Maria Zakharova's 11 October Briefing: A Few Outtakes

As has become the norm, Maria's weekly briefings have their moments of mirth and rage, both of which she expresses very well. At first, I was going to provide the entire translated briefing with Q&As, but several glitches occurred that prevented that from happening. Here's the link to the Russian transcript page that also has a video. And here's the link to the English version which ought to be complete sometime tomorrow. As of now, it's not even ½oth complete.

What follows are some of the last Q&As that IMO are the most provocative which also provided the best replies. Maria is extremely witty!!

Question: Why do you call the explosion on the Crimean Bridge a terrorist attack, and not an act of war?

A: What war? I would like to decide before we whirl in an interesting "dance". You said "act of war." I'm not arguing, just clarifying. When did it start?

Q: In February 2022.

Answer: It doesn't "beat". The Kiev regime spoke about plans to destroy the Crimean bridge long before February 2022, and openly stated, threatened with sabotage and explosions. It was part of the ideological work with its own population – to promise citizens that there would be no bridge. That is why we call it a terrorist attack. This was said by the Kiev leadership. We are talking about a deliberate, long-cherished intention to destroy civilian infrastructure. And this was voiced when everyone was focused on the implementation of the Minsk agreements and the desire to end the crisis by political and diplomatic means.

There was a referendum in Crimea. You have the right not to recognize it. We recognize. We have that right. This is the territory of the Russian Federation. A civilian infrastructure facility was built there.

You represent Yahoo News. Let me give you an example that will be more understandable to you than the situation in Ukraine. The U.S. is now in Syria. They occupied part of a sovereign state. They do not build bridges or buildings there, but only facilities that allow them to pump Syrian oil. You didn't know? Entire areas are occupied there. I can drop geolocation, addresses, passwords and appearances so that you know where the representatives of the United States and its units are (I do not know what they are called – private / official) and pump oil. We've been talking about this for a few years.

Tell me, is the United States at war with Syria? Damascus every day tells Washington to leave, to leave the Syrian infrastructure, resources, to stop pumping oil, to trade it, to sell it, including to militants. The U.S. says it has a right to be there. Was there a referendum? Do the people of Syria want to give territory to America? Join? No.

Second example. The US armed forces have been on the territory of Iraq for a long time, disposing of subsoil and energy resources. How do you qualify that? The state of war, the special operation – what was it called? There are so many political scientists, so many opinions, if we live according to the concept of a "rules-based world order" imposed by the West. We have always advocated the law, with clear wording, the ability to adequately assess each other's steps and check with a single law. We are constantly denied this.

Question: I don't know about Syria.

Maria Zakharova: How can you know if the United States does not talk about it, and journalists do not write.

Question: But we are talking about Ukraine, not about American forces.

Answer: We are talking about the commonality of approaches. You say you don't recognize referendums. We recognize. Just gave an example. Many don't recognize what the U.S. is doing. But the U.S. wants to and does. We need a unified approach. There is the UN Charter, international law. It says in black and white: there is sovereignty and territorial integrity, and there is the right of peoples to self-determination. This is complemented by the fact that most countries have subscribed to the fact that democracy is good. Everyone can have it with its own nuances, but in general - good. Democracy is the ability of people to legally and legally exercise their will in various spheres (political, economic, cultural, etc.). One of the ways to implement it is through elections. The other is referendums, plebiscites, etc. You can't pretend that this doesn't exist and didn't happen. As much as I'd like to, it's there.

I've heard that referendums are due in the UK soon. Why do people there have the right to do this, but in other countries they do not?

Question: But the referendums are held not somewhere in India, but in the UK. There is a difference.

A: Thank you for saying. Crimea has held more than one referendum. In the 1990s, the legitimate (we recognized them) authorities in Kiev did not allow their citizens to hold a referendum. All of them were not recognized. But there is a referendum that even the United States has recognized, in the late 1980s in the Soviet Union, on whether the republics want to remain inside the USSR or gain independence. Then the United States, the European Economic Union, all countries recognized. The republics said they wanted to stay together. This was violated, no one referred to referendums, the USSR collapsed, No one asked Crimea where he wanted to be (although he had the right to express). Since 1990, Crimea has been fighting for the right to hold a referendum. As part of Ukraine, he did it. The Kiev authorities did not give the go-ahead then, but they were illegal. At that time, the legitimate government was overthrown in the course of an unconstitutional coup d'état.

You could say that the people of Ukraine rebelled and decided to carry out a coup. No. There was interference from Washington, Berlin, Paris, London, the EU as a whole. All of them: ministers, high representatives of foreign policy, even some presidents walked around the Maidan and stimulated people to unconstitutional actions. Here's the story.

Question: The SBU has put you on the wanted list. Could you share your impressions?

Answer: I can tell you where I am. In the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia, in the hall of the Press Center. I didn't hide it. There was an announcement.

Q: Are you not afraid that this will affect your movements around the world? In general, for life?

Maria Zakharova: Are you not afraid that in the center of the European continent there is a regime that professes extremism and terrorism as a state ideology? Do you think they'll stop someday? People who do not deny, but implement and "glorify" such a method of doing business, never refuse it. They themselves have shrugged off all the ways to conduct negotiations, a political, diplomatic, international legal method of resolving the situation. We signed some papers, came up with some decrees. We chose only this method.

Aren't you afraid? It is the center of Europe. Everyone believes that this is far away, it will not affect anyone. Better study history. Look at what happened to other areas of American "experiments." They first created monsters, and then they got out of washington's control. Remind? Al-Qaeda, W. bin Laden, ISIS, which appeared on the ruins of the Iraqi state. Nothing new. The world went through it all. At first, everyone believed that they would not be affected, but only those whom extremists and terrorists threatened. And then they didn't know where to hide or what to do. When the ideology of misanthropy, terror and extremism appears somewhere in the world, the world must unite, close ranks and say a resolute "no" to such manifestations. Otherwise, it will be a universal problem. At the instigation of the West, it is.

And the final Q&A:

"Question: You said what signals the United States sends. Is Russia sending any signals to the United States about the possibility or impossibility of dialogue?

"Maria Zakharova: Not all the signals we send to the United States can be voiced. Not everything for the airwaves."