Website of the President of Russia: President: Transcripts

Answers to questions from Pavel Zarubin

2026-03-05T10:54:14+04:00

After his meeting with Foreign Minister of Hungary Peter Szijjarto, the President answered questions from journalist Pavel Zarubin.

Pavel Zarubin: We watched your meeting. Could you answer a few questions now?

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Go ahead, please.

Pavel Zarubin: You just mentioned the situation on the global gas markets. Many countries are panicking over the current events. Prices have soared, and it is unclear what will happen with prices and deliveries next.

Of course, this makes one recall that Europe has repeatedly prohibited our gas imports. A new ban, this time on Russian LNG imports under short-term contracts, will come into force as soon as April…

Vladimir Putin: Yes, under contracts that were signed last summer.

Pavel Zarubin: Yes, and there were more bans. They are saying now that the deadline for the bans should be revised in light of the current global developments.

Vladimir Putin: To begin with, Russia has always been and remains a reliable supplier of energy resources to all its partners, including in Europe. We will continue working in this way with those partners who are themselves reliable counterparties, such as Slovakia and Hungary in Eastern Europe.

We are supplying our energy resources there, including oil and gas, and we intend to continue doing this if these countries’ authorities carry on with their policy, that is, if they remain our reliable partners.

As for Europe, the current developments in the European markets are primarily a result of the European authorities’ flawed energy policy, misuse of the green agenda, and the use of all these instruments for internal political purposes, for attaining party or group objectives. This policy has nothing in common with the interests of these countries’ peoples.

Oil and gas prices have increased now. This is understandable with regard to oil and is connected, in part, with restrictions on Russian oil imports. But this situation has been compounded by the developments in the Middle East caused by the aggression against Iran, which has produced a complicated and undeniably unpleasant result for consumers.

As for natural gas, in the current environment there was no immediate link between the surge in prices on the European market and the restricted supplies. After all, the main suppliers have not reduced their deliveries. Who are these main suppliers? They include Algeria, the United States, Norway, and, to an extent, Russia. None of them have reduced their shipments, but this did not prevent prices from going all the way up to $700. Why did this happen? This results from the overall situation on the global markets, including the oil markets, and in this case, the gas market. Again, this is attributable to the overall situation because there are customers who are ready to buy this natural gas at a higher price. In this case, this results from the developments in the Middle East and the closing of the Strait of Hormuz, and so on. Once you have these premium buyers on the market, this means, and I really believe that this is the case, that some suppliers who have been serving the European market for quite some time now, for example, the United States and US companies, will definitely switch to the highest bidder. This is quite natural and is devoid of any political agenda. This is just business as usual, and nothing else.

For this reason, let me reiterate that this stems from the misguided policies of the European governments. Moreover, they have been following this path for many years. Here is what I think in this connection. They have recently announced plans to restrict Russian gas imports in a month, so that the 24^th would be the last day before these restrictions are enacted on the 25^th. In a year, in 2027, they want to introduce further restrictions up to a blanket ban. But there are other markets which are opening up. Could it be that we could benefit from cutting short our supplies to the European market right away? We could switch to these emerging markets and consolidate our positions there.

On this topic, I would like to make it clear that this is not a matter of politics. If we are set to lose access to their market anyway in a month or two, it could make sense for us to stop supplying them right away and turn to countries which have been our reliable partners in order to get a foothold in their markets. However, this is not a done deal. In this case, I am just thinking aloud, as they say. I will certainly instruct the Government to work this matter through with our companies.

Pavel Zarubin: There was another important news story today about an attack against a Russian gas carrier in the Mediterranean. It sustained serious damage. What would be your comment regarding these developments?

Vladimir Putin: This is a terrorist attack. We have faced incidents of this kind before, so the only surprising thing about it is that it aggravates the situation on the global energy markets, including the gas market, first and foremost for Europe. Consequently, the Kiev regime is actually biting the hand that feeds it, i.e., the European Union’s hand. The European Union has provided the Kiev regime with a boundless stream of aid, including weapons and funding, while the Kiev regime creates one problem after another for the European Union.

As for this behaviour of the Kiev regime in general, it has been quite aggressive and very dangerous. As I have already said, according to information from our intelligence agencies, Kiev is getting ready to bomb the Blue Stream and TurkStream pipelines with the support of certain Western special services, just as they bombed the Nord Stream pipelines some time ago. We have informed our Turkish friends about it. We will see what happens, but this is a very dangerous game, especially today.

Interview with Aaj Tak and Indian Today TV channels

2025-12-07T11:09:23+04:00

Ahead of his state visit to India, Vladimir Putin answered questions from anchors of Aaj Tak and India Today TV channels.

Anjana Om Kashyap: Dear viewers,

Hello and a very warm welcome. You are watching India Today, and I'm Anjana Om Kashyap and we're at the Kremlin today and you're about to witness history: a very historic moment.

It is said that when two old friends meet, they have their private jokes, they have a lot of fun and they have a bond of camaraderie but the others in the room might feel a little uncomfortable. And why do I say this – I say this because as the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin meets Prime Minister Narendra Modi in New Delhi, the world will be watching very very closely.

Vladimir Putin is undoubtedly one of the most influential politicians of the world, whose decisions don't just affect Russia, but numerous nations across the world. He is a very compelling and enigmatic figure on the world stage and it just doesn’t get more exciting than this.

Geeta Mohan: Yes, Anjana.

Hello and welcome, I’m Geeta Mohan. We have with us the man who is known to be one of the world longest serving leaders. He has seen it all – through wars and economic recessions, from disintegration of countries to a changed world order, from Boris Yeltsin to Donald Trump, from Atal Bihari Vajpaee to Manmohan Singh and to Narendra Modi. He's seen the world change right in front of him and he is taking Russia through very turbulent times and yet has cemented his position as a force to reckon with.

Thank you so much, Mr President, for doing this for us, you are in conversation with India Today and Aaj Tak, and that’s the President of the Russian Federation for you.

Thank you so much for joining us on our network.

How are you doing?

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: I hope you'll enjoy your stay in Russia. Hope that you like Moscow and the Kremlin where we are currently collaborating together.

As you see, everything is going on as planned. On the whole, we are satisfied with the current economic situation.

Most importantly, I am delighted to be meeting, as you've mentioned, my friend Prime Minister Modi. We have made a specific arrangement to do so in India because there are numerous topics on which we need to talk, and our collaboration with India spans an extensive array – and, of course, the unique nature of our relationship adds another layer of significance.

I also want to highlight that India's progress over the past 77 years since gaining independence – an extremely brief span in historical terms – has been substantial indeed, and India has truly come a long way in development. I will discuss this further below.

You know, as we go about our daily lives, we often fail to notice the changes happening right before our eyes; we scarcely ever take note of them. Yet if you glance even slightly into the past and reflect on what has occurred in India – it's almost like a miracle. For example, few people recognise that life expectancy in India has nearly doubled during this period.

Geeta Mohan: We will talk about longevity in some time from now.

Vladimir Putin: We will definitely discuss that. Anyway, our relationship with India is advancing in numerous fields. It's a pleasure to meet Prime Minister Modi again, with whom we have both a professional and a personal, friendly relationship.

Anjana Om Kashyap: May I ask you a question?

You just talked about the Indian-Russian ties. It all dates back to almost more than seven decades, this dostee, this druzhba in Russian, this friendship dates back to more than seven decades.

My question is, how do you assess the strength of this friendship in today's time and what would you say about Prime Minister Narendra Modi and to Prime Minister Narendra Modi whom you call your dost?

Vladimir Putin: About the Prime Minister?

Anjana Om Kashyap: Yes. And to him.

Vladimir Putin: You know, the world is evolving rapidly – and this pace keeps getting faster, which is plainly visible to all. The global configuration is changing, with new centres of power emerging, and the global power landscape is changing too. Therefore, it's crucial to ensure stability among major nations, since this forms the groundwork for gradual progress in both bilateral and international relations.

In this context, our collaborative endeavours with Prime Minister Modi carry significant weight because they transcend our mutual ties. Given its direct relevance to both nations, ensuring stability in key areas of engagement is crucial, as it helps secure the fulfilment of our objectives. Prime Minister Modi sets very challenging tasks for the country – and for himself in the first place, then for the administration, and eventually for the nation.

Take, for example, his famous pitch, “Make in India.” It has a practical dimension, including for our bilateral relations. When we meet, he always says, “Let's do this, let’s do that, let’s look at this area and that.” I can list them all. Therefore, we have a lot of practical areas of cooperation.

Anjana Om Kashyap: Before Geeta takes on to the next question, one little, small very interesting question, because when you met Prime Minister Modi at the SCO there was this picture and video of you and him going in a car. And we are showing it to our viewers right now how you were traveling in a car with him – was it preplanned or how did it go about, how did it happen? And what did you discuss in the car?

Vladimir Putin: We have just gone over the current topics. This wasn't prearranged; we simply stepped out, and my car was waiting. I asked, ”Would you like to come along?“ That's all there is to it – a gesture of human solidarity, camaraderie, and friendship. No hidden scheme was involved. We climbed into the car like old friends and talked en route. We always have things to discuss.

What’s more, we continued our conversation and just remained in the car. Eventually, I suggested: ”Let's go, they are already waiting for us. “ There is nothing special here; it simply indicates that we have matters to discuss and those matters are very important to us.

Geeta Mohan: Thank you, Mr President. The fact that you are going to India. You just said that both leaders are going to cement the guarantees that you give each other. What are the kind of announcements that we can expect? We've heard about technology transfer, we've heard about trade enhancement. What are the solid announcements during this visit? And I ask you this, because the world – and you know who I mean – would be watching.

Vladimir Putin: The world would be watching our visit – there's no big deal here. India is an enormous country, home to one-and-a-half billion people, boasting a growing economy with a seven-percent annual growth rate, leading among major global powers. After all, Mr Modi has made this possible. It's something both the Indian nation and Prime Minister Modi himself can rightfully claim as their achievement. Naturally, there will always be critics who think that improvements could have been more significant. But that's an achievement.

We've laid out an ambitious plan for our collaboration in key domains. The most critical areas are indeed forward-looking. I'm referring specifically to high technology. Our partnership with India encompasses such fields as space exploration, energy (notably nuclear power, exemplified by the prominent Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant project), shipbuilding, and aviation.

There are many interesting areas for cooperation that are looking to the future. Take, for example, artificial intelligence. We'll likely discuss it further down the line. AI represents a crucial technology shaping the future, rapidly transforming the world, amplifying possibilities exponentially while simultaneously presenting certain challenges.

These are the matters we will discuss, choosing the ones that are the most significant for us, as both Prime Minister Modi and I believe. That’s what we will focus on and what we will work on.

Geeta Mohan: Are there any specific agreements?

Vladimir Putin: Well, of course. However, perhaps we shouldn't reveal them just yet; we will do that during the visit, when we can unveil everything publicly. Then, our colleagues will first share with us all the documents they have prepared, and it would require our final approval.

Geeta Mohan: I suggest we switch to the energy sector. Just talking about sustainability and trade. There's immense pressure on India and on Russia when it comes to oil. India has suffered in terms of the kind of pressure that we're seeing from West. How can both countries handle this Western pressure and sanctions?

Vladimir Putin: The issue here is that the pressure you have referred to typically involves employing political instruments to influence normal competition.

Our energy cooperation with India remains unaffected by current conditions, fleeting political swings, or indeed the tragic events in Ukraine.

Regarding hydrocarbons: well before the Ukrainian situation, our business entities had already built a solid and efficient commercial relationship that is based on mutual trust.

It's widely known that one of our leading companies acquired an oil refinery in India – this investment represented one of the largest foreign inflows into the Indian economy, totalling more than US$20 billion. Our company has been continuously expanding operations of this refinery, working with its partners, operating successfully year after year. As a result, India has become one of the major refined product suppliers to Europe – not just because it buys our oil with a discount. It took years to achieve and is in no way connected to the current economic environment.

Certain actors clearly dislike India's growing role in international markets owing to its ties with Russia. Consequently, they're seeking means to constrain India's influence for political reasons by imposing artificial obstacles.

Anjana Om Kashyap: Economy is a very important point, but my question to you now would be about defence. India continues to be the biggest defence buyer, roughly 38% of the market from Russia is bought by India.

My question is in view of the sanctions by the US or the load they have laid on India, the arm-twisting methods that are being adopted – and I name, it's America – how do you plan to circumvent all this? Will you pull back or push harder?

Vladimir Putin: It appears that both India and the world recognise that India cannot continue to be treated the way it was treated 77 years ago. India is a major global player, not a British colony, and everyone must accept this reality.

Furthermore, Prime Minister Modi is not someone who succumbs to pressure easily. The Indian people can certainly take pride in their leader. This is absolutely obvious. His stance is unwavering and straightforward, without being confrontational. Our goal is not to provoke conflict; rather, we aim to protect our lawful rights. India does the same.

What are the obstacles? Obstacles in settlements. However, over 90% of our transactions are already conducted in national currencies. While some complications arise due to the presence of numerous intermediaries, there are also solutions: we can switch to the existing systems for exchanging electronic messages on financial transactions of the Bank of Russia and of our partners in India.

These efforts are ongoing and advancing. Those who attempt to hinder economic ties with third countries ultimately encounter difficulties and suffer losses. I am confident that once this perspective becomes firmly established, such tactics of applying external pressures will fade away.

Anjana Om Kashyap: Three specific questions, Sir.

Number one: because during Operation Sindoor the weapons we had acquired from Russia have proved to be very crucial in our victory. That is why I would like to ask you specifically about S400, the air defence system, the five S400 that are awaited – by when can we expect that?

The second question is on S500, an even more advanced air defence system.

And the third question is about the fifth generation fighter jet Su-57. How are you going to push for this and what are the updates?

Vladimir Putin: You seem to be an expert on the issue, as if we are engaged in negotiations on military-technical cooperation.

If we delve into the substance, India stands out as one of our reliable and privileged partners in this area. We are not merely selling something to India and India isn’t merely buying something from us in the sphere of defence and security. No. It is a different level, a different quality of relations we have with India, and we value this. We see how India values this relationship too.

Why? Allow me to emphasise again: we are not simply selling technology – we are sharing it, and it is a very rare thing to see in the sphere of military-technical cooperation. It speaks to the level of trust between the two countries and the level of trust between the two peoples, I would put it this way. We have a broad portfolio indeed, including naval construction, rocket and missile engineering, and aircraft engineering.

You just mentioned the Su-57 aircraft. India operates several other Russian-made aircraft too. And there’s the production of armoured vehicles. India is manufacturing our renowned T-90 tanks. Trust me when I tell you that these tanks rank among the best in the world. Moreover, the famous BrahMos missile – a joint venture between Russia and India – is manufactured primarily at Indian facilities.

Therefore, Prime Minister Modi's “Make in India” initiative should be implemented in this area as well.

Geeta Mohan: And the Kalashnikovs.

Vladimir Putin: The Kalashnikov is certainly an important weapon. But we have been discussing high, one might even say cutting-edge technologies. Given the combat experience in using certain types of weapons, their value has multiplied manyfold.

Now, Indian military specialists – thanks to their strong ties with our military – understand clearly how and in what circumstances a particular weapon performs best, and where and when it should be deployed. This is an extremely important understanding, which is shared by both the Indian and Russian sides.

Geeta Mohan: Mr President, I have to go back to your oil question, because you spoke about strategic autonomy, which is what India has been talking about. Strategic autonomy decides for India's interests, but has India reduced Russian intake of oil after pressure from the West?

Vladimir Putin: Well, there is a certain decline in overall trade turnover during the first nine months of this year. This is just a minor adjustment. Overall, our trade turnover stands almost at the same level as before.

I can’t give you exact monthly figures right now, but trade in petroleum products and crude oil, as well as the production of petroleum products for consumers of oil, Russian oil, is running smoothly in India. I know the sentiment of Russian partners, of Russian companies: they believe their Indian counterparts are reliable and very serious people.

Geeta Mohan: The other important aspect in terms of cooperation between India and Russia is the nuclear front. Russia has been one of the biggest movers when it comes to nuclear facilities in India. Are we looking at important announcements on the nuclear front? Nuclear today is a sensitive issue for Russia.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, of course we have some announcements to make.

We are indeed one of the biggest ”movers,“ as you have noted. Speaking seriously, we are not ”movers,“ we are producers of the world’s most advanced and reliable equipment for nuclear power plants. The Russian company Rosatom builds and operates more nuclear reactors for nuclear power plants abroad than any other company in the world – 22 nuclear units. The well‑known facility and our joint project, the Kudankulam plant, is one of the leaders in this regard.

These are large units, they operate efficiently and, I reiterate, have proven to be very useful.

There are some announcements you have just asked about. What is it about? The news is that Russia is probably the only country in the world today capable of building – and actually does build – small nuclear power plants. Such plants are already operational in Russia, and we can make them either floating or ground-based. It’s an excellent option for specific regions where big power stations are not needed or where connecting electricity grids between generators and end-users isn’t feasible. These compact nuclear power modules can thus be deployed in isolated and hard-to-access locations.

Geeta Mohan: That's a lot of collaboration and cooperation. You're talking about ”Make in India, Make With Russia.“ How do you think President Trump is going to react to all of this?

Vladimir Putin: You know, neither me nor Prime Minister Modi, despite certain external pressure we face, have ever – and I want to emphasise this, I want you to hear it – approached our collaboration to work against someone.

President Trump has his own agenda, his own goals, whereas we focus on ours – not against anyone, but rather aimed at safeguarding our respective interests, India's and Russia's interests. In our dealings, we cause no harm to others, and I believe that leaders from other countries should appreciate this.

Anjana Om Kashyap: With regard to Mr Donald Trump. My second question is also about him, because recently he said that if you are buying oil from Russia, – about India – you are funding the Russian-Ukrainian war.

How would you characterise Mr Donald Trump, the President of the United States of America?

Vladimir Putin: You know, I never give character assessments about my colleagues – neither those I’ve worked with in the past nor current leaders of individual states. These assessments should be made by citizens who vote for their leader during elections.

As for India's purchases or purchase of energy resources from Russia… Well, I would like to note and have already mentioned this publicly once – the United States itself still buys nuclear fuel from us for its own nuclear power plants. That is also fuel – uranium for the reactors operating in the United States. If the US has the right to buy our fuel, why shouldn't India have the same privilege? This question deserves thorough examination, and we stand ready to discuss it, including with President Trump.

Geeta Mohan: You are being very kind, you say you are not characterising Trump, but he certainly does that with regard to you. Having said this, he has weaponised tariffs. And he has weaponised it against India. How do you think the two countries should be handling Donald Trump and the US administration?

Vladimir Putin: You know, he pursues his own policy, and he has advisors – his decisions aren't made out of thin air. He has advisors who believe that implementing such tariff policies, involving the imposition of additional duties on trade partners, ultimately benefits the US economy. He is acting in good faith, I presume. Our experts believe there are risks involved, but it is the choice of each country and its leadership to decide which economic policy to adopt.

We have never engaged in such practices, do not do so now, and have no intention of doing so in the future. Our economy is open. We hope that, in the end, all violations of World Trade Organisation regulations will be rectified.

Geeta Mohan: Mr President, things have changed a little between the US and Russia. The fact that America is engaging you, we would have loved to be a fly on the wall when you were meeting with Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff. That was an important meeting. Were there red lines that Russia reiterated? What really happened?

Vladimir Putin: It's premature to discuss that now. I doubt it would interest you to hear about it, as it lasted five hours. Frankly, even I grew weary of it – five hours is too much. However, it was necessary because…

Anjana Om Kashyap: Five hours! Witkoff and Kushner?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, and I was alone. Can you imagine it?

But speaking seriously, it was a very productive conversation, as what our American colleagues presented was, in one way or another, based on our prior agreements made before my meeting with President Trump in Alaska. We had discussed these very issues, to some extent, at the meeting in Anchorage. However, what the Americans brought us this time was truly new; we hadn't seen it before. Therefore, we had to go through practically every point, which is why it took so much time. So it was a meaningful, highly specific, and substantive conversation.

Anjana Om Kashyap: Were there certain specific points of disagreement?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, such issues were raised, we discussed them. But this is a complex task and a challenging mission that President Trump took upon himself – fair enough, I say without irony, because achieving consensus among conflicting parties is no easy task. But President Trump, truly, I believe, he sincerely tries to do this.

We went through each point again, let me reiterate this. Sometimes we said, “yes, we can discuss this, but with that one we cannot agree.” That was how the work proceeded. To say now what exactly doesn't suit us or where we could possibly agree seems premature, since it might disrupt the very mode of operation that President Trump is trying to establish.

But that's what they do – shuttle diplomacy. They spoke with Ukrainian representatives, then with Europeans, came here, had another meeting with Ukrainians and Europeans. I think we should engage in this effort rather than obstruct it.

Geeta Mohan: You are saying that the 28 points peace proposal is not on the table?

Vladimir Putin: They're discussing – that's what they're discussing right now. They simply broke down those 28 points, then 27, into four packages and proposed discussing these four packages. But essentially, it's still just the same old 27 points.

Anjana Om Kashyap: We will go back to that and try to understand how it's going forward.

What happened in Alaska? You met President Trump and it was all about the peace deal, right? What happened? Did you actually have sense of or see a sincere intent?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, there was indeed a sense – no, more than just a sense, I have absolutely no doubt that President Trump had genuine intentions (we won't discuss here what caused them or why they appeared, but they're definitely present). Both the United States and President Trump likely have their own understanding of why this needs to be resolved quickly.

Moreover, by the way, on humanitarian grounds too. I truly believe that is one of the motives behind President Trump's actions regarding this matter because he constantly speaks about his wish to minimise losses, and I'm confident that his sincerity is genuine. He undoubtedly considers these humanitarian concerns when formulating his decisions.

However, other factors also come into play: political considerations and economic interests. Therefore, I believe that the US is actively seeking a solution to this problem.

Geeta Mohan: Yes, he has spoken about intentions, you're right about. He claimed he would end wars and conflicts – causing consternation in India when he claimed that he had brought peace between India and Pakistan, now he's looking at Russia and Ukraine. Do you really think he's a peacemaker?

Vladimir Putin: Regarding the situation in Ukraine – yes, let me repeat once again, I am absolutely certain, with no doubt at all, he sincerely aims for a peaceful resolution.

Let me stress once again: the United States may have various reasons for this – humanitarian ones personally for Trump because he genuinely wants to end hostilities and prevent further loss of life, but there could also be political interests tied to ending the confrontation between Russia and Ukraine, or economic motives too. By the way, they can be in the energy area and in other areas. There are numerous areas where restoring economic relations between the US and Russia would benefit both sides.

I showed you some letters – I won't go into this now – large US companies sent to us. We should remember this.

Comment: Really?

Vladimir Putin: Of course. About their existence. They’re waiting until all problems are solved, and they’re ready to return to us, they want this, asking us not to forget about them. The letters are there.

Comment: It’s surprising.

Vladimir Putin: What’s so surprising about that? Many want to return. So, of course, the Indian government is saying right: “Why should we leave…?”

Geeta Mohan: They arrived with letters from companies – quite astonishingly unexpected indeed.

Vladimir Putin: No, I believe there has been a misunderstanding. We have letters from American companies – letters they have sent us, where they urge us not to forget about their existence. These are our former partners, who did not leave by choice. They express a clear desire to resume cooperation and are waiting, among other things, for a corresponding political signal.

Anjana Om Kashyap: This conversation is becoming very interesting because there are so many highlights of understanding and it is really pleasant to see you, and your sense of humour, and how you are putting things forth.

But now we are going to go into a very serious matter – and that is the Russia-Ukraine war. So what, in your view, would constitute a victory for Russia in the Russia-Ukraine war? What are the red lines? Because you have, and I quote you, you have said very clearly that Russia will lay down arms only if Kiev's troops withdraw from the territories claimed by Russia, which parts would that be?

Vladimir Putin: You know, it's not about victory, like you have said. The point is that Russia is determined – and will certainly do so – to protect its interests. Protect its people living there, protect our traditional values, Russian language, and so on. Protection, by the way, of religion that has been cultivated on these lands for centuries. Yet you know that the Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine is almost banned: they seize churches, drive people out of temples, etc. – it is a problem. And I'm not even mentioning the ban on the Russian language, etc. It is all part of a big set of issues.

Let me remind you: we were not the ones to start this war. The West egged Ukraine on and supported the events, orchestrating a coup d'état. That was the point that triggered the events in Crimea, followed by developments in southeastern Ukraine, in Donbass.

They don't even mention it – we've tried to resolve these issues peacefully for eight years, signed the Minsk agreements, hoping that they could be resolved through peaceful means. But Western leaders openly admitted later that they never intended to honour those agreements, signing them merely to allow Ukraine to arm itself and continue fighting against us. After eight years of relentless violence against our citizens of Donbass – something the West hasn't uttered a word about – we were forced to recognise these republics first, and secondly, provide support. Our special military operation isn't the start of a war, but rather an attempt to end one that the West ignited using Ukrainian nationalists. That's what is really happening now. That’s the crux of the problem.

We will finish it when we achieve the goals set at the beginning of the special military operation – when we free these territories. That's all.

Anjana Om Kashyap: What is the end gain for Vladimir Putin in Ukraine?

Vladimir Putin: I have said that already. Listen, we didn't recognise these self-proclaimed republics for eight years. Eight years. They declared independence, while we were trying to establish relations between the rest of Ukraine and those republics. But when we realised this was impossible, that they were simply being destroyed, we had no choice but to recognise them – and not just their existence on part of the territory, but within administrative boundaries established during Soviet times, then later under independent Ukraine after its independence, still within those administrative borders.

And right away we told Ukraine, the Ukrainian troops: ”People don't want to live with you anymore. They voted in a referendum for independence. Withdraw your troops from there, and there won't be any military actions.“ No, they chose to fight instead.

Now they have pretty much fought themselves into a corner, all this boils down to one thing: either we take back these territories by force, or eventually Ukrainian troops withdraw and stop killing people there.

Anjana Om Kashyap: Before we move to the other one, just one last question. On March 8, 2014, during the annexation of Crimea, you were addressing the Federation Council and you said, ”Kiev is the mother of all Russian cities.“ What did you mean?

Vladimir Putin: Here I haven't made up anything – historically this is how it was said. Originally, the Russian state was formed from several centres. The first capital, according to history, was in Novgorod in the northwest. Later the federal status moved to the city of Veliky Novgorod, and then it moved to Kiev. This was Ancient Rus. And since then, Kiev has been known as the ”mother of all Russian cities.“

Later, historical events unfolded in such a way that the ancient Russian state split into two parts. One part began developing with Moscow as its centre, while another part fell under other countries. For instance, the part with Kiev, along with some other lands, these parts first formed a state with Lithuania, subsequently merged with Poland, forming the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Thus, this part of the ancient Russian state ended up in Poland, and by the seventeenth century, it sought to return back to Russia.

Geeta Mohan: The fact that you know, you were mentioning the history and it brings me to what I did when the conflict was underway. I had travelled to Donetsk, I had travelled to Lugansk, Zaporozhye, Kherson, and most of the people there are Russian-speaking, they speak Russian language. They were very disappointed that Kiev had banned that language in eastern Ukraine. But they were also a little shocked at how Putin is doing this to us, we are his people. A lot of women I spoke to were in shock. So, what do you have to say to people in eastern Ukraine who actually have families in Russia, who, on a daily basis, move from Ukraine to Russia. What do you have to say to them?

Vladimir Putin: I didn't understand the question. What exactly shocked them?

Geeta Mohan: They were shocked that there was an operation that happened, and their homes were destroyed, because they lived in eastern Ukraine. And they have love for Russia and the Russian people, and they are Russian-speaking themselves.

Vladimir Putin: The answer is quite straightforward. These individuals presumably resided in those parts of Ukraine – specifically, in the areas of the Lugansk or Donetsk region – that remained under the control of the Kiev authorities at the time. Meanwhile, that part of the Lugansk or Donetsk region outside their control was being subjected to intense military action by the Kiev authorities. We were consequently forced to extend support to those areas that had declared independence. That is the first point.

Secondly, we provided people with an opportunity to express their will in an open referendum. Those who believed it was in their interest to join Russia voted accordingly. Those who did not were free to leave unhindered for other parts of the Ukrainian state. We have never placed any obstacles in the way of that choice.

Geeta Mohan: What do you make of President Zelensky? He was promised NATO, the European Union promised him the EU. But nothing really happened. Was NATO ever on the table for Ukraine?

Vladimir Putin: When this gentleman came to power, he declared that he would pursue peace at all costs, using every means possible, without sparing even his career. But now we see things differently. He follows the same pattern as his predecessors – putting the interests of a narrow nationalist group, particularly radical nationalists, ahead of those of the people. Essentially, he is addressing their concerns rather than those of the nation.

This regime’s mindset truly resembles a neo-Nazi regime because extreme nationalism and neo-Nazism are almost indistinguishable concepts. Today, undeniably, military action dominates their approach. However, they haven’t achieved much success here either.

I have already said before that what matters most for them is realising that the best way to resolve the problems is through peaceful negotiations, and we attempted to negotiate with them back in 2022. What exactly they plan to do remains to be asked from them directly.

Anjana Om Kashyap: That would be interesting to see what they have to say on that, and how this peace process goes forward.

But you have always said that the eastward expansion of NATO is your real concern. Ukraine has not got this NATO membership as of now. My question to you – is NATO expansion a real threat or just a pretext for what you think is a part of Ukraine which is probably you want control over? Or you think that injustice is being done, the Russian language is being banned – these are the real issues?

Vladimir Putin: Listen, NATO is another matter altogether. The Russian language, Russian culture, religion, and even territorial issues – these are very important topics, one subject. NATO is something entirely different. We don't demand anything exclusive for ourselves here.

First of all, there are general agreements that the security of one state cannot be guaranteed by undermining the security of others. This idea might seem somewhat obscure, but I'll explain it simply. Each country, including Ukraine, has the right to choose its own means of defence and ensure its own safety. Correct? Absolutely correct. Do we deny Ukraine this? No. But it's not acceptable if done at Russia's expense. Ukraine believes it would benefit from joining NATO. And we say: that threatens our security, let's find a way to secure yours without threatening us.

Secondly, we are not asking for anything unusual or unexpected, nothing falling from the sky. We are just insisting on fulfilling the promises already made to us. These weren't invented yesterday. They were pledged to Russia back in the '90s: no expansion eastward—this was stated publicly. Since then, several waves of expansion took place, culminating with Ukraine being drawn into NATO. This completely displeases us and poses a serious threat. Let’s remember that NATO is a military-political alliance, and Article Five of the Washington Treaty establishing NATO hasn't been repealed. It's a threat to us. Nobody bothers to take us seriously.

Lastly, when Ukraine became independent, few people recall this: what was the first document ratifying independence? It was the Declaration of State Sovereignty, Independence of Ukraine. That forms the foundation of Ukrainian sovereignty and modern statehood. And it clearly states that Ukraine is a neutral state.

Geeta Mohan: Was that also the basis for what happened when you decided to annex Crimea, you only seized the water port, a very important strategic port for Russia? And then Russia was no longer part of the G8. Today, the West claims, or says, that you actions in the recent past are the reason for, and I quote-unquote, the isolation of Russia.

Vladimir Putin: We didn't need to seize that important port in Crimea because it was ours already – our Navy had been stationed there under the agreement with Ukraine, which is a fact. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, our fleet remained there regardless. The matter isn't about that, though it's significant, but that's not what we're talking about here.

And we did not annex Crimea, I want to emphasise this point. We simply came to help people who didn't want their lives or fate tied to those who staged a coup in Ukraine. They said: “Hey, nationalist extremists took over in Kiev. Did anyone ask us? Ok, we ended up as part of independent Ukraine after the dissolution of the USSR. So be it, history happened like that. Fine, ok, now we'll live that way. But we believe that we exist in a democratic state. And if coups happen here with unknown consequences, then we won't accept that, we don't want to live like that.” There was a threat not just of pressure, but of outright violence against the Crimeans. Russia stepped in to help them. How could we do otherwise? If someone believes differently, thinking that Russia would act differently, they’re deeply mistaken. We'll always defend our interests and our people.

Geeta Mohan: One brief question before we move on to the other part. Dou you want to go back to being a part of the G8, because there are a lot of reports on that. Is that something Russia is looking at?

Vladimir Putin: No.

Anjana Om Kashyap: Interesting answer. You are clear about that?

Vladimir Putin: Yes. The fact of the matter is that I myself, at a certain point – such were the circumstances, I won’t go into details now – I stopped attending those meetings. This is the first point.

The second thing is that as I have said before, it’s not entirely clear why the countries that form the G7, call themselves the ”Big seven“? What’s so big about them? In terms of purchasing power parity, India’s economy is the third largest in the world. And where are the countries like the United Kingdom in terms of purchasing power parity? What is their ranking now, tenth or thereabouts?

Of course, these are all countries with advanced, high-tech economies; a robust foundation exists, it hasn’t gone anywhere, although their share in the global economy is shrinking year after year, like a piece of Shagreen leather. This is an obvious fact, we all see it.

The trend is obvious, and it will keep going like that, as far as can be seen, among other things, due to what I would cautiously call the deeply flawed economic policies pursued by the leadership of many of those countries. A recession in Germany is evident, for the third year in a row; France is in a difficult situation, also on the brink of recession, as are other leading European nations. Nevertheless, it is an important platform; they do work there, they do make decisions, they do discuss matters among themselves, and so may they all be healthy by God's grace. This is a good story as such.

But I will say it again, at a certain moment I simply stopped going there. And this was not connected to the events in Ukraine, but to some other events; I won’t go into details now. Incidentally, we informed our American partners about this.

Geeta Mohan: You informed them during this meeting?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, during this meeting as well.

Anjana Om Kashyap: With Mr Witkoff?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, we discussed this topic among others.

Anjana Om Kashyap: That's a very important aspect…

Vladimir Putin: You think so? I don't believe it's that significant. But if you feel that way, okay.

Anjana Om Kashyap: So, coming back to…No, I just wanted to put it in perspective before we go ahead. So, you are just telling us that in your recent meeting with Mr Witkoff it was offered to you that you could make it back to G8 and you categorically said that you are not interested?

Vladimir Putin: No, this topic just came up on its own.

I explained to Mr Witkoff why I stopped attending those events long time ago. It wasn't a suggestion or even a question, nothing like that. We just mentioned that subject. I recalled when I stopped going there – it was in 2012 after the Russian presidential elections. Then I seemed to come back there, then stopped coming again – and anyway, that's no longer important now. But the platform still exists, I wish them to continue their job and Lord give them all the best. But other major international alliances are forming now -such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), BRICS, and the G20. We're involved everywhere, and we definitely have a completely non-confrontational approach.

However, there's another aspect here. Look at the current relationship between Russia and European countries. These relationships are far from being called normal. How do you imagine that I come to the G8 meeting, how would I talk to its members if they don't want to talk to me? What am I supposed to do there then? Well, if they do want to talk about it, fine – we can come back to this topic later.

Anjana Om Kashyap: You said that countries like India whose gross trade is far exceeding a lot of European countries need to just calm down and understand some things. The other thing you say is that organisations like probably G7 are losing their relevance and what would I do if they don’t want to talk to me.

But the third thing you mentioned was BRICS, and so there is my question to you: is there a new world order falling in place, because you are not going to G7, but you just visited China, and you are about to visit India. Russia, India, China. RIC. BRICS. SCO. Global South. What do you see as a new power centre in the multi-polar world?

Vladimir Putin: You asked whether the world is changing, and a new order is forming? The world changes constantly – everything flows, cuncta fluunt. The pace of change varies, but the world always evolves.

Nowadays, this rate of change is fast, indeed very high. We can see it, we can feel it, I’ve already said that. And primarily, we’re witnessing the global economic processes unfolding. These processes aren’t linked to events in Ukraine or other hotspots – they’re just happening generally. We could talk about this for hours, and I’d be happy to discuss it with you, but our viewers might grow tired from such discussions.

One fact remains, however: new centres of growth are emerging of rapid, strong growth. These include countries of the Global South, notably South Asia, India, and Indonesia, which has nearly 300 million people and is rising quickly. Of course, it’s not one and a half billion people living there, like in India, but still these are very rapidly developing countries. Let me say it again: Africa is already advancing swiftly and will accelerate even more. With its young population, these countries would be our future. They’ll strive toward higher living standards, which is inevitable. In the future, rates of change in the global economy will continue to accelerate steadily and significantly.

By the way, we often hear that Russia recently recalibrated its relationships with the Global South and Asia. That's not true, because we’ve been doing so since the early 2000s.

Anjana Om Kashyap: Actually this picture ruffled a lot of feathers across the world. Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping and Narendra Modi. Three nation heads together. And people were going all over social media and America.

Geeta Mohan: But even if you’d look at that picture, how do you have these alternative blocs and how can they become a real force, if there are fundamental unresolved issues between key member states in that bloc?

Vladimir Putin: You know, conflicts always exist. But tell me what period of history there was no conflict at all? Let's take a look at the historical development of major world centres or regions – wherever we point our finger in time, we will always find a conflict somewhere.

Though the point is elsewhere: it's about finding solutions to these conflicts, seeking most effective ways to resolve them. In large alliances like BRICS, or the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, we share a common understanding that we have common values rooted in our traditional beliefs, which underpin our civilisations such as India's civilisation for already hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Drawing on this heritage of the past, we work together instead of suppressing opportunities. When efforts are combined, the resulting synergy turns out unexpectedly strong and high.

We never set out to come up with ways to deceive, outsmart, or hinder someone's development. Nothing like that has ever happened. We always focus only on positive agendas. I believe that's important.

Geeta Mohan: That’s an important answer.

But are there alternatives? Because the biggest thing when you have these blocs is how do you make it economically viable. Are we looking at alternative payment systems? Is there going to be a BRICS currency? Or are we looking at alternative payments in terms of national currencies, rupee or ruble? Moving towards de-dollarisation basically.

Vladimir Putin: You know, there's no rush in this, festina lente and you'll avoid big mistakes.

For instance, we were talking about Europe. They set up the euro system and dragged in there certain countries that weren't economically ready for one single strong currency. And now they're dealing with some difficult social matters. There's more than just playing around with inflation there, right? This question is far more complex than just tinkering with inflation a little bit and calling it done. Their entire economy is tied to just one stable currency, therefor social problems arise and budgetary issues emerge.

Right now we don't aim at having a single currency within BRICS. In this process, there's no rush anywhere, and we aren't rushing either. There is a need to expand the use of national currencies, you've mentioned this already. We must make better use of the BRICS New Development Bank's opportunities.

For example, we propose creating a new investment platform using electronic payments (with an initial capital of 100 billion dollars) to encourage joint investments both in our economies and those of developing nations in the Global South. I believe this could be very appealing option, because these investments would help us, and they would also benefit the recipient countries, since together we would produce high-quality goods at reasonable prices. These products could help the countries of the South to develop further, while also advancing our own growth.

There will be more and more tools like this. Modern payment systems and digital money exist already and they are evolving rapidly. And for us, this is definitely not about working against anyone – we see it more as refining tools that are already widely used worldwide.

Geeta Mohan: Rupee and ruble payment then?

Vladimir Putin: There are no obstacles here. These are purely economic issues. We fully understand and realise that we do have a certain trade imbalance. However, India's government does not impose restrictions on our mutual trade. Why? Because they need both oil and petroleum products. The Indian government needs to expand its purchases of Russian fertilisers because these are crucial for Indian farmers, and Prime Minister Modi constantly raises this issue: ”Please increase the volume of deliveries.“

The issue is entirely different. It's not about rupees; it's about what those rupees can buy respectively for our companies. We're also thinking about this, not only the Indian government, but we also do. And we agree that this disparity must be addressed, but not through bans, rather by finding areas beneficial for both sides.

Therefore, during my visit and at our initiative, there will be an exhibition showcasing our importers from India. I want to share with you something completely candidly: this was my direct instruction to the Government of Russia, which is to consider what else we could purchase from India. We're considering this matter together, including from the perspective of the Russian Federation.

Anjana Om Kashyap: My next question before we move to other issues is – how do you balance – I’m going to ask that directly – how do you balance India and China? Because it is very clear that you are keen on good relations with both these countries. How do you balance them, seeing some tensions between us.

Vladimir Putin: We know this very well. India and China are our closest friends – we treasure that relationship deeply, and I do not believe we have the right to interfere in your bilateral relations. But I know that both Prime Minister Modi and President Xi Jinping are committed to finding solutions to all issues, even to the most complex interstate problems.

I know about it because both Prime Minister Modi and President Xi Jinping see that some specific tension is rising, and they both try to find solutions to these issues, exerting maximum effort – I know this well and can see it clearly. And the key reason why they would succeed would be their wisdom, which we appreciate immensely. At the same time Russia does not feel entitled to intervene, because these are your bilateral affairs.

Anjana Om Kashyap: The next important issue with regard to India is terrorism. We faced two major terrorist attacks, one in Pahalgam and then one in Delhi. My question to you is that we see a dual ideology on terror in the world from different countries. What is the solution in your eyes? Because Russia also faces terrorism, India faces it. What in your eyes is the solution to your terrorist – my – freedom – fighter ideology?

Vladimir Putin: It’s very simple. To achieve freedom, we must use lawful means only. Any actions involving criminal methods or those harming people cannot be supported – this has been decided long ago. As you've correctly noted, Russia has repeatedly faced acts of extreme terrorism throughout its recent history. In these matters, India is our full ally, and we completely support India's fight against terrorism.

Geeta Mohan: But there’s another country in the neighbourhood, very important – important to Russia, important to India: Afghanistan. You are a very rare country to have recognised the Taliban regime. What really made you look at that as a strategic interest – to recognize the Taliban at the time, when the world is still saying “they have not given equal rights to women,” when there are still a lot of issues with Afghanistan actually becoming a country that holds women and men equally. And there are many other human rights issues there.

Vladimir Putin: In every country there are enough problems. And Afghanistan is not an exception, considering that for decades this country has been embroiled in a civil war. It's just horrible. But the Taliban clearly controls the situation in Afghanistan and this is evident. Here's what needs to be said first, and you have to accept it because it's reality.

Secondly, what’s important to note is that the Afghan government takes many actions to combat terrorism and various terrorist organisations, including ISIL and others like them. This we also know very well.

Afghan authorities have significantly reduced opium production in their country and are actively addressing drug threats from within its borders.

There are several other important issues here. The main point is that in order to influence events happening in the country, you must stay in contact with current leadership there – exactly what we’re doing.

Geeta Mohan: Afghanistan’s Taliban minister Muttaqi was in India, and we weren’t allowed – women weren’t allowed to attend the press conference, and we fought back, and then he had to hold a press conference with women as part of that entire violation. Isn’t it interesting? I was just sharing it with you.

Vladimir Putin: There’s truth in what you say, but on the other hand, if he hadn’t come here, you wouldn’t have had any chance to influence these events at all. And now you’ve got both connections and the minister who has arrived. You were able to express your reaction to what happened. How do we measure whether that’s little or much? It seems to me that at least this is part of your influence and your partners’ influence on the situation.

But imagine there were no contacts at all. Then what? Everything remains exactly as before. And nobody, including yourself, would influence anything, or express any opinion about this. In contrast, now such an opportunity is available to you. Contacts are better than no contacts at all.

Anjana Om Kashyap: The other flash point is Gaza. And it is now being known that you, Sir, Vladimir Putin, have a new peace plan for Gaza. Trump also has one. What is your Gaza peace plan? What do you propose, Sir?

Vladimir Putin: We don't offer any special plan. We've always believed that the only way to solve the Palestinian problem is by implementing the solutions adopted and considered by the United Nations over many years. And the most important one is establishing an independent Palestinian state. That’s the key to resolving all issues.

Geeta Mohan: The other important issue when you talk about Israel and Gaza that Anjana just did is the fact that the Arab world when it comes to the issue of Gaza and Palestine did not do as much as your ally, your friend Iran did. How do you look at this entire scenario? Well, this is a changed world order. We never thought that Iran would fight back for Palestinians more than the Arab world.

Vladimir Putin: Each of these countries in its way is concerned about Palestine and the Palestinian people, worrying for them. And each of them tries to contribute in resolving the situation. Some things are obvious, others remain hidden in the shadows. But it doesn't mean that no one is doing anything. This is a complex issue that no one has managed to resolve over the years. Hence, it can't be fixed in just a few months by clicking a button. However, we should aim precisely at achieving this goal: establishing a Palestinian state.

What has been done until now was done by President Trump. Naturally, primarily the return of Israeli hostages and Hamas took this step. I think, frankly speaking, this was the most important thing that was done as part of the latest steps for the settlement in Gaza. I believe it would be correct, perhaps, to think about the possibility of organising the governance in such a way as to transfer all authority to the Palestinians. There are such options. They are being discussed both by Arab countries and the neighbours, and beyond it. It’s being discussed in the United States as well, I know it. As part of the United Nations, we have always taken part in this process. We will continue to do that with our friends.

Geeta Mohan:Well. President Putin, we have discussed a lot of geopolitics, we’ve stick to it for a while.

Let’s talk about your journey. You are a man from the intelligence community. How would you rate intelligence agencies today? Which one, do you think, is the best? I am sure you will say Russia but I am still saying, which one is the second best then? And how does the CIA fair?

Vladimir Putin: Well, there are several powerful intelligence services in the world. There is CIA and our, Soviet and Russian intelligence. There is, as it is well-known, a very efficient service Mossad, Israeli intelligence. Many countries of the world have tradition of intelligence services.

You know, I think it is better not to give evaluation to the efficiency of other peoples’ intelligence. I am happy with the quality of work of our intelligence service.

Anjana Om Kashyap: Fair enough. So we would like to because this is a rare opportunity we get to interact with you. We want to understand what shaped Vladimir Putin and as we peep into your early years, we’ve read a little about your KGB days when you were working in Germany and then you moved on to Saint Petersburg and then Moscow, you worked with Mr. Yeltsin.

What actually shaped the man you are today, the leader you are today? Which what it is?

Vladimir Putin:My family, the family that I lived in and that I was born into, my parents, my closest people. I think that everyone is shaped, primarily, by our closest surroundings. Naturally, the social situation around, the colleagues and as you have fairly noted that work in the intelligence service because it has strict discipline, strict ideology that primarily has to do with the defence of the interests of Motherland and that was the entire point of the intelligence service of the Soviet Union and I lived in that system for many years.

Anjana Om Kashyap: I watched in your interview when I think you were interacting with schoolchildren and one of the children asked you, a girl, I think, asked you what has been the most shattering experience of your life has been. And you said the disintegration of USSR. How did that affect you? And what is your vision of Russia?

Vladimir Putin:It had an impact in a sense that we always need to very carefully look at our every step and we need to understand the consequences of that. That’s number one.

Number two. It is very important not only for the former Soviet Union but it applies also to Russia. What was the conclusion that I came to? It is that the Soviet Union at a certain point of time was in such a state that its leadership and possibly even ordinary citizens always believed that it was so big, so great that nothing, ever, under any circumstances would happen to it. And this idea of grandeur is the point when a country starts to make one mistake after another, thinking that everything is alright: yes, we made a mistake here and it was a small failure there but we are so big that it will all pass, we’ll survive. And the number of mistakes grows like a snowball and it is getting harder to manage that. I see the same is happening with some other countries today. Therefore, I am keeping an eye…

Anjana Om Kashyap: Would you name them?

Vladimir Putin:No.

Anjana Om Kashyap: Let’s return to the USSR because you talked about one mistake was rolling into another. Whom to hold responsible for the situation? I mean, you are talking about people also thought that it would probably would never happen with us. They’ll never be in disintegration but I am sure you have seen Gorbachev as you saw Yeltsin went on. Whom to hold responsible? What was the phase in which decisively USSR was disintegrating, breaking up?

Vladimir Putin:I would not want to pin-point the guilty and who is to blame more. In general, it was the system that turned out not to be viable. We need to recognise that and we need to think about it. We should not look for specific culprits but we need to think how to create a system that will not simply protect itself but develop. That’s the point. And if such system is in place, it would be self-sufficient, autonomous and effective.

Geeta Mohan: How are you looking at reintegration then?

Vladimir Putin:Reintegration of what? Of the Soviet Union.

Geeta Mohan: Yes, of the Soviet Union.

Vladimir Putin:No, of course not, that’s simply not on the table. We do not have such a goal and it won’t make any sense. There is also a question of rationale. It does not make sense in current circumstances because it would critically change the national and religious composition of the Russian Federation. It does not make sense.

Mohan: You should say about it to some Western newspapers constantly writing about how you really want the old Soviet Union back because that’s what they keep doing.

Vladimir Putin:I won’t tell it to them. You know why? Because they still do not want to listen to what I am saying. They want to listen to themselves only or they want to comment on what I am saying the way they like it.

Anjana Om Kashyap: You make a point. As Geeta said, they speak and they type a lot about you, that you are building empire back.

Vladimir Putin:Yes, they do that in order to scare their population. They abuse their monopoly in the global media. It is called manipulation of the public opinion and the goal is to justify their aggressive policy towards Russia. I don’t see another goal.

Anjana Om Kashyap: Then, if you are different, how would you, Vladimir Putin, summarise Vladimir Putin’s life and ideology?

Vladimir Putin: No, I think it is too early for me to summarise my life. I have some work ahead of me.

Geeta Mohan: I like it because we are going to talk about longevity but before there is a very important question. You are going to India. Prime Ministers of India had a huge, huge role to play in strengthening India-Russia ties. Who do you think in you span of being a leader of Russia really made that difference, since you have been in power enhancing India-Russia ties? Which of the prime ministers?

Vladimir Putin:Well, you have already asked me to characterise other leaders of other countries. I do not think it is very polite. You know, now we are working with Prime Minister of India, His Excellency Narendra Modi. Indeed, we have very trustworthy and friendly relations. He is a very reliable person. In that sense, I am speaking very sincerely. India got lucky. He lives India. I am talking to him and I know him. I hope he won’t be cross with me – I am just saying what I am seeing and what I am thinking. It is very pleasant to me to talk to such person, a person of integrity, you know. And that’s number one.

Number two, indeed, he is very sincere when it goes about strengthening Indian-Russian ties across the whole range of areas, especially crucial issues of economy and defence and humanitarian cooperation, development of hi-tech. It is very interesting to meet with him. He travelled here and we sat with him at my residence and we drank tea for the whole evening, and we discussed different topics. We simply had an interesting conversation purely like humans.

So I am looking forward to this meeting. I am sure it will be very interesting and useful.

Anjana Om Kashyap: I am sure he has this mutual admiration for you as well.

Quick question on the future because AI is the force to reckon with. You have your viewpoint on this. Do you think it is a force for chaos or it’s a force for good and where is Russia in this AI-weapon war?

Vladimir Putin:You know like any other achievement of progress it can be both good and evil. It’s clear that it’s cross-cutting technology that changes the life of an ordinary person and, of course, in the near future it will change the lives of the whole humanity. And those who will be the first to master this technology, use it most effectively would gain a tremendous benefit in the economy, in social sphere, in defence as well as in every sphere, in education, in science, healthcare, everywhere because the effective use of artificial intelligence in each of the spheres will have a multiplier effect for efficiency and productivity.

There are also challenges here and specialists know it fully well. The fact is that it is all based on processing major data sets, big data. Here comes personal data of people as well. That’s number one. And, naturally, we need to take steps to guarantee safety and protection, to ensure human rights in the widest sense of the word.

But here is yet another very important thing. It is that the people who have these databases, in essence, they can use their capacities, the capacities of the developing technologies to shape the world view of people.

Geeta Mohan: We are talking about future. You are talking about health also and you just spoke about health. There was a hot mighty moment between you and President Xi Jinping and it was reported very widely when you spoke about longevity and the stride of medicine by bio hacking. Do you think immortality is achievable?

Vladimir Putin:Everything has an end. Only God is eternal. We can extend longevity of life, one hundred percent, I am sure we can. Seventy seven years ago, average lifespan of a person in India was thirty one years and now it’s about seventy. That’s what healthcare does. In India, infant mortality was cut fourfold. We congratulate you.

These are all the results of the healthcare effort and if you use AI in healthcare and you use it to produce medical drugs, for example using genetic engineering and so on, that means it would have a tremendous effect. Nevertheless, everything comes to an end.

Anjana Om Kashyap: I would not like to mention you age but there have been recently a lot of gen-Z protests across the world.

How do you connect with the young generation? We have a lot of leaders who are looking now younger and younger and younger. How does this happen? And how do you connect with the young people in Russia?

Vladimir Putin:You know, there is nothing new here. In literature and in art, this topic of contradiction of the older generation and the younger generation, of fathers and sons in our classic literature, these images have always existed, fathers and sons. There is nothing new here.

You know what’s new? The technology: those messengers, Telegram and so on. They are used to influence the youth.

The younger generation, this generation is more or less the same. Young people are always more mobile, more radical. The younger people, a young person thinks that they are coming across this injustice and so on and no one saw it before them. And now they saw that and they will tell it to everyone around, and they think that these injustices are very easy to deal with, they can be easily solved.

And when a person becomes more mature, he or she is trying to change something, it turns out that they start to understand that it’s possible to find the solution but it’s not as easy as it seemed at first glance.

Therefore, we need to work with people. We can’t just say that you are just young, you don’t understand anything, you are just sitting there in your homes; it does not work like that. You need to always keep in touch with young people and to use their tools, their devices of obtaining information, to use feedback, social networks and so on. You need to work there.

And I am sure that you partly do that. I’d like to wish you every success.

Geeta Mohan: Mr. President, we would spend hours talking but we are reaching the end of our conversation with you.

You just mentioned religion a while ago and the Orthodox Church, a very important aspect. I have travelled to Moscow a few times now and every time you are coming here around Christmas, it is unbelievably lit, unbelievable to see how beautiful Moscow as a city looks like.

Anjana Om Kashyap: I am for the first time here.

Geeta Mohan: That’s why she was surprised, it was better than any European city.

But religion does play a very important role now. How do you see spirituality when it comes to the morality question and leadership, to the Russian society and for you personally?

Vladimir Putin:Well, that’s the foundation. We always turn to our traditional values as we call them, at least that’s what we have been doing lately.

This does not mean that we use these traditional values to just sit idly, this is simply the foundation that we feel very solid on but we need to look forward, naturally, we need to develop and use all modern means of development. And only with that, using our basic fundamental values and vision of the future, that’s the only way to efficiently achieve the goals that we are setting for ourselves. And that’s the way we have shaped or formulated our goals – the goals of national development.

I would really like our national goals and the goals of India shaped by government of India headed by Prime Minister Modi, I would really hope that they coincide so we could join efforts and achieve maximum result.

Anjana Om Kashyap:Welcome with open heart to India and we look forward to whatever it comes out of the meetings.

But I don’t know how much of Hindi films or songs you’ve ever heard. There is a song that was very popular in Russia “Sar pē lāl ṭōpī Rūsī, phir bhī dil hai Hindustānī”. Actually, it just means there is red cap on the head, you are wearing a red Russian hat but the heart is Indian. It was very popular even in Russia, a lot of people knew about it.

Anything that you wanted to say about India, Indian society and Indian culture? And what is your message to all Indians, who like you a lot and who would want to listen to what Mr. Putin has to say to them.

Vladimir Putin:You’ve just mentioned the Indian culture and the Russian culture. You know I think that we have a lot of citizens in the Russian Federation also having notion of Indian culture as about a fairy tale, a beautiful, bright, colourful fairy tale. From the time of the Soviet Union, people here like Indian movies and Indian music. I would even say that certain known people from Russian society have a cult of the Indian culture and I like that very much because I think that it is, as they say, from heart to heart.

And we’ll be doing everything in our power so that this interest would not lose its spark. I would like people in India to know that.

Anjana Om Kashyap: Mr President, we are very thankful to you for this very open interview that we had with you and the best part, I think, of this entire interview is that we touched everything we talked about. Everything but this is a bond, India-Russia bond, it’s a friendship that is to be cherished forever, there are seasonal friendships but there are friendships that last a lifetime. It means a classic vintage and let’s see what comes out of it.

We are very thankful to you for this interview.

Geeta Mohan: You watched the interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The interview was conducted by Aaj Tak and India Today. We discussed Russia. Russia will not be isolated and it will protect its interests. And it says that it would make part of the developed world but not part of any society like G8.

India and the whole world are looking at you. Thank you, Mr President.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you.

Conversation with journalists and executives of Aaj Tak and India Today TV channels

2025-12-07T11:09:51+04:00

After the interview, Vladimir Putin had a conversation with presenters and executives of the India Today Group media conglomerate.

Vice Chairperson of India Today Group Kalli Purie: We’re for the first time in Russia – at least I am. The city is just breathtaking. I've been all over the world, but nothing like this has ever caught my eye before. It feels like I'm in a fairy tale.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: You should stay here for two weeks, then you'll truly feel that you're in a fairy tale. Then, really, the city will be fully decorated for Christmas and the New Year. We're only getting started now.

Kalli Purie: Like a Fabergé egg – you open one up and there's a surprise inside.

Vladimir Putin: Moscow looks beautiful, and it's one of the best megacities in the world now. And definitely, you must visit other major Russian cities too. I recommend St Petersburg because that's where I grew up. It's also a unique place.

Kalli Purie: I am surprised, I admit, and feel slightly guilty. In some ways we were exposed to Western propaganda, and I did not expect what I saw in Russia and especially in Moscow… We expected sanctions; we expected people wouldn't be so friendly nor speak English. But everything turned out completely different from how I imagined.

Vladimir Putin: Your ladies constantly pushed me towards expressing anti-Western sentiments, but I tried to keep things balanced.

Anjana Om Kashyap: When you began speaking about not giving characteristics to your colleagues…

Vladimir Putin: I believe the Western community can only be pitied these days. Honestly. They've cornered themselves into numerous dead ends in many areas. Who’s against protecting the environment? Everyone supports it!

I mean, political elites began speculating on issues that concern people. Is the environment important? It is very important. Is the climate changing? It is. Does this bother us? Yes, it does a lot. The question is, ”What do we do about it?“ Some political circles started speculating by saying, ”We’ll offer you a solution.“ But which one? Abandon traditional energy sources entirely, switch everyone over to wind, solar, or other forms of generation. That’s good, but it takes time, requires a lot of investment in new technologies. How will people live in many Asian countries, Africa? How? We must take things step-by-step, invest money in new technologies.

Geeta Mohan: Do you work on projects like this?

Vladimir Putin: Of course, we do.

Geeta Mohan: Rejecting fossil fuel sources?

Vladimir Putin: We’re not rejecting them; we’re developing new technologies and gradually changing things, yes. But that takes time and huge investments. Countries with insufficient level of economic development do not have these resources – they can’t invest in new types of energy. So what should they do? And the West imposes restrictive measures on them and says, ”Do whatever you want.“ In essence, this is a new form of neo-colonialism.

It’s quite obvious, but we just can’t allow it. We need to establish some common rules.

They [the Western countries] simply stalemate themselves. They shut down nuclear power plants, coal production, everything. How are they supposed to live? Now they have to open them again because cheap Russian gas isn’t available anymore—so everything is being launched again, all types of energy generation.

You know, over decades they have been constantly accusing us of being aggressive. Every issue, western countries try to resolve through some kind of pressure or by using force – military, political, or economic. That is the use of force in international affairs, exactly. That’s what it is.

Anjana Om Kashyap: They even take pride that they don’t recognise climate change. The US President declared that liberals had invented the myth about climate change.

Vladimir Putin: Partly he is right – it's not a myth, but an abuse of these processes for political purposes. He is absolutely right here, I agree with him.

Yet it requires coordinated, fair and honest work. If someone wants other countries to adopt cutting-edge technologies, then give them money, invest. Otherwise, don't impose restrictions on their goods.

Geeta Mohan: You met at CCC, the climate change conference, three of you together: there was Trump, you and Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince bin Salman. It was quite a rare occasion.

Vladimir Putin: All countries do this one way or another, we do too. We have our own programme for modern renewable energy sources in several areas. In fact, Russia has one of the most environment-friendly energy systems in the world. Because we have vast resources in hydroelectricity, nuclear power, and gas energy, which is considered to be the ‘greenest’ one among hydrocarbons.

Let me say that the use of coal is growing in Europe now, there's no reason for them to criticise other nations for doing the same.

Comment: That's true.

Anjana Om Kashyap: You have a great sense of humour.

Founder of India Today Group Aroon Purie: Can I ask you one question?

Vladimir Putin: Sure.

Aroon Purie: You've been leading the Russian Federation for over 20–25 years and faced numerous crises. Do you regret anything? Looking back, would you do something in a different way?

Vladimir Putin: It's a traditional question, indeed, but, I think looking back and thinking that I would have done this or that differently, so to say, doesn’t make any sense. What’s done is done.

Overall… Well, you know, there's one general rule that I consider to be my rule – it's well-known: I try to do what I consider not just necessary, but something I have no right not to do, no matter what.

Comment: Great principal.

Vladimir Putin: Well, I don’t know how great it is, but it’s a sort of my inner rule that just came up in my life on its own. So to say, I do what I have no right not to do. That’s the most important thing.

Kalli Purie: We’ve been watching you for three days now, and we saw that you worked tirelessly exactly like our Prime Minister. Do you ever have a rest? Are you planning to have some rest on the New Year or Christmas holidays?

President Vladimir Putin: Who has worked in the intelligence agency, me or you? You have been watching me for three days.

Geeta Mohan: Thank you very much.

Can we have a photo with you?

(Taking a photo.)

Greetings on 20th anniversary of RT TV channel

2025-10-17T13:43:01+04:00

In a conversation with presenter Salam Mosafir, Vladimir Putin extended greetings to RT staff on the 20th anniversary of the network.

Salam Musafir: We are going to celebrate our channel's anniversary. Russia Today has become a major holding. Some out there wanted to choke us, of course, but they failed. We are still in business, and people still watch and love us. Would you like to say, maybe, a few kind words about our work over these twenty years?

Vladimir Putin: Honestly, when this idea of creating Russia Today first came up, I could not have guessed that it would gain such scale, such quality and evolve in this way. Congratulations on the job.

You'll ask why I was in doubt. It's because it is not that easy to fit into an already established system of international global mass media. And then, indeed, quite surprisingly to me, Russia Today found its special niche, its own place. Amazingly, millions of people worldwide increasingly watch you, listen to you, follow what you and your colleagues on the channel have to say.

Sometimes I ask myself: why is it so? The answer is simple: because, despite all the pressure put on RT journalists, despite all kinds of bans, sanctions, administrative and financial restrictions, you say what you think. And this quite often disagrees with the so-called global media mainstream. But it is precisely this otherness, coupled with the professionalism with which you deliver information, the sincerity with which you do it, and the honesty, reliability, and objectivity of your information perceived by your viewers that wins their hearts, so that the audience is rapidly growing. I congratulate you on that, in the first place.

And now, the wishes. I wish you to follow this chosen path in future and share your views on key issues of the international agenda with millions of people all over the world. I believe that this is the point of your work and your life.

Congratulations on your success!

Interview to Xinhua News Agency

2025-08-29T21:06:38+04:00

Ahead of his official visit to the People’s Republic of China, Vladimir Putin gave a written interview to the Chinese news agency Xinhua.

Question: In May this year, President of the People's Republic of China Xi Jinping paid a state visit to Russia and took part in the celebrations marking the 80^th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War – a visit that proved highly successful. Your own visit to China is expected shortly. What are your expectations for the upcoming visit? Over the past decade, you and President Xi have maintained close contacts, shaping and guiding the steady development of bilateral relations. How would you describe President Xi Jinping as a leader?

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Indeed, the visit of our friend, President of China Xi Jinping, to Russia in May was a resounding success, drew wide international attention and was highly regarded in our country. His arrival coincided with a date that is sacred to us, the 80^th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War, thereby lending deep symbolic significance to the further development of Russian-Chinese relations. We reaffirmed the strategic choice of our peoples in favour of strengthening the traditions of good-neighbourliness, friendship, and long-term, mutually beneficial cooperation.

The Chinese leader was the principal guest of honour at the celebrations in Moscow. During our high-level talks, we held a very productive discussion of key issues in cooperation between our nations. The outcome was a comprehensive joint statement and the signing of a substantial package of bilateral documents.

Very soon, at the invitation of President Xi, I will pay a return visit to China. I greatly look forward to visiting the city of Tianjin, which will host the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit under China's presidency. We expect that the summit will give the Organisation powerful new momentum, strengthen its capacity to respond to contemporary challenges and threats, and enhance solidarity across our shared Eurasian space. All this will help shape a fairer multipolar world order.

As for the Russian-Chinese talks, these will take place in Beijing. I look forward to in-depth discussions with President Xi Jinping on all aspects of our bilateral agenda, including political and security cooperation, as well as economic, cultural and humanitarian ties. And, as always, we will exchange views on pressing regional and international issues.

In Beijing, we will also pay tribute to the shared act of heroism of our fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers, who together defeated militarist Japan, thereby bringing the Second World War to its final conclusion. We will honour the memory of those who sealed with their blood the brotherhood of our peoples, defended the freedom and independence of our states, and secured their right to sovereign development.

President Xi Jinping treats his country’s history with utmost respect; I know this from personal communication with him. He is a true leader of a great world power, a man of strong will, endowed with strategic vision and a global outlook, and unwavering in his commitment to national interests. It is of exceptional importance for China that such a person stands at the helm at this challenging, pivotal moment in international affairs. The President of China sets an example for the entire world of what a respectful and equitable dialogue with foreign partners can and should be today. In Russia, we deeply value the Chinese leader's genuine commitment to advancing our comprehensive partnership and strategic cooperation.

Question: China and the Soviet Union, as the principal battlegrounds of the Second World War in Asia and Europe, bore enormous sacrifices and made a significant contribution to victory in the global fight against fascism. In your view, what is the relevance of preserving the memory of that Victory in today's complex international environment? How should China and Russia jointly defend their shared historical memory at a time when some forces on the international stage are attempting to distort historical truth?

V.Putin: As I have already noted, this year, together with our Chinese friends, we commemorate the 80^th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War and the capitulation of militarist Japan, which marked the end of the Second World War.

The peoples of the Soviet Union and China bore the brunt of the fighting and suffered the heaviest losses. It was our citizens who endured the greatest hardships in the struggle against the invaders and played a decisive role in defeating Nazism and militarism. Through those severe trials, the finest traditions of friendship and mutual assistance were forged and strengthened – traditions that today form a solid foundation for Russian-Chinese relations.

I would remind you that even before the full-scale outbreak of the Second World War, in the 1930s, when Japan treacherously launched a war of aggression against China, the Soviet Union extended a helping hand to the Chinese people. Thousands of our career officers served as military advisers, assisting in strengthening the Chinese army and providing guidance in combat operations. Soviet pilots also fought bravely alongside their Chinese brothers-in-arms.

Between October 1937 and June 1941, the Soviet Union supplied China with 1,235 aircraft, thousands of artillery pieces, tens of thousands of machine guns, as well as ammunition, equipment, and supplies. The principal route was an overland corridor through Central Asia to China's Xinjiang Province, where Soviet specialists built a road in record time to ensure uninterrupted deliveries.

The historical record leaves no doubt as to the scale and ferocity of those battles. We remember the great significance of the famous Hundred Regiments Offensive, when Chinese Communist forces liberated a territory with a population of five million from Japanese occupation. We also recall the unparalleled feats of Soviet troops and commanders in their clashes with Japan at Lake Khasan and the Khalkhin Gol River. In the summer of 1939, our legendary commander Georgy Zhukov won his first major victory in the Mongolian steppes, which in effect foreshadowed the later defeat of the Berlin-Tokyo-Rome Axis. In 1945, the Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation played a decisive role in liberating northeast China, dramatically altering the situation in the Far East and making the capitulation of militarist Japan inevitable.

In Russia, we will never forget that China's heroic resistance was one of the crucial factors that prevented Japan from stabbing the Soviet Union in the back during the darkest months of 1941–1942. This enabled the Red Army to concentrate its efforts on crushing Nazism and liberating Europe. Close cooperation between our two countries was also an important element in forming the anti-Hitler coalition, strengthening China as a great power, and in the constructive discussions that shaped the post-war settlement and helped to reinvigorate the anti-colonial movement.

It is our sacred duty to honour the memory of our compatriots who displayed true patriotism and courage, endured all hardships, and defeated powerful and ruthless enemies. We pay deep respect to all veterans and those who gave their lives for the freedom of future generations and the independence of our countries. We are grateful to China for its careful preservation of memorials to Red Army soldiers who gave their lives in battles for the liberation of China.

Such a sincere and responsible attitude towards the past stands in stark contrast to the situation in some European countries, where monuments and graves of Soviet liberators are desecrated in a barbaric manner or destroyed, and inconvenient historical facts are erased.

We see that in certain Western states the results of the Second World War are de facto revised, and the verdicts of the Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals are openly disregarded. These dangerous tendencies stem from a reluctance to acknowledge the direct culpability of the predecessors of today's Western elites in unleashing the world war, and the desire to erase the shameful pages of their own history, thereby encouraging revanchism and neo-Nazism. Historical truth is being distorted and suppressed to suit their current political agendas. Japanese militarism is being revived under the pretext of imaginary Russian or Chinese threats, while in Europe, including Germany, steps are being taken towards the re-militarisation of the continent, with little regard for historical parallels.

Russia and China resolutely condemn any attempts to distort the history of the Second World War, glorify Nazis, militarists and their accomplices, members of death squads and killers, or to defame Soviet liberators. The results of that war are enshrined in the UN Charter and other international instruments. They are inviolable and not subject to revision. This is our shared, unwavering position with our Chinese friends.

The memory of the joint struggle of the Soviet and Chinese peoples against German Nazism and Japanese militarism is an enduring value for us. I would like to reiterate that the participation of President Xi Jinping in Russia's commemorations of the 80^th anniversary of the Great Victory carried profound symbolic importance. To mark the 80^th anniversary of the USSR's Victory in the Great Patriotic War, China's Victory in the War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression, and the founding of the United Nations, we signed a Joint Statement on Further Deepening the China–Russia Comprehensive Strategic Partnership of Coordination for a New Era. This document provides a consolidated response by our countries to attempts by certain states to dismantle humanity's historical memory and to replace the well-established principles of world order and dialogue forged after the Second World War with the so-called “rules-based order.”

Question: In recent years, practical cooperation between China and Russia in areas such as energy, agriculture, automotive manufacturing and infrastructure has produced positive results and brought about new breakthroughs, while bilateral trade has reached record levels. How do you assess the current state of Chinese-Russian practical cooperation? What are your plans for further promoting high-quality, mutually beneficial cooperation between China and Russia?

V.Putin: Economic relations between Russia and China have reached an unprecedented level. Since 2021, bilateral trade has grown by about 100 billion dollars. In terms of trade volume, China is by far Russia's leading partner, while last year Russia ranked fifth among China's foreign trade partners. I would stress that while trade figures are denominated in US dollar equivalents, transactions between Russia and China are carried out in rubles and yuan, with the dollar or euro share reduced to a statistical discrepancy.

Russia firmly retains its position as a leading exporter of oil and gas to China. Since the Power of Siberia pipeline began its operation in 2019, cumulative deliveries of natural gas have already exceeded 100 billion cubic metres. In 2027, we plan to launch another major gas route, the so-called Far Eastern Route. We are also working together effectively on LNG projects in Russia's Arctic region.

We continue our joint efforts to reduce bilateral trade barriers. In recent years, the export of pork and beef to China has been launched. Overall, agricultural and food products occupy a prominent place in Russia's exports to China.

Bilateral investment volumes are growing. Last year, Russia and China agreed to an updated Plan for Bilateral Investment Cooperation. This year, a new Agreement on the Promotion and Mutual Protection of Investments has been signed. Large-scale joint projects are being implemented in priority sectors.

Our countries are cooperating closely in industry. Russia is one of the world's principal markets for Chinese car exports. At the same time, production is being localised in Russia not only for Chinese cars but also for household appliances. Together, we are building high-tech manufacturing and infrastructure facilities. We also have large-scale plans in the construction materials industry.

To sum up, economic cooperation, trade and industrial collaboration between our countries are advancing across multiple areas. During my upcoming visit, we will certainly discuss further prospects for mutually beneficial cooperation and new steps to intensify it for the benefit of the peoples of Russia and China.

Question: This year marks the conclusion of the cross years of culture between China and Russia. During this period, our countries have developed extensive cooperation in education, cinema, theatre, tourism, and sports. How do you assess the results of Chinese-Russian cultural and humanitarian exchanges and cooperation? What prospects do you see for further promoting ties between the peoples of China and Russia?

V.Putin: Large-scale bilateral cultural and humanitarian initiatives make a significant contribution to fostering friendly relations. The Russian Year in China and the Chinese Year in Russia (2006–2007) were a great success. The subsequent themed years of languages, tourism, youth, media, regional cooperation, sport, science and innovation, launched successively from 2009 onwards, received broad public resonance.

Today, cultural exchanges between Russia and China continue to develop dynamically. The Russia-China Roadmap for Humanitarian Cooperation until 2030, which includes more than 100 major projects, is being consistently implemented.

I would particularly highlight the successful organisation of the Russia and China Years of Culture, held in 2024–2025 and timed to the 75^th anniversary of diplomatic relations between our countries. The rich and diverse programme met with an enthusiastic response both in Russia and China.

I would also note that the Russian side initiated the Intervision International Song Contest, scheduled for September 20 this year, and we are pleased that our Chinese partners have shown keen interest in this project.

Education and science remain especially promising areas for cooperation. Academic mobility and inter-university contacts continue to grow. Today, more than 51,000 Chinese students are studying in Russia, while 21,000 Russian students are studying in China. In May, President Xi and I agreed that 2026–2027 will be designated as the Russia-China Years of Education.

Cooperation in science, technology, and innovation is also expanding, including in fundamental research and megascience projects. For example, Moscow State University and Peking University plan to open a joint institute for fundamental research. We fully support the establishment of modern laboratories and advanced centres in priority high-tech fields to strengthen the technological sovereignty of Russia and China.

Film production is another vibrant area of cooperation. In February, the joint Russian-Chinese adventure film Red Silk premiered in Russia, and we expect it to reach Chinese audiences soon. In May, an Action Plan for Film Production was signed in Moscow. We anticipate the release of many new Russian-Chinese films in the near future: films that will promote sound moral principles and traditional spiritual and ethical values, while presenting truthful accounts of important historical events. To this end, we have also launched a new initiative, the Open Eurasian Film Award, a unique platform for cinema, free from bias or political intrigue.

Tourism is another important sphere I would like to note. The figures here are encouraging: by the end of 2024, mutual tourist flows had increased 2.5 times, reaching 2.8 million people.

Sports cooperation has also been productive. We are grateful to our Chinese partners for their active participation in international sporting events hosted by Russia, including the innovative Games of the Future, BRICS Games, and many others. The Chinese national team was among the largest delegations at these competitions. We firmly believe that sport should remain free from any politicisation.

Youth policy is another priority area.

We highly value the coordinated work of leading Russian and Chinese media, and our cooperation between archives plays an important role in preserving historical truth.

It is encouraging that bilateral cultural and humanitarian cooperation continues to gain momentum. This is undoubtedly a strategic dimension of our relationship, helping to build a broad public base of friendship, good-neighbourliness, and mutual understanding.

Question: The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), jointly established by China and Russia, serves as an important platform for comprehensive regional cooperation, crucial for ensuring peace, stability, and development across the Eurasian space. China holds the rotating SCO presidency for 2024–2025, and the 25^th SCO Heads of State Council meeting will soon take place in Tianjin. How do you assess the constructive role the SCO has played over more than two decades in maintaining regional peace and stability and promoting common development and prosperity? In your view, in which areas should member states further strengthen exchanges and cooperation?

V.Putin: The establishment of the SCO in 2001 embodied the shared aspiration of Russia, China, and the Central Asian states – Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan – to build trust, friendship, and good-neighbourly relations, and to promote peace and stability in the region.

Over the years, the SCO has developed a solid legal and institutional framework, creating mechanisms that enable effective cooperation in politics, security, trade and investment, as well as cultural and humanitarian exchanges. Since then, its membership has expanded to include India, Pakistan, Iran, and Belarus, while partner and observer countries, representing the political, economic, and cultural diversity of Eurasia, are also actively engaged in joint activities.

The SCO's appeal lies in its simple but powerful principles: a firm commitment to its founding philosophy, openness to equal cooperation, non-confrontation with third parties, and respect for the national characteristics and uniqueness of each nation.

Drawing on these values, the SCO contributes to shaping a fairer, multipolar world order, grounded in international law, with the central coordinating role of the United Nations. A major element of this global vision is the creation in Eurasia of an architecture of equal and indivisible security, including through close coordination among SCO member states. We view the Greater Eurasian Partnership, linking national development strategies, regional integration initiatives, and strengthening ties among the SCO, the Eurasian Economic Union, the CIS, ASEAN, and other international organisations, as the socio-economic foundation of this architecture.

I am confident that the Tianjin summit, along with the SCO Plus meeting, will mark an important milestone in the SCO's history. We fully support the priorities declared by the Chinese presidency, which focus on consolidating the SCO, deepening cooperation in all areas, and enhancing the organisation's role on the global stage. We attach particular importance to aligning this work with the practical measures taken under Russia's presidency of the SCO Heads of Government Council. I am confident that, through our joint efforts, we will give the SCO new momentum, modernising it to meet the demands of the time.

Question: As President Xi Jinping has repeatedly emphasised, China is ready to work hand in hand with Russia to strengthen mutual support across multilateral platforms, including the UN, the SCO, and BRICS, to safeguard the development and security interests of both nations, unite the Global South, and promote an international order that is fairer and more rational. How do you assess cooperation between China and Russia within these multilateral frameworks? In your view, in which areas can China and Russia set new benchmarks in global governance, particularly with regard to emerging fields such as climate change, artificial intelligence governance, and reform of the global security architecture?

V.Putin: Cooperation between Russia and China in multilateral formats is a key pillar of our bilateral relations and plays a major role in global affairs. Time and again, our exchanges on critical international issues have shown that Moscow and Beijing share broad common interests and strikingly similar views on fundamental questions. We are united in our vision of building a just, multipolar world order, with a focus on the nations of the Global Majority.

The Russia-China strategic partnership acts as a stabilising force. As the two leading powers in Eurasia, we cannot remain indifferent to the challenges and threats facing our continent and the wider world. This issue is a constant focus of our bilateral political dialogue. Russia's concept of creating a common space of equal and indivisible security in Eurasia resonates closely with President Xi Jinping's Global Security Initiative.

The interaction between Russia and China at the UN is at an unprecedentedly high level, fully reflecting the spirit of comprehensive partnership and strategic cooperation. Both countries attach special importance to the Group of Friends in Defence of the UN Charter, a vital mechanism for consolidating the Global South. Among its key achievements is the resolution “Eradication of colonialism in all its forms and manifestations,” adopted by the UN General Assembly on December 4, 2024.

Russia and China support reform of the UN so that it fully restores its authority and reflects modern realities. In particular, we advocate for making the Security Council more democratic by including states from Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Any such reforms must, however, be approached with the utmost care.

Close cooperation between Moscow and Beijing has positively shaped the work of leading economic forums, including the G20 and APEC. Within the G20, together with like-minded nations, and especially BRICS members, we have redirected the agenda towards issues of real importance to the Global Majority, strengthened the format by including the African Union, and deepened the synergies between the G20 and BRICS.

This year, our South African friends hold the G20 presidency. As a result of their efforts, we look forward to consolidating the Global South's achievements and establishing them as a foundation for the democratisation of international relations. Within APEC, China's chairmanship in 2026 is expected to give fresh impetus to Russia-China engagement.

We are working closely with China within BRICS to expand its role as a key pillar of global architecture. Together, we advance initiatives aimed at expanding economic opportunities for member states, including the creation of common platforms for partnership in strategic sectors. We are paying special attention to mobilising additional resources for critical infrastructure projects. We stand united in strengthening BRICS' ability to address pressing global challenges, share similar views on regional and international security, and take a common stand against discriminatory sanctions that hinder the socioeconomic development of BRICS members and the world at large.

Alongside our Chinese partners, we support the reform of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. We are united in the view that a new financial system must be based on openness and true equity, providing equal and non-discriminatory access to its tools for all countries and reflecting the real standing of member states in the global economy. It is essential to end the use of finance as an instrument of neo-colonialism, which runs counter to the interests of the Global Majority. On the contrary, we seek progress for the benefit of all humanity. I am confident that Russia and China will continue to work together towards this noble goal, aligning our efforts to ensure the prosperity of our great nations.

Answers to questions from journalist Pavel Zarubin

2025-02-25T13:39:54+04:00

Pavel Zarubin: Mr President, we have just watched your meeting on rare-earth metals. Forgive me, but I believe that right now, all journalists around the world are interested in rare-earth metals, although in a slightly different context. The United States, and I will put it mildly, is strongly urging Zelensky to sign an agreement with the US regarding these resources as payment for the aid Ukraine received from the former administration, the Biden administration. In your opinion, what are the prospects of such an agreement?

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: That has nothing to do with us. I do not have an opinion, nor do I even want to think about it. Of course, these resources should be evaluated – whether they exist, what is their amount, how much are they worth, and so on. But, again, that is not our concern.

Our concern is what we have just discussed during the meeting. Rare and rare-earth metals are crucial resources for modern industries. So far, we have not done enough in this area, and we need to do more. The purpose of the meeting today was to direct administrative resources to developing this sector in the initial phase.

By the way, we would be open to cooperation with our American partners – and when I say “partners” I mean not only administrative and government agencies but also private companies – as long as they show interest in working together.

It is important to emphasise that Russia possesses significantly – I want to stress this – significantly larger resources of this kind than Ukraine. Russia is one of the uncontested leaders when it comes to rare and rare-earth metal reserves. We have deposits in the north, in Murmansk, and in the Caucasus, in Kabardino-Balkaria, as well as in the Far East, in the Irkutsk Region, in Yakutia and Tuva. Developing these resources requires substantial capital investment. We would be happy to cooperate with any foreign partners, including American companies.

The same is true for the new territories: we are open to foreign partnerships. Our historical territories that have become part of the Russian Federation again also hold certain reserves. We are ready to work there with international partners, including Americans.

Pavel Zarubin: In the new regions too?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, of course.

Pavel Zarubin: We are seeing an avalanche of statements and debates these days, with everyone discussing Trump and why he is so adamant that Zelensky must hold elections and that his approval rating is just at four percent. There has been a lot of criticism among the Europeans regarding Trump’s statements. Some even believe that the current stance of the US President is actually playing into Russia’s hands. Do you believe this is actually the case?

Vladimir Putin: I think this is absolutely not the case. I have my own point of view on that and it runs counter to what you have just said.

In fact, the person who currently stands at the helm of the Kiev regime is becoming a toxic figure for the Ukrainian armed forces. He issues clumsy, poorly thought-out orders guided by a political agenda instead of military imperatives, and it is unclear where they are coming from. This results in huge losses for the Ukrainian army that cannot be justified, or should I say, to major or catastrophic losses. He is also becoming increasingly toxic for society in general. Today’s vote in the Rada on extending his powers proves this point, as far as I can judge.

Finally, he has boxed himself into a corner by signing an order banning peace treaty talks with the Russian Federation. He was the one who stopped these talks. What is this all about? What this means is that he evades talks. Why? Because once the talks begin, sooner or later, and probably quite quickly, they will bring about an end to martial law. Once this happens, he will have to hold an election. In that case, there will be no grounds for not holding an election anymore, since martial law currently serves as a pretext for not holding an election. But if you initiate the talks and they quickly bring about an end to martial law, this means that you need to hold an election right away. The current head of the regime has a problem with that.

Why? His approval rating, be it four percent or any other number, does not matter all that much. What matters is that his approval ratings – and according to the information at our disposal this is objective data – is exactly half that of his closest potential political rival. I am referring to Mr Zaluzhny, the former commander of the Ukrainian Armed Forces who was sent, or should I say exiled, to London. His approval rating is twice as high as that of the current regime leader.

Once we consider the possibility that other political leaders, including former prime ministers and presidents, may support Zaluzhny’s possible candidacy, it becomes clear that the current regime leader will stand absolutely no chance of winning an election. His chances are zero – unless, of course, he blatantly rigs the election in one way or another, which would also be detrimental for him since everyone would be able to see through these attempts.

This is why he has become a destabilising factor for the army, society and the state. I am certain that the current US President, Mr Trump, understands this, which explains why he has been pushing the head of the Kiev regime to hold elections. As I see it, Trump’s goal is to restore political stability in Ukraine, consolidate society and enable the Ukrainian state to survive. Overall, this benefits Ukraine more than Russia, since our conflict is with the current regime, not the country itself.

All other things aside, the current [US] President has openly stated that he wants to achieve peace. By the way, this is something we want too, and the quicker this happens, the better. But the current [Ukrainian] regime leader stands in the way of achieving this goal. That, in my view, is the reasoning behind Trump’s position. It is not about advancing Russia’s interests. But it probably serves the interests of Ukraine, Ukrainian statehood and could help preserve it. We have no objection to that, even if we do not want this territory to be used as a launchpad for aggression against the Russian Federation, or as a hostile outpost targeting us. At the end of the day, we want it to evolve into a friendly neighbourly state.

Pavel Zarubin: Every day we hear many different statements from Trump. You have met with him more than once and you had a telephone conversation with him just recently. Do you think he is driven by his emotions?

Vladimir Putin: Of course not. Naturally, the current leader of the Kiev regime gives him plenty of reasons to express emotions. But based on what I have just said, a different picture emerges: his actions are not driven by emotions but rather by cold calculation and a rational assessment of the situation.

It may sound strange but frankly, in this situation, we would be interested in him staying in power and continuing to weaken the regime with which we are involved in an armed conflict. However, if the goal is to strengthen Ukrainian statehood, then a different approach is needed – bringing to power those who have the trust of the Ukrainian people.

Pavel Zarubin: In your opinion, do European leaders realise the current dynamics around Ukraine?

Vladimir Putin: You would have to ask them. But judging by their actions, I do not believe they fully grasp the situation. More importantly, unlike the US President, European political leaders are deeply entangled with the Kiev regime. They have made too many statements and promises and now, frankly speaking, it is very difficult or almost impossible for them to backtrack without losing face. Given that they are also facing internal political challenges, including elections, re-elections, parliamentary struggles, and so on, changing their stance is practically unthinkable in these circumstances.

In contrast, the newly-elected President of the United States, has far more freedom of action. He is not bound by past commitments that would prevent him from moving forward and working towards a resolution of this conflict. His direct and unrestrained approach reflects his character. He is in a unique position: not only does he say what he thinks but he says whatever he wants. And that, after all, is a privilege of a leader of a major global power.

Pavel Zarubin: Several days ago in St Petersburg, I asked you a question about everyone’s desire these days to have some kind of say in Russia-US talks, with Europeans insisting and demanding to be able to weigh in on the Ukraine talks.

What do you think about it?

Vladimir Putin: I do not think there is anything wrong with that. But no one can make demands in this situation – certainly not of Russia. Let them submit their demands and requests to someone else. In fact, they have been making demands from their vassals for thousands of years, but now they are the ones facing demands. So let them stay home and keep their demands to themselves so that they can think it over and understand how they got where they are today.

However, it is important that they take part in the negotiating process, of course. As for us, we have never turned down anyone’s requests. In fact, we kept the conversation going with them at all times. But then came a point when they came up with this far-fetched and illusionary idea of defeating Russia on the battlefield. So they were the ones who rejected all contacts with us. Should they wish to come back, we would only welcome it.

I observed the response to my telephone conversation with the US President, and I saw the response to the high-level meeting in Riyadh. It was emotional and devoid of any common sense. Why? Because in order to resolve challenging and urgent matters, including on the Ukrainian track, Russia and the United States must make the first step.

What will it be about? This first step must consist of increasing the level of trust between our two nations. This is what we focused on in Riyadh, and this will be the focus for the possible upcoming high-level contacts. Otherwise, it would be impossible to address any issues, including the Ukraine crisis with all its challenges and urgency.

But what do Europeans have to do with this? This is a matter of bilateral Russia-US relations. What role do Europeans see for themselves here? What can they contribute? Yes, the Ukraine crisis was mentioned in both the telephone conversation and at the Riyadh meeting, but without discussing its substance. All we did was agree to move in this direction. In this sense, of course, we do not deny European countries the right to be part of this process.

Let me emphasise that we also respect the position of our BRICS friends, who have established the Friends of Peace group. I talked to the President of the People’s Republic of China today, and we discussed this too. He informed me that the Friends of Peace group will hold another meeting in New York soon to discuss this agenda.

Not only do we welcome these efforts, but we are also grateful to all our partners who have been raising these issues and want to bring about a peace deal. Why am I saying this? This is not just about the Europeans – other countries also have the right to and can participate in this process, and we respect that.

Pavel Zarubin: May I ask you to comment on a few more statements made by President Trump, which, as I mentioned earlier, are many.

Vladimir Putin: Not all of them, alright?

Pavel Zarubin: Not all. For example, he said he wanted to propose to you and the head of China to cut the defence budgets in half. What do you think about this idea?

Vladimir Putin: I am aware, or I think I know where it comes from. It is likely based on the calculations by a British think tank, which calculated our respective spending in terms of purchasing power parity. Last year, the United States had, I think, US$968 billion, and if you put Russia and China’s spending together, it will roughly add up to the same amount. Russia’s and China’s spending combined add up to what the United States is spending.

First, we need to run the numbers. The British calculations may be correct, or may be not too correct, or not correct at all. They need to be looked at closely. This is my first point.

Second, I am not in a position to comment on how the People’s Republic of China would feel about this. The US side tried different approaches regarding strategic offensive weapons and other critical matters. So, this is a matter for the People’s Republic of China to decide on. However, we could come to an agreement with the United States, we are not against it. I think this is a good idea: the United States would cut their spending by 50 percent, and we would cut ours by 50 percent. The People’s Republic of China could then join in if it wants to. We think this is a good proposal, and we are open to discussing it.

Pavel Zarubin: President Trump also imposed 25-percent tariffs on aluminium and steel imports from all countries without exception. Our aluminium business with the United States used to be quite extensive. What do you think of this trade policy?

Vladimir Putin: I am not going to comment on the US trade policy, since it has been driven by sanctions for many years now. We believe sanctions are illegal and harm global trade and economy. I believe sanctions are bad for us and those who impose them.

With regard to trade policy, higher rates, tariffs and so on, each country decides for itself what is good for it and what is not. I can understand the logic behind it. They want to bring the manufacturers into the country, to create new jobs, and to have them pay taxes to all levels of the taxation system, and so on. Without a doubt, at some point, these actions will run into certain difficulties caused by inflationary pressure, higher costs of goods, and so on. Experts are well aware of this, and they can provide every detail of how it works.

As regards aluminium, in 2017, I think, about 15 percent of US [aluminium] imports came from Russia. If memory serves, the United States produces about 60 percent of the aluminium it needs, and imports the remaining 40 percent, of which 15 percent used to come from the Russian Federation. The main importer today is Canada.

If a decision is made to open the US market to our producers, we could sell about two million tonnes on the US market, which would not drastically affect prices, but, I think, would still have a restraining influence on prices.

In addition, and what is most importantly, in my opinion, we could think about working together with US companies in this area. For example, back in Soviet times, there were plans to build a new hydroelectric power plant and to create additional aluminium production facilities in the Krasnoyarsk Territory. After all, aluminium is, first of all, about energy, preferably cheap energy. Hydropower is cheap and environmentally friendly.

To reiterate, such plans have been in place since the Soviet times. However, these are capital- and investment-intensive projects. In today's money, according to preliminary estimates, they will cost around 15 billion. We can think about it.

Indeed, the US President’s policy is to deploy production facilities in the United States. But if the US companies come to work in Russia, it will also benefit them greatly, because the companies will turn decent profit, and the corresponding amounts of aluminium will be supplied to their domestic market at absolutely acceptable market prices. There are things to ponder in this area, as well as in our potential joint work on rare and rare-earth metals and other areas, including, for example, energy.

Pavel Zarubin: I just read the latest news coming from the United States: President Trump said the United States and Russia were discussing major economic projects as part of Ukraine talks.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, some of our respective companies are in contact and are discussing such projects.

Pavel Zarubin: Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you.

Answers to questions from journalist Pavel Zarubin

2025-01-24T20:53:28+04:00

Pavel Zarubin: Mr President, newly inaugurated President Trump has made multiple statements about a possible meeting with you and prospects for a Ukrainian settlement. I would like to know what you think about this

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Indeed, the US President has made many statements to this effect.

My first point is that Russia has never turned down contacts with the US administration, and it is not our fault that the previous administration chose not to establish such contacts. I have always had business-like, strictly business-like, but at the same time pragmatic and trust-based, I would say, relationships with the current President of the United States.

I cannot but agree with him that if he had been President, if his victory had not been stolen from him in 2020, then maybe there would not have been the Ukraine crisis that broke out in 2022. However, it is a known fact that when he was the 45^th President of the United States, he imposed a significant number, the largest number of restrictions, sanctions on Russia. I do not think that decision was in the best interests of Russia, or the United States. By the way, Biden picked up the baton and imposed even more restrictions on us. We are all aware of the results: a lot of those decisions were detrimental to the economy of the United States itself.

For example, the power of the US dollar was undermined, because Russia’s ban on using the US dollar is causing serious damage to the United States itself. We did not refuse to use the US dollar. The previous administration prevented us from using it as a unit of payment. But I will not go into that now. All I can say is that we hear the current President say he is ready to work together. We remain open to that.

Regarding talks about Ukraine, we have consistently made it clear, and I wish to underscore it one more time, we remain open to them. Here, too, certain matters need our particular attention.

For instance, it is well known that back when he was a fairly legitimate head of state, the current leader of the Kiev regime issued an executive order prohibiting talks. How can talks be resumed now that they have been outlawed?

This meeting is taking place in the building of Moscow University. As you may be aware, I am a trained lawyer. I graduated from the law department of St Petersburg University, formerly Leningrad University. I can tell you that if talks begin based on the existing legal framework, they would be, strictly speaking, illegitimate, meaning that the outcomes of such talks could likewise be declared illegitimate.

The current Kiev regime appears quite content to receive hundreds of billions from its benefactors and – excuse me for using this homely phrase – to pig out on this money like there is no tomorrow. However, it shows little haste in acting on the instructions issued by its sponsors – and we know that they have indeed issued such instructions – to rescind the executive order banning talks.

Nonetheless, I am of the opinion that, ultimately, those who provide the funding should compel him to act, and I believe he will have no choice but to comply. Until this executive order is rescinded, it is rather difficult to talk about starting and, more importantly, finishing these talks in a proper way. Preliminary plans may, indeed, be outlined, but engaging in serious talks remains a particularly difficult proposition, especially considering the ban imposed by the Ukrainian side.

Overall, we may have quite a few common points with the current administration and we could jointly look for solutions to the key issues of today, including strategic stability and the economy, by the way. Why? Just because we are among the world’s largest producers of, let’s say, oil; the United States is the leading producer followed by Saudi Arabia and Russia.

What makes the Russian and, let’s say, the US economy stand out? We are not just among the largest energy producers, we are also among the largest energy consumers, which means overly high prices are bad for both our economies, because energy is used to produce other goods inside the country. Overly low prices are bad, too, because they undermine the energy companies’ investment potential. We have things to discuss. There are other issues in the energy sector that may be of mutual interest.

By the way, in this sense, I doubt that the current US President, Mr Trump – to reiterate, we worked together when he was president the first time – will make any decisions, even though we hear words about the possibility of imposing more sanctions on Russia, I still doubt that he will make decisions that will be bad for the US economy. He is not just a smart person, but he is also a pragmatic person. And I have a hard time picturing him make decisions that will cause harm to the US economy.

So, indeed, it makes sense for us to meet based on the realities of today, to sit down and discuss without haste the areas that are of interest to the United States and Russia. We are ready to do that. But, again, this, first of all, depends on the decisions and choices of the current US administration.

Interview to Mongolian Onoodor Newspaper

2024-09-01T16:40:22+04:00

Ahead of his visit to Mongolia, Vladimir Putin gave a written interview to the Mongolian Onoodor Newspaper.

Question: During your visit to Mongolia on the occasion of the 80^thanniversary of the victory in the Battle of Khalkhin Gol, you highlighted the long history of mutually beneficial relations and friendship between our countries and signed a Treaty on Comprehensive Strategic Partnership. What is your assessment of the treaty implementation? Have there been any changes in the relationship between our countries over the past two years?

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Shortly before my next visit to friendly Mongolia, I would like to share my vision of the history, current state and the future of bilateral relations on the pages of your authoritative newspaper.

I would like to point out from the outset that the development of comprehensive and mutually beneficial partnership with Mongolia, our close neighbour and old friend, has always been and remains among the priorities of Russia’s foreign policy in Eurasia.

Our states and peoples are linked by decades of fruitful cooperation in nearly all areas. I would like to remind that our country was the first in the world to recognise Mongolia’s independence in 1921 and for a long time remained the only guarantor of its sovereignty and security. During the summer of 1939 – a critical period for Mongolia – the USSR, which remained committed to its duty as an ally under the Protocol on Mutual Assistance of March 12, 1936, immediately responded to the Mongolian government's request for assistance in repelling the Japanese aggression in the battles on the river Khalkin Gol. Over 10,000 Red Army soldiers and commanders sacrificed their lives in that battle for Mongolia’s freedom and independence. I would like to take this opportunity to commend the noble and selfless labour of Russian and Mongolian volunteers who continue their work today to identify and bury the remains of the fallen heroes.

Symbolically, the new interstate treaty, which formalised our bilateral relations as those of comprehensive strategic partnership, was signed on September 3, 2019, in Ulaanbaatar on the sidelines of the events marking the 80^th anniversary of our joint victory over the Japanese militarists at Khalkhin Gol. I am planning to take part in the upcoming anniversary celebrations in your capital these days.

Our rich and multifaceted common history is reflected in other landmark dates that we celebrate this year: the 75^th anniversary of the flagship project of our economic cooperation, the Ulaanbaatar Railway, the 65^th anniversary since the beginning of the development of virgin lands in Mongolia involving Soviet specialists, and the 50^th anniversary of the founding of the city of Erdenet. Of course, the Russian people remember with gratitude the support Mongolia offered us during the Great Patriotic War and commemorates joint battles to defeat the Kwantung Army in the summer of 1945.

Today, Russia and Mongolia further develop the invaluable traditions of friendship, good neighbourliness and mutual assistance. For instance, this year alone, Russia has supplied over 8,500 tonnes of grain forage to Mongolian livestock farms affected by severe colds and snowfalls, and the Mongolian Government has allocated funding to mitigate the aftermath of the floods in the Ural area.

It is important that our bilateral partnership in all key areas is progressing at a good pace. Political contacts, cooperation in the sphere of defence and security, interaction between parliaments, parties and public organisations, humanitarian exchanges, cross-border and interregional ties are developing successfully.

In recent years, we have been working on a number of new promising economic and industrial projects, including the construction of the Trans-Mongolian gas pipeline connecting Russia and China, works to modernise and increase the performance of the Ulaanbaatar Railway joint venture, the Rosneft Corporation’s fuel supplies for the fuelling complex at the new Chinggis Khaan international airport, and the renovation of TPP-3 in Ulaanbaatar with the participation of INER RAO – Export.

We always respond to our Mongolian friends’ requests for assistance in meeting the growing needs for fuel and lubricants at preferential prices. Work is underway to finalise a corresponding intergovernmental agreement.

With Russia's involvement, in less than a year, significant progress has been made in drafting a temporary free trade agreement between the Eurasian Economic Union and Mongolia, which makes it possible to increase the supply of goods from your traditional export list to the markets of Eurasian Economic Union member states.

I will add that we have always paid special attention to providing training for Mongolian specialists. This year alone, Russia has allocated 620 state-funded places for Mongolian students at Russian universities. We know that the interest of the Mongolian youth in Russian education has traditionally been high. It is certainly important that you love and learn the Russian language in Mongolia, and that the system of teaching the Russian language has been well developed over many decades. This has offered and continues to offer great opportunities for learning, expanding business, scientific and cultural ties with Russia and the CIS countries.

Everything I have mentioned, along with many other things, is part of our joint efforts with our Mongolian friends to implement the provisions of the Treaty on Comprehensive Strategic Partnership. I am convinced that constructive cooperation between Russia and Mongolia will grow more substantial and multifaceted and serve for the benefit of our peoples.

Question: During the Economic Forum held in Davos in January 2024, Prime Minister of Mongolia Oyun-Erdene Luvsannamsrain emphasised the importance of holding a Russia–Mongolia–China trilateral summit. However, in July 2024, a trilateral meeting was held at the level of foreign ministers. Can we expect a trilateral meeting of the heads of state in the near future?

Vladimir Putin: Ten years ago, together with our Chinese counterparts, we supported the Mongolian initiative to establish a Russia–Mongolia–China trilateral cooperation mechanism. On September 11, 2014, the first such summit was held in Dushanbe on the sidelines of the meeting of the SCO Heads of State Council.

Over the past years, we have laid a solid foundation to underpin the development of comprehensive mutually beneficial cooperation. In 2015, together with our colleagues, we approved the relevant ‘roadmap’ to cover virtually all key areas: politics, the economy, science and technology, education and culture, and foreign policy issues. In 2016, our relevant national agencies signed the China–Mongolia–Russia Economic Corridor programme, which seeks primarily to maximise the unique transit potential of your country and create the environment to achieve synergy between the Eurasian Economic Union, the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative, and the Mongolian Steppe Road Initiative.

Following the forced pause caused by the coronavirus pandemic, on September 15, 2022, our sixth in-person summit took place in Samarkand. Since then, for technical reasons related to the mismatch of working schedules, we failed to hold another summit. However, we believe that this mechanism is highly important and relevant. Russia is certainly interested in pursuing substantive work in this trilateral format.

Question: Will Russia put forward any proposals or initiatives to make the China–Mongolia–Russia Economic Corridor and the Power of Siberia 2 gas pipeline project more beneficial for Mongolia's economy and infrastructure development?

Vladimir Putin: I am convinced that progress in bilateral, let alone trilateral, cooperation can only be achieved if it is beneficial to all the parties involved.

As you know, the initiative to create the Russia–Mongolia–China Economic Corridor was initially put forward by the leadership of your country as part of the Mongolian Steppe Road Initiative implementation. Among the achievements, I can refer to the fact that over the past ten years, the freight traffic on the Ulaanbaatar Railway increased by half to reach a record figure 32.4 million tonnes in 2023. Transit container cargo transportation between Russia and China through the territory of Mongolia has also increased significantly.

Over the recent years, all Mongolian presidents, regardless of their party affiliation, have raised during negotiations the issue of building a main gas pipeline from Russia to China through Mongolia. In 2021 it was decided to embark on preparatory work. A specialised joint company, Soyuz Vostok Gas Pipeline, was established, which is carrying out design and exploration works in line with the approved schedule. Work continues on the design of the Soyuz Vostok gas pipeline stretching over 960 kilometres: in January 2022, a feasibility study for this project was approved, the necessary engineering surveys and studies were carried out, and in late December 2023, the project documentation was finalised.

By the way, while initially our Mongolian partners preferred to limit themselves to being just a transit country, now they are considering using some of the cheap pipeline gas to support the development of their economy and infrastructure.

Question: As a result of constitutional amendments and changes to the electoral system, members of four political parties and one coalition were elected to the current Mongolian Parliament, and the party that won the majority had to form a three-party government, rather than a government of its own. What is your assessment of this new page in Mongolia’s political life?

Vladimir Putin: First of all, I would like to note that the regular elections to the State Great Khural in June were held successfully. The electoral process was organised at a very high level, as was confirmed, inter alia, by Russian observers sent to Mongolia.

We respect the choice of the Mongolian people. As far as I remember, this is by no means the first time Mongolia has had a coalition government. I am confident that the cabinet reshuffle will not affect our countries' mutual desire to further develop our comprehensive strategic partnership and expand our bilateral cooperation.

Question: The freedom of press is currently of critical concern in our country. Russia has also banned some of the country's media outlets. At the same time, Western countries have banned mainstream Russian media and restricted access to them on social media. How, in your opinion, can we strike a balance between freedom of the press and national security?

Vladimir Putin: Indeed, almost all Western countries where our journalists try to work, are creating obstacles for them, banning Russian television channels and directly censoring our media and online resources. Certainly, this runs counter to the democratic principles of freedom of speech and free flow of information. Yet all our media do is convey and explain Russia's point of view on current pressing issues and global processes. As they do so, they act in a respectful way and comply with the norms of morality and ethics as well as national legislation of each particular country. So the West, which claims to be a model of freedom, has opted to hide from inconvenient facts and the truth by launching a blatant bullying campaign against Russian journalists and indiscriminately labelling them as ‘Kremlin propagandists.’

In Russia, the mass media are free. This is solidly guaranteed by our Constitution. We are convinced that pluralism and openness in the information space are vital. Our authorities cooperate constructively with television channels, news agencies, newspapers, online media and other media outlets, regardless of their editorial policy. The only thing they are required to do is to comply with Russian laws. This should be understood by foreign journalists accredited in Russia. That is the way to strike the necessary balance between the freedom of press and ensuring national security that you have mentioned.

Question: Russian athletes have been banned from participating in the 2024 Olympic Games under their country's flag, while Israel has not been subjected to any restrictions. What do you think is the reason for such a differentiated approach?

Vladimir Putin: The current leaders of the International Olympic Committee, acting at the behest of the collective West – primarily the United States – are flagrantly flouting the Olympic ideals they should be defending. Instead of promoting the rights of athletes, the integrity and universality of the Olympic movement, they are clinging to their social position, power and personal prosperity.

Our athletes are excluded from the competitions, our national symbols are banned. It has come to the point where the words ‘Russia’ and ‘Russian’ are completely expunged from international tournaments. All of this blatantly violates the fundamental principles of the Olympic Charter, which states that sport, which should bring people together, and not divide them, should not be politicised. Until recently, this was cited as the reason why the Olympic Games should be kept open and accessible to all athletes without exception, regardless of their citizenship, race, ethnicity or political beliefs.

Russia strongly believes that sport should be kept politically neutral and recognises that is has a great role to play in strengthening people-to-people ties, establishing mutually respectful communication, forging relations between states and peoples in the spirit of peace and good neighbourliness, equality and non-discrimination. Therefore, we will pursue more democracy in the sports movement, strive to remove artificial barriers and restrictions, and expand the range of national and international sporting events.

Question: Your interview to American journalist Tucker Carlson in February this year began with a historical background of Russia and modern Ukraine. When talking about previous Russian leaders' decisions on Ukraine, you repeatedly said they cannot be understood. Do you mean that the current state of relations between Russia and Ukraine has been brought about by Russia's mistakes in domestic politics as well as external political moves?

Vladimir Putin: The current situation in Ukraine has been significantly influenced by a whole range of external and internal factors. Soviet leaders' decisions on the national and territorial issues also had their negative effect.

I would like to remind that the process of the creation of Ukraine started immediately after the 1917 revolution, when unstable and fragile quasi-state formations without clear borders emerged in that territory. Later on, the boundaries of the constituent USSR republics were marked rather randomly, based on the ‘proletarian necessity.’ Thus, the industrial Donbass populated predominantly by Russians was handed over to Ukraine. Subsequently, just before and after the Great Patriotic War, Joseph Stalin gave to Ukraine, as an inalienable part of the Soviet Union, certain lands that had earlier belonged to Poland, Romania and Hungary. In 1954, Nikita Khrushchev made a generous present to Ukraine by giving it Crimea, which had been part of the RSFSR.

It should be understood that the Soviet leaders acted under the geopolitical realities of their time, not expecting at all that the USSR would cease to exist and break down along artificially drawn internal administrative boundaries. So no doubt, the current developments do have historical roots.

At the same time, the main reason for today’s tragic situation in Ukraine is the deliberate anti-Russia policy pursued by the US-led collective West. For decades, they have sought total control over Ukraine. They funded nationalist and anti-Russia organisations there; they persistently worked to convince Ukraine that Russia was its eternal enemy and the main threat to its existence. Ukraine virtually turned into a bargaining chip that the West used to achieve its geopolitical ambitions.

In 2014, the Americans and their satellites organised an armed coup d'état in Ukraine. It was inspired and driven by radical neo-Nazi groups, which subsequently came to determine Kiev’s government policy in general. For many years, millions of civilians in Donbass have had to survive genocide, shelling and blockade on the part of the Kiev regime. The hatred for everything Russian has become Ukraine’s official ideology. The use of the Russian language has been increasingly restricted, and the canonical Orthodoxy has been subjected to persecution, which now has come to the point of a direct ban.

What we see today is the natural outcome of the destructive strategy of the West towards Ukraine. On top of that, Western elites continue to lend a large‑scale political, financial and military support to the current regime, regarding it as a weapon against Russia. We are well aware of that and will keep struggling to achieve all the tasks of the special military operation in order to ensure the security of Russia and its citizens.

Meeting with heads of international news agencies

2024-06-24T13:54:22+04:00

Vladimir Putin held a meeting with heads of the world’s leading news agencies.

Representatives of news agencies from Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, the United States, Uzbekistan, China, Iran, Great Britain, Turkiye, Korea, Italy, Germany, Japan, Spain, and France took part in the meeting. Russia was represented by TASS Director General Andrei Kondrashov.

* * *

Andrei Kondrashov: Mr President, guests,

Mr President, before we begin, let me thank you for helping us carry on a wonderful tradition throughout all these years. The tradition is about the Russian News Agency TASS bringing its foreign colleagues together for a meeting with you. I am not sure how you manage to set aside time in your very busy schedule to meet with foreign journalists every time we have this meeting.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Did they offer you a tour of this building?

Andrei Kondrashov: They did. We will most likely go up to the roof after the meeting.

Vladimir Putin: Do not go.

Andrei Kondrashov: Why not? Is it dangerous?

Vladimir Putin: No, it is not, but Mr Miller will not let you go unless he gives you every detail about every element of this building. It usually takes him three hours to do so. He absolutely loves this building. You will not be able to leave.

Andrei Kondrashov: Did you like the building?

Vladimir Putin: Of course, I did.

Andrei Kondrashov: How did you like the view of St Petersburg from the 87^th floor?

Vladimir Putin: It’s beautiful. I hope you like it too, if you go.

Andrei Kondrashov: Mr President, we have 16 countries represented by their key leading news agencies in this audience. There should have been more of them, but our Indian and Brazilian colleagues could not make it, because they are busy covering the outcomes of the elections that had been held in their respective countries lately. Our colleague from Egypt broke his leg just the other day, and we wish him a speedy recovery. However, we welcome those who came to one of the world’s most beautiful cities, St Petersburg, and to this new trendy place called Lakhta Centre.

According to our estimates, the people you see here, Mr President, produce about 80 percent of the entire global news flow. During the time that we did not meet, many of the countries they represent have suddenly become unfriendly towards Russia. However, this will probably make it even more interesting to see how they are living by and what issues they consider to be their priorities.

Actually, although this is going to be the eighth meeting and we are pleased that it is being held in the year when TASS turns 120, this will, perhaps be the first meeting amid such international tensions. It looks like the world has lost its mind, that someone is intentionally pushing it towards a catastrophe.

We would very much like to expect that after our meeting we will be at least a step closer to understanding how to reduce the degree of this tension, the degree of double standards, of this ill understanding and simply hostility.

Colleagues, being a TASS agency moderator, I will give each of you an opportunity to ask your main question. Whether you will be able to ask a second and subsequent questions depends solely on the President of Russia.

And we also have a wonderful tradition: we give the first floor to the better half of humanity – women. Why? Because in Russia women are traditionally treated not only with respect, but also with love and reverence.

This is why the first question will be asked by our wonderful Irina Akulovich, Director General, BelTA agency – Belarusian Telegraph Agency. Mr President, she also has a musical education, so we will count on her to set the right tone for our entire conversation.

Ms Akulovich, your question, please.

Vladimir Putin: If I may, I want to welcome all of you. You must have been held in this tower for half a day – I apologise for that. Let me repeat: it is very difficult to escape from the grip of Gazprom CEO, who tells you everything about every element and infects you with his optimism.

The people here are very well-informed, and I simply cannot imagine what I could tell you that you do not know. You know everything, and you certainly know it better than I do. Whatever I say, you will still think you know better. So, I propose that we should exchange opinions rather than have a Q&A session. It will be more interesting. And it will also be interesting for me to hear your opinion on matters that are of interest to you.

This seems to be everything I wanted to say at the beginning.

Ms Akulovich, please, go ahead.

BelTA (Belarus) Director General Irina Akulovich: Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr President.

Thank you very much for this opportunity to talk to you. We are perfectly aware that your schedule is very busy indeed. It is not just us who are waiting for this meeting, but also the world’s biggest news agencies, and the biggest media outlets are following it too, of course.

However, I would like to say that I believe I was given the right to ask the first question not only because we are trying to fix gender issues here, but also because Belarus is the closest country for Russia. This is not a question, this an exchange of views; it is a statement, of course.

You met Alexander Lukashenko somewhere in the mid-90s, that is, you have known our President for about 30 years. Our countries have seen different relations over time, but you always managed to find a solution to any issue, be it security or economic issues. I would like to ask how easy or difficult are things for you now. Are there any leaders in the European Union today to resolve complex issues with? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, the President of Belarus and I have known each other for a long time. It is true that we had different relations at different times. However, because our relations rest on the fundamental interests of the two peoples, the Russians and the Belarusians, we have always been able to find solutions even to most complicated issues, which seemed to have had no simple answers. This is why we have started the work to build the Union State which is going smoothly. We are doing this guided by our nations’ sentiments, and we are doing this in a very quiet and orderly manner.

We always consider our interests when addressing any issue or taking any step, above all in the economy or politics, including foreign politics. It may sound odd, but also in ecology and culture. When we take a look at the entire range of things that unite us, it enables us to resolve both small matters and, perhaps, difficult ones, if they arise.

You know, with the volume as large as it is, there is always room for improvement. In fact, it is no secret, and everyone knows that if we look at the dollar figure, our trade amounts to $48 billion, or almost $50 billion. This is quite a substantial turnover.

Moreover, we have been very effective in diversifying our economic relations. This includes agriculture, with nearly 90 percent of all Belarusian agricultural and industrial exports going to the Russian market, as well as industrial production and cooperation. We recently discussed these matters in Minsk. I believe we have everything we need: we hold regular meetings to discuss these issues, and my visit there after my re-election as President of Russia was meant to serve as a symbol in a way, and had a ceremonial side to it. But there was much more to it than that. Our key Government officials accompanied me on that visit and engaged in intense debates during their meetings on industrial cooperation and the extent of localisation in manufacturing. As usual, we also focused on export volumes, primarily oil, to Belarusian refineries, and also touched upon reciprocal supplies of petrochemicals to the Russian market. What I mean is that we had specific and meaningful items on our agenda. The way we tackle these matters will have a major impact on the quality of life for our people.

Let me reiterate that the positive attitude and goodwill between our two nations have always enabled us to find solutions. Sometimes we must take unconventional steps, even if they may seem unusual, given our extensive ties and the fact that our relations may seem like a well-oiled mechanism. But no, we have to invest our efforts all the time in finding solutions to issues which arise along the way. However, we have never failed in this regard. I am confident that this continues to be the case moving forward.

Irina Akulovich: Does this mean that there are no issues in Russia’s relations with Belarus?

Vladimir Putin: No, there are issues.

Irina Akulovich: But there are always solutions too.

Vladimir Putin: Indeed, we always find a way to resolve them since we make these decisions based on the interests of our two nations.

Irina Akulovich: Would it be possible to find solutions of this kind with the leaders of the European Union?

Vladimir Putin: We could certainly do this with these leaders as well, if only they felt more confident and had more courage to stand up for their national interests. I think that our colleagues here will raise this issue during our conversation.

Andrei Kondrashov: Thank you Ms Akulovich.

I give the floor to Samia Nakhoul, a Global Foreign Policy Editor at Reuters. Samia has reported from many hot spots and was seriously wounded in Iraq. Ms Nakhoul, please ask your question.

Vladimir Putin: When were you wounded in Iraq?

Samia Nakhoul, a Global Foreign Policy Editor at Reuters (UK): It was during the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Vladimir Putin: I see.

Samira Nakhoul: Thank you for receiving us.

Mr President, given you past interaction with both President Donald Trump and President Biden, can you tell us, according to your perspective and your views, which one do you think would be the most favourable candidate in terms of relations with Russia, given the war that is going on in Ukraine now?

Vladimir Putin: As I said, everyone smiled ironically when I made a statement about Mr Biden, seeing it as an attack on President Biden. Indeed, he is an old school politician; he did not like what happened and he struck back at me, up to a point. I thought that this could happen. It meant that I was right, and that he was predictable. It only confirmed my thoughts about this.

Deep down, we do not care because Mr Trump, who was accused of spying for Russia… As we see it, it is complete nonsense and drivel. It was just an element of political infighting between Democrats and Republicans, these silly accusations against Trump. We have always seen them as an element of political infighting in the United States. This was later confirmed by various investigations conducted in the United States. We never had any special ties with Mr Trump.

However, it is a fact that as president he introducedlarge-scale sanctions against the Russian Federation. He pulled out of the INF Treaty. It happened during his term in office.

I will be completely honest with you: we do not think the election outcome will impact US policy towards Russia. We do not think it will; we do not think there will be any serious changes.

You know perfectly well that the current developments in the United States are political infighting; they are burning themselves out, their state and their political system.

I must say, even if it may be unpleasant, that they are also incinerating their pseudo-leadership in the field of democracy. It is clear to everyone worldwide that the persecution of Trump, especially his prosecution on charges based on events that took place years ago without any direct evidence, is a blatant use of the judicial system for political infighting. This is obvious to us in Russia. I am confident that this is obvious in the UK as well, and that the rest of the world thinks likewise. Most importantly, people in the United States recognise this as well, because after the trial and the jury’s guilty verdict, Trump’s ratings have soared, as we know, by 6 percent, if memory serves, and donations to his election headquarters have increased immediately.

This shows that people in the United States do not trust their judicial system which adopts such rulings. On the contrary, they believe that these rulings have been issued for political reasons.

As strange as this may sound, I believe that the current administration is making one mistake after another, be it in its international, domestic or economic policies. Sometimes simply observing what is happening there becomes quite perplexing. Therefore, we monitor these developments as outsiders. We have never interfered in the internal political processes within the United States and have no plans to do so. Still, let us wait and see where it all takes us.

I would like to end this answer with the point I mentioned in the beginning. We believe that the result does not matter here. We will work with any president elected by the American people.

Samia Nakhoul: With regard to Ukraine, you don’t think anything will change in terms of support for Ukraine or if Trump comes back? You don’t think there will be a change?

Vladimir Putin: It is hard to say. I cannot tell you with certainty whether something would change or not. You know, we need to see the next administration’s priorities.

If the next administration prioritises national interests and if they believe that ensuring domestic stability is in their national interests; if instead of focusing on immigration they seek to consolidate their society within the United States in order to overcome the mistakes that brought about a spike in inflation while the US debt ballooned – in this case, of course, if they focus on their national interests and act this way, rather than pursuing a global liberal agenda, which I believe is destroying the United States from within, this striving to be a global liberalism leader; if they seek guidance from their national interests – then there can be some shifts in US foreign policy and the way it treats Russia and the Ukraine conflict. However, you will understand that it is all about the ifs that I keep mentioning. It can change if this occurs.

Still, I think that you would agree with me that no one cares about Ukraine in the United States. All they care about is how great the United States is. The US is not there to fight for Ukraine or the Ukrainian people. It is fighting for its own greatness and world leadership. There is no way they can allow Russia to succeed. Why? Because they believe that this would undermine US leadership. That is the purpose behind everything the US does.

But if the next administration changes course and shifts its agenda so that its raison d’etre and its work focus on strengthening the United States from within and reinforcing its economy, finance and building normal, more respectful relations around the world with everyone, it is only then that something would change. I think that the overall public sentiment can play a decisive role here. And the public opinion seems to be tilting this way, and if the next administration catches this wind in its sails, it is at that point that change becomes possible.

Andrei Kondrashov: Thank you, Ms Nakhoul.

It is now the men’s turn to ask their questions. Chairman of the Board of Azerbaijan State News Agency Vugar Aliyev, you can go ahead and ask the President of Russia your question.

Mr Aliyev, please go ahead with your question.

Chairman of the Board of Azerbaijan State News Agency Vugar Aliyev: Good afternoon, Mr President. Thank you for taking the time to meet with us.

There has been positive momentum in Azerbaijan-Russia relations lately. President Ilham Aliyev’s recent visit to Moscow was not only an opportunity to mark a memorable date for our two countries – the 50^th anniversary of the Baikal-Amur Mainline – but also to discuss our bilateral relations.

What are your thoughts on the future of our bilateral cooperation, particularly in terms of developing the North-South corridor?

Vladimir Putin: We have been successful, steady and pragmatic in developing our relations.

You know, we can sense how committed Azerbaijan’s leaders are to building relations between our countries based on mutual interests or, I should even say, based on a certain degree of mutual sympathy we have for each other. Is there any other way we can explain the fact that there are 300 Russian-language schools in Azerbaijan where students can study in Russian? I know that President Aliyev has been proactive in promoting the learning of the Russian language in his country. And this attitude is apparent across all domains.

What does this mean? It means that the Azerbaijani leadership recognises the importance of the Russian language for the people of Azerbaijan. Why? Because it enables them to develop our bilateral ties. And these ties are indeed developing.

Let me reiterate – and I will use a dollar figure once again – that our overall trade is at about $4.5-$4.6 billion, and it has been growing quite well and gathering momentum.

Our relations are becoming increasingly diversified. I am convinced that if the two sides continue on this path, and Russia remains committed to this objective, we will deliver and achieve meaningful results.

In this regard, there is much to be done in terms of logistics. You are absolutely right about that. It is not just about developing the North-South corridor. There are also opportunities for building logistics centres, including along the Russia-Azerbaijan border in Dagestan. This effort is already underway. There are also other matters we can work on together. There is a considerable number of students from Azerbaijan studying in Russia, including those benefiting from free tuition. We can see that young people are quite eager to study in Russia.

The North-South project has the potential to evolve into a valuable international corridor, enabling shipments of goods from the port of St Petersburg, where we are right now, all the way across Europe to Azerbaijan, Iran and on to the Persian Gulf. The travel time should be almost 10 days shorter than through the Suez Canal.

No offence – it goes without saying that the Suez Canal is an essential fixture in global trade. However, the North-South corridor will offer an additional and highly efficient route for delivering goods from north to south and back, saving 10 days in the process. Ten days is a lot, in terms of the time saved, and makes the corridor worthwhile and highly efficient.

Nevertheless, there is still a lot to be done here. We are working on both sides of the border. I know that President Aliyev supports this project, as we have discussed it on numerous occasions. The Iranian leadership also supports it. Furthermore, due to its significant economic potential, foreign investors, both regional and extra-regional countries, have shown interest. Arab sovereign wealth funds have also expressed interest, which is understandable as they are always on the lookout for low-risk investment opportunities. This project is undoubtedly a good investment, with guaranteed profitability.

There are certain issues that require further consideration. For example, we need to determine which areas will be utilised, including inside Azerbaijan, and how the construction will be financed. Will it be funded through a loan, or will Russia provide direct financing? Additionally, we need to consider how the branch lines that will extend westward across Azerbaijan will be integrated.

We also need to work out the specifics with our Iranian partners and friends: what type of railway are we going to build? Will it be a standard gauge or a narrow gauge similar to the one in Iran?

However, the most important aspect is that all stakeholders are committed to following through with the plan. We have established a directorate, and VTB is actively involved. I have no doubt that we will succeed. We still have a few questions regarding the timeframe and costs, but even that is nearly finalised. So, this is a great project that we are implementing together, although it is not the only one. In addition to everything else, Azerbaijan is a Caspian state and a member of the Caspian Five, and we have plenty of shared interests, including environmental considerations.

Andrei Kondrashov: Thank you, Mr Aliyev.

I am now giving the floor to a country that will probably never fail to evoke strong emotions in you, Mr President. This is Germany.

Our guest is Martin Romanczyk, head of news service at the German news agency DPA (Deutsche Presse-Agenture).

Martin actually knows our country firsthand, because he was posted in Moscow as DPA’s own correspondent in the 1990s. Your question please, Mr Romanczyk.

News Director at DPA Martin Romanczyk (retranslated): Good evening, Mr President. Good evening, everyone.

Chancellor Scholz has agreed to supply arms to Ukraine. I would like to ask you how you would react if Scholz changed his mind. And what do you think this implies for Germany? Did you try to warn, caution or maybe threaten Mr Chancellor when he made the decision to send weapons to Ukraine?

Vladimir Putin: Why would you think we would threaten anyone? We never threaten anyone, least of all the head of another state. That would be mauvais ton, unacceptable in polite society.

We have our own viewpoint on certain issues. We know the European states’ approach, including Germany’s approach, on the current developments in Ukraine.

Everyone believes that Russia started the war in Ukraine. But no one – I want to emphasise this – no one in the West, no one in Europe is willing to remember how this tragedy began. It started with an unconstitutional coup in Ukraine. This was the beginning of the war. But is Russia to blame for that coup? No. Have those who are trying to blame Russia today forgotten that the foreign ministers of Poland, Germany and France went to Kiev at the time and signed the settlement document as guarantors of a peaceful constitutional resolution of the crisis? This is something Europe, including Germany, prefers to forget. Because if they remembered, they would have to explain why the leaders of Germany, along with the other signatories, never demanded that the perpetrators of the coup in Ukraine return to the constitutional framework. Why did they neglect their obligations as guarantors of agreements between the incumbent government and the opposition like this? They are as responsible for what happened as the forces in the United States that provoked the unconstitutional seizure of power. Don’t you know what followed? The residents of Crimea made a decision to secede from Ukraine, and the residents of Donbass refused to obey those who carried out the coup in Kiev. This is what followed. This is how this conflict began.

After that, Russia made every effort to come up with a formula for a peaceful settlement. What is now known as Minsk agreements were signed in Minsk in 2015. By the way, they were institutionalised by a UN Security Council resolution. It was an actionable document. Instead, they chose to resolve this issue militarily. They used artillery, tanks and aircraft against civilians in southeastern Ukraine. For some reason, no one, I repeat, no one wants to talk about this either in Germany and other European countries, or the United States. So be it.

We facilitated the signing of the Minsk agreements, but it turned out that no one was going to act on them. The former Chancellor of Germany and the former President of France have publicly stated so.

What does this mean, Mr Romanchik? They made a public confession that they were not going to implement the Minsk agreements, and signed them just in order to buy time to arm Ukraine and to create proper conditions for continuing hostilities. All they did was pull the wool over our eyes. Is that not so? Is there any other way to explain what happened?

For eight long years we have been trying to achieve a peaceful solution. Eight years!

A former chancellor once told me, “You know, in Kosovo, we, NATO, went ahead without a Security Council resolution, because blood was spilled for eight years in Kosovo.” What about the blood of Russian people spilled in Donbass? Was it water, not blood? No one wanted to pay attention to it.

In the end, this is what we were forced to do when the then Ukrainian authorities said that they did not like a single clause of the Minsk agreements, and the then Foreign Minister said they were not going to fulfill them.

Do you realise that these territories were plunged into economic and social degradation? Eight years. I am not even talking about murders, constant killing of women, children, and so on.

Considering this, we were compelled to recognise their independence. We did not recognise their independence for almost eight years. We were looking forward for both sides to come to terms and to resolve this issue peacefully. Eight years! When they said they were not going to implement any peace agreements, we had to use military force in order to bring them into compliance.

We were not the ones to start this war. The war started in 2014 following the coup and their attempt to use cannons to break resistance of the people who opposed the coup.

And now for people following international events and international law. What happened next? What did we do? We did not recognise this for eight years. What did we do when we realised that the Minsk Agreements will never be fulfilled? Please note everyone: we recognised the independence of these self-proclaimed republics. Could we do this from the point of view of international law, or no? As Article One of the UN Charter says, we could. It is about the nations’ right to self-determination. The UN International Court of Justice ruled (it is put in writing) that, if any territory of a country decides to become independent, it is not obliged to appeal to the higher authorities of that country. All this was done regarding Kosovo. There is a decision of the International Court of Justice, which reads: if a territory has decided on independence, it is not obliged to apply to the capital for permission to exercise this right.

However, if it is like it is written in the UN court decision, then these unrecognised republics, the Donetsk and Lugansk republics, had the right to do so. And they did. Did we have the right to recognise them? Of course, we did. And we did recognise them. Next, we entered into an agreement with them. Could we sign an agreement with them or not? Yes, of course. The agreement provided for assistance to these states in the event of aggression. Kiev waged a war against these states, which we recognised eight years later. Eight years.

Could we recognise them? We could. And then, in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter, we provided them with assistance. You know, no matter what anyone says, this is exactly what I told Mr Guterres, the logic we followed, step by step. Where is the mistake here? Where are the violations of international law here? There are no violations, considering international law.

Then we hear the answer: well, you attacked anyway. We did not attack, but defended ourselves, just to make it clear to everyone. The first step towards the war was taken by those who encouraged the bloody unconstitutional coup d'etat.

Now regarding the arms supplies. Arms supplies to a conflict area is always a bad idea. Especially when those who are supplying weapons not only supply them but also operate them. It is a very serious and very dangerous step. You and I know this, and the Federal Republic doesn’t deny it (I certainly don’t know how it made its way to the press), that a Bundeswehr general discussed where and how to deliver a strike: either at the Crimean Bridge or at some other facilities inside Russia, including a territory that no one doubts belongs to Russia.

When the first German tanks, tanks made in Germany, appeared on Ukrainian soil, it produced a moral and ethical shock in Russia because the attitude in Russian society to the Federal Republic has always been very good. Very good. Now, when they say that some missiles are to appear that would attack facilities on Russian territory, it will certainly destroy Russian-German relations for good and all. But we understand that, as one of the well-known German politicians said, after World War II the Federal Republic of Germany has never been a sovereign state in the full sense of the word.

We were in contact with Mr Scholz, we met on many occasions. I don’t want to assess the performance of the Federal Government, but it’s the German people, the German voters who are making such assessments. European parliamentary elections are coming up; we will look at what is going to happen there. As far as I know – of course, I actually care about Germany, I have many friends there, whom I am trying not to contact, not to subject them so some obstruction in the country, I am trying not to maintain relations with them, but I simply know these people for many years, I know that they are reliable friends and I have many of them in Germany. So, I am also aware of the balance of forces in the political arena. As far as I understand, if I am not mistaken, the CDU/CSU now has somewhere around 30 percent, the Social Democrats have about 16 percent, the Alternative for Germany already has 15 percent, and all the others are lower. This is the elector’s response. This is the Germans’ mood, the mood of the German people.

I understand the dependence of the Federal Republic in the area of defence, in security in general. I understand its dependence in politics, in information policy, because wherever you point to there, to any major publishing house (I don’t know where you work) its ultimate beneficiary is located overseas, some US foundation. Well, I applaud those American foundations and those who are conducting such policy: It’s great that they are holding the information field of Europe so firmly in terms of their interests. And they are also trying hard not to reveal themselves.

It’s all understandable. The influence is tremendous and it is very difficult to oppose it. It is clear. But there are some elementary things. Speaking about these elementary things – it is strange that nobody in the current German leadership protects German interests. It’s clear that Germany does not have full sovereignty, but Germans are still there. Their interests should be taken into account and protected, at least a little bit.

Look: the ill-starred pipelines at the bottom of the Baltic Sea have been blown up. No one is even indignant – as if this is the way it should be. We nevertheless continue to supply gas to Europe through the territory of Ukraine. We continue to supply gas. There were two pipeline systems there, and Ukraine closed one of them, screwed the valve, just closed it and that’s all, although there were no grounds for this. It left only one pipeline system – well, okay. But gas goes to Europe through it, and European consumers receive this gas. Our gas also goes to Europe through Turkey via Turkish Stream, and European consumers receive it.

OK, one Nord Stream pipe was blown up, but another Nord Stream pipe is intact, thank God. Why doesn’t Germany want to receive our gas through this pipe? Can anyone explain the logic? You can get it through Ukraine, you can get it through Turkey, but you can’t get it through the Baltic Sea. What kind of nonsense is this? There is no formal logic in this, I don’t even understand it.

They would better say that Europe should not get gas at all. OK, fine, we’ll get over it, Gazprom will survive. But you don’t need it, you need to buy overpriced liquefied natural gas shipped from across the ocean. Don’t your ‘environmentalists’ know how liquefied natural gas is produced? By fracking. Ask the people in the United States where they produce this gas – sometimes they get slop instead of water running from their taps. Your ‘environmentalists’ who are in power in the government, don’t know that? They probably do.

Poland has closed its Yamal-Europe pipeline. Gas was going to Germany through Poland. We didn’t shut it down, the Poles did. You know better than I do the effect the termination of our ties in the energy sector has had on the German economy. It’s a sad result. Many large industrial companies are looking for a place to land, but only not on German territory. They are opening in the USA and in Asia, but the business conditions there make them uncompetitive. And this, by the way, can have severe consequences for the European economy as a whole, because the German economy (everyone is well aware of this, no offence to any other Europeans) is the locomotive of the European economy. If it sneezes and coughs, everyone else will immediately get the flu. France’s economy is also teetering on the brink of recession right now, everyone knows that. And if the German economy goes down, all of Europe will be shuddering.

I am not suggesting that the Euro-Atlantic ties should be broken. Otherwise, someone (not necessarily you) might hear what I am saying and infer that I am calling for breaking up Euro-Atlantic solidarity. Listen, your politics are flawed, and you are making glaring mistakes every step of the way. I think the current developments represent a major mistake for the United States itself. In a push to maintain their leadership using the means they are using, they are, in fact, causing harm to themselves. But things are even worse for Europe. Indeed, you could say, “We support you in this, that, and that, but this belongs to us. Look, if we undermine our economy, everyone will feel the consequences. You cannot do that, we are against it, it is taboo, do not touch it.”

But the federal government is not doing that, either. Frankly, sometimes I get confused and cannot see the logic behind this line of conduct. Okay, they were going to undermine Russia’s economy, and they thought it would take them three to six months to get there. However, everyone can see that this is not happening. Last year, our economy grew by 3.4 percent. This year, it grew by 5.4 percent in the first quarter. Moreover, according to international financial and economic organisations – the World Bank re-ran some numbers (it was our goal) – and we were in fifth place in terms of purchasing power parity in the world and we set ourselves the goal of making it to the fourth place. I think you are following the calculations of our colleagues from international financial institutions. Quite recently, last week, I think, the World Bank ran the numbers on our GDP only to find out that we were outdoing Japan in this regard. According to the World Bank, Russia is the world’s fourth largest economy in terms of purchasing power parity meaning that we achieved that goal.

That is not what really matters, though. This is not an end in itself. What is important, though, is to keep up the pace and progress. So far, we have been able to do so, because in the first quarter, as I said earlier, our GDP amounted to 5.4 percent. The reason I am saying this is not to brag about it. I want those who are trying to get in our way, to cause us harm and to slow down our progress realise that what they are doing does more harm to themselves than to us. They should realise this, draw conclusions and mend their ways for their own benefit. But we do not see it happening.

No offence, but I think that the level of professional training of the decision-makers, including in the Federal Republic [of Germany] leaves much to be desired.

Andrei Kondrashov: Thank you, Mr Romanchik.

I think it would be logical to not wander away from the European theme and give the floor to France: a country that admits quite officially that European troops can be sent to Ukraine.

Our guest is Editor-in-Chief for Europe at France-Press, Karim Talbi. Mr Talbi speaks excellent Russian, because, like Martin Romanchik, he worked as a correspondent in Moscow for quite a long time.

Please, Mr Talbi, your question.

AFP Editor-in-Chief for Europe Karim Talbi: Mr President, my question also concerns Ukraine.

Why cannot you still disclose the number of losses among Russian soldiers in Ukraine during the hostilities?

Vladimir Putin: If this is the only thing you are interested in, I can say that, as a rule, no one ever talks about this. If they do, then, as a rule, they distort the real figures.

I can tell you with complete confidence that our losses, especially as concerns irreparable losses, unfortunately, then they are several times less than on the Ukrainian side.

I can tell you exact numbers captured by the both sides, or war prisoners. There are 1,348 of our soldiers and officers held by the Ukrainian side. I know the exact numbers because we work with them every day. As you know, there was an exchange just recently: 75 people were exchanged for 75 people. We have 6,465 Ukrainian soldiers.

If we talk about approximate irretrievable losses, then the ratio is the same: one to about five. This is what we will proceed from. This is precisely the reason of the attempt to carry out total mobilisation in Ukraine: because they suffer great losses on the battlefield.

You know, this is how it looks: according to our calculations, the Ukrainian army loses 50,000 people per month as sanitary and irretrievable losses both, although their irretrievable and sanitary losses are approximately 50/50. The total mobilisation effort, which is now underway, does not solve the problem, because, according to our data (we get it from various sources), they recruit around 30,000 [people] per month by force or without force, but mostly by seizing men on the streets. There are not many people willing to fight there.

According to our data, last month and the month before that they recruited about 50,000–55,000. But this does not solve the problem. You know why? Because this mobilisation can only cover losses. All of these men are sent to make up for losses. This is the basic problem that leads to a lowering of the mobilisation age: from 27 years old down to 25 now.

We know from the Ukrainian side (it’s an open secret there; there are no secrets there at all): the US administration insists that the threshold be gradually lowered from 25 to 23 years, then to 20 years, and then to 18, or immediately to 18 years, because right now they are already requiring 17-year-old boys to register. We know this for sure: this is a demand from the US administration to the Ukrainian leadership, if it can be considered leadership after the election was cancelled.

Anyway, as I have said in one of my recent public appearances – I think it was when I talked to the media while returning from my visit to Uzbekistan – I believe that the United States administration would force the current Ukrainian leadership to take these decisions on lowering the mobilisation age all the way down to 18 years, and once that is done, they will simply get rid of Zelensky. But first, he will have to do it. In fact, this is not an easy thing to do. They will have to enact a law and take specific steps to make this happen.

We are in June 2024 right now. I think that they would need a year to do this. This means that they would tolerate him until the beginning of next year, as least, but once he does everything they expect from him, they will just wave him goodbye and replace him with someone else. There are several candidates for this job, as far as I understand.

However, all this entails so many casualties. I mentioned the 50,000 figure, but this is as conservative as you can get. The 50,000 figure is what we see on the battlefield, but we can see that there were other losses too, without being able to count them. They happened deep in the rear, behind the lines, and once you factor them in, the number becomes much bigger. This is what I can say about the casualties.

Karim Talbi: Can I ask you a follow-up question on the loss we had at AFP?

Vladimir Putin: What do you mean?

Karim Talbi: Arman Soldin used to work for AFP as a reporter, but on May 9, 2023, he died in Ukraine. We believe that in all likelihood he died in a drone attack. The relevant ministry in France is investigating what happened to him. Considering that he was near Chasov Yar, Ukraine, they believe that the drone came from Russia. But this is not what I wanted to ask you.

A French ministry wants to investigate this matter. Is Russia ready to work with France on this investigation so that we can learn what actually happened there?

For us at AFP it was a huge tragedy, as well as for his family, of course. He was 32 years old. We would really like to see meaningful and serious efforts to investigate his death in order to find out what happened there, if Russia was involved, of course.

Vladimir Putin: You know, we have never rejected any investigations. And do you know how many journalists we lost in the combat zone? (Turning to Dmitry Peskov.) Mr Peskov, do you remember the exact figure?

Presidential Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov: About 30.

Vladimir Putin: We lost at least 30 journalists, while no one offers us an opportunity to find out what happened to them. This is the first thing I wanted to tell you.

Second, if we are talking about what is going on in Ukraine, an American journalist has been tortured to death in prison there. But unlike you, the United States did not even ask to investigate what happened to him. But he was a US citizen, and a journalist. They detained him on the border, threw him into jail and he died there. They literally tortured him to death. But no one thought about getting to the bottom of what happened to him.

My answer is yes. Despite all this, we are ready to facilitate these efforts. I do not know how this can be done in practical terms when a person died in the combat zone. But of course, we will do everything we can.

Andrei Kondrashov: Thank you very much, Mr Talbi.

And now, I invite Mr Ali Naderi, Managing Director of the Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA), to join our conversation. Mr Naderi, we appreciate the fact that you have found the time to come to St Petersburg despite the recent tragic death of President Raisi in an air crash and the ongoing presidential election campaign in your country. We would like to express our deepest condolences to you, our Iranian colleagues and the Iranian people once again.

Please, Mr Naderi, ask your question.

IRNA Managing Director Ali Naderi (retranslated): Thank you, Mr President.

We are indeed mourning the loss of our President, our Foreign Minister and several other members of the administration. In your message, you mentioned the President’s personal contribution to the development of bilateral relations between our countries, as well as regional relations. Here is the question I would like to ask: What are the plans of your country and your administration regarding the further development of relations with Iran, and what do they boil down to? Did you make any agreements with Mr Raisi regarding this? And what is the outlook for Iran and Russia? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Relations between Russia and Iran are developing rapidly in many spheres. Both Russia and Iran are under various sanctions and face multiple sanctions regimes.

When we were recently told about the development level of some Iranian industries, I was impressed that even in these conditions our Iranian friends managed to maintain a high production level in some fields. Of course, you have not done this in all spheres, but you certainly have in some of them, which is amazing. This is a fact.

We have entire plan governing our joint efforts. We are working on our trade and economic relationship with Iran. Of course, we would like to take additional efforts to boost our ties in the sphere of high technology. It is possible even though not easy to do this in light of the restrictions, and we will certainly do this.

Regarding the tragic death of President Raisi, I would like to say that I had reliable and good businesslike relations with him. He was an interesting person, a serious politician and a reliable partner. He was an ironic person with a good sense of humour in private life. Knowing him was an interesting and useful experience for me. As I have said, when I made an agreement with him, I was certain that the subject we raised would not be forgotten. This does not mean that absolutely all issues would be settled, because solutions do not only depend on the top leaders, but we could be certain that the given issue would not be lost sight of. And we also worked on both sides to improve our relationship.

It was during President Raisi’s presidency that Iran became a member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and joined BRICS. This shows that we were moving together towards a clear goal, primarily in terms of creating a multipolar word. Of course, Iran played and continues to play an important role in this.

The only thing I would like to add in conclusion of my answer to your question is that we strongly hope that we will continue to build on what President Raisi did for the Russian-Iranian relationship. I have little doubt in this because everything we are doing serves our mutual interests. We are aware of the stability of the Iranian state and the system of supreme power in Iran. We know that not only the President and his team are working on the further development of Russian-Iranian relations but that Iran’s Supreme Leader, its spiritual leader is also doing a great deal towards this.

We are looking forward to the presidential election in Iran. I hope that we will meet with the new president at the events of international organisations, such as the SCO and BRICS. I am confident that we will find common ground with him and will work to implement all plans which the late President Raisi made.

Andrei Kondrashov: Thank you, Mr Naderi.

Our next participant is a good friend of TASS agency. It is Xinhua Editor-in-Chief Lyu Yansong. Mr Lyu is fluent in Russian, and we know that he loves singing Russian songs and watching Soviet films.

Mr Lyu, please.

Xinhua Editor-in-Chief Lyu Yansong (retranslated): Mr President, you paid a state visit to China only recently.

You have very close relations with China. They are an example of relations between major powers. What is your opinion of the cooperation with China and the impact that this cooperation has had on the two countries’ regions? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: As concerns our bilateral relations, I want to note that they are not situational but rather built on deep mutual interests. China has been our main trade and economic partner for 15 years. This means that we started to build this relationship and reached the current level not in response to some recent political circumstances but long before that and based on mutual interests. We proceeded very carefully, step by step, with no haste. And I must say that we have succeeded in almost everything.

Russia-China trade is currently beyond expectations. According to China’s statistics, the turnover is $240 billion, and according to ours, it is slightly lower, around $230 billion.

The turnover is not even the most important aspect. More importantly, we successfully diversify our mutual trade. This is not limited to hydrocarbons and energy. We supply oil, gas, coal and electricity to China. We also build nuclear power plants in China. All these projects have been highly successful.

We have good prospects in high technology. I am talking about aircraft engineering and AI. You know, we enjoy seeing China’s success in many industries, including space.

China is making unique achievements, and the Communist Party is the leading political power in China. Of course, everything that has been done in China, has been done under the leadership of the Communist Party of the People’s Republic of China.

You know, I would like to draw your attention to the following issue. As far as I remember, I am not sure if I have mentioned this before, and I am not sure if the people gathered here will find this interesting, but do you know what some of our experts and good economists are saying? They are young people but they are rather experienced. They are saying that a survey of Chinese economic developments and those in the economies of other countries, including leading economies, such as the United States, shows that the Chinese have managed to create a rather distinctive but highly effective economic development model, which is more effective than a US model. Judging by the Chinese economic performance, this seems to be true. Yes, one can criticise the Chinese leaders and argue with them, and this is exactly what some of our Western colleagues are doing. They say that China has a non-market economy, that the Politburo sets the yuan’s exchange rate, and so on. One can say anything, but all of us can see the result.

This result shows that this model is more effective. So, who can accuse China of having a free-market or non-market economy? China has a population of 1.5 billion. Chinese leaders have to think about everyone. Not all of these 1.5 billion people have the same living standards as the average European or American citizen. Consequently, Chinese leaders have the right to use specific economic management methods to meet the urgent needs of their people. By the way, the Chinese leadership, led by the President of the People’s Republic of China who is my good friend (as we always say) is doing this very effectively and reliably. Well, we can only be pleased about this.

We know about the economic situation in leading countries, including the Chinese economy. On the whole, this highly reliable economy is evolving into a more and more high-tech entity. I believe that the United States or certain European countries are making a big mistake by wishing or attempting to slow down the Chinese economy, one way or another, because, in my opinion, instead of trying to hinder these processes, they should participate in them for the sake of their own success.

The Chinese overproduce motor cars, including electric cars. Who is saying that? Is it being said by people, who regard themselves as free market supporters? Don’t they understand what determines whether there is overproduction or not? It is the market that determines this. If China manufactures a certain number of cars and the market absorbs all of them, what overproduction are they talking about? It is simply nonsense, isn’t it?

Can we really call this overproduction? No, it has a different name; we can call it an attempt to restrict growth by using non-market methods. And this is harmful, including in this case – harmful for the US economy. Why is that? Because they will no longer import goods from China. What will this lead to? They will either manufacture something on their own or purchase from another place, which is more expensive and will lead to inflation in the United States. Inflation will impact the entire national economy of the country that is doing this. This is harmful – in this case, for the US economy itself. It is a mistake, yet another mistake made by the current administration.

As for China, President Xi Jinping’s skilful and highly professional leadership is driving the country’s economic development at a rate needed by China.

As far as other areas and sectors are concerned, I always say this and can only repeat here that our international interaction is a restraining factor and an element of stability.

But apart from the economy and mutual security – as you know, we hold exercises and will do so in the future, including military exercises – we maintain military-technical cooperation, an area where we have much to offer to our Chinese friends, who are interested in working together with us along these lines.

But there is more to it than just the economy, military-technical cooperation, or international cooperation. This year, we have announced the start or cross-years of culture. I think what our moderator has said – that you know Russian songs and can speak Russian – is, in my view, at least as important as everything else I have mentioned. This creates the basis for relations between nations and a favourable environment for advancing relations in all other areas. Both sides will abide by this. I hope that I will soon have the opportunity to meet with the President of the People’s Republic of China and discuss all these matters at the venues I have mentioned. I mean the SCO and BRICS.

Lyu Yansong (speaking Russian): Mr President, as you know, I have interviewed you three times. It was a long time ago, of course. The first interview was in 2002. One interview took place in Moscow, and the other two were in Beijing. This fourth interview is taking place in your hometown. I am delighted that it is so.

Thank you. I wish you all the best.

Andrei Kondrashov: Thank you, Mr Lyu.

We are giving the floor to Spain now. Jose Manuel Sanz Mingote, director of international relations at the Spanish news agency EFE (Agencia EFE). Apart from being an experienced journalist, he is also an excellent specialist in history and philosophy, and an expert on European integration.

Mr Sanz Mingote, your question, please.

EFE Director of International Relations Jose Manuel Sanz Mingote (retranslated): Mr President, thank you very much for this opportunity to meet with you.

I do not speak Russian, but I have read some Russian authors. I am aware of the enormous contribution that Russia is making to culture, science and art. From my personal perspective, it is just so unfortunate that we are going through such a difficult international situation.

My question may be sensitive. You know that 25 European countries are holding elections tomorrow through Sunday. And you also know that many analysts, experts, as well as high-ranking European representatives and senior officials are accusing Russia of propagating disinformation trying to disrupt elections in Europe.

How can you comment on this? Do you believe the Russian government is actually behind this misinformation campaign? Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: Look, I have just talked with your colleague from Germany, and we discussed the general situation in European economies.

Most social aspects derive from the economic situation, which influences people’s incomes, the availability of existing and new jobs, and the consumption of goods and services. European countries are mostly trouble-free states. Their citizens’ biggest concern is their material security. However, the policies pursued by the overwhelming majority of Western governments, including European ones, are putting this material security, which is something people have grown used to for decades, in jeopardy, even if they have not ruined it completely. People are well aware of this.

This, I think, is the main reason their major political parties, and parliamentary democracy in general, are going through difficult times. So, if someone, in Europe or elsewhere, refuses to analyse the mistakes they have made and tries to blame them on external players, well, they are making another mistake instead of drawing the right conclusions about what is really happening. This is my first point.

The second one is that Russian media, online or print media, have only a fraction of their Western counterparts’ capacity and capabilities for influencing various audiences.

If you ask your colleague (I am afraid I may simply give you inaccurate figures), everywhere our journalists try to work, they are met with obstacles – simply everywhere. Employees are intimidated; their bank accounts get closed; their transport gets taken away. There are other forms of persecution. Is this the freedom of speech? Of course not. The only thing that our media representatives, your Russian colleagues do is present Russia’s viewpoint on the events in the world, in our country and in Europe.

Our viewpoints differ but is this not the point? Are media outlets only supposed to serve governments’ interests? Even if it is the opinion of the Russian Government, why cannot we convey this opinion to audiences and internet users in other countries? Is it not what freedom of information means, whether somebody likes it or not?

What can be done if information does not appeal to somebody or somebody considers it unobjective? You present a different point of view and do it more compellingly than the point of view that somebody does not like, not shut down media outlets – in this case, Russian media outlets, which face relentless harassment in Europe and in the United States. There are just a couple of them, in fact, and still they are being strangled and pressured. Meanwhile, there have been claims that we can somehow influence public opinion in the Western countries. If you simply look at the amount of content that we are capable of releasing into the European media market, such claims sound ridiculous.

The problem is not that somebody is pursuing a malevolent policy against the European Union, in this case. The problem is that the ruling circles of the leading European countries have pushed their economy and social sphere into a deplorable state, along with how they conduct their international policy, whether people like it or not. I will repeat: do not look for someone to blame on the side; instead, look at your own actions carefully. Only this will help to conduct a proper analysis, draw conclusions and fix something – if somebody genuinely believes that things need to be fixed, of course.

Andrei Kondrashov: Thank you for your question, Mr Sanz Mingote.

Next is Kazakhstan. Director General of the Kazinform news agency Askar Dzhaldinov.

Mr Dzhaldinov, your question, please.

Kazinform Director General Askar Dzhaldinov: Mr President, what is the future of relations between Kazakhstan and Russia as neighbours?

Vladimir Putin: I believe the future is good, there is no other way to put it. Russia and Kazakhstan are bonded by what can be fully described as a very close strategic alliance.

This is true about our trade and economic links that are growing steadily every year, as evidenced by the growing turnover.

Our cooperation is multi-faceted. I will not be able to list everything right now. We cooperate in energy, industrial production, space and many other areas.

We share an enormously long border. People enjoy various exchanges. Seventy-six Russian regions have direct links with the administrative divisions in Kazakhstan. These links are probably more effective and productive because people are engaged in direct contact with each other, they know and trust each other.

I maintain continuous contact with President Tokayev. We enjoy a very warm and trusted friendship.

Now, speaking about energy, we plan to start supplying gas not only to Uzbekistan, but also to Kazakhstan. Northern Kazakhstan needs our energy resources. Yes, Kazakhstan has its own production facilities; however, there are extensive regions in Kazakhstan that need gas. It is easier and cheaper to buy gas from us than to lay new routes that will cost billions of dollars.

Frankly, I do not see an issue that would create a dispute or complicate our relations in any way. We spoke about cooperation with China. Trade with the People’s Republic of China in national currencies accounts for 90 percent of our trade. The same trend exists in our relations with Kazakhstan. Trade in national currencies accounts for almost 100 percent of Russia-Kazakhstan trade.

I have already said it – and there will be similar questions at the economic forum in two days, so we will talk about this. As concerns the United States, one of the US Administration’s colossal mistakes is that they prohibit using the US dollar in international transactions, making it a weapon of some sort. This is complete nonsense as they undermine confidence in the US dollar. It is simply ridiculous. Ridiculous. Grit your teeth and do whatever it takes to preserve the dollar, to boost its significance and authority. They are killing it with their own hands.

As a result, we have been prompted to shift to transactions in national currencies, for one. It turned out that this step did not cause any issues when it comes to developing our relations; on the contrary, this move has been helping us strengthen our national currencies.

We work together quite extensively in humanitarian affairs and education – in fact, across the board. And I appreciate President Tokayev’s contribution, among other things, because he supports our cooperation.

Soon we are going to Astana for the SCO summit. There will be other events there as well. I have been invited and I will certainly use this invitation.

Andrei Kondrashov: Let us move to our next participant: ANSA Deputy Editor-in-Chief Stefano Polli, Italy. Like Samia Nakhoul from Reuters, Mr Polli has a very rich experience of working in hot spots. In general, the Italian agency ANSA has never missed a single meeting like this with you; it is our regular guest.

Please, Mr Polli, you have the floor.

ANSA Deputy Editor-in-Chief Stefano Polli (retranslated): Thank you.

Good evening, Mr President.

Thank you for organising this meeting. I would like to ask a question about the latest events in Ukraine. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg proposed that Ukraine be given the opportunity to hit targets on Russian territory with weapons supplied from Europe. European countries and the United States agreed with this idea. Not all of them, but the United States did. At the same time, there is a discussion in some countries about sending military advisers and instructors.

I would like to ask you to comment on these two decisions and what Russia’s reaction to them will be. Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: There is nothing new in terms of having advisers and instructors. They are present in Ukraine. Unfortunately for them, they suffer losses. I know this for sure. This is not done on purpose, but losses happen during hostilities. However, the European countries and the United States prefer to keep it secret. This is first.

Second, as for long-range precision weapons. We need to divide this topic into two parts.

First, conventional weapons: a multiple-launch rocket system, a long-range of 70 kilometres or something similar. It has been used for a long time. In fact, Ukrainian military personnel can do this on their own. And as for advanced high-tech, high-precision and long-range weapons, such as the British Storm Shadow or the American ATACMS, or French missiles, what can we say? I have also spoken about this, by the way, when I left Uzbekistan.

ATACMS: 300 kilometres. How are they used and how are they transported? They handed over a missile system (the Pentagon, the Americans did). But how is it used? Ukrainian military personnel cannot do everything on their own and launch strikes with this missile. They are simply technologically unable to do this because it requires satellite reconnaissance; then, based on satellite reconnaissance data (and this is American satellite reconnaissance), a flight mission is formed and then entered into the missile system. And then the soldier who is next to it does it simply automatically: he presses the buttons. He may not even know what will happen next.

What can the Ukrainian military – not the ones who are just sitting there and pressing buttons – but the higher-ranking ones do when it comes to target assignment? They can identify a target that is a priority for them. But they are not the ones who decide whether a particular target should be hit, because, to reiterate, a WTA (weapon target assignment) is formed and effectively entered only by those who supply the weapons. If we are talking about ATACMS, then the Pentagon is doing it. If it is Storm Shadow, then the British are. It is even more straightforward in the case of Storm Shadow, because the target assignment is entered automatically, without the involvement of the military personnel on the ground. The British do it, that is all there is to it.

And when the Bundeswehr military were pondering an attack on the Crimean Bridge or other targets, they were thinking for themselves. No one was doing it for them, right? They were going to do it. The same goes for the French specialists. Western specialists do it.

We have no illusions about it. How are we supposed to respond?

First, we will, of course, improve our air defence systems. We will be destroying their missiles.

Second, we believe that if someone is thinking that it is possible to supply such weapons to a war zone in order to deliver strikes at our territory and to create problems for us, why can we not supply our weapons of the same class to those regions around the world where they will target sensitive facilities of the countries that are doing this to Russia? The response could be symmetrical. We will give it a thought.

Third, sure enough, such actions will wreck international relations, which have already hit rock bottom, and undermine international security. Ultimately, if we see that these countries are being embroiled into a war against us, and this constitutes their direct involvement in the war against the Russian Federation, we reserve the right to respond in kind. Generally speaking, this path may lead to serious problems. I think that covers it all. If you have any leading questions, please go ahead. But I do not think I can add anything to what I just said.

Andrei Kondrashov: Mr Polli, do you have more questions to ask? Or, have all your questions been answered?

Stefano Polli: I have one more question, but I am not sure if this is the good time to ask it.

Vladimir Putin: There will be no better time, because we will wrap it up soon and go our separate ways. So, this is the right time for your question.

Stefano Polli: I would like to ask a question about Italy, if I may.

Italy supports Ukraine politically and militarily, but at the same time states that it is not at war with Russia. I would like you to comment on the stance adopted by the Italian leadership.

Vladimir Putin: We see that the Italian government has adopted a more reserved position than many other European countries, and we assess it accordingly. We see that Italy is not stoking the Neanderthal Russophobia, and we are mindful of that as well. We very much look forward to restoring relations with Italy after the situation surrounding Ukraine gets better, and maybe even faster than with other European countries.

Andrei Kondrashov: Thank you, Mr Polli.

We have South Korea next, a question from Executive Director of Digital Media at Yonhap News Agency Park Sang-hyun. Please, go ahead.

Executive Director of Digital Media at Yonhap News Agency Park Sang-hyun (retranslated): Russia is cooperating with Korea in developing the Far East.

When you were at the ceremony for presenting credentials by the ambassador of South Korea to Russia, you said that Russia was willing to build relations with South Korea. What are your plans in this regard?

Vladimir Putin: You know, just like with Italy, I can say that we see that the leadership of the Republic of Korea is not affected by the Russophobic sentiment. There are no direct shipments of weapons to the conflict area, and we highly appreciate that. But we also see that there are all sorts of developments where the US companies are purchasing weapons to be then shipped to the war zone in Ukraine. We are following this closely. But we very much hope that Russia-South Korea relations will not get worse, since we are interested in expanding bilateral relations with the Korean Peninsula in general.

Unfortunately, ongoing developments have negatively affected trade and economic ties. We very much hope that the level of bilateral relations achieved in previous decades will at least partially remain there for us to be able to rebuild them in the future.

Unfortunately, South Korea has created certain hardships in many areas of our cooperation. We are working with other countries, though we would like to continue to work with South Korea, but this is not our choice. This is the choice made by the South Korean leadership. All channels are open from our side, and we stand ready to resume work.

Andrei Kondrashov: Mr Park, thank you very much for your question.

Mr President, may I ask you a question on behalf of the TASS news agency?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, of course.

Andrei Kondrashov: To follow up on the Russian economy, it reminds me of a line from a joke that goes like “keep talking, I cannot get enough of it.” You have discussed the current state of the economy earlier.

Remember, there were wonderful people out there who stated that the Russian economy was already torn to pieces, then and now we are under the pressure of thousands of sanctions, we are in the third year of the special military operation. Are the future prospects for the economy as bright as its current state? What is your take on this?

Vladimir Putin: There are 16,000 to 17,000 sanctions, and there is no other country in the world with so many sanctions imposed on it. Clearly, they are a hindrance. So, our ill-wishers believed that they will negatively impact us in one way or another in the medium term, and there are reasons to believe that this is true. Those who think so are within their right to think so. This is especially true of advanced technology and some other cutting-edge areas such as artificial intelligence, microelectronics, and the like. In fact, everyone is aware of where things stand, and there are challenges out there.

However, there are two “buts” here. First, no one has ever cancelled the COCOM lists Russia was on, even at the height of our relations with the collective West. That is something to ponder. Restrictions remained anyway. I have every reason to believe that we would not have had a chance to establish close cooperation in the most sensitive high-tech areas anyway. There was no reason to count on it. But problems are being created. We see them. But strangely enough, perhaps even for ourselves, we are overcoming them.

When we were faced with the fact that we cannot import products that we used to buy in large quantities, we needed to use our brain and to reach out to our manufacturers and designers. They are not just taking the place of outgoing Western manufacturers but are picking up where they left off and are swiftly expanding the production. Our ill-wishers, and somewhat even we, did not expect things to turn out that way.

I will give you a basic example without mentioning the field. We used to buy a tank from France, a fairly basic tank, but it contained compound metals and so on. At some point, they stopped supplying it. They placed an order with a company in Nizhny Novgorod which built an even better tank at 30 percent of the cost. You see? This is a basic example from real life.

The situation is the same in many other areas. This explains the growth. I believe that this explains why our GDP has increased by 3.4 percent. However, this growth has a limit. The niches our producers have occupied in the market after Western producers pulled out, and their efforts to develop them will contribute to the growth, but it has a limit anyway. We are aware of this.

Therefore, technological independence is one of our main goals in the context of our development and our strategic priorities. We intend, and we have already started doing it, to invest substantial resources to catch up in the spheres where we need to do this. Or we could do something to skip over some phases. We understand this and are aware of it.

I cannot say if we will succeed, but we are optimistic, and I think that we will, especially if we are forced to do it. If things change overnight and we are offered access to cheap, high-quality products… this does not depend on the Government but on economic players. They might decide to deal with Western producers who can provide quality goods at acceptable prices. But if this does not happen, we will have to produce everything domestically. Yes, in this case we will have to shift some goals to the right, as the governments say, that is, postpone their achievement, but we will attain our main goals anyway.

I often cite the following example: we are working on the MC-21 liner, which is made of modern materials and its wings have special harnesses made of modern materials. The US Administration has sanctioned them, allegedly because they are dual-purpose products. This is ridiculous; it does not have a dual purpose. Why did they do it? Because our plane can compete with the Boeing 737 medium-haul aircraft, if I am not mistaken. They did that, and we were out of action for a while. We had to act, but we did it: we shifted our timeline by two years. But we ultimately did it: the plane is flying.

I have no doubt that we will accomplish all our plans. The timeframe may be affected. Of course, deadlines are important because while we work to solve problems, others surge ahead. We are aware of this, which is why we try to be proactive. In other words, thankfully, there are no critical problems with our efforts to overcome the sanctions, and I hope there will not be any in the future.

Andrei Kondrashov: Thank you, Mr President.

It would now be logical to discuss the country that has imposed the greatest number of anti-Russia sanctions. I am talking about the United States of America, which has imposed 3,500 sanctions on Russia.

James Jordan, News Director for Europe and Africa at the Associated Press, is here with us today. Mr Jordan, your question for President Putin, please.

News Director for Europe and Africa at the Associated Press James Jordan:Thank you very much.

Thank you, President Putin, for this opportunity to address you directly.

Over two years ago, you sent Russian troops into Ukraine, as you say, to protect Russians and Russian speakers of the Donbass region and to keep NATO from your country’s eastern border. Since then, thousands have died on both sides, and the fighting has even come to some regions of Russia.

In the last few hours, it has been confirmed to the Associated Press by a Western official that Ukraine has used US weapons on Russian soil in the last few days. Do you see this as a further provocation, to follow on from my colleague from ANSA’s question? Could you sum up for us what you feel Moscow has achieved in the last two years? And how does the fighting stop?

Vladimir Putin: First, we fulfilled our duty to the people suffering from the coup d’état and subsequent hostilities in southeastern Ukraine. We recognised the right of the people living in these territories to defend their interests, their lives and the lives of their children. I believe that this is the main aspect.

We also showed ourselves and the whole world that we do not just talk about defending our interests, but we are actually doing it, and we will undoubtedly continue to do it. This is something everyone will have to accept.

Regarding the second part of your question, specifically, what should be done to stop hostilities in Ukraine, I can tell you as a representative of the United States what I told Mr Biden in the past. He sent me a letter some time ago, and I replied to him in writing that, if you want to stop hostilities in Ukraine, you should stop supplying them with weapons, and hostilities will stop within two or three months, at most. That is all, and this is the first thing.

Second, we urge everyone not to hinder a possible peace process.

Mr Jordan, I am forced to recall the events of late 2022. We had agreed with Ukraine that we were ready to sign an agreement with them that would have resolved several key issues.

The first issue was establishing a system to ensure the security of Ukraine. Ukraine stated expressly in that draft agreement that it was not a NATO member and that it would remain neutral. However, the relevant security guarantees closely resembled articles 4 and 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. There is probably no need to go into details, but this implied that, if necessary, all signatories were to provide military assistance to Ukraine, etc. We consider this a complicated issue, and I have said that we should think about this; however, it is possible to discuss it.

The same concerns Russia’s interests. I repeat, this implies Ukraine’s neutral and non-aligned status where it should not join any blocs, as well as certain arms limitations, and so on. This is something the Russian Federation is certainly interested in.

Furthermore, as you remember, we mentioned the denazification of Ukraine. And I was quite surprised when people started asking me, “But what is denazification?” Denazification means prohibiting Nazi propaganda at the legislative level. Strange as it may seem, we did find common ground here, just as we did on other key issues necessary to resolve this crisis peacefully. And if the head of the Ukraine’s negotiating team signed off on the key provisions of the long agreement, initialled that framework document, I take that as proof that Ukraine found the terms generally acceptable. And if we accepted it, it means that it generally suited Russia as well.

I hate to make you feel uncomfortable, but I will nevertheless ask a rhetorical question: why did Mr Johnson go to Kiev and recommend that this agreement be thrown into the trash? Why did he encourage his Ukrainian colleagues to achieve victory on the battlefield, to seek Russia’s strategic defeat?

The Ukrainian side, Ukrainian officials have publicly admitted that if they had signed this treaty definitively, the war would have ended as early as in late 2022. We did not say this; Ukrainian officials in Kiev said this publicly.

So, I have a rhetorical question: why would anyone want to prevent us and Ukraine from signing that treaty? I can only assume that someone was pursuing their own foreign political agenda concerning Russia. They were aiming for Russia’s collapse, Russia’s strategic defeat at any cost, and so on and so forth.

You asked me what should be done. I hope that I have given a fairly comprehensive answer to your question. When you have an opportunity to talk to the leadership of your country, please ask them: why did you prevent the conclusion of a peace treaty between Russia and Ukraine?

What I have told you is my assumptions as to why they did it. Maybe they will have another answer for you, a more complete official version. I am certainly in no position to give you this answer – it is up to my counterparts in the US and UK.

However, I have no doubt that Mr Johnson’s move had full support of the US administration; he did not do it of his own accord. I am certain of that.

James Jordan: Thank you, Mr President. With your permission, may I ask you a very brief other question away from Ukraine? Regarding the American reporter Evan Gershkovich, who has been in custody for more than a year now. There has been no evidence made public about what crimes he may have committed. Could you give us the latest on any talks that might be happening with the US as regards his release and when we might expect to see him?

Vladimir Putin: You know, you believe he is innocent, but Russian law enforcement agencies and special services believe that he committed illegal actions, which qualify as espionage. I would not like to go into details and specifics right now. I know that the United States administration is indeed taking vigorous steps to secure his release; that is true. But such issues are not resolved through the media; they require quiet, calm and professional approach and dialogue between intelligence agencies. And of course, they absolutely have to be resolved on the basis of reciprocity. The relevant services of the United States and Russia are in touch on this issue.

Andrei Kondrashov: Thank you, Mr Jordan.

We have Turkiye here. Yusuf Ozhan, Deputy Director General and Editor-in-Chief of the Anadolu Turkish news agency.

Please, Mr Ozhan, your question.

Deputy Director General, Editor-in-Chief of the Anadolu news agency Yusuf Ozhan: Thank you so much for having us here today, Mr President.

Actually, I would like to ask a question, a follow-up question, to the question that I posed three years ago, again, during the anniversary economic forum. It was over Zoom. I am happy to see you face to face.

It is about Gaza, the war in Gaza right now. Millions of people around the world are opposing the attacks against the people of Gaza, which amounts to a level of genocide right now.

Does Russia intend to play a role in the solution of the situation right now in Gaza? Do you have any intention to get the Security Council in motion, because people, not only the Gazan people, but the Palestinian people in general, and the people of different origins, religions, ethnicity, free from any identity or backgrounds, the people of the world are actually asking for the big powers to finish what is happening right now on the ground in Gaza.

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: First, I want to say that we are against terrorism in any form and any attacks against civilians, anywhere, in any country.

However, what is happening in Gaza in response to the infamous terrorist attack in Israel does not look like a war. It appears to be the complete destruction of the civilian population.

The only thing I can do is to reiterate Russia’s official position on this matter. We believe that this is a result of the United States’ policy, which has monopolised the Israeli-Palestinian settlement process and pushed aside all the instruments created for collective efforts to resolve this complex issue.

Perhaps someone in the administration believed that the fewer opinions there are, the faster agreements can be reached. But reality has proven that it does not work that way. This is my first point.

Second, attempting to solve the issue with some kind of material gifts does not seem promising either. We have talked about this. We expressed doubt that it would be possible to replace the resolution of political issues related to the fate of the Palestinian people in the historical perspective by offering economic incentives. Yes, creating an atmosphere to address certain problems is necessary, but the problems themselves still need to be addressed.

The political issues must be addressed. And the main issue is the creation of two states, as originally envisaged in the UN decision. Two states must be established on this territory: a Palestinian state and a Jewish state. Therefore, I do not believe it would be possible to resolve the issue without addressing its crucial aspects.

I must say that Russia’s position on this matter is a principled one and does not depend on the current political situation. We have recognised the Palestinian state since the Soviet times. In this sense, our position has not changed. We are aware that President [of Turkiye Recep Tayyip] Erdogan is making vigorous efforts to solve this very acute, long-standing problem. Given his authority in the region, in the world, and in the Islamic world in particular, we strongly hope that his contribution will be significant. For our part, Russia is ready to do everything within its power to resolve the situation, taking into account our relations with the State of Israel that have developed over the past decades, among other things.

Andrei Kondrashov: Mr Ozhan, do you have a second question to ask while you still have the chance?

Yusuf Ozhan: Also, another question would be regarding the Turkiye-Russia relations.

You have been in negotiations over the course of the last ten years. One of the mega projects that Russia and Turkiye have achieved together was the building of nuclear power plant in Akkuyu.

So, for the future, are there any developments on the Russian side regarding the production or the construction project of the gas centre that was being discussed in recent years? Is there any news from the Russian side about that? Or are there any other future projects that are being discussed between the two countries?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Everything regarding Akkuyu is going according to plan. We are on schedule; there are no delays. Many people, mostly builders, are working there. For large volumes of construction works, Turkish builders are employed. Our specialists also work in Turkiye. We are grateful to the Turkish leadership for creating favourable conditions for this work. The first unit is nearing completion, and work is underway on all power units.

As for hydrocarbons, I have already mentioned but I am willing to repeat that we are not just building the plant but also training personnel for it. We are ready to remove nuclear waste and so on. We are creating a whole new industry. It will be more than just a power plant, it will be a new economic and power sector in Turkiye. President Erdogan has made this strategic choice which I regard as an absolutely correct one. Among other things, it will reduce dependence on hydrocarbons. Overall, we have a highly reliable partnership.

Regarding the gas hub, we are pondering the issue. Gazprom maintains contacts with BOTAS and other partners. I would like everyone to understand – I have been trying to explain that all the time: it will not be just a gas storage facility but an electronic platform at the first stage for gas trading, largely with Europe.

Here is what I would like to point out. We are also protecting the Blue Stream running under the Black Sea towards Türkiye, including for Turkish consumers, and TurkStream, which is also used to deliver gas to Europe. We have to protect both these gas routes built under the Black Sea because Ukrainian armed forces have been trying to attack and destroy them. In any case, the ships that are protecting these routes come under constant attacks.

Some time ago, I am not sure if it was seven or ten days ago, Ukrainian drones attacked a gas pumping station built on the Black Sea coast, which is pumping gas to Türkiye.

I would like to note that Türkiye is cooperating with Ukraine in some spheres, but Ukraine is nevertheless trying to attack the gas pipelines that are pumping gas to Türkiye. It is not a joke or an exaggeration. Two drones have been suppressed by Russian electronic warfare systems and fell near the gas pumping station on the Black Sea coast. I am not hyping it up or inventing things; this is a fact. Please, tell our friend, President Erdogan, about the situation on the ground. And the ships that are protecting that gas supply route across the Black Sea are regularly attacked by sea drones, which European countries send to Ukraine, by the way. They attack our ships that are protecting these pipeline systems in the Black Sea.

We should speak about this more often and more clearly, but we are not always good at propaganda, which our Spanish colleagues complained about. But it is happening on the ground all the time. Nevertheless, our bilateral relations are developing quite well, and our mutual trade is growing.

Truth be told, I have a somewhat detached view of the situation. It seems to me that the economic bloc of the Turkish government has shifted focus to borrowing loans, attracting investment and receiving grants from Western financial institutions. This could be good, but if this is connected to restrictions on Türkiye’s trade and economic ties with Russia, the Turkish economy will lose more than it can gain. I believe that there is such a risk. This issue calls for a separate discussion. We look at the figures, and the Turkish government should now pay special attention to macroeconomic indicators. I will not go into details now, although I have them at the tip of my fingers. I have an in-depth knowledge of the matter. I understand what is going on there.

Andrei Kondrashov: Mr Ozhan, thank you for your question.

Mr President, very recently you have been on a three-day state visit to Uzbekistan, which you found fruitful and successful. Now we have a guest from Tashkent here, in St Petersburg. This is Abdusaid Kuchimov, Director General of the Uzbekistan National News Agency.

Mr Kuchimov, you have the floor.

Director General of UzA Abdusaid Kuchimov: Thank you.

Mr President, you and President Shavkat Mirziyoyev discussed topical international issues at your recent talks in Tashkent.

Peace and stability in the neighbouring country of Afghanistan is very important for Uzbekistan. Unfortunately, we can see that developments in Ukraine have completely displaced from the global agenda the Afghan issue that we find no less pressing, although there is an objective need to build interaction with the new authorities of Afghanistan and help solve the socioeconomic problems of the long-suffering Afghan people. Moreover, we can see the strong desire of the new government of Afghanistan, that is, the Taliban, to establish peace in the country and build constructive cooperation with all states.

In this regard, my question is, how important is it for the Russian Federation to maintain dialogue with Afghanistan? Does Afghanistan currently have an important place in Russian politics? And what is your attitude to the processes around that country?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: First, I would like to confirm that my visit to Uzbekistan has been very substantive, fruitful, and effective. Perhaps we have not had this format with anyone before: at the initiative of President Mirziyoyev, we came to Uzbekistan with a large government delegation, but at the same time a meeting of regional leaders was held. It turned out that half of the Russian Government and a big number of heads of Russian regions came to Tashkent. Some of them enjoyed communicating with the leadership of the renewed Government of the Russian Federation in Tashkent, which was interesting, but they also interacted very actively with each other. This proved to be very unexpectedly useful even for me. This is the first point.

Second, we have also discussed Ukraine and, sure enough, President Mirziyoyev is strongly in favour of a peaceful resolution of the Ukraine crisis and has repeatedly laid out Uzbekistan’s concerns with regard to the developments in Ukraine. We are grateful to the President for Uzbekistan’s clearly neutral and very balanced policy in these matters.

We covered Afghanistan extensively as well. The problem that Uzbekistan faces is the problem of access to the world ocean, the seas, which is understandable. There are quite a few options to address this issue, including building logistics across the territory of Afghanistan, including pipeline transport, railway transport, motor vehicle transport, supply of energy, electric power, and so on and so forth.

In this regard, stability in Afghanistan is critically important for Uzbekistan and Russia. We have invariably proceeded from the actual state of affairs where the Taliban control power in Afghanistan, and, of course, it is important to ensure that all agreements at the level of the UN, such as inclusive government with the participation of all ethnic groups in Afghanistan, get implemented. This is a delicate and vital issue. All told, we need to build relations with the Taliban government.

Broadly speaking, we have contacts. I am aware that Afghanistan is developing this as well. We will move forward. After all, we need to build good relations with the neighbouring country, all the more so since Uzbekistan shares a long border [with Afghanistan], and it is important to ensure security and, to reiterate, to expand logistics.

We agreed to address these issues together and to study these opportunities.

Thank you very much.

Andrei Kondrashov: Thank you, Mr Kuchimov.

And finally, our Far Eastern neighbour – Toshimitsu Sawai, Executive Director of the Japanese news agency Kyodo News. Mr Sawai is a highly experienced international journalist. Throughout his career, he has worked as a correspondent in many different parts of the world, such as Kenya, Thailand, Pakistan and the United States.

Mr Sawai, your question, please.

Executive Director of Kyodo News Toshimitsu Sawai (retranslated): Thank you very much, Mr President for giving me this valuable opportunity to ask you a question today.

Currently, there are several issues in the Far Eastern region of the world that are of concern to Japan. First, there are territorial problems with Russia. In addition, there is growing military cooperation between Russia and North Korea. We in Japan have been faced with these two problems.

Regarding the territorial issue, I have the following question. You said in Khabarovsk this year that you would definitely visit the four disputed Kuril Islands. Do you already have specific plans and a timetable for this visit? Do you think that if you visit these territories, our bilateral relations will experience an even greater setback, considering the suspended negotiations? Could you share your plans, please?

As for the Russian-Japanese talks and their resumption: during the special military operation in Ukraine, these talks were suspended. Could the descendants of former islanders be allowed to resume their visits to their ancestors’ graves on the islands?

Vladimir Putin: Our relations with Japan have been developing confidently and progressively. There were very many issues, especially those related to the pivotal aspect of our relations – a peace treaty. It is clear that a peace treaty was difficult to agree upon without resolving the issues connected to the Kuril Islands. We understood it.

Back in the 1950s, as we are aware, the Soviet Government adopted a decision – I think it was in 1956 – and signed a declaration stating that the Soviet Union was ready to give two of those islands to Japan. However, it did not specify the grounds or under whose sovereignty the islands would be, nor did it mention any other conditions, whether material or otherwise. But the idea of transfer was mentioned in this declaration. Furthermore, it was ratified by the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. However, for some reason, the Japanese side refused to fulfil these agreements. Therefore, the Soviet Union declared the withdrawal of that ratification.

We resumed the discussion of these issues at Japan’s request. It was a difficult dialogue, but at least we talked with each other.

You have mentioned several problems.

Visits to the islands: The Russian Federation regards the islands as a sovereign territory of Russia, and so I do not understand why I should have scruples about visiting a Russian territory. It is the first point.

Why do we think so? We think so because the delegations of both countries signed relevant documents, including in the United States, as a result of the Second World War. And we will not revise the results of WWII.

This does not mean that it was impossible to come to an agreement on this issue. It is a delicate matter, but it is not a black-and-white matter. It is much more complicated than that. Anyway, we were not afraid to hold that dialogue.

The first thing I would like to say is that I see no reason not to visit these islands. However, I have not been planning to do so because I am currently busy with other matters.

You have said that my visit would create obstacles to addressing issues related to the drafting of a peace treaty. Excuse me, colleague, but do you think Japan’s statement on joining efforts to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia could be an obstacle to continuing dialogue on the peace treaty? Japan has joined the calls for inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia, yet you think the current conditions are suitable for discussing a peace treaty. Do you really believe that my hypothetical intention to visit the islands is a bigger obstacle than the Japanese government’s statement on inflicting a strategic defeat on the Russian Federation? I understand this is not your personal question and that it was suggested by your editorial board. But please, put this question to your superiors. That is the first point.

Second, we see Japan’s bias regarding the Ukrainian crisis. Currently, there are no conditions for continuing dialogue on a peace treaty between Russia and Japan. We are not refusing to resume it, but we will only do so if relevant conditions are created, primarily by Japan. We have done nothing in our bilateral relations to complicate Russia-Japan dialogue. Nothing at all. All the hindrances have been created by Japan.

Now, let us discuss the relations between Russia and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Opinions on the past and present may vary. Firstly, in my view, the DPRK has repeatedly shown a willingness to negotiate, including with the United States. I think that this readiness to engage in dialogue was likely the reason behind former US President Trump’s meeting with Kim Jong-un. The American side recognised this willingness.

Moreover, the North Koreans agreed with the Americans to halt tests and dismantle a test site. They followed through on these commitments in response to corresponding steps from the United States, including actions in the banking sector. What did they get in return? The United States unilaterally violated these agreements without hesitation. Naturally, the Koreans withdrew from these agreements. So, what prevents us from developing relations with a country with which we share a common border?

There are certain things that honestly make me wonder. Yes, there was a time when we supported certain steps with regard to North Korea, such as in the area of labour migration. Let me be frank, especially since you work in the field of information and are deeply involved in these matters: why did we do this, exactly? What was the rationale behind it? After all, we are talking about labour migrants here. What kind of threat do they pose, and to whom? It is rather strange. We show concern for the environment, for birds, sea animals, and all that. But when people face hunger – not because they are militants or anything like that, but simply as individuals, citizens of a country – when they are barred from working somewhere or their ability to earn a living is so restricted that they cannot feed their families, that is somehow strange. Strange indeed.

You know, even now I am speaking in general terms about all the problems that arise. This is always the case in the world: if someone feels threatened, they respond. If there were no threats, I believe the nuclear issue could gradually be resolved. But they are constantly threatened, so what should they do in response?

Regarding our relations with North Korea, or the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, they are our neighbours. We will continue to develop these relationships, whether others approve it or not.

Andrei Kondrashov: Thank you very much for the question.

Mr President, Samia Nakhoul from Reuters would like to take the floor. We cannot turn down her request, can we? Your question, please.

Samia Nakhoul:I have two questions. I have a follow-up question on Gaza. You know, the war has been going on for eight months. Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu said that he wants to eradicate Hamas, yet it is still there. So, how do you see the scenario? How do you see this conflict unfolding? And, given your diplomatic relations and clout with the Palestinian Authority and with Hamas, even with Israel, though now it is a bit strained, and with the Gulf countries, do you think of playing a leading role in mediating an end to the conflict based on the two-state solution as proposed at the Madrid Conference? Do you really believe that there is hope for the Palestinian state? This is question one.

Vladimir Putin: I believe there is hope. There is hope because there are people in the United States and Israel who advocate for the creation of two states. They believe that this option – the establishment of two sovereign states – can lead to peace, help find a formula for peace.

Does Russia believe it is important to play a leading role? I do not think so. There are many players in the region who are involved in the conflict and have great influence on current developments. However, we can contribute to a peace settlement, considering our relations with Israel that have evolved over the past few decades, as well as our traditional relations with the Islamic world that are based on a great deal on trust.

I believe that regional countries and organisations, including the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and the Arab League, should make a decisive contribution. This includes neighbouring states, such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, counties of the Persian Gulf, Turkiye, a leading player in the Islamic world, and, certainly, the United States. We strongly reject the extremist position that the United States should be excluded. What for? That is impossible. The same applies to Israel.

However, it is necessary to find a balance. I repeat, I believe it can be done, considering the sentiments in US and Israeli society, and especially those in the Arab and Islamic world.

We are trying to influence ongoing developments to the best of our ability, also bearing in mind the humanitarian aspect. As you know, we have played a certain role in securing the release of several hostages with a Russian background. We are continuing this work with our partners. You are right in saying that we maintain stable and trust-based relations that have evolved over decades.

However, we need to work together. This work should not be monopolised. This is harmful since monopolisation could prove beneficial only if those who monopolise the process adhere to a neutral position. However, a monopolist is unable to maintain a neutral position. They inevitably side with one of the parties, causing everything to fall apart and lead to tragedies like the ones we are experiencing.

This is the overall picture.

Please.

Samia Nakhoul: About the scenario: how do you see this conflict now, which is unfolding in Gaza? And one last question.

Vladimir Putin: We have put forward ceasefire initiatives multiple times at the UN Security Council, but they have been blocked and vetoed by the United States. Collaborating and reaching an agreement together would be the ideal scenario, but unfortunately, it does not work so far.

We have directly supported a ceasefire, but our proposal is vetoed; another initiative – also veto. If we had avoided reciprocal vetoes and instead focused on finding common ground to solve the issue, it might have paved the way for a resolution.

You wanted to ask one more question? Please go ahead.

Samia Nakhoul: My question is this: going back to Ukraine, what would trigger a nuclear war and how close are we to that risk?

Vladimir Putin: You know, they always try to accuse us of brandishing a ‘nuclear big stick.’ But was it me who just brought up the topic of using nuclear weapons? You did it. You push me to speak on this subject, but afterwards you will accuse me of brandishing a ‘nuclear big stick.’

You know, this is a very tough topic. The United States is the only country to have used nuclear weapons in World War II: Hiroshima, Nagasaki – 20 kilotonnes. Our tactical nuclear weapons are 70–75 kilotonnes. Let us avoid not only their actual use, but even the threat of use.

Somehow, the West believes that Russia will never use nuclear weapons. However, our nuclear doctrine clearly states that if somebody’s actions threaten our sovereignty and territorial integrity, we reserve the right to employ all available means in response.

It is crucial not to approach this matter lightly or superficially, but rather with a professional and serious attitude. I hope that everyone around the world will adopt this approach when addressing such issues.

Andrei Kondrashov: Thank you, Samia Nakhoul.

Ali Naderi from IRNA, Iran, wants to ask one more question.

Please, Mr Naderi.

IRNA CEO Ali Naderi: (retranslated): God help you!

We have been talking for three hours now. In your speeches, you talked about sanctions and also about Iran joining the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and BRICS, as well as cooperation within these organisations to create a multipolar world.

My question is: how do you see the world order in the future, considering the will of various independent countries? Do you think monopolism and a unipolar world will continue?

Vladimir Putin: Do you know what happened? We have talked about this many times; no one knows this better than you. The Soviet Union collapsed. It does not matter whether it collapsed or was destroyed; what matters is that it ceased to exist. There was only one superpower left, which considered that now it is done, God fell asleep on its shoulder, and now it can command everyone. But the world is complex and diverse, it is developing rapidly, with new centres of power emerging.

A European politician said – it was not me, just to make it clear to everyone – that all European states are small states, but not everyone has understood this yet.

Look at how Asia is developing. China has 1.5 billion people, and India perhaps even more. Other Asian countries, South Asia, Southeast Asia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia are developing at a tremendous pace. The development pace is high, and the population is growing. Apparently, the trends are such that development is gradually moving there.

Several processes are taking place in this region of the world, catching up not only with the growth rate, but also with the standard of living. All this will inevitably lead to changes in the configuration of the world. Today we cannot talk about any kind of monopoly; it no longer exists. The world, of course, can only exist in its diversity. If there is a monopoly, it will be terrible. Just like in nature, the world is always diverse in politics.

I do not know whether it is good for the United States that this monopoly emerged after the collapse of the Soviet Union. That required some extra efforts from the United States.

Look, the United States spends more on defence than all other countries combined. If the expenses of all countries in the world are combined and added up, the United States still spends more on defence than all countries together. Why? Huge amounts of money are spent on maintaining bases abroad.

I am often asked how we manage to have cutting-edge weapons such as Avangard glide vehicles or other types. Well, we specifically focus our efforts, finances and administrative resources on the goals that matter the most. And the United States is forced to spend money on maintaining its armed forces because with bases deployed around the world, the costs must be huge, and the opportunities for embezzlement are endless. I am not pointing fingers now; I know we also have a lot of fraud. Embezzlement is widespread in Russia as well as in your countries, but in the United States it is mostly found in the army. Why? Because there is always more theft in maintenance; it is just inevitable.

Massive resources are spent on maintaining its imperial status. Does this benefit the American people? I do not think so. This is rather making the United States backslide, and analysts in the United States are aware of this. In fact, they are saying this directly. They openly write about it. I read them. The question is how fast that slide will be.

If they were smart people, they would read what their analysts write. They would have adjusted and remained on Olympus longer. But today’s leadership wants to maintain this imperial standing at all costs and only harms itself. But change is still occurring; it is inevitable, it is already underway – there is no unipolar world anymore.

I would say what we all need to do right now – in the United States, in Europe, in Russia and in Asia – having realised this, we need to make sure we do not go to the extreme that our British colleague has mentioned. Having realised this, each of us needs to restrain their ambitions and learn to negotiate, rather than dissuade others from reaching agreements. And then the world will change, but without any cataclysms that frighten everyone so much.

Ali Naderi (retranslated): I have one more question. The IAEA issued a resolution today aimed against the Islamic Republic of Iran. The resolution was passed, although America had withdrawn from the nuclear deal and did not participate in this.

I believe we need some kind of agency, some body that would be more professional, more competent.

What do you think is the reason for this situation?

Vladimir Putin: I am not sure I understand your question. Iran has fulfilled all its obligations under the well-known agreement that you have just mentioned. There can be no complaints against Iran.

However, the United States unilaterally decided to withdraw from this agreement, while the Europeans continued to insist on Iran’s fulfilling its obligations. Forgive me, but this is absurd. It was not Iran that withdrew from the agreement – the United States did. Former President Trump decided to withdraw from the deal. But the Europeans now say: yes, it is not very good that the Americans withdrew, but you, Iranians, still have to comply. Why on earth would Iran do that? Sorry, it sounds a little rude in Russian. But if a key player has withdrawn from the agreement, why should Iran bother to comply?

Nevertheless, you know, even we tried to talk Iran into not taking any rash steps and not to withdraw from this agreement in order to not strain relations with Europe. This is a secret I am willing to share with you, even though it is common knowledge. We kept telling the Iranian leadership to calm down and to honour this agreement in order to avoid the outcomes that may hurt them. But I kept thinking to myself: why should the Iranians follow it at a time where others are withdrawing from it? That makes no sense.

More broadly, though, we need to look for stable mechanisms. Everyone is clear about that. Today, a party signs an agreement, and next thing you know they withdraw from it. This is not the way to do things. They keep telling us that trust is important. But where is trust? Where will it come from? One administration is gone, another one comes to office and dumps all previously assumed commitments.

It is just like everyone today is pursuing their own agenda, and so do I. Our colleague from the United States asked about possible agreements with Ukraine. Indeed, we were one step away from signing an agreement with Ukraine. Truth be told, though, all of that was thrown out at the behest of the United States and Great Britain. Is there a way to come to terms today?

The current leaders of Ukraine decided not to hold elections. That is an issue. There is Article 103 of the Constitution of Ukraine which states that the president is elected for only five years. There is Article 83 of the Constitution of Ukraine which says that the term of office of the parliament gets prolonged under martial law. But it does not say anything about prolonging the term of office of the president.

There is a law that clarifies the status of martial law and says that the powers go to the parliament and that presidential elections are not held under martial law. But it does not say that they get prolonged, you see? It does not say that. It says that the presidential elections are not held. But it does not say that they are prolonged? It does not say that. And if it does not say that, it means they are not prolonged.

On the contrary, there is Article 109 of the Criminal Code, I believe, of Ukraine, which identifies it as a power grab. Who are we supposed to enter into an agreement with? Nevertheless, challenges can be overcome and things can be agreed upon. If the powers go to the Speaker of Parliament… If there is a desire to sign an agreement, we can always find someone to sign it with. That is a different matter.

I agree with you on matters concerning Iran. We need a tool – perhaps, it needs to be developed from scratch – which would be both legitimate and reliable, so that the parties to this process do not fear that all preliminary conditions would get cancelled tomorrow, and one of the contracting parties would be held responsible for not complying with something they did not actually break.

Ali Naderi (retranslated): I would like to hear what you think about IAEA’s steps regarding the publication of the resolution concerning the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: I have not seen it yet. I need to look at the text. I am not familiar with what it says. We have been discussing things here for half a day now. Let me see what it says, and I will share with you what I think about it. I cannot do so now, because I have not seen this resolution.

Andrei Kondrashov: Thank you, Mr Naderi.

Mr President, we have been talking for almost three hours now. Shall we wrap it up?

Vladimir Putin: Please let us continue if there is anything that you consider important that we have not covered yet.

Andrei Kondrashov: DPA Agency, Germany.

Martin Romanczyk (retranslated): Mr President, we have been discussing a number of issues over the past several hours. What do you think needs to be done to overcome these issues? We discussed this during our most recent two meetings with Minister Lavrov and during the G20 meeting. Brazil has assumed leadership this year.

Have you decided to take part in the G20 meeting?

Vladimir Putin: I am not sure yet, but I do not rule it out. Above all, I must act based on today’s priorities. As you know, we have a lot of issues to deal with in our country, but I do not rule out the possibility of me going there. We are fully aware of the kind of world we are living in. I will not beat about the bush and be straightforward about it: it will depend on the situation in the country, the situation surrounding Ukraine, and the international situation, more broadly. It is not a good idea to go there and listen to someone who consider us aggressors besmirch Russia at a time where, I think, they are the aggressors, and to create issues for our friends. We are working in the G20 and will continue to do so. I am not sure whether I need to show up there in person. We will see. Time will tell, as we in Russia say.

Andrei Kondrashov: Karim Talbi, Agence France-Presse.

Karim Talbi: I have two quick questions for you. First, the American people want to know whether Tucker Carlson will moderate the SPIEF plenary session here in St Petersburg on Friday.

Vladimir Putin: Carlson? I am not sure who will moderate the session. Mr Peskov has not reported about this to me yet.

(Addressing Dmitry Peskov.) Who will moderate it?

Dmitry Peskov: I will report about it separately.

Vladimir Putin: He will report to me separately. I have no idea. We did not discuss this with Mr Carlson.

Karim Talbi: Here is my second question. It is getting dark, but I can still see three flags behind you: the flag of Russia, the flag of the Russian Empire and the flag of the Soviet Union. The flag of the Russian Empire is flying higher than the other two, let me put it this way.

Vladimir Putin: No, no, they are all equal.

Karim Talbi: Which one is closer to your heart?

Vladimir Putin: The official flag of the Russian Federation, the tricolor, the official flag of Russia. This is my first point.

Second, I can tell you this was not a political decision of the Government or the Presidential Executive Office. It may appear strange, but it was Gazprom’s decision. Of course, Mr Miller told me he was going to do that. I can share what we discussed with you, there is nothing secret about it. I asked him why do that, since we have a national flag. He told me it was part of our history. I think Alexander II established the flag of the empire. He thought it should include black and yellow colours, because these are the colours of the Russian coat of arms. This is how it was presented in the 19^th century. Peter the Great established the state flag, the tricolor. The flag of the Soviet Union is there, because victory over Nazism is associated with it. It has a rightful presence in our history and the public mind. I chose not to prevent them from doing so and gave them the green light.

Everything happens for a reason, that’s it. There is no need to look for something that is not here, or for some subtext, or for our imperial ambitions: there are none. There are none because the world is changing quickly. Take Uzbekistan: do you know how many people live there? You do not. How much is it in France now?

Karim Talbi: Many.

В.Путин: Yes, many. Sixty million, right? Sixty-five. There are 37 million in Uzbekistan. Now pay attention: a million adds every year. Population growth in Uzbekistan is one million [per year]. At this rate, they will soon overtake France. If you also subtract migrants, France’s population will be as large as that of Uzbekistan.

Now I am going to explain why. If someone suspects us of some kind of imperial ambitions, just imagine: we will restore the Soviet Union, and we will have a predominantly Islamic population. Has this ever occurred to you?

There is no need to make something that is not there. We are not against the growing Islamic population; on the contrary, we are glad to see what is happening in the Russian Federation. Some republics with a predominantly Islamic population have a very good birth rate, and we are glad. But what’s done is done; a page has been turned. We are looking to the future based on today’s realities. The flags you see are part of our history. There is no need to make up anything to make your opinion about Russia on, you should not make Russia out to be the enemy. You’re only hurting yourselves with this, you know?

They made up stories that Russia wants to attack NATO. Have you gone completely crazy? That is as thick as this table. Who came up with this? It is just complete nonsense, total rubbish. Or, this could be nonsense if it weren’t made up to fool their own citizens by telling them: “Beware! Russia is going to attack you soon! To arms, quick, and we must promptly send weapons to Ukraine!” And why is it being done? In order to maintain their own imperial position and greatness – that’s why. This is what these threats and scares are for, for citizens in Germany, France and other parts of Europe. This threat does not and cannot exist. We defend ourselves in Ukraine.

Where is the United States – across the pond – and where are we? Imagine us doing in Canada, or in Mexico, the things the United States is doing on our doorstep, in Ukraine; or us saying that the United States seized part of Mexico’s territories somewhere in the past, and encouraging Mexico to fight to return them. In fact, this is approximately what the Western countries are doing in relation to the Russian-Ukrainian crisis. Would you ever want to ponder this?

Do not look at these flags: look into the heart of the events. Believe me, we have no imperial ambitions; this is all nonsense, just like a Russian threat to NATO countries and Europe. Are you kidding? Look at NATO’s potential and look at Russia's potential. Did you think that we were crazy, or something?

Karim Talbi: In France, there is no flag of the last king of France hanging near the flag of Napoleon and the flag of the Republic near the palace at the same time. And these flags – forgive me, but when I came here, I was not the only one who immediately saw them. They are very visible.

Vladimir Putin: They are nowhere to be seen.

This is Mr Miller’s personal initiative, or that of his company, because he is interested in Russia’s history. Let me say once again: this has no connections with anything but history and paying tribute to the generations that lived under these flags and banners and achieved great success in developing our state.

Andrei Kondrashov: Thank you.

We will take another quick question from the Spanish agency EFE.

Vladimir Putin: We will sit here all night if we keep taking questions.

Can we put it off until tomorrow? We need to go to Pushkin, Tsarskoe Selo.

Andrei Kondrashov: Then let me ask you a closing question.

Vladimir Putin: That is okay, go ahead.

Jose Manuel Sanz Mingote (retranslated): I will keep it quick. Tomorrow, we will celebrate the 80^th anniversary of the D-Day landings, the landing of the US soldiers in Normandy. They fought alongside Russian soldiers. Do you rule out the possibility of Russians, French, and Americans joining hands and being partners?

Vladimir Putin: We do not rule it out. It is the Americans and the Europeans who are ruling it out. We are all for it. We were not the ones to impose sanctions on Europe, nor have we severed energy supplies to Germany or other countries. We are the ones on the receiving end of the sanctions.

You said that tomorrow will mark the 80^thanniversary of the Normandy landings and the opening of the second front. We have always had great respect for our allies, the Americans, the British, and the French.

Speaking of which, do people in France know that Stalin insisted on France attending and even signing the Act of Military Surrender of Germany? The United States and Great Britain objected, but Stalin insisted on France attending the signing of the Act of Unconditional Surrender of Germany as a victorious country. The French do not remember it. Either, they do not want to, or simply do not think it is important. But it is a historical fact nonetheless, and we have it all in our archives.

We have always held fighting France in high regard. Despite the fact that Nazi troops marched through Paris, we supported the Maquis and everyone who fought alongside us, including the Normandie-Niemen squadron pilots. We remember this very well. Our door remains open for talks, meetings, and discussions.

You just said there will be celebrations, but it turns out that we are not part of the festivities. How many American soldiers died in the war against Nazism? Is it 500,000 to 600,000? About 500,000. Even fewer British died during that war, fewer by an order of magnitude than in WWI. You may be aware of the fact that the Soviet Union paid the highest human price for achieving common victory. About 27 million lives were lost according to the latest data, and the RSFSR, Russia, accounts for 70 percent of these losses. Indeed, the Russian Federation officially accounts for 70 percent of the losses. And you are asking me whether we are ready or not. We were not invited to this event.

The main contribution to the defeat of Nazism – of course, it is obvious, all you have to do is to read what Churchill said then or Roosevelt about the contribution of the Soviet Union, say Russia, in the common victory over Nazism. It is obvious, everybody knows it. Only completely unfair people can twist these facts. God forbid, let them celebrate it without us, it won’t cost us anything. However, this is the answer to your question: who wants this dialogue and who doesn’t.

I think that the current Ukrainian leadership will attend. Just listen to me: how can you celebrate such a serious date in the struggle against Nazis together with those who put neo-Nazis on a pedestal of honour and make them national heroes? Bandera is today’s symbol of Ukrainian statehood. He was one of the main Hitler’s associates in Eastern Europe. It was the Banderites who shot thousands of not only Russians and Poles, but also Jews. This is Hitler’s closest associate. Yes, back then, at the end of the war, he began to sniff out and realise that victory was slipping away from Hitler, he began to look for allies already in the western direction, and the Germans noticed it. But he is a main collaborator. He walked around with his ”hands up“ and welcomed – not only welcomed, but worked directly with the Nazis.

The then acting, still legitimate head of the Ukrainian state, as you well know it, gave the former SS soldier a standing ovation in Canada. What, you don't know about it? Everybody knows about it. Only the European, US, and Canadian media are silent about this fact, as if it didn't happen, but it did. They told him: here is a man, who fought against Russians during WWII. Everybody stood up, including the President of Ukraine, and started applauding him. Who was fighting against Russians during the Second World War? It was Hitler and those who collaborated with him. And the person, whom they applauded, was a former soldier of the Waffen-SS Galicia Division, and everybody applauded him.

And tomorrow these people will be celebrating the Allied landing in Normandy. How's that? And Russia, which is the legal successor to the Soviet Union and which has suffered such huge losses, they somehow shy away from inviting us. It will not cost us anything, but this is just an answer to your question: who is interested in normal relations and in restoring them, and who is not so interested in them. We are for it.

Well, shall we call it a day?

Andrei Kondrashov: Final question, if I may, Mr President.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, go ahead.

Andrei Kondrashov: A quick one.

Vladimir Putin (addressing Martin Romanczyk): You wanted to add something else?

Andrei Kondrashov: Go ahead, please, Martin. I will wait until you finish and then ask my final question.

Vladimir Putin: Please.

Martin Romanczyk (retranslated): You have mentioned Nazism. You know that in Germany, we have a party that raises a certain concern among the public and other parties by being rather uncritical of this part of our history — Alternative for Germany. Many MPs of this party are under constitutional surveillance for their remarks and actions. If I am not mistaken, Mr Chrupalla, the party's co-chair, was in Moscow in 2020. To my knowledge, he has also been invited to the Russian Embassy in Berlin.

What is your opinion of the Alternative for Germany? How do you envision the development of this party’s relationship with Russia and Russia’s relationship with this party?

Vladimir Putin: Even though the person you have mentioned came to Moscow — and I think I even met with some of the party leaders, but I do not remember who — we do not have a systemic relationship with that party.

What we believe is happening in the Federal Republic of Germany is that any alternative view is seen as anti-government, and people holding such views are for some reason proclaimed Kremlin agents. But, as you know, if a political movement criticises the party in power, in a democracy there is no reason to immediately call it anti-government and work on shutting it down. If memory serves me right, when Hitler was jailed after the failed putsch in Bavaria, that immediately increased his rating and gave him a boost. He was not perceived as a national politician before that. His arrest made him one.

We see no indication of neo-Nazism in what the Alternative for Germany is doing. If someone speaks in favour of a normal relationship with Russia, we only welcome that. However, we do not decide whether such movements are acting within the remits of the Constitution. I repeat, we see nothing that would arouse any sort of concern. If the ruling government feels threatened by Alternative for Germany's policies, this, as we say, is not our concern. These matters pertain to the development of the political situation in the Federal Republic of Germany.

May I revisit what I was just talking about: Alternative for Germany is suspected of holding neo-Nazi views, while people collaborating with the Nazi regime in, say, Ukraine, are not. These are what we call double standards in domestic policy as well as foreign policy. We will work with anyone who wants to work with Russia. We do not offer any opinions on Germany’s domestic politics as it is the purview of Germany's government, the constitutional court and so on.

However, as I already said when citing the example of Hitler, those who use non-political measures in a political struggle will not achieve the result they want.

Andrei Kondrashov: Mr President, you may already know, but just in case you do not, the Western press is very biased towards your personally and often portrays you as a villain or a monster…

Vladimir Putin: That is true. It is good that they are portraying me like that, they should be afraid.

Andrei Kondrashov: Does Dmitry Peskov show you these pictures? What is your attitude towards them? Is it important?

Vladimir Putin: No, he does not. He probably does not want me to get upset.

I understand that during times of heightened tensions between nations, governments try to frighten the general public. This is nothing new. Frankly, I do not have time to monitor this propaganda.

I prefer to focus on the substance of our relationships with our current partners, potential partners and former partners, in order to build normal relations that can help us achieve our national development goals. That is all there is to it.

Andrei Kondrashov: Mr President, thank you very much for this honest conversation on behalf of TASS and our colleagues. I wish you patience, good health and God's help in all your endeavours.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you.

I would also like to express my gratitude to all of you for coming, whether on assignment from your editors or independently, and for not being afraid to do so. In any case, I appreciate your interest in what is happening in Russia and its relations with other countries, especially considering the challenging circumstances. I do not want to go into the details of what is happening and why – I believe we all understand what I am referring to.

But I want to thank you for being here and showing an interest. I hope you will strive to be as objective as possible. I understand that you have your assignments, but I hope you will carry them out in a fair and unbiased manner.

I hope that our meeting today, along with your future work, will focus on ensuring that bilateral relations between our respective countries improve and that the overall situation stabilises and moves towards crisis settlement instead of perpetual escalation and aggravation.

Thank you very much. All the best to you!

Interview to Xinhua News Agency

2024-05-14T16:11:06+04:00

Ahead of his state visit to the People’s Republic of China, Vladimir Putin gave a written interview to the Chinese news agency Xinhua.

Question: In March 2023, President Xi Jinping chose Russia as a destination for his first foreign visit after his re-election as President of the People's Republic of China. This year, upon your re-election as President of the Russian Federation, you, in turn, have chosen China for your first foreign visit. We have noted that over the last decade or so, President Xi Jinping and you have met more than 40 times in various bilateral and multilateral settings. This year marks the 75^th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and Russia. What is your assessment of your contacts with Chinese President Xi Jinping? What do you expect from your upcoming visit to China? What is your forecast for the further development of the Russia-China relations?

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: I am pleased to be able to address the multimillion audience of Xinhua, one of the world’s leading and most trusted news agencies and share my vision of the future Russia-China partnership. I would like to highlight that it has always relied on the principles of equality and trust, mutual respect for the sovereignty and consideration of each other's interests. A special and prominent role in the development of our relations has belonged to wise and shrewd politicians and state leaders, such as Xi Jinping, President of the People's Republic of China.

We first met back in March 2010, and we have been seeing and calling each other regularly ever since. President Xi maintains a respectful, friendly, open and at the same time business-like style of communication. Our every meeting is not just a dialogue between old friends, which is important, too, just like for everyone, – but also a fruitful exchange of views on the most topical issues on the bilateral and international agenda.

I have fond memories of the state visit of President Xi Jinping to Russia in March 2023, immediately after his re‑election as President of the PRC. Just like in 2013, our country was the first one he visited as head of China. We had more than five hours of a face-to-face conversation, and the next day we followed an extensive and substantive official schedule.

This unprecedented level of strategic partnership between our countries determined my choice of China as the first state to be visited after the official inauguration as the President of the Russian Federation.

I have emphasized on many occasions that our peoples are bound by a long and strong tradition of friendship and cooperation. That is one of the most important pillars of bilateral relations. During World War II, Soviet and Chinese soldiers stood up together against Japanese militarism. We remember and value the contribution of the Chinese people to the common Victory. It was China that held back major forces of Japanese militarists, making it possible for the Soviet Union to focus on defeating Nazism in Europe. And, of course, we are grateful to our Chinese friends for their carful attitude to war memorials, to the memory of Soviet citizens who had fought for the liberation of China and supported the revolutionary struggle of the Chinese people, their righteous fight against the invaders. Today, Russia-China relations have reached the highest level ever, and despite the difficult global situation continue to get stronger.

This year is special for our countries. October 1 marks the 75^th anniversary of the establishment of the People's Republic of China. The country is approaching this significant historical date with outstanding achievements, which we welcome as old, reliable and time-tested friends.

The USSR was the first to recognize the PRC on the second day of its existence. So in early October, we will also celebrate the 75^th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations.

Over the three quarters of a century, our countries have travelled a long and at times difficult way. We have learnt well the lessons of the history of our relationship at different stages of their development. Today, we know that the synergy of complementary strengths provides a powerful impetus for rapid comprehensive development.

It is important that Russia-China ties as they are today, are free from the influence of either ideology or political trends. Their multidimensional development is an informed strategic choice based on the wide convergence of core national interests, profound mutual trust, strong public support and sincere friendship between the peoples of the two countries. I am talking about our joint efforts to strengthen the sovereignty, protect the territorial integrity and security of our countries. In a broader sense, we are working to contribute to the development and prosperity of Russia and China by enhancing equal, mutually beneficial economic and humanitarian cooperation, and strengthen foreign policy coordination in the interests of building a just multipolar world order. All this is the key to a future success of our comprehensive strategic partnership in the new era.

Question: Today, practical trade and economic cooperation between China and Russia is constantly developing. Last year, the US$200 billion trade turnover target you had set together with Chinese President Xi Jinping was surpassed ahead of schedule. In your opinion, what are the new specific features and growth points of practical trade and economic cooperation between China and Russia? In which areas Chinese-Russian trade and economic cooperation is likely to achieve even greater breakthroughs in future?

V.Putin: Trade and economic relations between our countries are developing at a fast pace, showing strong immunity to external challenges and crises. Over the past five years, we have doubled the Russia-China turnover: it reached US$227.8 billion last year, against US$111 billion in 2019. More than 90% of settlements between our companies are made in national currencies. So it would be more accurate to say that bilateral trade currently totals about 20 trillion rubles, or nearly 1.6 trillion yuan. China has remained our key business partner for 13 years, and in 2023, Russia ranked 4^th among the PRC's major trading partners.

Our countries have made an informed choice in favour of equal and mutually beneficial economic ties a long time ago. We are systematically and consistently developing strategic cooperation in the energy sector, working on new large‑scale energy projects. Supplies of Russian agricultural produce to the Chinese market are showing positive dynamics; investment and production initiatives are implemented, and transport and logistics corridors between our countries are smoothly functioning and expanding. Given global turbulence and economic issues in the West, such results prove yet again the strategic wisdom of our sovereign course and pursuit of national interests.

As for our plans, we will try to establish closer cooperation in industry and high-tech, outer space and peaceful atom, artificial intelligence, renewable energy and other innovative sectors. We will keep working to provide favourable legal and organizational conditions for that and develop transport and financial infrastructure. I believe that Russian-Chinese economic ties have great prospects.

Question: The friendship between China and Russia goes on for generations, and the cultures of the two countries are deeply intertwined. This year and next year, in line with the agreements reached between you and President Xi Jinping, the China-Russia Years of Culture will be held. What is the role of cultural exchanges in expanding cooperation and friendship between our countries, as you see it? What is your personal perception of Chinese culture and what is your experience of it?

V.Putin: I have said more than once and will say again: Russia and China have been inextricably linked for centuries, both by an extensive common border and by close cultural and people-to-people ties. In the distant past, only rare tidings of China reached our country with merchants. Later on, the first embassies appeared, and the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission, which made a truly invaluable contribution to the collection and systematization of knowledge about China, was organized in Beijing. The 19^th century saw the first students of the Chinese language in Russia, followed by the first university departments as well as the first attempts at compiling dictionaries.

During the reign of Catherine the Great, Chinese art came into fashion. For example, the interiors of the Chinese Room of the Catherine Palace, the Empress's private chambers, were richly decorated with lacquer panels from China. Unfortunately, the interior was completely destroyed during the Great Patriotic War, but restoration is underway involving specialists from China.

Today, Chinese culture and art are also of great interest to the Russian public. There are about 90,000 students and schoolchildren who study Chinese in our country. Tours of Chinese performing companies and exhibitions featuring Chinese artists are always a great success. Since the quarantine restrictions were removed, the tourist flow has been growing dynamically. Last year, more than 730,000 Russians visited the PRC.

I know that people in China are also keen to get acquainted with Russian literature, art and traditions. Our eminent theatre groups and musicians regularly perform in China, museums organize their exhibitions, and Russian films are run in cinemas. We are most willing to introduce our Chinese friends to historical, artistic and cultural heritage of multi-ethnic Russia in all its diversity.

To this end, President of China Xi Jinping and I decided to declare 2024 and 2025 cross years of culture between Russia and China, so as to implement this large‑scale project in conjunction with the celebration of the 75^th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between our countries. We expect the programme of activities to be vibrant and abundant. A number of major events have already taken place. For example, in Moscow, for the first time, broad New Year celebrations were held according to the lunar calendar, while in Beijing and Xi'an, Chinese citizens got an opportunity to learn about the tradition of our holiday Maslenitsa at the Farewell to the Russian Winter festival.

Russia, just like China, firmly relies on the principles of multiculturalism, advocates the equality of cultures and the preservation of national identity. These and other important issues were in the focus of the 2023 St. Petersburg International Cultural Forum. A representative Chinese delegation most actively participated in the Forum. The free discussions held at the Forum are particularly important at this time, as they contribute to building a respectful dialogue between civilizations.

We intend to promote new formats of interaction, such as the Intervision International Popular Song Contest. China is the key partner in this project, which aims to spread and popularize national song schools.

As for my personal attitude to Chinese culture, I would like to emphasize that I am always eager to discover China's unique and authentic traditions, especially during my visits to the PRC. I know quite a bit about your martial arts, including Wushu, which is very popular in our country. I also have respect for Chinese philosophy. My family members are also interested in China, and some of them are learning Chinese.

Question: This year, Russia has assumed the BRICS Chairmanship, and the current year is also the first year of ”greater BRICS cooperation.“ Please tell us about Russia's priorities and plan of events as the BRICS Chair. What is to be done to facilitate harmonious integration of new members into the BRICS cooperation mechanism? How do you see the role of the BRICS mechanism in the global arena? What could be done to make ”greater BRICS cooperation“ even more fruitful?

V.Putin: Russia’s BRICS Chairmanship has gained a steady momentum. Full-scale work is underway on all three main pillars of cooperation – politics and security, the economy and finance, culture and people-to-people contacts.

One of the main goals of the Russian Chairmanship is undoubtedly the seamless integration of the BRICS new members. We are actively assisting them in joining the existing network of cooperation mechanisms.

As another priority, we seek to continue coordinated work to enhance the visibility of the association in global affairs and build its capacity to promote a more democratic, sustainable and fair architecture of international relations. I would like to particularly stress that cooperation within BRICS relies on the principles of mutual respect, equality, openness and consensus. That is why countries of the Global South and East, which see BRICS as a platform for their voices to be certainly heard and taken into account, find our association so attractive.

Russian agencies, business and public circles have prepared an extensive agenda for the Chairmanship. This includes a wide range of areas for enhancing interaction, including finance, agriculture, energy, intellectual property, healthcare, education and space exploration. Moreover, such niche and knowledge-intensive topics as nanotechnology, nuclear medicine and biotechnology are being discussed by experts in relevant fields.

We have held quite a few specialized events: in total, the Chairmanship plan envisages more than 200 of them. In addition to expert and ministerial meetings, they include numerous cultural events and youth activities. The BRICS Sports Games will take place in Kazan in June, and in October, the city will host the BRICS Summit.

Question: Multilateral mechanisms such as BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization are currently working to bring countries of the Global South together in the spirit of equality, openness, transparency and inclusion, and are contributing to reforming the system of global governance. Chinese President Xi Jinping has repeatedly emphasized that he is looking forward to working with Russia to strengthen strategic cooperation in multilateral settings and implement the principles of genuine multilateralism. How do you assess cooperation between China and Russia within BRICS, the SCO and other multilateral mechanisms? In your opinion, what is the role of the two countries' interaction in the international arena in promoting the global community of shared future for mankind?

V.Putin: Earth is the cradle of humanity, our common home, and we are all equal as its inhabitants. I am convinced that this view is shared by most people on the planet. However, the countries that affiliate themselves with the so‑called ”golden billion“ do not seem to think so. US‑led Western elites refuse to respect civilizational and cultural diversity and reject centuries-old traditional values. Seeking to retain their global dominance, they have usurped the right to tell other nations whom they may, or must not, make friends and cooperate with, and to deny them the right to choose their own development models. They disregard other countries' sovereign interests. They seek to ensure their well‑being at the expense of other states, just like in the old days, and resort to neo-colonial methods to that end.

Needless to say, neither Russia nor its partners are happy with this state of affairs. We have actively contributed to launching multilateral associations and mechanisms that are independent of the West and are successfully operating. In their work they build on the principles of equality, justice, transparency, respect and consideration of each other's interests.

The Shanghai Cooperation Organization and BRICS, which have well established themselves as key pillars of the emerging multipolar world order, can be cited as vivid examples of such mutually beneficial cooperation. They have come to be reputable and dynamic international platforms whose participants build constructive political, security, economic and humanitarian interaction. Hence the ever increasing interest of other states in the work of these associations and the growing number of their participants.

Our countries have similar or coinciding positions on key issues on the international agenda. We advocate for the primacy of international law, equal, indivisible, comprehensive and sustainable security at both the global and regional level with the UN's central coordinating role. We also reject Western attempts to impose an order based on lies and hypocrisy, on some mythical rules of no one knows whose making.

Question: From the outset of the Ukraine crisis, China has engaged in active efforts to find a political solution to it. During his meeting with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz on April 16, Chinese President Xi Jinping outlined four principles for the peaceful resolution of the crisis in Ukraine. On February 24, 2023, China published a position paper on the political settlement of the Ukraine crisis. What is your assessment of China's stance and efforts on this issue?

V.Putin: We commend China's approaches to resolving the crisis in Ukraine. Beijing is well aware of its root causes and global geopolitical significance, which is reflected in its 12‑point plan entitled ”China's Position on the Political Settlement of the Ukraine Crisis“ published in February 2023. The ideas and proposals contained in the document show the genuine desire of our Chinese friends to help stabilize the situation.

As for the additional four principles of conflict resolution recently voiced by President Xi Jinping, they seamlessly fit in the above-mentioned plan. Beijing proposes practicable and constructive steps to achieve peace by refraining from pursuing vested interests and constant escalation of tensions, minimizing the negative impact of the conflict on the global economy and the stability of global value chains. The steps build on the idea that we need to forego the ”Cold War mentality“ and ensure indivisible security and respect for international law and the UN Charter in their entirety and interrelation. They could therefore lay the groundwork for a political and diplomatic process that would take into account Russia's security concerns and contribute to achieving a long-term and sustainable peace.

Unfortunately, neither Ukraine nor its Western patrons support these initiatives. They are not ready to engage in an equal, honest and open dialogue based on mutual respect and consideration of each other's interests. They are reluctant to discuss the underlying causes, the very origins of the global crisis, which has manifested itself, inter alia, in the dramatic situation around Ukraine. Why? Because today's global shocks have been provoked precisely by their policies in the previous years and decades.

Instead, Western elites are stubbornly working to ”punish“ Russia, isolate and weaken it, supplying the Kiev authorities with money and arms. They have imposed almost 16,000 unilateral illegitimate sanctions against our country. They are threatening to dismember our country. They are illegally trying to appropriate our foreign assets. They are turning a blind eye to the resurgence of Nazism and to Ukraine-sponsored terrorist attacks in our territory.

We are seeking a comprehensive, sustainable and just settlement of this conflict through peaceful means. We are open to a dialogue on Ukraine, but such negotiations must take into account the interests of all countries involved in the conflict, including Russia's. They must also involve a substantive discussion on global stability and security guarantees for Russia's opponents and, naturally, for Russia itself. Needless to say, these must be reliable guarantees. That is where the main problem is, since we are dealing with states whose ruling circles seek to substitute the world order based on international law with an ”order based on certain rules,“ which they keep talking about but which no one has ever seen, no one has agreed to, and which, apparently, tend to change depending on the current political situation and interests of those who invent these rules.

Russia stands ready for negotiations; moreover, we had engaged in such negotiations. On April 15, 2022, in Istanbul, together with the Ukrainian delegation, we drafted a peace agreement, taking into account the demands of the Ukrainian side, including those on future security guarantees for Ukraine. Moreover, the head of the Ukrainian delegation initialled the main provisions of the draft document. Our Western partners tried to convince us that in order to finalize and sign the agreement, it was necessary to provide conditions. The main point was that Russian troops be withdrawn away from Kiev, the capital of Ukraine. And so we did. But instead of signing the peace agreement, the Ukrainian side suddenly announced the cessation of negotiations. Later on, Ukrainian officials stated that they had done so, inter alia, because their Western allies had recommended that they continue hostilities and apply joint efforts to achieve Russia's strategic defeat. We have never refused to negotiate.

Question: In your Address to the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation on February 29, 2024, you elaborated on Russia's development goals for the next six years and relevant measures. On March 20, at a meeting with your election team, you called for building a new Russia, in order to make your country even stronger, more attractive and effective. What are your plans in state-building for this new term of office? How do you expect to achieve your goals?

V.Putin: The Address sets objective and essential goals pertaining to the development of all regions of the country, the economy, and the social sphere; they include addressing demographic problems, increasing the birth rate, providing support to families with children, fighting poverty and inequality. We recognize the scale of these challenges and can provide solutions. To do this we will rely on the consolidated will of our people, the necessary resources and capabilities, and the rich experience of interaction between the state, businesses and the civil society.

In addition, over the past few years, tremendous work has been done to establish an effective economic management system. The government and relevant agencies use big data sets, advanced digital platforms and computer networks spanning all sectors of the national economy throughout the country. We will continue with this work and seek to improve the efficiency of long-term planning and the implementation of programmes and national projects.

Today, Russia is one of the world's top five countries in terms of purchasing power parity. Now we are aiming for the top ”four“ largest economies on the planet. We prioritize such tasks as ensuring quality and the effective development across all spheres, as well as increasing our citizens' well‑being.

It is impossible to achieve quality economic changes without a sustained salary growth. To achieve this, we plan to increase labour productivity through the across-the-board adoption of scientific advances, new technologies and innovations, automation and robotization, and the creation of modern jobs. At the same time, we will engage in training competent, forward-thinking professionals who will implement greenfield projects and work in industry and the social sphere.

Our priorities certainly include training fresh talent for public and municipal government. We have a whole range of relevant programmes, competitions and projects in place. We have also provided ample opportunities at the federal and regional levels to help talented people who love their homeland unlock their potential. These are people who are ready to assume responsibility, serve Russia honestly and faithfully, and, most importantly, who have proved it in deed, both in doing their work and going through the toughest hardships when defending our Fatherland and our people.

I am confident that we will implement all the strategic plans we have set. We are willing to work together with our partners worldwide, including China, our good neighbour and trusted friend.

Interview to Dmitry Kiselev

2024-03-14T01:56:50+04:00

Vladimir Putin answered questions from Dmitry Kiselev.

Dmitry Kiselev: Mr President, when delivering your Address [to the Federal Assembly], you were figuratively pulling trillion by trillion out of your sleeve. As a matter of fact, you proposed an absolutely astonishing plan of the country’s development, truly astonishing. That will be a different Russia, with a completely new infrastructure and social system – nothing short of a dreamland.

But it makes me feel like asking you your favourite question quoting Vladimir Vysotsky, ”Where is the money, Zina?“ Have we earned it or not?

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Yes, of course we did.

What is more, this plan is, first of all, the result of painstaking work by the expert community, experts from the Government and Administration. Everything fits in the budgetary rules and is actually rather conservative given that certain experts believe that the revenues should and will be higher. And, therefore, we should have planned larger expenditures because this should directly impact economic development prospects.

Overall, this is the right thing to do. Back in 2018, we also planned to allocate additional eight trillion rubles to economic and social development, but later on we increased this figure. I believe that it is quite possible, if things work out the way the optimists from the above-mentioned expert community say they will, that we will be able to – we should and we will do that – increase our expenditures in a number of areas.

Dmitry Kiselev: So, we are talking about a six-year period, right?

Vladimir Putin: Exactly. We are talking precisely about a six-year period. At the present moment, we are working on a three-year budget, that is the budget for a three-year planning period. But when we were preparing for the Address – I use the pronoun ”we“ because there was a whole team working on that – we naturally assumed that we should calculate our revenues and expenditures in the areas that we deem crucial and high-priority for a six-year period.

Dmitry Kiselev: But still, some projects are truly mind-blowing. For example, the Dzhubga–Sochi highway: 130 kilometres, of which 90 kilometres are tunnels and the rest must be bridges, judging by the landscape. One and a half billion rubles in the first three years alone, with the highway ideally planned to be ready by 2030. Is this really necessary and will we have enough for our victory?

Vladimir Putin: People need this road. Families with children cannot reach Sochi by car. They all stop somewhere around Gelendzhik or Novorossiysk because the road is too challenging – it's a serpentine.

There exist several construction options. We are going to discuss the issue shortly, in the next few days. Either it will be a road to Dzhubga, or first the road from Dzhubga to Sochi. Some Government members suggest doing it step by step. Others believe that all should be done at once, otherwise there will be a bottleneck from Dzhubga to Sochi.

The first section of the road, if we look at it from Novorossiysk, is quite good, and the quality of the pavement is not bad, but it is very narrow. If we continue like that, like the first section, all the way to Sochi, there could be traffic jams in that small space, and they already are quite numerous there now.

Anyway, we will discuss this – specific ways and stages – with the professionals, but it should be done. It is necessary to determine, of course, the final cost of the project to ensure that everyone remains within the financial plans.

The interests of people are in the first place, but the interests of the economy are also a priority. The development of territories in the south of the country is very important.

Dmitry Kiselev: One would assume that the nation is getting better-off rapidly, since we can afford such large-scale investments, especially in view of the special military operation and almost 15,000 sanctions, which are absolutely horrendous. All the more so as we also want to reduce poverty, including among large families. That's a bold objective, isn't it?

Vladimir Putin: No, it isn't. Here, let me get back to the subject of that highway. When I discussed it with members of the Government – and the Ministry of Finance is always stingy, in a good way, conservative about such spending – the Minister of Finance [Anton Siluanov] told me, and I'm quoting, ”Only those who have never travelled this road are against its construction“.

Dmitry Kiselev: So we have to get all the Government to go there.

Vladimir Putin: Well, he is right, because it's especially important for families with children.

As for the question of whether we are getting richer. The economy is growing, that's a fact, and it's not us who have registered it, but international economic and financial organisations. Russia has got ahead of Germany in terms of purchasing power parity and replaced it as the fifth largest economy in the world.

As far as I know, the German economy shrank by 0.3 percent last year, while Russian economy grew by 3.6 percent. Japan grew by a small percentage. So if the rate of growth remains the same as it is today, there is a good chance that Russia will overtake Japan as the fourth largest economy, and that might happen quite quickly.

And yet, let us be honest and objective, the quality of our economies is not the same. In terms of purchasing power parity, that is the size of the economy, Russia is actually the fifth largest economy in the world and has every chance of overtaking Japan. But the structure of the economy in these two countries has an obvious advantage over that of Russia.

There is still a lot to be done for our country to take a decent position not only in terms of purchasing power parity, but also in terms of [GDP] per capita. That is the first thing. Secondly, it's important that the structure of the economy itself changes, becomes more efficient, more modern and more innovative. This is what we're going to work on.

As far as revenues are concerned, the purchasing power parity is a very important indicator. This is the volume, or the size of the economy. This means that the state receives money to address its strategic priorities through the tax system at all levels. This gives us the opportunity to develop in the way we see fit.

Dmitry Kiselev: Mr President, you have mentioned economic structure, the need for structural change in the economy. This is exactly what you set forth in your Address to the Federal Assembly and the challenge is exactly this: make innovative sectors grow faster than the economy as a whole.

Vladimir Putin: Of course.

As I said, we need to work on the structure. That will determine the future of our economy, the future of labour resources, the efficiency, and labour productivity .

One of the main challenges today is to enhance labour productivity. Given shortage of workers, the only one way to achieve effective development is to enhance labour productivity. This in turn means that we need to inject innovation into our economy and aim for greater robotic process automation. Today, as far as I can remember, there are ten robots for every 10,000 workers, whereas we need at least 1,000 robots for every 10,000 workers. That seems to be the case in Japan now.

Then, people need to be trained to operate these new machines, not only robots but also other advanced production tools. So there is another challenge, the training of skilled workers.

We have identified specific areas, including engineering training, where this is a priority. You may be aware that 30 state‑of‑the‑art engineering schools have been opened in different parts of the country. Another 20 will open this year; there will be 50 in total. Fifty more are in the pipeline for the next few years.

So these areas are the future of our nation. We will explore and develop these areas.

Dmitry Kiselev: Just to make sure we've covered the sanctions. A lot of people have voiced the idea of creating a government body specifically to respond to sanctions, to counter them. Is that being planned or do you think it would be pointless?

Vladimir Putin: There's simply no need. The Government, the Central Bank, the Security Council analyse everything that our foes do. Many things are done not even for political or military reasons, although they are declared, but for reasons of competition.

Dmitry Kiselev: Unscrupulous, unfair competition.

Vladimir Putin: Unfair competition, masked by political or military considerations. This has been the case in the aircraft industry and in many other sectors.

Well, the world is the way it is and we have adapted to its realities. We know who we are dealing with. And so far, as the results of our work show, we have been quite effective.

Dmitry Kiselev: But the West's cunning does not stop there. In your Address to the Federal Assembly, you said, and I quote, “We are also aware of the Western attempts to draw us into an arms race, thereby exhausting us, mirroring the strategy they successfully employed with the Soviet Union in the 1980s.” What is our margin of safety under the conditions of what is effectively an arms race?

Vladimir Putin: We need to ensure maximum return on every ruble invested in defence industry. Indeed, during the Soviet era, no one was concerned about these expenditures, unfortunately, efficiency was not a priority. Defence spending accounted for about 13% of GDP of the country – the Soviet Union.

I will not refer to our statistics – instead, I will cite the Stockholm Institute: last year our defence spending was four percent, and this year it is 6.8 percent, meaning we have grown by 2.8 percentage points. This is a noticeable increase, but not critical at all. In the Soviet Union, it was 13 percent, whereas we are currently at 6.8 percent.

It should be noted that defence spending accelerates the economy, making it more dynamic. However, there are limitations to consider, as we understand. The age-old question remains: what is more beneficial – guns or butter? We have this in mind.

Although, as I mentioned, our modern defence industry is good in that it not only indirectly affects civilian industry sectors but also uses innovations necessary for defence industry to produce civilian goods. This is an extremely important thing.

Of course, our spending is incomparable. How much do they have in the United States? 800…

Dmitry Kiselev: It's already nearly 900.

Vladimir Putin: Nearly 900 – 860 or 870 billion [US dollars]. They are absolutely incomparable to our spending.

Dmitry Kiselev: It seems to me that they are embezzling because they have no hypersonic [weapons], nothing… What is it?

Vladimir Putin: I'll explain what it is. The issue is that significant portions of their funds are allocated towards maintenance, not just salaries, but also towards maintaining bases worldwide. It's difficult to track where all the money goes, as it seems to disappear into a black hole. This is where the majority of the embezzlement occurs. Although significant amounts of money which are difficult to evaluate are also spent on producing means of destruction, weapons in general.

If we calculate the cost of their well-known anti-missile defence system and one of our main means to overcome missile defence systems – the ”Avangard“ intercontinental missile with a glide vehicle of intercontinental range, the values are simply incomparable. Essentially, we nullified all their efforts and contributions to the missile defence system. This is the appropriate course of action.

Additionally, it is imperative that our Armed Forces' economy aligns with current demands.

Dmitry Kiselev: The word ”justice“ is a magical word for the Russian language. You use it very carefully, but once you pronounced it in your Address and it sounded like thunder. You said that the distribution of the tax burden should become more equitable in Russia and suggested that the Government should think about it. In which direction should it think?

Vladimir Putin: Truly, the distribution of the tax burden should be fair in the sense that corporations, legal entities, and individuals who earn more should contribute more to the national treasury, towards addressing nationwide problems, primarily towards fight against poverty.

Dmitry Kiselev: A progressive tax?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, essentially a progressive tax.

I would not like to go into details now, as we need to work more on this. We need to build a system that really yields greater returns for solving primarily social issues and challenges facing the state in this area.

We plan to reduce the tax burden, for example, for large families, and take further steps in this direction. I believe that society will perceive this as normal. This is the first thing.

Secondly. What does business ask of us? It asks us to determine the taxation system, and not to change it further, so that it remains stable. This is the most important request and requirement from the business.

The Government is to address this issue as soon as possible and work together with the State Duma deputies to present proposals.

Dmitry Kiselev: A progressive tax – won't we scare someone away? We used to be afraid of scaring someone away with this progressive tax.

Vladimir Putin: No, I don't think so. In principle, we have this system in place. Even those who were ardent supporters of the flat scale, the authors of the flat scale, now believe that on the whole we are ripe for a much more selective approach.

Dmitry Kiselev: During your Address, you thanked ”colleagues from the Government“ – that was the wording. Does this mean that Mr Mishustin's government – if you win – will remain in place?

Vladimir Putin: We should talk about this after the election, after the votes have been counted. It seems to me that now it is simply incorrect. But on the whole, as we can see, the Government is working well – the results are obvious, and that is objective data.

Dmitry Kiselev: You mentioned reducing the tax burden on large families. Children and the demographic situation – these topics were very extensive in your Address. Indeed, the issue is quite painful, because demographically Russia is melting away. Last year was an anti-record of birth rate.

Vladimir Putin: I think the birth rate was 1.31 or 1.39….

Dmitry Kiselev: It’s 1.39 children per woman capable of child-bearing.

Vladimir Putin: Of childbearing age.

Dmitry Kiselev: Perhaps ideally we should double it – [to a ratio of] three. Because this is literally a disaster for society.

You have proposed a fairly large-scale programme to support motherhood and demographic stimulation. Is there any confidence that these measures will reverse the downward trajectory to an upward one?

Vladimir Putin: On the whole, there are plans to spend, through various channels, up to 14 trillion rubles on all measures to support families with children over the six-year period. It is an enormous amount of money.

There are numerous areas of support for families with children – from general social support, such as building or renovating kindergartens, building new schools and renovating old ones, modernising them in accordance with the present-day needs, to supporting women from pregnancy till the child turns 18. Allowance is currently paid to nearly 400,000 women, which is almost every third pregnant woman. Over ten million children receive child benefit. This is a serious thing.

We have kept the system of maternity capital. We have continued with the payments of 450,000 rubles for mortgage repayment to families where a third child is born – the relevant decisions are underway. We have preserved mortgage benefits for families with children. In other words, there is a whole package of very diverse family support measures.

Of course, as you have already mentioned, this is also about fighting poverty, because, obviously, families with children face way more difficulties than childless families, which is no surprise as the expenses are huge. Nevertheless, we have achieved considerable progress in this area.

Thus, 20 years ago we had, I think, 29 percent of the population, or 42 million people, living below the poverty line. Today, according to the latest reports, we have 9.3 percent, which is still 13.5 million people. A very large number, indeed. We need to do everything possible to bring it down to at least seven percent. As for families with many children, the figures are more modest, but they also need to be improved.

What are we referring to when speaking of poor birth rates? I have already said many times, and experts say this, – these are objective things – that we have had two dramatic declines in the birth rates. One was in 1943‑1944, during the Great Patriotic War. A comparable decline followed immediately after the collapse of the Soviet Union, a very similar one, with the same decline in the birth rate.

The reason is clear: the breakdown of the social support system. No matter how weak it was in the USSR, it was there anyway, but after the collapse of the Soviet Union it basically ceased to exist, leading to widespread poverty. There is no need to explain. Anyway, the planning horizon of a family shrank; the birth rate went down to that of the war years. Then we had a rebound. And now we have quite a large number of children, young people who will reach adulthood and childbearing age in a few years, and we assume that the rates will go up.

What you have mentioned is a worldwide trend. There are only a few developed countries that have positive demographic dynamics, while in the rest of the developed world everything is on the decline. This is a complex problem, which has to do with the economy, as well as life priorities of women. It is better not to interfere right now, let the demographers deal with it and come up with a solution.

But you know what is encouraging? The public sentiment. In Russia, 70 percent of men and 72 percent of women would like to have two or more children, and the state should support them in that regard. We are working on an extensive package of support measures which need to be implemented, and we will do that.

Dmitry Kiselev: However, there is still no certainty that those measures will turn the situation around.

In the late 1990s – it is a well-known story which you have spoken of yourself – you saved your children from fire: you went into the burning building, to the second floor. It was not until later that you remembered about the money left in the house. The money burnt. This shows your priorities: children first, then money.

Maybe the same approach should be adopted on a nationwide scale? Not just 14 [trillion], but to go all in – to launch such a programme that would guarantee a turn of the tide?

Vladimir Putin: You know, you have to, as they say, follow the developments. In the early 2000s, we introduced a number of demographic initiatives, including maternity capital, and a number of other measures, which have produced tangible positive results. This means we are capable of achieving desired goals.

Dmitry Kiselev: So we already have the relevant experience?

Vladimir Putin: We have the experience, for sure. Using this experience and other best practices, we should ultimately aim to achieve the goals we set for ourselves. As the situation changes, we will adjust the existing measures or supplement them with something else.

For instance, we have declared the year 2024 the Year of the Family. We have launched a new national project entitled ”Family.“ It includes elements that we have never used before. For example, there are plans to allocate 75 billion [rubles] to regions where birth rates are lower than the national average. These are mostly the central regions of Russia and the country's northwest. 75 billion is a decent amount of money. It is just that they need to be used wisely.

Elderly care is another aspect. There are other support measures as well. By raising the birth rate and increasing life expectancy, we will be able to stabilise the country’s population. This is the main overall indicator that will either demonstrate our success or, possibly, highlight the need for greater attention to the relevant work from all administrative and government bodies.

Dmitry Kiselev: Sure, but there is also a third tool for solving demographic problems all over the world, and that is immigration. What figures can we expect for this six-year period and what does the systematic approach in this work means?

Vladimir Putin: As for migrant workers, we do not have many immigrants in our country compared to other countries: they make up 3.7 percent of the total number of workers. But they are concentrated in the regions with the highest economic activity, and there are certainly more of them out there. These are the Moscow Region, Moscow, the Northwestern region and some regions in the North, where they have decent salaries. However, no doubt, this is an issue that requires special attention on the part of the authorities, both local, regional and federal.

What else I would like to add here? It is a very important thing. When labour migrants are attracted, they always say it is necessary to do so because of the shortage of workers. Our entrepreneurs should understand that the situation for them in terms of labour availability will not change for the better in the coming years – they will face labour shortages.

I would like to repeat once again that in order to solve this issue in a totally different way it is necessary to increase labour productivity and reduce the number of workers in those areas where it can be done, achieving even greater results by introducing modern technologies. As we have already discussed, this requires investment in this area and personnel training. This is the primary thing we have to think about.

Generally, of course, migration policy is an important economic tool. There is no harm in looking at the lesson learned of other countries. First and foremost, of course, we should talk about the repatriation of our compatriots. The concepts of repatriation and compatriots are already reflected in our regulatory framework, there is no need to repeat them here.

We should talk about attracting people who perhaps do not intend to move to the Russian Federation, but by virtue of their qualifications and talents in various fields can make a significant contribution to the development of our state, to the development of Russia. We would be glad to attract such people as well.

As for traditional labour migrants, we also need to think about ways to prepare them for coming to Russia, including with our partners in the countries where they permanently reside. This includes studying the Russian language, our traditions, culture, and so on. It is necessary to look after them here too, to treat them humanely. In other words, it is necessary to make efforts to integrate them into our society in a natural way. All of this together should have a corresponding, I hope, positive effect.

Naturally, everyone should observe our traditions and the laws of the Russian Federation. And, certainly, sanitary and other norms must be strictly observed. Ensuring the security of citizens of the Russian Federation must come first.

Dmitry Kiselev: Russians are probably the most divided nation in the world. You had a conversation with participants of the Leaders of Russia competition, and one of your interlocutors said that we discovered in the Zaporozhye region that they were Russians just like us. I got the impression that it sounded like some kind of revelation to them. In general, and it is true, new regions are joining us now, and Odessa is a Russian city. I suppose there are high expectations for this direction too?

Vladimir Putin: Absolutely! The population density in these regions has always been quite high, and the climate is wonderful.

As for Donbass, it has been an industrially developed region since the times of the Soviet Union. The USSR has made huge investments in this region, in its coal mining industry, in its metallurgical industry. Indeed, investments are required to ensure that all production is up-to-date, and people's living conditions, their working conditions are organised in a completely different way – not as they were a couple of decades ago.

As for Novorossiya, it is a region characterised by a strongly developed agriculture. Here, we will do everything to support both traditional spheres of activity and the new ones that smoothly fit into these regions and with people's desire to develop them. You know, the people there are very talented.

What is more, as I have already said, even taxes are already going to the federal budget from there. We need to help them at this stage, to support them, to take them to the Republican, nationwide Russian level. They will start working, and this will happen very quickly.

Dmitry Kiselev: Historically, it is quite clear that Nazi regimes do not dissolve themselves but disappear as a result of military defeat. This was the case in Germany, in Italy, and in Japan. The same will obviously be happening with the Bandera Nazi regime. We are now advancing all along the front line, judging by reports from both the Defence Ministry and our war correspondents.

Did we finally manage to find a strategy when our casualties are reduced on the offensive compared to the defence? This is a rather unconventional task to accomplish in the art of war, but it always holds back the offensive. It is prudence, and it's absolutely reasonable with respect to our heroic warriors. Yet it raises a question: how we can advance with minimal losses?

Vladimir Putin: The question is clear and fair. The answer is also quite simple: we need to increase our weapons in terms of its number and power, while also improving the effectiveness of the forces and means used. This includes both tactical and army air force, as well as strategic aviation. By this I mean, of course, within those aspects that are acceptable for armed conflicts of this kind. Here, I refer to ground weapons, including high-precision ones, also artillery and armoured vehicles. It is no exaggeration to say that we are developing by leaps and bounds.

Dmitry Kiselev: In this direction?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, this is exactly what's happening today. And this is the answer to your question: the more weapons we have and the more powerful they are, the fewer casualties we suffer.

Dmitry Kiselev: And yet one raises a question. What price are we ready to pay for this – perhaps ”project“ is not the proper word – challenge we have been historically forced to face?

Vladimir Putin: Look, every human life is priceless, every single one. The loss of a loved one to a family, to any family, is a tremendous grief.

But what is the key point here? The point is to make clear what we are doing. And what are we doing? We met today and, as you have noticed, one of the participants in the conversation said: we were surprised to find out that there are Russians there just like us. So we came to the rescue of these people. Basically, this is the answer to your question.

If we leave these people today, tomorrow our losses may increase many times over. Our children will have no future, because we will feel insecure, we will be a third- or fourth-class country. No one will factor us in if we cannot defend ourselves, so the consequences could be catastrophic for the Russian statehood. That is the answer.

Dmitry Kiselev: While the Americans seem to be talking about negotiations and strategic stability, they declare the need to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia. Our position is as follows, ”We are open to negotiations, but the time for goodwill gestures has passed, it's over.“ Does it mean that there will be no negotiations?

Vladimir Putin: We have never refused to negotiate.

Dmitry Kiselev: But is there a compromise without goodwill gestures? How can it be achieved then?

Vladimir Putin: Let me try to explain that. I have already said this many times, but if it needs to be repeated, I will. When we were holding talks in Istanbul, Türkiye, with the negotiators from the other side, we ended up having a thick folio, a document, which was actually a draft treaty. We have an excerpt from that treaty in the Presidential Executive Office; it was initialled by the head of the negotiating group on the Ukrainian side, Mr Arakhamia. You can see his signature on it. But then, as you already know, Mr Arakhamia himself publicly told the world – it was also at a meeting with journalists, I believe, even with foreign ones – that former Prime Minister of Great Britain Mr Johnson arrived and convinced them not to sign the treaty and, therefore, not to implement it. And so they started to bring up the topic you have just mentioned – we need to defeat Russia on the battlefield.

Are we ready to negotiate? We sure are. But we are definitely not ready for talks that are based on some kind of ”wishful thinking“ which comes after the use of psychotropic drugs, but we are ready for talks based on the realities that have developed, as they say in such cases, on the ground. This is the first thing.

Secondly, we have already been promised a lot of things many times before. We were promised that NATO would not expand to the East, but then we saw NATO at our borders. We were promised, without delving into history, that the internal conflict in Ukraine would be resolved by peaceful, political means. As we remember, three foreign ministers from Poland, Germany and France came to Kiev and promised that they would be guarantors of these agreements. One day later, the coup d'état took place. We were promised that the Minsk agreements would be honoured, and then they publicly announced that they never intended to fulfil their promises, instead they only took a pause to arm the Bandera regime in Ukraine. We were promised a lot of things, so that is why promises alone are not enough.

For us to hold negotiations now just because they are running out of ammunition would be ridiculous. Nevertheless, we are open to a serious discussion, and we are eager to resolve all conflicts, especially this one, by peaceful means. However, we must be sure that this is not just another pause that the enemy wants to use for rearmament, but rather a serious conversation with security guarantees for the Russian Federation.

We know various options that are being discussed, we know the ”lures“ they are going to show us in order to convince us that the time has come. Once again, we want to resolve all disputes and this particular dispute, this particular conflict, by peaceful means. And we are ready for that, we want that. But this should be a serious negotiation with provision of security for the opposing side, and in this case we are primarily interested in the security of the Russian Federation. That is what we will proceed from.

Dmitry Kiselev: Mr President, I am afraid we appear too generous, don't we? Wouldn’t it be the case that we conclude another agreement with them and they will cheat us once again? And we will console ourselves with the thought that we did it all honestly and it was they who cheated. Are we doomed to always end up with egg on our face?

Back in the 1990s, the United States coined themselves medals for the victory in the Cold War, and the decades since that time have been the decades of great lies. How can we ever hope that they finally conclude an honest treaty with us and comply with it and give us guarantees? I do not know how we are to handle them. Do you really believe this is at all possible?

Vladimir Putin: I hate saying this, but I don’t trust anyone.

Dmitry Kiselev: Well.

Vladimir Putin: But we need guarantees. These guarantees have to be put down on paper, and they should suit us and they should make us trust them. That is what I mean.

It would probably be premature to publicly say that it could be possible. But we certainly will not buy any empty promises.

Dmitry Kiselev: I am afraid your words might be cited and interpreted broadly. When you say that you don’t trust anyone, do you mean that you trust nobody at all or do you refer to the Western partners in this particular case?

Vladimir Putin: I prefer to rely on the facts rather than be guided by wishful thinking and assurances that everybody can be trusted. You see, the responsibility for the consequences of any decision of this magnitude is immense. For this reason we will do nothing that would prejudice the interests of our country.

Dmitry Kiselev: Mr President, what happened to Emmanuel Macron? Has he gone nuts? He is going to send French troops against our army. He looks like a fighting Gallic rooster and has scared all Europeans. How should one take it?

Vladimir Putin: In fact, the Western countries' military personnel have been present in Ukraine for a long time. They had been there before the coup d'état, and after the coup their number has grown several times. Today they are involved both directly as military advisers and as foreign mercenaries, and they suffer casualties. Yet I am certain that even if foreign countries are to send their troops officially, it will not change the situation on the ground – and this is the most important thing because arms supplies change nothing.

Second, it can lead to serious geopolitical consequences. If, say, Polish troops enter Ukrainian territory, allegedly for the protection of, say, the border between Belarus and Ukraine, or some other parts, to release Ukrainian troops and enable them to fight along the contact line, I think, Polish troops will stay there. That is what I believe. It is their heart's desire to get back the lands they have historically regarded as theirs, the lands that ”Father of the Peoples“ Joseph Stalin took from them and gave to Ukraine. They certainly want to have these lands back. So if Polish troops enter Ukraine, they will hardly ever leave it.

In such a case, this example might be followed by other countries that lost parts of their territories after the Second World War. I think that Ukraine would face geopolitical consequences – at least as regards preserving its current statehood – in their full and unappealing magnitude.

Dmitry Kiselev: Going back to Mr Macron, could he be revenging himself on Russia for having taken him down a peg or two in Africa instead of playing nice and obedient? He did not expect Russia to be so active, did he?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, I believe that might be a matter of some hard feelings, but when we maintained direct contacts with him we used to discuss this topic rather openly.

We have never thrust our way to Africa, neither have we squeezed France out of there. The problem has a different source. There is a well-known Wagner group, which initially pursued a number of economic projects in Syria and subsequently spread its activities to some other countries in Africa. It has enjoyed the support of the Ministry of Defence, but only because it is a Russian group, no more. We have not squeezed anybody out of Africa. Rather, the leaders of some African countries had dealings with some Russian economic players and wanted to work with them, rather than with the French ones, in some areas. This was not our, but our African friends' initiative.

So it is not clear, what we are to blame for in this connection, if an independent state wants to develop its ties with partners from other countries, including from Russia, wants to build its relations with Russia. We have not touched these former French colonists in those African countries. Without a touch of irony, many countries, for which France historically was a mother country, are very reluctant to deal with it. It is none of our fault. It might be more convenient to France to pin the blame on somebody else than to acknowledge its own faults. The French President's sharp and emotional reaction might be explained, among other things, by the developments in some African states.

However, I know that there are other African countries, those that have no objections against French presence and say that they are happy and ready to work with the French. Yet some countries are not. It is not our doing. We are not brainwashing anybody and not inciting any anti-French sentiments there.

We set ourselves no such tasks. To be frank, Russia has no state or national goals to pursue there. We merely maintain friendly ties. If they prefer to build their relations with Russia, they are most welcome, we reciprocate such steps. There is nothing to be offended with.

Dmitry Kiselev: But now they are saying in France that there are no longer any ”red lines“ left with regard to Russia, nothing is impossible and everything is possible. In general, they want to talk to us somehow on the basis of the balance of power. We hear a lot of things from France, from the West, and from Lithuania. In general, the chorus is not slender, but hostile.

Maybe we, too, should go for unconventional solutions and at some point seek help from the two-million-strong North Korean army? For example, in exchange for our ”nuclear umbrella“ over half of the Korean peninsula? Why not then?

Vladimir Putin: First of all, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea has its own ”nuclear umbrella.“ They didn't ask us for anything. That's the first point.

Second. In principle, based on what we see on the battlefield, we are coping with the tasks we set ourselves.

As for the states saying that they have no ”red lines“ with Russia, they should realise that Russia will have no ”red lines“ with them either.

As for small European states, first, we treat everyone with respect, no matter what. Second, when these small states call for toughening the policy towards Russia and taking some extreme measures, including, say, the deployment of troops and so on, they are still those states, and they understand this, which will not feel the consequences of their provocative statements. And those who may feel it, keep a low profile. And rightly so.

Dmitry Kiselev: And all that German dancing with the Taurus missiles? Mr Scholz says, ”we do not supply,“ but there are forces that insist on sending the Taurus missiles to Ukraine, the British propose their initiative: let's do it via England, we are ready to send. The target is the Crimean Bridge, the German generals are already planning operations, as we have heard, not only targeting the Crimean Bridge, but also military bases, as they say, deep inside the Russian territory. Some are already saying these missiles could hit the Kremlin. Don't they go too far in their dreams?

Vladimir Putin: First, they are dreaming and cheering themselves up. Second, they are trying to intimidate us.

As for Germany, there are constitutional problems there as well. They are right when they say that if the Taurus missiles hit that part of the Crimean Bridge, which is certainly, even according to their concepts, part of the Russian territory, this is a violation of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany.

The fact is that German opposition is behaving even more aggressively. We will see what they will agree on. We are following this closely. British and American missiles are also used. But this does not change the situation on the battlefield. Yes, they're causing damage to us, of course, that's obvious. But, in essence, it does not affect the course of hostilities and the consequences that are inevitable for the other side.

We are now hearing that in Germany – both your channels and foreign channels, German channels, show – how much they have, how much is in a bad state, how much requires improvement, modernisation, and so on. Let them work. As you have rightly said, there are things they should think about. Those who are smarter think about it.

Dmitry Kiselev: And the new NATO members, Finland and Sweden, in general, what did they trade for what? Swedish Foreign Minister Tobias Billström suddenly told the Turks that Sweden was against NATO bases on the Swedish territory. Didn't they realise what they had joined? What happened to them?

Vladimir Putin: You have to ask them, I don't know. We had quite good relations, stable relations with those countries, and I think that they benefited more from the fact that they adhered to neutrality, because it gave certain advantages, at least as a negotiating platform to reduce tension in Europe.

We had a perfect relationship with Finland, just perfect. We didn't have a single claim against each other, much less a territorial one, I am not talking about other areas. We didn't even have any troops there; we had removed everything from the Russian-Finnish border. Why did they do that? For purely political reasons, I think. I guess they really wanted to be a member of a Western club, under some kind of ”umbrella.“ Why did they do that, I frankly don't understand. This is a totally senseless step in terms of safeguarding their own national interests. However, it's up to them to decide, and they made that decision.

We didn't have any troops there, now we will. There were no weapon systems, now there will be. Why? We had very good economic relations. They used our market, we bought a lot from them. What's wrong with that? Now the situation will change. Many of their goods are not really needed in other markets, and they're missing out on our goods. I don't understand it.

Dmitry Kiselev: Meanwhile, in the US, there's an ongoing…

Vladimir Putin: You know, it's an everyday thing, but still. In recent years, both in Helsinki, and even more so in the border areas of Finland, payments could be made in Russian rubles. In large supermarkets, including in Helsinki, you could buy any goods for rubles. All advertisements are in Russian there.

Dmitry Kiselev: People in border areas over there are simply going bankrupt.

Vladimir Putin: Well, what I mean to say is that, on the other hand, the economic situation was fine: house prices stood at a good level. Yes, this was fine in terms of the economy, yet there were apparently highly conservative right-wing, nationalist political actors who did not like these closer relations with Russia. Some even though it was too much: Russians buying houses and flats, signs in Russian everywhere around…

I mean I know for sure that this Russophobia started somewhere at the grassroots level. Perhaps some political movements in the country decided to make use of this bias – perhaps so. All those factors combined resulted in such a decision. That’s what I think, but I cannot be 100 percent sure. Anyway, this won't help enhance security, either bilaterally or in Europe as a whole.

Dmitry Kiselev: Meanwhile, the United States finds itself amidst a fierce presidential race. And of course, they cannot do without you there. You are the invisible participant, because every Republican or Democratic candidate mentions you in their speech, giving reasons. It even seems that you never come off newspaper pages or TV news headlines and are always an argument in everyone's election campaign. You are even fuelling the fire.

Vladimir Putin: How is that?

Dmitry Kiselev: They say that we favour one candidate over others. If a foreign president says that one of the candidates in some other country is preferable, it is actually a textbook example of election-meddling. To which extent do you interfere in the American elections by claiming that we prefer to see Biden as president? And how true is that? What is that – some sort of trolling?

Vladimir Putin: Listen, first, I will tell you one thing that will prove that my preferences have not changed.

Second. We do not interfere in any elections in any way, and I have said more than once that we will work with any leader trusted by the American people, the American voter.

I find it curious that in his last year as president, Mr Trump, current candidate for president, rebuked me for sympathising with Mr Biden. It was more than four years ago. This is what he told me during one of our conversations, excuse me for a direct quote: ”You want Sleepy Joe to win.“

He told me that when he was still President. Later, to my surprise, he got persecuted for Russia allegedly having supported him as candidate. That's total rubbish.

As for the current situation with the elections, it is getting increasingly uncivilised. I wouldn't want to comment on that at all.

Besides, it is quite certain, I think that it is obvious to everyone now that the American political system cannot claim to be democratic in every sense of the word.

Dmitry Kiselev: To be honest, it sounds rather odd to me that you prefer Mr Biden. Back in 2011, Mr Biden came to Moscow and tried to dissuade you from running for president.

Do you remember that episode? He shared the story during his meeting with the Russian opposition at Spaso House. According to Garry Kasparov, Mr Biden said that he had visited Prime Minister Putin at the Russian White House in order to dissuade him from running for president, and that he had embarked on preparations for an ”Arab“ spring in our country. It seems that Biden did not favour you already at that time. You are engaged in a sort of historical duel. Or have you got over it?

Vladimir Putin: Honestly, I didn't pay much attention to that.

Dmitry Kiselev: You got over it, then. You even didn't pay much attention.

Vladimir Putin: A duel…

Dmitry Kiselev: So, it was serious for him but not for you.

Vladimir Putin: This is really a sign of interference…

Dmitry Kiselev: Yes, this is 100 percent blatant interference.

Vladimir Putin: …Interference in the political processes in our country. We have stated, and I have stated many times: ”We will not let anyone do it.“

Dmitry Kiselev: Well then.

Leaving aside the interference and the electoral battles, the escalation in fact continues. It seems that both superpowers, Russia and the USA, are playing what the Americans call the ”chicken game“ (when chickens ram each other); it is a game in which two drivers head toward each other to see who swerves away first. None seems inclined to be the first so far. Is the crash imminent then?

Vladimir Putin: Why? The United States announced that they are not going to send troops. We know what American troops in the Russian territory are. These are invaders. That is how we will treat them even if they appear in the territory of Ukraine, and they understand it. I have said that Mr Biden is a representative of the traditional school and this is proved. Yet, apart from Mr Biden, they have enough specialists in Russian-American relations and strategic deterrence.

Therefore, I do not think that it is getting closer to a head-on collision. But we are ready for it. I have said many times that it is a matter of life and death for us, while for them it is a matter of improving their tactical position in the world on the whole as well as maintaining their status among their allies in Europe in particular. This is also important, but not as much as it is for us.

Dmitry Kiselev: It is interesting that you said we are ready for it. Philosopher and geopolitical expert Alexander Dugin directly urges to practically prepare for a nuclear war. ”The better we are ready for it, the less likely such a war is,“ Mr Dugin states. How can you ever be prepared for it? Are we really ready for a nuclear war?

Vladimir Putin: From a military-technical point of view, we are certainly ready. They [the troops] are constantly on alert. This is the first thing.

Secondly. Our nuclear triad is more advanced than any other one, and this is also a universally recognised fact. We and the Americans are the only ones who have such a triad, actually.

Here, we have made a lot more progress. We have a more advanced nuclear component. On the whole, as for carriers and warheads, we have a rough parity, yet, the nuclear component we have is more sophisticated.

Everyone knows it, all experts do. However, it does not mean that we should compete by the number of carriers or warheads, but we should know about it. And I repeat that those who need it – experts, specialists, the military – are well aware of it.

Now they are setting the task to increase this modernity, novelty, they have relevant plans. We also know about them. They are developing all their components, so do we. But, in my view, this does not mean that they are ready to wage this nuclear war tomorrow. If they want to, what is there to do? We are ready.

Dmitry Kiselev: Perhaps, to make it more compelling, we should conduct nuclear tests at some stage? After all, we have no international restrictions for that.

Vladimir Putin: There is a treaty which bans such kind of tests, however, the United States has not ratified it, unfortunately. That is why to maintain parity we have withdrawn this ratification. Since the treaty was not ratified by the United States, it did not enter into force eventually, as it did not get the required number of ratifications, but we are nevertheless sticking to these agreements.

We are aware that the possibility of conducting such tests is being considered in the United States. This is due to the fact that, when new warheads appear, as some specialists believe, it is not enough to test them on computer which means that they should be tested for real as well. Such ideas are in the air in some US circles, they exist, and we are aware of them.

And we are also watching. If they conduct such tests, we will not necessarily do it, we should think whether we need it or not, however, I do not rule out that we can do the same.

Dmitry Kiselev: But are we ready for it in a technical way?

Vladimir Putin: We are always ready. I want to make it clear that these are not conventional weapons, this is the kind of troops which are always on alert.

Dmitry Kiselev: Mr President, last year, when there were tough moments at the front in connection with Kharkov or Kherson, were you thinking of tactical nuclear weapons?

Vladimir Putin: What for? The decision to withdraw troops from Kherson was taken at the suggestion of the then command of the grouping. But it did not mean at all that our front was falling apart there. Nothing like that ever happened. It was just done to avoid unnecessary casualties among the personnel. That is all. This was the main motive, as under the conditions of warfare when it was impossible to fully supply the grouping located on the right bank, we would simply suffer unnecessary losses of personnel. Because of this, it was decided to redeploy them to the left bank.

The correctness of this decision was confirmed by what the Ukrainian command tried to do in certain areas on the left bank, including in Krynki: they were just throwing their personnel there as if it were a meat grinder. They were running around literally barefoot in the end. They were trying to deliver ammunition there using speedboats and drones. What is that? Just slaughter, they sent them for slaughter.

I once asked the Chief of the General Staff, there is nothing secret about it, ”In your opinion, who takes the decisions on that side? As the one who is taking the decision understands that he is sending people to certain death?“ He answered, ”They understand.“ I said, ”But who is taking the decision, why are they doing it? It makes no sense.“ – ”It makes no military sense.“ I said, ”What sense does it make?“ – ”I do not know“, he answered, ”probably, top political leadership, based on political considerations that they have some chance to break through our defence, some chance to get additional money, referring to the fact that they have some bridgehead on the left bank, some chance to present their position at international meetings in a good way.“ The command was given, and all the subordinate heads automatically pass it on further.

By the way, the prisoners that were taken captive there, laid down arms, they show they didn't even know what situation they were getting into. Let's say new forces are moved there and told, ”There is a solid defence there, go on, continue, and help.“ They couldn't even get to the left bank anymore.

Dmitry Kiselev: A tragedy.

Vladimir Putin: A real tragedy. From a human viewpoint, absolutely.

So, why do we need to use weapons of mass destruction? There has never been such a need.

Dmitry Kiselev: That is to say such idea did not even occur to you?

Vladimir Putin: No. What for? Weapons exist to be used. We have our own principles; what do they say? That we are ready to use weapons, including the ones you have just mentioned, when it is about the existence of the Russian state, about harming our sovereignty and independence. We have everything spelled out in our Strategy. We have not changed it.

Dmitry Kiselev: Mr President, when the outgoing President Yeltsin suggested that you should run for President your first reaction was, ”I am not ready.“

Vladimir Putin: Exactly, this is the direct speech.

Dmitry Kiselev: Since then you have, of course, gone through a great evolution. If you are to write a telegram to yourself to that time, what text would be in it?

Vladimir Putin: You know, this is like ”A [Connecticut] Yankee in King Arthur's Court“ or something like that. It is not possible to answer this question because the question was posed at that time, within the historical and economic context the country was in, in that internal political situation from the viewpoint of internal security. And all this together prompted me to the answer that I gave, ”I am not ready for this.“ Not because I was afraid of something but because the scale of the tasks was enormous and the number of problems grew every day like a snowball. That is why I said sincerely and not because, I repeat, I was afraid of something but because I thought that I was not ready to solve all these problems, God forbid, I would do something even worse. That's what I meant. That is why I was absolutely sincere and, if I went back, I would say the same thing again.

Dmitry Kiselev: And what was decisive then? You ran after all.

Vladimir Putin: Probably, conversations with Boris Nikolayevich.

The key thing was that in the end he said to me then, ”Well, ok, I understand, we'll come back to this later.“ And we came back to this several times.

In the long run he said that I was a man of experience, knew what I was doing, what I was suggesting, and told me some other things. Perhaps, it is not appropriate to talk myself up but he said such positive words. Later he repeated it again, in a genuinely positive way; I am not going to talk about it now.

And when the work started, everything was completely different there. You know, when you work, you think: this, this and this is needed right now, this – tomorrow – and so on and so forth. When you settle down to a task, it's a different ball game.

Dmitry Kiselev: No time to be afraid of anymore.

Vladimir Putin: It's not about being afraid of but about being up to the task, being able to address them. You remember yourself what the year 1999 was like in the economy, in the security sphere, in the finance – in everything.

Dmitry Kiselev: You once said that preparing to enter Leningrad University was a turning point for you. This was the situation when you had to risk it all, knowing that either you do it now and cope and then be able to implement the plans that you had (and at that time you were already planning to work for the KGB) or you lose, and then everything is different and there is no chance. Is Russia now in the same situation when it has to risk it all?

Vladimir Putin: First, I was not in such situation then. Yes, I wanted to work in the state security agencies.

Dmitry Kiselev: The admission itself, it was kind of momentous, this feeling, wasn't it? It’s either this way or that?

Vladimir Putin: Not exactly. I just came to the reception desk and said, ”I would like to work here. What do I need for this?“

The alternative was simple, I was told: you need to either get a higher education, and preferably a law degree, or serve in the army, or have at least three years of work experience but better serve in the army. If I hadn't enrolled at the university, I would have joined the army.

Well, perhaps, this would have been a longer way to the goal I set myself but it was there after all. There is always an alternative.

Dmitry Kiselev: But you entered with tension.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, of course, because after all, I studied at a school with a chemical and mathematical bias but here I had to take humanitarian subjects. I had to leave one thing and do another.

Yes, certainly, there was tension. I had to learn a foreign language on my own, specifically German, I had to study history, literature and so on.

Dmitry Kiselev: Russia is currently also at the crossroads: either everything works out or…

Vladimir Putin: Russia is not at the crossroads. It is on the strategic path of its development and will not deviate from its path.

Dmitry Kiselev: To what extent do you feel the support of Russian society in its new quality? After all, a new quality of Russian society has emerged.

Vladimir Putin: It was there, it just manifested itself. And it is very good that we have given this profound Russian society an opportunity to express itself. I have the feeling that people have been waiting for this for a long time, that an average person would be in demand by the country and the state, and that the fate of the country would depend on him. It is this feeling of inner connection with the Motherland, with the Fatherland, of one’s importance in solving key tasks, in this case in the sphere of security, that has raised to the surface the strength of the Russian and other peoples of Russia.

Dmitry Kiselev: Does that recharge you?

Vladimir Putin: Always. It's not even a matter of someone being recharged, it's a matter of seeing the demands of society. This is the most important thing – to meet the demands of society.

Dmitry Kiselev: But it is time to recognise that you play a key role not only in Russia, but also in the world, because billions of people associate with you the hope for international justice, for the defence of human dignity, for the protection of traditional values. How does it feel to feel that level of responsibility?

Vladimir Putin: To tell you the truth, I don't feel it at all. I am simply working in the interests of Russia, in the interests of our people. Yes, I understand what you are saying now, and I am ready to comment on it. But I don't feel like I'm some sort of master of the world's destinies. Believe me, nothing even close. I am just doing my duty to Russia and to our people, who consider Russia their Motherland.

As for other countries of the world, the way we are treated around the world is very closely related to this. That's what is interesting. It is a phenomenon, that's for sure.

What I would like to draw attention to. You are absolutely right here, many people in the world are looking at us, at what is happening in our country and in our struggle for our interests.

That's what I think is important. Why is this happening? Not because we are formally members of BRICS or because we have some kind of traditional relations with Africa. This is also important, but the point, in my opinion, is quite different. The point is that this so-called ”golden billion“ has been practically parasitising on other peoples for centuries, 500 years. They tore apart the unfortunate peoples of Africa, they exploited Latin America, they exploited the countries of Asia, and of course no one has forgotten that. I have the feeling that it is not even the leadership of these countries, although it is very important, but the ordinary citizens of these countries feel in their hearts what is happening.

They associate our struggle for our independence and true sovereignty with their aspirations for their own sovereignty and independent development. But this is aggravated by the fact that there is a very strong desire in Western elites to freeze the current unjust state of affairs in international affairs. They've spent centuries filling their bellies with human flesh and their pockets with money. But they must realise that the vampire ball is ending.

Dmitry Kiselev: Are you alluding to their, as you put it in your Address, colonial manners? That's what you're saying.

Vladimir Putin: That's the way it goes.

Dmitry Kiselev: But now you have painted a perfectly fair picture of people seeing some hope in Russia. How is it that Western propaganda, with all its power, its colossal resources and tools, has failed to banish Russia, isolate it and create a false image of it, although it strived to do so in the heads of billions of people? How did that happen?

Vladimir Putin: Because what I just said is more important to people. People all over the world feel it in their hearts. They don't even need any pragmatic explanations for what is happening.

Dmitry Kiselev: You mean despite the wave of this dirt?

Vladimir Putin: Yes. In their own countries they also deceive people, and it has an effect. They – in many countries – believe that this is in their interests because they don't want to have such a huge country like Russia on their borders. The largest in the world in terms of territory, the largest in Europe in terms of population – not such a large population in the global dimension, not comparable to China or India, but the largest in Europe – and now also the fifth largest economy in the world. What do they need such a competitor for? They think: no, it is better, as some American specialists have suggested, to divide it into three, four, or five parts – it will be better for everyone. They proceed from that.

And part of, at least, Western elites, blinded by their Russophobia, were delighted when they brought us to the line after which our attempts to stop the war unleashed by the West in Ukraine in 2014 by force began, when we switched to conducting a special military operation. They even rejoiced, I think. Because they believed that now they would finish us off, now, under this barrage of sanctions, practically a sanctions war declared against us, with the help of Western weapons and war through Ukrainian nationalists, they would finish off Russia. Hence the slogan: ”To inflict a strategic defeat on Russia on the battlefield“.

But later came the realisation that it was unlikely, and still later – that it was impossible. And they came to understand that instead of a strategic defeat, they are faced with powerlessness, a powerlessness despite the fact that they were relying on the might of the all-powerful United States. They felt frustrated seeing the unity of the Russian people, the fundamentals of the Russian financial and economic system and its sustainability, and before the growing capabilities of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation.

It was then that they – those who are slightly smarter than others – started to think that the policy towards the Russian Federation has to be changed. It was then that the idea to resume the negotiation process, to find ways to end this conflict, to search for where real interests of Russia lie, appeared. These people are dangerous, by the way, because it is easier to handle people who are guided by such basic urges.

Do you remember what our ancestors used to say? What the day‑to‑day happiness for many people was? To be full, drunk and with one’s nose in tobacco. Right? It is easier to deal with such people when they are full, drunk, in other words, you have eaten and drunk enough. ”Nose in tobacco“ means they used snuff tobacco. Now it is more like ”nose in cocaine.“ It is all the same, though, such people are just easier to deal with. As for smart people, it's different. Such people are more dangerous because they influence people's minds, including in our society. They will be offering their own wants and wishes as some sort of ”lures“ for us.

You already emphasised it when you asked about the possibility of negotiations. But still. This is the root of the disagreement within the Western society. This is clear, we can see this.

We are not going to cause divisions. They will manage to do it brilliantly on their own. However, we are going, without any doubt, to make sure our interests are met.

Dmitry Kiselev: I cannot but ask. These attacks on the Belgorod and Kursk regions are military action going on in our regions. They act bolder. Do they feel something? What’s causing this?

Vladimir Putin: The explanation is very simple. This is happening against the backdrop of setbacks at the line of contact, at the front line. They achieved none of the goals they had set last year. What is more, our Armed Forces have fully regained the initiative now. Everybody knows this, everybody admits this. I think I will say nothing new in this regard. They have to demonstrate at least something given the setbacks. Mainly, they want to focus the attention on how the situation is represented in the media.

The enemy attempted to attack our state borders with subversive groups, first and foremost. The latest report of the General Staff says something up to 300 people, including foreign mercenaries. The enemy's losses amounted to more than 200 people, around 230. The enemy lost seven tanks out of eight that they used, nine armoured vehicles out of nine, seven of them made in the United States, they are Bradleys. They used other armoured vehicles as well, but mainly for the transportation of the personnel: they drove them to the site, dropped them and left immediately. That is what happens at the border with Belgorod. A little southwards if I am not mistaken, in a particular place, less people are involved. Nevertheless, the main goal – I have no doubts about this – is if not to disrupt the elections in Russia, then at least to hinder the normal course of citizens’ expressing their will. This is the first thing.

The second thing. It is the information effect, as I have said.

The third thing. It is their wish to obtain anything, a chance, an argument or leverage in a potential future negotiation process: we will return you this, you will return us that.

But I have said that it is easier to talk to people who are guided by the approach ”full, drunk and with their nose in you-know-what“ because one can anticipate what these people are going to do next. They will also attempt something similar in other areas as well but we see through them.

Dmitry Kiselev:We mentioned the incident when you saved children from the fire. You already have grandchildren. What kind of country would you like to leave to your grandchildren?

Vladimir Putin: You know, we have to achieve everything that was stated in the Address to the Federal Assembly several days ago as a first step. We have big plans. They are very specific in economic and social spheres, as well as in supporting mothers, children, families with children, the elderly. We rarely talk about it these days, or do not talk at all, yet we always allocate appropriate resources for this as well. It includes indexation of pensions, various benefits, long‑term care for people who need it.

I would like to say that it’s thanks to the elderly people that today we have a strong and stable statehood and economy, among other things. That is why, despite all the upheavals and direst trials our economy went through in the 1990s, it pulled through thanks to their heroic labour after the Great Patriotic War and during the economic revival. That is why we must never forget about this, about the achievements of the previous generations. We must always remember it while ensuring appropriate well-being for them. The future is in our children, that is why I have mentioned programmes to support mothers and children.

All this can be achieved only on the basis of the economy. I expect it to become more technologically advanced, modern, and be based on the achievements of science and technology, information technology, artificial intelligence, robotics, genetics and do on. Our agriculture is developing at fantastic rates. It also needs up-to-date technologies. They are actively used and will continue to be used moving forward.

Of course, the country will be self-sufficient in ensuring its security and defence. Together, we will have to multiply all of that to secure our future.

Dmitry Kiselev: Thank you, Mr President. Your confidence inspires. I wish you success in your noble pursuits.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you.

Dmitry Kiselev: Thank you.

Answers to questions from journalist Pavel Zarubin

2024-02-15T17:40:44+04:00

Pavel Zarubin: Mr President, your interview with Tucker Carlson has already garnered one billion views. While there has been a lot of positive feedback, we can see the kind of comments that Western leaders are making. For example, the Prime Minister of the UK and the German Chancellor labelled your explanation that the special military operation had been caused by a threat from NATO as “absurd” and “clearly ridiculous.” What do you think of this?

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: First of all, it is good that they have been watching and listening to what I say. If we are not able to maintain a direct dialogue today due to certain reasons, we should be grateful to Mr Carlson for acting as an intermediary. So, it is good that they are watching and listening.

The fact that they are distorting my words and misrepresenting things is concerning. Why? Because I never said those things. Nowhere in the interview did I say that the start of the special military operation in Ukraine is linked to the threat of a NATO attack on Russia. Where in the interview did I make such a statement? The interview was recorded. They can go back and pinpoint exactly where I said this.

What I actually said was that we have been constantly deceived about NATO’s non-expansion to the east. By the way, then NATO Secretary-General, a representative of Germany, made such a promise. He explicitly stated NATO would not expand even an inch to the east. After that, NATO proceeded to expand five times, completely deceiving us. Of course, we were concerned about the possibility of Ukraine being drawn into NATO, as it poses a security threat to us. So, this is what I actually said.

However, what served as the trigger was the current Ukrainian officials’ outright refusal to comply with the Minsk agreements, coupled with Ukraine’s relentless attacks on the unrecognised republics of Donbass, the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Lugansk People’s Republic, which continued for eight years and resulted in numerous deaths. Realising that there are no prospects of resolving this problem under the Minsk agreements, these republics formally requested our recognition. We recognised them and signed a treaty of friendship and mutual assistance. After that, as required by the UN Charter, we fulfilled our obligations under the treaty.

As I said, we did not initiate this war; rather, we are striving to end it. During the first phase, we tried to achieve this through peaceful means, specifically, through the Minsk agreements. However, it became apparent that we had been given the runaround once again. Both the former German Chancellor and the former President of France admitted and publicly stated that they had never intended to honour the agreements and had merely used them to buy time to supply the Ukrainian regime with more weapons, which they successfully did. Our only regret is that we did not take action sooner, believing that we were dealing with honest people.

Pavel Zarubin: Carlson faced criticism before the interview, and since then he has been accused of asking too few probing questions and of allegedly being too soft on you, which is why you felt so comfortable with him. Do you think you overwhelmed the American journalist with your authority?

Vladimir Putin: I believe that your Carlson – “your” as a member of the journalistic community – is a dangerous man, and here is why. To be honest, I thought he would be quite aggressive and ask so-called tough questions.

I was not just prepared for this, I wanted it, because it would give me the opportunity to respond with equally sharp answers, which would add a certain character to our conversation. But he chose a different tactic. He tried to interrupt me several times, but still, surprisingly for a Western journalist, he remained patient and listened to my lengthy monologues, especially when I spoke about history. He gave me no cause for doing what I was prepared to do. That is why, to tell the truth, I did not fully enjoy that interview. But he acted strictly according to his plan, and he did what he intended. As for how informative it turned out to be in the end, that is not for me to judge. It is for the viewers, listeners and possibly readers of this material to judge.

Pavel Zarubin: Following that interview, calls have been made to impose sanctions against Tucker Carlson, and there are even rumours that he could be arrested. Is this possible?

Vladimir Putin: Assange has been locked up, and few people mention him now. Only those close to him still talk about it, and that is all. One specific feature of public opinion is that people tend to forget quickly. But Assange was at least accused of revealing state secrets. Carlson cannot be charged with that because he did not touch upon any secrets. Nevertheless, anything is possible, theoretically, in modern-day America, in the United States today.

This would be bad for Carlson. I feel sorry for him, but it was his choice. He knew what he was doing. On the other hand, this could be a good opportunity for people around the world to see the true nature of modern “liberal democratic” (in scare quotes) dictatorship, which is supposedly represented in the current ruling class in the United States. This would reveal its true face.

Pavel Zarubin: Carlson said that after the interview… I wanted to ask you a question so that we can put the doubt to rest. Carlson said that after the interview your conversation continued. What did you discuss? Now everyone wants to know.

Vladimir Putin: As I have already said, and as far as I can see, he had a plan for the interview and he stuck to it. But there were other topics too that had to be raised, in my opinion. Still, I decided not to inject new topics into our conversation without being prompted to do so by the journalist.

During the taped part of the interview, we should have discussed efforts to use inter-ethnic relations and the Jewish pogroms in the Russian Empire as a way of denigrating and demonising Russia. One of the subjects we discussed when the cameras were turned off was what US Secretary of State, Mr Blinken, mentioned on several occasions. He said that his relatives, his great-grandfather, fled the Jewish pogroms and left Russia.

This topic keeps surfacing across the world, in Europe and in the United States. Let me reiterate that it is being used to demonise and discredit Russia and to demonstrate that it is home to barbaric, cruel people and outlaws. However, we can clarify many issues if we try to understand what today’s US Secretary of State actually said and if we look beyond political slogans by focusing on the substance.

All this information is in our archives. For example, Mr Blinken’s great-grandfather did leave the Russian Empire. I think that he was born somewhere in the Poltava Province, and then moved to Kiev before emigrating. This raises the following question: does Mr Blinken think that Kiev and the surrounding territories are historically Russian land? This is my first point here.

Second, if he says that his great-grandfather left Russia to escape the Jewish pogroms, this, at least, means, and I would like to stress this point, that in 1904, since this is when Mr Blinken’s great-grandfather left Kiev for the United States, Ukraine did not exist – this is what he seems to believe. This way, Mr Blinken seems to share our views. That said, he should have refrained from saying so in public. This could undermine his cause.

Pavel Zarubin: Just the other day, there were articles in the German media saying that the grandfather of Germany’s current Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock was a devoted Nazi. Considering the way the relations between our countries have been unfolding over the past years, could it be that the Nazi virus still exists in this country at a genetic level or something like that?

Vladimir Putin: This is an iteration of nationalism, albeit a radical one. By the way, something has just occurred to me about these pogroms. They took place mainly in the south and southwest of the Russian Empire. In fact, this is where present-day Ukraine is, for example in Kiev, in 1905. If Mr Blinken’s ancestor left in 1904, the first pogrom in Kiev, I mean a big one, happened in 1905, which means that his great-grandfather, or his great-great-grandfather, could only find out what happened there from newspapers, or from those who were in Kiev at that time.

In fact, these tragic mass atrocities started in the early 19^th century. I think it was in 1820 or in 1821 when the first major pogrom took place. We know that these crimes took place in Odessa, and later in Melitopol, in Zhitomir, and in other cities of present-day Ukraine, as well as in Byelorussia. There were also several incidents of this kind in Siberia, but the very first one happened after a Greek Patriarch was killed in Constantinople. This was when the Greeks who lived there thought that the Jews were involved in the assassination in one way or another.

But this is not what matters here. What does matter is that there were resistance militias who tried to counter these attacks, formed by Jewish and Russian youth, while the government, even the tsarist authorities, delivered a proper assessment of these tragic events and tried to stop them, including by sending in the army. Let me reiterate that this is a whole different story.

Speaking of nationalism, Nazism and fascism, you know, I will tell you something that may sound strange. First, Ms, what is her name?

Annalena Baerbock.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, Baerbock (I do not want to mispronounce her surname) represents the Greens party. Many representatives of this part of the European political spectrum speculate on people’s fears and engage in fearmongering about what might happen in the world due to climate change. Later, they speculate on these fears, fanned by themselves, and follow their political line that differs greatly from their earlier programme, with which they assumed power. This is what is now happening in Germany. For example, the share of coal has increased in the national energy mix. The share of coal was already higher than in Russia, and it has now increased even more. I mean, what happened to the “green” agenda? This is the first thing.

Second, the German Foreign Minister and people like her, are, of course, hostile towards Russia. In my opinion, she is also hostile towards her own country because it is hard to imagine such a high-ranking politician treating the economic interests of her country and people with such disdain. Right now, I will not go into details, but this is exactly what is happening in reality, and we can see this.

The next part of my statement will probably sound out of tune with what I have just said. I do not think that the current generations of Germans should assume complete political responsibility for everything perpetrated by Nazi Germany. It is impossible to blame the current generation of people for what Hitler and his cronies perpetrated in Germany and other parts of the world, in Europe and so on. I believe that this would be unfair. To be frank, sticking this label on the entire German nation is an unfair position; this misuses what people experienced, what the people of the Soviet Union experienced. To my mind, this is unfair and inappropriate. We should proceed from present-day realities and see who is doing what, and what policy they are conducting.

By the way, in this connection, it would be useful to do the following. As I see it, many people in many countries are voicing this viewpoint; unfortunately, this concerns even those countries where this issue should not be politicised.

What am I talking about? I am referring to an exceptionalism of certain nations, as compared to others, some kind of exclusivity, etc. Just listen: this is how Nazism started. Now that this has become so widespread, it would be appropriate to conduct this anti-fascist and anti-Nazi propaganda and work at the same global level. I repeat, at the global level.

And this should not be done at some state level. This will prove effective only if it is done at the level of public conscience and public initiative, regardless of the country where it takes place.

Pavel Zarubin: The European Union is generally in panic over Donald Trump’s potential return to the presidential post in the United States. Trump completely dumbfounded European leaders with his recent statements, made just a couple of days ago, and they are not trying to hide it. Trump said that the United States must protect the European countries only if the European countries can pay for it. Why has this sort of relationship come about between Europe, the European leaders and politicians, and Donald Trump?

Vladimir Putin: Trump has always been considered a non-system politician. He has his own ideas about how the US should develop its relations with its allies. There was friction before. Take, for example, the United States and its withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol on environmental protection. It was tense. But the then President of the United States decided that the United States should withdraw from the agreement, despite the high appeal of the environmental agenda. He believed that the agreement causes harm to the US economy. That was all. He stood his ground and that was it. There was a massive wave of criticism from European leaders but he still did it. Yes, he made certain changes later.

How is Trump’s stance different? It is fundamentally no different. He wanted to force Europeans to raise their defence expenditure or, as he said, to pay the United States for protection and for opening a nuclear umbrella over their heads. Well, I don’t know, it is their problem, they need to work it out for themselves. There may be logic from his perspective. There is none from the Europeans’ perspective. Europe wanted the United States to continue performing certain functions that it took up at the establishment of NATO, at no charge. It is their business.

I personally believe that there is absolutely no point in NATO. Its only purpose is to serve as a tool of US foreign policy. If the United States considers this tool no longer necessary, that is their decision.

Pavel Zarubin: The current President of the United States Biden has been causing a mounting wave of speculation around the world concerning his health. We are talking about the president of one of the world’s biggest nuclear powers, all while witnessing very peculiar, to put it mildly, scenes almost every day. What do you think when you see and hear all this?

Vladimir Putin: What this suggests to me is that the election campaign and domestic political struggles are gaining traction in the United States. These processes are exacerbating so I do not think that it would be appropriate for us to weigh in on them.

You see, when Biden and I met in Switzerland, even if it happened several years ago, in fact, three years ago, there were already those back then who were saying that he was unfit for office. I did not see anything of this sort. Well, he did keep glancing at his notes but, to be honest, I looked at mine too. Nothing special about that. And the fact that he banged his head on something when descending from a helicopter, well, who of us has never banged his head on something, let them throw the first stone, as the saying goes.

Overall, what I think… I am not a doctor, so I do not think that I can make any comments on this topic. We must look elsewhere, focus on the political position instead. I believe that the current administration is pursuing what amounts to a harmful and erroneous policy. This is what I told President Biden back then.

Pavel Zarubin: Therefore, the question we had four years ago is taking on new relevance today. Who would be better for us? Biden or Trump?

Vladimir Putin: Biden. He has more experience, and he is more predictable too, an old school politician. That said, we will work with any leader of the United States who has the trust of the American people.

Pavel Zarubin: Allow me to come back to the Tucker Carlson interview. We mentioned statements by the current German and British leaders. We also heard from the person whom you mentioned in your interview with Carlson with the following words: “Where is Mr Johnson now?” According to Arakhamia’s confessions, it was Johnson who ordered Kiev not to sign a deal with Moscow and to keep fighting instead. Had the Kiev authorities ignored this kind of advice, how would events have unfolded?

Vladimir Putin: This is what Mr Arakhamia said. After all, he… Look at the recording. We did not force him to say these words. He spoke his mind. Why he did so is another matter. I do not know. Maybe he likes saying things as they are. He did say that had we fulfilled the agreements negotiated in Istanbul, the war would have ended one and a half years ago. He was the one who said it. I think Arakhamia’s recordings should be included in the interview with Carlson.

Why has the West adopted this position? I am referring to the West, primarily the Anglo-Saxon world, since former Prime Minister Johnson would have never travelled there on his own initiative, without seeking Washington’s advice. These consultations probably took place, and I think that he was on a business mission, with expenses covered by the US administration, including the per diem. So he went there on a mission to make the case for fighting Russia until the last Ukrainian (without saying so directly), or should we say until victory and Russia’s strategic defeat. This is probably the kind of result they hoped for.

However, I can repeat here what I told Mr Carlson. If they see that it is not working out the way they expected, they probably have to make adjustments. But this is a matter of the art of government and politics, since politics, as we all know, is the art of compromise.

Interview to Tucker Carlson

2024-02-11T16:32:01+04:00

Vladimir Putin answered questions from Tucker Carlson, a journalist and founder of Tucker Carlson Network.

Tucker Carlson: Mr. President, thank you.

On February 24, 2022, you addressed your country in your nationwide address when the conflict in Ukraine started and you said that you were acting because you had come to the conclusion that the United States through NATO might initiate a quote, “surprise attack on our country.” And to American ears that sounds paranoid. Tell us why you believe the United States might strike Russia out of the blue. How did you conclude that?

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: It's not that the United States was going to launch a surprise strike on Russia, I didn't say so. Are we having a talk show or a serious conversation?

Tucker Carlson: That was a good quote. Thank you, it’s formidably serious!

Vladimir Putin: You were initially trained in history, as far as I know?

Tucker Carlson: Yes.

Vladimir Putin: So if you don’t mind I will take only 30 seconds or one minute of your time to give you a brief historical background.

Tucker Carlson: Please.

Vladimir Putin: Let’s look where our relationship with Ukraine started from. Where does Ukraine come from?

The Russian state started to exist as a centralized state in 862. This is considered to be the year of creation of the Russian state because this year the townspeople of Novgorod (a city in the North-West of the country) invited Rurik, a Varangian prince from Scandinavia, to reign. In 1862, Russia celebrated the 1000^th anniversary of its statehood, and in Novgorod there is a memorial dedicated to the 1000^th anniversary of the country.

In 882, Rurik's successor Prince Oleg, who was, actually, playing the role of regent for Rurik’s young son because Rurik had died by that time, came to Kiev. He ousted two brothers who, apparently, had once been members of Rurik's retinue. So, Russia began to develop with two centres of power, in Kiev and in Novgorod.

The next, very significant date in the history of Russia, was 988. This was the Baptism of Russia, when Prince Vladimir, the great-grandson of Rurik, baptized Russia and adopted Orthodoxy, or Eastern Christianity. From this time the centralized Russian state began to strengthen. Why? Because of a single territory, integrated economic ties, one and the same language and, after the Baptism of Russia, the same faith and rule of the Prince. A centralized Russian state began to take shape.

Back in the Middle Ages, Prince Yaroslav the Wise introduced the order of succession to the throne, but after he passed away, it became complicated for various reasons. The throne was passed not directly from father to eldest son, but from the prince who had passed away to his brother, then to his sons in different lines. All this led to the fragmentation of Rus as a single state. There was nothing special about it, the same was happening then in Europe. But the fragmented Russian state became an easy prey to the empire created earlier by Genghis Khan. His successors, namely, Batu Khan, came to Rus, plundered and ruined nearly all the cities. The southern part, including Kiev, by the way, and some other cities, simply lost independence, while northern cities preserved some of their sovereignty. They had to pay tribute to the Horde, but they managed to preserve some part of their sovereignty. And then a unified Russian state began to take shape with its centre in Moscow.

The southern part of the Russian lands, including Kiev, began to gradually gravitate towards another “magnet” – the centre that was emerging in Europe. This was the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. It was even called the Lithuanian-Russian Duchy because Russians were a significant part of its population. They spoke the Old Russian language and were Orthodox. But then there was a unification, the union of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Kingdom of Poland. A few years later, another union was signed, but this time already in the religious sphere. Some of the Orthodox priests became subordinate to the Pope. Thus, these lands became part of the Polish-Lithuanian state.

For decades, the Poles were engaged in the “Polonization” of this part of the population: they introduced their language there, tried to entrench the idea that this population was not exactly Russians, that because they lived on the fringe (u kraya) they were “Ukrainians.” Originally, the word ‘Ukrainian’ meant that a person was living on the outskirts of the state, near the fringe, or was engaged in border service. It didn't mean any particular ethnic group.

So, the Poles were trying in every possible way to polonize that part of the Russian lands and actually treated it rather harshly, not to say cruelly. All that led to the fact that that part of the Russian lands began to struggle for their rights. They wrote letters to Warsaw demanding that their rights be observed and that people be commissioned there, including to Kiev…

Tucker Carlson: I beg your pardon, can you tell us what period… I am losing track of where in history we are.

Vladimir Putin: It was in the 13^th century.

Now I will tell what happened next and give the dates so that there is no confusion.

Then in 1654, even a bit earlier, the people who were in control of the authority over that part of the Russian lands, addressed Warsaw, I repeat, demanding their rights be observed that they send to them rulers of Russian origin and Orthodox faith. When Warsaw did not answer them and in fact rejected their demands, they turned to Moscow so that Moscow took them under its rule.

So that you don't think that I am inventing things… I'll give you these documents…

Tucker Carlson: It doesn’t sound like you are inventing it, but I am not sure why it’s relevant to what’s happened two years ago.

Vladimir Putin: But still, these are documents from the archives, copies. Here are letters from Bogdan Khmelnitsky, the man who then controlled the power in that part of the Russian lands that is now called Ukraine. He wrote to Warsaw demanding that their rights be upheld, and after being refused, he began to write letters to Moscow asking to take them under the strong hand of the Moscow Tsar. Here are copies of these documents. I will leave them for your good memory. There is a translation into Russian, you can translate it into English later.

Russia did not agree to admit them straight away, assuming that would trigger a war with Poland. Nevertheless, in 1654, the Zemsky Sobor, which was a representative body of power of the Old Russian state, made the decision: those Old Russian lands became part of the Tsardom of Muscovy.

As expected, the war with Poland began. It lasted 13 years, and then a truce was concluded. In all, after that act of 1654, 32 years later, I think, a peace treaty with Poland was concluded, “the eternal peace,” as it said. And those lands, the whole left bank of the Dnieper, including Kiev, reverted to Russia, while the entire right bank of the Dnieper remained in possession of Poland.

Under the rule of Catherine the Great, Russia reclaimed all of its historical lands, including in the south and west. This all lasted until the Revolution. Before World War I, the Austrian General Staff, relying on the ideas of Ukrainianization, started to actively promote the ideas of Ukraine and the Ukrainianization. Their motive was obvious. Just before World War I, they wanted to weaken the potential enemy and secure themselves favourable conditions in the border area. So this idea which had emerged in Poland that people residing in that territory were allegedly not really Russians, but rather belonged to a special ethnic group, the Ukrainians, started to be promoted by the Austrian General Staff too.

As far back as the 19^th century, theorists calling for Ukrainian independence appeared. All those, however, claimed that Ukraine should have a very good relationship with Russia. They insisted on that. After the 1917 Revolution, the Bolsheviks sought to restore the statehood, and the Civil War began, including the hostilities with Poland. In 1921, peace with Poland was proclaimed, and under that treaty, the right bank of the Dnieper River once again was given back to Poland.

In 1939, after Poland cooperated with Hitler — it did collaborate with Hitler, you know —Hitler offered Poland peace and a treaty of friendship and alliance (we have all the relevant documents in the archives), demanding in return that Poland give back to Germany the so-called Danzig Corridor, which connected the bulk of Germany with East Prussia and Konigsberg. After World War I this territory was transferred to Poland, and instead of Danzig, a city of Gdansk emerged. Hitler asked them to give it amicably, but the Poles refused. Still they collaborated with Hitler and engaged together in the partitioning of Czechoslovakia.

Tucker Carlson: May I ask… You are making the case that Ukraine, certain parts of Ukraine, Eastern Ukraine, in fact, has been Russia for hundreds of years. Why wouldn’t you just take it when you became President 24 years ago? You have nuclear weapons, they don’t. It’s actually your land. Why did you wait so long?

Vladimir Putin: I’ll tell you. I’m coming to that. This briefing is coming to an end. It might be boring, but it explains many things.

Tucker Carlson: It’s not boring.

Vladimir Putin: Good. Good. I am so gratified that you appreciate that. Thank you.

So, before World War II, Poland collaborated with Hitler and although it did not yield to Hitler’s demands, it still participated in the partitioning of Czechoslovakia together with Hitler. As the Poles had not given the Danzig Corridor to Germany, and went too far, they pushed Hitler to start World War II by attacking them. Why was it Poland against whom the war started on September 1, 1939? Poland turned out to be uncompromising, and Hitler had nothing else to do but start implementing his plans with Poland.

By the way, the USSR — I have read some archival documents — behaved very honestly. It asked Poland’s permission to transit its troops through the Polish territory to help Czechoslovakia. But the then Polish foreign minister said that if the Soviet planes head to Czechoslovakia, they would be downed over the territory of Poland. But that doesn’t matter. What matters is that the war began, and Poland fell prey to the policies it had pursued against Czechoslovakia, as under the well-known Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, part of that territory, including western Ukraine, was to be given to Russia. Thus Russia, which was then named the USSR, regained its historical lands.

After the victory in the Great Patriotic War, as we call World War II, all those territories were ultimately enshrined as belonging to Russia, to the USSR. As for Poland, it received, apparently in compensation, the western lands which had originally been German: the eastern parts of Germany (these are now western lands of Poland). Of course, Poland regained access to the Baltic sea, and Danzig, which was once again given its Polish name. So this was how this situation developed.

In 1922, when the USSR was being established, the Bolsheviks started building the USSR and established the Soviet Ukraine, which had never existed before.

Tucker Carlson: Right.

Vladimir Putin: Stalin insisted that those republics be included in the USSR as autonomous entities. For some inexplicable reason, Lenin, the founder of the Soviet state, insisted that they be entitled to withdraw from the USSR. And, again for some unknown reasons, he transferred to that newly established Soviet Republic of Ukraine some of the lands together with people living there, even though those lands had never been called Ukraine; and yet they were made part of that Soviet Republic of Ukraine. Those lands included the Black Sea region, which was received under Catherine the Great and which had no historical connection with Ukraine whatsoever.

Even if we go as far back as 1654, when those lands returned to the Russian Empire, that territory included three or four regions of modern Ukraine, with no Black Sea region. That was completely out of the question.

Tucker Carlson: In 1654?

Vladimir Putin: Exactly.

Tucker Carlson: You have, I see, encyclopaedic knowledge of that region. But why didn’t you make this case for the first 22 years as president, that Ukraine wasn’t a real country?

Vladimir Putin: The Soviet Ukraine was given a great deal of territory that had never belonged to it, including the Black Sea region. At some point, when Russia received them as an outcome of the Russo-Turkish wars, they were called “New Russia,” or Novorossiya. But that does not matter. What matters is that Lenin, the founder of the Soviet State, established Ukraine that way. For decades, the Ukrainian Soviet Republic developed as part of the USSR, and for unknown reasons again, the Bolsheviks were engaged in Ukrainianization. It was not merely because the Soviet leadership was composed to a great extent of those originating from Ukraine. Rather, it was explained by the general policy of indigenization pursued by the Soviet Union. Same things were done in other Soviet republics. This involved promoting national languages and national cultures, which is not bad in principle. That is how the Soviet Ukraine was created.

After World War II, Ukraine received, in addition to the lands that had belonged to Poland before the war, part of the lands that had previously belonged to Hungary and Romania (known today as Western Ukraine). So Romania and Hungary had some of their lands taken away and given to the Ukraine and they still remain part of Ukraine. So in this sense, we have every reason to affirm that Ukraine is an artificial state that was shaped at Stalin’s will.

Tucker Carlson: Do you believe Hungary has a right to take back its land from Ukraine? And that other nations have a right to go back to their 1654 borders?

Vladimir Putin: I am not sure whether they should go back to the 1654 borders, but given Stalin’s time, the so-called Stalin’s regime — which, as many claim, saw numerous violations of human rights and violations of the rights of other states. In this sense it is quite possible, of course, to claim back those lands, if we are not talking about their having the right to do that, it is at least understandable…

Tucker Carlson: Have you told Viktor Orban that he can have a part of Ukraine?

Vladimir Putin: Never. I have never told him that. Not a single time. We have not even had any conversation on that, but I actually know for sure that Hungarians who live there wanted to return to their historical homeland.

Moreover, I would like to share a very interesting story with you, I'll digress, it's a personal one. Somewhere in the early 80's, I went on a road trip in a car from then-Leningrad (now St. Petersburg) across the Soviet Union through Kiev, made a stop in Kiev, and then went to Western Ukraine. I went to the town of Beregovo, and all the names of towns and villages there were in Russian and in a language I didn't understand – in Hungarian. In Russian and in Hungarian. Not in Ukrainian – in Russian and in Hungarian.

I was driving through some kind of a village and there were men sitting next to the houses and they were wearing black three-piece suits and black cylinder hats. I asked, “Are they some kind of entertainers?” I was told, “No, they're not entertainers. They're Hungarians.” I said, “What are they doing here?” — “What do you mean? This is their land, they live here.” This was during the Soviet time, in the 1980’s. They preserve the Hungarian language, Hungarian names, and all their national costumes. They are Hungarians and they feel themselves to be Hungarians. And of course, when now there is an infringement….

Tucker Carlson: And there’s a lot of that though, I think. Many nations feel upset about — there are Transylvanians as well as you, others, you know — but many nations feel frustrated by their re-drawn borders after the wars of the 20^th century, and wars going back a thousand years, the ones that you mention, but the fact is that you didn’t make this case in public until two years ago in February, and in the case that you made, which I read today, you explain at great length that you thought a physical threat from the West and NATO, including potentially a nuclear threat, and that’s what got you to move. Is that a fair characterization of what you said?

Vladimir Putin: I understand that my long speeches probably fall outside of the genre of an interview. That is why I asked you at the beginning: “Are we going to have a serious talk or a show?” You said — a serious talk. So bear with me please.

We are coming to the point where the Soviet Ukraine was established. Then, in 1991, the Soviet Union collapsed. And everything that Russia had generously bestowed on Ukraine was “dragged away” by the latter.

I’m coming to a very important point of today's agenda. After all, the collapse of the Soviet Union was effectively initiated by the Russian leadership. I do not understand what the Russian leadership was guided by at the time, but I suspect there were several reasons to think everything would be fine.

First, I think that the then Russian leadership believed that the fundamentals of the relationship between Russia and Ukraine were: in fact, a common language — more than 90 percent of the population there spoke Russian; family ties — every third person there had some kind of family or friendship ties; common culture; common history; finally, common faith; co-existence within a single state for centuries; and deeply interconnected economies. All of these were so fundamental. All these elements together make our good relations inevitable.

The second point is a very important one. I want you as an American citizen and your viewers to hear about this as well. The former Russian leadership assumed that the Soviet Union had ceased to exist and therefore there were no longer any ideological dividing lines. Russia even agreed, voluntarily and proactively, to the collapse of the Soviet Union and believed that this would be understood by the so-called (now in scare quotes) “civilized West” as an invitation for cooperation and associateship. That is what Russia was expecting both from the United States and the so-called collective West as a whole.

There were smart people, including in Germany. Egon Bahr, a major politician of the Social Democratic Party, who insisted in his personal conversations with the Soviet leadership on the brink of the collapse of the Soviet Union that a new security system should be established in Europe. Help should be given to unify Germany, but a new system should also be established to include the United States, Canada, Russia, and other Central European countries. But NATO needs not to expand. That's what he said: if NATO expands, everything would be just the same as during the Cold War, only closer to Russia's borders. That's all. He was a wise old man, but no one listened to him. In fact, he got angry once (we have a record of this conversation in our archives): “If, he said, you don't listen to me, I'm never setting my foot in Moscow again.” He was frustrated with the Soviet leadership. He was right, everything happened just as he had said.

Tucker Carlson: Well, of course, it did come true, and you’ve mentioned it many times. I think, it’s a fair point. And many in America thought that relations between Russia and the United States would be fine after the collapse of the Soviet Union, at the core. But the opposite happened. But have never explained why you think that happened, except to say that the West fears a strong Russia. But we have a strong China that the West doesn’t seem to be very afraid of. What about Russia, what do you think convinced the policymakers to take it down?

Vladimir Putin: The West is afraid of a strong China more than it fears a strong Russia because Russia has 150 million people, and China has a 1.5 billion population, and its economy is growing by leaps and bounds — over five percent a year, it used to be even more. But that's enough for China. As Bismark once put it, potentials are most important. China's potential is enormous — it is the biggest economy in the world today in terms of purchasing power parity and the size of the economy. It has already overtaken the United States, quite a long time ago, and it is growing at a fast clip.

Let's not talk about who is afraid of whom, let's not reason in such terms. And let's get into the fact that after 1991, when Russia expected that it would be welcomed into the brotherly family of “civilized nations,” nothing like that happened. You tricked us (I don't mean you personally when I say “you,” of course, I'm talking about the United States), the promise was that NATO would not expand eastward, but it happened five times, there were five waves of expansion. We tolerated all that, we were trying to persuade them, we were saying: “Please don't, we are as bourgeois now as you are, we are a market economy, and there is no Communist Party power. Let's negotiate.”

Moreover, I have also said this publicly before (let's look at Yeltsin's times now), there was a moment when a certain rift started growing between us. Before that, Yeltsin came to the United States, remember, he spoke in Congress and said the good words: “God bless America.” Everything he said were signals — let us in.

No. Remember the developments in Yugoslavia. Before that Yeltsin was lavished with praise, as soon as the developments in Yugoslavia started, he raised his voice in support of Serbs, and we couldn't but raise our voices for Serbs in their defense. I understand that there were complex processes underway there, I do. But Russia could not help raising its voice in support of Serbs, because Serbs are also a special and close to us nation, with Orthodox culture and so on. It's a nation that has suffered so much for generations. Well, regardless, what is important is that Yeltsin expressed his support. What did the United States do? In violation of international law and the UN Charter it started bombing Belgrade.

It was the United States that let the genie out of the bottle. Moreover, when Russia protested and expressed its resentment, what was said? The UN Charter and international law have become obsolete. Now everyone invokes international law, but at that time they started saying that everything is outdated, everything has to be changed.

Indeed, some things need to be changed as the balance of power has changed, it's true, but not in this manner. Yeltsin was immediately dragged through the mud, accused of alcoholism, of understanding nothing, of knowing nothing. He understood everything, I assure you.

Well, I became President in 2000. I thought: okay, the Yugoslav issue is over, but we should try to restore relations. Let's reopen the door that Russia had tried to go through. And moreover, I've said it publicly, I can reiterate. At a meeting here in the Kremlin with the outgoing President Bill Clinton, right here in the next room, I said to him, I asked him, “Bill, do you think if Russia asked to join NATO, do you think it would happen?” Suddenly he said: “You know, it's interesting, I think yes.” But in the evening, when we had dinner, he said, “You know, I've talked to my team, no-no, it's not possible now.” You can ask him, I think he will watch our interview, he'll confirm it. I wouldn't have said anything like that if it hadn't happened. Okay, well, it's impossible now.

Tucker Carlson: Were you sincere? Would you have joined NATO?

Vladimir Putin: Look, I asked the question, “Is it possible or not?” And the answer I got was no. If I was insincere in my desire to find out what the leadership's position was…

Tucker Carlson: But if he had said yes, would you have joined NATO?

Vladimir Putin: If he had said yes, the process of rapprochement would have commenced, and eventually it might have happened if we had seen some sincere desire on the part of our partners. But it didn't happen. Well, no means no, okay, fine.

Tucker Carlson: Why do you think that is? Just to get to motive. I know, you’re clearly bitter about it. I understand. But why do you think the West rebuffed you then? Why the hostility? Why did the end of the Cold War not fix the relationship? What motivates this from your point of view?

Vladimir Putin: You said I was bitter about the answer. No, it's not bitterness, it's just a statement of fact. We're not the bride and groom, bitterness, resentment, it's not about those kinds of matters in such circumstances. We just realised we weren't welcome there, that's all. Okay, fine. But let's build relations in another manner, let's look for common ground elsewhere. Why we received such a negative response, you should ask your leader. I can only guess why: too big a country, with its own opinion and so on. And the United States – I have seen how issues are being resolved in NATO.

I will give you another example now, concerning Ukraine. The US leadership exerts pressure, and all NATO members obediently vote, even if they do not like something. Now, I'll tell you what happened in this regard with Ukraine in 2008, although it's being discussed, I’m not going to open a secret to you, say anything new. Nevertheless, after that, we tried to build relations in different ways. For example, the events in the Middle East, in Iraq, we were building relations with the United States in a very soft, prudent, cautious manner.

I repeatedly raised the issue that the United States should not support separatism or terrorism in the North Caucasus. But they continued to do it anyway. And political support, information support, financial support, even military support came from the United States and its satellites for terrorist groups in the Caucasus.

I once raised this issue with my colleague, also the President of the United States. He says, “It’s impossible! Do you have proof?” I said, “Yes.” I was prepared for this conversation and I gave him that proof. He looked at it and, you know what he said? I apologise, but that's what happened, I'll quote. He says, “Well, I’m going to kick their ass.” We waited and waited for some response – there was none.

I said to the FSB Director: “Write to the CIA. What is the result of the conversation with the President?” He wrote once, twice, and then we got a reply. We have the answer in the archive. The CIA replied: “We have been working with the opposition in Russia. We believe that this is the right thing to do and we will keep on doing it.” Just ridiculous. Well, okay. We realised that it was out of the question.

Tucker Carlson: Forces in opposition to you? Do you think the CIA is trying to overthrow your government?

Vladimir Putin: Of course, they meant in that particular case the separatists, the terrorists who fought with us in the Caucasus. That's who they called the opposition. This is the second point.

The third moment, a very important one, is the moment when the US missile defense (ABM) system was created. The beginning. We tried for a long time to persuade the United States not to do it. Moreover, after I was invited by Bush Jr.’s father, Bush Sr. to visit his place on the ocean, I had a very serious conversation with President Bush and his team. I proposed that the United States, Russia and Europe jointly create a missile defense system that, we believe, if created unilaterally, threatens our security, despite the fact that the United States officially said that it was being created against missile threats from Iran. That was the justification for the deployment of the missile defense system. I suggested working together – Russia, the United States and Europe. They said it was very interesting. They asked me, “Are you serious?” I said, “Absolutely.”

Tucker Carlson: May I ask what year was this?

Vladimir Putin: I don't remember. It is easy to find out on the Internet, when I was in the USA at the invitation of Bush Sr. It is even easier to learn it now from a person I’ll name.

I was told it was very interesting. I said, “Just imagine if we could tackle such a global, strategic security challenge together. The world would change. We'll probably have disputes, probably economic and even political ones, but we could drastically change the situation in the world.” He says, “Yes.” And asks: “Are you serious?” I said, “Of course.” “We need to think about it,” I was told. I said, “Okay.”

Then Secretary of Defense [Robert] Gates, former Director of the CIA, and Secretary of State [Condoleezza] Rice came here, to this cabinet. Right here, at this table, they sat on this side. Me, the Foreign Minister, the Russian Defense Minister – on that side. They said to me, “Okay, we have thought about it, we agree.” I said, “Thank God, great.” – “But with some exceptions.”

Tucker Carlson: So, twice you've described US presidents making decisions and then being undercut by their agency heads. So, it sounds like you're describing a system that is not run by the people who are elected, in your telling.

Vladimir Putin: That's right, that's right. In the end they just told us to get lost. I am not going to tell you the details, because I think it is incorrect, after all, it was a confidential conversation. But our proposal was declined, that’s a fact.

It was right then when I said: “Look, but then we will be forced to take counter measures. We will create such strike systems that will certainly overcome missile defense systems.” The answer was: “We are not doing this against you, and you do what you want, assuming that it is not against us, not against the United States.” I said, “Okay.”

Very well, that’s the way it went. And we created hypersonic systems, with intercontinental missiles, and we continue to develop them. We are now ahead of everyone – the United States and other countries – in terms of the development of hypersonic strike systems, and we are improving them every day.

But it wasn’t us, we proposed to go the other way, and we were pushed back.

Now, about NATO's expansion to the East. Well, we were promised, no NATO to the East, not an inch to the East, as we were told. And then what? They said, “Well, it's not enshrined on paper, so we'll expand.” There were five waves of expansion, the Baltic states, the whole of Eastern Europe, and so on.

And now I come to the main thing: they have come to Ukraine ultimately. In 2008 at the summit in Bucharest they declared that the doors for Ukraine and Georgia to join NATO were open.

Now about how decisions are made there. Germany, France seemed to be against it as well as some other European countries. But then, as it turned out later, President Bush, and he is such a tough guy, a tough politician, as I was told later, “He exerted pressure on us and we had to agree.” It's ridiculous, it's like kindergarten. What are the guarantees? What kind of kindergarten is this, what kind of people are these, who are they? You see, they were pressed, they agreed. And then they say, “Ukraine won't be in NATO, you know.” I say, “I don't know, I know you agreed in 2008, why won't you agree in the future?” “Well, they pressed us then.” I say, “Why won't they press you tomorrow? And you'll agree again.”

Well, it's nonsensical. Who's there to talk to, I just don't understand. We're ready to talk. But with whom? What are the guarantees? There are none.

So, they started to develop the territory of Ukraine. Whatever is there, I have told you the background, how this territory developed, what kind of relations there were with Russia. Every second or third person there has always had some ties with Russia. And during the elections in already independent, sovereign Ukraine, which gained its independence as a result of the Declaration of Independence, and, by the way, it says that Ukraine is a neutral state, and in 2008 suddenly the doors or gates to NATO were open to it. Oh, come on! This is not how we agreed. Now, all the presidents that have come to power in Ukraine, they've relied on the electorate with a good attitude to Russia in one way or another. This is the south-east of Ukraine, this is a large number of people. And it was very difficult to dissuade this electorate, which had a positive attitude towards Russia.

Viktor Yanukovych came to power, and how: the first time he won after President Kuchma – they organised a third round, which is not provided for in the Constitution of Ukraine. This is a coup d'état. Just imagine, someone in the United States wouldn’t like the outcome…

Tucker Carlson: In 2014?

Vladimir Putin: No, before that. This was before that. After President Kuchma, Viktor Yanukovych won the elections. However, his opponents did not recognize that victory, the US supported the opposition and the third round was scheduled. What is this? This is a coup. The US supported it and the winner of the third round came to power. Imagine if in the US, something was not to someone’s liking and the third round of election, which the US Constitution does not provide for, was organized, Nonetheless, it was done in Ukraine. Okay, Viktor Yushchenko who was considered a pro-Western politician, came to power. Fine, we have built relations with him as well. He came to Moscow with visits, we visited Kiev. I visited it too. We met in an informal setting. If he is pro-Western, so be it. It’s fine, let people do their job. The situation should develop inside the independent Ukraine itself. As a result of Kuchma’s leadership, things got worse and Viktor Yanukovych came to power after all.

Maybe he wasn’t the best president and politician. I don’t know, I don’t want to give assessments. However, the issue of the association with the EU came up. We have always been lenient to this: suit yourself. But when we read through that treaty of association it turned out to be a problem for us, since we had a free-trade zone and open customs borders with Ukraine which, under this association, had to open its borders for Europe, which could have led to flooding of our market.

We said, “No, this is not going to work. We shall close our borders with Ukraine then”. The customs borders, that is. Yanukovych started to calculate how much Ukraine was going to gain, how much to lose and said to his European partners: “I need more time to think before signing.” The moment he said that, the opposition began to take destructive steps which were supported by the West. It all came down to Maidan and a coup in Ukraine.

Tucker Carlson: So, he did more trade with Russia than with the EU? Ukraine did…

Vladimir Putin: Of course. It’s not even the matter of trade volume, although for the most part it is. It is the matter of cooperation ties which the entire Ukrainian economy was based on. The cooperation ties between enterprises were very close since the times of the Soviet Union. One enterprise there used to produce components to be assembled both in Russia and Ukraine and vice versa. There used to be very close ties.

A coup d’état was staged, although, I shall not delve into details now as I find doing it inappropriate, the US told us, “Calm Yanukovych down and we will calm the opposition. Let the situation unfold according to the scenario of a political settlement.” We said, “Alright. Agreed. Let’s do it this way.” As the Americans requested us, Yanukovych did use neither the Armed Forces nor the police, yet the armed opposition staged a coup in Kiev. What is that supposed to mean? “Who do you think you are?”, I wanted to ask the then US leadership.

Tucker Carlson: With the backing of whom?

Vladimir Putin: With the backing of the CIA, of course. The organization you wanted to join back in the day, as I understand. Maybe we should thank God they didn’t let you in. Although, it is a serious organization. I understand. My former vis-à-vis, in the sense that I served in the First Main Directorate – Soviet Union’s intelligence service. They have always been our opponents. Work is work.

Technically they did everything right, they achieved their goal of changing the government. However, from a political standpoint, it was a colossal mistake. Surely, it was political leadership’s miscalculation. They should have seen what it would evolve into.

So, in 2008 the doors of NATO were opened for Ukraine. In 2014, there was a coup, they started persecuting those who did not accept the coup, and it was indeed a coup, they created a threat to Crimea which we had to take under our protection. They launched a war in Donbass in 2014, using aircraft and artillery against civilians. This is when it started. There is a video of aircraft attacking Donetsk from above. They launched a large-scale military operation, then another one. When they failed, they started to prepare the next one. All this against the background of military development of this territory and opening of NATO’s doors.

How could we not express concern over what was happening? From our side, this would have been a culpable negligence – that’s what it would have been. It’s just that the US political leadership pushed us to the line we could not cross because doing so could have ruined Russia itself. Besides, we could not leave our brothers in faith and, in fact, a part of Russian people, in the face of this “war machine.”

Tucker Carlson: So, that was eight years before the current conflict started. What was the trigger for you? What was the moment where you decided you had to do this?

Vladimir Putin: Initially, it was the coup in Ukraine that provoked the conflict.

By the way, back then the representatives of three European countries – Germany, Poland and France – arrived. They were the guarantors of the signed agreement between the Government of Yanukovych and the opposition. They signed it as guarantors. Despite that, the opposition staged a coup and all these countries pretended that they didn’t remember that they were guarantors of a peaceful settlement. They just threw it in the stove right away and nobody recalls that.

I don’t know if the US know anything about that agreement between the opposition and the authorities and its three guarantors who, instead of bringing this whole situation back in the political field, supported the coup. Although, it was meaningless, believe me. Because President Yanukovych agreed to all conditions, he was ready to hold early election which he had no chance to win, frankly speaking. Everyone knew that.

But then why the coup, why the victims? Why threaten Crimea? Why launch an operation in Donbass? This I do not understand. That is exactly what the miscalculation is. The CIA did its job to complete the coup. I think one of the Deputy Secretaries of State said that it cost a large sum of money, almost 5 billion dollars. But the political mistake was colossal! Why would they have to do that? All this could have been done legally, without victims, without military action, without losing Crimea. We would have never considered to even lift a finger if it hadn’t been for the bloody developments on Maidan.

Because we agreed with the fact that after the collapse of the Soviet Union our borders should be along the borders of former Union’s republics. We agreed to that. But we never agreed to NATO’s expansion and moreover we never agreed that Ukraine would be in NATO. We did not agree to NATO bases there without any discussion with us. For decades we kept urging them: don’t do this, don’t do that.

And what triggered the latest events? Firstly, the current Ukrainian leadership declared that it would not implement the Minsk agreements, which had been signed, as you know, after the events of 2014, in Minsk, where the plan of a peaceful settlement in Donbass was set forth. But no, the current Ukrainian leadership, foreign minister, all other officials and then President himself said that they don’t like anything about the Minsk agreements. In other words, they were not going to implement them. A year or a year and a half ago, former leaders of Germany and France said openly to the whole world that they indeed signed the Minsk agreements but they never intended to implement them. They simply led us by the nose.

Tucker Carlson: Was there anyone free to talk to? Did you call the US President, Secretary of State and say if you keep militarizing Ukraine with NATO forces, we are going to act?

Vladimir Putin: We talked about this all the time. We addressed the United States’ and European countries’ leadership to stop these developments immediately, to implement the Minsk agreements. Frankly speaking, I didn’t know how we were going to do this but I was ready to implement them. These agreements were complicated for Ukraine; they included lots of elements of those Donbass territories’ independence. That’s true. However, I was absolutely confident, and I am saying this to you now: I honestly believed that if we managed to convince the residents of Donbass – and we had to work hard to convince them to return to the Ukrainian statehood – then gradually the wounds would start to heal. When this part of territory reintegrated itself into common economic, social environment, when the pensions and social benefits were paid again, all the pieces would gradually fall into place.

No, nobody wanted that, everybody wanted to resolve the issue by military force only. But we could not let that happen.

And the situation got to the point, when the Ukrainian side announced: “No, we will not implement anything.” They also started preparing for military action. It was they who started the war in 2014. Our goal is to stop this war. And we did not start this war in 2022. This is an attempt to stop it.

Tucker Carlson: Do you think you have stopped it now? I mean have you achieved your aims?

Vladimir Putin: No, we haven't achieved our aims yet, because one of them is denazification. This means the prohibition of all kinds of neo-Nazi movements. This is one of the problems that we discussed during the negotiation process, which ended in Istanbul early last year, and it was not our initiative, because we were told (by the Europeans, in particular) that “it was necessary to create conditions for the final signing of the documents.” My counterparts in France and Germany said, “How can you imagine them signing a treaty with a gun to their heads? The troops should be pulled back from Kiev.” I said, “All right.” We withdrew the troops from Kiev.

As soon as we pulled back our troops from Kiev, our Ukrainian negotiators immediately threw all our agreements reached in Istanbul into the bin and got prepared for a longstanding armed confrontation with the help of the United States and its satellites in Europe. That is how the situation has developed. And that is how it looks now.

Tucker Carlson: What is denazification? What would that mean?

Vladimir Putin: That is what I want to talk about right now. It is a very important issue.

Denazification. After gaining independence, Ukraine began to search, as some Western analysts say, its identity. And it came up with nothing better than to build this identity upon some false heroes who collaborated with Hitler.

I have already said that in the early 19^th century, when the theorists of independence and sovereignty of Ukraine appeared, they assumed that an independent Ukraine should have very good relations with Russia. But due to the historical development, these territories were part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth – Poland, where Ukrainians were persecuted and treated quite brutally and were subjected to cruel behaviour. There were also attempts to destroy their identity. All this remained in the memory of the people. When World War II broke out, part of this extremely nationalist elite collaborated with Hitler, believing that he would bring them freedom. The German troops, even the SS troops made Hitler's collaborators do the dirtiest work of exterminating the Polish and Jewish population. Hence this brutal massacre of the Polish and Jewish population as well as the Russian population too. This was led by the persons who are well known – Bandera, Shukhevich. It was these people who were made national heroes – that is the problem. And we are constantly told that nationalism and neo-Nazism exist in other countries as well. Yes, there are seedlings, but we uproot them, and other countries fight against them. But Ukraine is not the case. These people have been turned into national heroes in Ukraine. Monuments to these people have been erected, they are displayed on flags, their names are shouted by crowds that walk with torches, as it was in Nazi Germany. These were the people who exterminated Poles, Jews and Russians. It is necessary to stop this practice and prevent the dissemination of this concept.

I say that Ukrainians are part of the one Russian people. They say, “No, we are a separate people.” Okay, fine. If they consider themselves a separate people, they have the right to do so, but not on the basis of Nazism, the Nazi ideology.

Tucker Carlson: Would you be satisfied with the territory that you have now?

Vladimir Putin: I will finish answering the question. You just asked a question about neo-Nazism and denazification.

Look, the President of Ukraine visited Canada. This story is well known but is silenced in the Western countries: The Canadian parliament introduced a man who, as the speaker of the parliament said, fought against the Russians during World War II. Well, who fought against the Russians during World War II? Hitler and his accomplices. It turned out that this man served in the SS troops. He personally killed Russians, Poles, and Jews. The SS troops consisted of Ukrainian nationalists who did this dirty work. The President of Ukraine stood up with the entire Parliament of Canada and applauded this man. How can this be imagined? The President of Ukraine himself, by the way, is a Jew by nationality.

Tucker Carlson: Really, my question is: What do you do about it? I mean, Hitler has been dead for eighty years, Nazi Germany no longer exists, and it’s true. So, I think, what you are saying, you want to extinguish or at least control Ukrainian nationalism. But how do you do that?

Vladimir Putin: Listen to me. Your question is very subtle.

And can I tell you what I think? Do not take offense.

Tucker Carlson: Of course!

Vladimir Putin: This question appears to be subtle, it is quite pesky.

You say Hitler has been dead for so many years, 80 years. But his example lives on. People who exterminated Jews, Russians and Poles are alive. And the President, the current President of today's Ukraine applauds him in the Canadian Parliament, gives a standing ovation! Can we say that we have completely uprooted this ideology if what we see is happening today? That is what denazification is in our understanding. We have to get rid of those people who maintain this concept and support this practice and try to preserve it – that is what denazification is. That is what we mean.

Tucker Carlson: Right. My question is almost specific, it was, of course, not a defense of Nazism. Otherwise, it was a practical question. You don't control the entire country, you don’t seem like you want to. So, how do you eliminate that culture, or an ideology, or feelings, or a view of history, in a country that you don’t control? What do you do about that?

Vladimir Putin: You know, as strange as it may seem to you, during the negotiations in Istanbul we did agree that – we have it all in writing – neo-Nazism would not be cultivated in Ukraine, including that it would be prohibited at the legislative level.

Mr. Carlson, we agreed on that. This, it turns out, can be done during the negotiation process. And there is nothing humiliating for Ukraine as a modern civilized state. Is any state allowed to promote Nazism? It is not, is it? That is it.

Tucker Carlson: Will there be talks? And why haven’t there been talks about resolving the conflict in Ukraine? Peace talks.

Vladimir Putin: They have been. They reached a very high stage of coordination of positions in a complex process, but still they were almost finalized. But after we withdrew our troops from Kiev, as I have already said, the other side (Ukraine) threw away all these agreements and obeyed the instructions of Western countries, European countries, and the United States to fight Russia to the bitter end.

Moreover, the President of Ukraine has legislated a ban on negotiating with Russia. He signed a decree forbidding everyone to negotiate with Russia. But how are we going to negotiate if he forbade himself and everyone to do this? We know that he is putting forward some ideas about this settlement. But in order to agree on something, we need to have a dialogue. Is not that right?

Tucker Carlson: Well, but you would not be speaking to the Ukrainian president, you would be speaking to the American president. When was the last time you spoke to Joe Biden?

Vladimir Putin: I cannot remember when I talked to him. I do not remember, we can look it up.

Tucker Carlson: You do not remember?!

Vladimir Putin: No, why? Do I have to remember everything? I have my own things to do. We have domestic political affairs.

Tucker Carlson: But he is funding the war that you are fighting, so I think that would be memorable?

Vladimir Putin: Well, yes, he funds, but I talked to him before the special military operation, of course. And I said to him then, by the way – I will not go into details, I never do – but I said to him then: “I believe that you are making a huge mistake of historic proportions by supporting everything that is happening there, in Ukraine, by pushing Russia away.” I told him, told him repeatedly, by the way. I think that would be correct if I stop here.

Tucker Carlson: What did he say?

Vladimir Putin: Ask him, please. It is easier for you, you are a citizen of the United States, go and ask him. It is not appropriate for me to comment on our conversation.

Tucker Carlson: But you haven’t spoken to him since before February of 2022?

Vladimir Putin: No, we haven't spoken. Certain contacts are being maintained though. Speaking of which, do you remember what I told you about my proposal to work together on a missile defense system?

Tucker Carlson: Yes.

Vladimir Putin: You can ask all of them. All of them are safe and sound, thank God. The former President, Condoleezza [Rice] is safe and sound, and, I think, Mr. Gates, and the current Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Mr. Burns, the then Ambassador to Russia, in my opinion, a very successful Ambassador. They were all witnesses to these conversations. Ask them.

Same here, if you are interested in what Mr. President Biden responded to me, ask him. At any rate, I talked to him about it.

Tucker Carlson: I am definitely interested. But from the other side it seems like it could devolve, evolve into something that brings the entire world into conflict, and could initiate a nuclear launch, and so why don’t you just call Biden and say, “Let’s work this out”?

Vladimir Putin: What's there to work out? It's very simple. I repeat, we have contacts through various agencies. I will tell you what we are saying on this matter and what we are conveying to the US leadership: “If you really want to stop fighting, you need to stop supplying weapons. It will be over within a few weeks. That's it. And then we can agree on some terms before you do that, stop.”

What's easier? Why would I call him? What should I talk to him about? Or beg him for what? “You're going to deliver such and such weapons to Ukraine. Oh, I'm so afraid, please don't do that.” What is there to talk about?

Tucker Carlson: Do you think NATO was worried about this becoming a global war or nuclear conflict?

Vladimir Putin: At least that's what they're talking about. And they are trying to intimidate their own population with an imaginary Russian threat. This is an obvious fact. And thinking people, not philistines, but thinking people, analysts, those who are engaged in real politics, just smart people understand perfectly well that this is fake. They are trying to fuel the Russian threat.

Tucker Carlson: The threat I think you were referring to is Russian invasion of Poland, Latvia – expansionist behaviour. Can you imagine a scenario where you send Russian troops to Poland?

Vladimir Putin: Only in one case: if Poland attacks Russia. Why? Because we have no interest in Poland, Latvia or anywhere else. Why would we do that? We simply don't have any interest. It’s just threat mongering.

Tucker Carlson: Well, the argument, I know you know this, is that, well, he invaded Ukraine – he has territorial aims across the continent. And you are saying unequivocally, you don’t?

Vladimir Putin: It is absolutely out of the question. You just don't have to be any kind of analyst, it goes against common sense to get involved in some kind of global war. And a global war will bring all of humanity to the brink of destruction. It's obvious.

There are, certainly, means of deterrence. They have been scaring everyone with us all along: tomorrow Russia will use tactical nuclear weapons, tomorrow Russia will use that, no, the day after tomorrow. So what? These are just horror stories for people in the street in order to extort additional money from US taxpayers and European taxpayers in the confrontation with Russia in the Ukrainian theatre of war. The goal is to weaken Russia as much as possible.

Tucker Carlson: One of our senior United States senators from the State of New York, Chuck Schumer, said yesterday, I believe, that we have to continue to fund the Ukrainian effort or US soldiers, citizens could wind up fighting there. How do you assess that?

Vladimir Putin: This is a provocation, and a cheap provocation at that.

I do not understand why American soldiers should fight in Ukraine. There are mercenaries from the United States there. The biggest number of mercenaries comes from Poland, with mercenaries from the United States in second place, and mercenaries from Georgia in third place. Well, if somebody has the desire to send regular troops, that would certainly bring humanity on the brink of a very serious, global conflict. This is obvious.

Do the United States need this? What for? Thousands of miles away from your national territory! Don't you have anything better to do? You have issues on the border, issues with migration, issues with the national debt – more than 33 trillion dollars. You have nothing better to do, so you should fight in Ukraine?

Wouldn't it be better to negotiate with Russia? Make an agreement, already understanding the situation that is developing today, realizing that Russia will fight for its interests to the end. And, realizing this, actually return to common sense, start respecting our country and its interests and look for certain solutions. It seems to me that this is much smarter and more rational.

Tucker Carlson: Who blew up Nord Stream?

Vladimir Putin: You, for sure. (Laughter.)

Tucker Carlson: I was busy that day. I did not blow up Nord Stream.

Vladimir Putin: You personally may have an alibi, but the CIA has no such alibi.

Tucker Carlson: Do you have evidence that NATO or the CIA did it?

Vladimir Putin: You know, I won't get into details, but people always say in such cases: “Look for someone who is interested.” But in this case we should not only look for someone who is interested, but also for someone who has capabilities. Because there may be many people interested, but not all of them are capable of sinking to the bottom of the Baltic Sea and carrying out this explosion. These two components should be connected: who is interested and who is capable of doing it.

Tucker Carlson: But I am confused. I mean, that’s the biggest act of industrial terrorism ever and it’s the largest emission of CO₂ in history. Okay, so, if you had evidence and presumably, given your security services, your intel services, you would, that NATO, the US, CIA, the West did this, why wouldn’t you present it and win a propaganda victory?

Vladimir Putin: In the war of propaganda it is very difficult to defeat the United States because the United States controls all the world’s media and many European media. The ultimate beneficiary of the biggest European media are American financial institutions. Don't you know that? So it is possible to get involved in this work, but it is cost prohibitive, so to speak. We can simply shine the spotlight on our sources of information, and we will not achieve results. It is clear to the whole world what happened, and even American analysts talk about it directly. It's true.

Tucker Carlson: Yes. But here is a question you may be able to answer. You worked in Germany, famously. The Germans clearly know that their NATO partner did this, that they damaged their economy greatly – it may never recover. Why are they being silent about it? That is very confusing to me. Why wouldn’t the Germans say something about it?

Vladimir Putin: This also confuses me. But today's German leadership is guided by the interests of the collective West rather than its national interests, otherwise it is difficult to explain the logic of their action or inaction. After all, it is not only about Nord Stream-1, which was blown up, and Nord Stream-2 was damaged, but one pipe is safe and sound, and gas can be supplied to Europe through it, but Germany does not open it. We are ready, please.

There is another route through Poland, called Yamal-Europe, which also allows for a large flow. Poland has closed it, but Poland pecks from the German hand, it receives money from pan-European funds, and Germany is the main donor to these pan-European funds. Germany feeds Poland to a certain extent. And they closed the route to Germany. Why? I don't understand.

Ukraine, to which the Germans supply weapons and give money. Germany is the second sponsor after the United States in terms of financial aid to Ukraine. There are two gas routes through Ukraine. They simply closed one route, the Ukrainians. Open the second route and get gas from Russia. They do not open it. Why don't the Germans say: “Look, guys, we give you money and weapons. Open up the valve, please, let the gas from Russia pass through for us.

We are buying liquefied gas at exorbitant prices in Europe, which brings the level of our competitiveness, and economy in general down to zero. Do you want us to give you money? Let us have a decent existence, make money for our economy, because this is where the money we give you comes from.” They refuse to do so. Why? Ask them. (Knocks on the table.) That is what it is like in their heads. Those are highly incompetent people.

Tucker Carlson: Well, maybe the world is breaking into two hemispheres. One with cheap energy, the other without it. And I want to ask you that, if we are now a multipolar world, obviously we are, can you describe the blocs or alliances? Who is on each side, do you think?

Vladimir Putin: Listen, you have said that the world is breaking into two hemispheres. A human brain is divided into two hemispheres: one is responsible for one type of activities, the other one is more about creativity and so on. But it is still one and the same head. The world should be a single whole, security should be shared, rather than meant for the “golden billion.” That is the only scenario where the world could be stable, sustainable and predictable. Until then, while the head is split into two parts, it is an illness, a serious adverse condition. It is a period of a severe disease that the world is now going through.

But I think that, thanks to honest journalism — this work is akin to work of the doctors, this could somehow be remedied.

Tucker Carlson: Well, let’s just give one example — the US dollar, which has, kind of, united the world in a lot of ways, maybe not to your advantage, but certainly to ours. Is that going away as the reserve currency, the universally accepted currency? How have sanctions, do you think, changed the dollar’s place in the world?

Vladimir Putin: You know, to use the dollar as a tool of foreign policy struggle is one of the biggest strategic mistakes made by the US political leadership. The dollar is the cornerstone of the United States' power. I think everyone understands very well that, no matter how many dollars are printed, they are quickly dispersed all over the world. Inflation in the United States is minimal. It is about 3 or 3.4 percent, which is, I think, totally acceptable for the US. But they won't stop printing. What does the debt of 33 trillion dollars tell us about? It is about the emission.

Nevertheless, it is the main weapon used by the United States to preserve its power across the world. As soon as the political leadership decided to use the US dollar as a tool of political struggle, a blow was dealt to this American power. I would not like to use any strong language, but it is a stupid thing to do, and a grave mistake.

Look at what is going on in the world. Even the United States' allies are now downsizing their dollar reserves. Seeing this, everyone starts looking for ways to protect themselves. But the fact that the United States applies restrictive measures to certain countries, such as placing restrictions on transactions, freezing assets, etc., causes grave concern and sends a signal to the whole world.

What did we have here? Until 2022, about 80 percent of Russia's foreign trade transactions were made in US dollars and euros. US dollars accounted for approximately 50 percent of our transactions with third countries, while currently it is down to 13 percent. It was not us who banned the use of the US dollar, we had no such intention. It was the decision of the United States to restrict our transactions in US dollars. I think it is complete foolishness from the point of view of the interests of the United States itself and its taxpayers, as it damages the US economy, undermines the power of the United States across the world.

By the way, our transactions in yuan accounted for about 3 percent. Today, 34 percent of our transactions are made in Rubles, and about as much, a little over 34 percent, in Yuan.

Why did the United States do this? My only guess is self-assurance. They probably thought it would lead to a full collapse, but nothing collapsed. Moreover, other countries, including oil producers, are thinking of and already accepting payments for oil in yuan. Do you even realize what is going on or not? Does anyone in the United States realize this? What are you doing? You are cutting yourself off… all experts say this. Ask any intelligent and thinking person in the United States what the dollar means for the US? You are killing it with your own hands.

Tucker Carlson: I think that is a fair assessment. The question is what comes next? And maybe you trade one colonial power for another, much less sentimental and forgiving colonial power? Is the BRICS, for example, in danger of being completely dominated by the Chinese economy? In a way that is not good for their sovereignty. Do you worry about that?

Vladimir Putin: We have heard those bogeyman stories before. It is a bogeyman story. We are neighbours with China. You cannot choose neighbours, just as you cannot choose close relatives. We share a border of several thousand kilometres with them. This is number one.

Second, we have a centuries-long history of coexistence, we are used to it.

Third, China's foreign policy philosophy is not aggressive, its idea is to always look for compromise, and we can see that.

The next point is as follows. We are always told the same bogeyman story, and here it goes again, though in a euphemistic form, but it is still the same bogeyman story: the cooperation with China keeps increasing. The pace at which China's cooperation with Europe is growing is higher and greater than that of the growth of Chinese-Russian cooperation. Ask Europeans: aren’t they afraid? They might be, I do not know, but they are still trying to access China's market at all costs, especially now that they are facing economic problems. Chinese businesses are also exploring the European market.

Do Chinese businesses have small presence in the United States? Yes, the political decisions are such that they are trying to limit their cooperation with China.

It is to your own detriment, Mr Tucker, that you are limiting cooperation with China, you are hurting yourself. It is a delicate matter, and there are no silver bullet solutions, just as it is with the dollar.

So, before introducing any illegitimate sanctions — illegitimate in terms of the Charter of the United Nations — one should think very carefully. I think, those who make decisions have a problem with that.

Tucker Carlson: So, you said a moment ago that the world would be a lot better if it were not broken into competing alliances, if there was cooperation globally. One of the reasons you don’t have that is because the current American administration is dead set against you. Do you think if there was a new administration after Joe Biden that you would be able to re-establish communication with the US government? Or does it not matter who the President is?

Vladimir Putin: I will tell you. But let me finish the previous thought. We, together with my colleague and friend President Xi Jinping, set a goal to reach 200 billion dollars of mutual trade with China last year. We have exceeded this level. According to our figures, our bilateral trade with China totals already 230 billion, and the Chinese statistics says it is 240 billion dollars.

One more important thing: our trade is well-balanced, mutually complementary in high-tech, energy, scientific research and development. It is very balanced.

As for BRICS, where Russia took over the presidency this year, the BRICS countries are, by and large, developing very rapidly.

Look, if memory serves me right, back in 1992, the share of the G7 countries in the world economy amounted to 47 percent, whereas in 2022 it was down to, I think, a little over 30 percent. The BRICS countries accounted for only 16 percent in 1992, but now their share is greater than that of the G7. It has nothing to do with the events in Ukraine. This is due to the trends of global development and world economy that I mentioned just now, and this is inevitable. This will keep happening, it is like the rise of the sun — you cannot prevent the sun from rising, you have to adapt to it.

How do the United States adapt? With the help of force: sanctions, pressure, bombings, and use of armed forces. This is about self-conceit. Your political establishment does not understand that the world is changing (due to objective circumstances), and in order to preserve your level — even if someone aspires, pardon me, to the level of dominance — you have to make the right decisions in a competent and timely manner. Such brutal actions, including with regard to Russia and, say, other countries, are counterproductive. This is an obvious fact; it has already become evident.

You just asked me if another leader comes and changes something. It is not about the leader, it is not about the personality of a particular person. I had a very good relationship with, say, Bush. I know that in the United States he was portrayed as some kind of a country boy who does not understand much. I assure you that is not the case. I think he made a lot of mistakes with regard to Russia, too. I told you about 2008 and the decision in Bucharest to open the NATO’s doors for Ukraine and so on. That happened during his presidency. He actually exerted pressure on the Europeans.

But in general, on a personal human level, I had a very good relationship with him. He was no worse than any other American, or Russian, or European politician. I assure you, he understood what he was doing as well as others. I had such personal relationships with Trump as well.

It is not about the personality of the leader, it is about the elites’ mindset. If the idea of domination at any cost, based also on forceful actions, dominates the American society, nothing will change, it will only get worse. But if, in the end, one comes to the awareness that the world has been changing due to objective circumstances, and that one should be able to adapt to them in time, using the advantages that the US still has today, then, perhaps, something may change.

Look, China's economy has become the first economy in the world in purchasing power parity; in terms of volume it overtook the US a long time ago. The USA comes second, then India (one and a half billion people), and then Japan, with Russia in the fifth place. Russia was the first economy in Europe last year, despite all the sanctions and restrictions. Is this normal, from your point of view: sanctions, restrictions, impossibility of payments in dollars, being cut off from SWIFT services, sanctions against our ships carrying oil, sanctions against airplanes, sanctions in everything, everywhere? The largest number of sanctions in the world which are applied – are applied against Russia. And we have become Europe's first economy during this time.

The tools that the US uses don't work. Well, one has to think about what to do. If this realization comes to the ruling elites, then yes, then the first person of the state will act in anticipation of what the voters and the people who make decisions at various levels expect from this person. Then maybe something will change.

Tucker Carlson: But you are describing two different systems. You say that the leader acts in the interests of the voters, but you also say that these decisions are not made by the leader – they are made by the ruling classes. You have run this country for so long, you have known all these American presidents. What are those power centres in the United States, do you think? And who actually makes the decisions?

Vladimir Putin: I don't know. America is a complex country, conservative on the one hand, rapidly changing on the other. It's not easy for us to sort it all out.

Who makes decisions in the elections – is it possible to understand this, when each state has its own legislation, each state regulates itself, someone can be excluded from the elections at the state level. It is a two-stage electoral system, it is very difficult for us to understand it.

Certainly there are two parties that are dominant, the Republicans and the Democrats, and within this party system, there are centres that make decisions, that prepare decisions.

Then, look, why, in my opinion, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, such an erroneous, rough, completely unjustified policy of pressure was pursued against Russia? After all, this is a policy of pressure. NATO expansion, support for the separatists in the Caucasus, creation of a missile defense system – these are all elements of pressure. Pressure, pressure, pressure.

Then, dragging Ukraine into NATO is all about pressure, pressure, pressure. Why? I think, among other things, because excessive production capacities were created. During the confrontation with the Soviet Union, there were many centres created and specialists on the Soviet Union, who could not do anything else. It seemed to them, they convinced the political leadership: it is necessary to continue “chiselling” Russia, to try to break it up, to create on this territory several quasi-state entities and to subdue them in a divided form, to use their combined potential for the future struggle with China. This is a mistake, including the excessive potential of those who worked for the confrontation with the Soviet Union. It is necessary to get rid of this, there should be new, fresh forces, people who look into the future and understand what is happening in the world.

Look at how Indonesia is developing! 600 million people. Where can we get away from that? Nowhere, we just have to assume that Indonesia will enter (it is already in) the club of the world's leading economies, no matter if someone likes or dislikes it.

Yes, we understand and are aware that in the United States, despite all the economic problems, the situation is still normal with the economy growing decently, the GDP is growing by 2.5 percent, if I am not mistaken.

But if we want to ensure the future, then we need to change our approach to what is changing. As I already said, the world would nevertheless change regardless of how the developments in Ukraine end. The world is changing. In the United States themselves, experts write that the United States is nonetheless gradually changing its position in the world, it is your experts who write that, I just read them. The only question is how this would happen – painfully and quickly or gently and gradually. And this is written by people who are not anti-American; they simply follow global development trends. That's it.

And in order to assess them and change policies, we need people who think, look forward, can analyse and recommend certain decisions at the level of political leaders.

Tucker Carlson: I just have to ask. You have said clearly that NATO expansion eastward is a violation of the promise you were all made in the 1990s. It is a threat to your country. Right before you sent troops into Ukraine the Vice-President of the United States spoke at the Security Conference and encouraged the President of Ukraine to join NATO. Do you think that was an effort to provoke you into military action?

Vladimir Putin: I repeat once again, we have repeatedly, repeatedly proposed to seek a solution to the problems that arose in Ukraine after the 2014 coup d’état through peaceful means. But no one listened to us. And moreover, the Ukrainian leaders who were under the complete US control, suddenly declared that they would not comply with the Minsk agreements, they disliked everything there, and continued military activity in that territory.

And in parallel, that territory was being exploited by NATO military structures under the guise of various personnel training and retraining centres. They essentially began to create bases there. That's all.

Ukraine announced that the Russians were (a law was adopted) a non-titular nation, while passing laws that limit the rights of non-titular nations in Ukraine. Ukraine, having received all these southeastern territories as a gift from the Russian people, suddenly announced that the Russians were a non-titular nation in that territory. Is it normal? All this put together led to the decision to end the war that neo-Nazis started in Ukraine in 2014.

Tucker Carlson: Do you think Zelensky has the freedom to negotiate the settlement to this conflict?

Vladimir Putin: I don’t know the details, of course it’s difficult for me to judge, but I believe he has, in any case, he used to have. His father fought against the fascists, Nazis during World War II, I once talked to him about this. I said: “Volodya, what are you doing? Why are you supporting neo-Nazis in Ukraine today, while your father fought against fascism? He was a front-line soldier.” I will not tell you what he answered, this is a separate topic, and I think it’s incorrect for me to do so.

But as to the freedom of choice – why not? He came to power on the expectations of Ukrainian people that he would lead Ukraine to peace. He talked about this, it was thanks to this that he won the election overwhelmingly. But then, when he came to power, in my opinion, he realized two things: firstly, it is better not to clash with neo-Nazis and nationalists, because they are aggressive and very active, you can expect anything from them, and secondly, the US-led West supports them and will always support those who antagonize with Russia – it is beneficial and safe. So he took the relevant position, despite promising his people to end the war in Ukraine. He deceived his voters.

Tucker Carlson: But do you think at this point – as of February 2024 – he has the latitude, the freedom to speak with you or government directly, which would clearly help his country or the world? Can he do that, do you think?

Vladimir Putin: Why not? He considers himself head of state, he won the elections. Although we believe in Russia that the coup d’état is the primary source of power for everything that happened after 2014, and in this sense, even today’s government is flawed. But he considers himself the president, and he is recognized by the United States, all of Europe and practically the rest of the world in such a capacity – why not? He can.

We negotiated with Ukraine in Istanbul, we agreed, he was aware of this. Moreover, the negotiation group leader, Mr. Arakhamia is his last name, I believe, still heads the faction of the ruling party, the party of the President in the Rada. He still heads the Presidential faction in the Rada, the country’s parliament, he still sits there. He even put his preliminary signature on the document I am telling you about. But then he publicly stated to the whole world: “We were ready to sign this document, but Mr. Johnson, then the Prime Minister of Great Britain, came and dissuaded us from doing this saying it was better to fight Russia. They would give us everything we needed to return what was lost during the clashes with Russia. And we agreed with this proposal.” Look, his statement has been published. He said this publicly.

Can they return to this or not? The question is: do they want it or not?

Further on, President of Ukraine issued a decree prohibiting negotiations with us. Let him cancel that decree and that’s it. We have never refused negotiations indeed. We hear all the time: is Russia ready? Yes, we have not refused! It was them who publicly refused. Well, let him cancel his decree and enter into negotiations. We have never refused.

And the fact that they obeyed the demand or persuasion of Mr. Johnson, the former Prime Minister of Great Britain, seems ridiculous and very sad to me. Because, as Mr. Arakhamia put it: “We could have stopped these hostilities, this war a year and a half ago already. But the British persuaded us, and we refused this.” Where is Mr. Johnson now? And the war continues.

Tucker Carlson: That is a good question. Why did he do that?

Vladimir Putin: Hell knows. I don't understand it myself. There was a general starting point. For some reason, everyone had the illusion that Russia could be defeated on the battlefield. Because of arrogance, because of a pure heart, but not because of great intellect.

Tucker Carlson: You have described the connection between Russia and Ukraine; you have described Russia itself, a couple of times as Orthodox – that is central to your understanding of Russia. What does that mean for you? You are a Cristian leader by your own description. So what effect does that have on you?

Vladimir Putin: You know, as I already mentioned, in 988 Prince Vladimir himself was baptized following the example of his grandmother, Princess Olga, and then he baptized his retinue, and then gradually, over the course of several years, he baptized all Rus. It was a lengthy process – from pagans to Christians, it took many years. But in the end, this Orthodoxy, Eastern Christianity, deeply rooted itself in the consciousness of the Russian people.

When Russia expanded and absorbed other nations who profess Islam, Buddhism and Judaism, Russia has always been very loyal to those people who profess other religions. This is its strength. This is absolutely clear.

And the fact is that the main postulates, main values are very similar, not to say the same, in all world religions I’ve just mentioned and which are the traditional religions of the Russian Federation, Russia. By the way, Russian authorities were always very careful about the culture and religion of those peoples who came to join the Russian Empire. This, in my opinion, forms the basis of both security and stability of the Russian statehood – all the peoples inhabiting Russia basically consider it their Motherland.

If, say, people move over to you or to Europe from Latin America – an even clearer and more understandable example – people come, but yet they have come to you or to European countries from their historical homeland. And people who profess different religions in Russia consider Russia their Motherland, they have no other Motherland. We are together, this is one big family. And our traditional values are very similar. I’ve just mentioned one big family, but everyone has his/her own family, and this is the basis of our society. And if we say that the Motherland and a specific family are connected with each other, it is indeed the case, since it is impossible to ensure a normal future for our children and our families unless we ensure a normal, sustainable future for the entire country, for the Motherland. That is why patriotic sentiment is so strong in Russia.

Tucker Carlson: Can I say, the one way in which religions are different is that Christianity is specifically a non-violent religion. Jesus says, “Turn the other cheek,” “don’t kill,” and so on. How can a leader who has to kill, of any country, how can a leader be a Christian? How do you reconcile that to yourself?

Vladimir Putin: It is very easy: when it comes to protecting oneself and one’s family, one’s homeland. We don’t attack anyone. When did the developments in Ukraine start? Since the coup d’état and the hostilities in Donbass began, that’s when they started. And we are protecting our people, ourselves, our homeland and our future.

As for religion in general. You know, it’s not about external manifestations, it’s not about going to church every day or banging your head on the floor. It is in the heart. And our culture is so human-oriented. Dostoevsky, who is very well known in the West as the genius of Russian culture, Russian literature, spoke a lot about this, about the Russian soul.

After all, Western society is more pragmatic. Russian people think more about the eternal, about moral values. I don’t know, maybe you won’t agree with me, but Western culture is more pragmatic after all.

I’m not saying this is bad, it makes it possible for today’s “golden billion” to achieve good success in production, even in science, and so on. There's nothing wrong with that, I'm just saying that we kind of look the same, but our minds are built a little differently.

Tucker Carlson: So do you see the supernatural at work? As you look out across what’s happening in the world now, do you see God at work? Do you ever think to yourself: these are forces that are not human?

Vladimir Putin: No, to be honest, I don't think so. My opinion is that the development of the world community is in accordance with the inherent laws, and those laws are what they are. It's always been this way in the history of mankind. Some nations and countries rose, became stronger and more numerous, and then left the international stage, losing the status they were accustomed to. There is probably no need for me to give examples, but we could start with Genghis Khan and the Horde conquerors, the Golden Horde, and then end with the Roman Empire. It seems that there has never been anything like the Roman Empire in the history of mankind.

Nevertheless, the potential of the barbarians gradually grew, as did their population. In general, the barbarians were getting stronger and began to develop economically, as we would say today. This eventually led to the collapse of the Roman Empire and the regime imposed by the Romans. However, it took five centuries for the Roman Empire to fall apart. The difference with what is happening now is that all the processes of change are happening at a much faster pace than in Roman times.

Tucker Carlson: So when does the AI empire start do you think?

Vladimir Putin: (Laughing.) You are asking increasingly more complicated questions. To answer them, you need to be an expert in big numbers, big data and AI.

Mankind is currently facing many threats. Due to genetic research, it is now possible to create a superhuman, a specialized human being – a genetically engineered athlete, scientist, military man.

There are reports that Elon Musk has already had a chip implanted in the human brain in the USA.

Tucker Carlson: What do you think of that?

Vladimir Putin: Well, I think there’s no stopping Elon Musk, he will do as he sees fit. Nevertheless, you need to find some common ground with him, search for ways to persuade him. I think he’s a smart person, I truly believe he is. So you need to reach an agreement with him because this process needs to be formalized and subjected to certain rules.

Humanity has to consider what is going to happen due to the newest developments in genetics or in AI. One can make an approximate prediction of what will happen. Once mankind felt an existential threat coming from nuclear weapons, all nuclear nations began to come to terms with one another since they realized that negligent use of nuclear weaponry could drive humanity to extinction.

It is impossible to stop research in genetics or AI today, just as it was impossible to stop the use of gunpowder back in the day. But as soon as we realize that the threat comes from unbridled and uncontrolled development of AI, or genetics, or any other fields, the time will come to reach an international agreement on how to regulate these things.

Tucker Carlson: I appreciate all the time you’ve given us. I just want to ask you one last question and it’s about someone who is very famous in the United States, probably not here. Evan Gershkovich who is the Wall Street Journal reporter, he is 32 and he’s been in prison for almost a year. This is a huge story in the United States and I just want to ask you directly without getting into details of your version of what happened, if as a sign of your decency you’ll be willing to release him to us and we’ll bring him back to the United States?

Vladimir Putin: We have done so many gestures of goodwill out of decency that I think we have run out of them. We have never seen anyone reciprocate to us in a similar manner. However, in theory, we can say that we do not rule out that we can do that if our partners take reciprocal steps.

When I say “partners,” I, first of all, refer to special services. Special services are in contact with one another, they are talking about the matter in question. There is no taboo to settle the issue. We are willing to solve it, but there are certain terms being discussed via special services channels. I believe an agreement can be reached.

Tucker Carlson: So, typically, I mean, this stuff has happened for, obviously, centuries. One country catches other spy within its borders and trades it for one of its own intel guys in other country. I think what makes it, and it’s not my business, but what makes it different is that this guy is obviously not a spy, he is a kid, and maybe he was breaking a law in some way but he is not a superspy, and everybody knows that and he has been held hostage and exchange, which is true, with respect, it’s true and everyone knows it’s true. So maybe he is in a different category, maybe it’s not fair to ask for somebody else in exchange for letting him out. Maybe it degrades Russia to do that.

Vladimir Putin: You know, you can give different interpretations to what constitutes a “spy,” but there are certain things provided by law. If a person gets secret information, and does that in a conspiratorial manner, then this is qualified as espionage. And that is exactly what he was doing. He was receiving classified, confidential information, and he did it covertly. Maybe he had been implicated in that, someone could have dragged him into that, maybe he did that out of carelessness, or on his own initiative. Considering the sheer facts, this is qualified as espionage. The fact has been proven, as he was caught red-handed when he was receiving this information. If it had been some far-fetched excuse, some fabrication, something not proven, it would have been a different story then. But he was caught red-handed when he was secretly getting confidential information. What is it, then?

Tucker Carlson: But are you suggesting he was working for the US government or NATO? Or he was just a reporter who was given material he wasn’t supposed to have? Those seem like very different, very different things.

Vladimir Putin: I don’t know who he was working for. But I would like to reiterate that getting classified information in secret is called espionage, and he was working for the US special services, some other agencies. I don’t think that he was working for Monaco, as Monaco is hardly interested in getting that information. It is up to the special services to come to an agreement. Some groundwork has been laid. There are people who, in our view, are not connected with special services.

Let me tell you a story about a person serving a sentence in an allied country of the US. That person, due to patriotic sentiments, eliminated a bandit in one of the European capitals. During the events in the Caucasus, do you know what he [bandit] was doing? I don’t want to say that, but I will do it anyway. He was laying our soldiers, taken prisoner, on the road and then he drove his car over their heads. What kind of a person is that? Can he be even called a human? But there was a patriot who eliminated him in one of the European capitals. Whether he did that of his own volition or not, that is a different question.

Tucker Carlson: Evan Gershkovich, that’s a completely different, I mean, this is a thirty-two year old newspaper reporter.

Vladimir Putin: He committed something different.

Tucker Carlson: He is just a journalist.

Vladimir Putin: He is not just a journalist, I reiterate, he is a journalist who was secretly getting confidential information.

Yes, it is different, but still, I am talking about other people who are essentially controlled by the US authorities wherever they are serving a sentence. There is an ongoing dialogue between the special services. This has to be resolved in a calm, responsible and professional manner. They are keeping in touch, so let them do their work.

I do not rule out that the person you referred to, Mr. Gershkovich, may return to his homeland. By the end of the day, it does not make any sense to keep him in prison in Russia. We want the US special services to think about how they can contribute to achieving the goals our special services are pursuing. We are ready to talk. Moreover, the talks are underway, and there have been many successful examples of these talks crowned with success. Probably this is going to be crowned with success as well, but we have to come to an agreement.

Tucker Carlson: I hope you’ll let him out. Mr. President, thank you!

Vladimir Putin: I also want him to return to his homeland at last. I am absolutely sincere. But let me say once again, the dialogue continues. The more public we render things of this nature, the more difficult it becomes to resolve them. Everything has to be done in a calm manner.

Tucker Carlson: I wonder if that’s true with the war though also, I mean, I guess I want to ask one more question which is, and maybe you don’t want to say so for strategic reasons, but are you worried that what’s happening in Ukraine could lead to something much larger and much more horrible and how motivated are you just to call the US government and say, “let’s come to terms”?

Vladimir Putin: I already said that we did not refuse to talk. We are willing to negotiate. It is the Western side, and Ukraine is obviously a satellite state of the US. It is evident. I do not want you to take it as if I am looking for a strong word or an insult, but we both understand what is happening.

The financial support, 72 billion dollars, was provided. Germany ranks second, then other European countries come. Dozens of billions of dollars are going to Ukraine. There is a huge influx of weapons.

In this case you should tell the current Ukrainian leadership to stop and come to the negotiating table, rescind this absurd decree. We did not refuse.

Tucker Carlson: Well, sure, you have already said it — I didn’t think you meant it as an insult — because you have already said, correctly, it's been reported that Ukraine was prevented from negotiating peace settlement by the former British prime minister acting on behalf of the Biden administration. Of course, it's our satellite, big countries control small countries, that's not new. And that is why I asked about dealing directly with the Biden administration, which is making these decisions, not president Zelensky of Ukraine.

Vladimir Putin: Well, if the Zelensky administration in Ukraine refused to negotiate, I assume that they did it under the instruction from Washington. If Washington believes it to be the wrong decision, let it abandon it, let it find a delicate excuse so that no one is insulted, let it come up with a way out. It was not us who made this decision, it was them, so let them go back on it. That is it.

However, they made the wrong decision and now we have to look for a way out of this situation, to correct their mistakes. They did it so let them correct it themselves. We support this.

Tucker Carlson: So, I just want to make sure I am not misunderstanding what you are saying — and I don't think that I am — I think you are saying you want a negotiated settlement to what's happening in Ukraine.

Vladimir Putin: Right. And we made it, we prepared a huge document in Istanbul that was initialled by the head of the Ukrainian delegation. He affixed his signature to the extract from the treaty, not the whole treaty but the extract. He put his signature and then he himself said: “We were ready to sign it and the war would have been over long ago, eighteen months ago. However, Prime Minister Johnson came, talked us out of it and we missed that chance.” Well, they missed it, they made a mistake, let them get back to that, that is all. Why do we have to bother ourselves and correct somebody else’s mistakes?

I know one can say it is our mistake, it was us who intensified the situation and decided to put an end to the war that started in 2014 in Donbass, as I have already said, by means of weapons. Let me get back to further in history, I already told you this, we were just discussing it. Let us go back to 1991 when we were promised that NATO would not be expanded, to 2008 when the doors to NATO opened, to the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine declaring Ukraine a neutral state. Let us go back to the fact that NATO and US military bases, British bases started to appear on the territory of Ukraine creating threats for us. Let us go back to coup d'état in Ukraine in 2014. It is pointless though, isn’t it? We may go back and forth endlessly. But they stopped negotiations. Is it a mistake? Yes. Correct it. We are ready. What else is needed?

Tucker Carlson: Do you think it is too humiliating at this point for NATO to accept Russian control of what was two years ago Ukrainian territory?

Vladimir Putin: I said let them think how to do it with dignity. There are options if there is a will.

Up until now there has been the uproar and screaming about inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia on the battlefield. Now they are apparently coming to realize that it is difficult to achieve, if possible at all. In my opinion, it is impossible by definition, it is never going to happen. It seems to me that now those who are in power in the West have come to realize this as well. If so, if the realization has set in, they have to think what to do next. We are ready for this dialogue.

Tucker Carlson: Would you be willing to say, “Congratulations, NATO, you won?” And just keep the situation where it is now?

Vladimir Putin: You know, it is a subject for the negotiations no one is willing to conduct or, to put it more accurately, they are willing but do not know how to do it. I know they want. It is not just that I see it but I know they do want it but they are struggling to understand how to do it. They have driven the situation to the point where we are at. It is not us who have done that, it is our partners, opponents who have done that. Well, now let them think how to reverse the situation. We are not against it.

It would be funny if it were not so sad. This endless mobilization in Ukraine, the hysteria, the domestic problems – sooner or later it all will result in an agreement. You know, this will probably sound strange given the current situation but the relations between the two peoples will be rebuilt anyway. It will take a lot of time but they will heal.

I will give you very unusual examples. There is a combat encounter on the battlefield, it is a specific example: Ukrainian soldiers got encircled (this is an example from real life), our soldiers were shouting to them: “There is no chance! Surrender yourselves! Come out and you will be alive!” Suddenly the Ukrainian soldiers were shouting back in Russian, perfect Russian: “Russians never surrender!” and all of them perished. They still identify themselves as Russians.

What is happening is, to a certain extent, an element of a civil war. Everyone in the West thinks that the Russian people have been split by hostilities forever. No. They will be reunited. The unity is still there.

Why are the Ukrainian authorities dismantling the Ukrainian Orthodox Church? Because it unites not the territory, it unites our souls. No one will be able to disunite them.

Shall we end here or there is something else?

Tucker Carlson: Thank you, Mr. President.

Interview to Kazakhstanskaya Pravda newspaper

2023-11-07T19:26:06+04:00

Question: Over 30 plus years Kazakhstan-Russia relations have reached a high level of strategic partnership and are developing dynamically. Thanks to what mechanisms and instruments could such results be achieved? What is being done to further promote the cooperation?

Vladimir Putin: Indeed, Kazakhstan-Russia partnership is of a particularly privileged nature and actively developing nowadays. It is based on the principles of mutual respect, recognition of sovereignty, territorial integrity and non-interference with home affairs. A vast legal basis (over 350 documents governing relations between our countries) proves this in particular.

We enjoy most versatile mechanisms of interstate communication. First of all, ties between presidential administrations, ministries of foreign affairs, law enforcement and justice bodies, parliaments.

Apparently, the Intergovernmental Commission on Kazakhstan-Russia Cooperation led by deputies Chairman of the Government (Alexey Overchuk and Serik Zhumangarin) plays an important role. Its regular, very productive meeting took place a week ago (30–31 October) in the ancient city of Turkestan. A stock was taken of bilateral cooperation in the field of trade, economy, industries, energy, transport, finance, culture, science, education and tourism. Plans were drawn for future.

I would especially note the good rate of growth in mutual trade turnover. Last year, it increased by 10.2% to reach a USD 28.2 bn. record, and in this January – August it grew 7.6% more to equal to USD 18.9 bn.

Russia is one of the major investors in the economy of Kazakhstan. The Russian investment accumulated in Kazakhstan equals to about USD 17 bn. Some 6,000 enterprises with Russian participation operate in the Republic.

The world’s longest land border (7,598 km) helps us interact successfully, enhancing interregional cooperation. For example, 76 of 89 subjects of the Russian Federation are developing effective cooperation with the akimates of Kazakhstan. General public and business community of the two countries actively promote these positive processes.

Our shared history, multi-century good-neighbourliness and cooperation, pride for the feat of ancestors who fought against Nazism contributing to the Victory, bring our peoples even closer together and foster the traditionally close mutually beneficial ties. We cherish this precious possession and try to multiply it for the sake of future generations of our citizens.

I would like to emphasize that the Kazakh youth is interested in learning Russian language and getting Russian education. We are grateful to our partners for their keen interest in cooperation in the areas of volunteering, culture and humanitarian activities.

Thus, our strategic partnership is forward-looking, extensive and multifaceted, time-tested and developing in an upward direction. We have something to offer and we know how to help each other. We will continue to work together, build up our economic and technological potential and improve the quality of life of our fellow citizens.

Question: One of the traditional areas of Kazakh-Russian cooperation is the energy sector. Not so long ago, an important project was launched to transport gas through the territory of Kazakhstan from Russia to Uzbekistan. What other projects are being implemented in this area?

Vladimir Putin: Nature and geography give Russia and Kazakhstan significant competitive advantages in the energy sector, which we strive to maximize for the benefit of our fellow citizens.

Leading Russian companies Gazprom, Rosneft, Lukoil and Tatneft, together with their partners from Kazakhstan, are developing fields and building joint ventures to process energy resources and plan to increase mutually beneficial cooperation.

Interaction in the gas industry opens up broad prospects. This is explained, among other things, by the infrastructure and routes of gas transmission and gas distribution systems in Russia and Central Asia established over many years and the high level of coordination both bilaterally and multilaterally.

Let me remind you that on 7 October, together with the Presidents of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, we participated in the ceremony of the launch of Russian natural gas supplies to Uzbekistan via Kazakhstan. This route will make it possible to make the most efficient use of existing gas transport networks and will contribute to the development not only of our three countries, but also of the entire Central Asian region. In the future, we believe it would be advisable to hold consultations with our colleagues from Turkmenistan. They traditionally participate in these markets. It would be in our common interests to involve them in such cooperation.

As for Kazakhstan, Russia is ready to assist in gasification of its northern and eastern regions in accordance with the Roadmap for cooperation in the gas sector signed by Gazprom and the Government of Kazakhstan on 18 January this year. Currently, various options are being worked out to debug the relevant gas transmission infrastructure.

Among the latest agreements, is a strategic cooperation agreement providing for gas exploration, production, processing and transportation signed on 1 November this year on the margins of the St. Petersburg International Gas Forum by Alexei Miller, Head of Gazprom, and Roman Sklyar, First Deputy Prime Minister of Kazakhstan.

Our countries are constructively interacting in the oil sector. Using the logistic facilities of the Caspian Pipeline Consortium, we transport oil to the global markets in the most reliable and cost-effective way. Together with our OPEC+ partners we make a significant contribution to ensuring stability and predictability of the global oil market.

By working together we are developing the uranium and mining industries and successfully implementing nuclear fuel cycle and peaceful atom projects.

As you know, the leadership of the Republic of Kazakhstan is considering the construction of the nuclear power plant on its territory. If the decision to implement this project is made, Rosatom State Corporation is ready to develop a relevant project using the most advanced technologies in compliance with the highest environmental requirements and safety standards. This will boost energy supply of the economy of Kazakhstan and give a strong impetus to the social and economic development of the country.

We consider the development of cooperation between Russia and Kazakhstan in green energy to be rather relevant. We have a lot in common in our approaches to the decarbonisation of the economy and energy transition. Our countries are planning to reach zero greenhouse gas emission by 2060. To do that we need to modernise energy and industrial infrastructures, make greater use of alternative and renewable energy sources and natural gas during the transition period. We need to make effective use of the absorption capacity of natural ecosystems.

We are also discussing other formats of joint work. On the whole, we expect that energy needs in Central Asia will only increase in the long run and other interested countries will be able to join our cooperation.

Question: Interregional and cross-border interaction is of great help for the cooperation between Kazakhstan and Russia. Interregional cooperation forums were once launched to develop contacts. What topic will be discussed at XIX Forum? What statements and decisions are planned to be made?

Vladimir Putin: As I already noted, interregional and cross-border ties are of extremely great importance for Russia and Kazakhstan and are one of the pillars of the bilateral relations. Naturally, our countries were among the first in the world to introduce the practice of holding interregional cooperation forums with the participation of the heads of state.

Such meetings not only foster mutually beneficial relations between the business, cultural, and scientific communities of the two countries, but also serve to work out specific issues that largely determine the prospects of strengthening bilateral relations and giving them practical substance. Aware of the importance of such work, we participate in it together with Kassym-Jomart Tokayev.

The theme of the forthcoming 19^th Forum is “Agriculture – the foundation of a robust economy”. Participants will concentrate on pertinent topics, such as food security, the implementation of digital technologies in the agro-industrial complex and the training of young professionals.

The meeting should result in the signing of a solid package of interregional agreements and, most importantly, commercial contracts. Mutually beneficial agreements between our entrepreneurs are a key benchmark of flourishing business cooperation. We strive to maximize the benefits of the complementarity and interdependence of our economies in order to increase the competitiveness of Russian and Kazakh products, including, in third markets.

Question: Astana hosted the inaugural Central Asia-Russia Summit last year. Russia maintains fairly close bilateral relations with all five countries in the region. What are the priorities for interaction within the framework of six-party cooperation?

Vladimir Putin: Integration trends in the Central Asian region are gaining momentum. This was confirmed by the outcomes of the regular Consultative Meeting of the Heads of Central Asian States held in Dushanbe on 14 September this year. In light of this, the demand for the Central Asia+Russia format is growing.

It is evident that our interaction, including in transport, logistics, energy and humanitarian affairs, has expanded beyond the framework of bilateral cooperation. It has the potential to further thrive through the collective endeavour of all parties involved.

In addition to high-level dialogue, we maintain links through security councils and other structures. For instance, the six-party contact mechanism for foreign ministers has been successfully developing since 2019. Recently, talks in this format took place in Samarkand on 14 April this year. There are plans to launch the work of the Central Asia+Russia expert groups on sectoral competences.

As for the priorities of our interaction with the “six-party cooperation”, they presently involve strengthening political dialogue, as well as cooperating in security, economy and trade, agriculture and food supply, energy, environment, healthcare, sanitary and epidemiological well-being, humanitarian relations, migration, information technologies and mass communications.

Question: Kazakhstan and Russia participate in many multilateral structures, including the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Kazakhstan assumed the SCO Presidency, and President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev had introduced the Initiative on World Unity for Just Peace and Harmony at the SCO summit in July. In your opinion, what role do the SCO and other regional organizations play in maintaining peace and stability in the great Eurasian space?

Vladimir Putin: Development of a new and fairer world order based on the primacy of international law has been a prevailing trend at the current stage of world development. Russia believes that establishment of a common peaceful, stable and prosperous Eurasian space is an integral part of this process.

Obviously, it is impossible to address such challenges, which are monumental and global in scope, without consolidated efforts, strengthened mutual trust, and readiness to cooperate and to search for collective solutions. At the same time, respect for the sovereign right of every people to its own development pattern as well as compliance with the principles of the UN Charter in their entirety are necessary and essential preconditions.

We assume the establishment of a broader integration track – the Greater Eurasian Partnership – as an important step towards achieving this goal by combining the capabilities of all regional states and multilateral institutions, first of all building upon the Eurasian Economic Union and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

We have great expectations for the SCO, which brings together 26 states, since this structure has a strong consolidated political and economic capacity and covers a geographical area extending from South and Southeast Asia to the Middle East and Europe. The SCO attracts with its focus on creation and multifaceted cooperation, mutual consideration of interests, equality, openness, and respect for cultural and civilizational diversity. This compares favourably our organization with the “narrow-block” structures with the small number of chosen participants that are promoted by the Western countries. It is no coincidence that the constructive SCO role in ensuring peace and sustainable development has been reaffirmed in the thematic resolution of the UN General Assembly adopted on 28 August 2023.

Russia and Kazakhstan as well as a number of other partners founded the SCO in 2001. Fruitful cooperation within the SCO framework has established itself as one of the key pillars for strategic relations of friendship and alliance between our countries.

We support the priorities of 2023–2024 Kazakhstan Presidency in the SCO aimed at enhancing its authority and influence in the international arena. We will work towards achieving the goals agreed upon by the SCO leaders in order to further consolidate the organization.

We have to pay a particular attention to the implementation of high-level decisions aimed at improving the SCO performance in order to adapt it to present-day realities and enforce the impact of joint measures. I am sure that these goals will be achieved together by all partners.

We consider another quite representative regional format that is the Community of Independent States to be an integral part of the efforts aimed at supporting peace and stability in the entire Eurasian space. Russia will chair the CIS from 1 January 2014. Our main priorities include the deepening of economic cooperation, expansion of cultural and humanitarian ties, and contacts in the sphere of security and law enforcement, conjunction of Eurasian integration processes.

As for the economic stability, the Eurasian Economic Union, undoubtedly, has a crucial role to play in this area. It provides the conditions for sustainable development of the Member States’ economies, their overall modernization and enhancement of global competitiveness. In current difficult geopolitical conditions the Union focuses on ensuring technological sovereignty, creating an independent financial infrastructure, increasing the share of national currencies in mutual settlements.

Russia and Kazakhstan actively cooperate in the sphere of regional security within the CSTO. The events of January 2022, when the CSTO had significantly contributed to maintaining the internal political stability in Kazakhstan, have illustrated the efficiency of addressing the challenges faced by the Organization, in particular, ensuring its sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of the Member States.

The next year will be marked by Kazakhstan presidency in the Organization. I am convinced that the initiatives of Kazakhstan partners will consolidate the CSTO potential and promote its empowerment in the interests of all Member States.

Question: Kazakhstan and Russia share not only a land boundary but also a maritime one – both our countries have access to the Caspian Sea. Today, the problem of pollution and swallowing of the Caspian Sea is very acute. With regard to water resources, the ecologists have been sounding the alarm about the state of the Ural River for some long time. What is being done to address these issues?

Vladimir Putin: Transboundary water cooperation issues traditionally occupy a significant place in the agenda of bilateral relations. The Ural River flowing through the territory of Russia and Kazakhstan has important economic, environmental, and even cultural significance for our countries. To preserve the ecosystem of its basin, joint Russian-Kazakh programmes are being implemented, including a wide range of scientific activities to restore the biosphere, identify sources of pollution, and purify water. A substantive dialogue is conducted through federal and environmental agencies, the Russian-Kazakh Commission on Environment, the Commission on the Joint Use and Protection of Transboundary Waters, and the Commission for the Preservation of the Ural River Ecosystem.

The same applies to solving the environmental problems of the Caspian Sea, including the shallowing of the water body. We attach great importance to the preservation of populations of rare animal species, in particular the Caspian seal and fish, especially sturgeons.

In general, Russia and Kazakhstan prioritize environmental protection, including within the framework of the Caspian Five. To preserve the ecosystem and biodiversity of the Caspian Sea, we are implementing projects to protect mammals and birds, clean the seawater of plastic pollution, breed and raise sturgeons, etc. The Caspian Sea is our common heritage, and we should act here only together, on the basis of partnership and cooperation. There is just no other way to do it.

Meanwhile, of course, we do not forget about the economic and logistical potential of our water bodies, and we plan to develop cooperation here, in particular, in the field of shipbuilding and maritime transport.

Question: There is a close cultural and humanitarian exchange between Kazakhstan and Russia, and no high-level talks go without mentioning this component of cooperation. What new initiatives are planned in this area?

Vladimir Putin: God-neighbourliness and mutual trust are a solid basis for historical affinity of the peoples of Russia and Kazakhstan. And it is logical that we are brought together by bright and fruitful humanitarian initiatives.

Each year, major cultural events are organized in Russia and Kazakhstan, covering a variety of areas. The special status of relations between the States is underlined by the international Russian Seasons project organized in the Republic of Kazakhstan in 2023, the ceremonial opening of which took place on 2 March on the stage of Astana Opera, capital’s theatre.

The Cross Days of Russia in Kazakhstan and the Cross Days of Kazakhstan in Russia are regularly organized. The events organized as part of these activities are always an important event in the cultural life of our countries.

Scientific and academic contracts are expanding. In 2022 more than 60 thousand students from Kazakhstan have studied in Russian institutes of higher education. In 2023/2024 academic year we have increased the number of places for studying with governmental quota by 200. The leader of Russian higher education in Kazakhstan is the branch of Lomonosov Moscow State University. Its graduates, young people, who get a diploma of Russian standard in any sphere – from physics and mathematics to arts – are in demand and, as a rule, don’t have problems in finding a good job. We are planning to increase this cooperation.

Branches of other Russian higher education institutes are functioning successfully in Kazakhstan. Taking into account the growing need of studying Russian language in the Republic of Kazakhstan, we are planning to expand common educational infrastructure. For instance, we are ready to apply and develop in the Republic of Kazakhstan the experience in building schools and developing other types of educational activities, increasing the quality of education in Russian language in Kazakhstan, this will become an emblematic project, demonstrating a dynamic development of bilateral cooperation of our States.

As Abai Kunanbayev, a Kazakh national thinker and educator, who translated the classics of Russian literature into Kazakh language, put it: “To avoid vices and achieve goodness one have to know Russian language and Russian culture”. He called it a “key to life”.

Without any doubt Russian language – is our common heritage and competitive advantage, but most importantly it’s a significant factor strengthening Russian-Kazakh friendship. I appreciate the initiative of the President of Kazakhstan, Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, to create an International Organization for the Russian language. It is symbolic that it is in 2023, declared the Year of the Russian language in the CIS, that the CIS Council of Heads of State adopted a decision on 13 October to sign a Memorandum of Association and a Statute of this organization. I’m convinced that this will serve as a powerful factor of further rapprochement of our peoples.

Question: It is believed that a lot in the relationship between countries depends on the relationship between their leaders. How do you assess the level of your personal relations with Kassym-Jomart Tokaeyev?

Vladimir Putin: I have noted more than once that he and I have developed a truly friendly, close relationship. It’s not surprising. We are people of the same generation and feel equally responsible for our countries. We do our best to provide a favourable environment for their confident development and prosperity, to improve the quality of life of our citizens.

We regularly call each other through phone and meet in different formats – we “check our watches” both on the bilateral agenda and on issues of multilateral cooperation. Such personal contacts fully reflect the high level of Russian-Kazakh relations.

Most importantly – our peoples have always been and remain good neighbours and faithful friends. I’m convinced that by strengthening the invaluable traditions of trust, mutual understanding and multifaceted successful cooperation, we will successfully implement an advanced model of interstate communication that can be set as an example to others. Therefore, whatever the situation in the world, I look forward to the future of our allied relations and integration partnership with confidence.

Interview with Rossiya TV channel

2023-10-20T22:27:04+04:00

The President answered questions from Rossiya-1 TV channel journalist Pavel Zarubin.

Pavel Zarubin: President Biden is pondering running for re-election, and in his latest interview he said that the main priority of the collective West is to finally put Putin “down where he cannot cause the kind of trouble he’s been causing.” What kind of trouble do you think you were causing and what do you feel about this desire to put you down?

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: You know the point is… First of all, I believe that President Biden is certainly one of the most experienced politicians in the world, in terms of his time in the so-called upper echelons of power. He has been in politics for a long time and, of course, he is an experienced person who knows what tasks he should set for himself and how to achieve them. If they have no other tasks but how to construct relations with Russia, that’s fine in a sense.

So, despite the experience I have mentioned, still…We have a well-known saying in Russia: live a lot, learn a lot. And this applies not only to President Biden, but to the political elites in the United States as a whole. We must learn to respect others, and then there will be no need to put anyone down. But the desire to suppress someone all the time for some reason or no reason at all leads to problems. Of course, they love doing that with their usual brilliance – and they do it well: they put on a fake smile and pat everyone on the shoulder. But respect for other people, for other countries, for other nations lies in something else – in taking their interests into account. And then there will be no need to put anyone down.

But I will repeat the point that the desire to suppress someone means exactly that they have to learn a lot. And the key is to learn respect for others. It includes, among other things, the ability to search for compromises.

But if they are taking an interest in Russia, that is not a bad thing actually.

Pavel Zarubin: Actually, is it possible to put you down?

Vladimir Putin: This is not about me personally. This is about the country’s interests, and it is impossible to put down Russia’s interests, they will have to be taken into account.

Pavel Zarubin: Today, you had several back-to-back bilateral meetings. Clearly, journalists were most interested in your talks with Prime Minister of Hungary Viktor Orban. It is also clear that he will now face obstruction from his Western counterparts. What do you think about these methods? Not only are active politicians being targeted but also leaders who used to work with you and cooperate with you in the past.

Vladimir Putin: Regarding my counterpart today, Mr Orban, the Prime Minister of Hungary, he is part of a small cohort of European politicians who know how to assert their interests. He does this persistently, consistently, and in my view, quite tactfully. Our views do not always overlap, and moreover, we often find ourselves on entirely different platforms. But this does not prevent us from talking and looking for solutions to various issues and problems.

Interview to China Media Group

2023-10-16T13:53:03+04:00

Wang Guan (retranslated): Mr. President!

First of all, please accept my greetings on the occasion of your Birthday you have recently celebrated. How was it?

Vladimir Putin: Thank you very much. I celebrated it with my friends and family. It was fine.

Wang Guan: I must say that you are in a great shape. Do you manage to carve out time for physical exercises?

Vladimir Putin: Thanks God I do. I think that this is necessary, first and foremost, in order to be able to work hard. Exercises are not an objective in itself. But they provide a means to achieve really important goals, an opportunity to work hard in a way that would make it possible to achieve the necessary results.

Wang Guan: We have gone through some information materials and we have seen that somewhere in 2015 – 2017 you had hockey drills and learnt to play hockey. You actually did well and scored a lot.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, I started skating just ten years ago. Before that, I had not been able even to stand up on skates. But ten years ago I tried, then started to play, and I’m still at it. And I enjoy it. Team sports are always interesting and exciting; they grab your attention and allow you a break from the routine.

Wang Guan: So you mean that you learnt to skate and play hockey, all at once?

Vladimir Putin: Of course. It was just the same thing for me. I hope that sports cooperation with our Chinese friends will also actively evolve. Wushu is very popular in Russia. I hope it will grow even more so; and we would also like to show our Chinese friends our national martial arts, as we call them, such as sambo wrestling (unarmed self-defense). I will certainly discuss this issue with your President during my visit, suggest we cooperate on a mutual basis, and ask him to support initiatives of young people, athletes, in order to expand collaboration in sports.

Wang Guan: So, let’s start our interview.

Vladimir Putin: Please go ahead.

Wang Guan: Mr. President!

First of all, let me thank you for agreeing to give interview to the China Media Group. I know this is the first time you give interview to a Chinese TV channel over the past two years.

In March 2023, a joint Russian-Chinese statement was adopted, which stressed that relations between the two countries were at their strongest level ever.

Indeed, you said at the recent Valdai Discussion Club that Russian-Chinese cooperation was as an important stabilizing factor in global affairs. Could you please elaborate on your assessment of Russian-Chinese relations as well as their prospects for development?

Vladimir Putin: Relations between Russia and China – you know, I am telling you what immediately comes to my mind after you asked your question – have not been shaped to suite the current global environment; nor are they the result of a short-term political opportunism. Russian-Chinese relations have been shaped for twenty years in a careful, phased-out manner. At each step, the Russian and Chinese sides have both guided themselves by their own national interests as they understood them. While encouraging the other side to take the next step, both have always taken into account each other’s opinions and interests. We have always tried to reach a compromise, even on complicated issues inherited from the old days.

Our relations have always been driven by goodwill. It helped us solve the border delimitation issues that had remained outstanding for 40 years. Our shared desire to remove all possible obstacles to our joint progress in future was so huge that we managed to compromise in a mutually acceptable way. And then we began to develop economic cooperation, also gradually, filling the niches that were once owned by other countries in our relations, but were not as effective as our mutual cooperation in a particular area. For instance, in the area of energy that has a special place in our relations. Russia now ranks first among Chinese partners in the supply, for example, of energy to China in value terms.

China progressively became Russia’s first trade partner in terms of trade turnover, and Russia gradually rose to the sixth place among China’s trade and economic partners.

What would I note? We had different ratios for exports and imports at different times. For our part, we have tried to cover the needs of the Chinese economy, and our Chinese friends have never ignored our views as regards some imbalances, particularly in trade in manufactured goods. We have been gradually, step by step and year by year increasing and improving this trade balance. That is the way we are advancing in almost every area.

Not to mention the role that Russian-Chinese relations play in ensuring stability in the world. Relation between Russia and China are a fundamental factor.

All of this together leads us to believe that we are moving in the absolutely right direction and in the interests of both the Chinese and Russian peoples.

Wang Guan: Mr. President!

You have just mentioned trade and economic cooperation between Russia and China. Earlier, a goal was put forward to reach the target of 200 billion US dollars in trade turnover by 2024. In fact, in 2022, the two parties basically approached this target and we could feel many of the changes.

This time I came to Moscow and saw that the streets and stores, including online trading platforms, were increasingly filled with Chinese brands. At the same time, Russian gas is supplied to the homes of Chinese consumers and Russian meat and dairy products, for example, are becoming more and more common in Chinese stores.

What is our assessment of the prospects for trade and economic ties between the two countries?

Vladimir Putin: Our economic relations diversify from year to year.

Indeed, as I have said, we have an extensive scope of cooperation in the field of, say, energy, and it is very diverse. This is not only the supply of oil and gas. In the field of oil, a pipeline is operating steadily, and pumping volumes are increasing.

The same goes for the Power of Siberia gas pipeline. Now we have good prospects, we have already signed an agreement on the Far Eastern route, and one more route, the Power of Siberia 2 that goes through Mongolia, is being worked out.

The amount of coal and electricity supplied is increasing and we continue to build nuclear units. And not only to build units at two plants, but we are working on a fast neutron reactor, which will provide us with an entirely new way of building relations in this high-tech energy sector as it creates conditions for a closes cycle and, in fact, there will be virtually no waste.

We do have a very good prospect in other industries. These are automobile construction, shipbuilding, aircraft construction, and electronics. I have mentioned automobile construction. Look, just yesterday I talked to some people who could well be called car enthusiasts with a great and long experience. And in all sincerity, not knowing that we were going to have an interview today, my interlocutors told me: you know, Chinese cars are settling in our market not simply because others are becoming fewer, this is not the only reason. The quality is improving. The quality of Chinese cars is getting better, so our consumers, particularly in terms of quality/price ratio, are happily turning towards products of Chinese manufacturers.

You have mentioned agriculture. Yes, our cooperation is expanding here as well. There are certain issues related to the supply of meat products and so on, but the work is continuing. We are aware of the Chinese consumers’ interest not only in agricultural products, but also in the supply of some products that the People’s Republic of China itself needs to produce there agricultural products on its own territory.

We are working on and we are developing a significant number of industries, and this number has been constantly growing, especially recently, because of our cooperation on high-tech.

Wang Guan: We are confident that we will reach the $200 billion target this year, what do you think?

Vladimir Putin: I have no doubts, or, let us be more cautious, I am almost certain. In the previous period, we had 32 per cent growth in trade, which is a very good one. There is every reason to believe that we will reach $200 billion mark by the end of the year.

Wang Guan: Mr. President, with regard to the Belt and Road Initiative, I would now like to talk about energy. We are cooperating in areas such as renewable energy, combating climate change and the UN climate agenda.

What do you think is the impact of our cooperation in these areas for the whole world, for mankind?

Vladimir Putin: You know, when we talk about the UN Sustainable Development Goals, there is more than one, two or three of them, I believe there are 17 actually. The struggle for the environment and the fight against climate change both are very important areas, but they are not the only ones.

One should not forget, for example, the fight against poverty. How can you say to people in African countries: you will get no oil, you will get no petroleum products, you will have to rely on renewable energy sources exclusively – on wind and solar energy, for example, and so on. Those are largely out of reach for developing countries. So, people are going to starve or what? So there should be a balance; all decisions should be balanced.

In this context, when we talk about President Xi Jinping’s Belt and Road Initiative – I believe, it was some ten years ago when he formulated the idea – I think it was very timely and is developing well, because the focal point of this idea is an attempt to unite the capabilities of many countries to achieve common development goals.

Today, in one way or another, President Xi Jinping’s ideas have involved you know, how many? Some 147 countries, two-thirds of the world’s population. So I think this is already a success, this is a good, correct and technologically organized initiative that is developing.

Yes, we see that some people consider it an attempt by the People’s Republic of China to put someone under its thumb, but we see otherwise, we just see desire for cooperation. Our own ideas on the development of the Eurasian Economic Union, for example, on the construction of a Greater Eurasia, fully coincide with the Chinese ideas proposed within the framework of the Belt and Road Initiative.

Look, our countries, the Eurasian Economic Union, have received $24 billion in investments as a result of our cooperation. What is wrong with that? At the same time, each country chooses for itself, within the framework of bilateral or multilateral formats, what is favourable or unfavourable for it, no one imposes anything. But it stimulates and creates conditions for development.

The same applies to the development of logistics and infrastructure facilities. We have recently built two bridges over the Amur River with China. I think this is good for people –it increases the number of them communicating with each other, and it is good for business because it allows us to increase trade.

So we welcome this initiative by President Xi Jinping, we are working together, we are ready and we will continue to work together.

Wang Guan: Mr. President, you also said that aligning the EAEU and the Belt and Road is a very important project, the so-called integration of integrations. You are to take part in the Belt and Road Summit. What do you expect from it?

Vladimir Putin: I think we will think of something…I have already said that the countries of the Eurasian Economic Union have already secured $24 billion in investments by working together on the Belt and Road Initiative. But this volume is growing because the number of mutually beneficial projects is increasing. They are not only beneficial to the countries that receive some loans under this initiative. They are also beneficial to the People’s Republic of China, because it also receives products from the implementation of these projects and gets conditions for better and greater development. All this is done on the basis of mutual benefit.

We have joint projects. Perhaps it is too early to dwell upon it, but I am sure that contracts will be signed; new contacts will be established between economic actors; heads of governments, various ministries and departments cooperating directly will meet. I am not going through all of it now. I have familiarised myself with the Russian government’s proposals in various areas. They are running over several tightly printed pages, and each project may represent something we will work on for more than a year, perhaps a decade. Thus I have the best expectations, including from contacts with my colleagues.

Wang Guan: We have also seen that the international community has different opinions about the Belt and Road Initiative. What do you think are the benefits of the Belt and Road Initiative, which in 10 years has gone from being a kind of initiative to a realistic, implemented project that brings benefits to all mankind?

Vladimir Putin: You know, it seems to me that the main advantage of the concept of cooperation proposed by the Chinese side is that nobody imposes anything on anybody in the framework of this work. Everything is done within the framework of finding not only acceptable solutions, but such projects and such ways of achieving a common goal that are acceptable to all. This is what makes China today, under the leadership of President Xi Jinping, unique in building relations with others: no one imposes anything on anyone; no one forces anything on anyone, but only gives them opportunity. And, as I said, if there are difficulties, compromises are sought and always found. In my view, this is what distinguishes the Belt and Road Initiative proposed by the Chinese President from many others that countries with a heavy colonial legacy are trying to implement in the world.

Wang Guan: Our bilateral relations also involve many interests and joint projects, including in the humanitarian sphere and sports. To cite but one example, according to the Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation, the number of Russian students taking the Unified State Examination in Chinese has doubled. More recently, Russian literature and music have undoubtedly influenced several Chinese generations.

We have also been following the young Russian skaters – Trusova, Valieva, Shcherbakova – with bated breath. They have a large fan community in the Chinese internet segment, and Chinese internet users even call them fairies who have no equal but each other.

Do you think that humanitarian and sports cooperation is of great value for our friendship?

Vladimir Putin: Indeed it is. Sports cooperation as part of humanitarian cooperation is very important because it establishes direct people-to-people contact. It is no surprise that our athletes have fans in China, because they are true stars. We also follow the success of Chinese athletes with great respect, always looking at how the work is organized.

Wang Guan: Are there any athletes or sports that you follow with special interest?

Vladimir Putin: Certainly, we know about Chinese athletes. We know about gymnasts, for example, and other sports. It is important that China has brought the work in high-performance sports to a good professional level.

No doubt, it is equally important to establish contacts at other, more modest levels. I refer to cooperation in PE, contacts between the regions, competitions between universities, and between Chinese provinces and constituent entities of the Russian Federation.

I think we should think of it as well. I suppose it would be very interesting. In fact, as far as I know, this is what is being done within the interregional cooperation. My colleagues are also paying the necessary attention to this. I am sure that it will go on this way, continue in this vein.

You know what is important? That our sports cooperation is devoid of any political or economic conjuncture.

Unfortunately, modern international sport is more and more immersed in commerce. We have nothing of this sort in our sports relations and I hope we never will.

Wang Guan: Mr. President, you once said that if you had not practiced judo, your life might have taken a completely different path. Why do you say so?

Vladimir Putin: Everyone knows and it’s not a secret that I come from a simple working-class family, and in the past I had a lot of time to spend in the yard. I don’t know how my life would have turned out if I hadn’t taken an interest in sports. It doesn’t really matter what kind of sports I did, it’s important that I paid a lot of attention to it. And immediately there appeared priorities to assert myself not in the yard, not in some, let’s say, not very disciplined youth environment, but to assert myself on sports grounds, in my case, on tatami. Immediately certain views on relations with other people appeared: on how to build these relations, how to treat partners with respect, how to avoid anything that could somehow undermine relations between people, and so on. Sport is educative, and this is very important.

Therefore, the development of our cooperation in this field is extremely important, and in today’s world, where there are so many threats that come from the Internet, from the illegal spread of drugs, and so on, sports activities for young people are an extremely important thing in the formation of character and correct, strong life attitude.

Wang Guan: Mr. President, recently at the Valdai Discussion Club, you mentioned fair multipolarity, that there is a need for it. You also mentioned such a phenomenon as hegemonism in the field of morality and ethics, in the value system. You also said that rule-based order is a manifestation of colonial thinking. Why do you think so?

Vladimir Putin: You have just said “rule-based order”. Have you ever seen those rules? No, you haven’t, because no one has agreed on them with anyone. So how can one talk about order based on rules that no one has ever seen? In terms of common sense, it’s nonsense. But it is beneficial to those who promote this approach. Because if no one has seen the rules, it only means that those who talk about them are making them up themselves from time to time to their own advantage. That is the colonial approach.

Because colonial countries have always believed that they are first-rated people. After all, they have always talked about bringing enlightenment to their colonies, that they are civilized people who bring the benefits of civilization to other nations, whom they consider second-rate people. No surprise today’s political elite, say, in the United States, talks about its exceptionalism. This is the extension of this colonial mindset, meaning that when they consider themselves exceptional in the United States, it means that other people, all the people in fact, are just some second-rate people. How else could one understand it? Those are mere vestiges of colonial thinking, nothing else.

Our approach is quite different. We proceed from the fact that all people are equal, all people have the same rights; the rights and freedoms of one country and one nation end where the rights and freedoms of another person of an entire state appear. This is the way in which a multipolar world should be evolving gradually. This is exactly what we are striving for, and this is the basis of our interaction with China on the international stage.

Wang Guan: BRICS has recently expanded from five to 11 countries. What historical process do you think the BRICS expansion reflects? In addition, Russia will take presidency of BRICS in 2024. In your opinion, what role will Russia play in BRICS in the future and during its presidency?

Vladimir Putin: First of all, I want to say that the expansion itself was quite uneasy. It was a challenging, I would even say difficult dialogue. But largely due to the efforts of our Chairperson, the President of the Republic of South Africa, Cyril Ramaphosa (I want to emphasize his role once again), we managed to come to this consensus and to reach an agreement.

What is at the core of the expansion process? This process is based on objective reality. The multipolar world is creating by itself, as a matter of fact. We can speed up this process or someone can try to slow it down and maybe even achieve some kind of reduction in the pace of building a multipolar world. Anyway, its creation is inevitable. It is happening on its own because of the growing potential of many countries, including, not least, the growing potential of the People’s Republic of China. India is growing in Asia, Indonesia is also growing, many other nations in Latin America like Brazil, and Russia is getting back on its feet and gaining strength. Our countries do have their problems, and what countries don’t? There are always problems of some kind. But it’s not about that, it’s about growing our potential, and this growth is evident, including in the economic sphere.

As for BRICS, at the time of the Johannesburg summit, the ratio of the G7 and BRICS economies was already in favour of BRICS in terms of purchasing power parity.

After six members had joined BRICS, this ratio shifted even more in favour of the BRICS countries. Once again, this is a manifestation of the objective process of forming a multipolar world.

This means that all those who have joined BRICS support the idea and concept of forming a multipolar world. No one wants to play second fiddle to some sovereign, everyone wants equal rights. And when they join BRICS, they see that we can achieve this goal by joining efforts within the framework of expansion and strengthening of such a format.

Wang Guan: Mr. President, you are very familiar with history. In fact, you are the one who makes history. There is an opinion, you know, that some models of interstate relations, such as realism, have not helped at all to solve the problems that humanity faces in terms of development.

In your opinion, how important are Mr. Xi Jinping’s ideas about building a community of common destiny for mankind, as well as his initiatives in the field of global development, global security, global civilization initiative, and what values do they represent at such a historic crossroads?

Vladimir Putin: Thank you for bringing this up. As far as I understand, these ideas were first formulated in general terms in about 2013 during President Xi Jinping’s visit to Moscow, where he spoke at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations and brought this up for the first time.

Of course, this is a global approach to human history. For sure, everything is interconnected. And today, with the formation of a multipolar world, these ideas have become even more relevant. He spoke about it in 2013, and today these ideas are actually being realized. This is extremely important.

Once again, I want to go back to the start: we all, and Mr. Xi Jinping in particular, are not guided by opportunistic considerations of the current moment; we try to assess the situation in a comprehensive manner and look into the future. You see, he spoke here about the formation of a global world and the interconnection between the destinies of all countries on the planet in 2013, and then he launched the Belt and Road Initiative. This is the practical realization of what he talked about in theory.

It occurs to me that being consist and moving towards common goals while realizing the essence of what is going on is what distinguishes President Xi Jinping and the PRC’s policy.

Wang Guan: Mr. President, you have seen Xi Jinping 40 times. What kind of person, what kind of leader do you think Mr. Xi Jinping is? Could you share with us any stories you have in common?

Vladimir Putin: The thing is that President Xi Jinping calls me his friend, and I call him my friend, too. We have a saying here: tell me who your friend is and I’ll tell you who you are. So if I praise President Xi Jinping now, I would feel uncomfortable, as if I was praising myself. So I will try to be objective. He undoubtedly is one of the recognized world leaders.

It is good that you recalled his speech at MGIMO in 2013 and I connected it with the Belt and Road Initiative. I will repeat it for the third time, but it is very important: he is a leader who does not make momentary decisions on the basis of some current situation, but he assesses the situation, analyzes it and looks into the future. This is very important. This is exactly what distinguishes a world leader from people whom we call “timeservers” who are there for a brief moment just to show off on the international stage, and then they are gone.

Of course, President Xi Jinping is absolutely different. He is attentive to detail, cool-headed, business-minded and a reliable partner – that is what I wanted to underline. If we agree on something, we can be sure that both sides will keep their end of the bargain.

As for our meetings, yes, we have had plenty, which is good. You have probably counted, I do not remember how many exactly – maybe about 40 meetings. Once – I do not remember the year, I think it was at an APEC meeting, probably in Indonesia, – I had my birthday and we celebrated it together. Later, an event in Dushanbe coincided with his birthday, and we celebrated it in the course of our joint work.

We had a great trip during President Xi Jinping’s visit to Russia, when we went to St. Petersburg and visited the cruiser Aurora, took a boat ride down the Neva River and had a very lengthy, in-depth, absolutely neutral and friendly discussion about bilateral relations and the world situation. It was a most friendly atmosphere, where we spoke to our hearts content, went through all the issues, all the problems, discussed everything. It was very substantive, very calm and amiable, an ambiance that makes you feel at home. As you know, he most recently visited us in March. It was also a very good, business-like visit, of great significance for the future development of our relations. I hope that, with the next meeting planned in China, we will uphold this tradition.

Wang Guan: As regards the Ukrainian issue: Mr. President, what is your opinion on the prospects of a peaceful settlement of the Ukrainian crisis? When will peace prevail?

You have also mentioned the Chinese document outlining a political solution for the Ukrainian crisis settlement. What do you think about it?

Vladimir Putin: We are thankful to our Chinese friends for trying to think about ways to end this crisis. However, I would like to remind you that hostilities in Ukraine did not start with our special military operation, but way before – in 2014, when the Western countries, after having volunteered as guarantors of the agreements between President Yanukovich and the opposition, forgot about those guarantees in a matter of days and – worse still – supported a coup d’état. United States Administration officials even acknowledged spending big money on it – five billion, they said, if memory serves me, – and now we have what was bound to happen.

I am not going to dwell on whether it was a revolution or whether it was a colour revolution, but it was anyway a coup d’état. Yes, it had to do with mistakes made by the then leadership, but those mistakes needed to be remedied through democratic procedures, rather than by means of militants in the streets. But Western countries chose otherwise – to support a coup d’état. And then, essentially by proxy of the Kiev regime, they started hostilities in the south-east of Ukraine, in Donbass, and continued those hostilities for eight years, killing women and children. The West paid no attention to that or pretended not to notice.

Even when agreements were signed in Minsk, Belarus, known as the Minsk Agreements, Russia did everything to follow this path towards settling the conflict. They did not let us do that, either.

Moreover, Ukraine’s leaders ultimately said that they simply did not like those Minsk Agreements and they were not going to fulfil them.

This was aggravated by the United States’ attempts to drag Ukraine into NATO, which led to the escalation of the conflict.

Let me remind you that, when Ukraine gained independence – or proclaimed its independence – it was the Declaration of Independence that served as the fundamental document laying the basis for Ukrainian independence. The main principle enshrined in this Declaration of Independence was that Ukraine is a neutral state.

Yet in 2008, for no good reason – there was no crisis in sight – they announced that they would welcome Ukraine in NATO. Why? Still no one understands. And thus, year by year, they would heighten the tensions. Then, finally, the 2014 crisis hit, the hostilities broke out. This took the escalation to a new level. Therefore, the start of the special military operation was not the start of a war, but an attempt to end it.

As for what needs to be done and how it needs to be done in order to end the conflict by peaceful means: we have never been against this. Moreover, we reached an agreement in Istanbul confirming that we were ready for this, provided that – I emphasize – the legitimate security interests of Russia are respected. The Ukrainian side put forward very strict demands in terms of security, and we almost accepted them. However, as soon as we pulled our troops back from the Ukrainian capital, Kiev, the Ukrainian side committed all the arrangements to flames. Those same arrangements that were initialled on paper by the heads of the negotiating parties – not the package itself, but the memorandum on those arrangements. They announced that they would seek to defeat Russia and secure a victory on the battlefield, to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia. They launched an active military operation, the so-called counter-offensive. It has continued since 4 June. No results achieved so far, only massive losses. The losses are simply huge, at a ratio of one to eight.

Of course, we know the proposals of our Chinese friends. We highly value those proposals. I think they are absolutely realistic and could lay the foundation for peace arrangements. But, unfortunately, the opposing side does not want to enter into any negotiations. In fact, the President of Ukraine has even issued a decree prohibiting everyone – including himself – to conduct any negotiations with us. How can we conduct negotiations if they are not willing to and even issued a regulation prohibiting such negotiations?

So if the Ukrainian side is willing to, I guess the first thing to do is to revoke the decree and express the readiness for the negotiations. We are ready, including on the basis of the proposals by our Chinese friends.

Wang Guan: Mr. President, China has always articulated its interest in building shared, common and indivisible security. Is there any chance to reconcile the positions on the Ukrainian issue?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, we have always said that, too. We said that security of one group of states cannot be built at the expense of security of other states. Security needs to be the same for everyone.

In this context, it is extremely important for us that Ukraine stays outside any blocs. We were told as far back as 1991 – by the then US Administration – that NATO would not expand further east. Since then, there have been five waves of NATO expansion, and every time we expressed our concerns. Every time we were told: yes, we promised you not to expand NATO eastwards, but those were verbal promises – is there any paper with our signature on it? No paper? Good-bye.

You see, it is very difficult to engage in a dialogue with people like that. I have already cited the example of the Iranian nuclear programme. The negotiations on the Iranian nuclear programme were very, very lengthy. An agreement was reached, a compromise found, and documents signed. Then came a new Administration and threw everything in the trash, as if those arrangements never existed. How can we agree on anything if every new Administration starts from scratch – begin each time from the centre of the playing field?

The same goes for any issue, any topic, including the one we are discussing. That is why one of the key points is to ensure equal security for everyone, and Russia is entitled to that, just as any other state. If we believe that NATO poses threats to us through Ukraine, we want our concerns to be heard.

Wang Guan: Thank you very much for the interview. Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: It was a pleasure for me to do this for Chinese viewers, listeners. I would like to thank you from the bottom of my heart and extend my best wishes to the citizens of our friendly neighbour, the People’s Republic of China.

Thank you.

Replies to journalists’ questions

2023-07-19T13:10:24+04:00

After the plenary session of the Future Technologies Forum, Vladimir Putin replied to questions from the media.

Question: A question about the recent NATO summit. It is hard to understand whether they are promising NATO membership to Ukraine or not with their vague statements. But still, it sounds like some simplified version has been promised.

In addition, the G7 adopted a declaration on certain security guarantees for Ukraine. They promise to support Ukraine “for as long as it takes” – this is a quote. Paris is beginning to supply Ukraine with long-range missiles.

What do you think about this, and does it create a serious threat to the security of Russia, and to Ukraine as well?

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: As for Ukraine’s NATO membership, as we have said many times, this obviously creates a threat to Russia’s security. In fact, the threat of Ukraine’s accession to NATO is the reason, or rather one of the reasons for the special military operation.

I am certain that this would not enhance Ukraine’s security in any way either. In general, it will make the world much more vulnerable and lead to more tensions in the international arena.

So, I don’t see anything good in this. Our position is well known and has long been formulated.

As for arms supplies, different arms, we saw how many hopes were pegged on relatively long-range missiles. And so what? Yes, they are doing some damage but they don’t play any critical role in the zone of hostilities. The same is true of foreign tanks and infantry combat vehicles.

As of last night – just from June 4 – 311 tanks were destroyed. Of this number, a big part, I believe at least one third, were of Western make, including Leopards.

I can tell you that Ukrainian servicemen often refuse to even get inside these tanks, because they are a number one target for our military and they tend to destroy them first on the battlefield. This is a sad circumstance that stands in the way of using these tanks in battle. They burn just like other tanks and even better than other tanks like the Soviet-made T-72 tank.

So, from the perspective of potential changes in the situation on the battlefield, more deliveries of new weapons will only worsen the situation for Ukraine and add fuel to the conflict. If there is anyone out there who is interested in that, and it appears that there are parties who are interested in that, then sending more weapons is the way to further exacerbate the conflict.

With regard to security, we have said many times that all countries have the right to ensure their own security and to choose the path to get there which it believes is the best for it.

There is only one limitation related to the fact that while striving to achieve the security of one country, the security of another country must not be jeopardised. Therefore, we operate on the assumption that this principle, which has been repeatedly expressed in various international documents, will be taken into account. Without a doubt, Ukraine has the right to ensure its security.

By the way, the draft document that I mentioned several times, namely the draft agreement between Russia and Ukraine which was put together in Istanbul and then tossed out by the Ukrainian regime, set out in detail matters related to ensuring Ukraine’s security. We needed more time to see whether we agreed with what it said, but I think that document was acceptable overall.

Therefore, we see nothing unusual in what NATO and the G7 have announced, and we are not against discussing issues like this. Again, this can only be done if the Russian Federation’s security is provided for in full.

Question: Mr President, may I ask you a question? I hear the grain deal is under threat, that Russia’s part of the package concerning our exports is not being fulfilled, that Mr Erdogan has something to tell you about this in a personal meeting, and that you received a letter from the UN. Can you clear up these issues?

Vladimir Putin: Of course, there are no secrets here.

The point is that initially the UN and Secretary-General Antonio Guterres presented this deal primarily as assistance for the world’s poorest countries with a view to preventing famine there.

I would like to emphasise again that price increases on food, food products, on what is produced by agriculture in the world in general, on fertilisers are not related to the special military operation. They are related to mistakes by the leading Western economies in finance and investment, including energy.

For many years, they neglected the basic principles of developing the power industry and focused on alternative energy sources. They did not pay enough attention to investing in the oil and gas sector. Some countries renounced the nuclear power industry.

So, the result was the reverse of what they expected in energy, and prices started going up. Investments were not made in due time, and shortages began to appear. Now there are no shortages, but the lack of investment created this threat of high prices. The same applies to finance – I have talked about this many times.

These are widely-known things but they prefer not to talk about them because they are obvious blunders in the economic policy of the Western countries. In trying to counter the coronavirus pandemic, they started supporting both individuals and certain industries. We also did this but to a reasonable extent. They didn’t listen to reason. They printed enormous amounts of money and started shoveling food out of the world market, putting the poorest countries in a very difficult position.

With the onset of the special military operation, they decided to blame Russia for everything, for their own blunders. We had nothing to do with this problem. And, of course, by using sanctions as an instrument of pressure, an instrument of competitive struggle, they aggravated the situation in global food and energy markets. It is not us that made the situation worse. They brought about these results by their actions.

Meanwhile, the so-called grain deal was justified by the desire to support the poorest countries. I have said many times that of all the food, primarily grain, exported from the territory of Ukraine, only a little more than 3 percent went to the poorest countries – a bit over 3 percent. Everything else went to a well-fed and prosperous Europe. But ironically, many European countries started turning down Ukrainian grain. They started discriminating against Ukrainian grain – not us.

As for the conditions under which we agreed to ensure the safe export of Ukrainian grain, yes, there were clauses in this agreement with the United Nations, according to which Russian interests had to be taken into account as well. This concerns logistics, insurance, the movement of money related to the payment for our products, and many other points. Nothing – I want to emphasise this – nothing was done at all. There was no give and take. Not a single clause related to what is in the interests of the Russian Federation has been fulfilled.

Despite this, we have extended this so-called deal many times of our own free will. Repeatedly. Well, listen: enough is enough, finally. We are now being told that we should once again agree to the extension, and they pledge to honour the promises made to us.

We will think about it – we have several days – we will think about what to do. But if they tell us that they will fulfil the promises they made to us, which, by the way, are guaranteed by the United Nations… And I know that the Secretary-General and the United Nations staff who are dealing with this problem are sincerely striving to fulfil the relevant conditions, including with regard to Russia – I have no doubt about that. But they are not succeeding because the Western countries are not going to keep their promises.

As one of the options: not first the extension and then the honouring of promises, but first the honouring of promises and then our participation. What do I mean? We can suspend our participation in this deal, and if everybody once again says that all the promises made to us will be fulfilled, let them fulfil them – and we will immediately join this deal. Again.

Question: Can you tell me, on a related note, whether reconnecting Rosselkhozbank to SWIFT is a possibility? That is one of the conditions.

Vladimir Putin: This is just empty talk. Although it is one of the conditions. There is also freight. SWIFT means money transfers, yes, it matters. There are also logistics, foreign ships calling at our ports, and so on.

Question: Does the UN letter contain some new…

Vladimir Putin: No, I have not seen this new letter, but we are in contact with United Nations officials. I repeat once again: they are sincerely striving to ensure that Western countries fulfil the commitments they have undertaken, but they are not succeeding so far. And they say to us, I repeat, extend the deal again. We can do this in a different way: we will extend the deal exactly at the moment when the promises made to us are fulfilled.

Question: The deal expires on July 18. How long are we prepared to wait for them to start making good?

Vladimir Putin: As long as it takes to fulfil the promises made to us.

Comment on the passing of Silvio Berlusconi

2023-06-12T23:40:29+04:00

Vladimir Putin gave a comment to Rossiya 1 TV Channel’s Pavel Zarubin on the death of former Prime Minister of the Italian Republic Silvio Berlusconi.

The Russian President earlier sent a message of condolences to President of Italy Sergio Mattarella.

***

Pavel Zarubin: Mr President, hello.

Excuse me, can I have just a minute of your time, please? Right before the ceremony [for presenting the Hero of Labour medals and the Russian Federation National Awards], tragic news arrived on the passing of Silvio Berlusconi. You had special friendly ties with him. Can I ask you for a few words about his role in Russian-Italian relations and in global politics?

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Yes. He was indeed a politician of European, and it can be said, of global scale. There are few people like him in the international arena nowadays. He was a good friend of our people and did a lot to develop business-like and friendly relations between Russia and the European countries.

He initiated relations between Russia and the North Atlantic Alliance. It was with his assistance and on his initiative that respective interaction mechanisms were created.

But he was primarily Italy’s politician, of course. He was an unusual person for a politician because he was very sincere and open-hearted. He also had a privilege that politicians of this scale lack – the privilege of saying what he meant.

I am very sorry. I want to express heartfelt sorrow and condolences to Italian people and all of Mr Berlusconi’s family and friends. It is a great loss not only for Italy but also for global politics.

Answer to question about drone attack on Moscow and Moscow Region

2023-05-30T19:27:54+04:00

The President answered a question by Director General of the Agency for Strategic Initiatives Svetlana Chupsheva on the drone attack on Moscow and the Moscow Region.

Director General of the Agency for Strategic Initiatives Svetlana Chupsheva: Today we are meeting at the Zotov Centre creative space. I will tell you everything, Mr President, but I cannot help but ask a question that concerns many today.

Drones attacked Moscow and the Moscow Region this morning. Can you comment on what happened and what measures must be taken to prevent such attacks, and how we should react to this?

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: We are beginning with this issue? Ok.

As you know, it all began long ago. I will just need to repeat the story.

After the collapse of the USSR, some rivalry between Russia and Ukraine was inevitable – obviously – but it seems that those who were dealing with this believed that it would be done in a civilised way, and moreover, with regard to our historical, cultural and linguistic affinity. But it all went another way, unfortunately, which should have been expected.

Basically, the territory that is called Ukraine was virtually controlled from the very beginning by people who, being led by the West, took the path of not just confronting Russia, but creating an “anti-Russia” on that territory.

They had to have consideration for the people who lived in the southeast of Ukraine: these were voters, a large number of voters, who had to be reckoned with. Let me also remind you that, during the time that Ukraine was emerging as an independent state, from the very beginning, from the first step, it declared itself a neutral state: this is written in its Declaration of Independence.

Instead, they gradually turned to a different path: joining NATO, an organisation that is hostile to Russia and was created solely to fight the Soviet Union and Russia.

And in 2008, without any external signs, without any military-political tension, they announced that they were joining NATO, they wanted to join NATO, and the Western countries – the alliance members – announced in Bucharest, I think, at the summit, that NATO’s doors were open to Ukraine. Not only were we deceived and told that there would be no NATO expansion to the east, but then, they also reached Ukraine.

In 2014, as you know, they carried out a coup d’état and simply began to destroy everyone who, one way or another, wanted to build normal relations with Russia. They also unleashed a war and military operations in Donbass. Then they deceived everyone to keep their guard down, declaring that they wanted to resolve the issue through peaceful means.

Now they are openly admitting that they were deceiving us only in order to build up their military capability and unleash hostilities, including against Crimea. Now, as you know, they are using drones for attacks.

The Russian Armed Forces, which had to respond – Russia was forced to respond to the war the Ukrainian regime unleashed in Donbass. We all had to respond by launching the special military operation. We are striking at the territory of Ukraine, but with long-range precision weapons, at military infrastructure facilities only, either at ammunition or fuel and lubricants warehouses used for combat operations.

We have talked about the possibility of striking at decision-making centres. Of course, the headquarters of Ukrainian military intelligence is one of them, and a strike at this target was carried out two or three days ago.

In response, the Kiev regime has chosen a different path – attempts to intimidate Russian citizens with strikes at residential buildings. This is an obvious terrorist approach.

First, I must say that the Moscow air defence system responded properly. The response was satisfactory although there is room for improvement. We faced similar problems at the Khmeimim Aerodrome in Syria, but the area around our airbase in Khmeimim is not comparable to Moscow – an enormous European metropolis. However, overall, we understand what to do to tighten up the capital’s air defences and we will do this.

However, I am not even so much concerned about this as over the attempts to trigger a Russian response. Apparently, they are provoking us into responding in a like manner. We will have to consider how to approach this.

Of course, Ukrainian citizens cannot speak out because of the total terror against civilians. Yet, they should know where the current leaders of Ukraine are pushing the country. Ukrainian citizens need to understand that there are other threats as well, for instance, attempts to disrupt the operation of the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant or use “dirty” devices related to nuclear technology. We have talked about this more than once. We know what they have in mind.

Obviously, no matter what we say, they will always point fingers at Russia, although this is wrong. We did not unleash this war. Let me repeat that the Kiev regime unleashed it in 2014 in Donbass. Nor are we using the means that the Ukrainian ‘wheeler-dealers’ are resorting to.

This attack on civilian buildings in Moscow is further evidence of this. But I will repeat – the air defence system in Moscow worked well. But, again, there is room for improvement, we know what should be done.

Svetlana Chupsheva: Thank you, Mr President. We believe in our victory.

Comment for Rossiya TV channel

2023-02-16T19:01:25+04:00

Vladimir Putin gave a comment to Rossyia 1 TV channel journalist Pavel Zarubin before leaving Ufa.

Pavel Zarubin: Bashkortostan is my homeland. I am from this republic.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Where were you born?

Pavel Zarubin: In Beloretsk, not far from Abzakovo, a ski resort where you went skiing in the early 2000s.

Vladimir Putin: And what a pleasure it was to go skiing there. I will gladly return. It is a good place.

Pavel Zarubin: Actually, tourists have been flocking there in numbers after your visits.

Vladimir Putin: Great to hear that.

Pavel Zarubin: Here is my question for you. During your meeting with the head of the republic, you said that this is a special region. Could you explain in more detail what you meant?

Vladimir Putin: You know, this is all rather obvious. To begin with, when the Bashkirs voluntarily joined the Russian Empire, they volunteered to take on a special mission to defend the outer frontier of our Fatherland and to secure its borders.

During the 1812 Patriotic War, Bashkiria put almost all its males over 15 years old on horseback, armed them and sent them to fight the enemy. People in the republic demonstrated the same kind of heroism and courage during the Great Patriotic War.

For this reason, it is not at all surprising for me that today the republic has been demonstrating the same responsible attitude when delivering on the objectives of the special military operation to defend our people in Donbass, the Kherson and Zaporozhye regions by surrounding with warmth and affection the people taking part in military action and their families, while also adopting a proper attitude to matters of state.

All things considered, Ufa, which is the capital of the republic, where we are right now, has historically emerged as a major, important centre of Russia’s Islam, an enlightened, creative Islam which commands high respect in the Muslim world, while also promoting patriotism and fully committed to working with other traditional religions in our country.

From this perspective, we have every reason to say that Bashkortostan has always played a special, important role in the life, history and destiny of Russia.