"Jack Sullivan, Biden's national security adviser, threatens China with consequences for any action that could reduce any sanctions pressure on Russia. How can you comment on this? - asked the correspondent of The Moscow Post.
Maria Zakharova noted that the Sullivan who could threaten the great countries - Russia and China - was not born. His statements are the "classic rudeness" of the American political elite. The mentor tone was replaced by threats from senior American officials.
"Rudeness does not surprise anyone, but it is already indignant. Most importantly, they simply make it impossible to continue the dialogue in the previous format. We consider Jake Sullivan's statement as another manifestation of imperialism, Washington's Hegemon ambitions, an attempt to interfere in the affairs of sovereign countries and the arbitrary use of restrictions that contradict the foundations of the system of international relations, "the diplomat said.
Sanctions inevitably hit those countries that impose them. Now this is seen in the example of a huge number of states that first introduced restrictions against Russia, and now face their consequences for their own citizens. The current US moves will not ultimately lead to the strengthening of the American-centric model of globalization, but will simply push its disintegration.
"We would like to emphasize that the Russian-Chinese relations of comprehensive partnership and strategic cooperation are by nature of their own value. They have strong internal motivation, are not susceptible to momentary international conditions. Relations with third countries, with the United States in particular, do not have a critical impact on them, "Maria Zakharova recalled and added that in the new world realities, the strategic choice in favor of further strengthening is not alternative for both countries.
The second question of The Moscow Post correspondent concerned a list of unfriendly countries, which was recently expanded by Russia.
"What does this mean in terms of the work of the missions of these states in Russia and Russian missions in these countries?" - asked the correspondent of The Moscow Post.
Maria Zakharova replied briefly: "Nothing good for them." And she promised to provide more detailed information with a separate letter a little later.
The third question from The Moscow Post correspondent concerned the statements of the head of European diplomacy, Josep Borrel. He began to reflect on the unfulfilled promises to Kiev regarding EU membership and NATO membership.
"What awaits relations between Russia and the European Union and what are the benefits of them?" - asked the correspondent of The Moscow Post.
The diplomat noted that in this case we are talking exclusively about a false message, which contains previously impossible promises.
"There is such a phrase:" When we promised you, even then we knew that we would not do it. " That's what the operas are. They knew that they would not do and were deceived. We have repeatedly said that no true integration process is planned with Ukraine, its economy and humanitarian space. Ukraine was given the role of an instrument, this is the main cynicism. Behind the high and beautiful talk of integration, only one thing was hidden - the intention to use this country as a springboard, as an instrument, as well as a way of exerting pressure. Western curators turned Ukraine into "anti-Russia." This is an amazing thesis for the modern world, but an absolutely clear thesis that showed that the price of such a step did not bother anyone in the West. This was not interesting at all, "the representative of the Russian Foreign Ministry emphasized.
She recalled that before the events of 2014, the interaction of Russia and the European Union was based on a common understanding of the fundamental task facing us - to finally overcome the legacy of the Cold War and complete the work on the reunification of the European continent through the construction of a common economic and humanitarian space from Lisbon to Vladivostok without dividing lines.
Russia took this task as seriously as possible. They were determined to jointly build four common spaces, negotiated a new basic agreement, proposed the EU to create a committee on foreign policy and security, as well as other mechanisms for combining efforts in the field of crisis resolution.
Today, in the EU, without embarrassment, they pretend that those projects were some kind of concessions to Russia for "good behavior."
For some reason, the United States did not seem profitable in this historical segment to such a bundle that would guarantee peaceful, progressive coexistence for decades to come.
"Although there were times when US presidents spoke about the need to promote a long-term policy on the European continent to gather European states in a single orchestra that would be guaranteed security from internal strife and strife. The United States seems to have invested a lot in this direction. Our energy collaboration, which began 50 years ago, brought us together into a single artery, and made us a single organism. This US artery had to be cut. The amount of lost "blood" did not interest them. Everything went under the knife. For some reason, at this historic stage, they needed to destabilize the situation on the European continent. But why? "- the Russian diplomat wondered and noted that there are many answers to him.
Perhaps this is a crisis in the American continent, a crisis of systems, the impossibility of further development of Western-centric, liberal thought, which declared itself loudly in the 80s, 90s and two thousandths, but then "did not soar" and acquired development in a dead end.
What forced the head of European diplomacy to express on the validity of the promises of membership in the Alliance provided to Ukraine in the NATO Bucharest Council from 2008 is not clear. Until recently, the EU assured Russia that it had nothing to do with NATO. Assurances that the EU and NATO are diverse structures - this was all a fiction and a myth.
"During the interview you mentioned, Borrel made another confession. What the European Union has not done enough to rapprochement with Russia. On the one hand, it is difficult to argue, and on the other, Borrel softens the situation and leaves the answer. Rather, the EU has done a lot to distance itself from Russia and break relations in order to complicate normal dialogue, "the diplomat said.
The philosophy of building a strategic partnership between Russia and the EU as two interdependent world integration poles, in Brussels acquired the logic of extracting unilateral advantages from our relations, and then joined the policy of containing our country.
"We will continue to strengthen multi-sectoral and diverse cooperation with those states that do not politicize bilateral relations. It is impossible to place preconditions solely in submission to the interests of another State. You can't make relations hostage to your own hypocritical approaches, which involve dividing the parties into teachers and students, but this is the approach we see from Brussels, "Maria Zakharova summed up.