I will begin by citing more facts that prove the terrorist nature of the Kiev regime, which continues to terrorise the civilian population of Russia. The atrocities being committed by Ukrainian neo-Nazis should qualify as crime, but the term is not strong enough; these acts amount to most inhumane manifestations of the basest vices.
On January 17, the Russian troops liberating Russkoye Porechnoye, a village in the Kursk Region, discovered actual torture chambers in the basements of residential houses, arranged there by the Armed Forces of Ukraine. They found the mutilated bodies of at least seven local residents of different ages with traces of abuse in those basements. As the Banderites were retreating, they showered those people with grenades. A detailed comment on this account was posted on the Foreign Ministry website on January 19. Our experts, including Foreign Ministry Ambassador-at-large for crimes of the Kiev regime Rodion Miroshnik, have also commented on this.
Videos of interrogations of two captured Ukrainian fighters who killed a civilian woman in the Kursk Region’s border area have been posted on social media. They explained their crime by the orders they had received from their commanders to shoot all Russian-speaking residents. As a reminder, international humanitarian law prohibits giving such orders as well as carrying them out. What these subhumans are doing is beyond comprehension. We have repeatedly brought such appalling cases to the attention of international human rights agencies. This is worse than terrorism and worse than crime. It is a combination of all the basest things. We will continue pushing them to respond appropriately.
On January 17, volunteers transporting humanitarian aid to frontline areas were injured in a targeted drone attack on a civilian bus on the Vasilyevka-Shirokoye motorway in the Zaporozhye Region. These volunteers’ courage should be admired because the area is extremely dangerous. They could have avoided the risk and not to go, but they continued to provide assistance seeing it as their duty. It was just something they felt they had to do.
Between January 17 and 20, 11 civilians were wounded as a result of Ukrainian shelling of civilian infrastructure and residential areas in Gorlovka (DPR), also with cluster munitions.
In the morning of January 20, a few minutes before lessons began, Ukrainian fighters purposefully attacked a secondary school in Bekhtery, Kherson Region, firing HIMARS missile systems. That terrorist attack – such acts of terrorism are often described as “inhumane” or “brutal” attacks, but aren’t all attacks brutal? Except that some also involve extreme cynicism. That attack resulted in the loss of two lives, while at least 25 people were injured, including four children. Three of them, including a girl born in 2008, are in grave condition.
I applaud the work of our law enforcement bodies. Now I would like to mention punishment for the Kiev regime’s crimes. Russian courts continue to convict Ukrainian neo-Nazis and mercenaries of war crimes.
An American citizen, Patrick Thomas Creed, was sentenced in absentia to 13 years’ imprisonment for participating in hostilities on the side of Ukraine. This soldier of fortune is a retired US Army Ranger, who also served in US National Guard, infantry and airborne troops, and was repeatedly dispatched to Central America and the Middle East.
Latvian mercenaries Uldis Volmars and Juris Alberts Ulmanis were sentenced to 14 years in absentia. All these foreigners are on the international wanted list.
Ukrainian combatants A.Voloshin, V.Arshulik, S.Karayev, A.Doychuk, Z.Sigerich, A.Kulbaba, and O.Vovk have been sentenced to 15 to 16 years in prison for committing acts of terror against Russian servicemen and civilians in the Kursk Region.
Three gunmen from the Ukrainian paramilitary nationalist group Azov, which is recognised in Russia as a terrorist group, Ye.Lavrenko, D.Klusenko and D.Fedirko, were sentenced to 24.5 years in prison. They routinely shelled civilian sites in Russia.
Azov militant R. Minagulov was sentenced to 24 years in prison. The investigators established that on March 4, 2022 he, following a criminal order by commander A. Dmytryk, opened mortar fire on blocks of flats and public buildings in Mariupol killing two civilians. The perpetrator admitted his guilt. As a reminder, Dmytryk was earlier sentenced in absentia to life imprisonment.
Russia’s law enforcement agencies will continue to work to bring Ukrainian Nazis and foreign mercenaries to justice for war crimes, among others. We will keep you informed about this.
Speaking of tipsters, curators, and everyone else who are inciting the Kiev regime to commit crimes, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer briefly visited Kiev on January 16. Unlike his predecessors, he has been putting off his visit to Ukraine for quite a while after taking office, which is why his unplanned trip gave rise to multiple speculations about London’s real intentions. Many experts agreed that it was an attempt by the globalists to keep the situation the way they want and to prevent a peaceful scenario from playing out, which fact the newly inaugurated President Trump has repeatedly made clear. Supporters of the “party of war” on both sides of the Atlantic have become seriously worried by the current US government’s plans to achieve a speedy end to the conflict. Why? Because peace is not part of their plan. They’ve been working to fill a different order, and they’ve been paid to do a different kind of a job.
This brings to memory the events of spring 2022, when, following the talks in Istanbul on March 29, 2022, Russia and Ukraine were close to reaching mutually acceptable agreements which held promise of a peace deal coming shortly. Then, following orders coming from the overseas “hawks,” then British Prime Minister Boris Johnson rushed to Kiev and told Zelensky to break off talks and to keep waging war in order to achieve “victory” over Russia. It was said that things should be settled “on the battlefield.” Everyone is aware of the way things turned out for Ukraine.
I noted the absolutely drug-induced madness that swept Davos. I mean Zelensky’s remarks, the way he communicated with the media, the delegates, and other things. That also includes his remark that what happened in the spring of 2022 cannot be called a negotiating process or talks, because allegedly “wrong” things were discussed there in the “wrong” way. Why has he been silent all this time? Why didn’t Zelensky say a word about this before that? What stopped him from saying, during these long three years, that these talks were not good enough? What stopped him from letting everyone know it? After all, he was the one who asked for them. He sent delegates there, who took a bullet on their way back to Ukraine. Do you remember? I’m talking about those who participated in these allegedly (from Zelensky’s point of view) “non-talks.” That means that his speeches in Davos were dictated by British “fairy tale writers” in order to once again plant a piece of fake news into the international media landscape in order to lead the international community astray. The talks were allegedly “non-talks,” and, as you may recall, someone out there recently broke out with reminiscences about them not trying to talk Zelensky out of it, even though some time before that they insisted that they did. Things are clear now. Most importantly, the supporters of the “war party,” primarily the Anglo-Saxon representatives, are bent on preventing peace.
Starmer’s visit was marked by the signing of a 100 Year Partnership between the United Kingdom and Ukraine. We addressed this in a January 18 answer to a media question posted on the ministerial website.
Today, I would like to briefly address how this document is perceived within Britain itself. The British media, who conduct assessments within Albion – where experts evaluate such agreements – describe the agreement as merely a symbolic gesture with no substantive commitment. According to The Telegraph, the public embrace of Keir Starmer and Vladimir Zelensky holds symbolic significance, offering reassurance that there are no financial obligations involved – the new partnership between Ukraine and Great Britain does not entail any new funding commitments from London.
Additionally, while speaking in Kiev, the British Prime Minister stated, “This is not just about the here and now; it is also about an investment in our two countries for the next century…” Grandiloquent, but lacking substance. It echoes the rhetoric of Neville Chamberlain, who, upon returning in September 1938 after the Munich Agreement with Hitler, declared to his compatriots that he had secured “peace for a generation.” Doesn’t that sound familiar? For which generation? What peace? Even then, they understood the likely course of events but were unaware of the eventual outcome. There was no reliance on the Soviet Union. The focus was on directing Hitler’s aggression eastward. Let me remind you that less than a year after Chamberlain’s claim of having “brought peace for a generation”, Britain entered the Second World War. It is high time London realised that appeasing Nazis is not only criminal but counterproductive, leading to results contrary to those intended.
Turning to the plans of the collective West, the current American administration seeks to offload the expenses of sustaining the neo-Nazi regime in Kiev onto its European allies, compelling them to urgently find a way out of the present predicament. This was the focus of a meeting involving the defence ministers of Great Britain, Germany, Italy, Poland, and France, convened on January 13 of this year in the Polish town of Helenów. The participants made ostentatious declarations of their resolve to surmount current challenges and continue supporting Ukraine. However, specifics were absent, with mostly declarations of intent on offer. The ministers concurred that Ukraine’s defence industry remains underutilised and that joint production efforts on Ukrainian soil are essential.
Developing this notion, German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius, during his visit to Kiev on January 14, remarked that by sharing their technology with Ukrainians, German partners stand to gain from the Ukrainian side’s military experience.
Incidentally, according to figures provided by Zelensky himself, the Ukrainian armed forces utilise 40 percent American-made weaponry, while the remaining 60 percent is comprised equally of domestically produced and European military equipment.
In this context, we have noted reports suggesting Western plans to deploy troops to “ensure the fulfilment of any peace agreement.” On January 16, British media reported that Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron had private discussions in early January regarding the deployment of military units from both countries to Ukraine as part of a potential peacekeeping mission.
On January 18, in an interview with the Suddeutsche Zeitung, German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius did not rule out the possibility of sending German soldiers to Ukraine to secure a specified demilitarised zone contingent upon a ceasefire.
We reiterate that NATO intervention in Ukraine poses the risk of uncontrollable escalation and is categorically unacceptable to Russia.
Ukrainian media reports indicate a noticeable aggravation of the problem of desertion within the Ukrainian armed forces. In 2024, nearly 89,500 criminal cases were initiated in relation to absence without official leave. Thus, nearly one hundred thousand individuals – according to registered criminal cases – have deserted from Ukrainian ranks. Since 2022, military enlistment centres have placed over half a million draft evaders on wanted lists.
The controversy surrounding the 155th Mechanised Brigade of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, known as Anne of Kiev, comprising approximately 5,000 personnel, persists unabated. Nearly half of these individuals received specialised training in France during the autumn of 2024. Upon completion, several dozen militants absconded from the training facility, dispersing across Europe. Meanwhile, the remainder – estimated between 900 and 1,700 according to various sources – opted to desert rather than proceed to the frontlines. This is notwithstanding the approximately 930 million euros expended on the brigade’s training. Are the European citizens, who are funding these efforts, aware of this situation? This information is conspicuously absent from high-level discussions in their countries. Hence, we are addressing this informational void. A comparable scenario unfolded in Poznan, Poland, where 1,300 out of 13,000 Banderites left the training grounds without authorisation. I reiterate that these individuals failed to reach the frontlines; they are those who were merely undergoing training.
Concurrently, Michael Waltz, the US President’s National Security Adviser, remarked in an interview with ABC News on January 12 that Ukrainians could fix the issue of the personnel shortfall in the Armed Forces of Ukraine by reducing the mobilisation age to 18.
Kiev has already taken heed of this suggestion and is seemingly compliant. Reports on social media indicate that 16-year-old Ukrainians registering at military enlistment commissions are being coerced into signing a “citizen’s consent to military service.” On January 9, the Verkhovna Rada adopted comprehensive amendments to the law on military duty and service, allowing Ukrainians abroad to register remotely from the age of 17, rather than 18. The legislation also introduces basic military training and service for 18-year-old students and their peers not enrolled in higher education, effective from 2025. These provisions equate the two groups. Simultaneously, it is purported that Ukrainians under 25 years will not be subject to mobilisation for the time being.
However, it is evident where this trajectory leads. It is merely a matter of time. The Zelensky regime will not hesitate to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of young Ukrainians for its self-preservation. One must note Zelensky’s indignation during his communications in Davos, where he implored and exclaimed that there ostensibly were no negotiations in 2022. His primary concern was his own fate and persona, which he did not conceal. All of this will transpire. The age limit will be lowered, and the ensuing hundreds of thousands of young people will become the quarry of “people-catchers” to fulfil and satiate the interests of Western overseers.
Moreover, Ukraine is engaged in a struggle not only against its citizens but also against monuments and religion. The Kiev regime continues its assault on the historical, cultural, and moral codes of Ukrainians and their fraternal peoples.
On January 15, the Odessa City Council demanded the removal of a memorial plaque located on the premises of the Saint Archangel Michael Convent. In whose honour was this plaque? Whom do they find objectionable this time? It commemorates the sailors of the Russian submarine Kursk, who perished in 2000. Why was this plaque placed there? Because some of the sailors hailed from Odessa, yet they did not hesitate to demolish the plaque dedicated to their own compatriots.
On the night of December 31, 2024, Ukrainian nationalists dismantled the monument to Vladimir Vysotsky, erected in 2012 near the Odessa Film Studio, disregarding the sentiments of the city’s residents and intimidating dissenters with summonses from the Security Service of Ukraine.
Clearly, Odessa city officials were not satisfied with the controversial decision to raze the monument to Alexander Pushkin on Primorsky Boulevard, which was the city’s historical landmark. On January 17, they laid their hands on the nearby Pushkin plane tree, which featured on the “list of geographical sites the names of which include symbols of Russia’s imperial policy.” The tree, which went through a lot during its lifetime, had no idea, until 2025, that it was a geographical site rather than a botanical plant. The tree has not been cut down, but renamed to Western plane. I’m tempted to ask whether it’s western on all sides. Could it be “eastern” on the side that faces East?
The battle waged by Ukrainian hardcore nationalists against the Ukrainian Orthodox Church is taking increasingly absurd forms. The Ukrainian government is in the process of reviewing a draft regulatory act that outlines the procedure for shutting down religious organisations that “spread the ideology of the Russian world.” These organisations may include parishes whose names contain the names of the saints of “Russian descent.” This goes beyond logic and reason straight into the realm of psychiatry. For example, Prince Alexander Nevsky, who, as they believe on Bankovaya Street, represents a “threat to the national security of Ukraine,” is one such name. I think this is true, because Alexander Nevsky has been canonised, is a saint, and is revered by believers. I don’t think he will be observing listlessly the ongoing developments. However, only mentally challenged people could fight this by pulling down monuments. Head of the State Service for Ethnic Policies and Freedom of Conscience Viktor Yelensky stated that the authorities are going to ask UOC parishes that had been named after the saints of “Russian descent” to take a different name. Why not ask for a change of gender? In fact, they can come up with all kinds of demands. In reality, the parishes will be forced into forgoing their heavenly patron saint. Why? Are the Ukrainian authorities going to ask a saint to produce their passport to see where they were born, under what tsar, and what language they spoke? If the parishes don’t comply, the Ukrainian state threatens to de-register the “wrong” ones via a court ruling. I think Mikhail Saltykov-Shchedrin, Nikolai Gogol, Mikhail Bulgakov, Mikhail Zoshchenko, Ilya Ilf and Yevgeny Petrov would be the envious of this kind of unrestrained imagination, as none of them could even come close to describing this level of absurdity. What is happening in Ukraine now has gone beyond their most witty writing.
These facts once again show the relevance of the special military operation to de-Nazify and to demilitarise Ukraine and to eliminate threats emanating from its territory. All its objectives will, without a doubt, be achieved.
NATO Military Committee session
On January 15-16, the Military Committee in Chiefs of Defence of the North Atlantic alliance convened in Brussels. Journalists posed questions seeking commentary.
Customarily, the discourse centred on Russia. Secretary General Mark Rutte and Chair of the Military Committee, Admiral Rob Bauer, routinely alarmed their alliance counterparts with the Russian threat. They asserted the necessity to prepare for conflict – advocating a “shift to a wartime mindset” (intriguingly, what was it before, given their repetitive assertions that everything must be resolved solely “on the battlefield” rather than at the negotiating table), to augment military expenditures and implement regional defence plans, and to continue assisting Ukraine, which the West, in reality, is employing as a battering ram against Russia. There was paranoid speculation concerning China, Iran, and the DPRK.
All this does not surprise us. I would like to remind you that NATO, as a power instrument of the collective West, has never ceased not only preparing for wars but, more crucially, fuelling conflicts globally. Rob Bauer proudly highlighted that, “Around this table, we have gathered one thousand years of military experience” – perhaps he meant to say “led by the United States”, but refrained – and “This is truly unique in the world.” It is difficult to contest this – no entity possesses such extensive experience in waging wars, brutal colonisation, and the plundering of other nations as the collective West. Even now, the alliance is striving to maintain its global hegemony and to prevent the emergence of alternative centres of power and development.
In this context, they entice countries from other regions into their orbit by promising financial aid and support, subsequently turning them into satellites. It is no coincidence that a record number of 26 partner countries, according to the organisers’ estimates, were invited to the Chiefs of Defence session in Brussels. The cooperation model proposed by NATO remains unchanged – initially, partners are persuaded of the necessity to reform the defence and security sectors and are provided with assistance in this endeavour, then they impose NATO standards (beginning to operate from within) in the armed forces and security structures, and cultivate a pro-Western elite through education.
It is widely known how such partner assistance concludes – interference in internal affairs and alteration of foreign policy direction, imposition of their pseudo-values and the dictate of coalition guidelines. Subsequently, everything proceeds according to plan: plundering, destruction of the national code, identity, enslavement, exploitation.
We urge the countries participating in the event, which are not yet fully ensnared in NATO’s “web” and have not yet pledged to serve the interests of the Golden Billion, to remember their own national interests and to contemplate whether it is prudent to bind their fate to a military bloc that boasts decades of aggression, wars, and conflicts, ravaged nations, and millions of civilian casualties.
NATO buildup in the Baltic Sea
The North Atlantic Alliance is using every opportunity to build up its capabilities close to Russia’s borders. At a specially convened regional summit of NATO member states in Helsinki on January 14 this year, the “special danger” of our country’s “shadow fleet” was highlighted. They keep on endlessly inventing new tales.
The North European countries are focused on detecting and thwarting attempts to sabotage critical infrastructure. Extensive measures have been announced to increase control of the water area and underwater surveillance, verification of insurance certificates and the development of new monitoring technologies.
NATO’s Baltic Sentry mission has been launched, which, due to the recent incidents with undersea cables between Finland and Estonia, is supposed to enhance the protection of critical underwater infrastructure. Meanwhile, the Alliance, which is going to dispatch warships, aircraft, submarines and naval drones to the Baltic Sea as part of this mission, has completely ignored the possible consequences of such activity for the fairly dense shipping traffic in this area, where the situation is rather tense as it is.
What does this indicate? Clearly, the steps of the North Atlantic Alliance are aimed primarily not at increasing security but rather at “containing” our country. What we are witnessing is an attempt, not coordinated with Russia and other international stakeholders, to create artificial barriers to navigation in the Baltic Sea, which some in the bloc unreasonably want to make their internal water body. This will not go. The Baltic Sea has been and remains a common space for all the countries of the region without exception.
From the legal point of view, freedom of navigation applies in the waters of the Baltic Sea outside the territorial waters of the coastal States, which implies that ships and vessels flying any flag may sail there. Stopping of foreign ships, their inspection, detention or other measures to interfere with the navigation of a vessel in these maritime spaces are possible only on a specific short list of grounds, such as piracy or illegal fishing. Protection of undersea infrastructure is not included there.
Therefore, I would like to remind NATO members that in accordance with the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, coercive measures against a foreign vessel in the economic zone require the authorisation of the ship’s flag state. Interference in the navigation of a vessel cannot be based solely on discriminatory unilateral restrictive measures, unfounded suspicions and a desire to find a “Russian trace.” Anything can be invented. We are now talking about the law.
We will closely monitor the situation in the Baltic Sea and respond appropriately to abuses by ships of alliance member states and comment on all of this.
Question: NATO ships have begun to gather in the theatre of the planned patrol operation to protect shipping in the Baltic. Warships from the Netherlands, Germany and France have already arrived in Tallinn. A Norwegian frigate is expected to arrive. Sweden plans to send up to three ships as well. It is also planned to use unmanned boats. The residents of St Petersburg have certain concerns in this regard. What to expect? According to the Foreign Ministry, what are the potential risks to the Russian Federation’s trade routes and its national security from the NATO flotilla operating in the area?
Maria Zakharova: Your question is largely within the purview of the Russian Defence Ministry. You are not talking about what the “enemies on the other side” are doing. You’re asking what we need to do to ensure our defence capability and maintain our security.
I provided the broader context for these events and commented on it in the introductory part of the briefing.
SANGHA KOMMUNE (SSR) 