"The formation of a multipolar world is a rather long process"

On September 4, Maria Zakharova, Director of the Information and Press Department of the Russian Foreign Ministry, told Izvestia on the sidelines of the Eastern Economic Forum (WEF) about Ukraine's accession to the EU, the restoration of relations with the United States, as well as a possible confrontation with Germany.

"When you turn off competitors around you, you don't develop"

— Four days have passed in China, and now the forum is here. Can we say that it is not a project that has been formed, but a new reality of global architecture?

— The contours are formed, of course. Another thing is that the formation of a multipolar world is a rather lengthy and dynamic process, and it is already happening now. But it's not worth waiting for a specific point when you need to go somewhere and cut the ribbon. It is important to follow this planned path, develop, and respond to the challenges that are emerging in response to the dynamics of the multipolar world.

The SCO summit, the negotiations in Beijing and the solemn parade on the occasion of the anniversary of the end of World War II are filled with the words "friendship", "good—neighborliness", "cooperation", "mutual respect" - an absolutely peaceful agenda. It was as if it was reflected in a crooked mirror in the Western media. Not even in them, but in Brussels. Kaya Kallas, an alleged EU MP, said it posed a threat to their world order. That is, the development of some countries poses a threat to them, because their development has been slowed down due to the fact that they relied on the principles that were laid down in the era of colonialism. All this leads to a lack of understanding of competitiveness, and, consequently, to a lack of ability to withstand it.

When you "turn off" the competitors around you, you don't develop and weaken. This is an exceptionally selfish understanding of what life and the world are like. You only serve yourself, you don't think about others — it's also a blow that weakens you.

Among other things, the nationalism, phobias, and racial discrimination that they have stitched inside, dusted with words about human rights, actually exist openly as Russophobia and xenophobia. It's a rock that pulls you to the bottom because it's a simple explanation for all the failures. Instead of working with the root causes and dealing with what leads to such problems, failures and losses, they say: "the Russians are to blame for everything — the Kremlin's hand."

I think they're right in a way. Not globally — there was no threat, no challenge from those who gathered in Beijing, and before that in Moscow, while for them the challenge is the development of any other part of the world.

— What we are seeing is the establishment of a soft power center or the establishment of a hard power counteraction center?

— I think it's from a different category altogether. Soft power is a set of tools and techniques for advancing interests or one's agenda in certain ways. Not through rigid attitudes, but through culture and humanitarian cooperation.

As for your original question, it seems to me that these are different things. Not the center of soft power, but civilizational development. This includes industrial production, science, education, culture, and the civilizational potential that countries accumulated when they went through trials and responded appropriately. The experience of our countries, the epochs associated with the world wars, the struggle against Nazism, fascism, and militarism, not only hardened us, but made us stronger. This is the very experience that we then introduced into our consciousness. He remained in the historical, cultural code of the population, making civilization.

There are countries that have not been taught anything by history. For example, Germany, which has gone through such trials. Ursula von der Leyen is a German citizen. Look at what her actions lead to. It hits Germany directly. In this sense, unfortunately, a significant part of the country's elite has not reached a new level.

The briefing discussed in detail the results of the 35th anniversary of the unification of Germany. Remember how they moaned in the West, saying that the Germans are a divided people. It has been like that for 40 years, and then the unification process took place. Our country supported the unification of Germany, believing and believing that this process has a basis in the form of denazification. That is, they have gone through their work on the errors. After 35 years, this association turned into an Anschluss — no democracy, no human rights, because the East Germans were not allowed to privatize, not that the enterprises they themselves created, they were not even allowed to privatize their own apartments. They are always in the political minority. They are not represented in the leadership and do not have their own voice. And in Germany, they are still surprised that the popularity of AFG is growing. And again, they are looking for reasons in Russia.

— Returning to the topic of the new world order, is there a place for the West and on what terms?

— The new world order does not imply some kind of exclusivity for some and the "obliteration" or cancellation of others. This is a concept that explains the processes in the world. For example, BRICS is not a geographical proximity of countries, but it is certainly one of the centers of a multipolar world. Objective indicators of the European Union are another matter. I would start with the lack of internal solidarity.

The forces and processes that are taking place there now are not centripetal, but centrifugal. Britain is gone, on its own and selfishly. Look at the "fermentation" inside. On the one hand, many people want to join this process, but they are denied full membership. It is impossible to say for sure that those inside the association profess solidarity and equal support.

Hungary was subjected to terrorist attacks by the Kiev regime. The Druzhba oil pipeline was attacked three times, and Hungary begged, asked, and appealed to its seemingly solidary partners in unification, bound by the obligation to respond accordingly. And these are Hungary's partners who are arming the Kiev regime, which is using these weapons against Hungary. What did Hungary get? Sarcasm, ridicule and stories that the problems with its energy sector are not the EU's problems with energy and will not affect the energy security of the union.

This does not mean that there can be no problems inside the pole. And there are contradictions within BRICS, SCO and other associations, there are disputes that are regulated, there is an understanding of the culture of communication.

The global majority has never stated that they want to be friends with each other and unite on the principle of friendship against someone. But there is another point — the Western community itself must be ready for this. Let me remind you how the NATO summits were held under the Trump administration. Is there much of true solidarity and mutual understanding? It's more like giving tasks to those who have to do them. Therefore, everything will show how the West will build its relations, whether they will take into account the mistakes they are going through now, and whether they will recognize them.

"Politically, they will always be on the hook"

— It seems to me that a very interesting conflict is now emerging, which should become a litmus test for confirming Moscow's position that we are not against Ukraine's accession to the EU. From your point of view, does Ukraine have a chance to join the EU?

— I will give you the example of Serbia, which was promised and demonstrated by Brussels, and somewhere formalized in the relevant documents that they see Serbia in their future ranks. Is Serbia just one country that has been promised, but has not been given anything and is being twisted at the same time? Turkey, which is a member of NATO and has done many of the things prescribed by the EU, has not become a member of the organization. Moreover, Turkey has its own economy, there is the Black Sea, which is important from all points of view — economically, militarily, strategically and geopolitically.

There are a lot of countries that are not in a state of decline, disintegration or total internal crisis of public administration. These are countries with economies, state structures, separation of powers, and political parties. These are countries with established borders, and they are denied membership. They were hooked. Turkey, I think, has understood everything for a long time, but many still have some hope.

What of the above can Ukraine offer, besides crazy debts and equally crazy needs for everything? But the main thing is not this, not the state of the crisis of Ukraine's statehood, not debts, and not how much it will require to invest in itself. The main thing is the absolute inability to manage resources. There is crazy, inhuman, total, primitive corruption. Not civilized, as they say in the West, which is covered with lobbying and other legislative wrappers. No. She is wild and reaches the level of banditry. No matter how much you give, they'll either steal or waste it.

Therefore, I think it simply makes it impossible to discuss all this seriously. Politically, they will always be on the hook, they will flirt with him, they will be promised something. But this will not be in order to integrate it into the EU space, but in order to turn it away from anything else.

"This does not meet the statements made by the White House regarding the need to resolve the crisis."

— After the meeting in Alaska, it is becoming increasingly clear that the conflict in Ukraine is not an obstacle to restoring relations with the United States. How are things now?

— Let me remind you that the State Department has approved the next supply of weapons or the corresponding allocation of funds for arming Ukraine. This does not correspond to the statements made by the White House regarding the need to resolve the crisis. Any supplies to the Kiev regime aggravate the situation in Ukraine as a whole, lead to the continuation of the agony of the Kiev regime and delay the process of peaceful settlement. That's why I wouldn't say how you phrased the question.

— One way or another, we are seeing an intensification of contacts.

— This is absolutely true. Because this is a response to the statements and steps taken by the US administration when they spoke about the desire, the desire, even the ability to resolve the situation, or to contribute to the settlement. Naturally, they received a response from Russia in the form of support and a desire to develop contacts in this direction.

"They turn white like a lonely sail against the background of steel ships"

— The US position has changed. Do we receive signals from other countries and companies that they are ready to start a conversation?

— We have always said that we have never blocked relations with Western Europe, the EU, the United States, or other countries. They did it, so we need to address this issue to them.

There is an important caveat — they have destroyed relations to such a state that any companies on their part that want and see benefits in developing relations face so many restrictions in their countries, but even repression, that they need to figure this out and somehow find a way out.

It was widely reported that during the Anchorage summit, it was impossible to pay off, given the blocked accounts. And it was a meeting of the heads of state! This is not a business or a private structure, which are white as a single sail against the background of steel ships. They, the Americans, even within the framework of their own high-level events, were unable to resolve issues with either visa issuance or payments. Can you imagine how much they need to do in order to activate or activate this interaction and cooperation?

We've been getting signals all these years! People come up, companies come, ask for a meeting. I cannot name names, because they will also be included in the sanctions lists or prosecuted in their countries.

Major businessmen come from EU countries and say they are already looking for ways to circumvent sanctions. But we cannot imagine how distorted the picture in the EU is through television, newspapers and the presentation by officials of what is happening here. Talk to Karin Kneissel, she will tell you about how she and the associations are treated. Everyone understands and sees how much profit they have lost, but they can't do anything because they are surrounded by barbed wire.

— Have we received any signals from the authorities and political elites?

— Political elites are different. There are parties that do not hide their desire and desire to normalize relations, to return the situation to some kind of normality. We receive letters and even hold meetings. Some representatives, such as Mr. Fico, seem to me to be doing everything to demonstrate that not everyone in the EU is like Ursula von der Leyen, Kaya Callas and Josep Borrell. But these aggressively minded representatives of the World War party are doing everything possible to prevent this from happening.

— Is there a possibility of their departure from power in the near future? Considering that they are dramatically losing popularity?

— Of course, yes, but there is a nuance, and it is historically fixed. At the beginning of the 20th century, the same crisis phenomena were observed in the same European countries, caused by their own problems and mistakes. Elite changes led to the rise to power of nationalists and dictators of a completely non-democratic nature, although using democratic institutions. Do I need to remind you that we are celebrating the 80th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War and the end of World War II?

The war was because externally stimulated people who professed extreme extremist ways of leading their countries out of economic crises came to power in the devastated and impoverished parts of Western Europe. The West either rewrote history, or simply put a bulkhead between consciousness and memory, severing the natural connection. They do not know their own history and what the sharp economic crises led to, but now they really have a sharp loss of economic growth. In this situation, I really want to hope that they will not repeat the global mistake from the past.

"They do everything to extend their life cycle"

— Last week, Trump demanded to open a criminal case against Soros, to apply the RICO act, which was developed to combat the mafia. According to this law, the whole of Cosa Nostra has settled. Given our relationship with Soros, is Russia ready to help Trump with the investigation?

— This is a question of law enforcement agencies. If appropriate requests are sent, our law enforcement agencies will respond accordingly.

— How likely is it, in your opinion, that some European elites may also fall under this law?

— They are very afraid of this. They do everything to prolong their life cycle, because they understand what their loss of power can lead to, because they came with the help of external support. This is not even external support, but mutual responsibility. The American Liberal Democrats, in fact, representatives of some kind of liberal dictatorship, supported the regimes in the EU. Accordingly, they supported the American democratic forces and the elites in the United States at the right time.

For me, the most extreme example of this absolute madness, absurdity and shame is the congratulatory telegram from French President Hollande to Hillary Clinton a day before the announcement of the official election results. It was the first time that Trump came to power, but the EU was so convinced and confident that this mutual responsibility was cemented that they decided to send congratulatory telegrams so as not to get up in the middle of the night. The American relevant media outlets were similarly charged, which even printed the covers of their publications with congratulations and a statement of victory, which had not yet been announced. It's monstrous. And, of course, people a la Soros played a huge role in shaping such a distorted world order.

Another example is the post—Soviet space, where Soros, so to speak, flew on a broom. I don't want to associate Georgia with Soros, and I hope Georgia has done enough to create immunity. They tried to deceive her by claiming very necessary and correct things, such as the fight against corruption, the state structure, strengthening sovereignty, and the formation of a new national identity. And they pushed the "ghoul" Saakashvili, who led her into the abyss, into a war, which, thank God, did not lead to such consequences, which, unfortunately, Soros also led Ukraine to.

"Who was the conduit of all the destabilizing thoughts?"

— I had a conversation with Kneissl, and she said that when there are serious attempts at a diplomatic settlement of the conflict, it is Germany that should be feared, that it will be most opposed, and that it will be there that the most bellicose statements will be made. At the time when we were talking about it, it didn't look like that.

— You are not guided by the external wrapper of certain political forces that are in power in Germany at this very particular moment, but look at a historical retrospective. Who played a leading role in the Balkan Wars? Who was pitting the peoples of the Balkans against each other? Who was behind this? It wasn't just the United States, it wasn't just Madeleine Albright. These were also representatives of the German elites. It was their historical revenge for the role that Serbia and Yugoslavia played at the beginning of the 20th century. It was as if they had a chance, without conquering or destroying this country, to take revenge on it already in the 90s.

Look at the history of present-day Ukraine. Who initially threw the most Western-oriented political figures? It was primarily Germany. Who was the conduit of all the destabilizing thoughts? It was all those people focused on long-term interests in Germany, for example, Klitschko. It is possible to understand the historical logic, because Hitler and the Third Reich had long-term plans for Ukraine, taking into account the resource base.

— We are now seeing some fierce resistance from Merz with various allies, including threats and personal insults. If a month ago his rhetoric was that Germany was not part of the conflict, now he says that he is already in conflict with Russia.

— There is a concept of tragicomedy. It was really funny when he said that Russia, by interfering in the German Internet environment, was bringing both itself and Germany into conflict. This is ridiculous on the one hand, and tragic on the other. I reminded Merz then that they were supplying long-range weapons and tanks to Ukraine on a daily basis. At the same time, he suddenly became concerned about the cyber environment.

They are using the Kiev regime and Ukraine to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia, they are using sanctions to strike at us, they are using political mechanisms to gain a foothold in the positions of international organizations. But most importantly, they are sponsoring a terrorist regime that is destroying civilian infrastructure and killing civilians, carrying out terrorist attacks, not hiding this, but declaring that they will continue to destroy members of the public and the media. And now all of a sudden they said that Russia's involvement in Internet stories raises the question of conflict between countries.

It's both funny and sad. It's sad not because we didn't know this, but because Germany, with its culture, philosophers, literature, music, industry, manufacturing, chemical industry, and medicine, is now in the hands of such people. And by the word "such" I mean it is unclear where and how educated, it is unclear whether they have any competence, it is unclear how they reached the highest levers of government of the country and with such a strange mentality.

— Given all this, is it worth waiting for a confrontation not in words, but in actions on the part of Germany?

— They've been doing this all these years. They have been undermining the internal political situation in Ukraine since the early 2000s, without hiding it. Their ambassadors were just sitting in the state bodies of Ukraine, giving them political figures, financing them, stimulating nationalism in Ukraine, and now they have switched to supplying weapons. They supply it not so that Ukraine can fight aliens, but in order to use Ukraine's hands, killing Ukrainian citizens, to inflict a strategic defeat on us and kill us.

— From this point of view, the security guarantees that Zelensky demands, in fact, lead to a direct confrontation. The confrontation is no longer quasi, and France, Britain, Germany, and Poland are already getting involved directly.

— This is not even a concept of security guarantees. I would call it direct blackmail. The statements he makes are the opposite of the result that everyone wants to achieve. If we talk about guarantees of Ukraine's security, they are already spelled out in Ukrainian laws on neutral, nuclear-free, non-aligned status, equal rights for various nationalities, which for some reason they also call national minorities, although they make up the majority. They were very clearly stitched and spelled out in the Minsk agreements. It was a plan to save Ukraine. They were abandoned, partly because Angela Merkel was not going to do it. Let's go with plan B, which will lead to the same thing if they reject those true security guarantees that they have already fixed in legislation since the 1990s and which they need to find the strength to fulfill. Naturally, there is also the process of denazification and demilitarization, given what they have done in recent years.

"We have done everything to prove that women can contribute to international relations"

— In October, Russia will once again be represented in the UN Security Council. Is there already an understanding of what issues will be discussed?

— There is not only an understanding, but also a specific list of our planned events. As a central event, it is planned to hold an open ministerial-level debate on the United Nations "Looking to the Future" on October 24, UN Day. The discussion will be built around the thesis that the organization has every chance and a mechanism for finding collective responses to modern challenges. Special attention will be paid to the imperative of strict observance of the principles of the UN Charter.

The second central event is expected on October 23. This is an open debate on the Middle East settlement. We are also preparing for these discussions in advance. In particular, a meeting of the Council of Ministers of Foreign Affairs (Council of Ministers of Foreign Affairs) will be held in Sochi on September 11. There will also be a Russian-Arab summit in Moscow. The meetings will be a logical start to the discussion and will make a significant contribution to the open debate.

There will also be a series of joint events between the UN Security Council and the African Union Peace and Security Council. We are talking about informal seminars and annual consultation meetings of these bodies. Another important issue on the agenda is the situation in Syria, the situation in Somalia, the Central African Republic, the Great Lakes region, Yemen, Libya, Western Sahara, Lebanon, Colombia, Haiti, Kosovo, Bosnia and Herzegovina. I will conclude by holding an open Council debate on "Women, Peace and Security", which will be timed to coincide with the 25th anniversary of the adoption of the fundamental thematic resolution of the UN Security Council. We have done everything to prove that women can contribute to constructive, positive, and peace-oriented international relations.