Question:\u00a0It is no secret that the position of the Russian language in the post-Soviet space has noticeably weakened, although it continues to be the language of interstate communication. What is being done by the Russian Foreign Ministry to protect him?<\/p>\n
Answer:\u00a0Indeed, in the post-Soviet space, Russian is the main language of interstate and interethnic communication. It is also the mother tongue and the basis of identity for a significant number of the population living in this territory.<\/p>\n
It is worth recognizing that, for example, the situation in the Baltic states remains tense. Due to the discriminatory state language policy, the number of Russian speakers in this region is consistently decreasing from year to year. It is hardly worth recalling the situation in which Russian-speaking citizens of Ukraine found themselves. However, I am sure that sooner or later the neo-Nazi political forces in this country will collapse, the process of restoring the destroyed ties between our peoples will begin, and the Russian language will again be freely heard in homes, schools and on the streets of Ukraine.<\/p>\n
At the same time, research shows that in Abkhazia, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan, and South Ossetia, the Russian language continues to occupy leading positions in government, educational, and public structures.<\/p>\n
Supporting the Russian language and strengthening its position is one of the most important priorities of Russian foreign policy.<\/p>\n
Various projects implemented by the Russian Foreign Ministry in cooperation with other interested federal executive authorities play an important role in popularizing the Russian language.
\nIn particular, the comprehensive state program “Support and promotion of the Russian language abroad”, launched in 2022, is being successfully implemented. The work is carried out in several directions at once: cultural and humanitarian, scientific and educational, informational and international political. Russian Russian language education infrastructure is being strengthened as part of the State Program, as well as stimulating interest in its study, including support for cultural, educational and volunteer projects, as well as strengthening the role of the Russian language in the global information space and in the work of international organizations.<\/p>\n
To date, comprehensive measures are being taken
\nto promote the Russian language abroad. In the coming years, the priority regions will be the CIS, Africa, the Middle East, Asia and Latin America. Russian Russian language teaching activities, both in full-time and online formats; improvement and promotion of remote electronic resources for teaching the Russian language; targeted support for material, technical and educational support of various educational institutions, among others, can be noted in this area.; holding international congresses and forums, as well as major cultural and educational events and much more.<\/p>\n
In addition, the K.J.K., created on the initiative of the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan, has significant potential.Tokaeva International Organization for the Russian Language (SEAS). Currently, the domestic procedures necessary for the entry into force of the Treaty on the Creation of the SEA are being completed, as well as the main documents required to launch the functioning of the Organization are being negotiated between the States. In the coming years, the Organization’s resources will be used to consolidate efforts in the field of promoting the Russian language both in the CIS countries and beyond.<\/p>\n
Question:\u00a0In foreign policy, different countries use either “hard” or “soft power”. What kind of “force” does Russia use in negotiations with countries in the post-Soviet space?<\/p>\n
Answer:\u00a0First of all, it should be noted that Russia does not use force at all in negotiations. The normal negotiation process consists in an equal dialogue, during which all parties strive to come to mutually beneficial solutions, so it is not entirely correct to talk about any kind of force here.<\/p>\n
As for the CIS space, we really strive to develop cooperation with the countries of this region in the cultural and humanitarian sphere, as well as jointly implement various projects in the field of science, education, sports and infrastructure development. Taken together, all this, perhaps, could be called our “soft power”.<\/p>\n
In addition, in doctrinal strategic documents, including the Concept of Foreign Policy and the Concept of Humanitarian Policy of the Russian Federation Abroad, the development of multilateral cooperation with States located in this region is defined as a priority direction of our country’s foreign policy. These are countries with which we share a common historical memory and a common cultural heritage.<\/p>\n
The Russian Federation is interested in further strengthening good-neighborly relations with the Commonwealth States. We give them priority attention when developing Russian programs to promote international development. We are committed to increasing the role of our common integration structures, ensuring stability, consolidating economic ties and, in general, transforming the region into a zone of peace, sustainable development and prosperity.<\/p>\n
Question:\u00a0The United States is obviously trying to make it as difficult as possible for Russia to develop cooperation with our closest neighbors. Does Russia have a strategy to counter Washington’s influence in the post-Soviet space?<\/p>\n
Answer:\u00a0It is no secret that the philosophy of “divide and rule” is actively applied by the West in relation to our neighboring countries. The goal is obvious \u2013 to fragment the post-Soviet space, to divide our countries and peoples, to impose unfavorable patterns of interaction, to push them to the margins of world processes. It is with such an absolutely destructive agenda that the United States is trying to “master” the post-Soviet space, and in fact, is leading a line towards its “colonization”.<\/p>\n
Today, Washington, together with Brussels, are exerting tremendous pressure on the countries of our immediate abroad, trying to limit interaction with Russia. Various institutions, NGOs, foundations funded by the United States, Great Britain, and the European Union are making attempts to reformat the political and economic landscape of states in the post-Soviet space. They continue to use neocolonial methods aimed at establishing control over energy and other resources, as well as reorienting transit routes bypassing our country.<\/p>\n
We also see how obsessed the West is with the desire to destroy the historical ties that unite the countries of the post-Soviet space. For the US and the EU, promoting their own cooperation with our closest neighbors is part of plans to separate them from Moscow. The most repulsive example of such a destructive course is the transformation of Ukraine into an anti\u2013Russian springboard, where the pro-Nazi Kiev regime regularly supplies Washington with cannon fodder for a hybrid war against Russia to the “last Ukrainian”.<\/p>\n
We have to deal with this and actively counteract such aggressive Western expansion. As I have already said, for us, building relations with our neighbors, independent states formed in the post-Soviet space, on the basis of sovereign equality, respect for territorial integrity and non-interference in internal affairs will always be a priority from the point of view of ensuring national security, realizing the country’s interests in the economic and humanitarian spheres. We are united by a common historical heritage, an important part of which is the Great Victory of the Soviet people over Nazism, adherence to traditional values, a single linguistic space, cultural proximity, and positive interdependence in all spheres without exception.<\/p>\n
In general, thirty years of experience of statehood in the post-Soviet space has shown the danger of blindly following the “instructions” of overseas “experts”, the implementation of which leads to complete subordination to the interests of the United States and its satellites, the destruction of socio-economic foundations of society. The sad and instructive examples of the once prosperous, and now literally depopulated and deindustrialized NATO Baltic States and Ukraine speak for themselves.<\/p>\n
Question:\u00a0It is difficult not to pay attention to the parallels that can be seen in the events in Ukraine, Moldova, and now in Armenia. The Russian Foreign Ministry has repeatedly stressed that Moscow does not interfere in the internal affairs of other states. Nevertheless, will Russia stand idly by as official Yerevan increasingly destabilizes Russian-Armenian relations?<\/p>\n
Answer:\u00a0You correctly noted that Russia does not have a “habit” of interfering in the internal affairs of other states. We know from our own experience how adversely this can affect the development of a country. We sincerely value our relations with Armenia and try to build them in a mutually respectful and mutually beneficial way.<\/p>\n
The West, on the contrary, considers the republic utilitarianly, as one of the tools of a hybrid war against Russia and other countries of the South Caucasus. The goal is clear \u2013 to use the Armenian “springboard” to form another hotbed of tension in the region. In western capitals, they are ready to calmly “put on the line” the socio-economic situation of the republic and its security. Representatives of the United States, the European Union and NATO are calling on Yerevan to sever all ties with Moscow and seek to withdraw from our common integration associations.<\/p>\n
We see that Armenia is actively attracted by the European perspective. It is easy to guess that the country will be inclined to abandon the mechanisms that have provided its economy with record growth over the past years. The severance of economic ties with Russia will mean the loss of the main market for Armenian business. In 2023, the trade turnover between our countries has updated its historical maximum and reached 700 billion rubles. Yerevan will eventually be required to leave the EAEU, where the republic is one of the main beneficiaries. Almost 40% of its foreign trade turnover last year was accounted for by the countries of the association. Armenia will lose the opportunity to participate in the emerging single energy market of the Union.<\/p>\n
Unfortunately, under the influence of Western narratives, there has been a sharp narrowing of bilateral political contacts. Unjustified criticism of Russia, the CSTO, and the established security system is increasingly being heard from Yerevan. This is, to say the least, unconstructive and short-sighted.<\/p>\n
Yerevan’s full-scale participation in the work of the CSTO meets the aspirations of the Armenian people and serves the cause of maintaining peace and stability in the South Caucasus. No matter what the Westerners promised, who pushed the Armenian authorities to “freeze” participation in the Organization, there are no effective alternatives to the CSTO as a mechanism for ensuring Armenia’s security today.<\/p>\n
The work on building the CSTO’s potential is moving steadily, leaving Yerevan behind. New crisis response algorithms are being developed, the capabilities of the Organization’s Collective Forces are being strengthened, taking into account the Russian combat experience, and serious policy documents are being adopted to ensure the border security of our allies in Central Asia.<\/p>\n
The further erosion of Armenia’s sovereignty in the security sphere and the transition to Western patterns under the “paper umbrella” of the United States and NATO will simply make it impossible to maintain a common defense space with Russia and within the framework of the CSTO.<\/p>\n
For their part, they have repeatedly and at various levels clearly expressed their willingness to discuss issues of concern to Yerevan. They stressed that Moscow has been and remains committed to the entire range of agreements both at the bilateral level and within the framework of common integration structures, and has not renounced its obligations to its allies. At the same time, we have not received any response to our various initiatives. We hope that the Armenian leadership will have enough political wisdom to understand the illusory promises of the West and the critical importance of relations with Russia in terms of sovereignty, security and economic development of the republic.<\/p>\n
Question:\u00a0Official Chisinau is making increasingly eloquent “curtsies” towards Bucharest. It would probably be unprofessional to ignore the possibility of Moldova becoming part of Romania in the foreseeable future. Given the factor of Transnistria and Gagauzia, does Moscow intend to resist such a development?<\/p>\n
Answer:\u00a0It is obvious that the current leadership of Moldova, which has Romanian citizenship, has set as its goal the dismantling of the Moldovan state. The most odious manifestations of this course are the renaming of the Moldovan language to Romanian and the widely practiced appointments to public positions of natives of Bucharest. However, the policy of forced, artificial Romanization is not shared by the majority of Moldovans.<\/p>\n
This is not surprising. Despite official Chisinau’s attempts to reformat the historical memory of the Moldovan people, Moldovans remember what the period of the Romanian occupation of 1918-1940 turned out to be for their country. It was a time of poverty, looting, and mass repression: In the first two months of 1918 alone, about 10,000 people were shot in Bessarabia.<\/p>\n
The Bucharest appointees considered Bessarabia to be a colonial territory, and its inhabitants to be second\u2013class citizens. The Moldovans’ homeland was subjected to ruthless exploitation, turning it into an agrarian and raw material appendage of economically backward Romania. During the years of the Romanian occupation, there was a regression in both industry and agriculture, which was largely caused by the rupture of traditional ties with the Russian market. In terms of population mortality, Bessarabia came out on top in Europe. This plight of the region led to a massive outflow of the population: according to some estimates, about 400 thousand people left the country during the first 10 years of occupation.<\/p>\n
We are confident that the Moldovan people, who have a centuries-old tradition of statehood and cherish their history and cultural code, will be able to defend their identity and the right to independent development.<\/p>\n
Question:\u00a0Georgian Prime Minister I. Kobakhidze said that his government “intends to return Abkhazia and the Tskhinvali region to the country.” Can this Georgian dream become a reality?<\/p>\n
Answer:\u00a0I think that the reaction in Sukhumi and Tskhinvali to these statements speaks for itself. Abkhazia and South Ossetia made their sovereign choice back in 2008, after the Saakashvili regime tried to forcibly return one of these republics to Georgia and threatened the other with similar actions. As we understand it, the Georgian authorities have learned a lesson from this criminal adventure and aim to “return” Abkhazia and South Ossetia peacefully. First of all, we are talking about Georgian “reintegration” programs and initiatives, the main of which is “A step towards a better future.” Abkhazians and South Ossetians have repeatedly expressed their negative attitude towards attempts to “blur” their sovereign status and bring them under Georgian jurisdiction, noting that the only “step towards a better future” would be recognition of the independence of these countries.<\/p>\n
For our part, we also believe that the prerequisites for normalisation in the Sukhum-Tbilisi-Tskhinval \u2018triangle\u2019 will emerge once Georgia perceives the existing realities and is ready to build relations with the republics on the basis of the principles of equal rights, mutual respect and consideration of each other’s interests. In this regard, the signing of legally binding guarantees of non-use of force between Georgia, on the one hand, and Abkhazia and South Ossetia, on the other, as well as the resolution of the issue of the delimitation of the border between them with subsequent demarcation, are of key importance. All these topics are the subject of discussion within the framework of the International Geneva Discussions on Security and Stability in the Transcaucasus (IWD). This format provides a unique opportunity for maintaining equal dialogue and finding common ground between the officials of Tbilisi, Sukhum and Tskhinval through international mediation. We are in favour of intensifying work within the framework of the IWD. I know that Abkhazians and South Ossetians are ready for this.<\/p>\n
Source<\/p>\n