🎙 Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova’s answer to a media question on the recognition by certain countries’ of the Venezuelan presidential election results đŸ‡»đŸ‡Ș ❓Question: Venezuela has come under pressure after the presidential election. Several countries refused to recognise its results and Nicolas Maduro’s victory. Many of the dissenters have previously recognised Juan GuaidĂł as the head of Venezuela. How would you comment on this? 💬 Maria Zakharova: Russia set out its reaction to the presidential election in Venezuela in a Foreign Ministry statement released on July 29, which, among other things, clearly indicated our categorical rejection of certain countries’ attempts to appropriate the right to recognise or not recognise the results of the electoral process in Venezuela. We would like to emphasise Russia’s principled position, which has been repeatedly stated earlier: electing a country’s leadership is the exclusive privilege of the people. We strongly believe that there should be no double standards in this regard. It is no secret that in recent years, serious and even gross violations of democratic processes and legal procedures for the transfer of power have occurred in a number of countries, including those that you tacitly mentioned in your question. At the same time, the same states that are now denying the obvious did not express their strong condemnation, or even elementary concern when that happened. ☝It is our view that the reaction of the international community, and primarily, Latin American countries to the elections in Venezuela should be to support efforts to maintain peace, find constructive solutions and maintain public order. As we can see, Nicolas Maduro’s government is ready to do this.

🎙 Utrikesministeriets talskvinna Maria Zakharovas svar pĂ„ en mediefrĂ„ga om vissa lĂ€nders erkĂ€nnande av resultatet av presidentvalet i Venezuelanska đŸ‡»đŸ‡Ș
❓FrĂ„ga: Venezuela har kommit under press efter presidentvalet. Flera lĂ€nder vĂ€grade erkĂ€nna dess resultat och Nicolas Maduros seger. MĂ„nga av oliktĂ€nkande har tidigare erkĂ€nt Juan GuaidĂł som Venezuelas chef. Hur skulle du kommentera detta?
💬 Maria Zakharova: Ryssland redovisade sin reaktion pĂ„ presidentvalet i Venezuela i ett uttalande frĂ„n utrikesministeriet som slĂ€pptes den 29 juli, dĂ€r vi bland annat tydligt visade vĂ„rt kategoriska avslag pĂ„ vissa lĂ€nders försök att anpassa rĂ€tten att erkĂ€nna eller inte erkĂ€nna valresultatet process i Venezuela.
Vi vill framhÀva Rysslands principiella stÀllningstagande, som tidigare upprepade gÄnger har uttalats: Att vÀlja ett lands ledning Àr folkets exklusiva privilegium. Vi anser starkt att det inte bör finnas nÄgon dubbelmoral i detta avseende. Det Àr ingen hemlighet att allvarliga och till och med grova krÀnkningar av demokratiska processer och rÀttsliga förfaranden för maktöverföring skett i ett antal lÀnder, bland annat de som du tyst nÀmnde i din frÄga. Samtidigt uttryckte inte samma stater som nu förnekar det sjÀlvklara sitt starka fördömande, eller ens elementÀr oro nÀr det hÀnde.
☝Det Ă€r vĂ„r Ă„sikt att det internationella samfundets, och frĂ€mst de latinamerikanska lĂ€ndernas reaktion pĂ„ valen i Venezuela, bör vara att stödja insatser för att bevara freden, hitta konstruktiva lösningar och upprĂ€tthĂ„lla allmĂ€n ordning. Som vi kan se Ă€r Nicolas Maduros regering redo att göra detta.

🎙 Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova’s answer to a question from Rossiya Segodnya about comments made by US Assistant Secretary of State Mallory Stewart ❓Question: In her recent remarks at the Carnegie Endowment, Deputy Assistant Secretary Mallory Stewart criticised Russia for linking the resumption of arms control dialogue with the US stopping its support for the Kiev regime. She said that Washington would not accept this condition. How would you comment on this? 💬 Maria Zakharova: This interpretation of the Russian position seems to be overly simplified and biased, to say the least. Ukraine is not the only point of contention. To begin with, Ms Stewart attempted to shift the blame for the collapse of the arms control system onto Russia, but changed her tune when reminded that it was the US which withdrew from the ABM Treaty and the INF Treaty. She claimed that such accusations would not lead us anywhere and should be set aside. 👉 It should be noted that the US is also responsible for withdrawing from the Open Skies Treaty and refusing to ratify the CTBT, the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. Furthermore, Washington and its NATO allies have sought to penetrate the post-Soviet space by expanding their military and political footprint there at the expense Russia’s core security interests. When their attempts were rebuffed, they unleashed a hybrid war with the aim of inflicting a “strategic defeat” on our country on the battlefield. These actions could potentially lead to a direct clash between nuclear powers. Yet, Ms Stewart is still lamenting that Russia is not prepared to decouple the arms control dialogue from the overall negative military and political context (and Ukraine, I repeat, is not the only issue) and the poor state of relations between Russia and the collective West. We see this stance as either hypocritical or absurd. ☝ To reiterate: a Russian-US dialogue on strategic stability and arms control can only happen after Washington abandons (not in word, but in deed) its insane plan to undermine Russia’s national security, provoke confrontation, and seek a “strategic defeat” on Russia. The US should also stop showing a demonstrative disrespect for Russia’s interests. It is telling, by the way, that one of Ms Stewart’s listeners emphasised the importance of mutual respect in her comments. Any hypothetical discussions on these topics must be comprehensive, with an emphasis on addressing key security issues, such as NATO’s aggressive eastward expansion. At this stage, we do not see Washington’s genuine commitment to dialogue, nor do we see any prerequisites for starting it.

🎙 Utrikesministeriets talskvinna Maria Zakharovas svar pĂ„ en frĂ„ga frĂ„n Rossiya Segodnya om kommentarer frĂ„n USA:s bitrĂ€dande utrikesminister Mallory Stewart
❓FrĂ„ga: I sina senaste kommentarer vid Carnegie Endowment kritiserade vice bitrĂ€dande sekreterare Mallory Stewart Ryssland för att koppla Ă„terupptagandet av vapenkontrolldialogen med USA som stoppade sitt stöd för Kiev-regimen. Hon sa att Washington inte skulle acceptera detta villkor. Hur skulle du kommentera detta?
💬 Maria Zakharova: Den hĂ€r tolkningen av den ryska stĂ€llningen verkar minst sagt vara överdrivet förenklad och partisk. Ukraina Ă€r inte den enda striden.
Till att börja med försökte Ms Stewart flytta skulden för kollapsen av vapenkontrollsystemet pÄ Ryssland, men Àndrade sig nÀr hon pÄminde om att det var USA som drog sig ur ABM-fördraget och INF-fördraget. Hon hÀvdade att sÄdana anklagelser inte skulle leda oss nÄgonstans och borde ÄsidosÀttas.
👉 Det bör noteras att USA ocksĂ„ ansvarar för att dra sig ur Open Skies-avtalet och vĂ€gra att ratificera CTBT, fördraget om fullstĂ€ndigt förbud mot kĂ€rnsprĂ€ngningar.
Dessutom har Washington och dess Nato-allierade försökt trĂ€nga sig in i det postsovjetiska omrĂ„det genom att utöka sitt militĂ€ra och politiska fotavtryck dĂ€r pĂ„ bekostnad av Rysslands kĂ€rnskyddsintressen. NĂ€r deras försök nekades slĂ€ppte de loss ett hybridkrig i syfte att vĂ„lla vĂ„rt land ett "strategiskt nederlag" pĂ„ slagfĂ€ltet. Dessa Ă„tgĂ€rder kan potentiellt leda till en direkt konflikt mellan kĂ€rnvapen. ÄndĂ„ beklagar Stewart fortfarande att Ryssland inte Ă€r berett att frikoppla vapenkontrolldialogen frĂ„n det generellt negativa militĂ€ra och politiska sammanhanget (och Ukraina, jag upprepar, Ă€r inte den enda frĂ„gan) och det dĂ„liga lĂ€get i relationerna mellan Ryssland och det kollektiva vĂ€stvĂ€rlden. Vi ser denna hĂ„llning som antingen hycklande eller absurd.
☝ För att upprepa: en rysk-USA dialog om strategisk stabilitet och vapenkontroll kan bara ske efter att Washington överger (inte i ord, utan i handling) sin vansinniga plan att underminera Rysslands nationella sĂ€kerhet, provocera fram konfrontation och söka ett "strategiskt nederlag" mot Ryssland. USA borde ocksĂ„ sluta visa en demonstrativ respektlöshet för Rysslands intressen. Det Ă€r för övrigt talande att en av Ms Stewarts lyssnare betonade vikten av ömsesidig respekt i sina kommentarer. Alla hypotetiska diskussioner om dessa Ă€mnen mĂ„ste vara omfattande, med tonvikt pĂ„ att ta itu med viktiga sĂ€kerhetsfrĂ„gor, som Natos aggressiva expansion österut.
I detta skede ser vi inte Washingtons genuina engagemang för dialog, och vi ser inte heller nÄgra förutsÀttningar för att starta den.

🎙 Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova’s answer to a media question about Kiev’s collaboration with terrorists ❓ Question: Ukraine has indirectly admitted to collaborating with terrorists in the Sahel by taking responsibility for the transfer of intelligence on the movements of a group of Malian and Russian military forces in the region. Kiev has also hinted many times that it is involved in the civil war in Sudan. Should the issue of Kiev’s collaboration with terrorists be raised on international platforms, for example the UN? Is this likely to happen in the near future? 💬 Maria Zakharova: It is not surprising that the Kiev regime is collaborating with terrorists, as it has often used and continues to use terrorist methods itself. In particular, it has targeted residential neighbourhoods, tourist beaches and sports and children’s grounds, has used its own civilian population as human shields, and has carried out subversive attacks and political assassinations in our country. Russia has been actively working to draw international attention to the openly barbaric methods used by Kiev, and has raised this issue repeatedly on multilateral platforms. Numerous discussions of this issue have been held at the UN Security Council. ❗ We have no doubt that the terrorist nature of the Kiev regime will become increasingly apparent to the international community.

🎙 Utrikesministeriets talskvinna Maria Zakharovas svar pĂ„ en mediafrĂ„ga om Kievs samarbete med terrorister
❓ FrĂ„ga: Ukraina har indirekt erkĂ€nt att de samarbetat med terrorister i Sahel genom att ta ansvar för underrĂ€ttelseöverföringen om rörelserna av en grupp maliska och ryska militĂ€ra styrkor i regionen. Kiev har ocksĂ„ mĂ„nga gĂ„nger antytt att man Ă€r involverad i inbördeskriget i Sudan. Bör frĂ„gan om Kievs samarbete med terrorister tas upp pĂ„ internationella plattformar, t.ex. FN? Är det troligt att detta hĂ€nder inom en snar framtid?
💬 Maria Zakharova: Det Ă€r inte förvĂ„nande att Kiev-regimen samarbetar med terrorister, dĂ„ den ofta anvĂ€nt och fortsĂ€tter att anvĂ€nda terrormetoder sjĂ€lv. Framför allt har den riktat sig till bostadsomrĂ„den, turiststrĂ€nder och sport- och barnomrĂ„den, har anvĂ€nt sin egen civilbefolkning som mĂ€nskliga sköldar, och har utfört subversiva attacker och politiska mord i vĂ„rt land.
Ryssland har aktivt arbetat för att uppmÀrksamma internationell uppmÀrksamhet pÄ de öppet barbariska metoder som Kiev anvÀnder, och har tagit upp denna frÄga upprepade gÄnger pÄ multilaterala plattformar. Flera diskussioner om denna frÄga har förts i FN:s sÀkerhetsrÄd.
❗ Vi tvivlar inte pĂ„ att Kiev-regimens terrorkaraktĂ€r kommer att bli alltmer tydlig för det internationella samfundet.

💬 Russia’s MFA Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova: An official compilation of the “most striking” moments from the opening of the pagan event formerly known as the Olympic Games disappeared from the International Olympic Committee’s YouTube page. The reasons are not disclosed, but there are some suspicions. Let’s tell France a few things about France. A long, long time ago, the French kings of the Merovingian and Carolingian dynasties were officially called “the most Christian,” or “sa majestĂ© trĂšs chrĂ©tienne” (“his arch-Christian majesty,” shortly, S.M.T.C.), just as the title “roi trĂšs chrĂ©tien” (“archchristian king”) denoted the king of France, on a par with “le TrĂšs-ChrĂ©tien” (“arch christianity.”) Just like the king, the French nation was considered “the most Christian nation” as well: it remained loyal to the Pope, even when the whole of Europe was engulfed in the flames of Reformation. To become king in Paris, future monarchs embraced Catholicism. Before becoming a Catholic Christian, Henry IV of Navarre uttered the phrase that went down in history “Paris is worth a mass” in order to be crowned as King of the French people. For centuries, the heirs of the Franks kept that honorable title. Napoleon, who turned France upside down and built a great new empire, was crowned by Pope Pius VII, who arrived in Paris for the occasion, because it was important for him to preserve the Christian tradition. General de Gaulle, a secular head of state, attached great importance to Christianity, communicated with at least three pontiffs and, according to memoirists, talked with Pope John XXIII about “the trials that befell Christianity in connection with the gigantic upheavals of the 20th century.” Had he known what awaits France in the first quarter of the 21st century, he would have cursed those who dared to mock the country. According to historians, until the last day of his life General de Gaulle kept a rosary consecrated by Pope Paul VI. The fire at Notre Dame de Paris Cathedral was not as much of a blow to French religious culture as its ensuing restoration. According to an investigation that was subsequently confirmed by the Elysee Palace, Macron’s wife proposed crowning the Cathedral of Our Lady of Paris with a phallic symbol. Thankfully, it didn’t work out. The public abuse and desecration of Christianity during the opening ceremony of the Olympics was a logical continuation of Paris’ crusade against itself. Once “the most Christian of nations,” the Macron regime has now turned France into a petty godless state, transforming it from an arch-Christian nation into an anti-Christian nation. The Frenchman Voltaire wrote in “Speech by Me. Belleguier” as follows: “The astronomer who watches the motions of stars, established according to the laws of the most profound mathematics, must adore the Eternal Geometer. The physicist who investigates a grain of wheat or an animal body must recognise the Eternal Craftsman. The moral man who seeks a support point in virtue must admit the existence of a Being as fair as He is supreme. So God is necessary to the world in every way, and we can say together with the author of the Epistle to the scribbler of a vulgar book on the Three Impostors, "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him.” We will discuss this in more detail on Sputnik radio tomorrow at 8 a.m. Moscow time.