Question: Earlier, Moldovan President M. Sandu said that Chisinau does not intend to abandon Transnistria. How does Moscow assess such a statement by the head of the Republic? It turns out that all efforts for the Transnistrian settlement have been nullified? How likely are Moldova’s attempts to finally resolve the “Transnistrian issue” by military means?
Answer: During the Transnistrian settlement, the question of whether Chisinau should abandon Transnistria or not was never raised. The negotiation process has always been aimed at finding a solution that suits both sides. Russia has always contributed to this by acting as a mediator and guarantor of the settlement.
Now the situation with the Transnistrian settlement is complicated. Negotiations in the “5+2” format have been put on pause. The direct dialogue between Chisinau and Tiraspol is deteriorating.
Nevertheless, it would be wrong to say that all efforts have been nullified. Today it is important to strive for the resumption of meetings in the proven 5+2 format, to which there is no alternative, and to give dynamics to a direct dialogue between Chisinau and Tiraspol to address specific socio-economic and humanitarian issues. Russia is ready to continue contributing to the maintenance of peace and stability in the region.
As for statements about the possibility of resolving the Transnistrian issue by force, we would like to hope that neither Chisinau nor Tiraspol want this and reject such an option, because they understand well what such a “hot” scenario is fraught with. It is important that external “players” also realize this.
Question: V. Zelensky said in Chisinau that Ukraine will play a key role in solving the Transnistrian problem. He also added that “if the Russian peacekeepers in Transnistria want to live, they must leave the region.” Does Moscow consider such statements a direct threat? Is there any data on the preparation by the Ukrainian side of provocations against Transnistria, and what will be the actions of the Russian Federation? Are there any attempts to involve Moldova in the Ukrainian crisis?
Answer: The Russian Foreign Ministry has already commented on this statement. This is another demonstration of the aggressive course of the Kiev regime, whose threats are already crossing the borders of neighboring countries.
We warn against any attempts to destabilize the situation around Transnistria. The Russian military is in the region on legitimate grounds as part of a joint peacekeeping force and an Operational group of Russian troops.
We also warned that the Russian armed forces would respond adequately to any provocations against our military in Transnistria and would ensure the protection of our compatriots, the Russian peacekeeping contingent, as well as military depots in the locality of Kolbasna. Any actions that pose a threat to their security will be considered in accordance with international law as an attack on the Russian Federation.
Question: Moldova started the process of denouncing a number of agreements with the CIS and withdrew from the Interparliamentary Assembly of the Commonwealth. There is a feeling that the next step of Chisinau will be the exit from the association itself. How likely is such a scenario in the near future? How can such actions of the administration of M. Sandu turn out?
Answer: The statements of the official Chisinau about the alleged “inefficiency” of the CIS and the expediency of leaving the Commonwealth began to sound more often after Moldova received the status of a candidate for EU membership. There is a direct pattern. It was the same with Ukraine, which at one time the European Union put before the choice “either – or”, that is, either with the EU or with Russia. Everyone knows how it ended. It was this flawed logic that led to the unconstitutional coup d’etat and all subsequent events.
Today, the Moldovan authorities have really taken a course to curtail work in the CIS. They withdrew from participation in meetings of its key bodies, launched the procedure of withdrawal from the Inter-Parliamentary Assembly, refused to implement the program “Cultural Capitals of the Commonwealth” in Comrat, do not pay a contribution to the CIS budget, began the process of denouncing a number of agreements signed within its framework.
At the same time, official Chisinau is in no hurry to give up the socio-economic advantages that membership in the CIS gives. We are mainly talking about visa-free regime, free trade zone, labor, social and other preferences for migrant workers. Do not forget that almost a quarter of Moldova’s trade turnover still falls on the CIS countries, and the number of Moldovan diaspora in Russia alone, according to various estimates, is up to half a million people.
Objectively speaking, the preservation of membership in the CIS and the development of cooperation within its framework meets the interests of Moldova itself and its citizens. I would like to hope that in fact the Moldovan leadership understands this, but, apparently, they are forced to follow the instructions that are issued in Brussels to EU candidate countries. By the way, not all candidates recklessly follow this course and refuse beneficial cooperation with Russia and the CIS.
Question: Statements about the “collective responsibility” of all Russians and direct calls for their physical destruction are increasingly heard from Ukraine. Are these calls being heard in the West, in particular, on international platforms? And does Moscow see this as an opportunity to change the attitude of the West towards arms supplies to Ukraine?
Answer: Unfortunately, these public manifestations of xenophobia, neo-Nazism and actual calls for genocide of ethnic Russians and Russians are being ignored in the West and in international organizations, many of which are controlled by Western countries.
We have been constantly and for a long time drawing the attention of the world community to concrete facts and statements confirming that neo-Nazism is really flourishing in Ukraine and a fascist, misanthropic, Russophobic ideology is being planted. We also constantly talk about encouraging fascist organizations in Ukraine at the state level, glorifying Nazi criminals.
It is clear why Western countries do not see this. The Kiev regime was created by the West as part of the “Ukraine as Anti-Russia” project to realize its geopolitical interests. Therefore, he will continue to turn a blind eye to the crimes of the Kiev regime, no matter how monstrous they may be.
Moreover, today the United States and other NATO countries are pumping Ukraine with weapons, turning a blind eye to the fact that it is from them that Russians are being killed. Thus, they contribute to the implementation of calls by Ukrainian politicians for the physical destruction of Russians. Therefore, we have no illusions that the West is able to stop providing military assistance to Kiev for humane reasons.
Question: Moscow has been trying to make the Togliatti-Odessa ammonia pipeline work all the time since the conclusion of the grain deal, but this has not happened. Many are wondering: what was so important about this pipeline and is there really no other infrastructure to supply ammonia from Russia abroad, bypassing the territory of Ukraine? If the deal is not extended after July 17, what opportunities does Russia have to compensate for losses from blocking the ammonia pipeline?
Answer: Ammonia supplies are the most important element of the “grain deal” package. Let me remind you that they appear in both of its documents – the Initiative for the Transportation of Grain and Products from Ukrainian Ports and the Russia-UN Memorandum on the Promotion of Russian food and Fertilizers to World Markets.
In seeking the resumption of the work of the Togliatti-Odessa ammonia pipeline, we proceeded from the fact that the agreements must be respected. Unfortunately, the Ukrainian side has been sabotaging their implementation for many months, coming up with unreasonable links to issues far from the “grain deal”. And on June 5, she blew up the ammonia pipeline altogether, making its launch impossible.
Why is ammonia and the Togliatti-Odessa pipeline so important? Ammonia is necessary for the production of fertilizers, without which agricultural production is impossible in many countries. The Togliatti-Odessa pipeline is a unique highway, the longest in the world, with a length of 2,417 km. Previously, more than 2 million tons of ammonia were pumped through it annually. This amount is enough to feed over 45 million people. The explosion of the ammonia pipeline has dealt a significant blow to the food security of the poorest countries of the “global South”.
Of course, there are other ways of supplying Russian fertilizers to world markets. Our relevant ministries and companies are engaged in working out their routes and logistics.
Question: According to CNN, Ukraine has created an agent network inside the Russian Federation for sabotage and supplies UAVs. Is it known exactly where the drone attacks that are already flying to Moscow are coming from: from the territory of Ukraine or the Russian Federation? And whose citizens are involved: Russian or Ukrainian?
Answer: It would be logical to address this question not to diplomats, but to representatives of those departments that are engaged in repelling, preventing and investigating the facts of such attacks.
In any case, if the network CNN is talking about really exists, then it is a terrorist network. The same as the ISIS groups and other similar organizations that the international community is actively fighting.
Either the United States has forgotten about its own experience of the tragedy of September 11, 2001, or we are witnessing another manifestation of the short-sighted policy of “double standards”.
Question: The Belarusian side has repeatedly stated about a large concentration of Ukrainian troops near the border with Belarus. How dangerous is the situation there now seen in Moscow and is it possible to attack the Union State from the Belarusian-Ukrainian border?
Answer: Russian and Belarusian military specialists could answer such questions more competently. However, the information we have and which has been repeatedly voiced in the statements of officials indicates that the Ukrainian army has indeed deployed significant contingents along the Belarusian-Ukrainian border, periodically trying to probe the defense capability of the Union State in one way or another. Evidence of this, for example, is the statement of the State Border Committee of Belarus on June 15 about another downed Ukrainian drone in the Loyevsky district of the Gomel region.
Under these conditions, since October 2022, additional units of the joint Regional grouping of troops (forces) have been deployed in Belarus. Their task is to serve as a deterrent from invading the territory of the Union State and minimize the risks of infiltration by sabotage and reconnaissance groups. We proceed from the fact that the Russian and Belarusian funds available in this area are sufficient to repel aggression from the territory of Ukraine or neighboring NATO countries. We hope that the Kiev regime and their Western curators will have enough common sense not to undertake military adventures, the consequences of which may be very serious for them.
Question: The decision to deploy Russian tactical weapons in Belarus caused a great resonance. Can we say that this step by Moscow is an attempt to restrain Western countries that are increasing support for Kiev? Are there any time limits for the presence of Russian nuclear weapons on the territory of Belarus and under what conditions will they be returned to the territory of Russia?
Answer: The decision to deploy Russian tactical nuclear weapons (TNW) on the territory of Belarus is largely forced in response to the aggressive policy of the alliance. At the same time, the long-term destructive practice of “joint nuclear missions” of NATO countries was taken into account.
Westerners’ open support for the Kiev regime and unwillingness to take into account our country’s legitimate security requirements were the “trigger” of such a retaliatory step by Moscow and Minsk. It is very important to note that our actions do not contradict our existing international legal obligations, including the NPT, since control over nuclear weapons remains with Russia. Unlike American warheads in European countries, our special ammunition will be located in close proximity to Russia, on the territory of the Union State, within which a single defense space has been formed.
As for the possible time frame for the presence of the Russian TNW on the territory of Belarus, the Russian-Belarusian agreements do not imply any restrictions on this. In the current geopolitical situation, the main conditions for a hypothetical return of TNW to Russia could be the refusal of the United States and NATO from the course of undermining the security and sovereignty of Russia and Belarus. Of course, such a step should be preceded by the complete withdrawal of all American nuclear weapons to the territory of the United States with the elimination of the corresponding infrastructure in Europe.
Question: V. Zelensky in Chisinau again demanded that the West give guarantees of Ukraine’s accession to NATO. In turn, Western politicians continue to talk about the open door policy and that Kiev’s rightful place is in the ranks of the alliance, it’s just not a priority issue right now. How can you comment on the statements of the Ukrainian leader and the fact that the neutral status of Ukraine does not seem to be taken seriously by anyone?
Answer: One of the root causes of the Ukrainian crisis is the expansion of NATO to the east while ignoring Russia’s legitimate interests. Since the 1990s, we have opposed the thoughtless advance of this aggressive military bloc to our borders, warning that the security of some countries cannot be ensured at the expense of the security of others. They offered many options for resolving the problem, including by creating a single Euro-Atlantic and Eurasian space of indivisible security.
As you know, we made the last of these proposals at the end of 2021 in the form of two projects – the Russia-USA security guarantees treaty and the agreement on security measures for Russia and NATO countries. Both of them actually remained unanswered.
Unfortunately, the West continues to follow the path of confrontation, dismantling the existing arms control system and destroying the remnants of the European security architecture. Finland has become a member of NATO, Sweden is on the way. There are talks about the admission of Ukraine, which was promised this back in 2007.
If the United States and other NATO countries really cared about Ukraine’s security guarantees, they themselves would insist on its neutral and non-aligned status, which it proclaimed back in 1990, standing at the origins of its statehood. This status is the best guarantee of her safety.
However, the goal of the West is not the security of Ukraine, but its use as a tool to fight Russia. Today’s close cooperation of the Kiev regime with NATO, even without official registration of membership in the organization, does not bring us closer to peace, but rather delays the settlement of the crisis.
