Maria Zakharova on Greenland

Karl Sanchez from karlof1’s Geopolitical Gymnasium lifted Maria Zakharova’s response from her extensive briefing yesterday. Thank you Karl!

Karl comments: Bright and cheery for the New Year as Maria enters her sixth decade.

Aside from the usual Ukraine Crisis Report, Russia’s response that it comment from numerous media entities caused Maria to present a detailed comment that was then followed by a comment on the general state of the Arctic. The overall weekly briefing lasted just under three hours, which is usual after such a long break. There were many questions—28—often about the many illegalities already committed in January. Three of them directly relate to the Greenland issue and will follow the two detailed comments. As usual, the entire briefing and Q&A are worth reading as Maria offers a different POV from others that generally stays within the lines of current Russian policy, which is to say that she does deliver some barbs. Let’s get started:

Situation around Greenland

There are also many questions from the media (among them: Lenta.ru, News.ru, Anadolu, TASS, Reuters and the China Media Corporation), which asked to comment on the situation on the topic of Greenland. We have collected all the questions received and prepared a comprehensive answer to them.

The Russian Foreign Ministry traditionally does not comment on and does not publicly go into the nuances of relations between third countries. At the same time, our country, as the largest Arctic power, is closely monitoring the situation around Greenland. We believe that any disagreements over this autonomous self-governing territory should be resolved through negotiations, in accordance with international law and taking into account the interests of the population of this autonomous self-governing territory.

It should be noted that the current tension around northern Danish autonomy demonstrates with particular acuteness the inadequacy of the “rules-based world order” being built by the West. With the naked eye, the flaws of Copenhagen’s long-standing policy of unconditional submission to its “senior ally”–-the United States–-is visible and obvious. Now, after the recent publication of the US National Security Strategy, it turned out that part of the territory of the Kingdom located in the Western Hemisphere is included in the sphere of US interests arbitrarily determined by Washington. Against this background, the myth of the “Russian threat,” which has been diligently promoted by Denmark and other members of the European Union and NATO for many years, looks especially ambiguous–-after all, it was under this far-fetched pretext that Washington was concerned about the future of Greenland. And now, it turns out, this is the sphere of natural interest in the United States of America, as follows from its recently published national strategy.

We agree with China’s position on the unacceptability of references to some “activity of Russia and China” around Greenland as a reason for the current aggravation. Before blaming others for the disagreements that arise between them, NATO and European bureaucrats should, first of all, more clearly realize their own responsibility for the deep and rapid erosion of the international legal foundations of the global security architecture. One of the first symptoms of this progressive revisionism was the recognition of the unilateral declaration of independence of the province of Kosovo and Metohija, carried out in 2008 by a number of Western countries led by the United States. This was a blatant example of a gross violation of the fundamental norms and principles of international law, primarily the UN Charter. It was then that the Westerners undermined the fundamental principles of territorial integrity and the inviolability of borders, to which some of them are now trying to appeal in the Greenlandic context.

They apparently thought that what they could do would not apply to themselves. That is why we say: learn history–-it will be, it will be. Now, as we warned, NATO is reaping the consequences of these people motivated solely by a belief in their own exceptionalism.

We are convinced that the emerging growth of tension in the Arctic region is a direct consequence of the actions of the North Atlantic Alliance–-both the bloc as a whole and its individual member states-–to introduce confrontational and neocolonial approaches into the Arctic, to militarize high latitudes and turn them into an arena of geopolitical confrontation. All this causes serious concern among responsible players in international affairs.

For Russia, as the largest Arctic power, the Arctic has been and remains a region of special strategic importance. Our country invariably remains focused on maintaining peace and stability in high latitudes and is open to a mutually respectful dialogue with constructively disposed foreign partners, including those from countries outside the region. Despite the difficult situation with international cooperation, the Russian Federation continues to participate fully in the activities of the key multilateral structure in the North–-the Arctic Council, within the framework of which contacts are maintained with other Arctic states, including the United States.

It is important to understand that any attempts to ignore Russia’s interests in the Arctic, especially in the field of security, will not go unanswered and will have far-reaching consequences. Our country will continue to firmly defend its position in the region in order to ensure its sustainable socio-economic development, preserve the natural environment, cultural heritage and traditional way of life of indigenous peoples. We will continue to strengthen national sovereignty in the Arctic zone, primarily our own defence capabilities and infrastructure of the Northern Sea Route.

Plans to launch NATO’s Arctic Sentinel mission

We have taken note of the materials that have appeared in the foreign media in recent days about the ongoing discussions by NATO countries on plans to launch a new alliance mission codenamed Arctic Sentinel. In this way, the European member states of the organization allegedly want to demonstrate to Washington their readiness to take a leading role in ensuring the interests of the “collective West” in the Arctic, as well as to show the Americans that they are allegedly able to protect Greenland from Russia and China on their own. Thus, they say, there is no need to implement the intentions of the administration of US President Donald Trump to establish control over this island. At first, they themselves came up with the idea that there were some aggressors, and then they themselves came up with the idea that they were ready to protect someone from this alleged aggressor. Thus, they demonstrate that there is no need to implement the Trump administration’s intentions to establish control over this island. A very complex and ingenious scheme.

In fact, talks on this matter should be seen as yet another provocation on the part of Western countries that are trying to impose their own rules in this part of the world.

Recall that earlier the Arctic zone was distinguished by a high degree of interstate cooperation and the absence of conflict potential. Now, thanks to the efforts of NATO states, it has turned into a space of geopolitical competition. To strengthen their positions here, they, as usual, are ready to use force. The presence of the North Atlantic bloc is obviously a factor in destabilizing the military-political situation in the region. Intending to follow the path of militarization of the Arctic, European capitals should be aware that their attempts to exacerbate the situation in high latitudes and create threats to the security of a full-fledged member of the Arctic community–-we are talking, of course, about Russia–-will have serious consequences for them.

Question: US President Donald Trump said that if the United States does not establish control over Greenland, it will be “seized” by Russia or China. In this case, we are not talking about some kind of activity of Russia or China around Greenland, but about the intention to directly seize the island. How would you comment on Donald Trump’s words about Russia’s alleged plans for Greenland?

Maria Zakharova: First of all, I have already commented on them. Secondly, why don’t you want to appeal to the American president? Thirdly, why don’t you ask this question to the entire European Union and the whole of Western Europe? Only because Russia and China are mentioned? It seems to me that the main actors in this “drama” should be “embraced” by you in the first place. Ask them how they feel about it. What about international law, the “rules-based world order”?

I am sure that when the Westerners “tore off” and “gnawed” Kosovo from Serbia twenty years ago, when, after failed “campaigns” to the UN Security Council, they unilaterally began this “parade of recognition” of Kosovo as an allegedly sovereign state, and the entire European Union proudly “inscribed” another “star on the fuselage”, I think they did not even imagine that they would “fly in” with this “dive”. How do these situations differ? Nothing. Or did they believe that they would be saved by the loyalty of the United States, which would protect them from this?

Read, listen and see what President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin said after all these “manipulations”. This was the time when President Vladimir Putin’s Munich speech was also heard. This is the time when the President of Russia, our Ministry and the Government of the Russian Federation actively commented on the situation around Kosovo, which unfolded illegally by “gnawing” from Serbia. It was said that this is a precedent and do not think that it will not affect you later.

I think that they all believed that it would be about someone else, that Russia–-as they always present–-was “intimidating” them with its “aggressive aspirations towards other regions of the world.” I think that it did not occur to them that they themselves would become hostages of the scheme approved and developed by them. Enjoy yourselves. Eat what you have cooked. Don’t choke. It is not accepted back.

Question: US President Donald Trump, under the pretext of ensuring security from China and Russia, announced his intention to establish control over Greenland, considering it a strategic resource of the United States. What does the Russian Foreign Ministry think about Washington’s claims to this territory? Do you think there is a risk of a final split between the U.S. and NATO over this issue and Trump’s policies in general?

Maria Zakharova: Let’s think a little about this. Neither Russia nor China has announced any such plans. There is no factual information that could in any way confirm such an accusation.

At the same time, both Russia and, more recently, China have said that they want to develop relations with this region [The Arctic] of the world. For our country, this is natural interaction and cooperation. We ourselves are part of the Arctic region. China has great technological, economic, and financial capabilities. There is great potential and a large number of production capacities. China has, among other things, ambitions to enter this region in the economic, financial, and technological spheres.

Accordingly, I have a question. Speaking about the fact that the United States wants to preserve this region, Greenland or neighboring regions from certain encroachments by Russia and China, there are no facts that speak of the aggressive intentions of our countries. They do not exist and cannot exist.

This means that they want to remove this region from cooperation, the sphere of interaction with our countries. Why? Probably, again, because they can’t conduct normal competition with us. Because our methods of introducing cooperation, interaction and business may be more interesting to the relevant regions, more applicable to them. Because we give guarantees based on international law. We comply with agreements and arrangements. We do not withdraw from the agreements, having signed them the day before. And then they learn from the media that, it turns out, they are not part of some kind of agreement or some organization, the creation of which they themselves insisted on. We are responsible representatives of the international community, responsible players.

We really are players. This is not a bad word, which implies competition, rivalry, resolving emerging issues, but peacefully, on the basis of law, legally, mutually respectful, with the understanding that our partners expect the same attitude from us.

Therefore, it seems to me, all this is happening because the model of international relations and interaction in the international arena proposed by Russia and China is indeed a good, real, powerful and stable basis for the internal development of states, international contacts and so on.

There is no need to discredit us and “squeeze” us out of the space of global cooperation in such illegal ways. But this is what we call neocolonialism. As we talked about it, so it is.

The problem is different. I repeat again. Western Europe and the EU believed that since they were members of NATO and were bound by membership in the same structure with the United States, this peremptory attitude would not affect them. They were wrong.

Q: US President Donald Trump recently said that Greenland’s defence consists of “two dog sleds,” as long as Russian and Chinese destroyers and submarines are nearby, he said. The head of the White House also added that the United States “one way or another” will receive the island. How will such a development affect relations between Moscow and Washington?

Maria Zakharova: I have already answered this question in detail, commenting on the previous ones. Today, in the introductory part, a very non-rhetorical question was asked about what to do with the international legal foundations, and what kind of world everyone else will live in. To reiterate, this is not just a matter of bilateral relations (the United States-Denmark with its self-governing territory of Greenland, or Russia-the United States, China-Denmark or China-the United States).

This is about the entire construct of international relations. This is claimed as the new “normal” in international relations. This is a new ethic. Or is it international law? This is what we are talking about.

When we said that without international law, laws that would be respected by countries not as “fly-by-night lottery tickets”, but as laws, everything would turn into chaos. The West replied, they say, “don’t do it, we have a “rules-based world order.” Like, they will figure it out. It turned out that they did not figure it out.

As for what Russia and China have to do with it. I just replied that this is a reason. The most interesting thing is that the current US administration did not talk about us at all before. Apparently, some kind of “approach”, “prelude” is needed in order to explain something to someone.

We see the European Union taking chaotic measures to build up hordes allegedly in defence of England. This is from the category of “they married me without me”. But everything is clear, “who stood on whom”, and what they are doing there.

For a long time, it has been said from inside the Western world that it is in the deepest crisis: the lack of “free” metals, energy, minerals, precious stones, etc., previously issued or taken away from other countries for nothing. Technological development, the goals and objectives that they have set for themselves in the form of growth rates and financial indicators, require these resources more and more. Where to get them? The answer lies in such an unoriginal way for them–-to take it away from someone once again, somewhere to “search” for where someone has something lying around.

What does Russia and China have to do with it? Only when we, Russia and China, are able to negotiate on a solid basis and show respect not only for our own interests, but also for the interests of those with whom we are conducting this dialogue, do we show that the resource base, economy and finance can be developed with mutual respect, with mutual benefit. In the 20th century, it is already possible to afford not to take oil and gas from each other, not to engage in expansion, but to sell and do it on a mutually beneficial basis. In the same way, China demonstrates that, despite the differences in political systems of traditions, it is possible to compete and conduct it on an equal footing.

This is not the model that has been established in the West for centuries–-to take away, humiliate, ruin and prosper themselves, saying that they are only so outstanding and exceptional. It is approximately in this “field” that we should look for the answer to all these questions.

The countries of the European Union clung to some quotes, said that certain statements or allegedly taken steps were in violation of their sovereignty and security, and immediately expelled Russian diplomats. They have already stated that they are now “chopping off” the island, part of a sovereign state. I am still waiting for them to start expelling at least someone or at least inviting ambassadors for a conversation. Here is their level of business. [My Emphasis]

I wrote going on three years ago that the Outlaw US Empire was colonizing the EU and that Putin agreed that was happening, and that was during Biden. Trump has escalated the colonization process and is now forcing the EU/NATO to swallow the American’s defeat in Ukraine, but that’s not all. Once upon a time there was close to a universal European/Western Exceptionalism, but that was wrested away in 1917 by the Americans and became very pronounced after 1945. It’s odd that after allying so closely with Hitler in WW2 that Denmark was allowed to retain Greenland. Yes, it was forced to reach an accommodation with Greenlanders over their autonomy whose nature was explored by the Chinese scholar’s essay. The fine—delicate—issues within international law that apply to the Greenland situation weren’t discussed by Ms. Zakharova, but the macro issue and its precedent were. The West’s habits and behaviors bluntly told again only differ from what Putin has said in their bluntness.

The world very much wants to get beyond the dual Eras of Imperialism and Colonialism, to take the higher road, the moral pathway, to adhere to the excellent rules of behavior codified within the UN Charter and associated treaties, but seven billion humans are being denied that pathway because of one very violent and selfish nation’s elites with Trump being the epitome of its nature. Europeans are now discovering they are as screwed over as those they exploited. Russia and China are fortunate to be powerful enough to deter the Outlaw’s actions. But as Putin noted today, most nations don’t have those attributes and seek partnerships with those that do—and trat them fairly. And the #1 problem is the Outlaw US Empire treats nobody fairly—not even its own citizens unless they have $$billions or are Zionists. The conclusion Ms. Zakharova came to at the end of one answer sums up the issue for most Europeans—”They were wrong”—a realization a few open-minded European leaders are now arriving at and are trying to escape from the trap.

What’s the practical difference between Hitler’s annexation of the Sudetenland and Trump’s desire to do the same with Greenland?