deliveries of the more advanced versions are projected only after 2030. For now, the priority appears to be securing funding and launching procurement programmes, while what happens further down the road seems to be of secondary concern. Whether additional EU loans can be obtained to finance these purchases remains an open question. Kiev plans to spend around 2.5 billion euros for the acquisition of new Gripen fighter jets.

It should also be noted that Sweden has shown particular enthusiasm in its support for the Kiev regime. In the city of Kristianstad, for example, a monument has been erected to Hetman Filipp Orlik, an associate of Ivan Mazepa. In addition, a replica of the banner carried by the traitor hetmans during the Great Northern War was presented to Kiev. The original is preserved in the Swedish Army Museum, apparently as a reminder of the failed victory over Russia.

Ukraine is increasingly being turned into a military laboratory for the West. In looks like it has already become a testing ground. Its defence companies are increasingly treated as a platform for testing weapons systems and new technologies. The scale of this process has long since extended beyond isolated initiatives.

According to the Ministry of Digital Transformation of Ukraine, more than 400 foreign companies from the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Canada, Israel, Poland, Estonia, and other countries are registered in the country. Among them are major contractors specialising in the development and production of military equipment, weapons, and defense technologies, including BAE Systems, Rheinmetall, Elbit Systems, and QinetiQ, as well as dozens of startups working in the fields of UAVs, sensors, and artificial intelligence.

Yesterday, a session hosted by RIA Novosti at the St Petersburg International Economic Forum was devoted to the opportunities and limitations associated with the use of artificial intelligence in the media. During a discussion with our colleagues from India, we arrived at an interesting opinion. Imagine trying to bake cookies or make candy at home and then sell them through a retail chain. What would be required of you? Quality certificates, laboratory testing. health and safety documentation, certificates confirming the origin and quality of ingredients. All of this must be produced under regulated and verifiable conditions.

Yet today, the West appears to view Ukraine’s population as testing subjects. Technologies are being deployed not merely without certification, but with the apparent understanding that any future certification can be derived from the results of experiments conducted on Ukrainians or involving Ukrainians. For example, people may be used as operators of new weapons systems –with the attitude that, if something goes wrong, they can simply be replaced. Or they may become users of experimental mechanisms and artificial intelligence-based programmes, allowing observers to monitor the outcomes and effects on human behaviour – that would be interesting, too. Nobody says anything, and Western human rights organisations appear unwilling to see this.

The focus is on all types of unmanned aerial vehicles (FPV, reconnaissance, and attack), but developments in ground robots, naval drones, electronic warfare systems, sensors, thermal imaging, and communications are also of interest. In 2023‑2024 alone, the Ukrainian Armed Forces tested over 300 drone models, including those developed by Quantum Systems (Germany), Teledyne FLIR (US), Robotican (Israel), and dozens of European startups.

Convenient, isn’t it? First, they tested everything on Ukrainian citizens – and then sent those citizens to the front lines. That way, there are no subsequent claims, no demands for compensation, no health damage certificates. Now look at the Italian citizens who took part in NATO’s reckless campaigns against Yugoslavia and were affected by the depleted uranium used in the shells. They are filing for compensation and seeking justice because, tragically, they are developing severe forms of cancer. In Ukraine, they use a different tactic: everything is tested on people who can be disposed of very easily – through “Ukrainian‑style mobilisation.”

For Western manufacturers, this is a unique opportunity. Weapons that would have languished for years in peacetime certification are now being cleared as “battle‑tested” in a matter of weeks. That sends their market value through the roof, makes them more competitive, and paves the way for market entry – straight onto the stands of arms exhibitions, where no one would suspect that they were tested not on rabbits and mice, but on Ukrainian citizens.

Kiev boasts of having free access to the latest global prototypes long before they go through multi‑year certification cycles in NATO countries. Vladimir Zelensky doesn’t care about his own citizens.

At the same time, the strict internal rules of Western corporations prohibit the transfer of intellectual property – AI source code, encryption algorithms, and the like – to third parties without guarantees of complete security, which are simply impossible to provide in a combat zone. But then, when it’s something they really want and enormous sums of money are at stake, it seems acceptable to commit all this outrage. What wouldn’t you do for the sake of “militarising Ukraine” – which is essentially the redistribution of billions of dollars?

Of course, the mutual venom-spitting between official Warsaw and Kiev deserves special attention.

The Polish authorities have suddenly “woken up” to the fact that the Kiev regime glorifies collaborators who killed Poles during World War II. And for some reason, Warsaw doesn’t like this. It’s almost as if they hadn’t previously known what the Kiev regime is made of.

According to media reports, on May 29 this year, the Ukrainian ambassador to Poland was summoned to the Polish Foreign Ministry, where he was informed (in very mild terms) of Zelensky’s “erroneous” decision of May 26 to assign the “name of the UPA heroes” to the separate special operations centre North of the Special Operations Forces of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, “for exemplary performance of assigned tasks in the defence of territorial integrity.”

The reburial in Ukraine of the remains of an OUN leader, Andrey Melnik, transferred from Luxembourg, provoked not merely a “declaration of error,” but a wave of indignation among Polish citizens. Polish President Karol Nawrocki not only promised to strip Vladimir Zelensky of the country’s highest state award, the Order of the White Eagle, but also stated that Ukraine is not yet ready to join the “European family” due to Kiev’s “mentality of glorifying the bandits and murderers of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army.”

Where were you before? Did not you see what was happening in Ukraine? Did not you notice the chevrons and tattoos? Did not you read their literature? Were you unaware of the names of the extremist nationalist battalions that have now been incorporated into the Armed Forces of Ukraine? Did none of this come to your attention? The torchlight processions passed by Karol Nawrocki and his predecessors as well – did not you see, so to speak, the banners of Stepan Bandera?

As Karol Nawrocki stated, among Europeans there is no place, and there will be no place, for those who glorify bandits who massacred Polish women and children. The question arises: what if those being slaughtered are not Polish women and children, but, for example, Jews, Russians, Belarusians, or members of other nationalities? Is that, from the Polish president’s point of view, acceptable? Could such actions even be sponsored, with no need to rebuke Vladimir Zelensky for them?

The issue is that the struggle against nationalism, neo-Nazism, and fascism is not about any one particular nationality, ethnic or religious group. At its core, it concerns the unacceptability of dividing people on the basis of nationality.

This baton of sham indignation over Kiev’s glorification of bloody collaborators was taken up from Karol Nawrocki by former Polish Ambassador to Ukraine Bartosz Cichocki, who announced his decision to return the Ukrainian Order of Merit. Again, where were you before? Do you believe it is normal when Russians are killed, ethnic Hungarians are mistreated, or similar statements are directed at Belarusians? Is it only unacceptable when Poles are offended? No. It is wrong whenever people are segregated on ethnic grounds in general.

Obviously, Bankovaya Street chose to ignore all of this. A minor “family quarrel,” as they say – something that will supposedly be smoothed over and forgotten. Only the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry responded. Its spokesperson, Georgy Tikhy, expressed theatrical regret, claiming that Ukrainians and Poles had achieved many victories together against their “eternal enemy.” And who, according to the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry, is this enemy? Believe it or not – it’s Moscow. He said so explicitly. Do you know where these victories were supposedly achieved? From Orsha to the “Miracle on the Vistula.” Yet, according to the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry’s logic, Ukrainians and Poles did not fight together against Hitler? Or is he no longer considered their enemy? Or what exactly is being suggested? He further added that “quarrels over the past” should not be allowed to undermine unity against a common enemy.”

Have Nazism, fascism, and Hitlerism simply disappeared – written off and discarded? Has that chapter been torn out altogether? Did it never happen?

Meanwhile, Kiev continues to glorify not only Nazis from the past, but also contemporary ones. During City Day celebrations on May 31, a mural dedicated to fallen Azov artillerymen, featuring the corresponding symbols, was ceremonially unveiled on one of the city’s streets. Where is Poland – and not only Poland? This is the same Azov that traces its origins back 85 years.

All of this, of course, once again confirms the relevance of the goals and objectives of the special military operation, which, as the Russian leadership has repeatedly stated, will undoubtedly be achieved.

Moldova update

Moldova is on its way (it is not going of its own accord; it is, once again, being led by those who were planted in their respective positions by Western handlers) in the same direction – over the precipice.

On May 21, President of Moldova Maia Sandu, while in the Czech Republic, baselessly declared that Russia allegedly “wants to use Moldova against Europe, and against the European Union.” The instruments of this so-called “Russian aggression” are cyberattacks, information manipulation, and illegal financing. This is being said by a person who is the President of Moldova, who holds a Romanian passport, and who receives monetary grants from European Union member states, including awards and various accolades.

Conversely, he citizens of Moldova perceive the threat to the republic’s sovereignty and independence not from Russia, but from the destructive policies of the incumbent authorities. Fresh examples illustrate this sentiment.

On May 30, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Moldova Mihai Popșoi, noted in an interview that, as a holder of Romanian citizenship, he “cannot vote against unification” of Moldova and Romania. It is noteworthy that he did not even mention his Moldovan citizenship. After all, he is the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Moldova and should be speaking about that. But Mr Popșoi, being the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Moldova, says that he is a citizen of Romania and, of course, acts in the interests of that country. He did not even mention that, according to opinion polls, the majority of Moldovans are against unirea and the disappearance of the Moldovan state. As independent political analysts in Moldova note, such remarks leave no doubt as to which country the representatives of the Moldovan leadership consider their true homeland. Although some were born far from Romania, they were later naturalised.

Within Moldova, the government persists with repressions against dissenting politicians and public figures. It is worth recalling that the legitimately elected head of Gagauzia, Evghenia Gutul, remains incarcerated. On May 28, the Court of Appeal upheld her politicised sentencing of seven years’ imprisonment. Concurrently, Maia Sandu’s regime is intensifying administrative pressure on the region aiming to revoke its autonomous status.

The militarisation of the good, hard-working , and industrious Moldova continues. Now they are forcing it into this bondage. In the second decade of May, Moldovan servicemen, together with their Romanian counterparts, took part in exercises on Romanian territory.

According to the UN Register of Conventional Arms, in 2025, Moldova procured 12 anti-tank guns and 9 mortars from Romania, and 24 wheeled mortars from Spain. The commissioning of a second radar to monitor the nation’s airspace has been scheduled for June. Media reports indicate that construction of the new Bacioi military base on the outskirts of Kishinev is 50 percent complete.

Official Chisinau continues its calculated steps to reformat education and rewrite history. As per publicly available sources, the Ministry of Education and Research of Moldova has developed new didactic materials on history for ninth and twelfth grades. These materials include sections on “repressions of the Soviet period” and “the organised famine of 1946–1947.” It is asserted that these new publications will ostensibly help “fill gaps in national history and foster in school students a deeper understanding of the tragic pages of the past.”

In a textbook for the subject Cognition of the World for third grade, it is stated that in Moldova “alongside Romanians, several ethnic groups reside: Ukrainians, Gagauz, Russians, Bulgarians, Gypsies and others.” And “others” – does that mean Moldovans? Who are they? Who are these people? Otherians, perhaps? Who are these “others?” Does this pertain to people? Does this pertain to ethnic groups – “others?” It is common for lists to be extensive, necessitating a conclusion. However, the primary point seems omitted – that Moldovans live in Moldova.

I wish to convey that 77 percent of Moldova’s populace identify themselves as Moldovans. These statistics are from 2024. Yet, not a word is mentioned about them. Do not think that this has been taken out of context. We examined both prior and subsequent paragraphs. I considered that perhaps “others” referred to Moldovans in a separate section. Here is the information for you. No, there is nothing.

Against this backdrop, the socioeconomic state of the nation continues to worsen. Official data reveal that in 2025, compared to the previous year, the birth rate plummeted by nearly 7 percent. The economy is burdened by a significant exodus of the working-age population, supplanted by labour migrants from Southeast Asia. Over the past year alone, the count of foreign workers in Moldova surged by 30 percent.

Permit me to recount an incident that occurred recently. I was leisurely walking with my friends along the street. Approached by a young man, approximately 35–40 years old, physically robust, athletically built. His gentle speech indicated he was Moldovan. He affirmed that Moldova is his homeland. Currently employed in Russia, he suddenly, with tears in his eyes, stated: “They (referring to Maia Sandu) are doing everything to set us against each other. Yet, our peoples coexist harmoniously.” Frankly, I was taken aback. He said, “Please relay this somehow over there.” I am uncertain where “over there” refers to. Thus, I am conveying it to you now.

It is impossible to understand how people, deliberately deceiving the citizens of Moldova and saying that they will represent their interests, are leading them towards a confrontation with their brothers and sisters. They do this intentionally, in the most brutal manner. This is an incredible human tragedy being perpetrated by people devoid of soul, heart, and conscience.

US Army building biolab in Germany funded by German money

We have repeatedly drawn the international community’s attention to the dangerous and unchecked US military biological activities beyond its borders. Under the guise of helping to develop national healthcare systems and disease control, as well as countering the threat of bioterrorism, the United States has effectively infiltrated many countries around the world with its laboratories. This has allowed the Americans to establish control over public health monitoring, intellectual resources, and dual-use research in strategically important regions.

In the context of US military biological activities abroad, which lack transparency, recent reports from German media on the construction of a Level 3 biolab in Germany are noteworthy. Germany is a NATO ally of Washington (and already hosts US nuclear weapons and thousands of American troops). The new biolab will become part of the largest US military hospital overseas. According to local media, the construction is being carried out by German contractors and funded with German money. Yet the reports point to a paradoxical situation: Germany has no legal guarantee that the US biolab being built on its soil will not be used for experiments with dangerous pathogens.

In other words, Germany is building a biolab at its own expense for the United States – a facility about which it knows nothing. They have no documents that would allow them to inspect its activities. They have no way of knowing what goes on in there or what its purpose is.

This example only proves that Russia’s questions about US military biological activities beyond its borders – including in Ukraine – are entirely justified. As is well known, Russia initiated a consultative meeting under Article V of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (Geneva, September 5-9, 2022), as well as discussions at the UN Security Council on October 27 and November 2, 2022, and during the Ninth Review Conference of the BTWC (Geneva, November 28 – December 16, 2022). And what did we hear in response? The same old vague excuses and accusations of allegedly spreading “disinformation.”

If you believe someone is spreading disinformation, then provide the relevant information. Tell us where we are wrong. Publish the documents officially.

Furthermore, we have widely publicised the facts uncovered during the special military operation regarding the Pentagon’s military biological programmes being implemented on Ukrainian territory in violation of the BTWC. Our late colleague Igor Kirillov regularly spoke about this at Russian Ministry of Defence briefings.

The final report of the parliamentary commission investigating the circumstances surrounding the establishment of biolabs in Ukraine by American specialists made a fundamental contribution to exposing this activity. In preparing the report, the commission examined the full range of available sources related to US biological programmes in Ukraine, including documents seized during the special military operation, and interviewed numerous witnesses with information about the activities of the Pentagon and related entities in Ukrainian biolabs.

For our part, we will continue to work within relevant multilateral forums (primarily the BTWC) to address our ongoing concerns regarding US military biological activities outside its national borders, including in close proximity to Russian territory.

UN Security Council statement to the press following the strike on the NPP in the UAE

On May 26, the UN Security Council adopted a press statement concerning a strike on an electrical generator located outside the inner perimeter of the Barakah Nuclear Power Plant in the United Arab Emirates.

Russia did not oppose the adoption of the document, as its content is consistent with our position on the situation in the Persian Gulf and on the inadmissibility of attacks against civilian infrastructure, including nuclear power facilities.

The statement refers to relevant resolutions of the IAEA General Conference concerning the need to ensure the safety and security of all peaceful nuclear facilities without exception. This applies equally to Russia’s Zaporozhskaya NPP and Iran’s Bushehr NPP.

This issue serves as a clear example of how it is possible to maintain a principled position while preserving allied, partner and friendly relations, acting in genuine agreement and harmony to safeguard international peace and security rather than manipulating issues of convenience.

Canada’s new “defensive” strategy for the Arctic

We have taken note of calls by Canadian Foreign Minister Anita Anand for NATO member states to develop a new “defensive” strategy for the Arctic. Defensive against whom? Are aliens expected to land there? Is someone supposed to emerge from the North Pole? What exactly is meant to happen there? Under this concept, the High North is to be designated NATO’s northern flank. It appears that the Alliance now claims to perceive threats even there, as it continues its relentless expansion. At the same time, its members are fully aware of the absurdity of such claims and know perfectly well that no threat emanates from Russia. Yet they continue to promote this convenient and well-rehearsed narrative.

It is NATO that is actively expanding its military capabilities in the Far North, developing military infrastructure in the region and planning to saturate it with modern weapons and military equipment. In February this year, NATO conducted Operation Arctic Sentry, which we commented on in detail at the time, purportedly to contain Russia’s activities in the region. In reality, these are further steps towards turning what has long been a peaceful Arctic region into yet another arena of geopolitical confrontation.

It is clear that the driving force behind these aggressive policies and the militarisation of the Arctic is NATO itself. The Alliance seeks to frighten its own populations with fantastical narratives about the “Russian threat” in order to justify increased military spending and additional budget allocations for imagined challenges rather than addressing genuine economic and social problems.

Parliamentary elections in Ethiopia

On June 1, Ethiopia held its seventh nationwide elections to the federal parliament and regional legislative assemblies.

We note the high standard of preparation and holding of the vote, which, according to observers, proceeded in an orderly manner and without irregularities capable of affecting the outcome. We also commend the constructive role played by the African Union and the Intergovernmental Authority on Development, both of which deployed monitoring missions to help ensure the transparency of the electoral process.

We welcome the peaceful and democratic nature of the vote, which demonstrated public support for the course pursued by the Ethiopian leadership under Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed towards political stability and sustainable socio-economic development.

Russia and Ethiopia are bound by long-standing ties of friendship and cooperation. Moscow remains committed to the further dynamic development of its multifaceted and mutually beneficial partnership with Addis Ababa, both bilaterally and within multilateral frameworks, including BRICS.

Celebrating Russian Language Day

On June 6, the world celebrates Russian Language Day, timed to coincide with the birthday of Alexander Pushkin, who is considered the founder of modern literary Russian. The great poet and writer’s unifying creative work combines versatility of folk speech with elegance and perfection of high-flown thinking and philosophy. His works have a creative force and reflect national self-consciousness, the lofty ideals of the Russian psyche, honour, morality, martial valour, and glory. They shape our identity, moral and spiritual values, and ethical orientations in young people. The poet was able to impart a really universal dimension to his works, owing to which they continue to thrill the modern reader. An interesting statistical fact is that his poem “I Remember a Wondrous Moment (To ***)” was officially translated into 210 languages.

Russian is one of the six official languages of the United Nations Organisation and has played an important role in promoting international dialogue since its foundation. According to a decision approved by the UN Department of Public Information, this day has been observed annually under a programme designed to promote multilingualism and cultural diversity since 2010.

The Russian Federation exerts consistent and concerted efforts to protect and support the Russian language and enhance its positions abroad. We are seeking to meet the real needs for studying and using Russian in other countries. The same goes for expanding the knowledge about Russia and Russian-language information space.

The International Organisation for the Russian Language has started its practical work. This intergovernmental organisation is open to all states that share its aims and view Russian as an inalienable part of world heritage, a language of international science and culture, and a means of inter-ethnic and international communication.

It must be noted that Russian Language Day has become a truly popular holiday in other countries, which organise ceremonies and diverse special functions. Schools, universities, and cultural centres offer contests, knowledge quizzes, Pushkin readings, festivals, academic competitions, scientific and practical conferences, seminars, and lectures. Russian diplomatic missions, Russian Houses, graduates of Russian universities abroad, and, of course, Russian compatriots engage in organising festive celebrations.

Floral tributes are brought to Pushkin monuments. According to the International Association for the Preservation of Russian Cultural and Historical Heritage Abroad, 50 countries have installed about 100 monuments to the renowned Russian poet. In fact, however, they are considerably more numerous, as no systematic count has ever been undertaken.

Considerable interest is evoked by large-scale events held on the occasion of Russian Language Day at the UN, UNESCO, and other international organisations. Similar events are organised by the Russian diplomatic missions in Bangkok, Vienna, Geneva, Nairobi, New York, and Paris.

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has prepared a special video address with greetings on Russian Language Day. We will post it on our online resources on the day of the festival.

I would like to note in particular that in 2026, Russian embassies organise screenings to show a documentary, The World’s Foremost Russologist, created by the Russky Mir TV and Radio Company and dedicated to Lyudmila Verbitskaya, an outstanding expert in the Russian language, philologist, linguist, and public figure, who would have been 90 this year. In my view, she is a symbol of St Petersburg and a person loved and respected all over the country. The film is available at our screenings and online. Follow us for updates on all festive events in Promoting Russian Abroad, a special section of the Foreign Ministry’s website.

Commemorating the 340th anniversary of the birth of Russian statesman and diplomat Andrey Osterman

This year marks the 340th anniversary of the birth of Andrey (Heinrich Johann Friedrich) Osterman, a prominent Russian statesman, diplomat, and close adviser to Peter the Great. He was born on May 30 (June 9, New Style), 1686, in Bochum, Germany. Educated at the University of Jena, he was fluent in Dutch, Latin, French, Italian, and Russian.

Under Osterman’s leadership, a number of major foreign policy agreements were concluded, including the Treaty of Vienna (1716), concluded between Russia and the Holy Roman Empire to promote their common goal of maintaining peace in Europe; the Treaty of Nystad (1721), which brought the Great Northern War (1700-1721) to an end; and the Treaty of Belgrade with the Ottoman Empire (1739), which concluded the Russo-Turkish War of 1735–1739.

Andrey Osterman is also known as the author of the first version of the Table of Ranks adopted in 1722 – a legislative act that regulated the system of rank advancement in Russia until the early 20th century. In carrying forward the policies initiated by Peter the Great, he played a key role in concluding alliance and trade agreements with a number of European states, including Prussia, Great Britain, and Denmark, and developed a far-reaching foreign policy strategy in the southern direction. One cannot help but wonder what he would say if he could see his historical homeland today and the developments taking place across Western Europe.

The peak of Osterman’s career came after the death of Peter the Great. In 1723, he was appointed Vice President of the Collegium of Foreign Affairs, and from 1725 to 1740 he served as Vice Chancellor. He was awarded the Order of St Andrew the First-Called in 1727 and the Order of St Alexander Nevsky in 1728. From 1731 onward, he effectively directed both the foreign and domestic policy of the Russian Empire.

His distinguished diplomatic and public service was carried on during the reign of Catherine the Great by his son, Ivan Osterman, a prominent statesman and diplomat who served as Chancellor and headed the Collegium of Foreign Affairs.

In Bochum, Germany, the birthplace of Andrey Osterman, a memorial plaque commemorating the Vice Chancellor of the Russian Empire can be found on Ostermannstraße (which, for the record, has not yet been renamed). In the 1930s, a bust honouring this distinguished native of the city was unveiled in the vestibule of the city council chamber.

In 2008, a memorial plaque dedicated to Andrey Osterman was installed at his burial site in the cemetery near the Church of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the village of Beryozovo.

Expert session of the 3+3 Regional Cooperation Platform at SPIEF 2026

On June 5, Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Galuzin will take part in the first expert session of the 3+3 Regional Cooperation Platform (Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia, plus Russia, Iran, and Türkiye) at the St Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF). The thematic session, entitled The 3+3 Platform: Common Challenges and Strategic Partnership, has been included in the official business programme of the 29th St Petersburg International Economic Forum.

The event will mark the launch of an expert track within the framework of the Regional Cooperation Platform at SPIEF 2026. This will serve as an important complement to official contacts, providing an additional forum for developing new proposals and ideas aimed at promoting the sustainable development and prosperity of the South Caucasus.

The thematic panel was organised by the Institute of China and Contemporary Asia of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Gorchakov Public Diplomacy Fund, with the active support of the Russian Foreign Ministry. The meeting will bring together leading political scientists from all six member states of the Platform, including Georgia.

We are confident that all those interested in this format will benefit from an open and candid exchange among experts, in-depth professional analysis of the region’s geopolitical and economic landscape, and strategic assessments of future cooperation among the countries of the South Caucasus and their neighbouring states.

Answers to media questions:

***

I apologise for my emotions. Perhaps not everyone will understand me. But it is simply impossible to remain indifferent. When I see such indifference, I want to reach out, to shout, and to do everything possible to wake people up. It is truly beyond the bounds of good and evil.

I must say that it is rare for me to quote former US President Joe Biden in a positive light. Not because I have done so rarely, but because he rarely gave me the opportunity. However, one remark of his – not one merely attributed to him, but one I personally heard him make – left a strong impression on me. He spoke about bringing his grandchildren to Europe. You should understand that, for Americans, a trip to Europe is a significant event. He took them to the entrance of a former Nazi concentration camp. You can find this story and his remarks yourself. I do not know whether someone advised him to do this or whether it was entirely his own idea.

He showed them not only the concentration camp itself but also asked them to turn their backs to the entrance. When they did, he asked what they saw. His grandchildren replied that they saw houses – nice cottages, clearly with a history – located nearby. He then told them that the most horrifying thing was that people had lived in those houses and calmly watched what was happening in that terrible concentration camp. The meaning of this gesture and this statement was clear: the murder of civilians – ordinary people and children – was monstrous in itself. But perhaps even more monstrous was the fact that others could observe it from the comfort of their homes and convince themselves that there was no reason to leave their comfort zone. That is astonishing.

What is equally astonishing – and the reason I have devoted so much attention today to the international legal dimension – is that over the past forty or fifty years, the world has attached enormous importance to these issues, developing convention after convention, declaration after declaration, creating corresponding institutions, and in some ways almost celebrating them as achievements, while often failing to grasp the essence of what is actually taking place.***

Question: US Secretary of Defence Peter Hegseth has urgently called on the US’s allies in Asia to increase military spending, citing an alleged growing military threat from China. How would you comment on this statement?

Maria Zakharova: The same logic applies to statements by senior Canadian officials regarding the supposed need to “save” the Arctic from an alleged Russian threat.

We are witnessing how various regions of the world are being militarised under the banner and philosophy of NATO – even places where, strictly speaking, there was no inherent potential for conflict. In many such regions, the potential for conflict had been replaced by cooperation, which was developing successfully but was subsequently slowed down or frozen precisely by the actions of the collective West. As they say, that cooperation itself served as a guarantee against the emergence of new areas of tension and confrontation.

We condemn the United States’ continued attempts to use proxy forces to stimulate an arms race in the Asia-Pacific region. Such actions create risks of destabilising the existing ASEAN-centered regional security architecture and threaten to introduce new dividing lines in the region.

Most importantly, no one has actually invited them there. It is them who are offering their services to the region without having any meaningful positive experience to support their claims. The situation would be different if NATO could point to a successful record. Instead, it only has practical experience, for example, in Afghanistan or the Middle East; even when operations were not formally conducted under NATO auspices, they were carried out by alliance members. NATO structures coordinated developments in Iraq, later in Libya, and elsewhere. This is the experience they now seek to offer to the Asia-Pacific region.

For our part, we consistently advocate for resolving any emerging disputes and conflicts through political and diplomatic means, relying on the multilateral dialogue mechanisms that already exist and have proven their effectiveness.

Question: There have been assurances from Yerevan that, following the parliamentary elections scheduled for June 7, cooperation between Russia and Armenia will return to a more constructive course and that the various issues that have arisen within the framework of the EAEU will be resolved. How would you assess these expectations?

Maria Zakharova: What prevented this from being done before the elections? Or during the election campaign? As the saying goes: “I was angry because I didn’t have a bicycle. But as soon as I got one, I immediately became kind.” It’s a curious argument.

I would like to emphasise – and we have said this on many occasions – that Russia-Armenia relations are not dependent on short-term political considerations. We have never linked our approach to electoral processes in the republic.

Nor do we do so with Armenia or any other country. What we have observed, however, is a sharp acceleration in efforts (by force, at that) to draw Armenia closer to the European Union and Euro-Atlantic structures. This has been reflected in statements by the country’s senior leadership, a number of encouraging signals from Brussels, and the sizeable European political presence that arrived in Yerevan in early May this year. The declaration adopted following the Armenia-EU summit on May 5 explicitly welcomed Yerevan’s European aspirations.

After all of this, legitimate questions have arisen on the part of Russia, many Armenian citizens, and Armenia’s partners within the EAEU: where exactly is Armenia heading, and how does it intend to fulfil its obligations within the organisations of which it remains a member?

We have heard various verbal gymnastics regarding the CSTO, including claims that the organisation somehow withdrew from Armenia. But when it comes to the EAEU, apparently no such formulation could be devised. After all, the EAEU has never withdrawn from Armenia.

We raised these questions openly and directly during our contacts. The same questions, incidentally, have been posed by the media and by economic operators seeking clarity about the future and trying to determine how best to plan their activities. We have conveyed these concerns to our Armenian partners in a cooperative manner. To date, however, we have yet to receive clear answers.

The current approach pursued by the Armenian leadership – attempting, in effect, to straddle both camps – serves no one’s interests. And we certainly have no intention of financing Armenia’s path toward the European Union. The EU openly pursues policies hostile to our country and a number of others, while continuing to support and fund the Kiev regime.

Why, then, should we remain silent? Why should we not express our position through the appropriate diplomatic channels and discuss these issues frankly and directly? When questions are raised, they deserve honest answers. Ultimately, those who initiated this course of action will have to make a choice.

The election campaign has absolutely nothing to do with this, and there is no need for political manipulation. The issue at hand is the need for a clear understanding of the path Armenia intends to follow.

Question: Japan is set to transfer its old frigates to the Philippines. Is that country becoming complicit in Japan’s military expansion? What does Russia think about this considering it has poor relations with Japan? Can this be seen as revival of Japanese militarism?

Maria Zakharova: Correction: It is not Russia that has poor relations with Japan. It is Japan that, acting under pressure from the United States, is taking steps that are undermining bilateral relations. These are two different matters.

We are not the ones who have spoiled relations with Japan. We have always been open to normal and constructive dialogue. A Japanese delegation wished to come to Russia now, and it did. If individual Japanese representatives wish to come to Russia, they are welcome to do so. We have never denied visits by Japanese public figures, journalists, tourists, or businesspeople, nor had we ever had issue with them staying in our country.

We are fully cognisant of the fact that Tokyo is under massive pressure. Unfortunately, Japan is not fully sovereign in its decision-making, which is why it has adopted such a stance.

We are keeping a close eye on Japan’s efforts to accelerate its remilitarisation which includes expansion of its military-technical cooperation and its training and exercise activities with countries in the Asia-Pacific region. We see deliberate steps towards forming narrow-bloc quasi-alliances directed against China and Russia. These blocs increase regional tensions, create conflict potential where none previously existed, or exacerbate existing disagreements. All of this undermines efforts to ensure sustainable peace, security, and development in Asia.

We will continue using diplomatic channels and the public sphere to make Tokyo realise the harmful nature of this policy.

Question: What objectives has Russia achieved in its confrontation with the West? Is it safe to say that Russia has managed to form an alternative international narrative?

Maria Zakharova: We did not set ourselves the goal of initiating any kind of media confrontation with the West.

We’ve observed a systematic media campaign against Russia for a long time now. One gets the impression that the anti-Russia information campaign in the West is an open-ended endeavour that is not tied to any specific event, but rather builds a toxic media environment around our country.

I gave this example earlier, and I’ll give it again. From 2005 to 2008, I worked in New York dealing with media, information, and public relations. Naturally, I watched various American television channels, including news, entertainment, and specialised ones. I read newspapers and online publications.

Back then, our relations with the United States were not marred by major issues that would cause major differences. We were assuring each other (and the Americans were telling us the same) that we would work to build cooperation. Summits were taking place, our respective ministers met regularly, and there was no such thing as sanctions.

Even then, I called the US media coverage of Russia “zero good news policy.”

Even amid challenges and setbacks, there is always a positive side. Athletic facilities and schools are opening, compelling exhibitions and theatre shows are taking place, touring performances are being held, scientific breakthroughs are being made, youth projects are being implemented, and there is also music, art, and cinema - lots of everything especially when it comes to Russia. We’ve got a lot going on in Russia. In the early 2000s, there were genuinely significant breakthroughs in sport, culture, the arts, the economy, the construction industry, the manufacturing industry, and so on. This was unmistakably clear to everyone.

Yet I did not see a single article or a single story on American television about Russia that covered anything like this. I concluded that they either said something negative about our country, or they said nothing at all. In other words, they believe that when they say nothing about Russia, that’s good news, very good news. But that is not how things should be.

Therefore, we have no conflict in this sphere with the West or any other country for that matter. What we do have is a realistic assessment and acknowledgement of the fact that the West has been conducting for decades, and even longer, a media war on our country and our people.

This is not due to a lack of information. This stems from an inherent bias aimed at shaping perceptions of Russia exclusively through a negative lens, through negative messages and news. I am absolutely convinced that coverage should be unbiased. It should include both negative and positive aspects, as well as neutral ones.

Over the course of two to three years, I have seen only two or three articles about the Bolshoi Theatre’s opera tours or ballet performances organised by Russia. But those tours were organised by American impresarios as well, so perhaps they made sure this information finds its way to the media. I have seen positive materials about Russia on television only when Boris Yeltsin died. They ran stories about the first President of Russia and spoke about our country in neutral terms. That is, at least something positive was said about Russia then. I’ve seen nothing else. Nothing was ever said about tourism potential or about our cities or traditions. Nothing. I think this is simply unacceptable if we are talking about mainstream media outlets, which are supposed to be unbiased.

Question: The Third Russia-Africa Summit is scheduled to be held this autumn. Have there been any attempts by countries unfriendly towards Russia to drive a wedge between Moscow and its African partners and discourage their participation in the summit? How many countries have already expressed interest in taking part at the highest level?

Maria Zakharova: Yes, we are witnessing numerous attempts. Many states governed by regimes unfriendly towards Russia are former colonial powers. They continue to think in terms of spheres of influence, still regard Africa as their private domain, and seek to limit the continent’s relations with external partners, including our country.

They have never forgiven our country for the fact that throughout the 20th century, when it was the Soviet Union, it consistently supported these nations in their struggle for sovereignty, freedom and independence from colonial oppression. This remains a deep-seated grievance and fuels an obsessive desire to punish us for it.

The holding of major Russia-Africa events presents a serious challenge to them. They believe that they alone have the right to conduct activities in Africa. Likewise, they seek to push China out of the continent. Unlike them, China came to Africa not with the chains of slavery or weapons used to destroy indigenous populations, but with economic projects, investment and trade – something they are equally unhappy about.

We have previously recorded attempts to obstruct the participation of African guests in the Second Russia-Africa Summit in St Petersburg in 2023, as well as at ministerial conferences held in Sochi in 2024 and Cairo in 2025. We do not rule out the possibility that similar destructive actions will be undertaken in the run-up to the third summit. If we see anything of that kind, we will certainly share the information with you.

At the same time, experience shows that such a policy does not produce the desired results, because Africans remember, value and cherish their sincere, strong and long-standing relations with our country, relations that are not driven by short-term political considerations. African states do not yield to pressure. They pursue an independent and sovereign foreign policy based on their own national interests and are not prepared to sacrifice mutually beneficial cooperation with Russia.

Most importantly, they understand what they are being encouraged to do: betray a country that for decades has been a genuine friend and, as a consequence, undermine their own well-being.

Question: The other day, speaking at the GLOBSEC International Security Forum held in Prague on May 21-23, EU Special Representative for Human Rights Kajsa Ollongren compared Russia’s treatment of Ukrainian children with that of the Nazis, who during WWII forcibly took blond children resembling Aryans from their homes, adopted them and erased their identity. What can you say about this?

Maria Zakharova: Importantly, a woman said that. Of course, we operate on the principle of gender equality, but when a woman takes on the issue of human rights, in this case, children’s rights, she can assess problems and sense them more deeply. This in no way belittles the work men do in this area, but there is a certain side to it which is female nature.

In order to be clear about how biased or in fact detached from reality she is, one should look at whether she has ever taken any interest in the fate of Russian children impacted by the Kiev regime. I have a red folder with their photographs and names. Does she know about these children? If she believes she can go beyond her area which is the European Union, I wonder whether she has shown any interest in the fate of Russian children. Has she said anything about the Alley of Angels or about the Iranian girls school in Minab?

Statements of that kind primarily describe those who make them. After all, if she is so concerned about the fate of Ukrainian children she refers to, she could at least have provided a list of their names. But this idea hasn’t even crossed her mind. She hasn’t asked the Ukrainian Permanent Representative to the EU for the list. She has not offered assistance or mediation services. She has no interest in doing that. She knows full well that she was not appointed to this post to do real work.

Just compare this to the fact that on May 14, Yana Lantratova was appointed Human Rights Commissioner of the Russian Federation. She hit the ground running on the very first day on the job. How many days separate her appointment from her visit to Starobelsk? This morning or this night I saw her say that more people had been freed. She does not speak in set phrases, nor does she politicise the area entrusted to her, which is about human lives.

Perhaps Kajsa Ollongren is better versed on how Nazi concentration camps operated. Maybe she has personal experience. Let us briefly clarify the facts.

Russia’s efforts to take children to safety from combat zones are presented by the Europeans as “abduction” or “deportation.” When speaking to the media, EU officials refer to “thousands” of children. They have not provided any evidence to back it up. Why not ask them to provide some? Send them an inquiry? Since she raised this issue, she must have evidence, at least a hundred names or so. I can assure you that she will not do this, because she knows she was not appointed to do this kind of work.

However, Brussels officials not only refuse to take into account the facts that corroborate the fake nature of EU accusations, they also, judging by the statements of the EU Special Representative for Human Rights, are ready to give this smear campaign another boost by comparing Russia’s actions with the crimes committed by Nazi Germany. But that is their narrative. The European Parliament is doing the same. Do you know what Ms Ollongren did before her appointment? She was the Defence Minister of the Netherlands - truly extensive experience in the field of human rights.

It is hardly possible that this EU official is not aware of the fact that in Nazi concentration camps children were massively exterminated, tortured, their blood was transfused to the Third Reich soldiers, and medical experiments were conducted on them. In Auschwitz-Birkenau, Łodz (modern-day Poland), and Salaspils (modern-day Latvia). The list of these atrocities goes on and on. Is she aware of the fact that in Latvia today Salaspils is presented not as a death camp for children, but as a labour colony? Apparently, the children did their work by donating blood to German Nazi soldiers. Heinous manipulations. Information lies.

She probably does not know either that these concentration camps were liberated by the Red Army. After all, this information is prohibited across the European Union. After all, how can one draw parallels between Russia and Nazi Germany if it turns out that our country liberated Europe from the Third Reich?

It is not just a matter of being ignorant about Europe’s history. It is a manifestation of a deliberately pursued EU cynical policy aimed at falsifying history, where black is called white and white is called black. The goal is to demonise, to dehumanise, and to create a corresponding perception and use it to make appropriate political decisions. Anything - lies, censorship, rewriting of history, and fake narratives - goes to make this effort succeed.

In this context, the recent re-inclusion of the Russian Foundation for Support and Protection of Compatriots Living Abroad on the EU sanctions lists is also worth noting. The foundation provides assistance to people in tough circumstances, helps them find lawyers and legal counsel, and sometimes offers financial support. It was sanctioned for doing that. The foundation has been sanctioned by the EU twice. It came under the same restrictions that were imposed on it in 2023.

However, the reasoning behind this step is particularly noteworthy.

The Council of the EU regulations explicitly state that this time the foundation was effectively punished for its consistent efforts to combat xenophobia, including Russophobia, neo-Nazism, and the attempts to falsify history. In today’s European reality, such activity, especially if it is in any way connected with Russia, is immediately equated with “creating a threat to the sovereignty and stability of the European Union through information manipulation.” In other words, if human rights are violated, they look at nationality. If Russians are affected, it does not constitute a violation in their world, and therefore those who uphold the rights of the Russian people can be punished. That is the true nature of Nazism.

European society is not supposed to know the truth not only about the Ukraine conflict, but also about inconvenient chapters of Europe’s history and about current worrying trends in the EU that are related to extreme forms of racism and hate speech. Just look at how antisemitism is gaining momentum there. And the less access society has to such information, the easier it is for those advocating confrontation with Russia to distort historical facts, slander, and attach fabricated labels.

Back to the topic of the “abducted” Ukrainian children. If Ms Ollongren is truly concerned about their fate, we are expecting her to provide lists and names. If she already possesses information but does not pay attention to it, we can help her.

The Office of the Ukrainian Prosecutor General (which, I assume, she can trust) has released the following information. This oversight authority noted that in 2025, compared to 2024, the number of abused children increased by 27 percent. In childcare institutions, numerous cases of cruelty, sexual violence, denial of medical help, restriction of food, abuse of guardianship rights, inadequate living conditions, and other violations have been identified. In total, 214 criminal cases have been opened in Ukraine on these grounds. Cases of child trafficking have been identified (eight cases in 2025). These are the official data provided by the Kiev regime.

Kajsa Ollongren should also look into the fate of Ukrainian minors taken to European countries. According to the National Social Service of Ukraine, in 2022, 290 orphanages were evacuated from frontline areas, of which 196 (containing 4,811 children) were taken abroad. As of early 2026, 1,340 children remain abroad: 449 in Poland, 359 in Germany, 112 in Italy, 100 in Spain, 78 in Austria, 74 in Switzerland, 64 in Romania, 33 in the Netherlands, 29 in Israel, 27 in Lithuania, 7 in Türkiye, 7 in Croatia, and 1 in Greece. The Office of the Ukrainian Parliamentary Commissioner for Human Rights has reported systematic physical and psychological violence against Ukrainian children in Austria, Poland, and Türkiye. Why has Kajsa Ollongren not flown to these countries? Why has she not met with these children? These are the official data provided by the Kiev regime.

In addition, on March 2, Zelensky signed Law No. 4779-IX, which allows military administrations to evacuate children from frontline areas without parental consent. Six months into evacuation, if the parents have not reunited with their child, they lose parental rights. Thus, a legal basis has been established for removing a child from the family. This is happening in Ukraine. What does Russia have to do with any of that?

The fact that Western officials make up stories about alleged violations of the rights of Ukrainian children in Russia, while turning a blind eye to blatant violations of minors’ rights in Ukraine, shows that in reality, for them, children are merely a tool.

Question: Yesterday, on the sidelines of SPIEF, Foreign Ministry’s Ambassador-at-Large Sergey Kononuchenko moderated a session titled Challenges and Prospects of International Water Cooperation: Water as a Factor of Sustainable Development. He said that nearly two billion people around the world still lack access to safe drinking water. Another participant in the session, Goodwill Ambassador Vyacheslav Fetisov, put forward an unusual initiative – the idea of a “water truce.” How do you assess this proposal? Do you see practical potential in this initiative?

Maria Zakharova: The Foreign Ministry maintains close contact with Vyacheslav Fetisov. We cooperate closely, provide support where needed, and are grateful to him both for this initiative and for the many others he has proposed and successfully implemented with his trademark creativity and talent.

The idea of a truce is commendable in any context. Russia has repeatedly put forward ceasefire initiatives and has been prepared to observe them. The problem is what happens next. One only has to look at who violates these ceasefires and how. The key is not merely to declare a ceasefire, but to ensure that it is respected. This is one of the main paradoxes of the Kiev regime. It constantly calls for ceasefires, yet whenever a hand is extended, the response is not only violations of the ceasefire itself, but outright terrorist acts.

That said, Mr Fetisov’s initiative is both interesting and admirable.

Question: Recently, media reports indicated that Georgian citizen Gulbaat Rtskhiladze, head of the Eurasia Institute and a well-known advocate of Russian-Georgian cooperation, was detained in Tbilisi on charges of espionage on behalf of two countries, including Russia. How would you comment on these developments?

Maria Zakharova: We know Gulbaat Rtskhiladze well as a person who, for many years, has openly and sincerely advocated for overcoming differences between Russia and Georgia and for the normalisation of bilateral relations. He has genuinely done a great deal to foster closer ties between our peoples.

Thus, his work has included research into our shared history and memorial activities, including efforts to search for those who perished during the Great Patriotic War and to restore war memorials. He has defended historical truth, particularly with regard to the significant and invaluable contribution of the Georgian people to the Victory over Nazism. All of our contacts with him have been conducted openly and through official channels.

It is noteworthy that his detention came just days after he announced the launch of a project aimed at monitoring manifestations of Russophobia in Georgia’s public sphere. It seems that certain forces may have an interest in preventing information about such instances of xenophobia from reaching the broader international community. In this regard, we cannot but express concern over the fate of Mr Rtskhiladze, particularly given that he is the primary caregiver for his seriously ill elderly father. We hope that the Georgian authorities will give due consideration to this issue.

At the same time, we fully respect the sovereignty of Georgia and the laws of this independent state.

Question: The United Nations is facing its most severe financial crisis in decades and may run out of funds as early as August this year. The Organisation’s largest debtors are the United States and China, which together account for around half of the UN budget. Funding shortfalls have already led to staff reductions, programme closures and delays in peacekeeping operations.

Can it be said that the effectiveness of UN mechanisms is being called into question? Is there a risk that UN peacekeeping missions may be curtailed or significantly scaled back? Could the crisis lead to a revision of the principles governing the financing of international organisations?

Maria Zakharova: I can confirm that the problem exists. The United Nations is indeed experiencing difficulties with the receipt of funds, a situation that the UN Secretary-General has described to member states as a “liquidity crisis.” At the same time, the Organisation notes a certain improvement in the situation this year. The total arrears owed by member states to the UN regular budget from previous financial periods amount to $2.6 billion, while arrears to UN peacekeeping budgets stand at $2.8 billion.

I would like to emphasise that the cumulative arrears of the United States alone to the UN regular budget over the entire period of the Organisation’s existence currently exceed $2 billion, while its arrears to peacekeeping budgets amount to more than $2.3 billion. Based on the experience of previous years, Washington routinely delays its payments until the end of the year. I am reminded of a line from the film Office Romance, spoken by Svetlana Nemolyaeva’s character: “Yura, do you remember how we skipped those lectures on finance and law ... and went to an ice-cream café instead? You ordered everything in such grand style, and then it turned out you didn’t have enough money.” It is, in fact, a very apt comparison.

Russia remains committed to honouring its financial obligations. The allocation of the relevant funds is provided for under our legislation. Although anti-Russia sanctions create certain difficulties in using international banking infrastructure, we work together with the UN Secretariat to find ways of resolving these issues. This is our level of responsibility. Contributions to the UN regular budget for previous years and the current year have been transferred in full. We are also making payments to peacekeeping budgets.

As for the risk of peacekeeping missions being curtailed or scaled back, and the possibility of revising the principles governing the financing of international organisations, we remain cautiously optimistic. Member states and the international institutions themselves possess sufficient resilience, experience and expertise to prevent the collapse of the existing system.

The UN’s financial mechanisms undoubtedly require modernisation and adaptation to current conditions. However, the key to resolving the existing problems lies, above all, in ensuring financial discipline on the part of those countries that occupy a disproportionately large share of key positions within the Secretariat. We regularly call on all members of the Organisation, particularly those with significant arrears, to make the required payments in a timely manner.

Question: Newly-appointed Prime Minister of Hungary Péter Magyar has notified NATO that Hungary continues to refuse supplying Ukraine with any weapons or military cargo, and has informed the EU that Budapest will not relinquish Russian gas. How does Moscow assess the position of the new Hungarian government with respect to Russian gas and the refusal to supply arms to Kiev?

Maria Zakharova: Our fundamental position is that financing international terrorism is inadmissible. It is evident to all that the Kiev regime perpetrates acts of terrorism. Its ideology is rooted in neo-Nazi precepts. Any country that finances this lawlessness, supplies weapons, or offers political support is complicit in financing international terrorist activity.

Brussels persists in its determination to forgo Russian energy resources, notwithstanding the interests of individual EU member states. In January 2025, the European Union adopted a highly contentious regulation mandating the phased cessation of Russian natural gas imports no later than November 2027, completely disregarding the views of Hungary and Slovakia. Other EU member states also hold opinions, yet they are afraid to voice them. De facto, these restrictive sanctions were agreed under the guise of a commercial measure, passed by qualified majority and circumventing what was long considered an inviolable principle of consensus – thereby allowing to bypass the interests of Budapest and Bratislava. In response, on February 2, 2025, Hungary filed a lawsuit with the Court of Justice of the European Union, seeking annulment of the regulation and reimbursement of legal costs. According to the CJEU register, as of June 2, 2025, the case is under review. On April 24, 2025, Slovakia lodged a similar suit.

The politically motivated decision by the European Union to reject Russian energy raw materials contradicts not only the foundational principles of the Union but also the logic of economic viability and energy security. This is clearly illustrated by the EU’s own statistics, when comparing gas and electricity cost indicators across the EU on average and separately for Hungary. According to the most recent Eurostat data, in the second half of 2025, gas prices for households in Hungary, including taxes, were 3.6 times lower than the EU average (34 euros per MWh versus 122.8 euros per MWh); electricity prices were 2.7 times lower (108.2 euros per MWh versus 289.6 euros per MWh). These are the lowest figures recorded among all EU member states.

We take note of statements by representatives of Hungary’s new leadership, both regarding the development of relations with Russia and concerning the situation in and around Ukraine. We proceed from the understanding that, on these matters, the Hungarian Government will act guided by the measure of responsibility conferred upon it by the people of Hungary and in pursuit of their interests. In any event, we shall judge by concrete deeds.

Question: Today, Latin American countries are demonstrating growing interest in new formats of international cooperation. Which areas of interaction with Russia could become most significant for the new generation – education, technology, culture, economy, or media? What prospects do you see in this context for Russia’s cooperation with Peru?

Maria Zakharova: Engagement with the countries of the region, including representatives of its younger generation, is conducted across all the areas you have enumerated.

One of the principal spheres of cooperation with the states of Latin America and the Caribbean Basin is higher education, encompassing the annual provision of state scholarships to citizens of these countries for study in Russia. The most sought-after specialisations are management, general medicine, international relations, economics, programming, high technologies, and information and communication technologies.

I believe it is precisely these fields that are becoming most significant for Latin American youth.

But not exclusively these. In the Brazilian city of Joinville, the Bolshoi Theatre School – which has no equivalent anywhere in the world – has been operating for over 20 years. In the same country, under the auspices of the Moscow Conservatory, the Tchaikovsky Music School (in Fortaleza) operates successfully. Since 2015, an agreement has been in effect between the State Russian Museum and the National Council of Cultural Heritage of the Ministry of Culture of Cuba concerning the establishment of a centre in Havana for the study of Russian language, art, and culture.

Inter-university contacts are expanding. Academic and scientific-practical collaboration with higher educational institutions of LACB has been established by Moscow State University, the Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia, St Petersburg State University, the Diplomatic Academy of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and a number of universities in Moscow, Voronezh, Samara, Yekaterinburg, Kursk, Rostov-on-Don, and other Russian cities.

With regard to media, Russia Today has established broadcasting with Latin American partners, both over-the-air and within cable television packages. ITAR-TASS and the Sputnik agency operate in the region. Their content is highly sought after by Latin American audiences.

Question: Could the use of Western weapons or Western components in attacks such as the strike on a school in Starobelsk have consequences for NATO countries in the near future?

Maria Zakharova: Today we have already discussed economic and energy indicators, as well as militarisation that is draining all the lifeblood from what were previously prosperous European Union countries. There is an expression – “monkey business” - instead of developing the economy, energy sector, education, science and culture, they are arming themselves to the teeth and fuelling the escalation of conflict on the European continent. They are already creating these consequences for themselves.

The question you asked is better addressed to EU citizens, because it is being done at their expense. Italian businesses, for example, have been deprived by NATO of incredible opportunities for earnings and development in Russia. They felt very comfortable in our country, and those who did not leave continue to make a profit. What have Italian citizens gained from involvement in anti-Russian activities? Ukrainian refugees. Congratulations – this will be your social problem for a long time. Enjoy it.

What have you gained in terms of energy security? You have suffered a blow in this area. Soaring energy prices have also affected final products. What have you gained in terms of humanitarian ties with our country? Has the flow of tourists increased? No, it has decreased, because Russia has been forced to introduce restrictions. Citizens of our country mostly do not travel to Europe due to the blocking of payment systems. Some do not do so on principle, because of the participation of the Italian government in financing the Kiev regime.

Where is your profit, benefit and interest? Is it in being told that Russia is violating human rights or carrying out aggression against Ukraine? I have provided an example of what the Kiev regime is doing and how human rights have been violated in Ukraine for decades. Yet this has somehow been ignored.

They are now creating consequences for themselves. It would be better if EU citizens woke up and asked these questions of their governments. In 2022, when tanks and armoured vehicles were being supplied to Ukraine, EU representatives said that the conflict would end within a couple of months with the complete victory of the Kiev regime, and that the European Union would triumph. Some in the EU also argued that this would open up new economic opportunities, that they would enter Russia from new positions, not by building equitable relations but by dictating their terms to us. What has actually happened? You can see for yourselves. So do not ask me. Ask yourselves, your citizens and your country’s leadership.

Question: Thank you for organising the trip to Lugansk , as it allowed us to show our viewers that the terrorist attack in Starobelsk is part of Western ideology.

Maria Zakharova: Yesterday I spoke with Rick Sanchez, who was also on the trip. He said that he approached many of the people present there and asked the same question: what is located near this college that could have any military significance? These were people driven to despair by the tragedy, as their children had been killed. When people are in despair, they may, in their grief, assign responsibility for anything to anyone. But not a single person said that there was anything even remotely resembling a military installation nearby. There was nothing of the kind.

The Ukrainian Armed Forces carried out the strikes knowing they were hitting children. They also struck those who were trying to rescue the children. If this had been a military target, they would not have launched repeated strikes against those who were saving children rather than weapons. In this case, the logic does not hold. Especially when you go to the site and see that there is nothing remotely resembling what the Kiev regime is claiming.

Question: What is Russia’s attitude to Israel’s actions which is endangering and occupying archaeological monuments and targeting cities on the UNESCO Heritage List, for instance, the city of Tyre in Lebanon?

Maria Zakharova: Russia’s assessment of Israel’s actions in Lebanon is well known. We regularly issue comments regarding them.

Since the beginning of the latest round of escalation in that country, we have been consistently calling for putting an end to the armed confrontation and steering the situation towards a political and diplomatic settlement.

We are advocating this stance both during bilateral contacts with our foreign partners and on international venues. Our vision of a solution to the Lebanese crisis has been laid out in detail by Russia’s Permanent Representative to the UN Security Council Vasily Nebenzya at the June 1 meeting of the UNSC on this matter.

Guided by our position of principle, we welcomed the signing of a ceasefire agreement between Beirut and Tel Aviv in April 2026. Unfortunately, it is not being observed. Israel’s violations of the ceasefire agreement have come systematic. The IDF continues active operations, systematically expanding the occupation zone in southern Lebanon and delivering massive indiscriminate strikes on populated areas, which results in numerous casualties and large-scale destruction of civilian infrastructure. They are also damaging cultural and historical heritage sites. Tel Aviv regularly threatens to resume the bombing of Beirut. According to the official report by the Lebanese Ministry of Public Health, the death toll has reached 3,300. The humanitarian situation is worsening. The number of internally displaced persons has exceeded 1.3 million.

We are concerned about the fact that Israeli strikes are endangering Lebanon’s cultural landmarks, including those on the World Heritage List. When people, including children, are killed, it would be wrong to give priority to the destruction of monuments. However, this problem must not be neglected either. It is clear that this is part of the logic of destruction and elimination of historical memory through the destruction of monuments.

We share UNESCO’s concern put forth in the May 29, 2026, statement on the strikes delivered to the area near the Crusaders’ Beaufort Castle, which must be protected under the 1954 Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. We are also concerned about the potential looting of the ancient city of Tyre, which has been declared a world heritage site in accordance with the 1972 Convention.

We firmly believe that the sides of all conflicts must take every possible measure to protect cultural and historical heritage. Targeted attacks on cultural site and their barbarous destruction are illegal and unacceptable.

We strongly call for an immediate ceasefire and the withdrawal of the Israeli military from the Lebanese territory. This would create conditions for launching a political and diplomatic settlement of the conflict based on UNSC Resolution 1701, which sets out the sides’ commitments.

We reaffirm our support for the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of the Lebanese Republic. We are ready to work together with our regional and international partners in the interests of a stable and lasting normalisation of the situation around Lebanon and in the Middle East as a whole.

Question: Uzbekistan’s national football team is the only team from the CIS countries to qualify for the 2026 FIFA World Cup. Will the Russian Foreign Ministry root for Uzbekistan at the tournament?

Maria Zakharova: Can we instead support them with all our hearts? We would like to support them in a genuine and sincere way and to be truly pleased about this great sporting achievement. I am speaking with no irony whatsoever. We will support them and follow their progress, cheering for them in the sporting sense. The reason is simple: Uzbekistan is a fraternal country, we maintain close people-to-people contacts, implement many cultural and humanitarian projects, and hold regular bilateral meetings.

On June 4, we expect contacts to take place here, on the sidelines of the St Petersburg International Economic Forum. There is an interesting energy-related project. So I think there will be interesting developments today. However, informing you about this remains the prerogative of the Presidential Executive Office. You will learn everything in due course.

As for Uzbekistan’s participation in the FIFA World Cup, we are sincerely happy for them and wish them every success. Most importantly, we wish them positive emotions from their participation in the tournament.

Question: At present, we have one of the most incompetent and dangerous governments in the world in Germany. Political, cultural and economic relations between our countries have been almost completely destroyed. From Russia’s perspective, and from your point of view, is there any possibility of repairing these relations? And if so, under what conditions?

Maria Zakharova: You know, I don’t want to engage in speculation here. I will be very direct and as brief as possible. Before speaking about normalisation or the full restoration of relations, I will say only two things.

First, we truly had extraordinary prospects for the development of relations with Germany. These were not empty words, but concrete projects that had already been implemented or were due to be implemented in the near future. All of this was abandoned and destroyed because Germany was unable to defend its political sovereignty and failed to protect itself from the destructive influence of the ultra-liberal policies of the Obama-Biden administration.

There were enormous prospects and remarkable opportunities. It was a real breakthrough in bilateral relations, underpinned by mutually respectful and mutually beneficial cooperation that was developing across virtually all areas. I cannot recall a single sphere in which our cooperation had not delivered excellent results over recent decades.

Second, any discussion about the future is only possible if official Berlin declares that it is unacceptable to carry out terrorist attacks against civilians in the Russian Federation, denounces them, and stops sponsoring international terrorism. Only under these conditions could we even begin to contemplate this subject in principle.

I will not go into this now, especially while the contents of this red folder are being seen by everyone except Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany Friedrich Merz. Perhaps you could take it? I would be happy to hand it to you so you can pass it on to him. You are able to do that, aren’t you? Could you return to Berlin and simply show him the photographs of these children? They are available online as well, but here they are printed. I sincerely ask you to take these photographs with you, show them to the German people, and send them to Mr Merz. Tell him it’s a present from Maria Zakharova. Thank you.

Question: We have a query regarding Armenia. You have previously touched upon this topic during today’s briefing, yet we seek further elucidation. The President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, has recently commented on this matter. Numerous observers characterise the measures Russia is enacting to limit imports from Armenia as “punishment” for Yerevan’s pro-Western inclinations. Conversely, the Prime Minister of Armenia, Nikol Pashinyan, has recently addressed voters, asserting that instead of offering something good to the people of his country, Armenia’s partners are issuing threats. Therefore, in your view, are the assertions regarding the so-called “stick policy” that Russia is allegedly employing towards Yerevan justified, and do you not believe that a “carrot policy” might prove more effective in retaining Armenia within the orbit of Russia and the EAEU?

Maria Zakharova: I am truly grateful to you for having nonetheless taken the trouble to use the word “allegedly”, because otherwise my response would have been somewhat different. But still, you restrained yourself and displayed professionalism by using those expressions, essentially in quotation marks, as it were.

You said that a number of observers characterise the measures that Russia is taking to restrict supplies of products from Armenia as “punishment” for Yerevan’s pro-Western inclinations.

I am simply intrigued – when there were no restrictions on products from Armenia, what was such a policy of Moscow’s called then? If in this case they speak of supposed “punishment”, then what was that before – “reward”? Was everything normal? Did no one pay attention? Or was that the norm? Or what?

In our view, there is the evolution of bilateral relations and there are issues that emerge within these relations. Such issues can be resolved through political-diplomatic engagements, through the sincere, trusting dialogue we have consistently maintained with Armenia.

Incidentally, I have another question. What do these same commentators or observers, as you term them, label the 35,000 sanctions imposed against our nation? Do they also describe them as a stick policy? And do they question how objective it is, and whether this policy is yielding the desired results, or whether it might be more prudent to transition to a “carrot policy?”

May I further inquire – when did we extend support to Armenia across various sectors – including energy, culture, and humanitarian ties, and provided the citizens of that nation the opportunity to benefit from Russia’s offerings in finance, trade, and energy spheres? Incidentally, you might verify: what are the costs of these relevant resources to Yerevan, what savings arise from this, and how do ethnic Armenians, and those who hold Armenian citizenship while living and working here in our country, perceive this?

Given that this has transpired for decades, what do the observers label it? Why do they not declare that Russia has overindulged with carrots, for example? And why do they not ponder: perhaps there is already an aversion to our carrots? What are you referring to? Why do you employ clichés? No, thank you – we have simply dismantled those clichés in this manner.

I wish to dispel all insinuations on this matter and reaffirm: not only is the imposition of unlawful sanctions, circumventing the pertinent international organisations not our method, but we categorically oppose such policies towards any state.

Even when sanctions were not levied against Russia, we were, for decades, opposed to the blockade of Cuba and illegal sanctions against any other nation. We have always advocated for such issues to be deliberated at the United Nations Security Council table, rather than unilaterally endorsing and adopting something clandestinely.

Therefore, the assertion that Moscow is acting in some improper manner towards Armenia is a distortion. It is logic twisted to an indecent degree. Because one would have to fabricate that. In what way are we acting improperly? We have conducted and continue to conduct a mutually respectful and highly advantageous dialogue, partnership, and cooperation for the Armenian side.

What threat to Armenia from Russia can even be discussed, when for many years we have supported the republic and served as a guarantor of its security? And I will ask again: citizens of Armenia, individuals with Armenian citizenship, or ethnic Armenians, or those whose families reside in Armenia while part of their families are in our country – will they inform you about this? Inquire with them. They are the ones who will inform you about the “carrots,” as you phrased it, that have been bestowed upon Armenia for decades. As for the specific restrictions that exist, they were implemented with accompanying explanations.

And a second point. Yet there is a question that we pose to our partners, and we do so in a most respectful manner: what are Armenia’s intentions? This is a reasonable question. It is an entirely reasonable question. I recently illustrated with an example while conversing with journalists – of how everyone is seated in the waiting lounge, awaiting their flight from point A to point B. Suddenly, one of the passengers, all of whom already have boarding passes in hand – issued certainly not under duress, but purchased with their own funds – declares that he is flying not to point B, but to point D. This prompts a question among the others: why then did he check in for this flight, and why is he awaiting boarding? And what will occur if he, aware that he is flying to point D, nevertheless boards the aircraft destined for point B? Will he not commence, forgive me, attempting to disembark mid-flight, demanding the doors be opened or breaking out a window? It strikes me as a very logical question. Where are you headed? To point B or point D? If to D – splendid, but that is likely a different flight, and in that case, one should not have checked baggage onto the aircraft, so that those who checked in and prepared for the flight would not have to wait while he is extracted from the plane.

You see, this is a straightforward, composed reaction from countries that approach their association with responsibility, and which publicly, and prior to that through diplomatic channels, have long endeavoured to comprehend where precisely the current leadership of Armenia is heading. What intentions do they harbour? If they were not part of the association, that would be their exclusively personal viewpoint, their stance – by all means. But they are part of a collective entity; they have obligations, they have responsibilities.

Therefore, I categorically reject such (I am not sure that these are accusations) pronouncements.

Question: First of all, I would like to say that we are witnessing a critical shift towards a multipolar world of the 21st century, which opens up vast opportunities for the majority of nations. But there are also serious threats – for example, we see the dangerous revival of the Monroe Doctrine, which runs contrary to the interests of Latin American countries. I would like to ask you what Russian Federation is ready to offer them in this context.

Maria Zakharova: The Russian Federation has already offered all countries in the world to develop mutually beneficial cooperation based on mutual respect and international law. We have also invited them to act on the basis of their understanding of the direction for the world to develop – that is, towards multipolar interaction. It will not be governed by two, three or one decision-making centres but will develop through cooperation, combining potentials and capabilities, historical experience, regional ties, and the possibilities of various countries in all regions, and shaping these new poles in a natural rather than artificial manner. It is by combining these two directions that we are ready to develop relations with all countries that have similar approaches.

We are not trying to adjust other countries’ approaches to our own, or demand that they accept our ideology, philosophy, political concept, and type of government. Of course not. We say that we are ready to develop relations on the basis of equality and respect for the interests, history and traditions of each other, as well as international law. We understand how the world is already shaping our multipolar future. This is the offer we have made.

As for Latin America, I will cite several examples. The programme of the SPIEF 2026 includes a number of events related to Latin American countries. Large delegations from many Latin American countries are traditionally attending the forum. A Latin American section and business dialogues – this time with Cuba and Brazil – will be held on the sidelines of the forum. Plans also include several other events, as well as meetings with our Latin American partners and the signing of agreements with them. New practical steps which you mentioned in your question will be discussed at these meetings.

We are open to Latin American businesses and corporations. We are interested in working in the region’s markets. We have a lot to offer, including trade and mutually beneficial projects. Bilateral intergovernmental commissions on trade, economic, scientific and technical cooperation are driving progress in collaborative efforts. We have established such commissions with 11 Latin American and Caribbean countries. This large-scale format is used to discuss and adopt practical decisions on our cooperation. A regular meeting of the high-level commission with Brazil took place in February.

Business councils, chambers of industry and commerce, and NGOs are playing a significant role as well, in particular, the National Committee for Promoting Economic Cooperation with Latin American Countries, which traditionally takes an active part in the forum.

Question: The Tactical Exercise Platinum Wolf 2026, which involves NATO countries, began in the south of Serbia in early June. How would you assess the intensity of Serbia’s interaction with NATO, considering that a similar joint exercise was held in May?

Maria Zakharova: NATO regards the Balkans not only as a zone of its interest but also as another “coalition of the willing,” the new term that perfectly fits this situation. They want the Balkans. They don’t want to work in the Balkans or with the Balkans. They just want to have them. They need them. And they can’t hide their desire. They regard the Balkans as an outpost that must surrender to NATO. The goal is to bend them to NATO’s will and to use them exclusively in the alliance’s interests. We are not talking about the interests of individual countries, which would like to use the alliance’s opportunities to develop ties with the Balkans, because they can do this in the bilateral format. No, we certainly are talking about the aspirations of Washington – the forces that think that the Balkans must be brought under control, and that their exceptionalism includes that part of the world as well. They have a special interest in Serbia. It is a historical interest that is based on their desire to tear that friendly country away from Russia.

I do not think that they make a secret of their intention. What they cannot understand is that by tearing Serbia away from Russia they are tearing it apart. The people of Russia and Serbia have such a long history that a mere attempt to inject the poison of disinformation about Russia into Serbs will have extremely dramatic consequences, because the Serbian organism will throw it out.

NATO does not seem to understand this, just like they failed to understand the situation around Ukraine. Unaware of the significance of Donbass and Novorossiya in the historical context, they attempted to conduct their experiments there. Look what this has led to. Belgrade maintains its position of non-alignment with military unions and developing an independent multi-vector foreign policy, including in the sphere of defence. This does not suit the alliance. They do not want Serbia to develop its multi-vector policy. They want to subjugate it. That is why they have been tirelessly building up efforts to draw Serbia into their orbit as soon as possible, promising it accession to the EU without accepting it, and all the while engaging it in the NATO orbit and strangling it with their “love” like a boa constrictor.

They are not bothered by the fact of NATO’s aggression against Yugoslavia in 1999, which resulted in massive destruction and thousands of civilians killed and wounded, including children. The use of depleted uranium munitions has severely damaged the environment and health of the surviving Serbs, which we have already mentioned today. But they are not bothered. They do not even care about the Serbs’ attitude to NATO’s actions. They just stick to their guns.

Question: Lithuanian Foreign Minister Kęstutis Budrys enthusiastically proposed including Lukoil in the 21st package of anti-Russia sanctions. Mr Budrys has previously made other bellicose statements, including regarding Kaliningrad, but failed to gain support from the alliance. Vilnius traditionally seeks to play the role of the European Union’s main sanctions locomotive. To what extent do these ambitions correspond to Lithuania’s actual influence in Brussels? Does the Russian Foreign Ministry believe that the Baltic states genuinely set the tone in EU sanctions policy, or do they merely voice decisions that have already matured within the EU while presenting them as their own initiatives?

Maria Zakharova: It seems to me that there are certainly some very precise expressions that could be used to characterise the statements made by Mr Budrys and those who share his views. Unfortunately, I cannot allow myself to use them during a briefing. Instead, I will quote Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, who has already addressed this issue directly and recommended paying less attention to such figures and their statements, leaving them outside the focus of public attention. As he noted, the main objective of people like Mr Budrys is somehow to prove that they exist. I do not think there is anything to add to that.

Question: My question concerns the South Caucasus. Against the backdrop of the evident cooling of relations between Russia and Armenia, dialogue between our countries – Russia and Georgia – has become more relevant. In this connection, public demand for such dialogue has already emerged in our society. What steps can be taken to overcome existing disagreements and address the key issues that continue to prevent the launch of this dialogue?

Maria Zakharova: You know, frankly speaking, you have every right to ask any question. But you represent Georgia – a country with such a rich history and culture. Why tie relations with Russia to relations with other countries? Your country has value in its own right. Your culture is remarkable. Your history, as well as our shared history, is rich. Why do we need a third party in this discussion? Let us focus on how to... I can’t say “build relations,” given the clear political assessment associated with the severance of diplomatic relations. But we can and should speak about contacts. We seek to develop these contacts with Georgia on the basis of good neighbourliness, equality, and mutual respect.

Much has already been achieved in trade and transport links. Incidentally, this progress was secured through considerable effort on the part of Georgian citizens and Russian citizens with ethnic, cultural or family ties to Georgia. This often faced resistance from those in Georgia whose position turned out to be not merely anti-Russian but, effectively, anti-Georgian.

Tourism and humanitarian exchanges are already developing. Contacts in these areas represent a very positive trend and continue to grow. I would recall that important prerequisites for this were the decisions taken by President Vladimir Putin in 2023 to restore direct air links and abolish visa requirements for short-term travel by Georgian citizens, who can now see everything with their own eyes.

I rarely use this expression, but when I do, I do so with pleasure, because in this case truth has a price. It is the price of an airline ticket – or any other ticket. Come and see for yourselves how many myths were told to the younger generation in Georgia about Russia and Russians’ attitudes towards Georgians. So much nonsense has been spread in Georgia over this period. There were also attempts to spread similar disinformation in Russia. Come and see for yourselves. Our people travel to Georgia and do so with great pleasure.

In October 2024, with a view to further encouraging humanitarian and business ties, the visa-free regime was extended to Georgian citizens travelling to Russia for study, work and long-term residence. You cannot imagine the dramas that had unfolded before that: families were divided between the two countries and could not travel freely to see one another, and the personal tragedies were immense. Every time, we tried to help and find solutions. I hope that chapter has now been closed for good.

I repeat that we are ready to continue expanding relations with Georgia, but this must be a two-way street. You mentioned the strong public demand in Georgia for renewed dialogue and for overcoming existing differences with Russia. We have no intention of interfering in anyone’s internal affairs, including those of Georgia. But we do hope that the current Georgian authorities, who are seeking to pursue a pragmatic policy, will listen to the voices of their citizens, recognise the real opportunities and prospects that exist, and make use of them.

Question: Director of the Russian Federal Security Service Alexander Bortnikov has stated that advances in artificial intelligence technologies are increasing the risks of biological terrorist attacks. Given the existence of US biological laboratories in Ukraine and CIS countries that continue to implement R&D programmes without any oversight, has Russia discussed the activities of such facilities with CIS countries?

Maria Zakharova: We maintain close cooperation with our partners across the CIS on issues of biological security. We regularly exchange views regarding Washington’s questionable and highly dangerous military-biological activities. We make use of the relevant dialogue mechanisms within the CSTO and the CIS, including the Coordination Council of the Authorised Bodies of CSTO Member States on Biological Security, whose latest meeting was held in Saratov on June 1 this year.

This dialogue is also conducted through bilateral contacts with our closest allies and strategic partners in the post-Soviet space. Cooperation with CIS member states on the issues you have raised is comprehensive and multi-layered, based on trust, friendly relations and a shared desire to prevent potential threats. A biological laboratory operating outside the framework of national legislation, in a non-transparent and closed manner, is undoubtedly a cause for grave concern.

Question: Baku Energy Week recently took place in Azerbaijan, with the participation of Russian companies and a Made in Russia exhibition stand. On the sidelines of the forum, a delegation from Tatarstan also held talks with Azerbaijan’s Ministry of Economy on the establishment of the Sumgait joint industrial park. How does Moscow assess economic cooperation with Azerbaijan and the prospects for developing ties between Russian regions and Baku?

Maria Zakharova: We certainly have a positive view of our cooperation with Baku in the trade and economic sphere. The opportunities are enormous. A great deal has already been achieved through joint projects, while the prospects remain substantial. Importantly, this efficient cooperation is mutually beneficial. A clear example of this was the 24th meeting of the Russia-Azerbaijan Intergovernmental Commission on Economic Cooperation, which, I would emphasise, was successfully held in Zangilan on April 16, 2026. Agreements were reached on the implementation of mutually beneficial joint projects.

I would particularly note that cooperation at the interregional level makes a substantial contribution to enhancing bilateral economic ties. More than 70 constituent entities of the Russian Federation are involved in this work. In this context, we can only welcome the forthcoming 13th Russia-Azerbaijan Interregional Forum, which is due to take place in Azerbaijan later this year.

Overall, Moscow is committed to the steady development of the full range of bilateral ties with Azerbaijan, as this serves the interests of our nations.

We believe it is important to resume full-scale cooperation in the cultural and humanitarian sphere in the near future following the pause that has arisen. A number of initiatives are under discussion in this area, including at the highest level.

We expect the prompt release of the 11 Russian citizens detained in the republic last summer. We remain in constant contact with the relatives and lawyers of our compatriots and continue our dialogue with the Azerbaijani side on all relevant issues.

Question: Last week, a meeting of the Parliamentary Assembly Commission discussed digital integration within the Union State, including the mutual recognition of electronic digital signatures and the legal validity of electronic documents in cross-border interactions. We all know how much these services are needed by businesses and citizens alike. Is there any understanding at present of when the preparatory work will be completed and when mutual recognition will become fully effective?

Maria Zakharova: To be honest, this is not entirely our area of responsibility. However, I can say that, under the Guidelines for Implementing the Provisions of the Treaty on the Establishment of the Union State for 2024-2026, approved by a decree of the Supreme State Council on January 29, 2024, the creation of a common digital environment within the Union State is being consistently pursued as part of the broader task of bringing the two countries’ economies closer together and creating equal conditions for citizens and businesses in both states.

The mutual recognition of electronic digital signatures is undoubtedly one of the most pressing issues in this context. At the end of 2024, the relevant agreement between our countries was ratified, and its practical implementation will be an important step towards full electronic document exchange, reducing administrative costs, and strengthening the resilience of settlements under conditions of increasing external economic pressure.

As regards the details, that is, obviously, a matter for the Russian Ministry of Digital Development, Communications and Mass Media, the lead agency responsible for this issue. If you submit your question in writing, we will be able to work with the Ministry to prepare a corresponding response.

Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova on the sidelines of the 29th St Petersburg International Economic Forum, St Petersburg, June 4, 2026

Table of contents

Last

Share selected