Website of the President of Russia: President: Transcripts

New Year Address to the Nation

2025-12-30T22:59:54+04:00

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Citizens of Russia, friends,

At this moment, as we stand on the threshold of the New Year, we all feel the passage of time. Before us lies the future, and what it holds largely depends on us.

We draw strength from within ourselves and from those who stand beside us – those who are dear and close to our hearts – and we are always ready to lend our shoulder in return. This mutual support gives us confidence that all our aspirations, hopes, and plans will definitely be realised.

Naturally, each of us has personal, unique dreams, very special in their own way. Yet they are inseparable from the destiny of our Motherland and from the sincere desire to be of service to it.

For we are united – the people of Russia. The labour, achievements, and successes of each of us add new chapters to its thousand-year history, while the strength of our unity determines the sovereignty and security of our Fatherland, its development, and its future.

The New Year is, above all, a time when we hope for the best, for goodness and good luck. It is a special and magical holiday, when we open our hearts to love, friendship, and compassion, to sympathy and generosity.

We strive to bring joy and warmth through our care for those in need of support and, of course, to stand by our heroes – the participants in the special military operation – in both word and deed.

You have taken upon yourselves the duty of fighting for our native land, for truth and for justice. On this New Year’s Eve, millions of people across Russia, I assure you, are with you: they think of you, share your feelings, and place their hopes in you. We are united by a sincere, selfless, and devoted love for Russia.

I wish all our soldiers and commanders a happy New Year! We believe in you and in our victory.

Friends,

In just a few moments, we will hear the chimes of the Kremlin clock, and the New Year will begin. We welcome it together with the nearest and dearest: our children, parents, friends, and comrades-in-arms. Even those who are far away – you are still with us in spirit.

I wish you all good health and happiness, understanding and prosperity. And, above all, love which inspires us. May our traditions, faith, and memory bind all generations together, supporting us always and in everything.

We are one – a great, strong, and united family, and that is why we will continue to work and to create, to achieve our goals, moving only forward for the benefit of our children and grandchildren, for the benefit of our great Russia.

Happy New Year, friends!

Happy 2026!

Results of the Year with Vladimir Putin

2025-12-23T20:05:21+04:00

Vladimir Putin answered questions from journalists and the people of Russia in a live broadcast.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Good afternoon.

We are broadcasting live from Moscow.

We, Pavel Zarubin…

Pavel Zarubin: … and Yekaterina Berezovskaya…

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: … welcome all our viewers from Gostiny Dvor.

Pavel Zarubin: The President will be joining us in just a few minutes. Of course, we are all looking forward to this, since we all have so many questions. Yekaterina and I are well aware of the fact that we received tens of thousands, even millions of questions from our television audience. At the same time, we don’t yet know what questions matter most to you, journalists from the leading media outlets. Right now, you have a unique opportunity.

We can see that you are recording everything, but may I ask you to stop just for a moment, and listen to us?

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Colleagues, we can see that you have already taken your seats. Now, it’s time to put your phones aside, even if you are using them to record us or your colleagues around you or scrolling through the news to learn about the latest developments, as we journalists so often do. The main news messages will be coming very soon, just be patient. They will come from our studio when the President joins us. For now, we have a few minutes to talk to each other.

As Pavel has said, we are working live, and the entire country can see and hear you.

Colleagues, do not be shy, since you have a unique opportunity to ask your question.

Please, introduce yourself. Which media outlet do you represent?

Remark: When I looked into your big, beautiful eyes, I knew that you would turn to me. This was inevitable. After all, I am from Belarus.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Belarus. What is on the minds of people in Belarus? What is your question about?

Remark: First and foremost, the development of our shared home, the Union State, is what matters for Belarus, along with the threats we have had to counter together with Russia.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Thank you very much.

Indeed, we are about to begin the media event of the year. This is reflected in every detail. We have representatives of regional media outlets, as well as our foreign colleagues, and guests from the Union State. There are all kinds of people in this hall. This will be a true question-and-answer marathon.

Pavel Zarubin: The hall is divided into sections, and I should mention that from here, from the central podium, we have a perfect view of everyone. So when you raise your hand to ask a question, the President will see you.

I’ll start with this sector, and I can’t move past the front row. We have some very young journalists here. How old are you?

Remark: Hello! I’m 13.

Pavel Zarubin: Where are you from, and what media do you represent?

Remark: We’re from Moscow, representing a youth media, Detskaya Redaktsiya (the Children’s Editorial Board).

Pavel Zarubin: A journalist at 13, and right in the front row. What is your question? If it’s not a secret, of course.

Remark: We would like to know how the President receives the valuable information as to what our people really need.

Pavel Zarubin: Well, over these past few weeks we have all been receiving a great deal of valuable information and we continue to do so today. So I would say this array of information is already valuable.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Absolutely. Pavel, you know, my main question for our colleagues is this: how do you actually capture the President’s attention? We know there is going to be a real battle for Vladimir Putin’s focus today. You and I have seen this before – we know how the atmosphere in the hall is about to heat up.

I will now turn to a young lady wearing a kokoshnik. Earlier this year, the President noted that the kokoshnik is no joke – it’s more than just a symbol of our traditional costume. What would you like to ask? Where are you from? Please, introduce yourself.

Yulia Korotkova: Good afternoon. My name is Yulia Korotkova. I am a presenter with the Volga and Volga-24 NNTV channels from the Nizhny Novgorod Region. And this outfit isn’t just about beauty – it represents our region. The red colour, the kudrina pattern, the Khokhloma style.

My question touches on more than just our artistic craft; it is also about the ban on vaping. It is a very serious issue.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: It is a highly relevant topic, too. These questions have been coming up, and I’m sure they will be addressed here today.

Pavel, let’s continue meeting our colleagues.

What does your sign say here?

Remark: This word, “ychchuu,” is from the Yakut language, meaning “cold.” It signals our question to the President about energy prices – a critical issue for us. This is especially important considering that in the Arctic and the North, the so called Far Eastern allowance (a bonus to the salary) is being applied, but its application is somewhat limited. We absolutely want to raise this issue.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Thank you very much.

I should note that everyone now has small placards. The situation is quite different from several years ago.

Pavel Zarubin: That’s right. In previous years, people didn’t just come with placards – you could say they arrived with full-scale banners. They practically staged demonstrations. These banners were so large that they blocked the cameras, interfered with the broadcast image, and even obstructed the journalists themselves. After that, there were understandable requests for more restraint and for placards to be limited to A4 size. Still, as we know, our people are endlessly inventive.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Pavel, look, here it’s not even a placard, yet the subject of the question is clear. But still…

Remark: The word “Astrakhan” is written on a figurine of a Caspian roach. Our question concerns the development of the North–South international transport corridor and the problem of the shallowing of the Volga, which impacts not only the population but also the natural environment, in particular aquatic biological resources.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Colleagues, I would like to draw your attention to how many regional journalists are present here today. In a sense, each of you serves as a conduit to your region. You are not simply members of the press – you will genuinely guide us and voice the specific concerns of the people in each of your regions.

Pavel Zarubin: We really shouldn’t have moved on from this area. I see a young lady here with Labubu dolls. Is that right? I have to admit, I’m not entirely familiar. Who is depicted here and why?

Regina Orekhova: Even I’m not sure of the correct term. We brought them with us. Regina Orekhova, Channel 360. These Labubus became a real sensation – in a good way – at the St Petersburg International Economic Forum, almost attaining symbolic status. We came up with a trend for early 2025: pairing them with the faces of our politicians.

Pavel Zarubin: And who do you have there?

Regina Orekhova: Elvira Nabiullina, Sergei Lavrov – do you recognise them? Mikhail Mishustin. And an exclusive item: Donald Trump. As you might guess, my question will be about international politics. I hope to catch the attention of the President or Dmitry Peskov. By the way, there’s also a figurine with Mr Peskov’s face.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: So, it could just as well have been a question about import substitution.

Let’s give the floor to the Amur Region. What question are you going to ask President Putin?

Irina Batina: Good afternoon. My name is Irina Batina. I represent the Amur Region Television, Blagoveshchensk.

We have come here to invite the President to a unique international event, held on the ice of the Amur River. Blagoveshchensk is the only regional capital located directly on the state border.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: That sounds more like an invitation than a question.

Irina Batina: Yes, it’s an invitation. We’ve handed over our symbols – a panda and a brown bear. We hope they will reach our President.

As for our question, we would like to ask if visa-free travel for Russians to China and for the citizens of China to visit us in Blagoveshchensk, will be promoted. It’s an incredible feeling when you have one foot in Russia and the other in China. We invite our President to experience it for himself.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Thank you very much.

Pavel, what’s happening in your sector?

Pavel Zarubin: I simply can’t walk past the only journalist here who is a Hero of Russia – Yevgeny Poddubny.

Good afternoon, Yevgeny. This applause is for you. I know you always have many questions. What do you want to ask today?

Yevgeny Poddubny: Of course, I have a question, but I don’t want to give it all away. I’ll just say that it concerns hundreds of thousands of people across the country, including those in frontline regions where fighting is underway. That’s why it’s especially important for me to ask it.

Pavel Zarubin: Do your best, keep raising your hand.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Colleagues, we’ve just taken our viewers on a virtual tour of the hall, introducing our regional journalists and luminaries. I’d like to give the floor to Anton Vernitsky.

Anton, what are you doing?

Anton Vernitsky: You won’t believe it, but I’m streaming for our channel.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Just like that?

Anton Vernitsky: Yes, I’m doing two jobs at once, running two live broadcasts simultaneously.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: That’s impressive. How many major events like the annual news conference have you attended? What was it like in the past, and what is it like now, this Results of the Year with Vladimir Putin event?

Anton Vernitsky: Yes, I was just thinking about that. The first large news conference for regional and foreign journalists was held in 2001. It was really something new. The first time it was held was in 2001. As for how many I have attended, the answer is 22. That’s a lot –I might even be a record holder. Somebody asked me today: “Can we talk or take a photo with you? You were one of the first to attend this event.”

Actually, there are many such people, like Alexander Gamov from Komsomolskaya Pravda. I know that he’s in the hall today; we were just talking about it.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: There he is – Alexander is waving to you, over there, closer to Pavel.

Anton Vernitsky: You know, we look forward to this news conference every year because we always hear something new. This time, I’ve taken a strategic position – right in the centre.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Absolutely.

Anton Vernitsky: I really hope I will get a chance to ask my question.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: It really is a long-anticipated event, and our programme, Results of the Year with Vladimir Putin, will begin in just a few minutes.

Colleagues, I would like to emphasise that we are already live on air, and that the entire country can see and hear you. We always have a huge audience since viewers take a lot of interest in events of this kind. There are likely tens of millions of people watching this broadcast.

Pavel Zarubin: Of course, we received many serious questions. It goes without saying that you contributed the bulk of the serious questions. That said, there were all kinds of questions. Here is what I noted. For example, there was a question on when we will have a banknote with an image of the Oreshnik missile? This is what our viewers want to know. “Who does the President find harder to communicate with when making important decisions: his opponents, allies or himself?” There was also a question on who is better, Messi or Ronaldo – it also came from a children’s editorial board, it seems. Here is another question for Vladimir Putin: Would you like your knowledge to be digitised and used by artificial intelligence in the future?

Still, we have no doubt that today you will be asking the very best questions.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: I am sure that these will be the best questions. I would like to draw the attention of our colleagues to this young man with a placard that reads, “I want to get married.” And over there is a young lady, as my colleagues tell me, with poster saying, “I want a husband.” Why are you sitting so far apart from each other? Where is the young lady who wants to get married? Here she is.

Pavel Zarubin: They should be sitting together, it seems.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: May I ask you to introduce yourself. Demographics is, of course, a very important topic. I assume that is what your question is about.

Remark: Yes, I want to ask a question about demographics, especially since I know whom I want to marry. We’ve been together for eight years now. We met in school. I’m from Yekaterinburg – in fact, from Pavel’s home region. I work at the same TV channel, Channel 4. Overall, I very much hope that this wonderful placard will help me attract the President’s attention.

Pavel Zarubin: I didn’t put off my marriage for such a long time.

Deputy Chief of Staff of the Presidential Executive Office – Presidential Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov: Friends,

We are delighted to see all of you here. In just a few minutes the President will be joining us, and we will start the Results of the Year with Vladimir Putin programme.

Let me remind you that this is a hybrid format, combining the annual news conference with the Direct Line with the head of state. Having this direct engagement is something unique for the entire world. Over the past two weeks, we have received almost three million messages from the people. This is why we will be switching back and forth between questions from the people – the ones we received and which were selected by the moderators and the President himself, and the questions from journalists. As usual, I will ask you to raise your hand. Please, try to be as brief as possible when asking your questions. The briefer you make your question, the more of your colleagues will be able to ask their question as well.

Let me remind you that everything said during the Direct Line and the news conference undergoes extensive scrutiny and serves as a basis for drafting a list of presidential instructions. This will be the case this time too. And the Russian Popular Front will work throughout the year to make sure that no request we receive from the people is left unanswered, to review all of them and offer the needed assistance. Municipal, regional and federal government agencies contribute to these efforts.

I would like to ask you to mute your phones so that they do not distract us. The President will be joining us very shortly. Let us stay focused. We will be starting soon.

Thank you.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Yes, thank you, Mr Peskov.

But I would like to quote the President, who once said that “every rule and every law become outdated already in the course of its development and adoption. Only direct communication with people <…> helps the state steer its policy <…> in the right direction.” Perhaps this is the primary purpose of this programme: direct communication and the opportunity to keep one’s finger on the pulse of current events.

Pavel Zarubin: Yekaterina, it has happened in the past that new laws were adopted or amendments were made to existing laws following direct lines. It’s very likely that we will see the same happen today.

The Popular Front has once again offered enormous support with processing questions. Both volunteers and veterans of the special military operation have been taking calls. By the way, when the questions first started coming in, I asked the Director of the Popular Front: “You have received an immense number of questions. What are you going to do with them? Will you forward them to the same institutions that gave people the runaround before?” “No,” he answered, “We will take charge of following through on the most urgent matters.” And this is exactly what happened – right up until we went on air.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: That’s right. As a matter of fact, we also have a virtual assistant called GigaChat. But I’ve been told we are ready to start. Here we go.

President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin.

We will be accepting questions and inquiries until the end of this live programme. As always, there are several options: you can call 8 (800) 200 4040, send an SMS or MMS message to 0 4040, or submit your question via VK, Odnoklassniki, moskva-putinu.ru, or the MAX chat bot. By the way, we are using MAX for the first time this year and it’s been incredibly popular. As for the number of questions, by this very moment we have received over 2.5 million.

Pavel Zarubin: We are about to start asking the President questions. Just a few more things.

Yekaterina and I have reviewed tens of thousands of your questions. They have come from across Russia and beyond. Of course, these two million questions come from different people, although they often concern similar issues. We have grouped them into topics that are truly relevant to millions of people. And we all know which topic concerns the public most of all.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Mr President, numerous questions are coming in regarding social policy, yet the main inquiries concern war and peace.

You have made it clear on several occasions that we are ready for peace negotiations; however, at the same time, we are satisfied with the dynamics on the frontlines. So, what is it to be – war or peace? What path guarantees the attainment of the goals of the special military operation? What is the situation on the negotiation track, given Vladimir Zelensky’s statement in Berlin that Ukraine is not ready to discuss the territorial issue?

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: So far we really do not see such readiness.

Let me remind you how it all began. It began with the 2014 coup d’état in Ukraine and the deception over the potential resolution of all issues through the Minsk agreements. In 2022, when everything had already reached a breaking point, when the Kiev regime unleashed war in southeastern Ukraine, we made it clear to them: listen, we will have no choice but to recognise those unrecognised republics. It would be preferable if you simply let the people live peacefully as they wish, without your coups, without Russophobia and so on – just withdraw your troops from those territories, and that is all.

They did not accept that, even then. Following the negotiations in Istanbul, they first agreed, virtually initialled [the agreements], and then reneged, discarding all these arrangements. Today, they are essentially refusing to end this conflict by peaceful means. Nevertheless, we perceive and are aware of certain signals, including from the Kiev regime, indicating that they are prepared to engage in some form of dialogue.

The only point I wish to convey, and we have always stated this, is that we are ready and willing to conclude this conflict by peaceful means, based on the principles I outlined in June of last year at the Russian Foreign Ministry, provided that the root causes that led to this crisis are eliminated.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Mr President, the situation on the frontlines changes daily; we have seen, time and again, and know, that you always keep your finger on the pulse, personally engaging with commanders and our fighters. Yet, I repeat, the situation changes every day, and our forces are advancing confidently and daringly.

As Supreme Commander-in-Chief, how do you assess the situation at the moment?

Vladimir Putin: I have just received another report from the Chief of the General Staff.

In general, here’s what I would like to say. Basically, ever since our forces drove the enemy from the Kursk Region, the strategic initiative has been firmly in the hands of the Russian Armed Forces. What does this mean? It means that our forces are advancing along the entire line of contact, faster in some areas, a little slower in others, but in all directions. The adversary is being pushed back.

The key thing, and we started with that when we said that we had offered the Kiev regime to withdraw their troops from the territory of the then-unrecognised republics that did not want to live under the pressure of nationalists: the Kiev regime had already constructed, over the course of a decade, a fortified area in the Slavyansk–Kramatorsk–Konstantinovka agglomeration – this is their principal fortified area.

Let’s begin there. What’s the situation? Just recently, the Chief of the General Staff, the group commander, and local commanders, including the brigade commander who was in my office, reported the capture of Seversk. This is a key town that provides a staging point for an advance towards one of the main fortified areas in this urban area – Slavyansk.

Meanwhile, a little further south, our units are also conducting active and successful operations in the southern Liman sector. Our troops are already inside the city of Krasny Liman, engaged in street fighting. I expect it to fall very shortly. We currently control roughly half the city, and the advance will press southward, towards Slavyansk.

As I mentioned, this urban area also includes Konstantinovka. Fighting is ongoing there as well, and we hold over 50 percent of the city. I have no doubt our forces will secure that area too.

The capture of Krasnoarmeysk was a particularly significant development. It opens up several opportunities… The high command has yet to finalise the exact axis of advance, but it provides an excellent springboard for future offensive operations.

Just to the north-northeast, the city of Dimitrov – another critical locality and strategic foothold – is now completely encircled. I believe our troops already control about half of it. The enemy has not been given orders to surrender and is attempting to break out in small groups.

They have made attempts to retake at least a portion of Krasnoarmeysk, but without success. They are sustaining heavy losses there and have made no headway.

Separately, our Vostok Group of Forces is advancing rapidly through the Zaporozhye Region, liberating one community after another. As you know, combat is currently taking place in Gulyaipole. The city is divided by the river, with the main part on the right bank. Our troops have crossed that water obstacle, entered the city, and now control approximately 50 percent of it. However, not all of our forces are committed to this urban fight; a significant portion continues to advance from east to west, systematically clearing settlements across the region.

In addition, we are establishing security zones. On the Sumy axis, the city of Volchansk has been taken. And in the Kharkov Region, as is widely known, the city of Kupyansk came under our control several weeks ago. Our forces are consolidating their hold there. They are not yet pushing west because they have a critical prior task: eliminating the enemy grouping on the left bank of the Oskol River and securing the key rail junction of Kupyansk-Uzlovoy. The encircled force in that pocket is substantial – about 15 battalions, as I’ve said, roughly 3,500 personnel. They, too, have not received orders to lay down their arms. Their position is practically hopeless, as they are tightly surrounded by our Armed Forces.

Once that operation is concluded – and it will be – our units will then redirect westward. I am confident, absolutely confident, that before the year’s end, we will see further significant successes by our Armed Forces all along the line of contact.

Pavel Zarubin: What is the situation in Seversk? Why was it so difficult to seize that city?

Vladimir Putin: You probably saw and heard the reports from the Chief of the General Staff, the commanders of the group of forces and the army, as well as the commander of the brigade that was fighting there. I asked him: “How do you assess the situation in Seversk? Are you safely controlling the city?” He replied: “Mr President, we are already moving west. My brigade has advanced about 1.5 to 2 kilometres in the western direction, and we keep moving.”

You also probably remember that part of our meeting when an assault group reported live about capturing Seversk right from the city. You may recall that at the end of that report, I asked them to quickly change their position. Yesterday – I think it was yesterday – at the Defence Ministry [Board] meeting, after the meeting, the Defence Ministry Board meeting, I presented decorations – yes, I think it was yesterday or the day before – to our men who liberated Seversk.

After that, I returned to the Kremlin and asked the commander of that assault group to come to the Kremlin too. I wanted to talk with him about current matters. I sometimes do that when there is such a possibility. He arrived while I was discussing preparations for today’s event with my colleagues. He entered the Security Council room where we were meeting. I asked him: “Please, say a few words so that my colleagues know what the situation in Seversk is now, and what it was like.” And he started talking right there and then, reporting briefly.

When he left the room, my colleagues asked: “Can we invite him to the Direct Line?” I replied: “I don’t know, you’ll have to ask him if he has time for that. His leave is very short.” They called him, and he agreed to come.

Here he is, Naran Ochir-Goryayev. (Applause.)

Dmitry Peskov: Give him the microphone, please.

Vladimir Putin: Naran, please sit down. Have I told everything correctly?

Naran Ochir-Goryayev: Yes, sir.

Vladimir Putin: If anyone has any questions about the current situation in Seversk and what the fighting there was like, you can ask them now. That will be the best way.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Colleagues, let’s welcome our Hero of Russia, who is with us today. (Applause.)

Pavel Zarubin: Naran, we saw you during that videoconference – you were the one in the helmet – but we don’t know you. Can you tell us about yourself? Where are you from? How long have you been participating in the special military operation? Where did you start?

Naran Ochir-Goryayev: I’m from Kalmykia. I joined the fighting at Soledar, starting as a rank-and-file assault soldier and rising to assault company commander.

Vladimir Putin: Naran is too modest. He started as a driver, and now he is an assault company commander with over 80 subordinates. He has been awarded the title of Hero of Russia for his service. (Applause.)

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Naran, we, and I think the journalists here all saw your video conference with Mr President. When you spoke, the connection was unstable, which is understandable given the conditions [on the front line]. But now that we have an opportunity to talk to you directly, could you please share the details of that brilliant operation to liberate Seversk, or at least as many as possible. How did you liberate the city? What was it like? And how did your men, your subordinates act in that situation?

Vladimir Putin: Let me ask the questions I posed to Naran when he entered the Security Council hall. I asked, “Mr Ochir-Goryayev, what was the most challenging aspect of capturing Seversk?”

Naran Ochir-Goryayev: The most difficult part was reaching Seversk undetected, as the terrain was open with minimal natural cover. Therefore, we decided to advance in small, covert groups. This task was accomplished. We gathered under the enemy’s nose and, once assembled, we waited for the order to begin the assault.

Pavel Zarubin: There were also many civilians remaining in the city. How did the Armed Forces of Ukraine treat these people?

Naran Ochir-Goryayev: The civilians were under constant…

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: In fear, of course, under the direst conditions.

Naran Ochir-Goryayev: They were constantly under enemy pressure. Once we liberated our designated zone in Seversk, we began engaging with the civilians. As they retreated, the Armed Forces of Ukraine, much like the Nazis, shot civilians who refused to leave with them.

Pavel Zarubin: So, these were unarmed civilians, and they were shot simply for staying behind?

Naran Ochir-Goryayev: Yes, precisely because they stayed.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: When our troops arrived, when you entered, how did the people react? What did they say?

Naran Ochir-Goryayev: When we arrived, the people were in a dire state – physically and morally broken. When they first saw us, they were overjoyed, truly overjoyed. They had even been secretly listening to Russian radio, awaiting our arrival. They were immensely relieved.

Vladimir Putin: Mr Ochir-Goryayev, you mentioned that the AFU executed civilians as they retreated. But you also explicitly stated that primarily young people were targeted, correct?

Naran Ochir-Goryayev: Yes, young people. Particularly those aged 30 to 40 were taken out and executed without trial or investigation.

Pavel Zarubin: Everyone indiscriminately?

Naran Ochir-Goryayev: Yes, everyone.

Pavel Zarubin: How do you assess the current situation on this sector of the front?

Naran Ochir-Goryayev: The situation is stable. As the President noted, we have advanced beyond Seversk.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Mr Ochir-Goryayev, looking at you and listening to you, I must say again that our fighters are true heroes, real men. Thank you for your service. I’d like to ask, what is the morale of your troops?

Naran Ochir-Goryayev: Our lads are determined. We are acting methodically and consciously, upholding the course set by the Supreme Commander-in-Chief. The objectives of the special military operation will be achieved.

Pavel Zarubin: Mr Ochir-Goryayev, how many personnel are under your command? And, if possible, what losses have you sustained?

Naran Ochir-Goryayev: My assault group consists of 157 people. For the capture of the community, as I mentioned earlier, 24 teams totalling 84 personnel were deployed. Losses were minimal due to our small-group tactics. During the capture, four personnel were lost.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Out of 157?

Naran Ochir-Goryayev: Out of 84.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Out of 84.

Naran Ochir-Goryayev: Those directly involved in the assault operations.

Pavel Zarubin: Let us once again welcome and thank the Hero of Russia.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Thank you very much.

Pavel Zarubin: Given all this, I have to ask: a week ago, [Vladimir] Zelensky supposedly filmed a video in front of the Kupyansk stele. But many people quickly called it a fake, pointing to various inconsistencies as proof. If it really is staged, why would he resort to a forgery of this scale at such a critical time?

Vladimir Putin: I don’t know; I don’t follow that. He’s an actor – a talented one, I’ll say that without irony. We remember him from his old films. So, it’s not exactly out of character. They say the actual stele looks completely different now.

But that’s not even the main point. That stele is about a kilometre from the city proper. If Kupyansk is really under their control, why linger on the doorstep? Why not simply enter?

Meanwhile, some female bloggers actually managed to slip in there. Thankfully, they came out unharmed.

Let me tell you, the skies there are simply swarming with drones, like flies, from both sides. You can’t just take a stroll into Kupyansk.

The time will come when our forces will complete their mission to eliminate the encircled group on the river’s east bank, they will turn west, and it will happen pretty soon. They will take it all back. It’s just a matter of time. There are no problems here.

As for these staged stunts, or their desperate attempts to regain lost ground, like what they’re trying now near Krasnoarmeysk, they’re failing there, too. Their bigger problem is this: due to the active and effective operations of our troops, it seems the enemy has exhausted its strategic reserves. They’ve suffered very serious losses; there are practically none left. This, I hope, is a significant factor that should encourage the Ukrainian regime in Kiev to resolve all disputes and end this conflict by peaceful means. Their reserves are practically gone.

Pavel Zarubin: I think everyone watching, and everyone here, understands that war places a heavy burden on any economy. Yet, European “swine underlings,” as you recently called them, continue doing everything in their power to, as they say, ruin the Russian economy.

Under such difficult conditions, can we even speak of further economic growth? Are we seeing growth in some sectors but not others? And if so, which ones?

Vladimir Putin: You know, I usually bring a spreadsheet to every Direct Line. This is nothing confidential – it’s open data on the performance of the Russian economy over the past year. Our GDP growth is 1 percent; however, if we take the previous three years – this sort of review is also meaningful –, the overall growth has been 9.7 percent. Meanwhile, the Eurozone has shown 3.1 percent.

As for the 1 percent growth this year and the economic growth rate in general, they are the result of deliberate actions by the Government, the Central Bank and the country’s leadership to target inflation. I should note that overall, we have been able to handle this task because the goal was set to lower the inflation rate to at least 6 percent. We can see now that by the end of the year, the inflation rate will fall even further, to around 5.7–5.8 percent. Slowing economic growth was a deliberate step to maintain the quality of the economy and the macroeconomic indicators.

What else is happening? Industrial production has grown by 1 percent while the processing industry is up 3.1 percent. Agricultural production has increased by 3.3 percent.

Housing construction is an important area. Millions of square metres have been built. Last year, the total was 107.8 million square metres. This year, output is slightly lower although still considerable, around 103˗105 million.

We have managed to maintain good real wage growth. The rates are not as high as last year, but in my opinion, they provide a solid real wage. Adjusted for inflation, real wages have increased by 4.5 percent.

Unfortunately, it must be admitted frankly that, over the same period, labour productivity growth has been rather modest, only 1.1 percent. Of course, we should make effort to improve this ratio in favour of higher labour productivity.

Last year, the unemployment rate was at a historic low of 2.5 percent. This year, it has fallen further to 2.2 percent. Overall, these are excellent indicators.

The Central Bank’s international reserves are also growing. I spoke with Ms Nabiullina yesterday: as of a few days ago, the reserves amounted to $741.5 billion if we use the US dollar equivalent.

The federal budget deficit stands at 2.6 percent. We expect it to fall to 1.6 percent next year and 1.5 percent within the next three years. This is a good indicator, considering that the national debt remains very low, one of the lowest among developed economies. We estimated yesterday that the national debt currently stands at 17.7 percent and is not expected to rise above 20 percent in the next three years.

So, these are the indicators. The principal thing is that… What is the principal thing? Most importantly, we have managed to balance the budget – and credit is due to the Government for performing significant work. The quality of this balancing is at the level of 2021. This is a very important indicator of stability of the economy and the financial system of our country.

It means that we will be able to fully solve the issues regarding the social obligations towards the population, handle the development issues under our national projects, achieve technological development goals and, certainly, meet the needs of the Armed Forces. All this put together indicates that the economy and the financial system are stable and fully under the control of the Government and the Central Bank.

Pavel Zarubin: People in the audience are eager to ask their questions.

Mr Peskov, over to you.

Dmitry Peskov: Let me remind you that we are working in a hybrid format, since this is both a Direct Line and the annual news conference. I suggest we now turn to journalists so that they can ask their questions.

We can start from the central section, perhaps. I can see someone with a ‘Siberia’ placard. Why not start with Siberia then? Go ahead, please.

Ivan Dvoynichnikov: Good afternoon, Mr President.

Ivan Dvoynichnikov, Gorodskaya Volna [City Wave] radio station, Novosibirsk.

Everyone knows Novosibirsk for its Academic Town. In recent years, and with your support, by the way, we have been building the Siberian Circular Photon Source, or SKIF. What makes this device even more unique is that it will open new research horizons not only for our country, but for the entire world too.

The researchers managed to build it without using any foreign parts or materials, all while facing sanctions and having to navigate a very complex economic environment. This unit is expected to be launched next year.

What is my question? My question is whether it is possible and what can be done to retain young researchers?

We will be launching the SKIF next year and are looking forward to seeing you at its opening ceremony.

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you for raising this topic. This is excellent news and very welcome for everyone involved in this process.

What do I mean? This topic came up during a meeting of the Presidential Council for Science, which took place in 2018, I think, and Novosibirsk served as its venue. It was then that our colleagues from the Siberian Branch of the Academy of Sciences – the Institute of Nuclear Physics – raised this issue and talked about the need to create the SKIF, this system, an accelerator.

It is true that sanctions-related issues caused some delays, but we managed to complete the project and finish the job. This is a great achievement. I would like to congratulate everyone who was involved in this process and who will be operating and using this unit in the future. It is an unquestionable success.

We already had a similar unit here in Moscow, at the Kurchatov Institute. It is an older generation unit that requires quite a few upgrades, and there are plans to make these improvements. At the same time, similar systems with the same equipment will be installed in Vladivostok and other cities. We have them in Gatchina and other locations as well. We will work to make this happen.

As for the SKIF, this is a great success story, indeed. Why? Because it makes it possible to conduct not only basic but also applied research. This is instrumental since it offers an opportunity to work on pharmaceuticals, new materials, etc.

How do we keep young specialists in the country? We’ve built a comprehensive system, and overall, it’s working. But what’s the key? We have to develop the laboratory infrastructure. True scientists are driven by their work; for them, that passion can be the most important thing. But other factors matter, too: salary, housing and quality of life. We’re implementing all of this step by step. That’s the purpose of our entire grant system, including the “megagrants.”

In fact, the recipients of those megagrants – top-tier scientists, both Russian and international, who have worked under these programmes – raised this very point with us at a meeting. They said it plainly: you must create the conditions for young specialists to stay. You have to offer them a clear horizon, so they can see the scope of their research, ensuring that funding isn’t just for six months or a couple of years, but for a longer cycle – five years and beyond. We’ve done that as well, and it helps retain talent. It does.

Moreover, many are coming back. I’ve spoken with such specialists myself. Young people who used to work abroad are now returning to Russia. Ironically, our so-called Western colleagues are actively helping us with this. When asked why they returned, they say, first, because research facilities and opportunities are being created here. But one of the main reasons is: “We’re concerned for our children. The idea of sending them to the local schools there is out of the question.”

Well, thank God, the protection of traditional values is part of our agenda. People appreciate that, and together with other aspects, it leads them to come home. There are many such people, and their number is growing.

We will, of course, continue working in all these areas.

Ivan Dvoynichnikov: Will you come visit?

Vladimir Putin: I will certainly try, thank you very much.

Dmitry Peskov: Let’s take a couple more questions from the audience.

I see one of the long-standing members of the Kremlin press pool. Please give Alexander Gamov the microphone. Alexander, if you have a question – you raised your hand very timidly.

Alexander Gamov: Of course I do. Thank you very much.

Alexander Gamov, Komsomolskaya Pravda radio, news website, and newspaper.

Mr President, this year, Komsomolskaya Pravda is celebrating the 100th anniversary of its first issue. You awarded us the Order of Honour. Thank you very much for this high recognition. I simply haven’t had an opportunity to thank you yet.

I wanted to remind you that you held your very first Direct Line conference at our offices, on February 9, 2000, if you recall.

I would like to frame my question in Komsomolskaya Pravda’s frontline-reporting style. I wanted to ask you about the Time of the Heroes programme, its development and progress. You initiated it. Have you been following the way people who benefited from this programme have been doing their job, those you have assigned to high government posts? To what extent has this system proven its worth in general? How long will this programme last? What new appointments can we expect?

Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: First, I suggest that we remember those who took part in the Great Patriotic War. The people who fought on the frontlines of the Great Patriotic War came back and achieved outstanding results in research, art and education.

You know, when I was a university student, there were Great Patriotic War veterans among the faculty members who taught me. We treated them with great respect. Some of them had suffered very serious wounds. There was one professor who lost his leg and had to use a prosthetic, but he was absolutely brilliant in his subject. We all remember him with a sense of deep gratitude for the knowledge he shared with us.

There was also Nikulin, and so many other people of science who reached a very high level of excellence and contributed to the development of our Motherland.

Why can’t our fighters, participants in the special military operation, do the same? We have Naran Ochir-Goryayev sitting here. You know, I did not recognise him at first since we are in a big room. There is a microphone, and the cameras are rolling. But these people have a lot behind their belts. When he walked into the Security Council hall in the Kremlin, I told him: “Naran, tell us what is going on there, please.” And everyone could not believe what they heard during his report. Here, he keeps a low profile, but why am I saying this? These people have a lot of positive potential.

Of course, there were doubts at the outset. Fighting is one thing, while heading a team or an entire sector, standing at the helm of a major corporation or even regions, or ministries, is another. It goes without saying that this requires skill and talent.

Look, we have hundreds of thousands of men fighting over there, and not all of them aspire to pursue a civilian career. In fact, this is not what many of them are after. However, for those who do want to move in this direction and have the potential, the necessary level of education and experience, or are ready to get the necessary credentials, the state must do everything to offer opportunities to people who have proven they are ready to assert the interests of their Motherland without sparing themselves.

I think I have already mentioned how this whole idea occurred to me. There was a meeting with young people, including students. I was listening to them as they elaborated on their thoughts and proposals, the goals they set for themselves, and what they thought were important national goals in general – it was during this conversation that it occurred to me that we had to bring together these people and help them achieve more and move forward. With them, the destiny of our country is in safe hands.

Of course, they need training. This much is obvious. Hence the programme. I would like to thank the heads of the regions for scaling and spreading this programme at the regional level. It does work, you know. I am very glad for the graduates of the first enrolment campaign. The second enrolment wave has been completed, and training is underway. Many graduates have already become governors, deputy ministers, or work for our companies. Several people work for the Presidential Executive Office. They are doing great.

It is clear that there can be some challenges here and there. It may well be that some of them decide to choose a different area. However, the programme has been effective and is delivering tangible results.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Mr President, colleagues, if I may, I have news that is important for our country, breaking news. It has been reported that Brussels’ attempts to seize our asset have failed.

How can you comment on that?

Pavel Zarubin: They have not stolen them yet, but they keep trying.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: But they have not succeeded so far.

Vladimir Putin: Pavel, stealing is not the right word. Stealing is a covert theft of property. But they are doing this openly. Therefore, it is robbery.

Why aren’t they succeeding? Because the consequences will be grave for the robbers. What does this mean? First, it is difficult to accomplish. They have not said that they will rob and seize. One of their ideas is to issue a reparation loan secured by our assets.

What does issuing a loan mean? It means consequences for the budgets of every country involved; this will increase the budgetary debt of each country. If a country issues a loan secured by our gold and currency assets, this must be reflected in its budget. Take France, whose state debt has reached 120 percent [of GDP]. Our state debt is 17.7 percent, and theirs is 120 percent. It is true that our budget deficit is 2.6 percent, but it will go down to 1.6 percent next year, while France’s budget deficit is 6 percent. The new obligations will have to be added to the budget. I believe they are having big problems with next year’s budget. All this is the reason why it is difficult to take decisions related to the robbery of someone else's assets.

But there will be graver consequences for those who might endeavour that. This will not just be a blow to their image, but this will subvert all the confidence in the euro area, since many countries store their foreign reserves in the eurozone. Not only Russia does that, but also those who have free reserves, primarily oil-producing countries. They will look at what is happening – they are already doing so, and they will have suspicions, doubts and fears. What if the same happens to them?

It is only difficult the first time, and then you can do the same under different pretexts. Today, they don’t like our special military operation and the fight against neo-Nazism in Ukraine. Later, they could be displeased with some country’s policy towards the LGBTQ community. There are very many strict laws in Muslim countries that protect our common traditional values. We don’t have such laws, but they do. This could be used as a pretext for seizing sovereign assets, sovereign resources and money. And why not? Or they can find some other pretext.

Apart from image-related losses, there will be direct financial losses related to the contemporary financial architecture. That is why it is so difficult to accomplish. And the main thing is no matter what they steal, sooner or later they will have to give it back.

Besides, we will protect our interests. How? Most importantly, we will go to courts to protect our interests. We will do our utmost to find a jurisdiction that will be independent from the political context.

Dmitry Peskov: Let’s give the floor to the audience.

Vladimir Putin: Yes. Road of Life – please go ahead.

Darya Shuchalina: Good afternoon, Mr President.

Darya Shuchalina, Komi Republic. I represent the Komiinform news agency and I’m a member of the Civic Chamber of our region.

You are aware that a significant part of the Komi Republic and the neighbouring Nenets Autonomous Area are cut off from the mainland, as they lack year-round road connections to central Russia. The road from Moscow ends within our republic, and beyond that, there is no route further north.

At the same time, there is a popular motorway: Syktyvkar – Ukhta – Usinsk – Pechora – Naryan-Mar. This spans over a thousand kilometres, 869 of which lie within our republic. The route ensures year-round northern deliveries, connects residential communities and, most importantly, guarantees safe travel for northern residents.

However, Mr President, to be perfectly honest, much of the road is in a deplorable state. It is clear that the Komi Republic alone cannot possibly maintain and repair a road of federal significance. Moreover, Komi has virtually no federal motorways, unlike other regions in the European part of Russia.

In this regard, Mr President, I have a proposal for you. Is it possible to transfer our Road of Life – the only route serving the North – to federal ownership? This would stabilise northern deliveries for a vast population, ensure connectivity with central Russia, and provide a new impetus for the northern regions.

Also, while I have the opportunity, I would like to invite you to visit the Komi Republic. We have two significant anniversaries approaching: in 2029, the city of Ukhta, the birthplace of Russia’s first oil, will celebrate its 100^th anniversary. Today, it is the largest centre of the oil and gas industry in the northwest. And in 2030, thanks to the executive order you signed, our capital, Syktyvkar, will mark its 250^th anniversary. Your visit would be a historic event for our republic.

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you very much for the invitation.

Regarding the road, this is a known issue, and we are aware of this problem.

Indeed, the solution lies in transferring all sections of this route to the federal level, as the federation faces the task of bringing our federal motorways up to the established standards. This task has been largely accomplished for federal motorways. The focus now is on developing and bringing regional roads up to standard.

Several key issues are at play here – northern deliveries and road safety, I agree. But I can’t promise that construction will begin tomorrow. You understand, we must calculate everything, review the plans for developing the country’s backbone road network – we have such a concept. I will definitely discuss this with the Government, and we will respond – we will certainly respond.

Thank you for the invitation.

Dmitry Peskov: Let’s continue and take a question from the audience.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: The direct line is a combined format. We’ll have to share the territory.

Dmitry Peskov: That’s right. Journalists are also very enthusiastic.

Let’s continue. Channel One, third row. Our military correspondents.

Amir Yusupov: Good afternoon, Mr President. My name is Amir Yusupov. I’m a military correspondent from Channel One. I have three questions but I’ll try to be brief.

My first question is from our drone operators at the front. Of course, they expressed their gratitude for the current attack drone supplies, especially the fibre-optic UAVs that can stop entire columns. Knyaz Vandal Novgorodsky is really something.

However, we have very few large hexacopters like Baba-Yaga – the types that are extensively used by the Ukrainian army. We need them to deliver food supplies and munitions to battlefield positions. You yourself said today that the whole sky is filled with drones, and even carrying a bottle of water to the first line is almost an impossible task. The guys really need these drones.

My second question is also from the operators. Once I was sitting in the trenches with a guy, and he said: “I’m going to be a father. I’ll go home then.” I asked him: “Will you miss the front?” He said: “Of course.” I was surprised when he said he would miss operating drones. We have a great number of drone operators that is growing all the time, and they want to do it as a civilian job. Are there any prospects for unmanned civil aviation? Will this experience be useful in peacetime?

And the last question is from me personally. Since the first days of the special military operation, we have worked with the famous Veterans Brigade. They are famous for their underground operations in Avdeyevka, Dzerzhinsk and Sudzha. Their most recent operation received worldwide coverage. But despite their achievements and daily hard work on the ground, this brigade is simply called a voluntary unit in many Defence Ministry reports. I would like to ask you to confer the honorary title of a guards brigade on the Veterans Brigade.

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: I will start with your last question. Of course, the Veterans Brigade deserves the highest praise. They are truly heroic individuals, and it goes beyond that. You know, it is not easy to risk your life and climb into a pipeline. They prepared every operation competently, meticulously and thoroughly. They conducted serious groundwork to figure out approaches, entrances, exits and supply routes. This is extremely hard professional work. They are heroic troopers, and that is a fact. There is no doubt that this brigade deserves the highest praise and the guards title. I agree with you. This is the first point.

Now, regarding your first question on UAVs. It is true that there is a shortage of heavy drones. The Defence Ministry and the Ministry of Industry are working on improvements. This task will be solved.

I want to acknowledge the Minister of Defence, who is personally in charge of UAV supplies and has done a great deal. It is thanks to his efforts, among other things, that the availability of UAVs has changed drastically. The troops at the contact line have noted this. I think you are well aware of this. We will continue to support our modern-day Kulibins. There is an entire system of grants and other support in place. We will keep going.

I would like to express my gratitude to our citizens and our entrepreneurs. In addition to everything else they are doing, our people have raised 83 billion rubles, which have been used for a number of purposes but mostly for drones.

It should be said – and I think there is nothing to be shy of here – that we are the indisputable leader in terms of the number of drones. We are still short of heavy drones like the adversary’s Baba-Yaga, but with respect to the number of drones, we are ahead of our adversary in almost all the segments of the frontline. It is a fact, although we may be short of some specific types in some segments.

As for civilian goods and proof of our leadership, it can only be proved if the goods we have started producing because we need them for our combat operations are also applied and improved in the civilian sphere, following which they are used to build up and strengthen national defences. We will certainly do this. We have started doing this, and we will continue to do this.

I am talking about everything you are well aware of, such as the use of drones to deliver all kinds of stuff, including mail, food, and medicines. This is not only true for fixed-wing drones or small air-based copters. The matter concerns all types of drones, including unmanned ground vehicles and crewless boats. This field is developing at a good pace, and we will continue to do this in the future as well.

Speaking about those who fought and want to continue fighting, I would like to share some information with you. The situation is somewhat specific. What does this mean? We continue to recruit personnel for our Armed Forces, and this process is progressing at a good pace and in accordance with plans. Many of our men, real men, voluntarily enlist in the Armed Forces and voluntarily protect the interests of the Motherland and our people.

Naran has told us about how the Ukrainian military maltreat civilians. He did not say this now, but he mentioned it when we talked in the Kremlin: “When we saw what they did to civilians, we couldn’t wait to get our hands on them.” Did you say this, Naran? “We are ready to keep fighting to finish off that viper.” Do you understand? When they saw what was done to people, to civilians… Grannies were shot and killed by drones… He is a modest man, and it is probably the first time he is in the same room with so many people, but he said this to me.

So, over 400,000 people signed up in the outgoing year, 406,000 or 410,000, but the number of those who want to serve in the new branch we have recently created, the Unmanned Systems Troops, is so large that the Defence Ministry had to announce a competition. It is remarkable that some very young people, students at various universities, are taking an academic leave to sign up for service on the frontline. Above all, they want to take part in combat activity as drone operators.

I can understand the man you have talked with. Here is what I will tell you. Even those who come home on leave sometimes continue to take part in combat operations. Modern technologies have made this possible.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: This is very important – continuing the subject we have just touched upon, regarding our fighters… You yourself, Mr President, have said that supporting our soldiers is not a trend but the state’s tribute to its defenders. And that is indeed the case.

Here is a very important observation related to preparations for today’s programme. Pavel and I have reviewed an enormous number of appeals. As confirmed by GigaChat, this year the number of appeals from servicemen, their family members, and the fighters themselves is lower than last year or, say, the year before. Work is underway, and a great deal is being done – this work is being carried out by the Popular Front, the Ministry of Defence, and the Defenders of the Fatherland Foundation. Problems remain, related to delays, payment issues, and searching for those missing in action. But again, I’d like to reiterate: much is being done, and it is being done literally within days.

Let me give a few examples. Alexei Gushchin from the Oryol Region wrote to our programme. Two years ago, he was seriously wounded and could not receive the payment of 3 million rubles he was entitled to. As it turned out, not all the documents had arrived from his military unit. The Popular Front got involved in resolving the issue, the payment was processed, and the money should reach him any day now.

There was an appeal from Lyudmila Orlova from Beloretsk, the mother of a fallen hero. Her son died last year and was posthumously awarded the Medal For Courage, but the medal itself could not be handed over to her. Volunteers looked into the matter. The award was found and has now been presented to the hero’s mother.

What do these stories have in common? They remained unresolved for a year or longer, and people did not receive what they were due. The professionals stepped in and, most importantly, deeply caring individuals who genuinely engaged with the problem and resolved it literally within days.

Pavel Zarubin: Just two days ago, at the Ministry of Defence Board meeting, you said that there is still work to be done in this respect. Naturally, while preparing for today’s programme, we repeatedly saw evidence of this.

Now, let’s watch a video message from Kristina Grebe from Novosibirsk. We know her situation is also under control, but we also know that there are many such stories.

Kristina Grebe: Good afternoon.

My name is Kristina Grebe. I am the widow of a serviceman who was killed in the special military operation zone. We live in the city of Novosibirsk. We have two children, six and four years old. Here is my question. To this day, we have not received the survivor’s pension, nor do we have the certificates confirming the status of family members of the deceased, which grant entitlement to certain benefits.

My husband died in January 2024. On December 10, 2024, I received the death certificate based on [Government Resolution] PP-1421. We are now approaching the end of 2025, and there is still no pension. My question is this: can the processing time for such applications – for the survivor pension and the issuance of certificates for family members of the deceased – be shortened?

Vladimir Putin: First of all, Miss Grebe, I want to apologise to you for the sluggishness on the part of the services in charge of these matters. I apologise.

Rest assured, your case is going to be resolved quickly. But the problem is there. I recently met with Anna Tsivileva, who currently also serves as Deputy Minister of Defence, and she briefed me on the work of the Defenders of the Fatherland Foundation. She told me that, unfortunately, normal cooperation still hasn’t been established between the Ministry of Defence and the Government’s social affairs bloc.

The issues are largely bureaucratic: documents get lost, passed down from one department to another, decisions are delayed, and so on. We will work on that to expedite everything. I will definitely keep track of all that personally.

The way forward is clear. We simply need to act faster and more efficiently, so that people, especially those in situations like yours, with two children, don’t face unnecessary hardship.

However, there’s another, widely discussed problem that’s also evident from the questions coming in through various channels. Mr Peskov handed me a large folder of such questions and requests, which I reviewed. It concerns the search for missing persons. This is an extremely urgent matter.

In Kristina Grebe’s specific case, I hope the problems she is facing will now be resolved quickly and without delay. But the issue of missing persons is particularly acute.

I should note that the Ministry of Defence has taken specific steps in this area that are yielding results. First, a coordination centre, a central coordinating body, for the search for missing servicemen has been created.

Second, dedicated departments have been set up within the groups of forces and at the local level, and a separate registry has been created. If we compare the situation at the start of the year and at this time, the number of missing servicemen has been reduced by 50 percent; compared to the beginning of the year, it’s a 3-fold change. That is a significant improvement. This work must and will continue and improve. Our objective is to minimise such cases, ultimately bringing them down to zero.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: The issue of missing persons is really important indeed. I know that many journalists, including some of our colleagues here, have relatives who participated in the special military operation and are missing. This problem is very real. I think everyone present would support a request for you to issue an instruction ensuring that all such inquiries from soldiers’ families receive special attention and are never disregarded. And, as we have said, it’s crucial to remember both the missing and those who have been taken prisoners.

Vladimir Putin: Such instructions have already been issued. In fact, I have just outlined the steps the Ministry of Defence is taking in this regard.

Dmitry Peskov: I suggest that we turn to the people in this room and invite them to ask a few questions. I can see Mir television company. Can you hand over the microphone to the lady in red?

Elina Dashkuyeva: Thank you.

Mr President, good afternoon. Hello to my colleagues too.

I am Elina Dashkuyeva, Mir International Television Company.

Phone scams remain an issue these days. Have the measures adopted by the state been effective? Do you have any information on whether the number of people suffering from this kind of fraud has declined?

Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, I do have this information. The measures have proved to be effective. Much will have to be done, of course, in this regard. There was a seven-percent decline in the number of crimes of this kind, according to the Interior Ministry, while the damage decreased by 33 percent. Overall, this was quite a positive result.

There is, however, one thing I wanted to point out. I would like to address the citizens of the country. Fraud is still very much an issue. And the more sophisticated our devices are getting, the more sophisticated our life is becoming, the more sophisticated tools scammers use in turn to defraud the citizens. This is why, regardless of the voice you hear, which is especially dangerous considering what artificial intelligence can do, if someone starts talking to you about money, about property, just put down the phone, put down the phone right away! You should not say anything.

If this is about banks and the like, there are people to talk to, people you know. You can get things done by visiting the bank in person. This is the best way.

I advise you against discussing any matters dealing with money or property with anyone.

Dmitry Peskov: Thank you.

Staying in this room, I would like to once again ask journalists to be as concise as possible.

Vladimir Putin: I see a young man holding the Children’s Newsdesk poster. How can we fail to recognise him? Go ahead, please.

Maxim Zakharov: Good afternoon, Mr President.

My name is Maxim Zakharov, I am 13 years old, and I am a correspondent with the Children’s Newsdesk.

Here is my question. You have said recently that you sometimes drive around Moscow incognito. In addition, when we hear you at various meetings or even now, you are very well informed. Here is my question: How do you get to know the most important things, what people really need?

Vladimir Putin: I did not exactly say that I drive around Moscow incognito – that does happen, but very rarely. What I meant is that sometimes I drive without a traffic police escort. Most of the time, that is how it is.

These trips aren’t meaningless; even from the car window, it is interesting to see more than just the road I take between the official residence and Moscow. And when I drive through different parts of the city, it is also quite interesting to observe what is happening around.

As for obtaining reliable information on current events, meetings like this probably provide the best sociological snapshot. How many people are we talking about – two million?

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Two and a half.

Vladimir Putin: 2.5 million.

Pavel Zarubin: 2.7 million.

Vladimir Putin: Can you imagine, Maxim? Two and a half million people reached out through the Direct Line.

Of course, it is impossible to process and respond to all of this during our current session. But since these 2.5 million inquiries reflect people’s most pressing concerns, they will be addressed, in part, with the help of artificial intelligence. My, shall we say, loyal colleagues from the Popular Front will be working on this throughout the year. This provides the most powerful sociological snapshot of both the state of society and the issues that matter most to people. That’s the first point.

Second, of course, intelligence and law enforcement agencies provide various types of information. I try to use it not in a generalised form, but in its original context, so to speak. Meeting with people directly – whether with servicemen from the front, workers, or during trips across the country – is extremely important. Direct communication sparks a certain energy; you immediately begin to sense people’s mood, their needs, and their aspirations.

And, of course, we cannot overlook sociological surveys. I understand that people have different views of them, but it is important to remember that these are primarily professional tools. Average figures can sometimes irritate people because they do not always reflect personal experience. Nevertheless, they are valuable and essential for understanding broader trends and dynamics in the country.

Taken together, these various sources provide a fairly objective picture of what is happening.

Dmitry Peskov: Let’s take a few more questions from the audience.

Yakutia, please.

Oleg Kolesov: Good afternoon, Mr President. Oleg Kolesov, Sakha National Broadcasting Company. We represent the coldest part of the world, Yakutia. Right now, the temperature is −50 degrees. As you know, in a harsh climate, people especially value warmth and unity.

You have declared 2026 the Year of Russian Peoples’ Unity. We all know that the special military operation is where this unity is manifested most clearly. As a military correspondent, I know first-hand that our troops are fighting for the Motherland shoulder to shoulder, regardless of their ethnicity or faith. They wear chevrons that say “I am Russian. God is with us,” regardless of their ethnic background.

What chevron would you wear in the Year of Peoples’ Unity?

Continuing on the theme of unity in culture, a unique Arctic Centre of Epic Literature and Arts will open in Yakutia next year, along with a new building for the Higher School of Music. Both are being built at your instruction. We would like to invite you to attend their opening ceremonies.

Yakutia is also known for its film industry. We are working on a film about Hero of Russia Andrei Grigoryev, callsign Tuta. We hope you will support the production and distribution of this film.

What measures will be taken to support Russia’s ethnic groups in the Year of Peoples’ Unity? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: With regard to supporting ethnic groups, we have a targeted policy of supporting the cultures and languages of Russia’s peoples – in schools, in the media, and in literature.

You have just mentioned various initiatives in Yakutia. The people of Yakutia are very talented. It is no coincidence that this music school is opening there. I often recall my first trip, when I visited a similar music school, which has since expanded, where children from towns and villages, no matter how small, across the republic could enjoy creative activities. The film industry in Yakutia is also thriving. In fact, Yakutia itself is on the rise and growing rapidly. The republic is also sending military personnel to the line of contact who possess exceptional capabilities – perhaps unmatched anywhere in the world.

The film you mentioned will certainly receive support with distribution and so on.

As for the Year of Russian Peoples’ Unity in general, I think we are doing the right thing, especially now during the special military operation, because when a country faces challenges, it closes ranks.

You put it perfectly, and it’s true. What difference does it make to people under fire what faith they belong to? Naran understands this very well, doesn’t he? What does it matter? There’s a joke for such situations: if God exists – and I have no doubt that He does – then He surely doesn’t know that people on earth have divided themselves into different churches. What unites us are our shared values. Those are what matter most – values that are traditional for all the peoples of the Russian Federation. And now, during the special military operation, this is becoming especially evident, prominent, and clear. We see it plainly.

This just reminded me of something. We were discussing the reports on the capture of Seversk. You may recall that the commander of one of the brigades was in my office. After the briefing, the videoconference ended, and I began talking with him about the situation in his sector of the front, and about certain welfare issues affecting the soldiers. Suddenly he said to me, “You know, I feel guilty.” I asked, “Why?” He said, “I’m here, while my comrade, the commander of a neighbouring brigade fighting alongside me, is there. We’re discussing basic supplies and state decorations, but believe me, he is just as good and worthy as I am.” I asked, “Who is he?” “He’s from Daghestan,” he said, “a representative of a small ethnic group there. But he is a true warrior, a Russian patriot, and an excellent commander.” I said, “I know. But you can’t all leave the front. You are here now because the group commander decided so; he sent you. Someone has to hold the front. Tell you what – let’s try calling him.”

I went to the phone and, through military channels, located this second brigade commander right at his forward command post. I spoke with him briefly, then handed the phone to the brigade commander who was in my office. And here is what was so remarkable. It’s a common way for men to address each other, but when it comes from real officers, frontline fighters, it carries a special weight. He took the phone and said, “Hello, brother!” In that moment, it was incredibly powerful. This is where the unity of the peoples of the Russian Federation truly manifests itself. And we will strengthen this unity further. We will do everything to foster and cement it.

Thank you for your question.

Dmitry Peskov: Let’s have one more question from the audience before we return to our moderators. I see a sector that has been idling – the man in a blue jacket in the first row. Please introduce yourself.

Vladimir Seroukhov: Good afternoon. My name is Vladimir Seroukhov, the RBC radio and television channel. There will be many changes in the tax sphere next year. It is clear that their goal is to generate additional revenue for the budget. What financial effect do you expect to see? And will there be any relaxations once this goal is achieved? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, this is a difficult issue. It was discussed for a long time within the Government and the Presidential Executive Office. Ultimately, as I have pointed out, it was decided that the best and most honest and transparent way to address our problems, including in the financial sphere, is to raise the VAT rate. Is this what you were referring to? The goal is simple, as I said in my opening remarks: to balance the budget. Overall, we have achieved this, as I have said, including thanks to that decision.

Of course, certain issues remain, and the Government must take them into account. We have talked about them many times. When the tax burden grows, when taxes are increased, this creates a temptation to evade taxes. Our task has been and remains to eliminate the shadow economy, to prevent businesses from going into the shadows and evading taxes. This is a challenging task. We must create conditions in which higher taxes do exist only on paper but actually translate into budget revenues.

I have taken your hint about this being permanent. No, of course it won’t. Our ultimate goal is to reduce the tax burden in the future, and the Government is acting with this goal in mind. I pin my hopes on this as well.

Pavel Zarubin: This year we have received an exceptionally large number of questions from self-employed people and private entrepreneurs. There are millions of them across the country, and tax changes are therefore a matter of concern for a huge number of people.

We have received a MAX message from Denis Maksimov from Lyubertsy. Let’s try to connect with him by video, if this is technically possible.

Mr Maksimov, can you hear us? Ask your question.

Vladimir Putin: Excuse me for a moment. (Writes down a question from a text message.) “When will government agencies start regulating fish prices to make them affordable for the people?”

You know, government regulation of prices in the market is a complicated and very dangerous matter, because products tend to disappear as soon as we start regulating prices and issuing plans. That is what usually happens in a market economy.

On the other hand, regulation is necessary in some spheres, such as essential medicines. There is a price ceiling beyond which prices must not be raised. But applying such a measure to ordinary consumer goods is extremely complicated.

That said, there is one thing you are right about: our people don’t eat enough fish. There are established norms for fish consumption, and we are still below them.

I believe we should find a different solution. We must improve logistics to ensure that fish products from the Far East can reach European Russia as cheaply as possible. We must improve transport links. We should also discuss taxation in this sector. We must create conditions for the construction of fishing vessels, and so on. There are many issues that should bring about the desired result.

Pavel Zarubin: A video call, right?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, please.

Pavel Zarubin: Mr Maksimov, if you can hear us, please go ahead with your question.

Denis Maksimov: Good afternoon, Mr President.

My name is Denis Maksimov, and I’m from Kraskovo in the Lyubertsy District. We run a small family business, a bakery. For about eight years, we have been operating under the convenient patent tax system. Starting next year, however, we will be required to pay income tax and VAT. This means we will need to hire a professional accountant, which will result in additional expenses for us.

We fully understand that the country is in a difficult situation at the moment and that raising taxes is necessary. However, in my view, it would be far more effective for both the state and individual entrepreneurs if the cost of patents was simply increased – two, three, four, or even five times – depending on turnover, for example. As things stand, the situation is tough, and honestly, we don’t look to the future with much optimism. Many businesses may close or move underground.

Could you please advise us on how to navigate this situation, given the drastic changes to tax legislation?

Vladimir Putin: Mr Maksimov, is that your bakery in the background?

Denis Maksimov: Yes.

Vladimir Putin: Mashenka. And who is it named after, with such a lovely name, Mashenka?

Denis Maksimov: My eldest daughter.

Vladimir Putin: You make delicious buns? What do you have there?

Denis Maksimov: I hope they are delicious.

Vladimir Putin: Mr Maksimov, regarding your question, here’s the background. Initially, various measures were introduced to support individual entrepreneurs and small businesses. More recently, however, the Government has identified problems, particularly in trade, both among individual entrepreneurs and small businesses. These measures and business formats have sometimes been used for the uncontrolled import of “grey” and “black” goods. That’s where the problem arose. But this does not mean that production businesses should face difficulties. I will certainly bring this matter to the attention of the Government and the relevant agencies.

Regarding accounting, I would note that you do not necessarily need to incur significant additional expenses to set up an accounting department. Many major financial institutions now offer a range of banking and accounting services. You could, for example, consult Sberbank – they should be able to help you organise this work without seriously disrupting your business or creating a heavy financial burden.

But you are absolutely right on one point: production business must not suffer because of the transition to a new tax system. I assure you that this issue will be brought to the Government’s attention.

In any case, I wish every success to you, your [bakery] Mashenka, your daughter, and your business with such a sweet name. I sincerely wish you all the best!

Perhaps you could even send me some of your tasty stuff?

Denis Maksimov: With pleasure.

Vladimir Putin: And I, for my part, will work with the Government to support your business and others like it.

Thank you very much.

Denis Maksimov: Thank you.

Pavel Zarubin: Incidentally, there was a news alert just now saying that the Central Bank has revised its key interest rate down to 16 percent. We are getting there.

Vladimir Putin: You know, the Central Bank, of course, is under constant pressure. The high interest rate is a very controversial matter. The difference between it and the inflation rate… By the end of the year, as I have said, inflation will be under six percent at 5.7˗5.8 percent, or maybe 5.6 percent, while the interest rate remains unchanged at 16 percent. Experts expected a cut of up to one percentage point.

According to the law, the Bank of Russia is an independent institution, so I try not to interfere with its decisions and to shield it from any outside influence or pressure. Overall, the Bank of Russia has not only succeeded in delivering on its mandate, but has been quite diligent and responsible in this regard.

In late 2024 and at the beginning of this year, we had conversations with the Central Bank Governor, with senior Government officials and the cabinet’s economic block, saying that we had to make a decision on targeting inflation and to do everything to ensure that the Russian economy and the macroeconomic situation are sustainable and robust and that the national economy remains on a solid footing. The fact that there is this gap between the inflation rate and the key interest rate offers the Central Bank’s critics an angle of attack.

What is the problem here? In fact, there are quite a few challenges, and one of them, as I have already said, or as I will say, if I have not mentioned this until this point, is the slowing investment activity. It decreased by 3.1 percent in the first three quarters. But what matters for the Central Bank is not this substantial decline but the fact that lending remains quite high. The number of issued loans has not been decreasing all that much. It did decline, but only marginally. This compels the Bank of Russia to exercise extreme caution in order to avert any inflation spikes so that it does not have to make any moves in the opposite direction. These back-and-forth oscillations are the worst thing you can imagine. The Bank of Russia is seeking to ensure stability in this regard, which is important, of course. We cannot agree more.

Is a cut of half a percentage point enough? I will not share any assessments at this point, leaving it up to experts. We have many prominent specialists – let them draw the corresponding conclusions. There will also be a response from the real economy. I can even anticipate how they will respond. That said, we have yet to see what comes of it all.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Mr President, official inflation is one thing, but the so-called perceived inflation is somewhat different. We receive a substantial amount of correspondence about this. We also do our own shopping and see how everything is getting more expensive. What can be said? You often refer to it as the “ballpark figure” – approximately six percent. Indeed, people write complaining that everything is getting more expensive, and prices are growing like mad.

Pavel Zarubin: Maxim Volkov from Chapayevsk in the Samara Region: “Why has everything become so expensive? Even the price of chicken has almost doubled. I am a father of three. I work, making 50,000 rubles, but even so, I cannot meet their needs or feed them properly.”

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Or take these various appeals, for example. Here is one from the Rostov Region – clearly written by a child, as it states they are under 18: “Hello! Why are the prices for food and buns in the canteen going up, while my parents’ salaries aren’t?”

Vladimir Putin: I have already mentioned that when people see average indicators, these average figures often raise questions, because as a rule, they do not match what a person encounters in daily life.

For instance, we say inflation will come down. That means prices will go down, and it will be at about 5.7–5.8 percent. However, food inflation, especially in certain categories, may be higher – and it is higher – and this depends on the food basket a person uses. If that food basket consists largely of protein products like chicken, then naturally, this impacts the family budget. There is certainly nothing good about that.

At the same time, I would note that last year, or the year before, we were critically assessing the actions of our colleagues in the Government when the price of eggs suddenly spiked. Now, prices are not just falling – they have dropped by over ten percent, almost 16 percent. These are also important factors. Nevertheless, without any doubt, we must closely monitor the situation in every segment and across every demographic group.

As for families with children: the family must be at the centre of everything here, and we are striving for that. I would like to emphasise that additional measures to support families with children will come into effect from January 1 next year. For example, out of the 13 percent personal income tax paid, in families with modest incomes – less than one and a half times the subsistence minimum per person – seven percent, that is, the larger part, will be returned to the family. I hope this will be a real way to support families with children. By the way, if a family’s income, correct me if I’m wrong, is below one and a half times the subsistence minimum, then additional support equivalent to one subsistence minimum is provided for each child.

I am not even mentioning other components of support for families with children. Naturally, this is not enough. We all realise, of course, that this is not enough. But what is to be done? First, we will continue to refine this system of family support, because state policy, both at the federal and regional levels, should revolve around this.

Second, we will, of course, strive to increase salary levels, to ensure that incomes, especially for families with children, do not fall. When labour incomes rise, the state must under no circumstances reduce these support measures, which, unfortunately, is what happens now. This is a well-known problem: a family with children receives certain benefits and support, then their earnings rise, and the state cuts back the benefits it had been providing. Therefore, when earnings rise, the family’s total income, including benefits, must not decrease.

I return to this issue once again and ask the Government to pay the closest attention to it. It makes no sense to do otherwise, because the budget gains nothing from it – it cannot gain – and we only discourage people from working.

Dmitry Peskov: Let’s return to the audience for a few more questions. We haven’t covered that sector yet. I see Tyumen. Tyumen, please pass the microphone.

Kristina Smirnova: Good afternoon, everyone. Kristina Smirnova, Tyumen Time television channel, Tyumen.

I have a question about the unusual object, 3I/ATLAS, that’s currently approaching. According to forecasts, later today, on December 19, this object – which some speculate is a spacecraft with an engine and others say is simply a comet – will make its closest approach to Earth. My question is: what are the intelligence services and Roscosmos telling you? Are there any genuine signs of the object’s artificial origin? As far-fetched as it may sound, there are a lot of theories circulating. And while we in Tyumen – Russia’s thermal capital – are ready to welcome any guests, if they are guests from space, we’d like to be prepared.

Secondly, is the date of our news conference today connected to this forecast? This is the first time we’re holding our year-end review on a Friday. Thank you.

Pavel Zarubin: Mr President, they’re actually asking you here to wink if you know that aliens exist, but it’s classified. That’s what it says. Go on, wink if you know.

Vladimir Putin: Kristina, is that your name? I’ll tell you, but this must stay strictly between us. It’s classified information. It’s our secret weapon, but we will only use it as a last resort. Because we are, in principle, against the placement of weapons in space.

But in all seriousness, it is a comet. Our scientists understand what’s happening with it. Moreover, this comet is of extragalactic origin, so it behaves differently from comets within our own galaxy. It has a different composition, and as it approaches the Sun, slightly different processes occur on its surface and within its dust tail, which makes certain aspects appear unusual. But it’s quite large, somewhere between 2 and 6 kilometres, I believe. Just consider this: the Moon is about 400,000 kilometres away. The object you’re asking about is hundreds of millions of kilometres away. I don’t believe it poses any threat to us. We’ll send it on its way to Jupiter. Early next year, it will leave the Solar System entirely.

Dmitry Peskov: Thank you. Let’s continue.

Pavel Zarubin: So, no winking then.

Vladimir Putin: I’ll wink just for you.

Now, let’s turn to Belarus. Please.

Viktoria Senkevich: Thank you very much, Mr President, for this opportunity. Viktoria Senkevich, Channel One News, Belteleradiocompany.

Belarus and Russia have synchronised their policies so well that we are also holding a major event these days, the All-Belarusian People’s Assembly. Our President says: “Belarus and Russia must be together.” You must have heard this. Let’s also build a bridge together, Belarus and Russia. It is not the first time we have done this. We actually rely on Russia’s strength. Oreshnik is to be put on combat alert in Belarus these days. Thank you for bringing tactical nuclear weapons back to us. For some reason, not everybody likes our union. It is odd. One day Lithuania closes its border, another day Poland. One day they are planning to build a training ground, another day they are planning to steal or, as you say, rob us of our property. Belarus has been affected by this, too. My question is, what do you think about the actions of these “European swine underlings”? Thank you for the new diplomatic term. How will Russia respond to threats at the western borders of our shared home, the Union State?

Vladimir Putin: As for the term, I blurted it out when I was talking to a military audience. I did not mean anybody specific. In fact, I never engage in ad hominem attacks. It is not something I ever do. I was talking about a group of people in general, “an indefinite number of persons,” as lawyers say. And some of them may be long gone or irrelevant. It is ancient history. But it is unimportant. What is important is our relations.

I watched the Belarusian President’s remarks at the National Assembly yesterday. I must congratulate him: it was a very emotional, memorable and substantive address. I want to thank him for his review of Russia-Belarus relations in their current state.

As concerns security, we deal with these issues both on a bilateral basis and within the CSTO. You have mentioned Oreshnik. Alexander Lukashenko spoke yesterday about the deployment of Russian tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus. We hold regular military exercise and have created a grouping of forces. Our defence ministries maintain very close cooperation. The security of the Union State is in safe hands of our military and it will be guaranteed, there is no doubt.

Dmitry Peskov: Since we already had Belarus, I think that we can invite our guests from NBC to ask their question.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, please.

Dmitry Peskov: Pass the microphone, please.

Keir Simmons: Keir Simmons from NBC News.

Mr President, I want to ask you about relations with President Trump and the United States.

President Trump has a peace deal on the table. Ukraine is offering enormous compromises, yet you continue to talk of war.

Mr President, if you reject President Trump’s peace offer, will you be responsible for the deaths of Ukrainians and Russians in 2026?

Vladimir Putin: We do not believe that we bear any responsibility for human casualties because we were not the ones who started this war. It followed a government coup in Ukraine – the unconstitutional government coup in 2014, followed by the effort by the leaders of the Kiev regime to unleash combat operations against their own people in southeastern Ukraine.

We refrained from recognising the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics as independent states for quite a long time. But when we got misled and the other side failed to fulfil the Minsk Agreements, we had no other option left than to use our armed forces for putting an end to the war unleashed by the Kiev regime with the support of Western countries.

President Trump has been serious about ending this conflict. He said that he was absolutely sincere in his efforts. Moreover, during the meeting with Trump in Anchorage, we coordinated and came really close to accepting President Trump’s proposals.

Therefore, it would be totally wrong and groundless to claim that we reject something.

During preliminary meetings in Moscow, some proposals were made to us, and we were asked to make certain accommodations. When I arrived in Anchorage, I said that those would be difficult decisions for us, but we are still in agreement with this trade-off proposed to us.

So saying that we reject anything is inappropriate and groundless. The ball is entirely in the court of our Western “opponents,” so to speak, primarily the chiefs of the Kiev regime and, most importantly, their European sponsors. We are ready for talks, and we are ready to conclude the conflict by peaceful means.

Dmitry Peskov: Let’s take a couple more questions from the audience. Let’s continue.

Thank you very much, thank you.

Let’s go to Belgorod, please.

Anna Rudchenko: Good afternoon, Mr President.

Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon.

Anna Rudchenko: My name is Anna Rudchenko, Belgorod State Television and Radio Company.

First, I have to say we would be delighted if you could find an opportunity to visit us. We will always welcome you.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you.

Anna Rudchenko: Today, in frontline regions like Belgorod, reliable communication is one of the most urgent and painful issues. It’s essential for attack alerts and drone warnings. It allows children to continue their education remotely. And for some, it’s a lifeline. Children with diabetes have glucose sensors connected to smartphones so parents can monitor their levels. Without mobile internet, that system glitches.

We urge you to instruct the Government to add diabetic services to the Ministry of Digital Development’s ‘whitelists,’ so that they function without interruption, like the Gosuslugi portal, even when mobile access is restricted.

And one more point. Thanks to your decision, residents of border areas are receiving federal compensation for homes lost to shelling by the Ukrainian Armed Forces. Thank you very much for that.

But previously, also thanks to your decision, compensation was also provided for the second lost property. That support has now been discontinued. We ask for your help in resolving this compensation issue.

Vladimir Putin: One moment, please. Could you clarify the second part again?

Anna Rudchenko: It’s about a second home. Some people lost both their parents’ house and their own. There aren’t many such families, but they are suffering. People are relocating from unsafe areas, taking on mortgages, and the state compensation isn’t enough. We ask for your help in restoring compensation for the second lost property.

Thank you so much.

Vladimir Putin: Let’s start with where you ended. I give you my word, we will certainly review these cases.

You know, similar issues constantly arise in emergency situations – after fires, floods, accidents. Here, the circumstances are even more severe. In principle, such matters have been addressed in disaster relief efforts before. They can be resolved here as well, and we will do so. That’s the first point.

Second, regarding services: for children’s schooling, for monitoring diabetic sensors, and so on. As I understand, the issue isn’t access to the medication itself, but the ability to monitor whether it’s being taken on time. Is that correct?

Anna Rudchenko: When the internet is down, the sensors don’t transmit data.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, yes, I understand. Without a connection, it’s impossible for parents to monitor their child’s condition. And here, of course, we have to weigh this against the necessary security restrictions, which serve to minimise the risk of air and drone strikes. Because if the servers for these services are located abroad, then, regrettable as it is, it makes target acquisition easier for the enemy. That’s the reality we are facing today.

But there are two ways to resolve this problem: first, to migrate to domestic software and hardware platforms, which many services are already using. And second, we can work with foreign manufacturers operating here to negotiate transferring these specific services to servers within the Russian Federation. In any case, work must be done on both fronts.

Anna Rudchenko: Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Please, hold back your placards. Thank you for displaying this humble attitude.

Zeljko Sain: Good afternoon,

My name is Zeljko Sain, and I work for Politika, a Serbian newspaper. Thank you for offering me an opportunity to ask a question. My Russian is not very good – sorry for that, but I think you understand me.

You have embarked on an effort to bring relations between the Russian Federation and the United States back to normal. If we take a general view of the latest developments, we will see that Russian companies operating in Serbia, including NIS, are facing sanctions. What would be your comment in this regard, and what can the people of Serbia expect?

I have another question [about the meeting with Donald Trump in Alaska, a new security framework and Russia-NATO cooperation].

Can we expect any future cooperation so that we can live normal lives without wars? I hope that next year, when we meet again, we will be talking about peace, not war.

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you for your question.

We also want to live in peace free from any military conflicts next year. Let me reiterate that this is what we really want. We strive to resolve all disputes through negotiations.

Of course, and I think you will agree with us on this point, we must address the root causes of the conflict so that nothing of this kind happens again, so that the peace is lasting and durable. This is what we will seek to achieve.

As for our cooperation with NATO, there used to be a time when we worked with them. It was not a matter of cooperation, but a question of NATO membership, first for the Soviet Union, and later for the Russian Federation. However, in both cases we realised that no one wanted this to happen, and the promises they had given us about refraining from expanding NATO were being ignored. Once again, we were misled with NATO expanding its ranks in several waves. Of course, this effort to move military infrastructure closer to our borders could not fail to cause us concern and still causes serious misgivings.

Of course, against this backdrop, devising a new security framework for Europe is quite timely. There was a time before the dissolution of the Soviet Union when there were smart people in Europe, including the leaders of Germany’s SDP. Take Egon Bahr. An accomplished politician, he went as far as suggest establishing a new security system in Europe without expanding NATO. Instead, it would have included the United States, Eastern European countries and Russia in order to ensure inclusivity without placing anyone in a tight spot.

We are not making any extraordinary requirements. We are not denying any given country the right to choose the way it wants to defend itself, but the way it does it should not pose a threat to anyone, including Russia.

We do not ask for anything that has not been declared before. All we do is insist on having our Western partners fulfil the pledges and obligations they had assumed. After all, they defrauded us, while we want to build a reliable security framework in Europe.

As for NIS, you were right to describe this as a challenge. Unfortunately, the sanctions pressure is still there despite the effort to create an illusion that they want to improve our relations. This is part of power politics, which applies to Gazprom Neft, among others. It owns NIS and has invested generously in this company. This investment has already exceeded US$3 billion, which helped turn NIS into an advanced and effective enterprise. It is the main contributor to Serbian budget.

We know what is happening in this context. Russia signed an intergovernmental agreement with Serbia regarding any restrictions against this private entity. Of course, we expect our friendly Serbian leaders to take this into account and deliver on their commitments. Otherwise, this puts into question the possibility of investing in this economy. What are the safeguards if even an intergovernmental agreement fails to deliver? That said, we do have a sense of how and in what direction we can move forward together. There is an ongoing dialogue in Serbia with our friends there on this topic. We hope to be able to find a suitable solution.

Pavel Zarubin: I would like to revisit the issue you have already partly addressed, but if possible, to revisit it once again, because there are numerous appeals regarding the fairness of child benefit calculations. Moreover, it is large families who reach out most often. Parents work hard, doing their best for their children, but as soon as such a family finds itself just 100 rubles above the so-called eligibility criteria, they cease to qualify for support or benefits.

Let’s try to call Gulnara Bayazitova via video link – she also sent us this question. Gulnara, if you can hear us, please go ahead with your question.

Gulnara Bayazitova: Good afternoon, Mr President. And happy upcoming New Year to you!

This is the village of Abalak in the Tyumen Region. My husband and I work in the public sector: I’m a preschool teacher assistant with a salary of 27,000 rubles, and my husband is a driver earning 50,000 to 80,000 rubles, commuting to work in the city. We have six children and are expecting another baby.

We participate in all competitions, all events – we’re an active family, each of us – the children, me, my husband – has a golden GTO [Ready for Labour and Defence] badge. But I’ve been a mother of many children for 11 years, and in all that time, I’ve only once met the criteria for receiving benefits. Last month, we were 100 rubles over the threshold, and in November, it was 259 rubles. Because of this, as a large family, we get no benefits at all: no transport passes, no school meals, no summer camps – nothing is available to us as a large family, not even subsidies for utility bills – nothing.

We’d like some support – because, truly, six children is a lot. We both work, we work very, very hard, taking on extra jobs, keeping a small homestead, raising chickens. We’d just like a little more help from the state.

Vladimir Putin: Yes. Gulnara, I’ve broadly touched on this issue earlier while responding to similar questions. I completely agree with you. You’ve just said that when you work harder and your earnings increase, state support immediately shrinks – the assistance you received when your earnings were lower is abruptly reduced. It ends up making work seem pointless – it discourages people from working.

But I think this is a mistake on the part of the Government. I strongly believe the Ministry of Finance and the entire Government leadership will hear what we’re discussing now. There is simply no saving to be made here, and attempting to generate revenue at the expense of large families is immoral. I agree with you. My colleagues will certainly look into this, and I hope the matter will be resolved.

I want you and all other citizens who struggle with paying utility bills to know that the general approach is that if utility bill payments exceed 22 percent of a family’s aggregate income, the state is under obligation to step in and cover everything above the 22-percent mark. I’m not sure whether you are aware of this. Are you?

Gulnara Bayazitova: Yes, I am aware of all the benefits.

Vladimir Putin: Use them.

Gulnara Bayazitova: But everyone is looking at income.

Vladimir Putin: Yes. In some regions… Moscow is a relatively rich region. Here in Moscow, as far as I know, help from the regional authorities starts not at 22 percent, but at ten percent. Regional authorities must continue this work, and the federal government should not forget about it either.

Our entire policy is built around supporting families with children. I ask the regional authorities, our colleagues in the regions to always keep this in mind. Anything the state plans to do – and I have said that many times – must first be assessed in terms of how it will affect the lives and incomes of families with children.

With regard to your most important question about state support measures getting cut when income increases – we will do everything to resolve it.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Mr President, I have something to add to this on behalf of working mothers. I think Gulnara can hear us and will hear my question as well.

In our country, child allowances are paid until the child is 18 months old. Many mothers wrote to us saying that at this age, children are not admitted to kindergartens, many are not ready to let their children attend nurseries, and nurseries are often not even available, so they ask to extend allowances until the child is three years old.

Such requests abound. Here is one from the Stavropol Territory, “Why is this allowance paid only until the child is 18 months old? A mother remains on maternity leave until the child is three. There are no nurseries where we live,” Yulia Petkova explains. “Most kindergartens accept children from the age of three, and once your child is admitted you start getting one sick leave after another,” this mother accurately notes. “Employer will not tolerate such employees, and will fire them, Please extend eligibility for child allowances until the age of three.” We have been flooded by such requests.

Vladimir Putin: The appeals are well grounded, and you’ve framed the question correctly. Allowances are paid until the child is 18 months old, but they are not paid from 18 months to three years of age. We need to be frank and honest about this: it’s purely a matter of budget constraints. There are no other explanations, that’s the only reason.

However, the Government will, of course, have to consider how to resolve this issue comprehensively.

Now, regarding nurseries, kindergartens, and letting mothers return to work – that is yet another way of resolving this issue. And here, too, not all the problems have been solved. We have accomplished a great deal in renovating schools through a very extensive programme. A programme for renovating kindergartens is currently underway. And I would like my colleagues in the regions to take note: when tackling kindergarten renovations, it would be sensible to address the creation of nurseries at the same institutions. That is the first point.

Secondly – also seemingly simple but requiring additional attention and, of course, funding – is the need to extend the daily hours a child can spend in a kindergarten or nursery. For example, not just until 6 pm, but longer.

This, in turn, will require increasing the number of teachers and caregivers. That means recruiting more staff and creating additional positions in these institutions. This is the direction we must take.

And, of course, the Government must examine how to close this support gap for children between 18 months and three years old.

Overall, we do have a fairly well-structured system of support for motherhood, childhood, and families with children. For instance, motherhood benefits are provided continuously from pregnancy until the child turns 18. Furthermore, if a child continues full-time education after turning 18, the benefit support for the family is extended until they reach the age of 23.

Large families also require special attention. For example, the status of Mother Heroine has been elevated. A holder of the Mother Heroine title now receives the same range of benefits as a Hero of Labour. That is the first part. Another one has to do with the pension calculations. Previously, women with large families could receive pension points for having three children, that is, only the first three children were taken into account.

A new decision has been made and is coming into force: now, when calculating pensions, pension points will be added not just for the first three children, but for all subsequent children as well. That is a positive step. I hope this measure will also be effective, but the Government, and the state as a whole, must, of course, continue to develop and implement a system of support measures for families with children.

Dmitry Peskov: Let’s now take a couple of questions from the audience. We have already been working for two hours without noticing.

Vladimir Putin: We’ve got Kazan here. Let’s go to Kazan. You wanted to ask something about Islam, didn’t you ?

Artur Khalilullov: Mr President, good afternoon.

Vladimir Putin: Isänmesez! [“Hello” in Tatar.]

Artur Khalilullov: Thank you very much for the opportunity to ask a question. Artur Khalilullov, Tatar-Inform, Kazan. In 2026, as you probably know, Kazan will be the cultural capital of the Islamic world. This decision was made at the Conference of Ministers of Culture of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) member states. Generally speaking, we know that Russia has been consistently improving relations with the Islamic world and the Global South in recent years. Rustam Minnikhanov in Tatarstan, and the republic in general, are also actively promoting this agenda alongside the Russian Foreign Ministry, as well as within the framework of the Russia – Islamic World strategic vision group.

I have two questions. In your view, what should be the key priorities in Russia’s mutual relations with the Islamic world? And my second question: Can it be said that Muslims around the world look to Kazan, Tatarstan, and Russia and see this model as an example of what Islam should be in the modern world? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: The Islamic world is very diverse, just like the Christian world – we both know this well. But I am confident that the example set by Tatarstan is undoubtedly highly positive.

Many of my colleagues from countries with predominantly Muslim populations have noted this and are looking at the positive experience of coexistence among people of different ethnicities and religions, which Tatarstan demonstrates.

I would like to congratulate everyone – this all began with Tatarstan’s first leader, and now Rustam Minnikhanov is actively continuing this work. It is no coincidence, I think, that the capital of Tatarstan has been chosen as the host for major future international events under the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation. Russia is an observer state there. By the way, I was the one who initiated Russia’s observer status. I once reached out to my colleagues so that Russia could become an observer in the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation.

You know, this was done with great enthusiasm by all our friends and colleagues, representatives of Islamic countries. I watched with delight as this happened. It was very gratifying for me. This was a very, very long time ago, but it was absolutely the right decision on our part. More than 10 percent of our population are Muslims. This is also… But I will not – alright, I will not go into what the Patriarch told me on this subject. In general, our Orthodoxy is Eastern Christianity, and in terms of all our major traditional values, we are fully aligned.

What is being done in Tatarstan across these domains – spiritual, educational, academic… The establishment of an academy in Tatarstan is a very important decision, especially considering that we must train Islamic scholars within our own territory. Moreover, the same developments are taking place in Bashkortostan. Just as we have supported, we intend to continue supporting all traditional religions in the Russian Federation.

Artur Khalilullov: One more question, Mr President. We also have the annual KazanForum, and this platform grows year by year. I would like to know if you plan to attend the KazanForum this year.

Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: You know, we have divided responsibilities among colleagues: I usually attend the Far Eastern Forum or the one in St Petersburg, while the Prime Minister attends the forum in Sochi – so as not to gather the same people repeatedly but to involve representatives from different levels of government. Nevertheless, this forum is very important, and we will certainly support it, as it is another thread connecting us with our friends and allies in the Arab world and the Islamic world as a whole – and, without exaggeration, with the Global South.

Dmitry Peskov: Thank you.

(Addressing Artur Khalilullov.) You ended up asking three questions, you know. Friends, let’s respect one another.

Our guests from China, Xinhua, please.

Liu Kai: Good afternoon, Mr President,

My name is Liu Kai, and I represent Xinhua News Agency.

As you have repeatedly stated, China-Russia relations are at their highest point ever. This year alone, you and President Xi Jinping have met twice, and next year, we will celebrate two major milestones: the 30^th anniversary of the strategic partnership and cooperation between China and Russia, and the 25^th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Good-Neighbourliness, Friendship, and Cooperation.

My question is: How do you assess the achievements of China-Russia strategic cooperation over the past 30 years, and how do you see its development over the next three decades?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: First, I would say that I consider President Xi Jinping to be a reliable friend, a stable partner – my reliable friend and stable partner – and Russia’s ally. This is the most crucial foundation for the development of Russia-China relations; they are progressing steadily.

Obviously, the agreements you mentioned as well as the efforts to maintain the strategic partnership are indeed significant, yet the most essential aspect is the practical cooperation between us – the actual, hands-on collaboration across all sectors.

As we have already mentioned, the figures on trade differ slightly between China and Russia, but the total turnover is somewhere between US$240 and US$250 billion. This is lower than the total trade between the EU and China, but when it comes to country-to-country cooperation, Russia ranks first among European states.

China’s overall trade with the EU stands at some US$700 billion, while the turnover with Russia is around US$240 to US$250 billion. But once again, in terms of bilateral cooperation, Russia ranks first among the European nations. Of course, globally, China’s trade with the United States, Japan, and South Korea is larger – but in Europe, Russia takes the top spot for country-to-country cooperation.

These relations continue to grow and expand into a wide range of areas. I am particularly pleased to see progress in high-tech manufacturing, science, education, humanitarian exchange, and space exploration. Our cooperation in these fields reflects the strong level of trust between our nations. We also cooperate in the military sphere, conducting regular joint military exercises and patrols involving strategic aviation, naval forces, and ground troops.

All of this underscores that Russia-China relations are a significant factor driving global stability, as I have stated on many occasions before and would like to emphasise once again. On the international stage, our foreign ministries are in constant contact, coordinating our agendas.

So, I am hopeful that we will further develop relations with our Chinese friends in this manner for the short and long term.

Dmitry Peskov: Let us take another question from the audience.

Yevgenia Volgina: I am Yevgenia Volgina, a host at the Govorit Moskva (Moscow Speaking) radio station.

I have a question regarding demographics in general.

You have repeatedly stated that the birth rate in the country is declining, despite ongoing regular financial support measures such as benefits, payments, incentives, and other forms of assistance. At the same time, there is currently a relatively small generation of women of childbearing age, and demographers are debating when the population decline will reverse.

Meanwhile, many young people are primarily focused on building a career and creating a financial safety cushion, while some are simply afraid to have children.

This leads directly to two questions.

First, what additional financial incentives do you view as new measures that might be introduced to encourage young people to start families and have children?

Second, perhaps now is the time to speak with young people about how important it is to stop postponing family life, and encourage them instead to have children and not be afraid? In other words, to take a value-based approach.

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: This is an issue faced by all post-industrial countries – virtually all major economies. The same trend is occurring everywhere, and in certain states the situation is truly alarming. For example, in Japan the birth rate is 0.8, while in South Korea it is 0.7. To clarify, the birth rate refers to the average number of children per woman of childbearing age.

In our country, this figure has also declined slightly and now stands around 1.4, whereas we need to reach at least two. This is an extremely challenging task. Naturally, a great deal depends on the financial situation of families. A family should not experience a drop in income when a child is born; this is a very important factor. For that reason, I will not go over the efforts that are already underway; there is a wide scope of measures in place. As I mentioned earlier, benefits are provided starting from pregnancy and continuing until the child turns 18. Additional support has been introduced in certain regions; a couple of years ago we allocated 75 billion rubles to assist the territories where fertility rates require special attention, and so on. I have mentioned raising the status of mothers with many children, called Mother Heroine in Russia, among other initiatives. There is support for family mortgages, and we still need to continue working on the six-percent mortgage programme. We have discussed – and will continue to do – every possible effort to encourage young people to start families and have children as early as possible.

This is indeed a very delicate process, but everyone is aware of it. Young people, and particularly women, first seek to obtain education, then uplevel it, take their first career steps, and by the time they do all that, they already turn 30 and only just have their first child. After that, they often lack the strength or energy for a second child, and so on. Naturally, it needs to become trendy, so that people see and feel the joy of motherhood and the joy of fatherhood.

I want to get back to Naran Ochir-Goryaev again: he has been taking part [in the special military operation] for four years now and has four children. You know, everyone learns primarily from their own experience, even though there are constant calls to learn from the experience of others – we keep saying this in every field and in life in general, but still people usually learn from their own experience; only after they have to grapple with something really concrete, they actually start reflecting and drawing conclusions, thinking if they should have done this or that differently.

I am recalling something now, and I believe I have even spoken about it publicly before. At my most recent meeting with large families, there was a woman whose family had, I think, nine or ten children. She said something very kind and truly wonderful, words that have stayed with me. She said: “You know, we now have ten children, but every time a new child was born even when we already had five or six, we immediately thought, ‘How did we ever live without you?’” This kind of reflection captures a person’s state of mind, their attitude towards their children, and their understanding of their own happiness in being a mother or a father. Translating this feeling to others is not an easy task. But it is something we all must do.

I am addressing this audience, your colleagues, representatives of the media, and cultural figures because they are all talented people. They create good films, stage performances, write books, and see their works brought to the stage. I ask you, please, to always keep this in mind and to frame everything you talk about, write about, and show in a way that promotes fatherhood and childhood.

The material aspect is essential – but what matters even more is a person’s state of mind as well as their understanding of simple human happiness.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Mr President, there is an interesting story related to this. A young lady has turned to us. She is choosing self-fulfilment while being afraid of missing the ideal age for becoming a mother because she is a med student. And as we know, a new measure has been adopted this year, requiring med students to work off their state-funded residency. This requirement applies directly to her.

I suggest listening to a video message. But overall, there are many such messages, with young people still not fully aware of the way their lives would be organised.

Vladimir Putin: Excuse me for interrupting. When you asked your question, I noted that there is one positive aspect for us. Positive demographic trends have emerged in 25 regions of the Russian Federation, which indicates that our colleagues at the local level, in the regions, are making substantial progress in case they focus on this issue. This is particularly true for demography, a challenging but crucial area for our country. So, 25 regions of Russia are already showing positive demographic trends.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Let us now watch the video message.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, please, go ahead.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Here is Alina Gamazina from Kemerovo.

Vladimir Putin: Please, go ahead.

Alina Gamazina: Good afternoon, Mr President,

I am a fifth-year medical student at Kemerovo University, enrolled in a targeted programme. I am prepared to work in my region following graduation. However, I am facing a dilemma: my mandatory years of work will fall between the ages of 27 and 31, which is the perfect time for having children and starting a family. Unfortunately, my schedule, workload, and the low salaries for young professionals make this very tough. I would like to ask whether there are any special conditions in place or planned that would allow combining work with motherhood, without penalties or disruptions to my work experience? Perhaps there is financial or housing support for young medical professionals? Because, in the current situation, we either lose young professionals to other regions, or we face demographic challenges. How can the state help us achieve both goals of having children and working under a targeted programme?

Vladimir Putin: As regards support for young families with children, we have already discussed this a few times; there is a wide range of measures in place to support families with children.

But when you say that you are in your fifth year and needing to fulfill a service commitment, it is all very clear. I am not sure if it is simple, but at least it is understandable. What is clear is that when someone enters medical residency, starting from March 1 of the following year, a procedure is established: following residency, if they are studying under a state-funded scholarship, they are required to work as a doctor for a certain period in the area where they are assigned.

This period varies depending on the location: in rural areas, it will be shorter, while in larger cities, it will be longer. But it is the individual’s choice: they sign a contract for state-funded education, and then they are obligated to work off the residency they received with state funding. If they do not want to do so, they do not have to sign the contract – and in that case, they can study on a paid basis. Incidentally, in this scenario, a young person can take out an education loan and repay it later, once they have finished their studies and during their professional career.

As for medical students, we are not talking about a mandatory work period after graduation or assignment to a specific city or region. No, this is about the requirement that anyone who has completed or is completing their medical education must work in their specialty for a set period of time in a medical institution that follows the compulsory health insurance regulations. It is about working in their field, regardless of the place of work. I do not think this requirement is excessive.

As for starting a family and having children, that is always a personal choice. You need to assess your circumstances and make your own decision.

But, as I have already mentioned, I do not believe that getting further, additional education, building a career, or reaching a certain income level should be the reasons to delay marriage or delay having children.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: An important clarification here is that this specifically refers to certification for the title of [medical] doctor.

Vladimir Putin: It does. A person graduates from university, and they are not assigned to a remote city, town, or village. They simply need to work in their field at an institution that is covered by the compulsory health insurance system. That is all.

We remember how, in Soviet times, everyone was required to go wherever the state decided. That is no longer the case. Even the proposals and decisions that have been made are quite soft, almost advisory in nature.

Perhaps it would be better if we reach a point where this would not be necessary at all. Obviously, the young lady who asked the question is right. What needs to be done? We need to improve living conditions and resolve housing issues. Overall, the state is doing its best to follow this path. This includes support programmes like Rural Paramedic, Rural Teacher and other. We will, of course, continue and improve these forms of support.

Pavel Zarubin: Students at teacher training colleges are also wondering whether they will face mandatory work assignments later on.

Vladimir Putin: This decision has caused quite a stir. It does not yet apply to students at teacher training colleges, and I believe it is not necessary at this point.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: The floor goes to Dmitry Peskov.

Dmitry Peskov: Let us work with the audience.

I can see Yevgeny Poddubny, also a Hero of Russia, and a military correspondent.

Yevgeny Poddubny: Good afternoon, Mr Putin.

Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon.

Yevgeny Poddubny: I have a question that I believe concerns many people in the regions that have a lot of problems – I mean frontline regions such as Donbass, first of all. The issue of water supply is extremely acute there and has been discussed for many years.

The current situation is such that not only in Donetsk, but also in other cities of Donbass – Gorlovka, Makeyevka, Debaltsevo, and virtually every city in the region – water is supplied irregularly, once every two to four days, and its quality is poor. Residents living above the fifth or sixth floor often receive no water at all due to insufficient pressure.

Strictly speaking, this water blockade is man-made, and we are well aware of it. Its primary cause is the actions of our adversary. However, residents of the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Lugansk People’s Republic have been dealing with this issue for many years. Will it take a long time to fix, or is it still impossible to give a clear answer? Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: Yevgeny, you know very well where this problem originates. The main water intake facilities and the core water supply system are located beyond Slavyansk, in the territory that, unfortunately, remains under enemy control. Under the old system, this issue can be fully resolved only when this territory comes under the control of our Armed Forces.

That said, this is not the only solution; there are other opportunities, as you are certainly aware: constructing water pipelines, searching for water in territories under our control, drilling wells, and so on. One water pipeline has already been built, and the construction of another one is currently under consideration.

A key issue inherited from the past is the level of water loss. Until recently, losses in the existing pipeline systems reached 68 percent. While this figure has been reduced, it still stands at around 50 percent. I have discussed these issues repeatedly with government members as well as with regional authorities. However, addressing water losses means bringing the entire water pipeline system, which was neglected for decades and is now in a state of disrepair, back up to standard. Restoring this system and reducing water losses to a minimum, or ideally to zero, would require funding comparable, according to experts’ reports, to the cost of building another major water pipeline.

But I want us to be heard. Please note that we know about this issue. We are aware of how acute and painful it is for people, and we will make every effort to promptly resolve it.

Dmitry Peskov: Thank you. One more question. I can see BBC, UK. Your question, please.

Steven Rosenberg: Thank you very much. Steven Rosenberg, BBC News.

I have a question about the future – the future of Russia. What future are you planning and building for your country and your people? In this future, will any public disagreement with the official line be punishable by law, as it is now? Will the search for enemies, both external and internal, intensify? Will mobile internet shutdowns become increasingly common across the country? Will there be further special military operations, or will Russia choose a different path?

I remember you saying that our future is in our hands – that is, in the hands of everyone. But essentially, almost all power in Russia is in your hands, which means that, to a large extent, its future is also in your hands. So, what will it be like? What lies ahead? Will it be the continuation of what we are seeing now?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: What will Russia’s future be? Will actions or people who disagree with the authorities be punishable by law, as you put it? You are probably referring to our well-known and frequently criticised law on foreign agents.

Colleague, I would like to point out that this is not our invention. Such laws were adopted in a number of Western countries, including the United States, back in the 1930s. Moreover, all these laws, including the American one, are significantly harsher. They envisage criminal liability, including imprisonment, for political activity funded from abroad.

We have nothing of the kind. Our law requires only one thing: if you are engaged in political activity, you must disclose your sources of funding. There is no repression and no criminal prosecution for this.

Furthermore, if a person ceases political activity or refuses foreign funding for such activities, they are removed from these lists. There are many such examples.

Pavel Zarubin: There is another question: what will happen next with the BBC? There is a multi-billion-dollar lawsuit from the US President against the BBC.

Vladimir Putin: That is their family business; let them sort it out themselves. I do not want to add fuel to the fire or dwell on that topic.

Although, of course, it is an issue of false reporting and manipulation. That is obvious. I believe President Trump is right. But that is not the point here.

You also asked whether there will be new special military operations. There will be none if we are treated with respect and if our interests are taken into account, just as we have consistently tried to take yours into account. But you deceived us, for example, with NATO’s eastward expansion. We were told there NATO would not expand “one inch eastward” – that is a direct quote. And what happened? As they say it here, they simply deceived us and disregarded our security interests.

You – well, of course not you personally, but Western politicians – created the current situation with their own hands and continue to escalate it. They constantly talk about preparing for war with Russia. You have lived here for years, as far as I know. I think even those who speak about war with Russia understand [the absurdity of] this. Are we planning to attack Europe or something? What kind of nonsense is that?

This is being done for internal political reasons in order to create an image of an enemy. And an image of an enemy, Russia in this case, is being deliberately constructed in order to conceal the mistakes that many Western governments have consistently made over the years, both in economy and social policy.

Where is the “green agenda” when coal mines are being reopened? Nuclear power plants were shut down, and now they are being reactivated. Mistake after mistake – yet all of this is being covered up by portraying Russia as a malicious external threat and diverting public attention away from internal failures, shifting it toward the outside world.

Your questions basically follow the same logic. You said that all power is concentrated in my hands. True, there is power vested in the President of the Russian Federation. But the scope and extent of that power are clearly defined and enshrined in the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the fundamental law of our country. For instance, when legislative decisions are made, I do indeed sign laws, as is the case in any country. I cannot recall the exact share in percent, but a significant portion of these laws is initiated by deputies of the State Duma or by members of the upper chamber of parliament, the Federation Council. These are objective facts. Obviously, the President of Russia enjoys extensive powers; but I believe that, under current conditions, a presidential form of government is justified for our country.

I would like to conclude on a different note. We are ready to work with you – with Great Britain, with Europe as a whole, and with the United States – but solely on the basis of equality and mutual respect.

If we ultimately reach such an understanding, everyone will benefit.

I recall a conversation I attended back in 1993, where Helmut Kohl, former Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany, spoke. He said that if Europe wishes to remain an independent centre of civilisation, its future must inevitably be with Russia. We naturally complement one another; together, we could work, develop, and prosper. Without this, Europe would eventually vanish.

Consider this: despite the fact that Russia’s economic growth rate has slowed to around one percent amidst our efforts to curb inflation, Russia still ranks fourth globally in terms of purchasing power parity after China, the United States, and India. Russia is followed by Japan and Germany. The United Kingdom, which you represent, unfortunately ranks only seventh, eighth, or ninth – most likely seventh or eighth, I believe.

If Russia and European nations were to unite their efforts, our combined GDP in terms of purchasing power parity would exceed that of the United States. This is obviously a theoretical calculation. But the underlying reality is clear: by pooling and complementing our capabilities, we would achieve prosperity rather than confrontation. It is not Russia that is fighting you. It is you who are fighting us, through Ukrainian nationalists.

We are ready to stop these hostilities immediately, provided that Russia’s mid- and long-term security interests are guaranteed. And we are ready to cooperate.

Pavel Zarubin: On the whole – and I believe the audience will agree with me – in recent years, we have seen so many statements and actions from European politicians that are simply mind-boggling.

Why do you think we see such rampant support for the Kiev regime in all aspects? Human rights no longer seem to matter and no one speaks about European values anymore – there is just unbridled backing, and, apparently, they are even ready to start confrontation with the President of the United States.

Vladimir Putin: Why is such a policy being pursued – rampant, as you put it? I have just tried to explain this when answering a question from your colleague from BBC. First, they are using this policy to cover up their own mistakes: in foreign policy, economy, finance, and other areas. That is what I believe is happening.

Second, they have gotten themselves into a rut, as we say when talking about bad roads. Once you are stuck in a rut, it is very hard to turn left or right.

As for conflicts with the President of the United States, there is nothing unexpected or surprising here. Why should it surprise anyone? It is all quite clear to me, and I believe it is clear to any observer, even a non-expert. European political elites supported the Democratic Party and Ms Harris in the US presidential election, and they did so quite openly, if not brazenly.

There were once allegations that Russia had intervened in the US presidential election to support Donald Trump. Nothing was ever confirmed; all investigations launched by Congress came to nothing. There was no cooperation and no Russian interference. Yet, European political elites did interfere – and they did so directly. It was obvious, visible, and blatant. Even now, it seems to me that they are counting on a shift in the political landscape after the US congressional midterm elections next autumn. They hope this will bring back their traditional allies, allowing them to exert greater pressure on President Trump. That is why they are acting the way they are, anticipating a change in the US political balance ahead of those elections.

As for certain individuals, they are indeed behaving very aggressively and, in my view, even unprofessionally.

Regarding these aggressive statements – you know, I look at them, and I am surprised too. For instance, I personally know the current NATO Secretary General, Mr Rutte. He is the former Prime Minister of the Netherlands. I once visited the country and spoke with him. He is an intelligent man, and he was a competent, strategically minded, and efficient prime minister. The Dutch economy is in good shape, and this is partly due to his efforts. And what nonsense is he talking now? I just want to ask him: what are you saying about a war with Russia? “We must prepare for war with Russia.” They want to prepare for a war with Russia. But can you even read? Just read the new US National Security Strategy. It says that the United States – let me emphasise – is the key player in NATO. The United States established NATO; it is NATO’s main sponsor. All the main resources come from the US: funding, military technology, weapons, ammunition. That is the foundation of the Alliance.

And yet the new National Security Strategy does not list Russia as an enemy or a target. Nevertheless, the NATO Secretary General is preparing for war with us. How does that make sense? Can you even read? How can NATO aim to go to war with Russia if the Alliance’s leading power does not regard us as an adversary or an enemy?

It seems that the level of professional competence in this position is inadequate. One needs to pay closer attention to their responsibilities and the events unfolding. This applies not only to the NATO Secretary General but to many other Western leaders as well.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Mr President, we have been live for almost three hours now, and we have received three million requests.

Vladimir Putin: Do you want to process all three million?

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: We are striving to do so. And, as is traditional for the final conference of the year, we have a huge number of questions concern housing.

Vladimir Putin: Please go ahead.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: People are sending requests to expand the use of family mortgages for existing housing. Let me remind you that such a programme is already in place.

Vladimir Putin: Family mortgages?

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Yes, family mortgages, but for existing housing.

Vladimir Putin: I understand.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Such a programme does exist; it involves nearly 900 cities, but there are limitations, and they are critical for young families and those with many children. Essentially, they have to move to places where there are new buildings. In many towns and villages, there simply are none.

Let us watch a video message from Yekaterina Yerastova from the Tomsk Region.

Yekaterina Yerastova: Good afternoon, Mr President,

We are a large family from the town of Strezhevoy. We have three children. We would like to use the Family Mortgage programme, but there are no new buildings in our town, and none are being constructed. Those that exist, with apartments suitable for our family, are more than 20 years old. So, we would like to ask you to expand family mortgages to families like ours and to towns like ours.

Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: Is there no such option in your city? Do we have a direct connection?

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: No, this is a recording. This is the town of Strezhevoy, Tomsk Region.

Vladimir Putin: What is the name of the town?

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Strezhevoy. A town of oil workers.

Vladimir Putin: And the region?

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Tomsk.

Vladimir Putin: The Tomsk Region.

Look, this decision – are they listening now?

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: I believe Yekaterina is definitely watching.

Vladimir Putin: The decision has been made. In the regions where no or very little construction is underway to build new housing, family mortgages can be used to purchase housing on the secondary market. Of course, this raises a number of questions and challenges related to construction quality as well as the condition of the buildings being purchased. While a mortgage is being repaid, the housing itself may deteriorate, so people should always be very careful when choosing a property.

You have mentioned that nearly 900 cities are included – around 880, if I remember correctly. If your city is not on this list, we will add it. I would also like to note that just yesterday I discussed this issue with my colleagues in the Government who are responsible for housing construction and support for families with children. When these measures were initially adopted, they were intended to support both families and the construction sector. Why was it so difficult to allow purchases on the secondary market? With new housing, everything is clear as family mortgages stimulate construction activity. But even in the current conditions in locations that permit purchases on the secondary housing market, many questions persist. The key task is ensuring that this particular support measure is aimed primarily at supporting families, and not merely at supporting the construction industry. There are plenty of issues, and the Government will work to address them. As regards your city, if it is not yet on the list, we will make sure it gets included.

Pavel Zarubin: In previous years, we all remember how our direct lines were constantly flooded with questions from defrauded homebuyers. To prevent this, the escrow account mechanism was finally introduced – meaning a developer only gets paid once the building is actually completed and commissioned. But now we are seeing a surprising new problem. There are numerous cases where developers have already taken the money from these protected accounts but still have not handed over the keys. Here’s just one example.

Video question: Good afternoon. I bought a flat in Vsevolozhsk, Leningrad Region, but I still haven’t received it because the developer keeps moving the deadlines. The original deadline was September 30, 2025. Then in July, I was notified that my block of flats is scheduled for commissioning in December 2025 due to technical connection problems. Yet, on August 21, my escrow account was debited, and that very evening I got a notification that my block of flats was officially completed and ready to be commissioned. Right now, I know there’s still no heating in the building, and only one window ever has a light on – so it’s not clear any work is happening at all. Then, on October 30, I was notified that my flat’s handover is now postponed again until April. I’m asking you to look into this. I believe it is fraud: no flat and no money.

Pavel Zarubin: And here is another important point. One of the few ways a buyer can pressure a developer is to demand penalty fees for delays. But another problem has come to light. Since the pandemic, developers have been shielded from these penalties by a moratorium. It was introduced during the pandemic to support the construction industry, and it has been extended several times since. People are now asking: will it be extended again?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, this problem is well-known. Indeed, the decision to introduce this moratorium to support the construction sector during the COVID-19 pandemic was taken, and it is still in place with respect to penalties until the end of this year. I think this is sufficient, and I would ask the Government not to extend any moratoriums of this kind. Flats should be handed over on time.

There are, of course, legitimate questions and problems that can cause delays – I was discussing some with my colleagues just yesterday. In some contracts, for instance, the flat is supposed to be furnished. But there is no furniture, other things are missing.

In this specific case, the woman mentions problems with utility connections and other issues. But the moratorium on penalties needs to end, and I ask the Government to end it.

More broadly, we absolutely must establish a system-wide approach to ensure developers fulfil their obligations. We introduced escrow accounts to protect citizens, and now we need to revisit that mechanism to close these loopholes. We will go back and do exactly that.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Another problem we have highlighted is again with protracted construction projects – this time concerning sports facilities. There are similar complaints here as well: everything is almost finished, but they just won’t open.

Residents of the town of Abaza in Khakassia say the local ice arena is not complete. They write that parents, trying to speed things up, even helped dig the foundation pit themselves. But now the construction is frozen.

In the village of Dzhabyk, Chelyabinsk Region, the walls and roof of a sports and fitness centre are up, but the work has stalled.

Vladimir Putin: There is not much to add here.

For several years now, while the Government has been working hard, and it is hard work, to balance the budget, we have been saying the same thing: we must. If projects are not finished, we cannot start new ones. We need to complete the construction we have begun, not leave it hanging. It is the same story every time. Please pass…

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Absolutely.

Vladimir Putin: Please pass that information on – we will look into it.

Ah, I cannot help but notice the ‘I want to get married’ sign back there. Something else is coming up, I see.

Kirill Bazhanov: Mr President, good afternoon. Kirill Bazhanov, Regional Television, Channel 4, Yekaterinburg.

Vladimir Putin: Look at you, already dressed as if you are on your way to the wedding.

Kirill Bazhanov: Yes, exactly. And the sign is no accident. I know my girlfriend is watching the direct line conference right now. Olga, will you marry me? Well, since the proposal is happening here, Mr President, we would be honoured to have you at our wedding.

Now for my question. The sign is here for a reason. I will not ask about utilities or anything else – my question is about support measures for young families. My new fiancée and I have been together for eight years. I come from a priest’s family. We both really want children, but the reality is, I do not see how we can afford them. For example, if I were to take out a mortgage on a one-bedroom flat in Yekaterinburg now, I would be paying 50,000 rubles a month for 30 years.

Mr President, is there any way to help young people so that this money does not just go to the banks, but is instead invested in our future, in our children? As a 23-year-old, I can tell you for sure that this would be the most important incentive to improve the birth rate.

Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: I should point out – you have been with your fiancée for eight years, and you are 23, so you started dating at 15. Well done. That’s good.

In the Caucasus, among the peoples of the Caucasus, there is a very good tradition: they marry their children at a fairly young age. It is truly the right thing to do. We should follow their example. How do I know? Ramzan Kadyrov has a large family, many children, and they marry quite young. He told me, “This is our tradition in the Caucasus.” It’s really quite admirable.

In your case, as I have already mentioned, an entire support system for families with children has been created, including assistance for student families and others. I will not list all these measures now, as that would take too much time. However, it has already been said that you can wait indefinitely for the perfect moment: for your financial situation to improve, for your education to be completed, and so on. Yet it is better not to postpone having a child. This is part of life, and we must live our lives as they are. Procreation – especially since you are probably a believer – is perhaps a person’s divine mission. Therefore, of course, we will continue these support measures. Despite certain tensions related to the need to balance the budget, we have nevertheless preserved mortgage programmes.

Moreover, there are regions where mortgage rates are only two percent, not six. You can take out a mortgage there – because, in fact, home is where your heart is, and even a hut is heaven. It will not be a hut; it will be an apartment, but in regions where the mortgage rate is only two percent rather than six.

We need to review all support measures for young families. I believe all these issues can be resolved.

What does your fiancée do?

Kirill Bazhanov: She is a third-year student in the psychology department at Moscow State University, and I am graduating this year from the journalism department at Ural Federal University.

Vladimir Putin: You see, I have already said that there are measures to support student families. You should look into what they include. But overall, I agree with you: when young people think that they first need to buy this and that, secure housing, and resolve countless everyday issues, it can feel overwhelming. Still, it is better not to delay such fundamental decisions as starting a family and having a child.

Dmitry Peskov: I see the Zvezda TV Channel over there. Can we give the floor to Zvezda, Mr President?

Vladimir Putin: Please.

Konstantin Kokoveshnikov: Good afternoon.

Zvezda TV, Konstantin Kokoveshnikov.

You have already spoken about attempts to undermine the Russian economy, but I cannot help asking about the strikes carried out by Ukrainian drones and unmanned naval vessels, and about this issue in a broader context.

There is a growing impression that, in addition to targeting critical infrastructure inside Russia, attempts are being made to strike at Russian exports, particularly the supplies of Russian energy resources abroad. Some heads of state have already expressed concern about this, including Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Sitting next to me is a young woman from Rostov-on-Don, and I cannot help recalling that just two days ago, a Ukrainian strike killed two crew members on board a civilian vessel in the port of Rostov. Prior to that, the Ukrainian regime targeted four tankers in the Black Sea.

Will Russia respond to this, and if so, how? What might Russia’s response be in the event of a possible blockade of the Kaliningrad Region, should such an idea occur to someone in Europe?

Vladimir Putin: Let us start with the final part of your question. I hope that this does not happen. If threats of this kind are created for us, we will eliminate them. Everyone must understand this clearly and be fully aware that actions of this nature would lead to an escalation of the conflict unprecedented to date, pushing it to an entirely different level and expanding it, potentially to a large-scale armed conflict. This must be fully understood by all.

As for strikes against our civilian infrastructure, you, as a representative of what is effectively a military media outlet, Zvezda, are well aware that our forces respond to this on a regular basis, delivering retaliatory strikes whose scale, power and precision are simply incomparable with what the Kiev regime is doing. However, anything that causes damage to civilian infrastructure and non-combatants, that is, people who have no involvement in hostilities, is, of course, deserving the strongest condemnation. There will always be a response from our side.

Pavel Zarubin: News is coming in right now that one more of our tankers has been attacked in the Mediterranean Sea.

Vladimir Putin: This is being done, among other things, for a utilitarian purpose: to drive up insurance premiums. Ultimately, this will not lead to the expected result, will not disrupt any supplies, and will only create additional threats. Response from our side will certainly follow.

Question: Good afternoon, Mr President.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to ask a question.

First of all, let me convey warm greetings to you from the people of my entire republic – and from your home region, Pavel – and thank you for the attention to our region.

My question is partly related to this topic as well. A Russian–Tajikistani industrial park is currently being created in Tajikistan, with Bashkortostan acting as the Russian operator of this project. My question is: in which other friendly countries could similar parks be created? Where else could the experience of my home region, Bashkortostan, be useful?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: We have been working for several years on creating a similar structure in Egypt, in the Nile region. It is a very promising site. The Government, the Ministry of Industry, and our Egyptian friends are giving it serious attention. I believe this project would bring significant economic benefits to both Russia and Egypt.

We are also considering launching similar projects in several other partner countries, and your experience will certainly be in demand. To be honest, I am not fully aware of the current progress of the industrial park project in Tajikistan, but I have no doubt that Bashkortostan, with its strong technological and industrial base, will play an important role and achieve all of its objectives. If necessary, I ask the federal Government to provide you with support. Thank you very much.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Mr President, back to the audience?

Vladimir Putin: I have one big request: if we start making noise from all sides, we will have to stop, because it will be impossible to work and communicate.

(Inscription on a journalist’s sign.) Kokoshnik? Let us see what this kokoshnik is like. It is a headdress that young women usually wear.

Remark: Good afternoon, Mr President. Good afternoon, colleagues.

To be honest, I am nervous. I was looking forward to asking you a question.

Vladimir Putin: There is young men with a sign saying “Kokoshnik,” and you are wearing one and you have stood up, so please, go head.

Remark: Women first, as they say.

Vladimir Putin: Yes.

Question: Mr President, my question follows up on the question posed by my 13-year-old colleague sitting in the front row who asked you about you driving around Moscow without flashing lights or any identifying signs.

Do you think Moscow has become more beautiful? What about the roads? Have they become less congested? After all, a huge number of motorways have been built in Moscow; you and I opened the Moscow High-Speed Diametre and launched Prospekt Bagrationa. Do you think the roads are less congested now? Fewer traffic jams? That is my first question.

Second, what are looking at on the car market? Are we going to switch to domestically produced vehicles because of higher disposal fees? I have been saving up for five years to buy a foreign-made car. I checked on December 1, and foreign-made vehicles were gone, because they are so expensive now. I will now have to save up for the next five or six years. Please tell me whether a domestically produced vehicle is a good choice. You have driven a Lada. Or, perhaps Moskvich is a better choice?

Vladimir Putin: You know, let’s start with the disposal fee. We need to be straight about the issue. Higher disposal fee means higher car prices. We are talking about fairly expensive cars with, I believe, 160-horsepower engines.

Without a doubt, the Government understands this; this move affects people with at least average incomes, or even those with good incomes relative to the overall situation, primarily in major cities. It is clear, and again, it must be stated directly that this move is about the Finance Ministry’s attempt to raise extra revenue for the noble goal of technological advancement.

Of course, this move indirectly supports the domestic auto industry as well, and you stated it clearly: it has become a bit expensive, so shouldn’t I consider buying a domestically produced car? Of course, I would be remiss not to tell you to buy a domestic car. It would be strange if I told you to buy a car made outside Russia.

I hope that this measure will not be permanent, and our people will eventually have an expanded choice of cars: either as incomes rise or as this fiscal burden is reduced.

Question: Has Moscow traffic become less congested?

Vladimir Putin: What can I say? We are all proud of Moscow. Sergei Sobyanin has accomplished a lot.

Moscow is a vast urban and economic centre… Look, 12 million people live here, plus three million people come to Moscow to work every day. That is almost 15 million people in Moscow every day.

Transport issues are addressed systemically. This concerns public transport, primarily the metro, and road construction, interchanges, and overpasses. Sobyanin’s team is generally succeeding in solving these matters.

To reiterate, issues abound. When I drive around Moscow… I said that I drive without a motorcade, but that does not mean I do not use flashing lights. Occasionally, the driver turns them off, and we merge with the traffic. Of course, before and after the work hours, the traffic is very heavy, especially in downtown Moscow.

This means that we can’t rest on our laurels. Much has been accomplished, but we must keep an eye on this matter at all times.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Mr President, we have already spoken today about problems faced by people with diabetes. Due to disruptions in communication services, it has become virtually impossible for them to monitor blood sugar levels using specialised mobile applications.

However, there is another serious aspect to this issue: people cannot obtain subsidised medications. We are receiving a large number of messages about this problem, and it affects more than just diabetics.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, yes, yes, I have seen similar questions.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Exactly. And this is only a small portion of what has been submitted. People suffering from a wide range of conditions are writing to us: cancer patients, people with kidney failure, epilepsy, hypertension. The list goes on.

Let us watch a video message from Dmitry Otstavnykh, the Sverdlovsk Region.

Dmitry Otstavnykh: Good afternoon, Mr President.

My name is Dmitry Otstavnykh. In the city of Krasnoturyinsk, the Sverdlovsk Region, the distribution of subsidised medications that citizens need after illnesses and surgeries has stopped. This is going on every year starting in November. Local clinics explain that funding has run out. As Viktor Chernomyrdin once said: “Never before but once again.”

I would like to ask for your help in ensuring that Sverdlovsk Region officials restore this funding and provide residents with the subsidised medications they urgently need.

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Mr Otstavnykh, I will not deny that there are many such appeals. I read them yesterday and the day before. Before coming here, I spoke with the relevant officials: senior representatives of the ministries and the Government. They assured me that everything falling under federal responsibility, including the compulsory medical insurance system, has been fully financed and that all funds have been transferred to the regions without a single delay.

The issue you raise – and I repeat, many appeals mention the same problem, in fact, Dmitry Peskov gave me a pile this thick – concerns how this work is organised at the regional level: logistics, the timely conclusion of contracts, and the proper distribution of medications within the pharmacy network.

I promise that we will pay close attention to what is happening. I hope this problem will be resolved. The documents I reviewed also point to the closure of state-run pharmacies, which has led to shortages of subsidised medications. I want to emphasise to my colleagues in the regions that subsidised medications must be available at fixed prices even in private pharmacies. This is critically important, and the Ministry of Health and other regulatory authorities must strictly monitor compliance.

Moreover, we need to further develop the pharmacy network, including through mobile pharmacies, which are already being successfully introduced in many regions. This practice is expanding and proving effective. Certain medications can also be dispensed through village first aid stations, which helps address the issue, at least in part. We have also discussed expanding this approach through the Russian Post system. In general, the solution is clear: we simply need to ensure that it is properly implemented. We will definitely do this. And in your specific case, I am confident the issue will be resolved promptly.

Dmitry Peskov: Let’s take our next question from the audience.

Vladimir Putin: Let us: it looks nice first saying USSR and then TF1.

Dmitry Peskov: That is, first a placard saying USSR and then a placard saying TF1.

Vladimir Putin: A colleague of ours is already on his feet. Please, go ahead.

Remark: Good afternoon, Mr President.

Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon.

Remark: May I present a gift first, and then ask a couple of questions?

Dmitry Peskov: Please let us know what it is, and we will take it from you later. Thank you.

Remark: Yes, of course. It is a book titled “The Heart of Asia.” It features poems by126 Russian poets who praised Persia and Tajikistan. There is a dedication to you. The collection begins with Zhukovsky in 1743 and continues to the present day. We have compiled an anthology of the best Russian poets who praised Persia and Tajikistan, mostly Tajikistan. This is my gift to you. I know you love this.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you very much.

Question: Here is my question.

Mr President, you appreciate the poetry of Omar Khayyam. We – Tajiks and Persians – are his descendants. Could we ask the President of Russia to have a monument in honour of this great scholar erected, or an Omar Khayyam Centre created? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: That is a good idea. We will definitely give it a thought. Thank you very much. As they say in such circumstances, thank you for the tip. We will think about it, I promise.

Yes, I wanted TF1 to ask a question.

Dmitry Peskov: Our French colleagues, TF1. Please go ahead.

Vladimir Putin: Please.

Jerome Jerome Garro, from TF1 French TV.

Mr President,

One of my compatriots, the Frenchman Laurent Vinatier, has been put in jail for three years for an administrative offence. Now the Russian justice system is raising the issue of espionage, which worsens the situation.

Vladimir Putin: Pardon me, could you say again the name of the person who was sentenced to three years?

Garro: Laurent Vinatier, a Frenchman.

Vladimir Putin: Who is that? This is the first time I am hearing this name.

Jerome Garro: All right. He was a researcher in Russia, and he wasn’t registered as a foreign agent. He didn’t know that the law changed. He was put in jail for three years for this administrative offence. His parents and children are deeply worried right now. We know there are huge tensions between France and Russia. But as the New year approaches, can his family hope for a Presidential pardon or an exchange, and his return to France?

Vladimir Putin: I know nothing about this. This is the first time I am hearing about it, but I promise that I will look into it. If there is even the slightest chance to resolve this matter favourably, if the Russian law allows it, we will make every effort to do so. I cannot say anything specific at this point, because I know nothing about it. But I will find out, I promise.

Dmitry Peskov: Mr President, if you don’t mind, let's proceed. I see someone sitting modestly with their phone out. Please introduce yourself.

Valentin Petukhov: Good afternoon, Mr President. My name is Valentin Petukhov, and I’m a Russian tech blogger. For the past 15 years, I have been informing my audience about services and technologies, both Russian and foreign, and I represent a substantial audience, with several million subscribers across my social media accounts. Currently, extensive work is underway on import substitution and the construction of what we call technological sovereignty. Perhaps one of the most significant topics discussed this year has been the national messenger, MAX.

However, we are aware that there is a vast array of messaging platforms already in use by people, so my question is the following: Was the creation of a national messenger truly such an important and necessary development? Can MAX compete adequately with the existing messaging platforms? And what is your view on such competition? In a purely blogger-like fashion, I’d like to ask you to subscribe to my MAX channel about technology, but I understand that you are already well-versed in this matter. Listening to my colleagues, I recalled that today, December 19, is my father’s birthday. I would like to congratulate him and all Russians, because, using neural networks, I discovered that several hundred thousand Russian citizens are also celebrating their birthdays today.

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: We, too, would like to join in congratulating your father.

As for MAX and competition, competition is always necessary. I am confident that there will be competition.

Regarding Telegram and other messengers, the issue lies in one thing only – compliance with Russian laws. The problem with these messengers was that the political leadership of their countries did not allow them to adhere to our laws, imposing certain restrictions. This was the reason behind the corresponding measures, such as slowdowns and speed limitations, and so on. You are all aware of this.

I am sure MAX will have competitors. Was it necessary to create it or not? Of course, yes, it was absolutely necessary. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that, in principle, we had all the tools in the digital sphere except for a messenger. Now, we can confidently say – and this is very important – that Russia has achieved full digital sovereignty. Russia is one of only three countries that possess this digital sovereignty: the United States, the People’s Republic of China, and now Russia.

Moreover, there are a number of services we can provide to our citizens through the MAX national system, services that we could not previously offer through foreign systems for a variety of reasons, including security considerations. Therefore, this is unquestionably the right step. But I agree with you that competition should exist. It will.

Pavel Zarubin: Many questions about healthcare have also been submitted via MAX, and, by the way, many of them – we have also noticed this – were resolved even before the Direct Line. In total, half a million questions were received through MAX, including many video questions from children and young people…

Vladimir Putin: Excuse me.

“We in Ulyanovsk live as if in the 19^th century. When will your subordinates finally start working and listening to you and the people?” But we just need to understand… I will ask you to note this, Mr Peskov, make a note – we need to understand what this is referring to.

Pavel Zarubin: Is this a text message?

Vladimir Putin: Yes. And now this: “I am tired of these programmes about Ukraine.” I completely agree. We need to wrap it up. “Maybe we should focus on solving our own problems and covering them?” We are trying to do that.

Pavel Zarubin: We should focus more on our domestic issues. There are several video messages from children and young people.

Video question: Hello, Mr President.

My name is Daniil, and I am at the International Literature Fair in Moscow right now. There are very few young people here, almost none compared to the older generation. I would like to ask about your opinion on this trend. Children and teenagers are reading less these days. They mostly prefer reels.

How critical is this, in your opinion? What can we do about this? Is there a book that, in your opinion, every Russian should read?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: What can I say? Unfortunately, people are reading less everywhere in the world. We used to be proud that the USSR was the world’s most reading nation. That is what they used to say about us. Even these days, many people enjoy reading although, unfortunately, the number of readers is shrinking worldwide.

What could be done? Of course, it depends on school, family and parents. Children need more attention in this regard. We should keep up with the competition against modern means of communication, tablets, and so on. I mean that parents should keep up with this competition. Why? Because it is important to communicate the value of books to children in a colourful, vivid and engaging way. It is not an easy task but creativity makes it possible.

You know, I have already said this once, and I want to reiterate and share it with you. I asked a priest once what people usually talk about when they are dying. His answer was that people usually regret not giving enough attention to their children.

I don’t want to personify this answer or comment. And it is not specific. I am not breaking the seal of confession. It is just a general message. It concerns anything, be it education or teaching values.

By the way, in response to the young man’s question about what book to read. World literature, Russian literature, classics and modern books provide many topics for discussion and can be useful reads. The most important thing is that a book should shape one’s views and beliefs. It is difficult for me to name a specific book.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Next, we have a text message. Let me read it out; this one also came via MAX, from Diana Giniyatullina. She asks: “What are your working hours? And what’s the number plate on your car?” Two questions there.

Vladimir Putin: To be honest, I don’t even know if it has a number plate. I’ve never really noticed; I just get in and go.

As for my working hours, from when to when? Well, I used to finish quite late, and these days it seems to be getting later and later. I won’t give you a specific cut-off time, as that wouldn’t be appropriate – it would probably breach labour laws, and that wouldn’t be right. One needs to go to bed on time to be fit and alert. And that’s the kind of work-life routine I’d encourage everyone to adopt.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: The next question is from Viktoria Vasilyeva. And Mr President, it’s not just for you, but for Pavel as well.

Vladimir Putin: For Pavel?

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Let’s have a look.

Viktoria Vasilyeva: Good afternoon, Mr President.

My name is Viktoria. I’m a big fan of Pavel Zarubin’s programme format. So I have a proposal for you. I’ll finish school and university, Pavel will have retired by then, and I’ll take his place. So please, don’t go anywhere; wait for me. I’ll be reporting on your work.

I also wanted to wish you a Happy New Year, good health, and that you always make the right decisions.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you very much, Viktoria.

I return your New Year wishes. All the best to you too, success in your studies, and may you have good, loyal friends by your side.

Let’s not pension Pavel off just yet; he’s still got plenty of life in him. I’ve got a different proposal. I’ll have a word with him, and he won’t say no – he’ll take you on as a trainee. He’s still got a lot to offer; he’s quite young, I repeat. And by the time I retire, and you’re there gaining experience with him, it will stand you in good stead for getting into a journalism programme. Then you and Pavel can work on keeping all sorts of bosses on their toes, right up to the federal level.

Pavel Zarubin: We’ll make that happen.

But while I’m not retired just yet, if I may, I’d like to ask about something that’s concerning us all more and more. You’ve spoken a lot recently about the opportunities, but also the dangers, of artificial intelligence – how you can now solve any problem at the push of a button, without using your head.

Here is another video message from MAX.

Video question (the recording is cut off.) … and what could be the right balance between modern technologies and the task of teaching children to think independently? We would appreciate your response.

We would also like to invite you to the opening of the Point of the Future centre in Yakutsk on September 1, 2026.

Vladimir Putin: This is a pressing and complex issue, given both the topic itself and the nature of the problem.

Of course, today it is possible to obtain a great deal of information and accomplish various tasks using the capabilities of AI. Indeed, there is a risk that children, teenagers, school and even university students will stop thinking for themselves and searching for solutions, and instead, as Pavel said, simply press a button and get the required answer.

This is a major challenge, and it will only become more complicated due to the organisation of the educational process in schools and universities. It is therefore necessary to structure the educational process in such a way that core skills are still developed and practised directly in classrooms, so that the tasks facing school and university students are set right there, in the classrooms, and solved right there by the students themselves. That way, there will be a real need to engage one’s mind, to work and to think.

In the long run, the development of modern technologies should not lead to a situation where part of our population, part of society, remains intellectually active because it works within this paradigm, while another follows the easier path – able to use technology and press the right buttons, but intellectually degrading. This must not be allowed to happen under any circumstances.

This is a major challenge for the education system and for families as well. I believe that there is little more to add.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Let’s give the floor to the audience.

Vladimir Putin: Let’s hear from Spas. Please.

Ksenia Aksyonova: Forgive me, but this is very important for us. Thank you.

Ksenia Aksyonova, Spas TV channel.

Thank you for recognising the International Satanist Movement as extremist. However, occult services, esotericism, psychics, and fortune-tellers remain accessible: they appear on TV shows, social media, and in books. Children’s tarot products are also now available on every shop shelf.

Last year, Russian citizens spent over 2.5 trillion rubles on occult services. Of course, Spas TV channel produced the film Demons: The Whole Truth About Psychics and Sorcerers, where we shared many human stories profoundly and destructively impacted by the occult business. Yet people continue to visit sorcerers.

Tell us, please, is it possible to introduce a ban on magical and occult advertisements, which contradict your Executive Order No. 809 on preserving our traditions and, indeed, the Supreme Court’s ruling prohibiting international Satanism?

Vladimir Putin: As for legislative decisions, rulings by the highest judicial authorities – both the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court – must be observed by all. I will certainly revisit this matter and instruct the relevant regulatory bodies to monitor it very closely, ensuring that no violations of decisions adopted at the legislative or highest judicial levels occur. But here, of course, we must act carefully.

I fully agree with you. Satanism, occult services, all these sorcerers and so on – it is absolute nonsense, which simply misleads people, driving them into a dark corner, both literally and figuratively, causing substantial harm to citizens, their moral state, and indeed their mental and psychological well-being.

This must be combated. We just need to do so carefully, ensuring we do not infringe upon human rights, as your colleagues here have also mentioned, or overstep with these restrictions. Nonetheless, we must, without question, continuously analyse developments in this sphere, respond, and make timely decisions.

We will certainly address this, including with you, representatives of the mass media – such as yours – and with representatives of our traditional religions, including, of course, the Russian Orthodox Church.

Dmitry Peskov: Mr President, we didn’t have enough questions from that sector. I see the Avtoradio radio station there.

Vladimir Putin: Good, let’s have Avtoradio.

Dmitry Peskov: Go ahead.

Nadezhda Rumyantseva: Good afternoon. My name is Nadezhda Rumyantseva, Avtoradio.

Mr President, here is our question. It is believed that the generation of the 1990s was lost for the state. What about the current generation? Do you feel its support?

Vladimir Putin: I can’t agree that the generation of the 1990s has been lost.

The problem of fathers and children is an evergreen issue, as you can clearly see in Turgenev’s novel Fathers and Sons. It has always been said, by every generation, that it was different “in our time,” that “fathers” did it differently, and life is not like it used to be.

I entered the security service immediately after graduating from university, and I was transferred to the Soviet foreign intelligence service soon afterwards. One of the ways to assess people and their ability to serve in intelligence services, especially undercover, is to place them in a difficult or critical situation, especially a life-threatening situation. That is when they reveal their true nature.

Yes, some things and some habits of our young people may seem absurd or inappropriate to the older generations, but it is in a critical situation that your true nature is revealed. It has always been like this throughout our history.

We are living in conditions of the special military operation. We have 700,000 people in the zone of the special military operation, and most of them are young people, including many from the generation of the 1990s. How have they been acting? Naran, how would you describe young people, the individuals you are serving with, those who are serving under your command?

Pass the microphone, please.

Naran Ochir-Goryayev: The children of the 1990s constitute the core. They are the heroes you can look up to.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you, Naran. That answers the question.

As for the younger generation, there is an interesting observation. Yesterday we analysed the information we received in the form of questions during the preparation of the Direct Line. Many questions have come from young people. This means that they are also very active in public life, even more active than in the past few years. Thank you.

Let’s proceed without any notes; you just raised your hand. Please go ahead.

Andrei Belov: Good afternoon. Andrei Belov, Ulyanovsk, Media 73.ru.

I’ve got a question about transport: aviation and public transport. Next year marks the 50^th anniversary of the unique Aviastar plant, which produced the extraordinary An-124 Ruslan aircraft and is now working on the Il-76. What do you think: are modern Russian aircraft like the Ruslan needed? How will Aviastar and Russia’s aviation industry be supported moving forward?

Public transport is a major issue specifically for the city of Ulyanovsk, and I know you discussed both topics with Governor [Alexei] Russkikh. Will there be more concrete steps to support public transport in Ulyanovsk, including procurement with federal assistance?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: We had an entire programme, and we are continuing this work to support the procurement of public transport for the needs of various regions of the Russian Federation. This has always been seen as a measure to support the automotive manufacturing sector, and in one form or another, we will certainly continue it.

As for road transport in the Ulyanovsk Region, I promise you that we will discuss this with the governor. Right now, I probably can’t say with absolute precision what the most pressing issues are or what the Ulyanovsk Region needs most, but we will talk it over with the governor and, if necessary, provide the required support.

Regarding Aviastar and aviation in general – this is a pressing and important issue for us. We have strong traditions in aviation, both military and civilian. The issue has always been that civilian aviation was developed from military-transport aviation, and military aviation involves entirely different approaches – in terms of lifecycle, fuel consumption, noise levels, and so on.

Even though we rightly took pride in our Tupolev, Ilyushin, and Yakovlev aircraft, purely civilian aviation – where these planes were designed from the outset for civilian purposes – was clearly underdeveloped in the Soviet Union. Now, we absolutely need our own modern domestic aircraft. Part of the reason for rising airfare prices is the shortage of such aircraft.

On the one hand, the companies that supplied us with Western aircraft have, for various political reasons, decided to stop working and cooperating with us. This is bad for them because it undermines their reputation, but to some extent, it’s good for us because it forces us to work independently, to engage in this effort, and to leverage the opportunities of our own market.

At one point, I told the incumbent Deputy Prime Minister [Vitaly Savelyev], then the head of Aeroflot, that we needed to buy more Russian-made aircraft. It seemed simpler and cheaper to purchase foreign-made aviation equipment, and we weren’t producing anything digitally controlled. But the aircraft we have now, like the MC-21, are very good machines, fully competitive in global markets. The Superjet 100 has become a fully localised aircraft – this is very important. Naturally, we need our own domestically produced aircraft for regional transport. We will certainly work on all of this.

Are aircraft like the Ruslan needed? Of course they are, and the modernised Il-76 is also needed – we will develop it. All of this is essential. Moreover, this is a high-tech industry requiring extensive cooperation at the same technological level. There are issues that require additional solutions, and there are many matters requiring resolution, but we will certainly address all of them.

Dmitry Peskov: Mr President, we’re coming up on four hours.

Vladimir Putin: Let’s give Dmitry Peskov a chance to speak, shall we? Just a moment, please. Everyone, settle down.

Dmitry Peskov: We really are coming up on four hours, which is practically a record. Frankly, I’d suggest we start wrapping things up.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Shall we do a quick-fire round, then?

Dmitry Peskov: Yes, I know that’s the tradition.

Vladimir Putin: Hold on a moment. Let’s do the quick-fire round, and then we’ll carry on a bit longer.

Pavel Zarubin: Short questions, short answers.

Vladimir Putin: Go ahead.

Pavel Zarubin: Centuries from now, schoolchildren will be studying the history of our time. What would you put in a “time capsule” to define our era?

Vladimir Putin: Is that what they call a “quick-fire” question? This sort of thing requires you to sit down and really think. I believe each of us thinks about the future of our children, our grandchildren, and the future of the country. I also know more or less what needs to be said, but it’s important to lay it out so that it all fits together without tripping over itself. Let’s give it a go. I’m not sure I can do this off the cuff, but I’ll try.

Take a pen and write this down: “We, who lived in Russia in this incessant flux of time, in the 20^th and 21^st centuries, received everything done by our predecessors, our ancestors with gratitude.

We lived, as everybody did everywhere and at all times, with our routine needs. But we were not at a standstill: we made headway, we struggled, we worked, we fought, and we tried to resolve the issues that our time posed for us.

We thought about our future and about you. If you are holding our message right now, that means that you also feel yourselves being part of our shared infinite flux of time, and you are aware of the continuity of time. This is very important, congratulations. That means that we, too, did not live our lives in vain when we worked, struggled and thought of you, and that we succeeded in many respects.

We wished you to be blessed with luck always and be happy, and for your kids, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren to be proud of you as we are proud of our fathers, grandfathers, and great-grandfathers.” Full stop.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Mr President, another question: are you gathering material for future memoirs, as many world leaders do?

Vladimir Putin: No. I generally believe one should just get on with the work. After all, memoirs are essentially a form of self-assessment. Let others, if they see fit, assess my work and the work of my team, the people who stand with me.

Pavel Zarubin: You speak about the country’s successes – perhaps you could tell us about your personal achievements this year.

Vladimir Putin: My achievements cannot be separated from those of the country. This is what I live by and work on from morning until night – that is precisely what it is all about.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Have you ever, even once in your life, sent a message to your loved ones – your children or grandchildren – via a messenger app, or recorded video messages for them?

Vladimir Putin: No, I have never done that.

Pavel Zarubin: There is one question I am particularly curious to ask. I have seen your Kremlin flat. Everything there seems bleak: an empty refrigerator and just a bottle of ryazhenka. Where is the comfort?

Vladimir Putin: You know, everything that was done there, in the Kremlin, was carried out under the previous Head of the Presidential Property Management Department, during Boris Yeltsin’s time, and nothing has changed since then – no renovations at all. Perhaps the chairs were replaced. I believe this was done, though one would have to ask Pavel Borodin because Kremlin interiors require a certain careful approach. Everything remains as it was done at the time. I think it was arranged so that one could rest there during the day if necessary. I doubt that Boris Yeltsin ever spent a single night there. But I do live there now – that is true, it is how things have worked out. First, I am satisfied with everything there. And second, comfort is created above all by people. And when my loved ones come, which is not often, that is when it feels comfortable.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Does the President experience professional deformation?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, I think so, as does anyone who becomes fully immersed in their work.

Pavel Zarubin: Which moment or event of the outgoing year do you remember most vividly, and which would you prefer to forget and not recall?

Vladimir Putin: It is difficult to single out just one. You know, I have the feeling that the New Year we last celebrated was two or three weeks ago. I say this without any exaggeration – everything has been so compressed, and so much has happened in that time. I believe there has been a great deal of positive development. I recently said at a meeting of the Defence Ministry Board that our Armed Forces have probably become the most combat-ready in the world, taking into account new weapons systems, including strategic weaponry. These are major events in the country’s life, and not only in the life of the Armed Forces. As I said at the outset, we are maintaining economic resilience. Many very important decisions were taken to ensure this, and they have all delivered results. These are all positive developments.

As for what one might want to forget, I have my own view on that. If you want to forget something, it means that something did not work out, something went wrong. That must not be forgotten. We should always remember it, draw conclusions and correct mistakes.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: What personal trait do you hate?

Vladimir Putin: I’ll try to formulate an answer. I’m living virtually all my life in the open, and saying that some of my traits are good and others are bad would be like giving ground for unnecessary gossip. Let people look and draw their own conclusions, which everyone certainly has.

Pavel Zarubin: Do you have a true friend?

Vladimir Putin: First, it is necessary to define true friendship. Definitions are necessary. At first glance, true friendship implies complete selflessness. It must be said that communication with people of my stature can produce a temptation to become part of it, one way or another. However, I can tell you confidently that those whom I regard as friends – there are such people – behave very reservedly and with dignity, and I am not ashamed of them.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: What motivates you and makes you keep moving? And what keeps you from losing heart?

Vladimir Putin: People’s trust is what keeps me motivated and moving. You know, I feel a lump in my throat when I come across or hear certain things that may have been said out loud before. This is what certainly motivates me. I think that anyone would be motivated by this. And belief in the future of Russia is what keeps me from losing heart.

Pavel Zarubin: What do you think is most important for a 13-year-old boy: to study well, to be strong, to have loyal friends, or something else?

Vladimir Putin: To love his mother. I’m not joking; this is not irony.

And again, I want to address Naran. He doesn’t need to say anything now; I’ll speak for him. We discussed this when I invited him to the Kremlin, just yesterday or the day before, and earlier, after his report from the frontline, I asked my colleagues to inquire if he had any issues, including everyday concerns.

They talked with him – Naran, excuse me, but I will disclose your secret now. I asked them what you wanted. “My mother is elderly; she has health problems. Please help my mother.”

Look, this attitude toward one’s mother – it’s not just one person’s attitude toward another; it’s a worldview. And people with this approach, with such values in life, become Heroes of Russia.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Is there love at first sight?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, I think so.

Pavel Zarubin: Where does the Motherland start from, for you personally?

Vladimir Putin: For me personally, well, it starts with my parents.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: A person must believe in something. What do you believe in?

Vladimir Putin: In God, who is with us and who will never abandon Russia.

Pavel Zarubin: The number of questions submitted has now passed three million. That is an all-time record. And for our final question: “What will Russia be like in 200 years, and will it even exist?”

Vladimir Putin: “In 200 years.” Well, you’ve just asked me – I don’t know if I did it correctly – to send a message to those living centuries from now. And as you said, it’s very difficult to make any firm predictions. Given the timescale of centuries, with the growing role of technology, the increasing influence of artificial intelligence on breakthroughs in genetics and nanotechnology – how will this alter human consciousness? Will there even be borders? What will the world be like in hundreds of years? It’s hard to say. So, my message to our descendants centuries from now – that was how I tried to frame it based on our current understanding. But what of the country itself in 200 years? That is quite conceivable. As my colleagues and I were discussing only yesterday, the Bolshoi Theatre is about to turn 250. So, for Russia, 200 years isn’t really that long. However, I very much hope that the country will be highly educated, and that, founded upon this learning, upon the high level of education of our people, it will be technologically advanced. That it will use these technologies to solve all the challenges we face in the economy, in healthcare, and in social policy. And that it will live in peace and prosperity, building relationships with all members of the international community based on mutual respect.

Pavel Zarubin: Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: Hold on a second, I promised we wouldn’t stop here. Let’s go sector by sector. What does Ychchuu mean?

Anna Yarygina: Good afternoon, Mr President.

My name is Anna Yarygina. I am from Yakutia. I represent the Sakha State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company. Ychchuu is Yakutian for “cold.” Yakutia is a cold place, indeed, but we are warm at heart. You know this better than anyone else. Here is my question. I’m sorry, I’m very nervous. I have been waiting a long time for you to call on me.

In Yakutia’s Arctic, electricity rates for hospitals, schools, and other social institutions have increased tenfold over the past four years from five rubles to 50 rubles per kilowatt-hour. This is, of course, an onerous burden to carry, especially given that efficiency has not improved at all. I apologise, I’m very nervous.

Vladimir Putin: It’s all right, please do not be nervous.

Anna Yarygina: The incidence of power failures remains high. As you may be aware, power outages are a disaster in the North, in the Arctic. I have a request: is it possible to reinstate the Far Eastern markup to replace the current reduced one at least in the Arctic territories? Thank you.

Mr President, one more question. You visited us in the summer, and before that in the winter. Perhaps, next time you come in the winter. With all due respect to the Kremlin press pool and the presidential press pool, we, regional journalists, would also like to interview you. Next time you come to see us I would be delighted to interview you. Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Good. Thank you very much. Thank you both for the invitation and for your assessment of the press pool’s performance.

Energy is a critical issue for the North in general and for Yakutia in particular. I promise I will pay attention to it. Overall, your economy is growing and needs more energy at affordable and competitive prices.

The coal-fired energy sector in Yakutia is strong, but we should and must consider alternative sources as well. This work is underway, including under designated urban areas effort to create corresponding social and economic infrastructure.

I will not go into details now, but this matter is clear and widely known. We will definitely address it, including, oddly enough, through the development of environmentally friendly modern energy sources. However, we should not forget about gas and oil – in a word, hydrocarbon – power generation. Fuel oil is prohibitively expensive, and we will certainly work to expand grid capacity; both the grid and power generation need to be expanded.

We will definitely work on this. It is extremely important for Yakutia, because it is truly a treasure trove of natural resources, and there is much to be done there. Rest assured the energy sector will also be at the centre of our attention.

I have taken note of your question, and we are working on it separately. Yes.

Artificial intelligence – this is probably a relevant topic.

Please.

Regina Orekhova: Good afternoon, Mr President. This is Regina Orekhova, from Channel 360.

The topic of artificial intelligence has already been touched upon today. You recently stated that you would not allow Russia to become dependent on foreign neural networks.

My question is as follows. Does this mean that ChatGPT and other foreign neural networks will be banned, and will there be any special regulation in this industry?

My second question, if I may, is this: you said today that you believe in love at first sight. Mr President, are you in love?

Vladimir Putin: Yes – that is the answer to the final part of your question.

Regarding your first point: we are not planning to ban anything; we simply demand compliance with our laws. If market participants fail to comply with these laws, then appropriate restrictions may be introduced. We are not planning to ban anything.

Now, let’s go to Tomsk, please.

Dinara Mindubayeva: Good afternoon, Mr President.

Dinara Mindubayeva, Tomskoye Vremya [Tomsk Time].

Tomorrow marks the end of the Federal Agency for Youth competition, and our Tomsk is leading the race for the title of Youth Capital of Russia.

I’d like to take a moment to appeal to those who haven’t yet voted for our student city to cast their votes. We have a lot of young people there. One in seven residents of our city is a student. But nevertheless… Let’s give Tomsk a round of applause.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, Tomsk is indeed a student city, that’s true.

Dinara Mindubayeva: Have you voted, if it’s not a secret?

Vladimir Putin: Absolutely.

Dinara Mindubayeva: Let’s hope so.

Here’s my question. Despite our city being full of young people and students, there is still a severe shortage of personnel, particularly in vocational trades. We lack drivers, seamstresses – a whole range of blue-collar professions.

In your opinion, to what extent is state policy focused on reviving the prestige of blue-collar professions – well, not from scratch, but on elevating it? Or, given the extensive discussion about artificial intelligence today, may I ask whether we no longer need drivers or seamstresses, and if AI will replace them?

Vladimir Putin: I’m almost offended by your question, because it seems to me that we are systematically addressing the issue of training highly skilled blue-collar workers. This is happening at all levels. I don’t even want to enumerate all the measures being taken in this direction right now.

Blue-collar professions are becoming prestigious – we can confirm this unequivocally. They are becoming more complex, which is why vocational training is also provided in secondary specialised educational institutions. Specialised training is a very important focus of our work. We will hold competitions, we will improve the quality of education, and we will integrate training with practical experience at enterprises.

We will continue to engage businesses in this effort. By the way, they are the most invested parties and have long been involved in this work – ensuring that young people can both study and gain practical experience simultaneously.

We will definitely continue all initiatives related to targeted personnel training. There is a whole set of measures, and we will only strengthen them; we will undoubtedly keep working in this direction.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Mr President, I’m sorry but we have breaking news. This news is important for at least one person in the audience. TASS reports that Kirill Bazhenov’s girlfriend has accepted his proposal.

Vladimir Putin: Kirill raised a question about the material side of marriage. And it is fair: a man is supposed to think about his substantial financial contribution. But we can send a hat around the room and at least raise money for your wedding.

I see somebody from A Different Ukraine in the middle. Although we have already talked about Ukraine, we have not talked about A Different Ukraine. Please.

Galina Merkulova: Good afternoon, Mr President.

My name is Galina Merkulova, I represent the online media outlet of the A Different Ukraine international public movement. My question is about Ukraine, of course. Because this matter directly concerns our Motherland, Russia, now.

When Trump said that Zelensky is using the war to avoid holding the presidential election, Zelensky answered that he is willing to hold it in 60˗90 days, which is, of course, a cynical lie. Zelensky has destroyed and ruined the country, choosing terror, violence and lawlessness over guarantees of democracy. How is it possible to hold an election or a referendum – and you, Mr President, said that it is necessary to hold a referendum on the de jure recognition of the new territories in Ukraine, according to its constitution – in a country where he and his corrupt gang have usurped the entire power vertical, destroyed parliamentarism, the judicial system, and turned law enforcement into his pocket puppets?

Naturally, before an election or referendum can be scheduled, it is necessary to restore the constitutional order, scrap the ban on the activity of 18 opposition parties, adopt a law prohibiting the persecution and prosecution of the people who have been persecuted for political reasons since the very beginning, since 2014 when the state coup took place, and continue to be under political persecution to this day, as well as a law on amnesty and exoneration. Those who conducted the state coup in 2014 granted amnesty that not only exonerated those involved in the state coup but also, absurdly enough, those who committed plunder and looting – apparently, for the sake of their independence.

It is necessary to ensure that people can exercise their election rights – because half of the population, or, according to official data, 18 million people, have fled the country because of Zelensky’s criminal regime. Where and how are they supposed to vote? What opportunities do they have for this?

It is necessary to abolish sanctions against citizens of Ukraine and the deprivation of citizenship affecting those who disagreed with the regime’s neo-Nazi policies.

It is necessary to resume the operation of the media outlets prohibited unlawfully since 2019, abolish the monopoly on information established by Zelensky’s executive order, and much more.

Pavel Zarubin: Can you formulate your question please?

Galina Merkulova: Yes, certainly.

Holding elections or a referendum without implementing these measures would legalise the criminal dictatorial regime, and would be elections without true choice. It is obvious that Zelensky’s criminal regime will not do this voluntarily.

Mr President, in March this year, you offered a way out of this situation by placing Ukraine under temporary international administration led by the UN, Russia, the United States and European countries, which would help create conditions for democratic elections.

Here is my question. Do you uphold your idea of a temporary international administration in Ukraine? If this does not help create conditions for holding elections, would you recognise the results of such elections or referendum as legitimate?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: This is more like a political statement than a question. I’ll try to be brief.

Speaking about elections in Ukraine or placing it under external administration, it is true that I have mentioned the idea but only hypothetically. If there was a will to do it, including by Western countries, the idea could be given more though in light of the corruption revelations.

As for the elections, we have heard the leaders of the Kiev regime demand that Western countries, including the United States, guarantee Ukraine’s security, which means a ceasefire, during the elections, for which they are allegedly ready.

What would I like to draw the attention of the Russian audience to? We have held elections, both presidential and municipal and regional ones. We held elections this September. Has anyone ensured our security? Quite to the contrary, attempts were made to disrupt them so as to undermine our internal stability. They deliberately targeted polling stations. I will never forget that when such a threat arose – I believe it was in the Donetsk People’s Republic, people were standing in line at a polling station when the shelling began. They hid in the basements, and once the air raid was over, they returned to the line and cast their votes. We did not demand security; we just did what we thought necessary.

I think that the current representatives of the Kiev regime could do the same, if they wanted to. But if they want to use elections exclusively for stopping the advance of Russian forces, it is the wrong choice.

Nevertheless, I will tell you something that may come as a surprise to you: we are ready to consider ensuring security during elections in Ukraine. At the least, we might stop or refrain from striking into Ukrainian territory on election day.

This brings us to a question that we must ask: millions of Ukrainian citizens are living in the Russian Federation now. According to various estimates, there are between 5 and 10 million of them, and they all have a right to vote. If elections are called, we will have a right to demand that the Ukrainians who are living in Russia are given an opportunity to cast their voice in the territory of the Russian Federation.

There are many other issues which call for a thorough analysis. But this is not an idle question. I agree that the government in Ukraine must become legitimate, which is impossible to do without holding elections.

Let us go over there, to Siberia.

Denis Shalyuta: Mr President, good afternoon.

My name is Denis Shalyuta, and I am a blogger from Siberia, running a Telegram channel that covers political and economic news and the development of Siberia. In this regard, I have a question. Since October, there have been numerous rumours about plans to create an entire cluster in the Angara˗Yenisei region focused on the deep processing of non-ferrous, rare, and rare-earth metals. Could you clarify whether this approach is truly the optimal solution for supplying the Russian economy with critical metals and for launching a new phase of Russia’s industrialisation? The prospects here are certainly enormous. Can we already say today that there is sufficient political will at the federal government level to see this project through to completion and full implementation?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: This is a very interesting project, and your question is quite relevant. Overall, these plans were developed back in Soviet times. This region is extremely promising. Despite being located in Siberia, it reportedly has nearly 360 sunny days a year, and the climate is quite favourable. There are indeed significant opportunities to extract and process minerals, as well as to create new energy sources necessary to support such work. Overall, the logistics in the region are also quite good. Of course, these objectives cannot be achieved today in the same way they were during the Soviet period: solely through centralised planning and the targeted allocation of state resources. Cutting-edge approaches are required. What does this mean? It means attracting companies as investors, with the state providing the support they need.

Work is underway to assess the feasibility of implementing projects in this promising territory. I believe this effort holds great potential.

Potential investor companies are being identified, and the task of the state is to provide them with every possible form of support through incentives, services, logistics, assistance in developing energy generation capacity, and more. This is a large-scale, historic task that could be addressed in this region. We will definitely continue working in this area.

“Mail”, please.

Remark: Good afternoon.

Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon.

Question: Good afternoon! Thank you very much for this opportunity.

Mr President, you have repeatedly stated that Russian culture is the core… Excuse me.

Vladimir Putin: Please, don’t worry. Don’t fret, and don’t rush.

Question: You have called Russian culture a powerful foundation for the development and cohesion of society, emphasising the importance of preserving historical memory and Russia’s ethnic and cultural diversity.

What cultural projects and initiatives do you personally consider a priority in the coming years? And will Russia protect Russian speakers and the Russian language abroad?

Vladimir Putin: What are the priorities, you say? Go on.

Question: What are the priority cultural projects you wish to support? And will Russia protect Russian speakers abroad? And, in this connection: will Russia develop a programme to train specialists to counter the aggressive and unprecedented information warfare being waged by the West? That is, a programme for training information warfare specialists?

If I may, a second question: will the prestige and salaries of teachers in Russia be increased? This is especially urgent in the regions. Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Regarding the protection of our compatriots abroad – of course, we will continue this work. We are already engaged in it, and we will carry on.

But I would like to underline one point for you. Regarding how this is to be done. It must be done in a way that does not worsen the situation of our compatriots, which means it must be handled carefully, ideally using non-confrontational methods.

As for training “information warfare specialists” – those two things do not fit easily together. Although we naturally have such specialists within the military sphere, and we will continue their training as part of the broader modernisation of our Armed Forces.

Regarding our work with compatriots overall: this work is ongoing and we will certainly continue it. But, of course, we probably need to introduce more modern tools to make it effective, to ensure it reaches its audience, and so forth.

Concerning specific, major cultural projects – we have many. I simply wouldn’t want to single any out individually just now, as that would create unhealthy competition, as if we weren’t supporting others. But the fact that such projects exist and that we intend to support them is certain; you can be assured of that.

“HSR: Speed.”

Dina Gazalieva: Good afternoon.

The young man was holding the sign because my arms grew tired, so I asked him to hold it for me.

Dina Gazalieva, TNV Media Holding, Tatarstan. I drew this sign after my colleague from Kazan asked his question.

Mr President, I’d like to thank you for the M12 motorway. We drive to Kazan as if on a breeze; it’s wonderful. There are rest stops, and we already take our children – but still, one always wants more. And as you’ve already gathered from my sign: the high-speed railway. There’s a lot of talk; it flares up and then dies down. Is there a chance, will at least our children get to ride on it?

Vladimir Putin: The railway?

Dina Gazalieva: Yes, the high-speed project. When?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, we will build it.

Dina Gazalieva: What’s the timeline?

Vladimir Putin: The design phase is currently underway, and this is also true for the Moscow – St Petersburg line. The Moscow – Kazan line will indeed be built.

Thank you all very much for your contributions today.

Pavel Zarubin: Thank you.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Thank you very much.

Presenting awards to developers of the Burevestnik cruise missile and the Poseidon unmanned submersible

2025-11-05T14:35:02+04:00

On National Unity Day, the President held a ceremony at the Kremlin to present state decorations to the designers of the Burevestnik cruise missile and the Poseidon unmanned submersible.

The President’s remarks

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Friends.

First of all, congratulations on National Unity Day. This holiday reminds us of the glorious pages in the history of our Fatherland, the importance of our unity, the succession of generations, and our responsibility for Russia’s fate.

Today at the Kremlin, we are honouring the people who have exemplified commendable service to our Motherland and have made a significant contribution to ensuring its security and defence capability, as well as strengthening its scientific and industrial potential and technological self-reliance.

Well-deserved state decorations will be awarded to the designers of the Burevestnik strategic unlimited-range cruise missile with a nuclear engine and to the designers of the Poseidon unmanned submersible.

I want to thank you and all the research and development teams – tens of thousands of people who participated in developing this powerful, effective and unique weapon.

It will be no exaggeration to say that the result you have achieved is of historic importance for our nation and for ensuring our security and strategic parity for decades to come — in fact, for the rest of the 21st century.

Burevestnik has surpassed all other known missiles in the world in terms of range. It also boasts high precision, achieved steadily within a pre-calculated timeframe.

I believe foreign specialists were able to learn about these characteristics first-hand since during the testing of Burevestnik on October 21, a NATO reconnaissance vessel was continuously present in the trial zone. We did not interfere with its operation. They were allowed to watch.

I want to highlight the unique mode of powerful ultra-small nuclear reactors in this missile. Their launch takes seconds, whereas regular reactors take hours or even a whole day.

On the basis of such power systems, we are already developing a new generation of weapons. Moreover, we have launched the development of next-generation nuclear-powered cruise missiles. Their speed will be more than three times the speed of sound. Subsequently, they will become hypersonic. We have recently discussed this project with some of our colleagues present here in this hall.

The Poseidon project was also closely linked to the creation of Burevestnik. They rely on what can largely be described as unique and complementary technology and innovation.

Of course, Poseidon’s developers had their own specific tasks for operating a submarine system. I am referring to using cutting-edge materials, nodes and components that a device of this kind needs to enable it to be faster and go deeper, up to 1,000 metres. As for the speed, it is several times faster compared to all the latest above-water vessels.

What I want to stress is that these technological breakthroughs do not come out of nowhere. It goes without saying that they represent the work and talent of many generations of our compatriots who started this research in the second half of the 20^th century and persisted in their dedicated efforts.

Of course, we have also succeeded in developing other super-complex systems similar to Burevestnik and Poseidon, which demonstrates that research institutions, universities and schools, manufacturers and the economy as a whole have immense potential and opportunities in today’s world.

Let me make an important point. As I have already said, Burevestnik and Poseidon rely exclusively on domestically manufactured materials. In fact, a major effort to promote cooperation, involving many thousands of people, as I have already said, enabled us to create a real treasure trove of new materials, technologies, unmanned devices, software and digital solutions, and elements of the components base. By putting them to use, we can achieve breakthroughs not only in defence manufacturing, but also in many civilian sectors while carrying out multiple priority national projects and programmes.

This includes building small nuclear reactors for powering the Arctic zone and exploring near and deeper space, including powering the spacecraft we are developing right now for delivering heavy payloads. This could also be used in the future for the base on the Moon too.

By operating based on new principles and algorithms, the Poseidon project can facilitate efforts to improve unmanned devices, while also helping develop shipbuilding, navigation systems and unmanned navigation, including in the Arctic, while exploring the Trans-Arctic Transport Corridor, and along other routes.

The small size, weight, and volume of these new nuclear generators, along with their safety and reliability, allow for flexible use in creating power units for mineral extraction in hard-to-reach areas, including offshore Arctic fields, providing light and heat to remote regions and communities, and increasing the efficiency of underwater expeditions exploring the World Ocean.

The components and electronics developed for the Burevestnik and Poseidon will also be instrumental in creating powerful computers, as well as in the development of digital infrastructure, control, and communications systems.

I repeat, a cornerstone for the future has been laid that will define and enable our progress for decades to come. I know you are already building on this. A new generation of weapons and equipment is present not only in your plans, but also in your calculations, drawings, test rigs, and on your ranges. I wish you success in addressing the most complex challenges. I know – I am confident – that you and your colleagues are equal to the task.

Friends,

Our country poses no threat to anyone. Russia, like all other nuclear powers, is building its nuclear capabilities and its strategic potential. Everything we have just discussed is routine work that was announced long ago.

All our plans for creating advanced weapons systems, upgrading our defence industry, and equipping the Russian Army and Navy with the latest weaponry and technology are being implemented. I am referring to the development and deployment of the latest Avangard strategic missile system. We have developed and deployed the Oreshnik medium-range missile system and have begun serial production. We have equipped our intercontinental ballistic missiles and submarine-launched missiles with modern systems to counter anti-ballistic missile defences. This year, we will put the Sarmat heavy intercontinental ballistic missile system through combat trials, and next year, deploy it on combat duty.

And finally, the reason we have gathered here today. Russia now has the Burevestnik unlimited-range cruise missile and the Poseidon nuclear-powered unmanned underwater vehicle.

All our plans are being fulfilled. They are being realised thanks to people like you, your colleagues, the teams of design bureaus, industrial enterprises, and research centres – thanks to the workers, engineers, scientists, and professors at our universities. You are true patriots who faithfully serve the nation and its people.

Thank you very much.

Valdai Discussion Club meeting

2025-10-07T18:00:39+04:00

Vladimir Putin took part in the plenary session of the 22^nd annual meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club.

The theme of the meeting is The Polycentric World: Instructions for Use.

The plenary session is moderated by Research Director of the Foundation for Development and Support of the Valdai International Discussion Club Fyodor Lukyanov.

* * *

Research Director of the Foundation for Development and Support of the Valdai International Discussion Club Fyodor Lukyanov: Ladies and gentlemen, guests of the Valdai Club!

We are beginning the plenary session of the 22^nd annual forum of the Valdai International Discussion Club. It is a great honour for me to invite President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin to this stage.

Mr President, thank you very much for once again finding time to join us. The Valdai Club enjoys this great privilege of meeting with you for 23 consecutive years to discuss the most topical issues. I believe that no one else is that lucky.

The 22^nd meeting of the Valdai Club, which took place over the past three days, was titled “The Polycentric World: Instructions for Use.” We are attempting to move from merely understanding and describing this new world to practical matters: that is, comprehending how to live in it, since it is not yet entirely clear.

We may consider ourselves advanced users, but we are still only users of this world. You, however, are at least a mechanic and perhaps even an engineer of this very polycentric world order, so we eagerly await some guidelines for use from you.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: I am unlikely to be able to formulate any guidelines or instructions – and that is not the point, because people often ask for instructions or advice only not to follow them later. This formula is well known.

Let me offer my view on what is happening in the world, the role of our country in it, and how we see its development prospects.

The Valdai International Discussion Club has indeed convened for the 22^nd time, and these meetings have become more than a good tradition. Discussions at Valdai platforms provide a unique opportunity to assess the global situation impartially and comprehensively, to reveal changes, and to comprehend them.

Undoubtedly, the Club’s unique strength lies in the determination and ability of its participants to look beyond the banal and the obvious. They do not simply follow the agenda imposed by the global information space, where the internet makes its input – both good and bad, often difficult to discern – but pose their own unconventional questions, offer their own vision of ongoing processes, attempting to lift the veil that conceals the future. This is not an easy task, but it is often achieved here at Valdai.

We have noted repeatedly that we are living in an era when everything is changing, and very rapidly at that; I would even say radically. Of course, none of us can fully foresee the future. However, that does not absolve us of the responsibility to be prepared for it. As time and recent events have shown, we must be ready for anything. In such periods of history, everyone bears a special responsibility for their own destiny, for the fate of their country, and for the world at large. The stakes today are extremely high.

As has been mentioned, this year’s Valdai Club report is devoted to a multipolar, polycentric world. The topic has long been on the agenda, but now it requires special attention; here I fully agree with the organisers. The multipolarity that has in fact already emerged is shaping the framework within which the states act. Let me try to explain what makes the present situation unique.

First, today’s world offers a much more open – indeed, one might say creative – space for foreign policy. Nothing is predetermined; developments can take different directions. Much depends on the precision, accuracy, consistency and thoughtfulness of the actions of each participant in international communication. Yet in this vast space it is also easy to get lost and lose one’s bearings, which, as we can see, happens quite often.

Second, multipolarity space is highly dynamic. As I have said, change occurs rapidly, sometimes suddenly, almost overnight. It is difficult to prepare for it and often impossible to predict. One must be ready to react immediately, in real time, as they say.

Third, and of particular importance, is that fact that this new space is more democratic. It opens opportunities and pathways for a wide range of political and economic players. Perhaps never before have so many countries had the ability or ambition to influence the most significant regional and global processes.

Next. The cultural, historical, and civilisational specificities of different countries now play a greater role than ever before. It is necessary to seek points of contact and convergence of interests. No one is willing to play by the rules set by someone else, somewhere far away – as a very well-known chansonnier sang in our country, “beyond the mists,” or beyond the oceans, as it were.

In this regard, the fifth point: any decisions are possible only on the basis of agreements that satisfy all interested parties or the overwhelming majority. Otherwise, there will be no viable solution at all, only loud phrases and a fruitless game of ambitions. Thus, to achieve results, harmony and balance are essential.

Finally, the opportunities and dangers of a multipolar world are inseparable from one another. Naturally, the weakening of the dictate that characterised the previous period and the expansion of freedom for all is undeniably a positive development. At the same time, under such conditions, it is much more difficult to find and establish this very solid balance, which in itself is an obvious and extreme risk.

This situation on the planet, which I have tried to outline briefly, is a qualitatively new phenomenon. International relations are undergoing a radical transformation. Paradoxically, multipolarity has become a direct consequence of attempts to establish and preserve global hegemony, a response by the international system and history itself to the obsessive desire to arrange everyone into a single hierarchy, with Western countries at the top. The failure of such an endeavour was only a matter of time, something we have always spoken about, by the way. And by historical standards, it happened fairly quickly.

Thirty-five years ago, when the confrontation of the Cold War seemed to be ending, we hoped for the dawn of an era of genuine cooperation. It seemed that there were no longer ideological or other obstacles that would hinder the joint resolution of problems common to humanity or the regulation and resolution of inevitable disputes and conflicts on the basis of mutual respect and consideration of each other’s interests.

Allow me here a brief historical digression. Our country, striving to eliminate the grounds for bloc confrontation and to create a common space of security, twice declared even its readiness to join NATO. Initially this was done in 1954, during the Soviet era. The second time was during the visit of US President Bill Clinton to Moscow in 2000 – I have already spoken about this – when we also discussed this topic with him.

On both occasions, we were essentially refused outright. I reiterate: we were ready for joint work, for non-linear steps in the sphere of security and global stability. But our Western colleagues were not prepared to free themselves from the shackles of geopolitical and historical stereotypes, from a simplified, schematic view of the world.

I also spoke publicly about this when I discussed it with Mr Clinton, with President Clinton. He said, “You know, it’s interesting. I think it’s possible.” And then in the evening he said, “I consulted with my people – it’s not feasible, not feasible now.” “When will it be feasible?” And that was it, it all slipped away.

In short, we had a genuine chance to move international relations in a different, more positive direction. Yet, alas, a different approach prevailed. Western countries succumbed to the temptation of absolute power. It was indeed a powerful temptation – and resisting it would have required historical vision and a good background, intellectual and historical background. It seems that those who made decisions at that time simply lacked both.

Indeed, the power of the United States and its allies reached its peak at the end of the 20^th century. But there has never been, nor will there ever be, a force capable of ruling the world, dictating everyone how to act, how to live, even how to breathe. Such attempts have been made, but every one of them has failed.

However, we must recognise that many found that so-called liberal world order acceptable and even convenient. True, an hierarchy severely limits opportunities for those not perched at the top of the pyramid, or, if you prefer, the top of the food chain. But those at the bottom were relieved of responsibility: the rules were simple: accept the terms, fit into the system, receive your share, however modest, and be content. Others would think and decide for you.

And no matter what anyone says now, no matter how some try to disguise the reality – that is how it was. The experts gathered here remember and understand this perfectly well.

Some, in their arrogance, saw themselves entitled to lecture the rest of the world. Others were content to play along with the powerful as obedient bargaining chips, eager to avoid unnecessary trouble in exchange for a modest but guaranteed bonus. There are still many such politicians in the old part of the world, in Europe.

Those who dared object and tried to defend their own interests, rights, and views, were at best dismissed as eccentrics and told, in effect: “You will not succeed, so give up and accept that compared to our power, you are nonentity.” As for the truly stubborn, they were “educated” by the self-proclaimed global leaders, who no longer even bothered to hide their intent. The message was clear: resistance was pointless.

But this did not bring anything good. Not a single global problem was resolved. On the contrary, new ones are constantly multiplying. Institutions of global governance created in an earlier era either ceased to function or lost much of their effectiveness. And no matter how much strength or resources one state, or even a group of states, may accumulate, power always has its limits.

As the Russian audience knows, there is a saying in Russia: “There’s no counter to a crowbar, except another crowbar,” meaning, you don’t bring a knife to a gunfight, but another gun. And indeed, that “other gun” can always be found. This is the very essence of world affairs: a counterforce always emerges. And attempts to control everything inevitably generate tension, undermining stability at home and prompting ordinary people to ask a very fair question of their governments: “Why do we need all this?”

I once heard something similar from our American colleagues, who said: “We gained the whole world, but lost America.” I can only ask: Was it worth it? And did you truly gain anything at all?

A clear rejection of the excessive ambitions of the political elite of the leading Western European nations has emerged and is mounting among the societies in those countries. The barometer of public opinion indicates this across the board. The establishment does not want to cede power, dares to directly deceive its own citizens, escalates the situation internationally, resorts to all sorts of tricks inside their countries – increasingly on the fringes of the law or even beyond it.

However, perpetual turning democratic and electoral procedures into a farce and manipulating the will of the peoples is not going to work out. Like it was in Romania, for instance, but we won’t go into details. This is happening in many countries. In some of them, the authorities are trying to ban their political opponents who are gaining greater legitimacy and greater voter trust. We know this from our own experience back in the Soviet Union. Do you remember Vladimir Vysotsky’s songs: “Even the military parade was cancelled! They will ban all and everyone soon!” But it doesn’t work, bans don’t work.

Meanwhile, the will of the people, the will of the citizens in those countries is clear and simple – let the countries’ leaders deal with the citizens’ problems, take care of their safety and quality of life, and do not chase chimeras. The United States, where people’s demands have led to a sufficiently radical change in the political vector, is a case in point. And we can say that examples are known to be contagious for other countries.

The subordination of the majority to the minority inherent in international relations during the period of Western domination, is giving way to a multilateral and more cooperative approach. It is based on agreements of the leading players and consideration of everyone’s interests. This certainly does not guarantee harmony and absolute absence of conflicts. The countries’ interests never fully overlap, and the entire history of international relations is, obviously, a struggle to attain them.

Nevertheless, the fundamentally new global atmosphere in which the tone is increasingly being set by the countries of the Global Majority, holds out a promise that all actors will somehow have to take into account each other’s interests when looking for solutions to regional and global issues. After all, no one can achieve their goals all by themselves, in isolation from others. Despite escalating conflicts, the crisis of the previous model of globalisation and the fragmentation of the global economy, the world remains integral, interconnected, and interdependent.

We know this from our own experience. You know how much efforts our opponents have taken in recent years in order to, let’s put it blatantly, push Russia out of the global system and drive us into political, cultural, informational isolation and economic autarky. By the number and scope of punitive measures imposed on us, which they ashamedly call “sanctions,” Russia has become the absolute record-holder in world history: 30,000, or perhaps even more restrictions of every kind imaginable.

So what? Did they achieve their goal? I think it goes without saying for everyone present here: these efforts have completely failed. Russia has demonstrated to the world the highest degree of resilience, the ability to withstand the most powerful external pressure that could have broken not just one country but an entire coalition of states. And in this regard, we feel a legitimate pride. Pride for Russia, for our citizens, and for our Armed Forces.

But I would like to speak about something deeper. It turns out that the very global system they wanted to expel us from simply refuses to let Russia go. Because it needs Russia as an essential part of the global balance: not only because of our territory, our population, our defence, technological and industrial potential, or our mineral wealth – although, of course, all of these are critically important factors.

But above everything else, the global balance cannot be built without Russia: neither the economic balance nor the strategic balance, nor the cultural or logistical one. None at all. I believe those who tried to destroy all of this have begun to realise it. Some, however, still try stubbornly to achieve their goal: to inflict, as they say, a “strategic defeat” on Russia.

Well, if they cannot see that this plan is doomed to fail and persist, I still hope that life itself will teach a lesson even to the most stubborn of them. They’ve made a lot of noise many times, threatening us with a complete blockade. They’ve even said openly, without hesitation, that they want to make the Russian people suffer. That’s the word they chose. They’ve drawn up plans, each more fantastical than the last one. I think the time has come to calm down, to take a look around, to get their bearings, and to start building relations in a completely different way.

We also understand that the polycentric world is highly dynamic. It appears fragile and unstable because it is impossible to permanently fix the state of affairs or determine the balance of power for the long term. After all, there are many participants in these processes, and their forces are asymmetrical and complexly composed. Each has its own advantageous aspects and competitive strengths, which in every case create a unique combination and composition.

Today’s world is an exceptionally complex, multifaceted system. To properly describe and comprehend it, simple laws of logic, cause-and-effect relationships, and the patterns arising from them are insufficient. What is needed here is a philosophy of complexity – something akin to quantum mechanics, which is wiser and, in some ways, more complex than classical physics.

Yet it is precisely due to this complexity of the world that the overall capacity for agreement, in my view, nevertheless tends to increase. After all, linear unilateral solutions are impossible, while nonlinear and multilateral solutions require very serious, professional, impartial, creative, and at times unconventional diplomacy.

Therefore, I am convinced that we will witness a kind of renaissance, a revival of high diplomatic art. Its essence lies in the ability to engage in dialogue and reach agreements – both with neighbours and like-minded partners, and – no less important but more challenging – with opponents.

It is precisely in this spirit – the spirit of 21^st century diplomacy – that new institutions are developing. These include the expanding BRICS community, organisations of major regions such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, Eurasian organisations, and more compact yet no less important regional associations. Many such groups are emerging worldwide – I will not list them all, as you are aware of them.

All these new structures are different, but they are united by one crucial quality: they do not operate on the principle of hierarchy or subordination to a single dominant power. They are not against anyone; they are for themselves. Let me reiterate: the modern world needs agreements, not the imposition of anyone’s will. Hegemony – of any kind – simply cannot and will not cope with the scale of the challenges.

Ensuring international security under these circumstances is an extremely urgent issue with many variables. The growing number of players with different goals, political cultures, and distinctive traditions create a complex global environment that makes developing approaches to ensuring security a much more tangled and difficult task to tackle. At the same time, it opens up new opportunities for all of us.

Bloc-based ambitions pre-programmed to exacerbate confrontation have, without a doubt, become a meaningless anachronism. We see, for example, how diligently our European neighbours are trying to patch up and plaster over the cracks running through the building of Europe. Yet, they want to overcome division and shore up the shaky unity they once used to boast of, not by effectively addressing domestic issues, but by inflating the image of an enemy. It is an old trick, but the point is that people in those countries see and understand everything. That is why they take to the streets despite the external escalation and the ongoing search for an enemy, as I mentioned earlier.

They are recreating an image of an old enemy, the one they created centuries ago which is Russia. Most people in Europe find it hard to understand why they should be so afraid of Russia that in order to oppose it they must tighten their belts even more, abandon their own interests, just give them up, and pursue policies that are clearly detrimental to themselves. Yet, the ruling elites of united Europe continue to whip up hysteria. They claim that war with the Russians is almost at the doorstep. They repeat this nonsense, this mantra, over and over again.

Frankly, when I sometimes watch and listen to what they are saying, I think they cannot possibly believe this. They cannot believe when they are saying that Russia is about to attack NATO. It is simply impossible to believe that. And yet they are making their own people believe it. So, what kind of people are they? They are either entirely incompetent, if they genuinely believe it, because believing such nonsense is just inconceivable, or simply dishonest, because they do not believe it themselves but are trying to convince their citizens that this is true. What other options are there?

Frankly, I am tempted to say: calm down, sleep peacefully, and deal with your own problems. Look at what is happening in the streets of European cities, what is going on with the economy, the industry, European culture and identity, massive debts and the growing crisis of social security systems, uncontrolled migration, and rampant violence – including political violence – the radicalisation of leftist, ultra-liberal, racist, and other marginal groups.

Take note of how Europe is sliding to the periphery of global competition. We know perfectly well how groundless are the threats about Russia’s so-called aggressive plans with which Europe frightens itself. I have just mentioned this. But self-suggestion is a dangerous thing. And we simply cannot ignore what is happening; we have no right to do so, for the sake of our own security, to reiterate, for the sake of our defence and safety.

That is why we are closely monitoring the growing militarisation of Europe. Is it just rhetoric, or is it time for us to respond? We hear, and you are aware of this as well, that the Federal Republic of Germany is saying its army must once again become the strongest in Europe. Well, alright, we are listening carefully and following everything to see what exactly is meant by that.

I believe no one has any doubt that Russia’s response will not be long in coming. To put it mildly, the reply to these threats will be highly convincing. And it will indeed be a reply – we ourselves have never initiated military confrontation. It is senseless, unnecessary, and simply absurd; it distracts from real problems and challenges. Sooner or later, societies will inevitably hold their leaders and elites to account for ignoring their hopes, aspirations, and needs.

However, if anyone still feels tempted to challenge us militarily – as we say in Russia, freedom is for the free – let them try. Russia has proven time and again: when threats arise to our security, to the peace and tranquillity of our citizens, to our sovereignty and the very foundations of our statehood, we respond swiftly.

There is no need for provocation. There has not been a single instance where this ultimately ended well for the provocateur. And no exceptions should be expected in the future – there will be none.

Our history has demonstrated that weakness is unacceptable, as it creates temptation – the illusion that force can be used to settle any issue with us. Russia will never show weakness or indecision. Let this be remembered by those who resent the very fact of our existence, those who nurture dreams of inflicting upon us this so-called strategic defeat. By the way, many of those who actively spoke of this, as we say in Russia, “Some are no longer here, and others are far away.” Where are these figures now?

There are so many objective problems in the world – stemming from natural, technological, or social factors – that expending energy and resources on artificial, often fabricated contradictions is impermissible, wasteful, and simply foolish.

International security has now become such a multifaceted and indivisible phenomenon that no geopolitical value-based division can fracture it. Only meticulous, comprehensive work involving diverse partners and grounded in creative approaches can solve the complex equations of 21^st-century security. Within this framework, there are no more or less important or crucial elements – everything must be addressed holistically.

Our country has consistently championed – and continues to champion – the principle of indivisible security. I have said it many times: the security of some cannot be ensured at the expense of others. Otherwise, there is no security at all – for anyone. Establishing this principle has proven unsuccessful. The euphoria and unchecked thirst for power among those who saw themselves as victors after the Cold War – as I have repeatedly stated – led to attempts to impose unilateral, subjective notions of security upon everyone.

This, in fact, became the true root cause of not only the Ukrainian conflict but also many other acute crises of the late 20^thcentury and the first decade of the 21^st century. As a result – just as we warned – no one today feels truly secure. It is time to return to fundamentals and correct past mistakes.

However, indivisible security today, compared to the late 1980s and early 1990s, is an even more complex phenomenon. It is no longer solely about military and political balance and mutual interest considerations.

The safety of humanity depends on its ability to respond to challenges posed by natural disasters, man-made catastrophes, technological development, and rapid social, demographic, and informational processes.

All this is interconnected and changes occur largely by themselves, frequently, I have already said it, unpredictably, following their own internal logic and rules, and sometimes, I will dare say, even beyond the people’s will and expectations.

Humanity risks becoming superfluous in such a situation, just an observer over the processes that it will never be able to control. What is this if not a system-wide challenge for all of us and an opportunity for all of us to work together constructively?

There are no ready answers here, but I think that solution to global challenges requires, first, an approach free from an ideological bias and didactic pathos, in the manner of “Now I will tell you what to do.” Second, it is important to understand that this is a truly common, indivisible matter requiring joint efforts of all counties and nations.

Each culture and civilisation should make its contribution because, I repeat, no one knows the right answer separately. It may only be generated through a joint constructive search, through combining – not separating – efforts and national experience of various countries.

Let me repeat once again: conflicts and collisions of interests have been and, of course, will remain forever – the question is how to resolve them. A polycentric world, as I have already said today, is a return to the classical diplomacy, when settlement needs attention, mutual respect but not coercion.

Classical diplomacy was capable of taking into account the positions of different international actors, the complexity of the “concert” made up of the voices of different powers. Still, at a certain stage it was replaced by the Western-kind diplomacy of monologues, endless preaching and orders. Instead of resolving conflicts, certain parties began to push through their own selfish interests, considering the interests of everyone else unworthy of attention.

No wonder that instead of settlement, conflicts were only further exacerbated up to the point of their transition to a bloody armed phase leading to a humanitarian disaster. Acting like this means a failure to resolve any conflict. Examples over the past 30 years are countless.

One of them is the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, which cannot be settled following the recipes of the lopsided Western diplomacy grossly ignoring the history, traditions, identity and culture of the peoples living there. Neither it helps to stabilise the situation in the Middle East in general that is, on the contrary, rapidly degrading. Now we are getting acquainted in greater detail with President Trump’s initiatives. It seems to me that some light at the end of the tunnel may still appear in this case.

The Ukraine tragedy is a horrifying example as well. It is a pain for Ukrainians and Russians, for all of us. The reasons for the Ukraine conflict are known to anyone who has taken the trouble to look into the background of its current, most acute phase. I will not go over them again. I am sure everyone in this audience is well aware of them and of my stance on this issue, which I have articulated many times.

Something else is also known well. Those who encouraged, incited, and armed Ukraine, who goaded it into antagonising Russia, who for decades nurtured rampant nationalism and neo-Nazism in that country, frankly – pardon me the bluntness – did not give a hoot about Russia’s or, for that matter, Ukraine’s interests. They do not feel anything for the Ukrainian people. For them – globalists and expansionists in the West and their minions in Kiev – they are expendable material. The results of such reckless adventurism are in plain sight, and there is nothing to discuss.

Another question arises: could it have turned out differently? We also know, and I return to what President Trump once said. He said that if he had been in office back then, this could have been avoided. I agree with that. Indeed, it could have been avoided if our work with the Biden administration had been organised differently; if Ukraine had not been turned into a destructive weapon in someone else’s hands; if NATO had not been used for this purpose as it advanced to our borders; and if Ukraine had ultimately preserved its independence, its genuine sovereignty.

There is one more question. How should bilateral Russian-Ukrainian issues, which were the natural outcome of the breakup of a vast country and of complex geopolitical transformations, have been resolved? By the way, I believe that the dissolution of the Soviet Union was linked to the position of Russia’s then leadership, which sought to rid itself of ideological confrontation in hopes that now, with communism gone, we will be brothers. Nothing of the sort followed. Other factors in the form of geopolitical interests came into play. It turned out that ideological differences were not the real issue.

So, how should such problems be resolved in a polycentric world? How would the situation in Ukraine have been addressed? I think that if there had been multipolarity, different poles would have tried the Ukraine conflict on for size, so to speak. They would measure it against their own potential hotbeds of tension and fractures in their own regions. In that case, a collective solution would have been far more responsible and balanced.

The settlement would have relied on the understanding that all participants in this challenging situation have their own interests grounded in objective and subjective circumstances which simply cannot be ignored. The desire of all countries to ensure security and progress is legitimate. Without a doubt, this applies to Ukraine, Russia, and all our neighbours. The countries of the region should have the leading voice in shaping a regional system. They have the greatest chance of agreeing on a model of interaction that is acceptable to everyone, because the matter concerns them directly. It represents their vital interest.

For other countries, the situation in Ukraine is merely a playing card in a different, much larger, game, a game of their own, which usually has little to do with the actual problems of the countries involved, including this particular one. It is merely an excuse and a means to achieve their own geopolitical goals, to expand their area of control, and to make some money off the war. That is why they brought NATO infrastructure right up to our doorstep, and have for years been looking with a straight face at the tragedy of Donbass, and at what was essentially a genocide and extermination of the Russian people on our own historic land, a process that began in 2014 on the heels of a bloody coup in Ukraine.

In contrast to such conduct demonstrated by Europe and, until recently, by the United States under the previous administration, stand the actions of countries belonging to the global majority. They refuse to take sides and genuinely strive to help establish a just peace. We are grateful to all states that have sincerely exerted efforts in recent years to find a way out of the situation. These include our partners – the BRICS founders: China, India, Brazil and South Africa. This includes Belarus and, incidentally, North Korea. These are our friends in the Arab and Islamic world – above all, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Egypt, Turkiye and Iran. In Europe, these include Serbia, Hungary and Slovakia. And there are many such countries across Africa and Latin America.

Regrettably, hostilities have not yet ceased. However, the responsibility for this lies not with the majority for failing to stop them, but with the minority, primarily Europe, which continually escalates the conflict – and in my view, no other objective is even discernible there today. Nevertheless, I believe goodwill will prevail, and in this regard, there is not the slightest doubt: I believe changes are occurring in Ukraine as well, albeit gradually – we see this. However much people’s minds may have been manipulated, shifts are nevertheless taking place in public consciousness, and indeed across the overwhelming majority of nations worldwide.

In fact, the phenomenon of the global majority is a new development in international affairs. I would like to say a few words on this matter as well. What is its essence? The overwhelming majority of states worldwide are oriented towards pursuing their own civilisational interests, chief among which is their balanced, progressive development. This would seem natural – it has always been so. But in previous eras, the understanding of these very interests was often distorted by unhealthy ambitions, selfishness, and the influence of expansionist ideology.

Today, most countries and peoples – precisely this global majority – recognise their true interests. Crucially, they now feel the strength and confidence to defend these interests against external pressures – and I will add that in advancing and upholding their own interests, they are prepared to work alongside partners, thereby transforming international relations, diplomacy, and integration into sources of their own growth, progress, and development. Relations within the global majority represent a prototype of the political practices essential and effective in a polycentric world.

This is pragmatism and realism – a rejection of bloc philosophy, an absence of rigid, externally imposed obligations or models featuring senior and junior partners. Finally, it is the ability to reconcile interests that seldom fully align yet rarely fundamentally contradict one another. The absence of antagonism becomes the guiding principle.

A new wave of decolonisation is rising now, as former colonies are acquiring, in addition to statehood, also political, economic, cultural and world outlook sovereignty.

One more date is important in this respect. We have recently celebrated the 80th anniversary of the United Nations Organisation. It is not just a universal and the most representative political organisation in the world but also a symbol of the spirit of cooperation, alliance and even combat fraternity, which helped us join forces in the first half of the past century in the struggle against the worst evil in history – a merciless machine of extermination and enslavement.

The decisive role in our common victory over Nazism, which we are proud of, was played by the Soviet Union, of course. A glance at the number of casualties for each member of the anti-Hitler coalition clearly proves this.

The UN is the legacy of victory in the Second World War, and, so far, the most successful experience of creating an international organisation aimed at solving current global problems.

It is often said now that the UN system has been paralysed and is going through a crisis. This has become a cliché. Some even claim that it has outlived itself and should be radically reformed, at the very least. Yes, there are many, very many shortcomings in the UN’s operations. Yet there is nothing better than the UN so far, and we must admit this.

Actually, the problem is not with the UN, which has vast potential. The problem lies in how we, the united nations that have been disunited, are using this potential.

There is no doubt that the UN has to deal with challenges. Like any other organisation, it should adapt to the changing realities. However, it is extremely important to preserve the fundamental essence of the UN during its reform and upgrade, not just the essence that was embedded in it at its inception but also the essence it has acquired in the complicated process of its development.

It is worth recalling in this connection that the number of UN member states has increased almost fourfold since 1945. Over the past decades, the organisation that was established at the initiative of several major countries has not just expanded but also absorbed many different cultures and political traditions, acquiring diversity and becoming a truly multipolar structure long before the world became multipolar. The potential of the UN system has only started unfolding, and I am confident that this process will be completed very quickly in the nascent new era.

In other words, the Global Majority countries now constitute an overwhelming majority at the UN, and its structure and governing bodies should therefore be adjusted to this fact, which will also be much more in keeping with the basic principles of democracy.

I will not deny it: today there is no consensus on how the world should be organised, on what principles it should rest in the years and decades ahead. We have entered a long period of searching, often moving by trial and error. When a new, stable system will finally take shape – and what its framework will look like – remains unknown. We must be ready for the fact that, for a considerable time, social, political and economic development will be unpredictable, sometimes even turbulent.

To stay on course and not lose our bearings, everyone needs a firm foundation. In our view, this foundation is, above all, the values that have matured over centuries within national cultures. Culture and history, ethical and religious norms, geography and space – these are the key elements that shape civilisations and enduring communities. They define national identity, values, and traditions, providing the compass that helps us withstand the storms of international life.

Traditions are always unique; each nation has its own. Respect for traditions is the first and most important condition for stable international relations and for resolving emerging challenges.

The world has already lived through attempts at unification, at imposing so-called universal models that clashed with the cultural and ethical traditions of most peoples. The Soviet Union once made this mistake by imposing its political system – we know this, and, frankly, I do not think anyone would argue. Later the United States took up that baton, and Europe, too, tried. In both cases, it failed. What is superficial, artificial, imposed from outside cannot last. And those who respect their own traditions, as a rule, do not encroach on those of others.

Today, against the backdrop of international instability, special importance is attached to each nation’s own foundations of development: those that do not depend on external turbulence. We see countries and peoples turning to these roots. And this is happening not only in the Global Majority, but also within Western societies. When everyone focuses on their own development without chasing unnecessary ambitions, it becomes much easier to find common ground with others.

As an example, we can look to the recent experience of interaction between Russia and the United States. As you know, our countries have many disagreements; our views on many of the world's problems differ. But this is nothing out of the ordinary for major powers; in fact, it is absolutely natural. What matters is how we resolve these disagreements, and whether we can settle them peacefully.

The current White House administration is very straightforward about its interests, stating what it wants directly – even bluntly at times, as I am sure you will agree – but without unnecessary hypocrisy. It is always preferable to be clear about what the other party wants and what they are trying to achieve. It is better than trying to guess the real meaning behind a long string of equivocations, ambiguous language and vague hints.

We can see that the current US administration is guided primarily by its own national interests – as it understands them. And I believe this is a rational approach.

But then, if you will excuse me, Russia is also entitled to be guided by its own national interests. One of which, by the way, is the restoration of full-fledged relations with the United States. Regardless of our disagreements, if two parties treat each other with respect, then their negotiations – even the most challenging, stubborn bargaining – will still be aimed at finding common ground. And that means mutually acceptable solutions can ultimately be achieved.

Multipolarity and polycentrism are not just concepts; they are a reality that is here to stay. How soon and how effectively we can build a sustainable world system within this framework now depends on each of us. This new international order, this new model, can only be built through universal efforts, a collective endeavour in which everyone participates. Let me be clear: the era when a select group of the strongest powers could decide for the rest of the world is gone, and it is gone forever.

This is a point best remembered by those who feel nostalgia for the colonial era, when it was common to divide peoples into those who were equal and those who were, to use Orwell's famous phrase, “more equal than others.” We are all familiar with that quote.

Russia has never entertained this racist theory, never shared this attitude towards other peoples and cultures, and we never will.

We stand for diversity, for polyphony – for a true symphony of human values. The world, as I am certain you will agree, is a dull and colourless place when it is monotonous. Russia has had a very turbulent and difficult past. Our very statehood was forged through the continual overcoming of colossal historical challenges.

I do not mean to suggest that other states developed in hothouse conditions – of course not. Yet, Russia’s experience is unique in many ways, as is the country it has created. Let me be clear: this is not a claim to exceptionalism or superiority; it is simply a statement of fact. Russia is a distinctive country.

We have gone through numerous tumultuous upheavals, each of which has given the world food for thought on a diverse range of issues, both negative and positive. But it is precisely this historical baggage that has left us better prepared for the complex, non-linear and ambiguous global situation in which we all now find ourselves.

Through all its trials, Russia has proved one thing: it was, is, and always will be. We understand that its role in the world is changing, but it invariably remains a force without which true harmony and balance are difficult – and often impossible – to achieve. This is a proven fact, confirmed by history and time. It is an unconditional fact.

In today’s multipolar world, that very harmony and balance can only be achieved through a joint, common effort. And I want to assure you today that Russia is ready for this work.

Thank you very much. Thank you.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr Putin, thank you very much for such an extensive…

Vladimir Putin: Have I worn you out? Sorry.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Not at all, you have only just begun. (Laughter.) But you have immediately set the bar for our discussion very high, so naturally we will seize on many of the themes you have raised.

Especially since a truly polycentric, multipolar world is still only beginning to be described. As you rightly noted in your remarks, it is so complex that we can only grasp parts of it, like in an old parable where everyone touches a part of the elephant and thinks it is the whole, but in reality it is just one part.

Vladimir Putin: You know these are not just words. I was speaking from practice. I am often faced with very specific issues that need to be addressed in one part of the world or another. In the past, during the Soviet Union, it was one bloc versus another: you agreed within your bloc, and off you went.

No, I will be honest with you: more than once I have had to weigh a decision – to do this or that. But my next thought was: no, I can’t do that because it will affect someone; it would be better to do something else. But then: no, that would hurt someone else. That is the reality. Truth to tell, there were a few cases where I decided that we won’t do anything at all. Because the damage from acting would be greater than from simply showing restraint and patience.

This is the reality of today. I did not invent anything – it is just how things are in real life, in practice.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Did you play chess at school?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, I liked chess.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Good. Then I will continue from what you just said about practice. It is true: it is not only the theory that is changing, but also practical actions on the international stage can no longer be what they once were.

In previous decades many relied on institutions – international organisations, structures within states – that were set up to deal with certain challenges.

Now, as many experts noted at Valdai over the past few days, these institutions for various reasons are either weakening or losing their effectiveness altogether. This means that far greater responsibility falls on leaders themselves than in the past.

So my question to you: do you ever feel like Alexander I at the Congress of Vienna, personally negotiating the shape of the new world order – just you, alone?

Vladimir Putin: No, I do not. Alexander I was an emperor; I am a president, elected by the people for a specific term. That is a big difference. That’s my first point.

Second, Alexander I united Europe by force, defeating an enemy that had invaded our territory. We remember what he did – the Congress of Vienna, and so on. As for where the world went after that, let historians judge. It is debatable: should monarchies have been restored everywhere, as if trying to turn the wheel of history back a little? Or would it not have been better to look at emerging trends and lead the way forward instead? That is just by way of comment – apropos, as they say – not directly related to your question.

Regarding modern institutions, what is the problem, after all? They experienced degradation precisely during the period when certain countries, or the collective West, sought to exploit the post-Cold War situation by declaring themselves victors. In this context, they began imposing their will on everyone – this is the first point. Second, all others gradually, at first mutedly, then more actively, began to resist this.

During the initial period, after the Soviet Union ceased to exist, Western structures inserted a significant number of their own personnel into old frameworks. All these personnel, strictly following instructions, acted precisely as they were directed by their Washington bosses, behaving, frankly speaking, very crudely, disregarding everything and everyone.

This led to Russia, among others, ceasing altogether to engage with these institutions, believing that nothing could be achieved there. What was the OSCE created for? To resolve complex situations in Europe. And what did it all boil down to? The entire activity of the OSCE reduced to becoming a platform for discussing, for example, human rights in the post-Soviet space.

Well, listen. Yes, there are plenty of problems. But are there not many in Western Europe? Look, it seems to me, just recently, even the US State Department noted that human rights issues have emerged in Britain. It would seem nonsensical – well, good health to those who pointed this out.

However, these problems did not just emerge; they have always existed. These international organisations simply began professionally focusing on Russia and the post-Soviet space. But that was not their intended purpose. And this is the case across many areas.

Therefore, they have largely lost their original meaning – the meaning they had when they were created in the previous system, when there was the Soviet Union, the Eastern bloc and the Western bloc. That is why they degraded. Not because they were poorly structured, but because they ceased performing the roles for which they were created.

Yet there is and was no alternative to seeking consensus-based solutions. Incidentally, we gradually came to realise that we needed to create institutions where issues are resolved not as our Western colleagues attempted to resolve them, but genuinely based on consensus, genuinely based on aligning positions. This is how the SCO – the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation – emerged.

What did it originally grow out of? Out of the need to regulate border relations between countries – former Soviet republics and the People’s Republic of China. It worked very well, indeed. We began expanding its scope of activity. And it took off! You see?

This is how BRICS emerged, when the Prime Minister of India and the President of the People’s Republic of China were my guests, and I proposed meeting as a trio – this was in St Petersburg. RIC emerged – Russia, India, China. We agreed that: a) we would meet; and b) we would expand this platform for our foreign ministers to work. And it took off.

Why? Because all participants immediately saw, despite some rough edges between them, that it was a good platform overall – there was no desire to push oneself forward, to advance one’s own interests at any cost. Instead, everyone understood that balance must be sought.

Soon after, Brazil and South Africa asked to join – and BRICS emerged. These are natural partners, united by a common idea of how to build relations to find mutually acceptable solutions. They began gathering within the organisation.

The same began happening worldwide, as I mentioned earlier regarding regional organisations. Look at how the authority of these organisations is growing. This is the key to ensuring that the new complex multipolar world nevertheless has a chance to be stable.

Fyodor Lukyanov: You have just now used a clear and popular metaphor about might being right unless there is a stronger might. It can also be applied to institutions, because when institutions are ineffective, you have to resort to might, that is, military force, which has again come to the fore in international relations.

It is often discussed, and we at the Valdai forum had a section that addressed this issue – the character of a new war, modern war. It has clearly changed. What can you, as supreme commander-in-chief and a political leader, say about changes in the character of war?

Vladimir Putin: It is a highly specific and yet an extremely important question.

First, there have always been non-military methods of dealing with military matters, but they are acquiring a new meaning and producing new effects with the development of technology. What I mean is information attacks and attempts to influence and corrupt the political mindset of the potential opponent.

Here is what has come to my mind right now. I have recently been told about the revival of an old Russian tradition, where young women go to parties, including in bars and clubs, wearing traditional Russian clothes and headdresses. You know, this is not a joke, and this makes me happy. Why? Because it means that our enemies have not attained their goal, despite all the attempts to corrupt Russian society from within, and even that the effect is the opposite of what they expected.

It is very good that our young people have this defence against attempts to influence the public mindset from within. It is proof of the maturity and strength of Russian society. But this is only one side of the coin. The other is the attempts to damage our economy, financial sector and so on, which is extremely dangerous.

As for the purely military component, there are many new elements related to technological development, of course. It is on everyone’s lips, yet I will say it again – it is unmanned vehicles that can operate in three domains – air, land, and sea. They include unmanned boats, unmanned ground vehicles, and unmanned aerial vehicles.

Moreover, all of them have a dual use. This is extremely important; it is one of the special modern features. Many technologies that are being used in combat have dual uses. Take the unmanned aerial vehicles, which can be used in medicine and to deliver food or other useful cargo everywhere, including during hostilities.

This calls for developing other systems as well, such as intelligence and electronic warfare systems. This is changing the tactics of warfare. Many things are changing on the battlefield. There is no use for Guderian’s wedge formations or Rybalko’s charges, which were carried out during World War II. Tanks are being used completely differently now, not to charge through enemy defences but to support the infantry, which is being done from covered positions. This is necessary too, but it is a different method.

But do you know what is most remarkable? The sheer swiftness of change. Technological paradigms can shift in a month, sometimes in a week. I have said this many times. Suppose we deploy a key innovation, such as high-precision weapons, including long-range systems, which are a vital component of modern warfare – and it suddenly grows less effective.

Why? Because the adversary has deployed even newer electronic warfare systems. They have analysed our tactics and adapted their response. Consequently, we now need to find an antidote within a matter of days, a week at most. This is happening with stunning regularity, and it has profound practical implications, from the battlefield itself to our research centres. This is the reality of modern armed conflict: a process of continuous upgrade.

Everything changes, except for one thing: the bravery, courage, and heroism of the Russian soldier. It is our immense source of pride. And when I say ‘Russian,’ I am not speaking solely of ethnicity or even the passport one holds. Our soldiers themselves have embraced this idea. Today, every one of them, regardless of religion or ethnic background, says with pride: “I am a Russian soldier.” And they are.

Why is this? I would like to answer by turning to Peter the Great. What was his definition? Who, in his eyes, was a Russian? For those who know the quote, you will recognise it. For those who do not, I will share it with you now. Peter the Great said: “He is Russian who loves and serves Russia.”

Fyodor Lukyanov: Thank you.

As for the headdresses, kokoshniks, I got the hint. Next time we will wear appropriate dress.

Vladimir Putin: You do not need a kokoshnik.

Fyodor Lukyanov: No? Good, as you say.

Mr President, on a more serious note, you spoke about the swiftness of change, and indeed, the pace is staggering, both in the military and civilian spheres. It seems clear that this accelerated reality is what will define the coming years and decades.

This brings to mind the criticism we faced more than three years ago, at the start of the special military operation. At that time, critics argued that Russia and its army were lagging behind in certain areas – and many of our less than successful steps were directly linked to that.

This leads me to two key questions. First, in your view, have we since managed to close that gap?

And second, since we speak of the Russian soldier, what is your assessment of the current situation on the frontlines?

Vladimir Putin: First, let us be clear: it was not merely a ‘lag.’ There were entire fields where our knowledge was simply non-existent. The issue was not that we lacked the time to develop certain capabilities. The issue was that we were completely unaware that such capabilities were even possible.

Second, we are fighting this war and producing our own military equipment. But on the other side of the line, we are effectively at war with the collective might of NATO. They are no longer even hiding this fact. We see this in the direct involvement of NATO instructors and representatives from Western countries in the hostilities. A command centre has been established in Europe for the purpose of coordinating our adversary’s war effort: providing the Armed Forces of Ukraine with intelligence, satellite imagery, weapons, and training. And I must reiterate: these foreign personnel are not only involved in training; they are directly participating in operational planning and combat operations themselves.

Therefore, this presents a serious challenge for us, of course. But the Russian army, the Russian state, and our defence industry have rapidly adapted.

Now, I say this without any exaggeration – this is not hyperbole or empty boasting, but I am convinced that today, the Russian army is the most combat-ready army in the world. This holds true in terms of personnel training, technical capabilities, and our ability to both deploy and continuously upgrade them. It is true regarding our capacity to supply new weapons systems to the frontline, and even in the sophistication of our operational tactics. This, I believe, is the definitive answer to your question.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Our interlocutors – and your interlocutor across the ocean – have recently renamed their Department of Defence as the Department of War. Superficially, it may seem the same, but as they say, there is nuance. Do you believe names carry substantive significance?

Vladimir Putin: One could say no, but equally, one might observe that “as you name the ship, so shall it sail.” There is likely some meaning in this, though Department of War does sound rather aggressive. Ours is the Ministry of Defence – this has always been our position, remains so, and will continue to be. We harbour no aggressive intentions towards third countries. Our Ministry of Defence exists solely to safeguard the security of the Russian state and the peoples of the Russian Federation.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Yet he taunts us as a “paper tiger” – what about that?

Vladimir Putin: A “paper tiger” … As I have said, Russia has not been fighting the Armed Forces of Ukraine or Ukraine itself these past years, but effectively the entire NATO bloc.

Regarding your question about developments along the line of contact – I will return to these “tigers” shortly.

Presently, across virtually the entire line of contact, our forces are advancing with confidence. To begin from the north: the North Group of Forces – in the Kharkov Region, the town of Volchansk, and in the Sumy Region, the residential community of Yunakovka – have recently been brought under our control. Half of Volchansk has been secured – the remaining portion will inevitably follow shortly, as our fighters complete the operation. A security zone is being established methodically and according to plan.

The West Group of Forces has largely secured Kupyansk – a significant population centre (not fully, but two-thirds of the city). The central district is already ours, with engagements continuing in the southern sector. Another substantial town, Kirovsk, is now entirely under our control.

The South Group of Forces has entered Konstantinovka – a key defensive line comprising Konstantinovka, Slavyansk, and Kramatorsk. These fortifications were developed by the AFU over more than a decade with the assistance of Western specialists. Yet our troops have now penetrated these defences, with combat ongoing there. The same applies to Seversk, another major community where hostilities are underway.

The Centre Group of Forces continues effective operations, having entered Krasnoarmeysk – from the southern approach, if I recall correctly – with fighting now occurring within the town. I will refrain from excessive detail, not least because I have no desire to inform our adversary – paradoxical as that may sound. Why? Because they are in disarray, scarcely comprehending the situation themselves. Providing them additional clarity serves no purpose. Rest assured, our personnel are executing their duties with confidence.

As for the East Group of Forces: it is progressing decisively through the northern Zaporozhye Region and partially into the Dnepropetrovsk Region at a rapid pace.

The Dnieper Group of Forces likewise operates with full assurance. Approximately… Almost 100 percent of the Lugansk Region is ours – the enemy retains perhaps 0.13 percent. In the Donetsk Region, they control marginally over 19 percent. In the Zaporozhye and Kherson regions, this figure stands at roughly 24–25 percent, respectively. Everywhere, Russian forces – I emphasise – maintain undisputed strategic initiative.

Yet if we are combating the entire NATO alliance, advancing thus with unwavering confidence, and are deemed a “paper tiger” – what does that make NATO itself? What manner of entity is it then?

But never mind that. What matters most is to have confidence in ourselves – and we do.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Thank you.

There are paper cut-out toys for children – paper tigers. You can present one to President Trump when you meet next time.

Vladimir Putin: No, we have our own relationship, and we know what presents to give each other. You know, we have a very calm attitude towards this.

I do not know in what context that phrase was said; maybe it was said ironically. You see, there are some elements… So, he told his interlocutor that [Russia] is a paper tiger. What action could follow next? Actions could be taken to deal with that “paper tiger.” But nothing like this is happening in reality.

What is the current problem? They are sending enough weapons to the Armed Forces of Ukraine, as many as Ukraine needs. In September, the AFU’s losses amounted to about 44,700 people, nearly half of them irretrievable losses. In the same period, they forcibly mobilised slightly more than 18,000 people. Approximately 14,500 people have returned to the army from hospitals. If we add up these figures and subtract the total from the number of casualties, we will see that Ukraine lost 11,000 in one month. In other words, the number of its troops on the frontline was not replenished and is decreasing.

If we look at the figures from January to August, approximately 150,000 Ukrainians have deserted from the army. Over the same period, 160,000 people have been mobilised into the army, but 150,000 deserters is too many. Taken together with increasing losses, even though the figure was higher the previous month, this means that the only solution is to lower the mobilisation age. But this will not produce the desired result either.

Russian and, incidentally, Western experts believe that this will hardly have a positive effect because they have no time to train the conscripts. Our forces are advancing every day, you see? They have no time to become entrenched or train their new personnel, and they are also losing more servicemen than they can replenish on the battlefield. That is what matters.

Therefore, the Kiev leaders should think more seriously about reaching an agreement. We have said this many times, offering them the opportunity to do so.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Do we have enough personnel for everything?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, we do. First, we also sustain losses, regrettably, but they are several times smaller than the AFU’s losses.

And then, there is a difference. Our men volunteer for military service. They are actually volunteers. We are not conducting a sweeping mobilisation, let alone a forced one, unlike the Kiev regime. I have not invented this; trust me, this is objective data, confirmed by Western experts: 150,000 deserters [from the AFU] from January to August. What is the reason? People have been seized in the street, and now they are deserting from the army, and rightfully so. Moreover, I am urging them to desert. We also call on them to surrender, which is difficult to do because those who try to surrender are shot by Ukrainian anti-retreat or barrier units or killed by drones. And drones are often operated by mercenaries from other countries who kill Ukrainians because they do not care about them. As for the [Ukrainian] army, it is a simple army made up of workers and farmers. The elite is not fighting; it is only sending its own citizens to the slaughter. That is why there are so many deserters.

We also have deserters, which is normal for armed conflicts. Some people leave their units without permission. But there are few of them, really few, compared to the other side, where desertion has become a massive issue. That is the problem. They can lower the mobilisation age to 21 or even 18 years, but this will not resolve the problem, and they must accept this. I hope the Kiev regime’s leaders will come to see this and will find the strength to sit down at the negotiating table.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Thank you.

Friends, please ask your questions.

Ivan Safranchuk, go ahead, please.

Ivan Safranchuk: Mr President, thank you very much for your highly interesting opening remarks. You have already set a high bar for our discussion during your exchange with Fyodor Lukyanov.

This topic was briefly touched upon in your earlier comments, but I would like to seek clarification. Amid the fundamental changes that have occurred in recent years, has anything genuinely surprised you? For instance, the sheer fervour with which many Europeans have pursued confrontation with us, and how some have ceased to feel ashamed of their participation in Hitler’s coalition.

After all, there are developments that were hard to imagine until recently. Was there genuinely an element of surprise – how could this happen? You noted that in today’s world, one must be prepared for anything, as anything can occur – yet until recently, there seemed to be greater predictability. So, amidst this rapid pace of change, was there anything that truly astonished you?

Vladimir Putin: Initially… On the whole, broadly speaking, no, nothing particularly surprised me, as I had foreseen much of what would unfold. Nevertheless, what did astonish me was this readiness – even eagerness – to revise everything that had been positive in the past.

Consider this: at first, very cautiously, with probing, the West began equating Stalin’s regime with the fascist regime in Germany – the Nazi regime, Hitler’s regime – placing them on the same level. I observed all this clearly; I was watching. They began dredging up the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, while sheepishly forgetting about the Munich Betrayal of 1938, as though it never happened, as though the Prime Minister [of Great Britain] did not return to London after the Munich meeting and wave the agreement with Hitler from the aircraft steps – “We’ve signed a deal with Hitler!” – brandishing it – “I’ve brought peace!” Yet even then, there were those in Britain who declared: “Now war is inevitable” – that was Churchill. Chamberlain said: “I’ve brought peace.” Churchill retorted: “Now war is inevitable.” Those assessments were made even then.

They said: the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact – an atrocity, colluding with Hitler, the Soviet Union conspired with Hitler. Well, but you yourselves had conspired with Hitler shortly before and carved up Czechoslovakia. As though that never occurred. Propagandistically – yes, one can hammer these false equivalences into people’s heads, but in essence, we know how it truly was. That was the first act of the Ballet de la Merlaison.

Then matters escalated. They began not merely equating Stalin’s and Hitler’s regimes – they attempted to erase the very outcomes of the Nuremberg Trials. Bizarre, given that these were participants in a shared struggle, and the Nuremberg Trials were collective, held precisely so that nothing similar would recur. Yet they began doing that. They started tearing down monuments to Soviet soldiers and so forth, those who fought against Nazism.

I understand the ideological underpinnings here. I stated from this podium earlier that when the Soviet Union imposed its political system on Eastern Europe – yes, all this is clear. But the people who fought Nazism, who gave their lives – what have they to do with it? They were not leading Stalin’s regime, they made no political decisions, they simply laid down their lives on the altar of Victory over Nazism. They began this – and then further, and further…

Yet this did still surprise me – that there seems no limit, purely, I assure you, because this concerns Russia, and the desire to somehow marginalise it.

You see, I had intended to approach the podium, but I did not bring my book with me – I had planned to read something to you, yet I simply forgot and left it behind. What do I wish to convey? On my desk at home lies a volume of Pushkin. I occasionally enjoy immersing myself in it when I have five spare minutes. It is intrinsically interesting, pleasant to read, and moreover, I relish delving into that atmosphere, sensing how people lived back then, what inspired them, and what they thought.

Just yesterday, I opened it, leafed through, and came across a poem. We all know – the Russians [among those present here] certainly do – Mikhail Lermontov’s Borodino: “Hey tell, old man, had we a cause …”, and so forth. However, I never knew Pushkin had written on this theme. I read it, and it made a profound impression, for it reads as though Pushkin penned it yesterday, as if he were telling me: “Listen, you are going to the Valdai Club – take this with you, read it to your colleagues, share my thoughts on the matter.”

Frankly, I hesitated, thinking: very well. But since the question arose, and I have the book with me – may I? It is fascinating. This answers many questions. It is titled The Borodino Anniversary:

The great day of Borodino

With brotherly commemoration

We’d thus proclaim: “Did not the tribes advance

and threaten us with devastation?

Was not all Europe gathered here?

And whose star led them through the air?

Yet firm we stood, with steadfast tread,

And met with breast the hostile tide

Of tribes ruled by that haughty pride

And equal proved the unequal fight.

And now? Their disastrous flight,

Boastful, they now forget outright;

Forgot the Russian bayonet and snow,

Which buried their fame in desert wastes below.

Again they dream of feasts to come –

For them, Slav blood is drunken wine

But bitter shall their morning be

But long such guests’ unbroken sleep,

Within a cramped and cold new home,

Beneath the turf of Northern soil!

(Applause.)

Everything is articulated here. Once again, I am convinced that Alexander Pushkin is our everything. Incidentally, Pushkin grew quite impassioned later – I will not read that, but you may do so if you wish. This was written in 1831.

You see, Russia’s very existence displeases many, and all wish to partake in this historic endeavour – inflicting a “strategic defeat” upon us and profiting thereby: taking a bite here, a bite there… I am tempted to make an expressive gesture, but there are many ladies present [in the hall]… That will not happen.

Fyodor Lukyanov: I wish to note a highly significant parallel. Poland’s President Nawrocki literally said – I believe just the day before yesterday in an interview…

Vladimir Putin: By the way, Poland is mentioned later [in the poem].

Fyodor Lukyanov: Yes, well, naturally – our favourite partner. So, he stated in the interview that he regularly “converses” with General Piłsudski, discussing matters, including relations with Russia. Whereas you – with Pushkin. It seems somewhat discordant.

Vladimir Putin: You know, Piłsudski was such a figure – he harboured hostility towards Russia, and so forth – and under his leadership, guided by his ideas, Poland committed many errors prior to the Second World War. After all, Germany proposed resolving the Danzig and Danzig Corridor matters peacefully – Poland’s leadership at the time categorically refused and ultimately became Nazism’s first victim.

They also wholly rejected the following – though historians surely know this – Poland then refused to allow the Soviet Union to assist Czechoslovakia. The Soviet Union was prepared to do so; documents in our archives attest to this – I read them personally. When notes were sent to Poland, Poland declared it would never permit Russian troops passage to aid Czechoslovakia, and that should Soviet aircraft fly over, Poland would shoot them down. In the end, it became Nazism’s first victim.

If today’s highest-ranking political family in Poland also remembers this, comprehending all the complexities and vicissitudes of historical epochs and bearing it in mind while consulting Piłsudski, and heeds these mistakes – then that would indeed be no bad thing.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Yet one suspects his context is rather different.

Right. Next question, colleagues, please.

Professor Marandi, Iran.

Seyed Mohammad Marandi: Thank you very much for the opportunity, Mr President, and I thank Valdai as well, this excellent conference.

We are all saddened because during the last two years we’ve seen genocide in Gaza, and the pain and suffering of women and children being torn apart day and night. Recently we saw President Trump gave a peace proposal that looked more like a submission and capitulation. And especially introducing someone like Blair with his history is insult to injury. I was wondering what do you think the Russian Federation can do to bring an end to this misery, which has really darkened the days of everyone? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: The situation in Gaza is one of the most tragic events in recent history. It is also well known that the UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has publicly admitted – and he often reflects Western views – that Gaza has become the largest children’s cemetery in the world. What could be more tragic? What could be more painful?

Now, regarding President Trump’s proposal on Gaza – you may find this surprising, but Russia is overall ready to support it. Provided, of course, that it truly leads to the ultimate goal we have always spoken about. We must thoroughly examine the proposals made.

Since 1948 – and later in 1974, when the relevant UN Security Council resolution was adopted – Russia has consistently supported the creation of two states: Israel and a Palestinian state. I believe this is the only key to a final, lasting solution to the Palestinian–Israeli conflict.

As far as I understand – I have not looked through the proposal carefully yet – it suggests creating an international administration to govern Palestine for some time, or more precisely, the Gaza Strip. It is proposed that Mr Blair would head it. Now, he is not known as a great peacemaker. But I know him personally. I have even visited him at his home, spent the night there, and in the morning, over coffee in our pyjamas, we spoke at length. Yes, this is true.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Was the coffee good?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, quite good.

But what would I like to add? He is a man with strong personal views, but he is also an experienced politician. Overall, if his knowledge and experience are directed towards peace, then yes, of course, he could play a positive role.

However, several questions naturally arise. First: how long would this international administration operate? How, and to whom, would power then be transferred? As I understand it, this plan foresees the possibility of eventually transferring power to a Palestinian administration.

I believe it would be best to transfer control directly to President Abbas and the current Palestinian administration. Perhaps they may face difficulties in addressing security matters. But as I heard from colleagues today, this plan also envisages that the power transfer may involve local militia groups in order to ensure security. Is that bad? In my opinion, this could be a good solution.

Let me repeat: we must understand how long this international administration will be in force. What is the timeframe for the transfer of civilian authority? No less important are security issues. I believe that this deserves support.

On one hand, we are talking about the release of all hostages held by Hamas, and on the other – the release of a significant number of Palestinians from Israeli prisons. It must also be made clear: how many Palestinians, who exactly, and in what timeframe this exchange would take place.

And, of course, the most important issue: how does Palestine itself view this proposal? This is absolutely essential. Here, the opinion of the region and the entire Islamic world matters, but most of all Palestine itself and the Palestinians, including Hamas. There are different attitudes toward Hamas, and we also have our own position and contacts with them. It is important for us that both Hamas and the Palestinian Authority support such an initiative.

All these questions require thorough and careful study. But if this plan is implemented, it would indeed represent a significant step towards settling the conflict. Still, I want to stress once again: the conflict can only be fundamentally resolved through the creation of a Palestinian state.

Of course, Israel’s position will be crucial here. We do not yet know how it has reacted. Frankly, I have not seen any public statements yet; I simply have not had time to look. But what really matters is not public rhetoric, but how the Israeli leadership reacts to this and whether it is ready to implement what is being proposed by the US President.

There are many questions here. But overall, if all these positive elements I have mentioned come together, it could become a real breakthrough. Such a breakthrough would be very positive.

Let me repeat this for the third time: the creation of a Palestinian state is the cornerstone of any comprehensive settlement.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr President, were you surprised when a couple of weeks ago a US ally, Israel, attacked another US ally, Qatar? Or is that just considered normal now?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, I was surprised.

Fyodor Lukyanov: And what about the US reaction? Or rather, the lack thereof? How did you take that?

(Vladimir Putin throws up his hands.)

I see. Thank you.

Tara Reade, please.

Tara Reade, Russia Today: (In russian) Здравствуйте (Good afternoon), (in english) President Putin, it’s a tremendous honour to speak to you. I want to start with a thank you that will lead to the question. I used to work for Senator Biden and Leon Panetta in the United States of America, and I came forward about some things and corruption in 2020, and I was targeted by the Biden regime to the point where I had to flee.

Margarita Simonyan, who is a hero to me, helped me and Masha, Maria Boutina, get through. And I was able to get political asylum thanks to you. And with your collective effort, you saved my life.

So thank you. I was a target, and my life was in immediate danger. What I can say about Russia is, (in russian) люблю Россию (I love Russia). (In english) I have found it to be beautiful. The propaganda in the West was wrong about Russia. I love Moscow. The people have been very warm and welcoming. It’s efficient, and for the first time, I feel safe, and I feel more free.

I work for RT and I’ve really enjoyed it. I’m given a lot of creative freedom to work in my sphere in geopolitical analysis. And so thank you to the Valdai Club for recognising my intellectual pursuits. I appreciate you. So this is my question. I have met other Westerners that have come here for sanctuary to Russia, also for economic reasons and for shared values.

How do you feel about watching this stream of Westerners coming in asking to live in Russia, and will it be easier to get Russian citizenship? And you gave me, by presidential decree, Russian citizenship, which is a tremendous responsibility and honour. So, I am Russian. Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: You have mentioned shared values. And how do we treat those people who come here from Western countries, want to live here, and share these values with us? You know, our political culture has always had both positive and controversial aspects.

In the identity documents of subjects of the Russian Empire, there was no line for “Nationality.” It simply was not there. In the Soviet passport it appeared, but in the Russian passport – again, it was not there. And what was there? “Religion.” There was a common value, a religious value, an affiliation with Eastern Christianity – with Orthodoxy, faith. There were other values as well, but this was the defining one: what values do you share?

That is why even today, it makes no difference to us whether a person comes from the East, the West, the South, or the North. If they share our values, they are our people. That is how we see you, and that is why you feel the attitude towards yourself. And that is how I see it as well.

As for administrative and legal procedures, we have taken the necessary decisions to make it easier for people who wish to live in Russia, to tie their lives to our country, even if only for some years, for a longer period, to do so. These measures reduce administrative barriers.

I cannot say that we are seeing an enormous influx. Still, it amounts to thousands of people. I think around 2,000 applications have been submitted, 1,800 or so, and about 1,500 approved. And the flow continues.

Indeed, people are coming, motivated not so much by political reasons, but rather by values. Especially from European countries, because what I would call “gender terrorism” against children there does not sit well with many people, and they are looking for safe havens. They come to us, and God grant them success. We will support them as far as we can.

You also said – I made a note – “I love Russia,” “I love Moscow.” Well, we have much in common, because I also love Moscow. That is the basis we will build on.

Fyodor Lukyanov: From a native of St Petersburg, of Leningrad, that means a lot.

Vladimir Putin: A revolutionary development.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr President, as a follow-up to this issue: a couple of months ago, we heard some truly surprising news: an American citizen named Michael Gloss, the son of a Deputy Director of the CIA, who was fighting on our side, was killed at the frontline in Donbass. His American nationality was unusual enough to attract attention, let alone his family background.

Before this story became public, were you aware of his presence?

Vladimir Putin: No, I was not. I first learned about it when the draft executive order awarding him the Order of Courage crossed my desk. And I must confess, I was quite taken aback.

Upon inquiry, it emerged that both his parents were far from ordinary. His mother is, in fact, a serving Deputy Director of the CIA, and his father is a Navy veteran who, I believe, now heads a major Pentagon contractor. This is, as you can imagine, anything but an ordinary American family. And again, I had no prior knowledge of any of this.

Anyway, as one of our colleagues just said here, describing her views and why she was here – her story and motives in fact echoed those of Michael Gloss. What did he do? He never told his parents where he was going. He had simply told them he was going travelling. His journey took him to Turkiye, and then on to Russia. Once in Moscow, he went directly to a military enlistment office and stated that he shared the values Russia is defending.

I am not exaggerating – this was all documented. He said he wanted to defend human rights: the right to one’s language, religion, and so on. He was a human rights activist, and since Russia was fighting for those very values, he was prepared to defend them with a weapon in his hands. After completing a special training course, he was enlisted – not just into the Armed Forces, but into an elite unit, the Airborne Forces.

He served in an assault unit and fought on the frontline. He fought with valour, and was seriously wounded when a shell hit his armoured personnel carrier. He and another Russian comrade-in-arms were both badly wounded in the blast. A third Russian soldier, despite sustaining burns to 25 percent of his own body, pulled them from the burning wreckage and dragged them to a wooded area.

Just imagine the scene: this young man – he was only 22, I think – while bleeding from his own wounds, was trying to help his wounded Russian comrade. Tragically, they were spotted by a Ukrainian drone, which then dropped a bomb. Both were killed.

I believe that such individuals truly form the core of the MAGA movement, which supports President Trump. Why? Because they stand for the same values Michael Gloss supported. This is who they are. And this is who he was.

The US anthem speaks of “the land of the free and the home of the brave,” does it not? He was a brave man in the truest sense – he proved it with his deeds and, ultimately, with his life. A significant part of the American people can, and I believe should, be proud of a man like him.

I presented his order to Mr Witkoff. I had asked Michael’s comrades-in-arms to attend the ceremony, and they did. We were also joined by the Commander of the Airborne Forces, his brigade commander, his company commander, and by the very soldier who pulled him from the burning vehicle, the one who himself sustained grave injuries, with burns covering 25 percent of his body. I should note, that soldier has since recovered from his wounds and has returned to the front. That is the calibre of the people we have fighting for us.

Most recently, on the initiative of the Donetsk People’s Republic’s leadership, a school in Donbass has been named after the two fallen soldiers – the American and the Russian. It is a school that specialises in the in-depth study of the English language. We will, of course, ensure it is maintained to a high standard, as we are committed to doing for all schools across Donbass. This is a priority for us.

This is the kind of man Michael Gloss was. Let me say again: both his family and his country – or at least that part of it which shares his convictions – can be truly proud of him.

And in a broader sense, he embodies what I mentioned earlier when speaking about people of different nationalities who consider themselves Russian soldiers. He was an American by birth, but he was a Russian soldier.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Thank you.

Anton Khlopkov, please.

Director of the Centre for Energy and Security Studies (Moscow) Anton Khlopkov: You mentioned attempts to expel Russia from the global system. I would add: from global markets. In recent weeks, calls from Washington to China, India, and other countries – accompanied by pressure – have grown increasingly vocal, urging these nations to cease purchasing Russian raw materials and energy resources.

At the same time, you have also spoken about the importance of uniting, rather than separating, efforts, including the experience of cooperation between Russia and the US, and the need to restore full-fledged relations.

This week, to the surprise of many analysts and observers who do not engage with nuclear energy on a daily basis, statistics were published showing that Russia remains the largest supplier of enriched uranium for nuclear fuel to the United States.

Given the current format and level of bilateral Russian-American relations in the political domain, how do you assess the prospects for cooperation between Russia and the United States in enriched uranium supplies, and in nuclear energy more broadly?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: I will certainly address these potential tariff restrictions on trade between the United States and our trading partners – China, India, and several other states.

We know that there are advisers within the US administration who believe this constitutes sound economic policy. Concurrently, there are experts in the United States who doubt this, and many of our own specialists share these doubts regarding its potential benefits.

What is the issue? It undoubtedly exists. Suppose elevated tariffs are imposed on goods from countries with which Russia trades energy commodities – oil, gas, and so forth. What would this lead to? It would result in fewer goods – let us say, Chinese goods – entering the US market, thereby driving up prices there. Alternatively, these Chinese goods might be rerouted through third or fourth countries, which would also raise prices due to emerging shortages and more expensive logistics. Should this occur and prices escalate, the Federal Reserve System would then be forced to maintain high interest rates or increase them to curb inflation, ultimately slowing the US economy itself.

This is not a matter of politics; it is purely economic calculus. Many of our experts believe this is precisely what will happen. The same applies to India and goods produced there. There is no difference whatsoever compared to Chinese goods.

Thus, the benefits for the US are far from evident. As for the countries targeted by these threats – take India, for example: if India were to reject our energy commodities, it would incur measurable losses, estimated variously. Some suggest these could amount to $9–10 billion if they comply. Conversely, if they refuse, sanctions in the form of higher tariffs would be imposed also resulting in comparable losses. Why, then, should they comply, especially when facing substantial domestic political costs? The people of a country like India will, believe me, scrutinise their leadership’s decisions closely and will never tolerate humiliation from anyone. Moreover, I know Prime Minister Modi; he would never take such steps himself. There is simply no economic rationale for it.

As for, let us say, uranium – what is it, really? In this case, uranium is a fuel, an energy resource for nuclear power plants. In that sense, it is no different from oil, gas, fuel oil, or coal, because it too is an energy source that generates electricity. What is the difference? None at all. The United States does, in fact, buy uranium from us.

You asked: why does the United States buy it, while, at the same time, trying to prevent others from purchasing our energy resources? The answer is simple, and it was given to us long ago in Latin. We all know the saying: Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi – what is permitted to Jupiter is not permitted to an ox. That is the essence of it.

But neither China nor India – despite the fact that cow is sacred in India – wants to be the ox here. There are politicians, especially in Europe, who are willing to be an ox, a goat, even a ram. We will not name names, but this certainly does not apply to China, India, or other large, medium, or even small countries that respect themselves and refuse to be humiliated.

As for the uranium trade, yes, it continues. The United States is one of the largest producers and consumers of nuclear energy. If I recall correctly, they have about 54 nuclear power plants and around 90 reactor units. I believe nuclear energy accounts for roughly 18.7 percent of their total energy mix. In Russia, we have fewer reactors, and produce less, but the share of nuclear energy in our mix is similar: about 18.5 percent. Naturally, given the scale of their nuclear industry, the United States requires large amounts of fuel.

We are not even the largest supplier. (Turning to Mr Khlopkov.) You said we are, but that is not quite correct. The largest supplier is an American-European company – I can’t recall its name – which covers about 60 percent of the US demand for uranium and nuclear fuel. Russia is the second-largest supplier, providing around 25 percent.

Last year – I do not remember the exact figures in volume or percentage points, but I do remember the earnings – we earned close to $800 million, or some $750–760 million, to be exact. Over the first half of this year, uranium sales to the United States exceeded $800 million. By the end of 2025, the figure will likely surpass $1 billion and be close to $1.2 billion.

We have an overall idea of how much can be earned next year based on current requests; right now, we’re expecting the earnings over $800 million. So, this work continues. Why? Because it is profitable. The Americans buy our uranium because it is beneficial for them. And rightfully so. We, in turn, are ready to continue these supplies reliably.

Fyodor Lukyanov: I have noted that at the next Valdai Club meeting, we should add a section on livestock farming to discuss rams and oxen.

Vladimir Putin: This is actually an important point. Why? Because if you set aside the metaphor, which everyone here has understood, and focus purely on the energy agenda, you will see that Europe’s rejection of Russian gas has already resulted in higher prices. As a result, the production of mineral fertilisers in Europe, which requires a lot of gas, has become unprofitable, forcing factories to close.

Fertiliser prices went up, which, in turn, affected agriculture, drove up food prices and, finally, affected people’s solvency. That has directly impacted people’s standard of living. That is why they are taking to the streets.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr President, let me stay on the nuclear topic for a moment. A lot has been written recently, particularly last week, about the situation at the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant, and an alleged threat of a major accident that could affect all the surrounding regions. What is happening there?

Vladimir Putin: What is happening is the same as before. Fighters on the Ukrainian side are attempting to strike the perimeter of the nuclear power plant. Thank God it has not come to strikes on the plant itself. There were a few strikes on what I believe is called the training centre.

A few days ago, just before Mr Grossi came to Russia, there was an artillery strike on power transmission towers, they fell, and now the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant is being supplied with electricity by generators, and the supply is reliable. But the question is how to repair those networks. The difficulty, as you understand, is that these sites lie within range of Ukrainian artillery; they are shelling those areas and effectively prevent our repair crews from approaching them. And yet the same stories are spread that we are the ones doing it. Mr Grossi has been there; IAEA staff are present – they see everything but keep silent about what is actually occurring. They see what is happening. Are we supposed to have struck it ourselves from the Ukrainian side? It’s nonsense.

This is a dangerous game. People on the other side should also understand: if they play with this so recklessly, they have operating NPPs on their side, too – so what would prevent us from responding in kind? They should think about that. That is the first point.

Second: under Ukrainian administration the plant employed around 10,000 people. That was a Soviet-style approach, because the station carried a whole social infrastructure. Today more than 4,500 people work at the plant, and only about 250 of them came from other Russian regions. The rest are people who have always worked there. Always. Some people left; nobody forced anyone to stay or forced anyone out. People chose to remain and, like our colleague [Tara Reade], took Russian citizenship, live there as before and continue to work. All of this is happening in full view of IAEA observers stationed there: they are present at the plant and see it all.

So that is the situation. Overall, it is under control. We are taking measures related to the physical protection of the plant and of the spent fuel. It is a difficult situation.

I should add that Ukrainian sabotage and reconnaissance groups have repeatedly attempted similar actions in recent months and even last year: they blew up high-voltage transmission lines at the Kursk Nuclear Power Plant and the Smolensk Nuclear Power Plant, sneaking in through the forests to do it. Our specialists repaired those lines very quickly.

What is happening now at the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant is no different from the actions of those reconnaissance and sabotage groups – in essence, terrorist groups. It is a very dangerous practice that should stop. I hope the people involved get that message.

Fyodor Lukyanov: So, Grossi knows what is going on there?

Vladimir Putin: He knows very well. They sit there at the plant and see a shell land. Are we supposed to have crossed into Ukrainian territory and shelled ourselves? It’s absurd and devoid of common sense.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Thank you.

Mr Gábor Stier, go ahead, please.

Gábor Stier: Mr President, thank you for sharing Russia’s opinions and your views of the world, the future world order, and the current world order.

I am from Hungary, which is now often referred to as the EU’s black sheep. During the past few days, the Valdai Club has been talking about the current developments, whether the West is ready for reforms, and about its place in the new world order. We also talked about the sad shape of the EU and Europe.

I share this view, and many in Hungary think so too, wondering what would happen to the EU. It is not clear if the EU will survive or if its future is gloomy. Many think that the integration of Ukraine would be the last nail in the EU’s coffin.

What do you think? Do you share the view that the EU is in a deep crisis? What is your take on this situation?

As for whether Ukraine will become an EU member, you have recently said that Russia would not be against this. Many of us are baffled, because… For one thing, I understand that Ukraine’s accession would weaken the EU, which will benefit many, of course. But if the EU or Europe become too weak, this will pose a risk or danger to the Eurasian space. This is my first point.

Second, the EU looks increasingly more like NATO lately. This is quite obvious if we look at its attitude to the Ukrainian crisis. As I see it, Ukraine will become the punch fist of the West, the punch fist and the army of the EU. In this case, if Ukraine becomes an EU member, this may even be a threat to Russia.

What do you think about this?

Vladimir Putin: To begin with, the EU has been developing primarily as an economic community since the time of its founding fathers, as we remember this, since the European Coal and Steel Community and further on.

I have already told the following story in public, yet I cannot deny myself the pleasure of recalling it again. In 1993, I was in Hamburg together with then St Petersburg Mayor [Anatoly] Sobchak who had a meeting with then Chancellor [Helmut] Kohl. Mr Kohl said that if Europe wanted to remain one of independent centres of the global civilisation, it should be with Russia, and that Russia should by all means go together with the EU, with Europe, and they would powerfully complement each other, especially since they actually stand on the common basis of traditional values, which were respected in Europe back then.

What can I say about the current situation? I can only offer a general view. I have already presented it, and mentioned Pushkin while doing so. But joking aside, the EU is a powerful association with large, or even huge potential. It is a powerful centre of our civilisation, but it is also a waning centre. I believe this is obvious.

And the reason is not just that Germany, the engine of the European economy, has been stagnating for the past few years and is not expected to overcome stagnation next year either. And it is not that the French economy is facing huge problems, with a budget deficit and a growing debt. The thing is that the fundamental issues related to European identity are disappearing. This is the matter. They are being eroded from within; the uncontrolled migration is doing this.

I will not go into details now; you know these matters better than I do. Should Europe evolve into a quasi-state entity, or remain a Europe of nations, a Europe as an independent state? That is not for us to decide; it is an internal European debate. Nevertheless, one way or another, a certain framework of values must endure. Because if that critical framework, that foundation, is lost, then the Europe we all once loved so much will be lost with it.

You know, we have a substantial liberal community here in Russia – from creative and intellectual circles. We have many thinkers we call ‘Westernisers,’ who believe Russia’s path should bring it closer to the West.

Yet even these individuals have been telling me: “The Europe we loved no longer exists.” I will not name them now, but believe me, they are well-known figures. They are, in the truest sense of the word, European intellectuals. Some of them spend half the year living over there in Europe, and they all say the same thing: the Europe we so cherished is finished; it is gone.

What do they mean, above all? They are referring to the erosion of those very value benchmarks, that foundational framework. If this erosion continues, then Europe, as I said, risks becoming a fading centre, gradually shrinking and fading. This, in turn, leads to economic problems. And if the current course persists, the situation is unlikely to improve.

Why is this? Because it results in a loss of value sovereignty. And once that sovereignty is lost, economic troubles inevitably follow. The logic is clear, is it not? Consider our discussion on uranium – an energy carrier, in fact – which Russia continues to export to the United States, while gas and oil supplies to Europe are blocked. Why, when it is economically efficient? The answer is sanctions, driven by political ideas. What ideas? Dozens of them, which inevitably arise when you shift focus away from your national interests. But if you remain focused on national interests and sovereignty, there is no rational reason to reject such trade. Once sovereignty is lost, everything else begins to crumble.

We see nationally-oriented political forces gaining momentum across Europe – in France and in Germany. I will not delve into specifics. Hungary, of course, under Viktor Orban, has long championed this stance. I cannot say for certain, as I do not follow Hungary’s domestic politics closely, but I believe the majority of Hungarians wish to remain Hungarian, and will therefore support Orban. If they did not wish to remain Hungarian, they would support von der Leyen. But then, ultimately, they would all become ‘von der Leyens,’ you see?

My point is this: if these political forces in Europe continue to gain strength, then Europe will be reborn. But this does not depend on us; it depends on Europe itself.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr President, an oil tanker was reportedly seized the other day off the French coast. The French displayed their sovereignty. Naturally, they are linking this incident with Russia, one way or another, although the tanker is flying another flag. What do you think of this?

Vladimir Putin: This is piracy. Yes, I know about this incident. The tanker was seized in neutral waters without any reason whatsoever. They were probably looking for some military consignments, including drones, or something like that. They found nothing, as the ship carried no such items. Indeed, the tanker was sailing under the flag of a third country and was operated by an international crew.

First, I do not know how this can be linked with Russia, but I know that this fact did take place. What is this all about? Is this really important for France? Yes, it is important. Do you know why? Considering the difficult situation for the ruling French elite, they have no other way of distracting the attention of the population, French citizens, from complicated and hard-to-resolve problems in the French Republic itself.

As I have already said in my remarks, they want very much to transfer the tension from inside the country to the external contour, to excite some other forces, other countries, in particular Russia, to provoke us into some vigorous actions and to tell the people of France that they should rally around their leader who will lead them to victory, like Napoleon. That’s the whole point.

Fyodor Lukyanov: You have flattered the President of France.

Vladimir Putin: I am doing this with pleasure. In reality, both of us maintain a good-natured working relationship. The current developments just mentioned by me are exactly what is happening, I do not even doubt this. I know him well.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Thank you.

Feng Shaolei.

Feng Shaolei: Feng Shaolei from the Centre for Russian Studies in Shanghai.

Mr President,

I am delighted to see you again.

I fully agree with you and your position: classical diplomacy must return. As an excellent example, you have made two very important official visits over the past six weeks: first, the Russian-American summit in Alaska, and second, the SCO summit followed by a parade in Beijing.

I would very much like to hear about the concrete results and significance of these two very important visits. Do you see any mutual influence or interconnection between them that can help us move forward on the path to normalising the international situation?

Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: First, regarding the visit to the United States, to Alaska. When we met there, President Trump and I hardly touched on bilateral or other issues. The focus was exclusively on the possibilities and ways to resolve the Ukrainian crisis. I think that was overall a good thing. I have known President Trump for a long time. He may come across as a bit of a shocker – everyone can see that – but, interestingly enough, he is a kind of person who knows how to listen. He listens, he hears, and he responds. That makes him a rather comfortable conversational partner, I would say. The fact that we attempted to explore potential solutions to the Ukrainian crisis is, in my view, positive in itself.

Second, one way or another, the discussion in this case, albeit superficially, was about restoring Russian-American relations, which are not just at an impasse, but at their lowest point in history.

I believe that the very fact of our meeting, the very fact that the visit took place – and I am grateful to the President for how he organised it – all signify that it is time to think about restoring bilateral relations. I believe this is good for everyone: for us bilaterally, and for the entire international community.

Now, regarding the visit to China. I had detailed discussions with my friend, President Xi Jinping – and I truly consider President Xi a friend of mine, as we have very trust-based personal relations. In private, he told me directly: “In China, we welcome the restoration and normalisation of Russian-American relations. If we can play any role in facilitating this process, we will do everything possible.”

The visit to the People’s Republic of China – it was, of course, far more extensive in nature. Why? Well, firstly, because we were jointly marking the end of the Second World War. Through this shared struggle – Russia primarily in the fight against Nazism, and later together in the struggle against Japanese militarism – Russia and China made an enormous contribution. I have already spoken about this; one need only look at the colossal human sacrifices Russia and China made upon the altar of this victory. That is the first point.

Secondly. This, of course, from our side – just as from China’s side when the President attended the Victory Day celebrations on May 9 in Russia – signifies that we remain true to the spirit of that alliance. This is extremely important. Therefore, I believe that in this sense, the visit to China was of a global, fundamental scope, and it naturally allowed us, on the sidelines of these events, to discuss the global situation, synchronise our positions, and talk about the development of bilateral relations in the economic, humanitarian, cultural, and education spheres.

We have decided to declare the coming year and the subsequent one as the Years of Education. What does this truly signify? It shows that we wish to work – and will work – with young people. This is a look towards the future. In this sense, it was undoubtedly a very important visit.

Moreover, certain initiatives by President Xi Jinping on global governance, for example, align closely with our ideas on Eurasian security. It was highly important to synchronise our positions on these issues, truly global in nature – both bilateral and global. Therefore, I highly assess the results. This, in my view, was yet another positive step forward in the development of our relations.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr President, it seems to me you are the first world leader to describe Trump as a comfortable interlocutor. People say anything about him – but never that.

Vladimir Putin: You know, I speak sincerely. As I mentioned, he enjoys grandstanding, in my opinion, but also poses questions sharply. As I said in my remarks, he defends his national interests as he defines them. But sometimes, I repeat, sometimes it is better to hear a direct position than ambiguities that are difficult to decipher.

But I want to reiterate – this is not just empty pleasantries. We spoke for – how long was it? – about an hour and a half. I presented my position, he listened attentively, without interrupting. I listened to him carefully, too. We exchanged views on complex issues. I will not go into detail – it is not customary – but he would say: listen, this will be difficult to achieve. I would reply: yes, indeed. Do you understand? We began discussing specifics. We discussed them – do you see? I want this to be clear: we engaged in discussion. It was not a case of one side declaring: I believe you must do this, or you must do that – “take your hat off”, so to speak. Do you understand? That did not happen.

Of course, it is important for this to reach logical conclusions, achieve results – that is true. But it is a complex process. As I said earlier: achieving a balance of interests, reaching consensus, is difficult. But if we approach it and achieve it through discussion, these become substantial agreements – ones we can hope will endure.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Did you tell him anything about Ukraine’s history?

Vladimir Putin: No.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Alright.

Vladimir Putin: Well, it is not funny.

I once told this to other American interlocutors. Let me be frank: we spoke openly and honestly about potential settlement options. What will come of it – I do not know. But we are prepared to continue this discussion.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Whose idea was it to meet in Alaska?

Vladimir Putin: Well, does it make any difference? The main thing is that we met.

Fyodor Lukyanov: I see.

Vladimir Putin: We felt comfortable in Alaska. Orthodoxy is still alive there, with Orthodox churches and people attending services. The liturgy is held in English, and then, on some festive occasions, when the service in English ends, the priest turns to the congregation and says in Russian, “Happy holiday!” And everyone replies, “Happy holiday!” That is wonderful.

Ivan Timofeyev: Mr President, in your speech you mentioned economic sanctions against Russia. Indeed, their amount is unprecedented. You have also just spoken of Orthodox churches. Patriarch Kirill has also been placed under restrictive measures by certain countries.

Our economy has held firm and shown a high degree of resilience to sanctions. Both our adversaries and our friends have been surprised by this resilience. But it seems we will have to live under sanctions for years and perhaps decades, if not longer.

How would you assess their impact on our economy? And what must be done to ensure its long-term stability for many years to come?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Indeed, as I said earlier, we have travelled a difficult and challenging path of development, growth, and the strengthening of our independence and sovereignty; in this case, our economic and financial sovereignty.

What have we achieved, and what has changed? First, we have significantly reshaped our main trade and economic partnerships. We have reorganised logistics to work with these partners. We have created our own payment systems. All of this functions successfully.

Of course, this alone is not enough in today’s world. We now need to focus on addressing other issues. The most important of these is the further diversification of our economy. We must make it more advanced, more high-tech. We need to transform the structure of the labour market and the payment system there.

What do I mean? As I have said, we must make the economy more technology-driven, raise productivity, which will lead to highly qualified specialists receiving higher wages. That is the first priority.

Second, we must also focus on people with low incomes. Why? Because this is not only a matter of social or political importance, but also an economic one. When people with low incomes earn more, they spend that money primarily on domestically produced goods. This means our domestic market grows as well, which is essential.

We absolutely must take further efforts to strengthen our financial system. To do so, two priorities stand out.

First, we need to further reinforce macroeconomic stability and bring inflation down while striving to maintain positive economic growth. Over the past couple of years, our economy has grown by 4.1 percent and 4.3 percent respectively, well above the global average.

However, at the end of last year, we acknowledged that in order to combat inflation, we would need to sacrifice these record-high growth rates. The Central Bank responded by raising the key interest rate, a move that obviously affects the economy as a whole. While I hope this does not lead to a full economic slowdown, we are going to implement targeted cooling measures. We have to sacrifice these growth rates to restore vital macroeconomic indicators that ensure the overall health of the economy. The Government’s recent decisions on taxation that involve a 2-percent increase in VAT have been already made public. It is essential that these changes do not lead to an expansion of the shadow economy.

All of this represents our primary near-term objectives. There also are fundamental factors regarding our economic situation, namely, a relatively low national debt and a modest budget deficit projected at 2.6 percent this year and 1.6 percent next year. At least these are our planned figures. That said, the state debt remains below 20 percent.

All of this gives us reason to believe that even though the Government’s decision on the VAT increase will inevitably affect economic growth due to greater tax burden – and we are well aware of that – it will also allow the Central Bank to find better flexibility when making well-balanced decisions on macroeconomic issues and managing the key interest rate, while the Government will make proper decisions on budget expenditure and maintain basic parameters while creating conditions for long-term development.

In summary, these factors: a) indicate that we have navigated a highly challenging period, and b) give us the confidence that we not only endured this stage but are now well-positioned to move forward.

I am confident that this will be the case.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Aleksandar Rakovic raised his hand.

Aleksandar Rakovic: Mr President,

I am Aleksandar Rakovic, a historian from Belgrade, Serbia. My question is: What do you think about the attempts to make a colour revolution in Serbia?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: I agree with President Vucic, and our intelligence services confirm this: certain Western centres are indeed attempting to organise a colour revolution – in this case, in Serbia.

There are always people, especially young people, who are not fully aware of the actual problems and the roots of these problems, or the possible consequences of illegal power changes, including those brought about by colour revolutions.

Everyone knows well what the colour revolution in Ukraine led to. A colour revolution is an unconstitutional and illegal seizure of power. That is what it is, to put it bluntly. As a rule, it never leads to anything good. It is always better to stay within the framework of the fundamental law, within the constitution.

It is always easiest to influence young people, and shaping their consciousness is the easiest. That is why I mentioned our own young men and women who proudly appear in public wearing kokoshniks or other Russian symbols. This sense of pride is the key to a society’s success: this is how it defends itself against external, especially negative, influences.

And the young people in Serbia – even those who take to the streets – are, by and large, patriots. We must not forget that. Dialogue with them is necessary, and I believe President Vucic is trying to do just that. But they must also remember that they are, first and foremost, patriots.

They must never forget the suffering endured by the Serbian people before, during and after the World War I, and in the lead-up to World War II and during it. The Serbian people went through immense hardship. Those who are now pushing young people onto the streets want the Serbian people to continue suffering, just like some want the Russian people to suffer, and they even say so openly. Perhaps in Serbia, those who incite unrest may not say it out loud, but they are certainly thinking it.

They make promises that if they go out onto the streets now and overthrow someone, then everything will be alright. But no one ever explains how or when it will be alright, or how and what cost everything will suddenly become better. Those who provoke such events never say this. As a rule, it all ends in the opposite of what the organisers expect.

I believe that if a normal constructive dialogue is maintained with these young people, it will be possible to reach an understanding with them, because they are, above all, patriots – and they must realise what is truly better for their country: such revolutionary upheavals or evolutionary change – with their participation, of course.

But essentially, this is none of our business. It is an internal matter of Serbia.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Do you have good relations with President Vucic now? There were some complaints about our Serbian colleagues.

Vladimir Putin: I have good relations with everyone, including President Vucic.

Fyodor Lukyanov: [A question from] Adil Kaukenov.

Adil Kaukenov: Good afternoon, Mr President.

My name is Adil Kaukenov, and I am a doctoral student at Beijing Language and Culture University. I would like to return to the topic of your [recent] visit to China.

There has been a great deal of discussion surrounding the recent announcement that China has introduced a visa-free regime for Russian citizens. In fact, the impact is already noticeable in Beijing, with the new wave of visitors.

How do you view this development? Is Russia considering introducing a reciprocal visa-free arrangement for Chinese citizens? And what outcomes do you anticipate as a result of this move?

Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: As regards reciprocal steps, I mentioned in Beijing that we will respond in kind. Actually, I have recently discussed this with our Foreign Minister. He initially said, “We have already implemented it,” but then added, “Actually, I need to double-check.” Bureaucracy obviously works the same way in all countries – but if it has not been done yet, we will certainly follow through.

China’s announcement of visa-free entry for Russian citizens came as a surprise; it was a personal initiative by the [Chinese] president, and a very welcome one.

What are the expected outcomes? I believe they will be overwhelmingly positive, because this means the foundation of strong interstate relations is being built at the human level. The number of Russians travelling to China for tourism, research, and education will increase exponentially, and the same will happen in the opposite direction.

Most importantly, this is about Russian and Chinese tourists experiencing each other’s countries firsthand. Basically, you know, these are essential steps; we fully support them and will make every effort to facilitate this process.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Thank you.

General Sharma.

B.K. Sharma, Director, United Service Institution of India, New Delhi: Mr President, we are keenly looking forward to your visit to India in December. And my question is, what would be the strategic focus of your visit to India? How will it result in deepening the bilateral relations, and also collaboration regionally and internationally?

Vladimir Putin: We have been maintaining a special relationship with India since the Soviet era, after all, when the Indian people fought for their independence. They remember, know and appreciate this in India, while we praise them for keeping this memory alive in India. And our relations are developing; soon we will mark 15 years since signing the statement establishing a special strategic privileged partnership between our countries.

This is a reality. In fact, Russia and India have never had any problems or tensions between them, never. Prime Minister Modi is a very prudent and wise leader. Of course, national interests are his priority. And people in India know this very well.

The main thing for us now is to establish effective and mutually beneficial trade and economic ties. Our trade with India has reached about $63 billion. How many people live in India? Its population is one and a half billion, while Belarus has a population of ten million. But our trade with Belarus is equal to $50 billion, and India has $63 billion. Clearly, this fails to match our potential and capabilities. This is a total mismatch.

In this regard, we need to address several objectives to unlock our potential and benefit from the opportunities we have. Resolving the logistics issue tops this list, of course. The second task consists of dealing with the issues of financing and the processing of transactions. There is something to work on and we have everything it takes to fulfil this objective.

This can also be done using the BRICS instruments, and on a bilateral basis using rupees, using third country currencies or electronic settlements. However, these are the main things to be discussed. We have a trade imbalance with India, pardon the tautology [in Russian], and we know it, we see it. And together with our Indian friends and partners, we are thinking about how to improve this trade.

Quite recently, literally several days ago, I issued another instruction to the Government, to our co-chairman of the Intergovernmental Commission, Mr Manturov, to work with his colleagues in the Government on exploring all the possible options for expanding our trade and economic ties. And the Russian Government is working on this, and we are going to propose to our Indian friends the corresponding joint steps to this effect.

As for the political relations and our contacts on the international stage, we have always coordinated our actions. We certainly hear and keep in mind the respective positions of our countries on various major issues. Our foreign ministries are working closely together.

The same applies to the humanitarian area. We still have quite many students studying in Russia. We like Indian cinema, as I have already mentioned. We are probably the only country in the world, apart from India, that has a special channel showing Indian films day and night on a permanent basis.

We developed a high level of trust in the defence sector too. Together, we make several advanced promising weapons. This serves as yet another example demonstrating the kind of trust our countries have developed in their relations.

And, honestly speaking, I am also looking forward to this trip in early December, I am waiting for a meeting with my friend and our reliable partner, Prime Minister Modi.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Thank you.

Anatol Lieven.

Anatol Lieven: Thank you very much, Mr President, for coming to see us. Recently, there has been public discussion in the West of two serious potential escalations: the supply of Tomahawk cruise missiles to Ukraine and the potential seizure of ships with Russian cargoes on the high seas, not just in ports and territorial waters. Could you give us your view of the dangers of this and perhaps say something about how Russia would respond? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: This is something dangerous. Regarding the Tomahawks, this is a very powerful weapon, even if, truth be said, it is not exactly up to date, but it is still a formidable weapon that does pose a threat.

Of course, this will do nothing to change or affect in any way the situation on the battlefield. As I have already said, no matter how many drones you give to Ukraine, and no matter how many seemingly impregnable defence lines they create using these drones, the fundamental issue for the Armed Forces of Ukraine is that as long as they have staffing shortages, there is no one to fight these battles. Do you understand this?

I referred to the way combat tactics have evolved with the introduction of new technology. But just look as what our television networks have been reporting on the way our troops have been advancing their positions. Of course, this does take time. There are advances, even if they move forward by groups of two or three, there are still advances. The electronic warfare systems have been quite effective in jamming these drones to enable our troops to advance. The situation here is quite similar.

They already had the ATACMS systems. What has come out of it? Russia’s air defence systems adapted to these weapons. This is a hypersonic weapon, but we started intercepting them despite this fact. Can the Tomahawks do us any harm? They can. We will intercept them and improve our air defences.

Will this damage our relations considering that we have finally started seeing light at the end of tunnel? Of course, this would be detrimental to our relations. How can it be otherwise? You cannot use the Tomahawks without the US military personnel’s direct involvement. This would signal the advent of a totally new stage in this escalation, including in terms of Russia’s relations with the United States.

As for seizing ships, how could this possibly have any positive bearing? This is akin to piracy. And what do you do with pirates? You eliminate them. How can you deal with pirates in any other way? This does not mean that a war will ravage the entire World Ocean, but this would of course substantially heighten the risk of clashes.

Judging by the example of the French Republic, I believe that this is what is happening. I believe that today, this effort to ramp up tension and increase the level of escalation is primarily driven by the attempts to distract people in their own countries from the snowballing challenges the countries doing this have been facing domestically. They want us to retaliate – this is what they are waiting for, as I have been saying all along.

This would instantly change the political focus by enabling them to cry wolf and claim that they are under attack. “Who is after you?” – “The horrifying Russia! Everyone must close ranks and coalesce around their political leaders.” This is the main objective, and people in these countries must know that this is what they are after – they want to mislead their people, to defraud them and prevent them from taking part in protests rallies, including from taking into the streets, while also suppressing civic engagement while retaining their grip on power.

Still, people in these countries must understand that this is a risky game. They are being pushed towards escalation and possibly towards large-scale armed conflicts. I would advise against moving in this direction.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr President, you have been referring to Europe as an example of using outside threats for achieving internal consolidation. Yet, in the United States, we have also recently witnessed a high-profile political assassination, which was viewed as resulting from social polarisation and as exposing an internal conflict. It looks like they are also eager to exploit outside threats for the same purpose?

Vladimir Putin: You know, this is a disgusting atrocity, especially since it unfolded in real time and we could all see the way it happened. Indeed, what a disgusting and horrifying thing to see. First and foremost, of course, I offer my condolences to the family of Mr Charlie Kirk and the people who knew him. We sympathise and feel for you.

Moreover, he defended these very traditional values, which, by the way, Michael Gloss came to defend with arms in hand and sacrificed his life for this. He has laid down his life while fighting for these values as a Russian soldier, while Kirk sacrificed his life over there, in the United States, all while fighting for the same values. What is the difference? It makes little, if any, difference, in fact. By the way, Kirk’s followers in the United States must know that here in Russia, we have Americans who are fighting just as hard and are just as willing to sacrifice their lives for this cause, and they do it.

What has happened is a sign of a deep-running social divide. In the United States, I think, there is no need to whip up the situation externally, because the country’s political leadership is trying to bring order internally. And now I don’t want to give any comments, since this is none of our business, but to my mind the United States has gone down this path.

Although, what you have said and the question from your colleague about the new high-precision long-range weapon systems is also a way to somehow distract the attention from domestic challenges. But what I can see now is that the US leadership is currently inclined to pursue a different policy, specifically by focusing on the achievement of the national development goals, as they see them.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Thank you.

I saw Glenn Diesen’s hand.

Glenn Diesen: President Putin, thank you so much for sharing your perspectives. My question was about Finland and Sweden having joined NATO. It changes the geopolitical landscape of Europe, and I was wondering how Russia interprets this. That is, the High North as well as the situation in the Baltic Sea, and perhaps specifically the pressure that Kaliningrad is coming under, and how Russia might respond to this. Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Regarding the Navy, this can cause conflicts – this was my message. I would like to refrain from elaborating too much on this point or to provide fodder for those who want us to respond in a harsh and violent manner. If I do elaborate on this point by spelling out specifically what we intend to do, they would instantly cry wolf by saying that Russia is professing threats and claiming that they have been warning about it all along. This would serve as a trigger for achieving their end goal, which consists of throwing a veil over their domestic challenges by placing external threats into the spotlight.

Make no mistake, we will respond. We are not the ones detaining foreign Navy ships, while someone is trying to prevent us from doing this. They keep talking about the so-called shadow fleet and introduced this term. But can you tell me what this notion of a shadow fleet means? Can anyone here tell me? I have no doubt that the answer is negative, because there is no such thing as a shadow fleet in the international law of the sea. This means that these actions are not rooted in law. Those who are trying to do this must be aware of this fact. This is my first point.

My second point, to answer your first question, deals with Finland and Sweden becoming NATO members. But this was not a smart move in any way. After all, we did not have any issues with Sweden and even less so with Finland. In fact, there were no issues in our relations with Finland to begin with. You know that people were free to use rubles when shopping at the downtown department stores in Helsinki. Even three years ago, people could easily travel to Helsinki, walk in a store, take rubles from their wallets and pay for their purchases. Just as simple as that. Moreover, in Finland’s border regions all the signs and labels were in Russian. People there were eager to hire those who could speak Russian to work in hotels and trade centres, since there were so many tourists there, and our people used to buy real estate there.

It could be that certain nationalist-minded forces in these countries could suspect or fear these developments by presenting them as Russia’s tacit infiltration. But we live in an interdependent world. If you do not like something, if you see this as a threat, you can take economic or administrative measures to impose restrictions for real property buyers or the movement of people. There is hardly any issue that cannot be resolved this way. That said, joining NATO, which is a bloc with an aggressive policy towards Russia, – why would they do that? What are they seeking to protect? What kind of interests do Finland and Sweden need to protect? Did Russia plan to invade Helsinki or Stockholm? Russia settled all its scores with Sweden in the Battle of Poltava.

This happened a long time ago, and we do not have any outstanding issues. There was Charles XII, a very controversial figure, who headed Sweden, and it remains unclear who killed him… Some believe that his own men killed him because they got fed up with his relentless military campaigns and attempts to draw Türkiye into yet another war against Russia. But this has long since become a thing of the past. In fact, this happened several centuries ago.

What is Finland’s problem? Do you know what the problem is? There are no problems whatsoever. We resolved all our issues and signed all the treaties based on the outcomes of World War II. Why did they do that? Did they want their share of the pie in case of Russia’s strategic defeat or to grab something that belongs to us? I could have used a specific gesture once again, but with ladies present in this room I cannot allow myself to do it.

Listen, both Finland and Sweden have lost the advantages of their neutral status. Take, for example, the talks on a possible settlement in Ukraine. Why did the Helsinki Act come about in the first place? Why is it called “Helsinki?” Because the host country was neutral – a place where everyone felt comfortable meeting. But now, who would go to Helsinki?

Take Mr Stubb. Donald says he is a good golfer. That’s fine. But alone that is not enough. (Laughter) I mean no disrespect – I enjoy sports myself. But still, that is not enough. What is the long-term outlook? Can anyone explain what the advantage is? Name at least one. I said earlier that perhaps some of Finland’s nationalist circles feared that Russia was quietly gaining too much influence there. Well then, introduce administrative or legal restrictions if that is the concern. Why not?

I always had very good relations with previous Finnish leaders: we visited each other regularly and discussed all sorts of practical matters: border issues, transport links, and so on. Everything worked smoothly.

So why change that? Because Russia supposedly pursues an aggressive policy and attacked Ukraine. Right. And the coup in Ukraine – that doesn’t count? The fact that, since 2014, children were being killed in Donbass – is that normal? That tanks and aircraft were used against civilians and cities were bombed? All of this has been documented, filmed, recorded. Is that acceptable? There was simply no desire to analyse anything; only the wish to join the same pack trying to take something away from Russia. So what is the result?

The former president once told me – we had a good relationship, we spoke by phone, even played hockey together several times – he said: “Norway is in NATO, and it’s fine.” Fine? Nothing good about it.

We had normal relations with them, even agreed with NATO on maritime issues, and everything worked. But now the border between Russia and NATO has grown longer. So what? Previously we had no military presence in that region of Russia. Now we will. We have to create a separate military district. The Finns told us they would not allow the deployment of any weapons dangerous to Russia, especially nuclear weapons. Well, forgive me for the bluntness, but who the hell knows? We know how decisions are made in NATO. Who is going to ask the Finns? I don’t mean to offend anyone, but I know how things work: the weapons will be placed there, and that’s that. Then what? Did you make a hole-in-one or not? There you go – Pershings. You’ll be held responsible for that, so we’ll respond with our own systems. What’s the point of all this?

Now they’re talking about our aircraft flying over the Baltic Sea with their transponders switched off. I remember raising this issue during a visit to Helsinki – NATO aircraft were flying without transponders too. The Finnish president then suggested that we agree that everyone should turn them on. We agreed – Russia agreed. And what did NATO countries say? “We won’t.” Well, if they won’t, then we won’t either.

This is about ratcheting up tensions in yet another part of the world that puts stability, including the military-strategic stability in those regions, at risk. If it starts posing danger for us, we will deploy there as well to make things dangerous for those who deployed their weapons there in the first place. Why do this? Who benefits from that? Has it made any difference for Finland’s or Sweden’s security? No, of course not.

So… we will, of course, keep working as usual. Should they decide to build or to restore relations with us, we are not against it, we are all for it. However, the situation has changed. As a popular saying goes, we found the missing spoons, but the incident has left a bad taste in the mouth nonetheless.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr President, why are you sending that many drones to Denmark?

Vladimir Putin: I promise I will not. I will not send drones to France, Denmark, or Copenhagen. What other destinations can they reach?

Fyodor Lukyanov: They can go anywhere.

Vladimir Putin: Lisbon. Where else?

You know, people who, a while ago, were into the unidentified flying objects scene are having fun there. There have many eccentric characters there. Just as we do here, by the way. Same thing, especially the young people. They will be launching them every single day, so let them get busy and catch that.

On a serious note, though, we do not even have drones that can go as far as Lisbon. We do have some long-range drones, but there are no targets at this range. This is what matters most in this regard.

This is one way to ratchet up tensions overall, to comply with the orders coming from the “Washington regional party committee,” and to ramp up the defence spending.

We were just mentioned that the European economy, particularly in Germany and France, is in a tight spot. Not long ago, both countries, primarily, Germany, were the main drivers of economic growth in Europe. No matter how hard Poland tries, it is not in a position to become such a driver. It is striving to become leader of the European Union, we see that. But this effort will pose a formidable strain on Poland in the short-term historical perspective. Those countries are losing that status in the wake of stagnating leading economies and also because their budget deficits are woefully large and are multiples of our budget deficit numbers. Other macroeconomic numbers in those countries are wanting as well. We, as I mentioned earlier, have 2.6 [percent], while they have figures that are four to about six times larger. The hysteria is whipped up in order to draw the people’s attention away from these fundamental deep-running problems.

Fyodor Lukyanov: You gave a scare to Portugal when you mentioned Lisbon. Their sense of humour may fail them, and they may take it seriously. Anyway, to set the record straight, it was a joke.

Vladimir Putin: Why a joke? No.

Fyodor Lukyanov: No?

Vladimir Putin: No.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Pardon me. It was a fair warning then. Also a gentlemanly move.

Vladimir Putin: Forewarned is forearmed.

Maybe I should? Or that is undemocratic.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Yes, please.

Vladimir Putin: Young woman, in a light blouse.

Question: Mr President, a little about aggression and the global majority.

You have mentioned several times today how BRICS was created, what is going on there, and what this group is striving for. You know, we still hear from our Western experts and colleagues that BRICS is an aggressive entity. Although we, and each country individually, say that our agenda is positive, and prove this with our action, but…

They still recall Kazan, remembering how isolated our European colleagues were, saying that Russia was isolated.

There are many important initiatives. I would especially like to thank you for your personal support. Last year, we launched the Civil BRICS Council. This is truly a milestone. So, how can we ensure that BRICS maintains its momentum – it has doubled in size, gained new partners – and lives up to the trust that the global majority still places in it?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: The question is rhetorical. BRICS is growing. This is both good and challenging. ou have been right to point this out, because the more participants there are, the more interests and opinions there are. Coordinating a common position becomes more difficult, but there is no other way. The only path is through coordination, finding common interests, and working together in that direction. Overall, we have succeeded so far.

BRICS faces many challenges. We believe that one of them is more than simply creating a common platform or common principles of interaction, including, primarily, in the economy. As I have already mentioned in my remarks here, we are not pursuing a policy against anyone. The entire BRICS policy is aimed at ourselves, at the members of this group.

We are not conducting any anti-dollar campaigns or anti-dollar policies – absolutely not. It is just that we are not allowed to settle accounts in dollars. So what are we supposed to do? We settle accounts in national currencies. We will now do the same as many other countries, including the United States. We’ll work to expand opportunities for e-commerce and e-payments.

We will develop this sphere within BRICS as well. We are already trying to do this by promoting the idea of a new investment platform, where, in my opinion, we can expect success. If we move in this direction, as I have just said, using modern technologies, including in the payment system, we will be able to create a completely unique system that operates with minimal risks and virtually no inflation. We just need to think carefully about projects that will be mutually beneficial for all participants in this process – and, above all, for those where these projects are implemented.

We want to focus primarily on the rapidly growing markets of Africa and South Asia – and they will undoubtedly continue to grow rapidly. They are already doing so, and their pace will only increase. Today, if we look at global GDP, BRICS countries account for 40 percent of it. The European Union accounts for 23 percent, and North America for 20 percent. And this growth is accelerating. Look at the share of the G7 countries 10 or 15 years ago and compare with today. The trend is clear and ongoing.

And what do we want? We want to integrate into this development trend and work together, including with the core BRICS countries, in these markets and in Africa, which also has a very bright future.

Look at the countries there: they already have populations approaching or exceeding 100 million people, and they are very rich. The same is true of South Asia and Southeast Asia. These are enormous development opportunities for humanity, and these countries will naturally strive to raise the standard of living for their citizens, bringing it closer to that of the more developed nations.

There will inevitably be competition in this process, and we want to be part of this positive, collective effort. What is aggressive about that? This is simply a slightly nervous reaction to our success, and a reaction to the growing competition in global affairs and the global economy.

A gentleman over there raised his hand. Please go ahead.

Director of the Vivekananda International Foundation (New Delhi) Arvind Gupta:

Thank you, Excellency, for that very comprehensive presentation. I think you have answered many of our questions and also cleared up some doubts. Listening to these things directly from you is very useful to us, and I want to thank Valdai for giving us this opportunity.

You mentioned your forthcoming visit to India and you also mentioned some projects and some initiatives that might be undertaken. But I want to refer to one area, which is the possibility of cooperation in high technology and emerging technologies. I believe there is a need for a special focus and special initiatives to enhance our cooperation, deepen our cooperation in artificial intelligence, cyber and other areas. So, would you be thinking of some special steps, like, for instance, setting up an India–Russia technology fund to promote such cooperation? Because unless there is an impetus at the highest levels, this cooperation will take some time. That is my first question.

My second question is that you have also today also spoken about civilisation and culture and their importance. In earlier meetings also here, you have emphasised this. If you could elaborate, what is the role of civilisation and culture in contemporary international politics? Do you see civilisations as fostering cooperation among civilisations and bringing stability? Or do you believe that there are possibilities of a clash of civilisations, as has been predicted by some scholars some years ago?

Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: That is quite a question. I will start with the easier part, AI and other modern civilisation development trends, and the idea of setting up a foundation.

We can create one. As I mentioned earlier, I had instructed the Government, particularly the Deputy Prime Minister who co-chairs the Intergovernmental Commission from the Russian side, to sit down with our Indian friends and colleagues and discuss proposals identifying the most promising areas of cooperation and ways to balance our trade. We are willing to do that. For example, we could increase purchases of Indian agricultural produce and pharmaceuticals, while taking certain steps on our side as well.

With regard to the foundation and, more broadly, cooperation with our Indian friends, there are certain specifics to it. India’s economy is primarily private and driven by private initiatives where one has to deal directly with companies rather than with the state whereas the government, much like ours, mainly performs a regulatory role.

Of course, at the state level, we should aim to create proper conditions for positive economic interaction between economic agents, but we should also work directly with companies. However, your idea of pooling efforts in key areas of development, including the development and use of artificial intelligence, is a good one.

We have made some progress in this field that we can be proud of, and we have companies that are showing excellent results. Joining efforts is critically important and promises excellent joint outcomes.

Thank you for the idea. I will take it into account and slightly adjust my instruction to the Government.

As for civilisations, the clash of civilisations and the arguments of some researchers regarding this, I am aware of them, by and large.

You probably mean one of the American researchers who studied the problems and the future of civilisations. He suggested that ideological differences are fading into the background, giving way to the essential and fundamental principles of civilisation. He believed that the past ideological differences between states are likely to acquire civilisational aspects, and that we will not see a clash of ideologies or states due to ideological differences but rather a clash of states and coalescence based on civilisational features.

If you know how to read and simply read such statements, you may regard them as quite sensible. However, over the past years I have tried to analyse what I read. I will tell you what I think about this. In my opinion, the ideological considerations that featured prominently in the past decades were only a cover that camouflaged a real struggle of geopolitical interests. And geopolitical interests run much deeper; they are closer to civilisational interests.

You see, when the Soviet Union collapsed, Russian simpletons and former Soviet officials thought – I thought so too – that we would live like a family, a civilisational family, that we would kiss, embrace – even though we uphold traditional values – and live as a family of nations, like a good family should.

Nothing of the kind. This came as a surprise even to me, a former officer of the Soviet Union’s Foreign Intelligence Service. I mentioned this when I was director of the Federal Security Service (FSB), saying that we saw ourselves as part of the family, whereas our partners, as I called them back then, supported separatism and terrorists, including Al Qaeda in the North Caucasus. I told them, “What are you doing? Are you crazy? We are with you; we are of the same bourgeois family,” as we remember this from a children’s book. Give us a big jar of honey and a big spoon, and we will guzzle and gulp the honey together.

But no, I saw, as CIA director (Laughter.) – future director – that our opponents, as we call them now… President Bush once showed me secret documents in the presence of his CIA director, who said: “Mr President, have you read these top secret papers? Please, sign here, as per our procedure.” I replied, “Alright,” and signed the papers.

What did I find out while serving as Director of the Federal Security Service (FSB)? It seemed that we were all the same now – the shackles of the old ideology had fallen away – but what did I see? Excuse me, but the CIA is working in the South Caucasus, in the Russian North Caucasus and the South Caucasus, maintaining its own network of agents, including radicals, funding them, providing political and information support, even supplying weapons and transporting them in its own helicopters. To be honest, even I – a former officer of the Soviet foreign intelligence service – when I rose to such a high position, I was stunned. I thought, what on earth is going on? But that’s what geopolitical struggle is. Nobody cares about ideological differences any more. They are over and done with. The goal is to finish off the remnants of the Soviet Union, its biggest part, and do what Brzezinski once said – break it up into at least four pieces. And some large states are well aware that similar plans were once drawn up for them too – perhaps they still are.

What does this tell us? That ideology, as one author whose name I’ve forgotten, though he was clearly a clever man, once wrote, was largely a facade, while the real conflict was, and remains, geopolitical– in other words, civilisational.

Will there be further clashes? Competition of interests is always present on the international stage. The real question is, as I already mentioned, whether we can conduct our practical work in such a way as to seek consensus and achieve a balance of interests.

We have great respect for ancient cultures and civilisations – the Indian civilisation, Buddhist, Hindu, the Chinese civilisation, the Arab civilisation. The Russian civilisation is not as ancient as those of China, India or the Arab world, but it is already more than a thousand years old, with its own distinct experience.

What makes our culture unique is that… Yes, in India, China and the Arab world, societies also evolved gradually, and they too are multi-ethnic. But our country has been multi-ethnic and multi-confessional from the very beginning. And we never had anything like reservations, as some of my colleagues and aids say – no reservations at all.

When Russia absorbed other peoples, representatives of different ethnic and religious groups, it always did so with great respect, treating them as part of something shared and common. The United States is known as a melting pot, where people of different religions, ethnicities and countries are mixed together.

But they are all immigrants – they have been separated from their native roots. We are different. Our people – of different faiths and ethnicities – have always lived on their ancestral land, side by side, for centuries. This has shaped a distinctive culture, a special civilisation of our own. We have learned to live, coexist and develop together, and, moreover, to recognise the advantages of such joint development.

In this sense, I think it offers a good example, including for how to find compromise and balance among all participants in international relations and among other civilisations. So yes, contradictions are possible and even inevitable, but if we follow the same path Russia has historically taken in forming a unified state, we can also find ways to resolve problems in the broader international context.

Fyodor Lukyanov: We have been talking for three and a half hours.

Vladimir Putin: I think the audience will hate me for this, but I suggest moving from this part of the room to the other one. Please, proceed.

Konstantin Khudolei: Mr President, my name is Konstantin Khudolei, St Petersburg University.

Here is my question. Some time ago, you advanced an initiative that I regard as extremely important – to extend the New START Treaty with the United States for a year. This initiative is being hushed up in the West. I could be overoptimistic, but common sense will, hopefully, prevail, the treaty will be extended for a year, and your initiative will be accepted.

But the question is, what will happen after that? Will we try to extend the Russian-US agreements, or will the next series of agreements, which will replace the last treaty in this area, stipulate a more complex system of arms control based on due regard for the other poles of the modern world?

Vladimir Putin: Konstantin, it is very difficult to say what would happen next because the answer does not depend on us alone. I know what will happen within a year if the US administration accepts our proposal, but it is difficult to say what would happen beyond this limit.

It is not a simple dialogue; we are aware of the pitfalls. First, we have created many modern high-tech weapons, like Oreshnik. Not Oreshkin, but Oreshnik. We have recently shown that such systems are not strategic weapons. Yet some experts in the United States claim that they are strategic weapons. This issue must be clarified. I will not go into detail now, but it needs clarification, which will take time, of course.

We have created one more hypersonic system – Kinzhal, and an intercontinental system – Avangard. We might create other systems. We have not abandoned any of our plans. We are working on them, and we will attain the desired results. This is the first point.

The second issue concerns tactical nuclear weapons. The treaty covers strategic weapons, but modern tactical weapons are many times more powerful than the bombs which the Americans dropped on Japan, on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I believe those were 20-kiloton bombs, but modern weapons – tactical systems – are several times more powerful. There are pitfalls in this sphere too. The only place where we have deployed them outside Russia is Belarus, whereas the Americans have such weapons all over the world – in Europe, Turkiye, and in various other places. But it is true that we have more such weapons. It is an issue that needs attention.

Several other aspects still need to be worked out. We know there are voices in the US who say they “do not need an extension.” Well, if they do not need it, then neither do we. Overall, we are doing fine as is; we are confident in our nuclear shield, and we know what we will be doing tomorrow and the day after. So, if they do not need it, neither do we.

Then there is a third aspect – the international dimension. We have been rather insistently prompted to persuade China to join this strategic offensive arms limitation system. But why is it our responsibility? Anyone who wants to involve China should go and negotiate with China directly. Why is the onus suddenly on us?

This leads to another question: if China needs to be included, why are the nuclear potentials of the UK and France being left out? They are NATO members, after all. This is especially relevant since France has expressed a desire to provide its nuclear umbrella to all of Europe. Shouldn’t we take that into account? My point is that there are many complex issues here that require meticulous research.

However, if the goal is to lock in the status quo for a year, we are ready and willing. If not, that is fine with us too. We have parity today. The Americans have more ballistic missile submarines, but the number of nuclear warheads on those submarines is roughly the same. They have more strategic submarines; we have slightly fewer, but we have more multipurpose submarines, which also play a major role in the overall balance. And we have the Strategic Missile Forces (RVSN) – our land-based component. Experts understand the significance of the Russian RVSN.

We are in a strong position, particularly because our level of modernisation is higher than that of any other nuclear power. We have simply worked hard and long to achieve this. And, I repeat, the technological advancement within our strategic forces is exceptional. Yet, we are prepared to take a break and, dare I say, collaborate with our American colleagues on this, if they deem it expedient. If they do not, then the feeling is mutual. But this is the world’s last remaining pact limiting strategic offensive weapons.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr President, isn’t this a good time to resume nuclear tests by any chance?

Vladimir Putin: We see that preparations are underway elsewhere. If tests are conducted by others, we will respond in kind.

Yes, please, over here.

Fyodor Lukyanov: The floor to Mr Feng Wei, please.

Vladimir Putin: He is already standing.

Feng Wei: Mr President, I am from the China Institute for Innovation and Development Strategy, one of the organisers of the Understanding China Conference. It is one of the leading platforms for international exchanges in China, with the blessing of President Xi, of course.

We are now collaborating with the Valdai Club to promote mutual understanding between China and Russia, which we believe is of extreme importance. China and Russia’s relationship is at an all-time high, thanks to the personal efforts of Your Excellency and President Xi. We believe it is equally important to further consolidate the foundation at the people-to-people level. So, together with the Valdai Club, we are going to organise some events during our annual meeting of the Understanding China conference this year.

Mr President, can you give us some advice on what we can do, so that we can do a better job? And secondly, could you say a few words to the audience of the Understanding China conference about understanding Russia? You have numerous friends in China, and they would love to hear your voice, but China is a big country; there are many people who need to have a better understanding of Russia. So a personal message from you would be a great help, not as a great state leader, but as a brother to your Chinese sisters and brothers.

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: You know, I can only say to my Chinese brothers and sisters that we are on the right track. We must stay the course and cherish our relationship. Each of us, wherever we may be, whether in positions of authority, at a factory, in theatre or cinematography, in an institution of higher or secondary learning, must do our best to strengthen this interaction. It is of the utmost importance for both the Chinese people and the Russian people.

I wish to thank you for everything you have done so far, and I wish you continued success. For our part, I and, I am sure, President Xi Jinping, will do everything we can to support you.

Fyodor Lukyanov: I suggest we give the floor to Mr Al-Faraj, from whom the microphone was taken away and, perhaps, wrap up after that.

Vladimir Putin: Let’s wrap it up.

Abdullah Al-Faraj, Centre for Research and Knowledge Intercommunication (Saudi Arabia): I am pleased to see you, Mr President.

Vladimir Putin: Same here.

Abdullah Al-Faraj: You mentioned the multipolar world, which is of great interest to us, primarily because we export oil and import everything that we need for consumption and progress. We are particularly interested in ensuring freedom of maritime navigation and security of our oil export routes.

My question, Mr President, is whether the forthcoming multipolar world will be capable of guaranteeing safe maritime navigation and global energy supplies so that incidents like the Nord Stream explosion never happen again? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: I addressed safe maritime navigation earlier, but I would like to make this point again, because I believe it is crucial. Our opponents – let me use this mild term to describe them – keep calling on us to abide by international law. We, in turn, call on them to do the same.

There is nothing in international law that permits robbery, piracy, or the seizure of other countries’ vessels without any legal grounds. Such actions can have grave consequences. However, if we act in the spirit I mentioned today, and if the multipolar world truly stands for the interests of all and comes up with the mechanisms for aligning positions, I believe it will not come to that. That is my first point.

Second, my great hope is that public organisations and citizens in the countries, whose leaders are attempting to foment tensions – such as by creating problems for the global economy, international logistics and the world energy sector – the political parties, public organisations and citizens in those countries will do their utmost to prevent their leaders from bringing about a collapse or international complications.

Regardless of what happens, I am absolutely confident that the international energy sector will continue to work steadily. The global economy is growing, and the demand for primary energy sources – specifically uranium for nuclear power plants, oil, gas, and coal – is expected to increase. This means that international markets will inevitably consume these energy sources.

Today, we have only discussed uranium for nuclear power plants, but this also pertains to oil, oil shipments, transportation, and production. Currently, the United States is the world’s leading oil producer, followed by Saudi Arabia and Russia. It is unimaginable that the withdrawal of Russian oil supplies would leave the world energy situation or the global economy unaffected. This will not happen.

Why? Because even if one were to envision an unlikely scenario in which Russian producers and Russian traders – who supply a significant share of oil to the international market – were to be excluded, prices would immediately skyrocket to $100 per barrel and beyond. Is that in the interests of the already ailing economies, including those in Europe? No one seems to be considering this; or if they are aware of the consequences, they are still looking for trouble.

Nonetheless, no matter what happens, the energy needs of the international market will be met. This will be accomplished, in part, due to the efforts of the people working in this sector, which is crucial for the entire global economic system – people like you. Thank you very much.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr President, you said something very important at the beginning of your remarks.

Vladimir Putin: Well, at least I said something important, and we did not waste our time today.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Let me be more specific. I took note of one key point. When you spoke about the world order, you said that banning things does not work. That phrase – banning things does not work – has been Valdai Club’s motto for 23 years now. Here, we have always strived not to ban anything, but to encourage discussions, debates, and dialogue. We will do everything we can to keep it that way. We also hope that this principle spreads to the world at large and, as you said, to our own country, since we sometimes tend to ban more than necessary. We try to keep the Valdai spirit alive.

There is one more thing that I and everyone else heard. Today, we all learned who you consider a “comfortable dialogue partner.” That sets a very high bar, but at the Valdai Club we will strive to meet it, so that you visit us more often and feel at ease here.

Vladimir Putin: First of all, I want to make it clear that there are many people out there that I enjoy talking with. I do not want it to look like it is some kind of a monopoly. It is not. I mean it sincerely.

You know, our practical work unfolds in a particular way. I have visited almost every country by now, yet I have seen very little of them. The schedule goes like this: airport, plane, conference hall, airport, plane, the Kremlin. Then, the Kremlin, another flight, another trip, and back home. Honestly, I barely see anything, but there is always someone you can talk to and exchange views with.

The problem is that so much of it is governed by protocol. That strict protocol often drains away the essence of the interaction. Rarely do moments arise when you can just sit down with a colleague and have a genuine, human conversation. That is a rare occurrence.

It does happen, though, with Prime Minister Modi or President Xi Jinping. When President Xi came to St Petersburg, we took a boat ride together from point A to point B. As we passed the Avrora cruiser, he said, “Oh, is that the Avrora?” I said, “Yes. Want to stop and see it?” He said, “Yes.” Honestly, we stopped. For the leader of China, the head of the Communist Party, it was important to see the Avrora cruiser. After that, we went to the Hermitage to enjoy a performance by our artists, and kept talking the whole time. It was genuine human communication. But that does not happen often. Usually, it comes down to arriving to a place, talking, packing up, and flying back home.

Still, there are many deep and interesting people. For various, often unfortunate reasons, such people do not always make it to the top. Those who do usually have gone through real struggle and hardship.

Soon, I will be heading to Tajikistan for a CIS meeting and meet with President Rahmon. There are many deep and interesting people across the post-Soviet space.

To give you an example, after radical Islamists seized power, President Rahmon entered the capital, Dushanbe, carrying a rifle himself. Imagine that. And today, he’s managed to shape up a situation in his country, which is, most likely, complex.

My point is that having a conversation with such people is always an interesting and valuable experience. And I very much hope that the community of people capable of a meaningful dialogue will continue to expand, and they will find ways to reach understanding on key global issues. The intellectual elite we see gathered here today will help us get there.

Thank you all very much.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Thank you.

Plenary session of the 10th Eastern Economic Forum

2025-09-08T15:32:38+04:00

Vladimir Putin took part in the 10th Eastern Economic Forum.

In 2025 the Forum is held under the motto “The Far East: Cooperation for Peace and Prosperity.”

Taking part in the plenary session were Prime Minister of the Lao People's Democratic Republic Sonexay Siphandone, Prime Minister of Mongolia Gombojav Zandanshatar and Vice Chairperson of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress Li Hongzhong. The day before, the President held bilateral meetings with each of the three officials.

* * *

Plenary session moderator Maria Rybakova: Mr Putin, honourable guests, good afternoon.

I also extend my greetings to the participants of the forum, the audience and the early risers in the western part of our country who have woken up to watch our plenary session.

Our guests of honour will deliver their statements soon. But first, if you don’t mind, Mr Putin, I would like to steal the spotlight for a moment. Just a couple of minutes to say a few words of explanation.

I should say straight away: I am not an economist. I am a news presenter with a legal education who lives in Moscow. In short, I am oriented towards the humanities. But I also go shopping quite often, and I am someone who pays attention to prices, which, frankly, sometimes surprise me. I really know very little about economics, and you know, sometimes when you are looking for answers, you go on a video platform – which, as you know, now runs a bit slowly in Russia – and there, economists tell you that everything is bad: inflation is rising and the budget has been stretched to the limit. Then you go on another platform, and there, other economists tell you that everything is fine, everything is great, that there are breakthroughs ahead, we will beat everyone, and so on.

Like any other Russian citizen, I have a question: Mr Putin, which of these economists should we trust?

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: You know, I have already answered questions of this kind. Don't take anyone at their word. The truth is, you should proceed from your own experience, rather than seeking the opinions of those who like to voice their views online. Instead, I suggest you consult the opinions of experts if you truly want to get to the essence of the issue that concerns you. I am not saying anything revolutionary here.

But even among specialists, views differ. The questions you have raised only appear simple on the surface. Take prices, for example. Rising prices are, essentially, inflation. The Central Bank is working to curb this inflation and bring it back to the well-known and necessary target of no more than 4–5 percent. But this requires keeping the key rate high, which raises concerns for those engaged in real production. Many people here in this hall will no doubt say: “This is unacceptable, it is impossible, the key rate must be sharply reduced.” But if that happens, prices will only rise further.

So the only thing I can say is this: I want to assure you that Russia’s financial authorities – the Government of the Russian Federation and the Central Bank – are acting professionally. We have always, and I want to stress this, always proceeded from the principle that a stable macroeconomic policy is the foundation for developing the Russian economy and, consequently, the social sphere. We have pursued this course for many years, at least a decade and a half, and it has consistently delivered positive results, creating the conditions for the country to move forward. I am confident this will be the case again.

Maria Rybakova: Thank you very much.

Perhaps my introduction was a little scattered, but the main point I wanted to make is this: today I would like us to talk about the economy not in abstract, highbrow terms, not about institutional economics, but about the economy that matters to ordinary people in Vladivostok, to a typical family. That is the kind of economy that concerns me, and people like me.

Let me briefly explain how we will proceed, what the format will be. I think everyone here is familiar with it. First, we will have the official part, with speeches by our distinguished guests, including Mr Putin. After that, we will move on to the Q&A session. I very much hope it will be a real discussion. I am not sure how it will unfold, because it’s not easy to argue with Mr Putin, but I will do my best.

I will now give the floor to the president of the country hosting this forum. Mr Putin, you have the floor.

Vladimir Putin: Mr Sonexay Siphandone, Mr Zandanshatar, Mr Li Hongzhong, ladies and gentlemen,

Allow me first to address the Russian part of the audience. I would ask you to extend a warm welcome to all our international guests. For my part, I wish to express my gratitude to our foreign colleagues for coming here, showing an interest in working with us, and devoting their valuable time to this forum.

Russia and Vladivostok once again are hosting participants and guests of the Eastern Economic Forum, with representatives from more than seventy countries around the world.

This year, the forum is being held for the tenth time. Let me remind you that the very idea of establishing it coincided with the launch of a new stage in the development of the Russian Far East. This major undertaking is aimed at creating broad opportunities for citizens, for young people, above all for businesses, to fully unlock the resource, industrial and logistical potential of this strategically important region of Russia, and to improve the quality of life for its residents.

Today’s anniversary forum is not only an opportunity to take stock of the joint efforts of government bodies, entrepreneurs and public organisations, but also to outline the next steps – our long-term plans for the Far East. These plans concern strengthening its role both in Russia’s national economy and in international relations, above all in the rapidly growing Asia-Pacific region.

As you know, the development of the Far East and Siberia has been designated as Russia’s national priority for the entire 21st century. This was announced in the Address to the Federal Assembly at the end of 2013.

Subsequently, the legal framework was formed and updated, and a whole range of instruments to support business was introduced, including advanced special economic zones, the Free Port of Vladivostok regime, preferential arrangements for the Kuril Islands, and the establishment of a special administrative district on Russky Island.

Ambitious plans have been rolled out to strengthen transport, energy and utilities infrastructure. Decisions have been made to support housing construction, renovation, and the development of social facilities: schools, kindergartens, clinics and hospitals, and sports complexes.

All these measures are united within the large-scale State Programme for the Development of the Far East. It sets ambitious targets for accelerated economic and technological growth and for improving the wellbeing of the population across the Far Eastern regions of the Russian Federation.

These efforts are delivering results. In recent years, the Far East has taken a leading position across many key indicators – first and foremost economic ones – outpacing Russia’s overall growth rates.

Over the past 10 years, the gross regional product of the Far East has increased more than 2.5 times, from 4 trillion rubles to 11 trillion.

During this time, 20 trillion rubles were invested in the fixed capital of Far Eastern companies and enterprises. A quarter of this amount was channelled into projects with state support in such sectors as mining, oil and gas chemistry, construction and others.

Let me name the leading regions in terms of fixed capital investment over these 10 years: Yakutia, with 4.5 trillion rubles, Amur Region, with 4 trillion rubles, and Sakhalin Region, with 2.6 trillion rubles. Together, these three account for 55 percent of all investment in the Far Eastern Federal District.

The investment dynamics in the Far Eastern regions are such that, in real terms, their volume last year was double that of 10 years ago. For comparison, across Russia as a whole the figure was 1.5 times higher. That, too, is a good result. But still, the Far East has done better.

Per capita, investment in the Far East today is twice as high as the national average.

What does this mean? It means that not only is a modern industrial base being formed, but in fact a new industrial map of the region is emerging. Thousands of new growth points have already appeared, including world-class enterprises such as the Baimsky mining and processing plant in Chukotka, the Udokan Copper project in the Trans-Baikal Territory, the gas processing plant and petrochemical complex in the Amur Region, the Nakhodka mineral fertiliser plant, the Zvezda shipbuilding complex in Primorye, the hydrometallurgical plant in the Khabarovsk Territory, and many others.

The growth of business and entrepreneurial activity, along with the expansion of economic opportunities in the Far East, forms the foundation for the region’s future development. It is important to maintain steady progress in its traditional sectors, in areas that are already on an upward trajectory, to develop infrastructure and logistics links, to ensure reliable supplies of affordable and clean energy, and, of course, resources.

I should also note that the Far East’s resource base and mineral extraction are expanding. Over the past decade, coal and gold production in the region has grown almost 1.7 times. This has been made possible in part by the declarative principle of subsoil licensing, which has enabled greater private capital involvement in geological exploration, significantly increasing the number of newly discovered deposits, including major ones such as the Lugokan gold and copper deposit in the Trans-Baikal Territory and the Roman gold and silver deposit in Yakutia.

I will separately touch on the issue of rare earth metals, which are used in high-tech industries, instrument-making, nuclear technology, electronics and other spheres.

These resources are often accumulated in dumps during the development of deposits, including here in the Far East. There is a system for registering these resources. They can be extracted and effectively used with the development of new technologies. I spoke about the launch of such programmes at the St Petersburg International Economic Forum.

At the same time, we should regularly review these valuable components throughout the production chain, including at the stage of their reprocessing and export in the form of concentrates. In addition, we must introduce advanced technologies for enriching and processing rare and rare earth metal ores. We must also encourage demand for them at new industrial facilities in Russia.

Some months ago, in February, we agreed to approve a long-term plan for the development of the rare earth metals industry. I would like the Government of the Russian Federation to do this no later than November this year.

Next, a meeting on the development of the energy complex of the Far East was held on the eve of this plenary session. Many of you have likely taken notice of it. It is clear that the demand for electricity in the region will increase with the development of the economy and the social sphere. Consequently, we must plan the construction of energy facilities so that they meet the growing demands of businesses, cities and villages, and the people. The focus is on the expansion of gas and modern coal generation, as well as using the huge potential of hydropower generation.

The hydroelectric power plants on rivers in the Far East are a low-impact electricity source, and new ones must be built. Their construction implies modern engineering and technological solutions, and our leading company in this field, RusHydro, has the necessary experience and groundwork. However, it is obvious that the development of hydropower generation calls for major investments.

Relevant instructions have been issued. I hope that the Government and our colleagues in the regions will continue to give special attention to the development of small and large hydroelectric power plants. I would like to emphasise that we are not only talking about the economic aspect. Responsible water use, maintenance of perennial runoff, and flood prevention are integral parts of the development of hydropower generation that have a direct impact on the environment, agriculture and the safety of cities and towns.

Rivers in the Far East are also natural transport arteries connecting territories and ensuring deliveries to cities and towns within the framework of the northern supply.

In this context, a separate issue is logistics. In recent years, the load on the transport system of the Far East has grown significantly. The region’s ties with foreign countries are being strengthened. All of this requires the upgrading of road and rail arteries, the expansion of seaports and the creation of modern transport hubs with automated warehouses and digital cargo processing.

We will continue modernising the Eastern railway network – the BAM and the Trans-Siberian Railway. By 2032, their carrying capacity should be one and a half times higher than at the beginning of this year.

It will also be necessary to further expand the railway links to the seaports of the Far East, which are developing dynamically, primarily through private investment. Over the past 10 years, port capacity in the region has effectively doubled. Today, it stands at almost 380 million tonnes of cargo per year.

According to the current federal project, the Far Eastern ports’ capacity should increase by a further 115 million tonnes of cargo per year by 2030.

In the Far East, transport bridges to China have already been built: the Nizhne-Leninskoye-Tongjiang and Blagoveshchensk-Heihe bridges. Plans also include the construction of new bridges, including one to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea across the Tumannaya River, which is scheduled to open next year. It is essential to actively develop transport and logistics hubs in the vicinity of these bridges to make full use of their capacity. In addition, border crossings are being modernised. This task has also been set, as it is of considerable importance: a single transport artery is not enough, and appropriate administrative logistics are required.

I would also add that airports in every region of the Far East are being upgraded. They now handle more than 14 million passengers a year, including tourists, who are increasingly visiting these remarkable and beautiful places.

In this context, I would like to note the initiative of VEB.RF. Master plans have been prepared for the development of twelve new all-season resorts in Primorye, Sakhalin and Kamchatka. This will allow the number of tourists visiting these regions to almost double over the next ten years.

I would also highlight such landmark developments as the restoration of flights between Vladivostok and Pyongyang following the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as the launch of direct air services between the capitals of Russia and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. The flight on this route took place at the end of July. A month earlier, direct train services between Moscow and Pyongyang were resumed. I am confident that these measures will contribute to the further rapprochement of our countries and the establishment of stronger ties.

Of course, a particularly significant topic for the Far East, for our entire country, and for the whole Eurasian continent is the development of the Trans-Arctic Transport Corridor. It runs from St Petersburg through Murmansk, Arkhangelsk, and the Northern Sea Route, all the way to Vladivostok.

We see that interest in this route is growing, both from Russian companies operating in the Arctic and from foreign carriers. And this is not just about individual, one-off shipments, but about forming a stable cargo base.

We will develop the Trans-Arctic Corridor.

We often speak about the Northern Sea Route. But if you have noticed, I specifically said – and continue to say – Trans-Arctic Corridor, because we have concluded that we need to operate on a larger scale, and that this artery must function as part of a complex system with all the territories adjoining the Northern Sea Route and their capacities.

So, this is a comprehensive system that should integrate maritime, rail and road transport. It will allow us to use the potential of our largest rivers, such as the Ob, Yenisei, and Lena. Everything must work as a single, unified system.

Our task is not only to establish reliable and safe sea routes in the Arctic and enable year-round operation of the Trans-Arctic Corridor. There is also work, as they say, onshore: developing communications and navigation, ship servicing systems, and emergency and rescue infrastructure. And, of course, this includes modernising seaports in the Arctic and the Far East.

Incidentally, just yesterday, the multimodal hub Artyom was opened here, in the Primorye Territory. It handles containers arriving both from abroad and from Russian regions, and it is expected to improve the efficiency of northern supply deliveries.

It is very important that similar modern transport and logistics centres develop in our country, that there are more and more of them, and that cargo delivery and handling become faster and more efficient. And I would like to emphasise that it is precisely at such points, in logistics hubs, that advanced technologies, including unmanned systems, should be applied.

Next, the Trans-Arctic Corridor must primarily operate in the interests of the domestic economy and our regions of the Far East, Siberia, and the Arctic, taking into account cooperation between them and opening new opportunities for business. Here, I would like to underline two potentially significant directions for development.

First, the creation of modern shipbuilding centres. They should be capable of producing the full range of vessels needed for the route, from tugs and supply ships to bulk carriers and ice-class gas carriers, as well as ultra-powerful icebreakers.

Second, to increase the efficiency and resilience of the Trans-Arctic Corridor, we need to provide direct access for cargo from Siberia and the Urals to Arctic maritime routes.

I ask my colleagues in the Government and the Russian Maritime Board to assess the feasibility of these proposals and provide their recommendations.

Back in the day, mechanisms that were advanced and innovative for our country, such as priority development areas (PDAs), gave a strong boost to economic growth and private initiative in the Far East.

As you may recall, the law on PDAs was adopted in late 2014, and the mechanism was launched in 2015. The goal was to create truly globally competitive environment for doing business in the Russian Far East. Therefore, we developed PDA arrangements based on the best business and investment climate practices, including from the Asia-Pacific region.

What benefits does this mechanism provide today? Our colleagues are well aware of them in general, but I would like to go over them for our guests. These are, first of all, low insurance premium rates (7.6 percent for 10 years). The federal revenue tax will be zero for five years. The regional revenue tax will amount to anywhere from zero to five percent in the first five years, and ten percent in the next five years. The subsidised tax rate on mineral extraction is provided. In addition, the PDAs provide for a free customs zone, as well as reimbursement of a portion of the expenses involved in building infrastructure and issuing low-interest loans to businesses.

The reason I am dwelling on the PDA terms in such great detail is because they are unique for business, and not only in our country, but in many other countries around the world as well, for our colleagues and friends from other countries.

PDAs have proven their effectiveness. They have helped launch numerous investment projects, systematically support entrepreneurs and companies at the most important stage during construction, setting up the production cycle, and reaching design capacity. In the Far East, 18 PDAs have been created employing over 300 residents, who have invested almost four trillion rubles and created 95,000 new jobs. The Government has made several decisions to expand the boundaries of specific PDAs to accommodate new projects.

Based on existing successful experience, I propose taking a radical step and, as the saying goes, seamlessly, while keeping the terms and conditions for the existing investors unchanged, launch a single preferential regime for business throughout, I emphasise, throughout the entire Russian Far East and the Arctic. This work must begin on January 1, 2027.

The task is to simplify the use of support measures for entrepreneurs, companies and their new projects. In other words, investors should have access to incentives wherever they take their money, in every Far Eastern or Arctic region, city and town.

I would like to point out that the launch of the single preferential regime will preserve all the terms extended to investors in priority development areas. They do not have to worry that anything will be changed spontaneously. This also concerns the residents of international priority development areas. This instrument stipulates even longer-term profit tax privileges and the so-called grandfather clause – not everyone in the hall knows what it is, so I will explain this term. This clause precludes any changes in the terms of operation for up to 15 years and stipulates an individual approach and support for each investor, including foreign companies.

The legal framework is ready, and international priority development areas will start operating in the Transbaikal Territory, the Amur Region, the Jewish Autonomous Region, and the Khabarovsk and Primorye territories on January 1, 2026. We invite all interested partners to take advantage of this opportunity.

Regarding the single preferential regime for the Far East, I would like to say this: the list of incentives, their precise parameters, deadlines and industry focus will be determined by the Government together with our colleagues in the Far Eastern entities of the federation. But there are some fundamental issues I would like to point out.

Using the results achieved in the mining and processing industries and solid infrastructure, we must start a new development stage in the Far East, shaping an economy of the future, radically improving living conditions in cities and towns, training in-demand professionals and launching high-tech projects. This is the essence of the new stage. We must turn the entire territory of the Far East into a hub for high-tech projects. It is a vast territory with a sparse population and large areas where people can be employed. We must use modern methods for the development of this territory.

National projects to ensure the country’s technological leadership have already been launched. On the basis of each of these, I instruct the Government to prepare and approve an appropriate development programme for the Far East and the Arctic by the end of the year.

For a technological breakthrough, a genuinely bold approach to regulation and the legal framework for business operations is required. These must give the green light to innovation, stimulate the development of cutting-edge solutions, and facilitate their implementation in pilot and subsequently serial production, as well as in the social sphere and everyday life.

For instance, an experimental legal regime is already in effect on Sakhalin. It allows for the accelerated testing of unmanned technologies. I instruct the Government to create conditions for their widespread application on agricultural lands, in environmental protection and natural resource management, as well as at industrial and logistics sites. Why should unmanned technology not be developed in such areas? There are none of the risks that might arise in densely populated regions of the country. Moreover, life itself demands the use of such technologies. Take, for example, forest fires that break out hundreds of kilometres away from the centres responsible for responding to them. Unmanned technology is perfectly suited for use in these vast areas.

There are other opportunities for applying modern technologies across these vast territories. This is precisely where they should be deployed. However, this requires a corresponding workforce. What must be done to ensure such a workforce? Conditions must be created so that people can live here, so that they want to live here. Social infrastructure must be developed, cultural facilities must be enhanced, and so on. Otherwise, there will be no workforce, and consequently, there will be no people capable of advancing these technologies. This is a comprehensive task.

It is evident that such solutions will be in demand not only on Sakhalin but also in other regions of the Far East, including the Amur Region, the Trans-Baikal Territory, Chukotka, and so on.

In this regard, I consider it possible to extend the experimental legal regime for unmanned systems to all Far Eastern regions and expand it primarily to include such areas as the use of digital platforms, artificial intelligence, and data exchange.

In June, at the St Petersburg Economic Forum, I spoke about the importance of leveraging the advantages of electronic marketplaces. Within the framework of the experimental legal regime, I propose utilising the infrastructure of domestic information platforms for state and municipal procurement in the field of education.

There is more to it. The Russian Far East must become an advanced digital development region, especially in data circulation. Of course, this circulation should take into account matters of confidentiality and security. We talk about this all the time. We will definitely revisit this topic at the artificial intelligence forum, which will take place closer to the year end. I look forward to the Government preparing corresponding proposals.

Next up, to develop and master technologies and to establish modern production facilities, at least 100 industrial, business and technology parks with the proper areas and utilities will have become operational in Russia by 2030. At least ten such parks will need to be created in the Russian Far East and the Arctic regions. I am confident that their state-of-the-art infrastructure and capabilities will be popular with the start-up companies that are implementing promising projects and, among other things, planning to manufacture products that are designed to replace foreign analogues, including construction materials, and medical and transport equipment, to name a few.

In order to promote the development of domestic production facilities, conditions must be met for a wider use of the so-called offset contracts, when investments in new factories, workshops, or enterprises are guaranteed by state orders. It is likewise important to expand the practice of interregional offset contracts, under which production facilities open in one constituent entity of the Federation, and products manufactured under guaranteed orders are shipped to more than one region.

Financing innovative ideas and technological projects is a separate issue. Private investors and venture investment have a greater role to play under these arrangements than the state. The Voskhod Fund, which has supported about 40 companies in robotics, medicine, and space technologies, is a compelling example to back up this point.

I am asking our colleagues from the Government to carefully review the experience of this Fund and to help scale up its activities to include our technological leadership projects. Please focus on this.

In general, I believe a transparent, modern, and effective financial ecosystem must be created in the Far East. The Eastern Exchange, which is, for all intents and purposes, a Far Eastern stock exchange, is operational. I suggest working out plans for further expanding it, including financial channels, regulatory framework, and incentives for placing corporate shares.

Colleagues, developing the Far East and the Arctic, and building the economy of the future should improve the well-being of the people, increase their incomes, and lead to structural changes in employment in favour of high-skilled and well-paying jobs. This is the underlying logic and the core meaning of the strategy that we are implementing in these regions and throughout the country. To reiterate, the Russian economy must become an economy of high wages. This is not an empty phrase, not some kind of populist rhetoric. There is economic sense to it.

Over the past ten years, the average salary in the Far East has increased by 2.5 times. As of the end of last year, it exceeded 100,000 rubles per month in nominal value. The unemployment rate in the region went down from 7 percent to 2.4 percent. The poverty rate is down across Far Eastern constituent entities of the Federation. Indeed, in most of them it is still higher than the national average, and there is room for improvement. However, overall, I emphasise, the dynamics are good and positive. On average, the poverty level in Russia decreased from 11.3 percent to 7.2 percent from 2014 to 2024. Among the Far Eastern regions, poverty is below the national average in some regions, namely, 5.3 percent on Sakhalin, 5.9 percent in the Magadan Region, and 4.4 percent in Chukotka.

We remember how, amid economic headwinds and challenges in the social sphere in the late 1990s, people began to leave the Far East. It was a truly threatening trend, and reversing it was a challenge. But we are getting there. Gradually, we are getting there.

I will give you some telling figures. Since 2014, the migration outflow in the Far East amounted to 211,000 people over five years, but it decreased to 109,000 people in the next five years, which is also a lot. But it was down almost by half. Moreover, 2024 saw a migration influx, albeit a small one at 24,000 people. Not many, indeed, but the very fact of trend reversing was a major achievement.

Particularly important is the fact that young people from all over the country headed to the Far East. Since 2015, an influx of young people aged 20 to 24 has been noted for nine years in a row. Last year alone, it more than doubled compared to the year before that.

This means that you can go there to get an interesting profession, find a well-paying job, settle down, solve housing issues, start a family, and raise children. The future of our country is being created in the Far East. Young people sense it, see it, and react accordingly.

We will continue to improve the system of general and higher education in the region, encouraging it to adjust to the personnel demands of enterprises and organisations, and to take into account potential changes in the employment market due to the development of new forward-looking economic sectors.

We have agreed to open university campuses in Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, Yakutsk, Khabarovsk, Blagoveshchensk, Ulan-Ude and Chita, to build the second phase of the Far Eastern Federal University campus and to establish world-class campuses in the Arctic, namely Murmansk and Arkhangelsk. In other words, we will create all the necessary conditions for receiving a quality modern education.

Of course, it is necessary to support not only those who plan to move to the region but also those who were born and are living and working here, making the Far East and consequently, the whole of Russia stronger and better.

We must ensure a sustainable improvement in the standards of living for people and families in the Far East. This is a crucial aspect and the basis for creating an economy of the future.

Regarding housing affordability, urban development, the environment and the social sphere, the standards in the Far Eastern regions must rise above the country’s average within a decade.

As you know, master plans for 22 Far Eastern cities and agglomerations have been prepared with this aim in view. They include the economic development of residential areas and are designed to create a modern and truly comfortable living environment, with renovated housing and utilities, developed public spaces, parks, boulevards, children’s playgrounds and sports grounds, and a modernised social sphere.

These master plans are being implemented. To date, over 160 facilities have been built in accordance with them, including an embankment and a children’s technology park in Komsomolsk-on-Amur, a stadium in Ulan-Ude, and a roofed skating rink in Nakhodka. A shipyard has been modernised, an embankment has been built and a park has been laid out in Yakutsk. The construction of the Kamchatka Region Hospital has been completed.

It is clear that the successful implementation of these master plans depends on interaction between local authorities, including proper regard for governance elements in the urban agglomerations that comprise several municipal areas.

I would like to ask the Government, working jointly with local colleagues, to test the mechanisms of such interaction in the Vladivostok City Agglomeration, with the results of this experience formalised by 2030.

By the end of this decade, within the framework of the Far Eastern and Arctic master plans, more than 600 facilities are to be put into service. In their development, it is important to apply advanced solutions, both in design and in construction.

Next, for the financing of the master plans, we have agreed to create special sections in the national projects specifically dedicated to the Far East and the Arctic, and to allocate 5 percent of the expenditures of relevant state programmes in the social sphere, infrastructure and other areas to master plan initiatives.

I ask the Ministry of Finance to note that these decisions have been made. Yes, there is work to be done, and all of these programmes need to be carefully reviewed. But I ask that 5 percent be allocated here unconditionally, to address the tasks facing the region.

In addition, at the last Forum, I instructed that a separate limit of treasury infrastructure loans be allocated for the master plans of Far Eastern and Arctic cities. By 2030, 100 billion rubles will be directed to these purposes, primarily for the construction and upgrading of infrastructure.

Projects from the regions are already being selected locally and reviewed by the Government. I want to emphasise that resources for them are allocated to the Far Eastern regions in addition to the existing instruments of the so-called infrastructure menu. These include funds from the National Wealth Fund, the issuance of infrastructure bonds, and financing under the Modernisation of Utilities Infrastructure and Housing federal projects. All of this is an important contribution to the development of housing construction in the Far East and to improving housing availability for Far Eastern families.

If in 2015 the region completed the construction of 2.9 million square metres of housing, last year the figure stood at 4.7 million. The Far Eastern Quarter mechanism, with incentives for developers, played a role here. And, of course, the Far Eastern and Arctic mortgage programme with a low rate of 2 percent – originally covering young families, families with children, and participants in the Far Eastern and Arctic Hectare programmes – also contributed.

More than 165,000 loans have already been issued under this mortgage programme. We have extended it until 2030, and expanded it to include participants in the special military operation, employees of defence industry enterprises, doctors, and education workers. Specific age limits have been applied to these categories.

I would like to make an important clarification. The opportunity to receive a mortgage at a 2 percent rate should be available not only to teachers, but, I emphasise, to all employees of state and municipal educational institutions in the Far East and the Arctic. I ask the Government to make the necessary amendments to the regulatory framework. These are funds that, even under current conditions, are quite manageable, and I ask that this be done.

I also propose using the Far Eastern and Arctic mortgage programme for the secondary housing market as well, not just primary market, but specifically in those urban areas without blocks of flats, where developers do not offer anything. Of course, the year of the construction and the condition of the buildings will need to be assessed before a mortgage loan is issued. I am asking our colleagues to have a careful look into that.

We have discussed this in relation to other regions. Subsidised arrangements must definitely be allowed on the secondary market. Well, what if no new housing is built there? Please work it through. This decision must be made.

The housing issue is the key to improving the demographic situation. Families in the Far East are paid one million rubles for the third baby, rather than 450,000 rubles as in the rest of the country, which makes perfect sense. All of that together produces the result that I just talked about. Young people are coming here.

Initially, this support mechanism was introduced in the Primorye Territory, and then in seven more regions. Twenty-five percent more third and subsequent babies are born into Far Eastern families than the national average. It is also a telling indicator. Since this payment of one million rubles is used to pay off mortgage loans, I think the right thing to do is to make the Far Eastern and Arctic mortgage programme available to all families in the region with three or more children. To reiterate, to all large families, regardless of the age of the parents. We had a cap of 35 years. But now women give birth at 35, 40, and even older. God bless them. The more babies we have, the better.

Of course, Far Eastern families, families with children should be provided with social facilities such as outpatient clinics, kindergartens, schools, and hospitals.

Building such facilities at the expense of businesses, or more precisely, strategic partners that carry out major investment projects and conduct large-scale production operations in a particular population centre is a popular approach in remote Far Eastern urban and rural areas.

As a reminder, last year we agreed to create such a convenient mechanism, so that businesses could use their own funds to build social facilities when they are building their production facilities. They would build social facilities concurrently and then transfer them to regional or municipal authorities and have their expenses reimbursed. How will the reimbursement work? By way of future tax deductions when an enterprise becomes operational.

I would like the Government and the VEB.RF corporation – Mr Shuvalov, please note that – launch this tool widely and use budget resources that are set aside to cover investment tax deductions. Without a doubt, public-private partnerships and concessions should be used widely as well.

In this regard, I count on VEB’s energetic participation in further improving concession and PPP mechanisms. I am talking about creating a national standard and financing model in this area, which should ensure transparency and a common understanding of the terms of public/private partnership in socially important projects. This is a simple mechanism, and there is nothing important here. The budget will not be overly burdened by it. It is a quite feasible project.

Colleagues,

The Russian Far East and the Asia-Pacific region as a whole is an area of dynamic change and burgeoning growth. We should maintain high rates of positive change, improve the structure of the domestic economy, increase the technological efficiency of all spheres of life, and more effectively use the resource, production, logistics, and research potential that the Far Eastern regions and the country as a whole possess.

To be able to do this, we need to widely implement bold innovative solutions. All of that must be reflected in the regulatory framework and business environment, as we continue addressing issues that define the quality of life of our citizens. All of that should be done in a timely manner.

Such approaches have proven themselves in the Far East and the Arctic. We will continue developing them and adjusting them to the needs of people and the needs of businesses and regions. We will use them to ensure Russia’s national interests.

Of course, the success of this work largely relies on a systematic and comprehensive approach, the ability to look forward, to see prospects, to set big goals, and to set the plans to achieve them. Based on the outcomes of this forum, I am asking the Government to approve a long-term Strategy for the Development of the Far Eastern Federal District to 2036. Please do that within the next 12 months.

Much is being done in the Far East and the Arctic, and a lot more will need to be accomplished. Importantly, and I want our foreign friends to hear me, we are open to everyone who is willing to take part in this work.

Thank you for your attention. Thank you.

Maria Rybakova: Thank you very much, Mr Putin.

I have a quick question to follow up on that. The Far East will be just fine near-term and long-term as well. We can breathe a sigh of relief.

Traditionally, we have two main economic forums in Russia: the Far Eastern Forum, which has always been oriented towards Asia and the Pacific region, and the St Petersburg Forum, which, I think, has always served as a platform, or a small window to Europe.

If you look at our main symbol – the double-headed eagle – it also looks to the West and to the East. You had quite a fulfilling trip to China for the SCO summit. One can get an impression that the eagle is now looking to the East with its both heads.

A group photo of you, Xi Jinping, and Narendra Modi has made it to tabloids around the world. It was dubbed a new alliance of the elephant, the dragon and the bear. My question is: what place does the bear have in this alliance? What is it in this group?

Vladimir Putin: A bear is a bear.

Maria Rybakova: But bear is a fairly tough animal, Mr Putin.

Vladimir Putin: You just said that our eagle is looking to the East and to West. But there is also South.

Maria Rybakova: Alright, let us say the eagle is looking southeast.

Vladimir Putin: I have discussed this issue with my colleagues many times. What I was saying is that our interaction, our expanded interaction and joint work with our friends from the Asia-Pacific region and the Global South has nothing to do with the current political developments.

Look, President Xi Jinping and I took up this major effort 20 years ago. It has nothing to do with the current circumstances, but is related to our respective national interests. Our economies are complementary, we are neighbours, and we share many common interests, common approaches, and common values. To be sure, traditional values.

We, in Russia, knew the inner workings of the global economy. What are they? The whole world knows well that it is growing at a fast pace featuring new areas of focus and growth points. Naturally, we are guided by this, all the more so as we enjoy excellent neighbourly relations with many countries, including the People’s Republic of China, India, and Indonesia. Please note the pace of growth in these countries: Indonesia has almost 300 million people. That is quite a market.

There are small, but rapidly growing countries, such as Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam, with which we have had special relations for decades. Why would we not put all of that to good use? It is a natural thing to do. This is not a pivot anywhere. It is simply an answer to objective processes occurring around the world and in the global economy.

We have never refused to cooperate with those who wish to work with us, including in other countries across Asia. At the moment, I simply do not want to put anyone in a difficult or awkward position. Companies from certain countries that face some problems due to the current political circumstances have not left our market; they are still there, they continue to operate and even seek to expand cooperation.

For political reasons, many European companies have exited – yes, at a loss to themselves. We are aware of this and remain in contact; many are eager to return as soon as political restrictions are lifted. We do not turn our backs on anyone. Contrary to suggestions that we are “looking elsewhere,” we are not… Our foreign and economic policies remain stable and predictable.

In my view, this represents a clear competitive advantage, as stability is crucial for business. We have not turned away anyone or forced anyone out. Those who wish to return are always welcome, but based on the conditions that are developing at the moment.

Regarding the dragon and the elephant dancing together – this analogy was originally made by President Xi Jinping, not me – later the bear was added. The bear, of course, symbolises Russia. But we are staying in the Far East, and here we also have the world’s largest tiger – the Ussuri tiger, which is a Russian tiger.

Maria Rybakova: Continuing with the theme of returns:

Overall, it seems to me that there is a global trend towards protectionism. In other words, it appears that many countries prefer focusing inward, supporting domestic business rather than attracting external competitors. I want to emphasise that this is just my observation and my opinion – I am not an economist and would like to hear your opinion.

What do you think: is this policy, which seems to be actively pursued in some countries, beneficial or not?

Vladimir Putin: This approach is harmful, both to those who adopt it and to the global economy and international trade. It fosters separatism, both regional and national. Nothing positive comes from pursuing such a policy, as today’s world is highly interconnected and driven by possibilities and technological development. Isolating oneself within a purely national framework is difficult and counterproductive, as it inevitably undermines competitiveness.

We proceed from the fact that Russia is open to cooperation with all countries of the world, and above all with those who are willing to work with us, with our friends. At the same time, we are not shutting ourselves off from anyone. I believe the vast majority of those who are present here, if not everyone, will agree with me: such openness is beneficial to everyone who adheres to this point of view and this policy.

Maria Rybakova: Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: As they say in such cases – thank you for your support.

Maria Rybakova: Exactly. Thank you for your support.

Next, I would like to turn it over to the Prime Minister of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic. Mr Sonexay Siphandone, please come up to the podium. You have the floor.

Prime Minister of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic Sonexay Siphandone (retranslated): Your Excellency Mr Putin, President of the Russian Federation.

Ladies and gentlemen.

It is a genuine joy and honour for me to participate in this forum. I was very happy to receive an invitation from President Putin and to come to Vladivostok. This is my first time in this city.

On behalf of the Government and the people of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to His Excellency President Putin and the Government of the Russian Federation for the warm welcome extended to me and our delegation.

I would also like to thank you for the excellent organisation of the 10^th Eastern Economic Forum. I am absolutely sure that this forum is an important driving force in promoting cooperation in the sphere of economy, social development, and cultural interaction. This forum contributes to improving the quality of life in the Russian Far East and in the Asia-Pacific region as a whole.

Our meeting today clearly demonstrates Russia’s leading role as it strives to promote international cooperation within bilateral and multilateral formats. This also applies to political and economic interaction, as well as to promoting innovative technologies and designs.

Today, we have found ourselves in an extremely difficult situation, where changes in the international arena are absolutely unpredictable due to the geopolitical situation, with existing problems, primarily caused by protectionist measures that some countries are introducing in an attempt to compete and even hinder the growth, accelerated growth of other countries.

This is aggravated by a number of other problems, including natural disasters, climate change, exceedingly rapid development of modern technologies, and innovative technological solutions, especially the introduction of artificial intelligence.

We are facing the problem of instability on the energy and raw materials markets. Food also poses certain problems. We are witnessing crises in this area as well.

These problems must be solved in order to ensure global peace, prosperity and stability now and in the future. In order to solve all these problems, we must cooperate. We must use the existing consultative, multilateral and bilateral mechanisms that are based on the principles of mutual respect and compliance with international law. This is an important mechanism that often requires certain reforms in order to properly reflect the current situation and to meet its challenges.

The theme of this year’s forum is “cooperation for peace and prosperity.” This choice is highly relevant in today’s circumstances, because without peace, prosperity cannot be achieved. Conversely, without prosperity, peace cannot be truly sustainable or lasting. That is why we must work together to ensure that the concepts of prosperity and peace go hand in hand.

Your Excellency, ladies and gentlemen,

The Far East brings together a number of countries with enormous potential. We can see that the Russian Federation plays a key role as a driving force for strengthening cooperation in this region, both in bilateral and multilateral formats.

Above all, associations such as BRICS, the Asia-Europe cooperation framework, the SCO, and others contribute significantly to advancing regional economic cooperation. These formats are based on the principles of mutual respect and the independence of their members.

Laos also seeks to promote cooperation within the framework of open and inclusive mechanisms. We believe that only through such cooperation can we find effective solutions to modern challenges. It is essential to make use of international mechanisms that continue to remain relevant in addressing these problems.

For the Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, it is essential to create a more favourable economic environment for attracting investment and expanding trade.

Among other measures, we are working to establish and develop special economic zones and industrial parks across the country. We have also eliminated unnecessary bureaucratic barriers in order to make the process of attracting direct foreign investment as comfortable and transparent as possible.

We have also updated the investment law, introducing a number of provisions that make investing in our country more attractive to both domestic and international partners.

Our focus is on the most promising sectors: agriculture, renewable energy, geological exploration, manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, education, technology, services, tourism, transport, infrastructure projects, and logistics.

I would also like to stress that Laos is the only ASEAN member state without access to the sea. This makes it especially important for us to maximise the advantages of our strategic geographical position. Our goal is to ensure connectivity through land transport routes and thereby contribute to the development of logistics across the region as a whole.

Our government makes considerable investment in infrastructure and the construction of high-speed railroads across the entire country. We also continue to extend transport and logistics connectivity with friendly countries to become a regional hub for investment and trade. Tourism obviously plays a major role in that respect.

It is thanks to such policy and measures that the Lao People’s Democratic Republic has earned trust and recognition at regional and international platforms. I would like to note that Laos held the 2024 ASEAN presidency during which we identified nine priority tracks.

All of them concerned the promotion of greater connectivity and sustainability of the region built around ASEAN’s three major principles. We had a very fruitful ASEAN presidency, and we remain loyal to the declared principles, namely, the principle of ASEAN’s central role.

Today we can safely say that ASEAN is a community which has proved its commitment to peace and regional cooperation, acting invariably in the spirit of mutual assistance, in accordance with the path ASEAN has chosen.

Therefore, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic believes that enhancing ASEAN requires the promotion of economic cooperation and connectivity in the overall region. We will continue to augment regional integration and connectivity.

Your Excellency,

ladies and gentlemen,

The Lao People’s Democratic Republic is open for cooperation with all countries to achieve the goals of promoting peace, stability, prosperity and wellbeing in the region and worldwide.

It is in this spirit that I would like to invite you all to visit Laos so as to learn about our rich culture and beautiful nature as well as to see your potential in fostering cooperation and making investment in our country.

Also, on behalf of the Government and the people of Laos, I wish every success to the 10^th Eastern Economic Forum here in Vladivostok. I hope it will remain a venue for free exchange of opinions, for cooperation and building a future where all countries have equal opportunities.

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to President Putin, and thank and congratulate him on the successful holding of the forum.

Your Excellency, ladies and gentlemen, I wish you all good health and successful performance of all your duties.

Thank you for your attention.

Maria Rybakova: Thank you very much for your kind words. Thank you for the invitation, I will gladly accept it as I have never been to Laos.

In addition to what you have told us now, I would like to separately discuss an amazing thing. You are now the biggest exporter of electrical power. You are even nicknamed as a Southeast Asia battery.

How did you manage to increase it in such amounts so fast? Respectively, we may also learn on your example, the more so as Vladimir Putin said we must also build hydroelectric power stations and increase the fuel and energy complex in every possible way.

I beg your pardon, we have technical issues with translation.

Mr Putin, I will have to ask you then. Yesterday, you had a major meeting, where you discussed the fuel and energy complex in the Far East, and the importance of investing in expanding it.

My main question is where will the money come from? We are talking enormous amounts of funds, the volumes are large, and the goals you have set are, let us say, quite serious.

Vladimir Putin: Money is always important, but not the main thing. The main thing is to properly organise work, to identify priorities, and to establish interaction between various entities that have been assigned a common task.

This common task is for the regional authorities to, on the one hand, come to terms with investors and, on the other hand, investors must guarantee – some of our colleagues present here, for sure, are planning to do something – and these investors must guarantee the consumption of this energy, meaning that those who will produce it must be sure that as they invest money in creating energy capacities and grid facilities, their efforts will not be in vain, and things will not hang up after they spend their money.

The first thing that needs to be done is to organise joint work, and then to look for the latest technologies and investors who are ready to use these technologies in conjunction with the oversight organisations in charge of monitoring the fragile ecosystem of the Arctic and the Far East. This is the common task.

In that case, money will not be a problem, because the invested funds will pay back quickly. Ultimately, this will benefit the budget as well, since it will receive more tax revenue from the effective and competently organised work at new enterprises.

Maria Rybakova: What about supporting the industries? I mean the coal industry which is going through difficult times. You mentioned gas yesterday and said that we may face gas shortages in the Far East and volumes must be increased. How do you see solutions to these problems in these particular industries and who should we start with?

Vladimir Putin: You mentioned coal miners, who, like you said, are going through difficult times. Times are difficult in the sense that our coal mining industry is large, and the situation on international markets has changed, but we must largely focus on the domestic needs and the domestic market. This is my first point.

Second, to reiterate, we possess large amounts of coal in the Far East that will last 900 years. In order for us to use them effectively, we need the latest technologies. This is what we need to focus on in the first place.

If the domestic market consumes the volumes we need, we will be able to use it effectively, and we will simply have no difficulties with the situation on international markets, since it will be irrelevant. We will then be able to regulate the work of all industries, including coal mining, in the ordinary course of business. This is what we should strive for, and this is one of our critical goals.

The situation on international markets matters, no doubt about it, and we must take it into account. But in order to be more flexible and more sustainable, we must rely primarily on the domestic market.

Maria Rybakova: Thank you.

I would like to invite our next speaker. Prime Minister of Mongolia, Gombojavyn Zandanshatar, you have the floor.

Prime Minister of Mongolia Gombojavyn Zandanshatar (retranslated): Esteemed President of the Russian Federation, Mr Putin,

Esteemed Prime Minister of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic Sonexay Siphandone, esteemed Member of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China Li Hongzhong!

Ladies and gentlemen!

Allow me to extend my greetings.

Mr Putin, I would like to sincerely thank you for your kind invitation to participate in the Eastern Economic Forum, which grows in significance and scale with each passing year. It is a great honour for me to take part in the jubilee tenth Eastern Economic Forum as the head of the executive power of Mongolia.

The regular assembly of the Eastern Economic Forum, along with its discussions on key issues of international and regional economic development, investment, infrastructure, energy, and environmental cooperation, is of great importance for shaping the future trajectories of our countries. This has firmly established the forum as a vital mechanism for dialogue in the Asia-Pacific region. I am confident it will continue to serve as an authoritative platform for meaningful discussions.

This year’s theme – Far East: Cooperation for Peace and Prosperity – is both timely and highly relevant. I believe that our deliberations here will help chart new avenues for joint development.

Amid large-scale political, social, and economic changes on the global stage, our countries are facing complex challenges in the social and economic spheres, including rising prices and persistent logistical and financial difficulties.

I am confident that the Far Eastern region – home to the majority of the world’s population and accounting for one-third of global GDP – will play a decisive role in the future. For this reason, Mongolia is keen to deepen trade and economic ties and to expand investment, particularly with the states of East and Southeast Asia.

Along with our geographical advantages, Mongolia boasts abundant natural resources as well as a young and skilled workforce. The Government of Mongolia has been pursuing consistent policies to harness these assets, attract investment, and foster trade and cooperation, and these efforts are already delivering results. Over the past three years, our economy has grown at an average annual rate of six percent, contributing to the region’s stable development.

The Government will continue its work on diversifying the economy, strengthening macroeconomic stability, creating a favorable business climate, and enhancing the openness of foreign trade.

Ladies and gentlemen,

We are currently celebrating the 80th anniversary of the end of the Second World War, an event that has been ingrained forever in the history of humankind including the peoples of Mongolia, Russia and China.

Our countries, eternal neighbours and strategic partners, keep strengthening and fostering bilateral and trilateral relations, overcoming all barriers, as we are set on expanding mutually beneficial cooperation.

Ten years ago, the three countries’ leaders signed a roadmap of cooperation between Mongolia, Russia and China, and identified the priorities of trilateral interaction. Several days ago – in fact, three days ago – the leaders had a meeting in China to discuss further cooperation plans.

I want to stress that Mongolia is ready to actively participate in the alignment of the Steppe Road Initiative, the Eurasian Economic Union, the Belt and Road Initiative, and also to promote and deepen the implementation of the economic corridor with Russia and China. We will ensure stable and fruitful participation on this track.

The programme of establishing an economic corridor Mongolia-Russia-China designed to develop and enhance comprehensive cooperation within the strategic partnership between Mongolia, Russia and China, will definitely enhance political trust, attract investment and contribute to regional integration. In this context, Mongolia has always had highest regard for the significance of and prospects for the 33 projects of the economic corridor. We believe that laying foundations for mutually beneficial cooperation, especially in road transport, helps attract investment from international banks and financial institutions. Regular trilateral meetings on the implementation of these projects also promote their advancement.

The parties have also agreed in principle on another major project – construction of a gas pipeline across the territory of Mongolia. I would like to declare with full responsibly from this rostrum that the Mongolian government is committed to rendering every possible support to this mega project. We believe this project will unveil new economic opportunities, will be beneficial for the environment and strategically important. It will become a project of great significance for trilateral cooperation.

Esteemed Mr Putin, I express sincere gratitude to Alexei Miller for this project. Thank you.

In addition, our countries are also discussing an upgrade of the central transport corridor connecting our three nations, setting up new railway interchanges and the development of cross border checkpoints which meet international standards. These are all strategically important and economically advantageous projects. We think the implementation of these programmes and projects contributes to expanding trade and transport links between Russia, China, Asia and Europe and also steps up regional cooperation.

An interim agreement on free trade between Mongolia and the Eurasian Economic Union and its member states was signed at the meeting of the Eurasian Economic Commission Supreme Council in Minsk last June. Under the agreement, tariffs were cut on 367 goods and temporary customs duties on some goods were completely scrapped, which was in important step forward in regional economic integration.

Ladies and gentlemen,

The Eastern Economic Forum will help open up new opportunities to fight crises in the Far East, Asia and the Pacific Region, invigorate regional cooperation in the economy and other areas, and also launch new important joint projects and programmes.

We are totally ready to expand cooperation and to advance the development of the region together. Over the past time, we have initiated a multitude of programmes and measures to enhance integration. Stepping up these efforts, filling them with new content will definitely serve our common interests.

I wish all the participants of the Eastern Economic Forum success, achievements in work, and good health.

Thank you.

Maria Rybakova: Thank you very much.

I have a follow-up question. Mr Gombojavyn Zandanshatar, you mentioned the Power of Siberia. Mongolia took an active part in the SCO Summit when a trilateral meeting was held.

I have the following question – I was looking for information which was not available until now – will you buy our gas or will you render transit services only?

Gombojavyn Zandanshatar (retranslated): We are engaged in trilateral efforts to lay that gas pipeline from Russia across Mongolia to China. At present, all technical and economic aspects have been completed, including research.

It is a large-scale trilateral project. The parties agreed in principle on laying this gas pipeline.

I can say with all responsibility that we are fully prepared for the construction. We attach great importance to laying this pipeline in a proper way. At today’s meeting with Alexei Miller we had a detailed discussion of all the relevant issues, how to implement this project efficiently and without any failures, and also to ink a trilateral intergovernmental agreement.

Mongolia is not only a transit country. It can also buy and consume natural gas, connect its big cities to this gas pipeline, that is, build a gas distribution network. It will contribute to industrial development and mitigate environmental disasters such as winter smog in Ulaanbaatar, and will offer new opportunities for Mongolia’s economy. It will become a strategically crucial natural resource to solve current issues. Under the project, 50 billion cubic metres of gas will be transferred by that pipeline annually. It is evidently one of the biggest projects of the century. I believe it will also involve a lot of organisational efforts.

I would like to thank and congratulate everyone on this project.

Maria Rybakova: So are you ready to buy gas?

Gombojavyn Zandanshatar: Research work is currently underway. The devil is in the details, that’s why more research and discussions are needed.

Maria Rybakova (addressing Alexei Miller): I ask you to place it on record, Mr Miller, that I have just reached an agreement, as it appears.

Mr Putin, obviously, the next question is a logical follow-up on our discussion of the Power of Siberia. The memorandum has been signed and caused a stir. Everybody had a sigh of relief, as it seemed to me. The term of the agreement is 30 years. I have not seen the specific price. As I understand, it must be a commercial secret, yet they say that the prices will be lower than in Europe, at least.

There was a Soviet joke that we are giving our oil to Europe through “Friendship.” What do you think, are we going to give the “power” of our Siberia to China?

Vladimir Putin: This is a mutually beneficial project.

As for prices, they are based on the market and are actually estimated using the same formula as for Europe. The formula is the same but its components, the prices of various products, which make up the gas price, they are simply different in different regions of the world. The prices in Europe differ from those in Asia. And the formula to determine the price is the same, it is absolutely market-based.

We had long talks and every time when participants in the economic activity are talking and trying to find a solution – and most of the people here are like those – everybody understands well enough: this is not an easy process yet everybody is striving to reach the result both negotiating sides are interested in.

Gazprom and its Chinese partners have reached such a result in the course of their years-long efforts. I can only congratulate them all once again. It is really one of the major energy projects in the world.

Maria Rybakova: Thank you.

Since we have approached the energy projects anyway, I still want to listen to the story about how Laos managed to make such a stride. I want to ask how you could become the main power source? I understand that our technical issues have now been resolved. Mr Sonexay Siphandone, please tell us the secret of your energy market. How did you manage to achieve such great results? Why does everybody want to connect to your power source?

Sonexay Siphandone (retranslated): Thank you very much for your question.

This is a very important question. We consider the electric power to be a priority area for us, like oil and natural gas. The thing is that we are a country that purchases 100 percent of its oil and gas, and for this reason the electric power is important for us, and it is also green power. Our government encourages a broader use of electric power.

We also regard the development of hydropower engineering as a priority, as we have abundant water resources and many rivers in our country. All this allows us to build a large number of hydroelectric power plants. Ninety-five percent of the energy that we produce comes from hydropower engineering. The total capacity exceeds 12 million megawatts. We plan to increase this figure to 30 million megawatts.

Still, given the climate changes and other calamities, the problem looks still greater for us, especially during the rain and draught seasons. This is why we resort to other, alternative energy sources. Specifically, we use wind and the solar energy.

We would like to thank President Putin, after our President visited Russia at the end of July. During the talks, peaceful use of nuclear energy was discussed, as well as the use of nuclear energy products in medicine. We talked about cooperation in agriculture. I firmly believe that cooperation with the Russian Federation will make it possible for us to develop our energy sector, and it will develop in a more stable manner. Moreover, we will ensure stability in the production and consumption of energy.

Of course, we cannot speak for entire Asia, but given our development priorities, we focus on advancing technology and science. We are creating a network of metadata centres to develop the ICT sector, and all of this requires energy. Therefore, we give priority to meeting domestic demand for energy and then export energy to neighbouring countries.

We are developing a power transmission network in order to cover more Asian countries.

Previously, we exported electricity to Vietnam, Cambodia, and Thailand. We also exported electricity to Singapore and Malaysia. Nowadays, we are beginning the second stage of all these projects. Yes, these are all priority areas for us, but, I repeat, energy must be provided first for our own domestic consumption and also meet the needs of neighbouring countries if we export this electricity there. There are very good prospects for our sector. I have just described them.

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: We are discussing cooperation in the Asia-Pacific region. You keep bringing me back to cooperation, say, with our friends and allies in the People’s Republic of China. We have not yet talked about India: there are many plans there, too. But the Asia-Pacific region also includes, say, the United States. And there are many interested parties there who want to resume or begin new work with us.

We are talking about the Asia-Pacific region. We have received excellent proposals for working with US companies in Alaska: they have resources there, and we have technologies for extracting and liquefying gas that are much more effective than those that some of our American partners have. They know this, and at the level of economic players, companies are ready for cooperation. It does not depend on us. We are also ready, but if any political decisions are made there, we will move in this direction, and we can work together in the Arctic, too.

By the way, we have already discussed possible work in a trilateral format on some of our Arctic fields with our Chinese friends. In fact, all these options are being discussed, they are on the table. We only need a political decision. This is possible, and cooperation in both gas and oil would be mutually beneficial.

Maria Rybakova: Mr Putin, what do you think is the obstacle now preventing us from starting this as soon as possible? What is putting spokes in our wheels?

Vladimir Putin: This is not a question for me. We are not putting spokes or anything in any wheels.

Maria Rybakova: I see.

Vladimir Putin: Initially, you asked about our eagle, which is one of our symbols. It looks in one direction and in the opposite. Look at the eagle now. Did we turn away from anyone? No, we did not turn away from anyone. The eagle continues to look both ways.

Maria Rybakova: Thank you.

I would like to give the floor to Li Hongzhong, member of the Politburo of the Communist Party of China Central Committee and Vice Chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress.

Please, the floor is yours.

Li Hongzhong (retranslated): President Putin, Prime Minister Siphandone of Laos, Prime Minister Zandanshatar of Mongolia.

Ladies and gentlemen, friends,

I am delighted to meet you all in Vladivostok, the pearl of the Russian Far East, at the 10th Eastern Economic Forum.

This year marks the Forum’s tenth anniversary. A decade ago, thanks to the initiative of President Putin and his personal support, the Forum’s remarkable journey began here.

Over the past nine years of dedicated work, the Forum has grown into a vital platform for fostering cooperation in the Far East and advancing regional development.

It has become a powerful driver for unlocking the potential of the Russian Far East and strengthening the economy of Northeast Asia.

Over the past nine years, we have witnessed not only the growth of the Forum, but also remarkable progress and breakthroughs in the history of China–Russia relations. Under the strategic guidance of President Xi Jinping and President Vladimir Putin, political mutual trust has deepened steadily, while comprehensive cooperation between our two countries has continued to expand.

The breadth, depth, and high quality of our bilateral cooperation reflect the vitality of interregional ties and exchanges. In this context, I would like to highlight the strong momentum of cooperation within the Northeast China – Russian Far East framework, made possible by the personal attention and efforts of our two heads of state.

For many years, China has remained the largest trading partner and leading external investor in the Russian Far East. In 2024, trade under the Northeast China – Russian Far East framework reached $105.8 billion, representing 43 percent of total bilateral trade and serving as a key driving force in China–Russia economic relations.

Ladies and gentlemen,

Friends,

This year marks the 80^th anniversary of the Chinese People’s War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression, the Great Patriotic War, and the world war against fascism. Eighty years ago, in the face of the evil forces of fascism, China, the Soviet Union, and other peace-loving countries and peoples stood firm in defending historical truth and justice, and delivered a decisive rebuff.

China and the Soviet Union, as the principal theatres of World War II in Asia and Europe, endured enormous sacrifices and made a historic contribution to the victory in the world anti-fascist war.

In May and September, Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin took part in the celebrations of the victory anniversary in Moscow and Beijing. They defended the outcomes of World War II and the principles of international justice while calling on the entire world to remember history and open a path to the future.

Ladies and gentlemen,

Friends,

Today, the world is undergoing profound and accelerating changes. Global challenges are not diminishing, and the lack of global governance is becoming increasingly acute. Many issues transcend the internal affairs of individual states and cannot be resolved by any country alone.

Just a few days ago, President Xi Jinping put forward an initiative on global governance at the SCO Plus meeting. This initiative focuses on the vital question of what kind of global governance system should be created, and how it can be reformed and improved.

This represents China’s vision for effectively addressing global challenges and deepening international cooperation. It reflects the expectations of many stakeholders, demonstrates the responsibility of a major power, and expresses its desire to build a community of shared destiny for humankind.

China and Russia are influential powers and constructive forces supporting global strategic stability and advancing global governance. We are ready to fully leverage the advantages that our two neighbouring countries enjoy, and to strengthen close and united cooperation with all regional partners, including Russia, in the spirit of joint consultations, joint construction, and shared benefit. Together, we can move toward a bright future of peaceful development and mutually beneficial cooperation. In this context, I would like to offer the following opinion.

First – peace and stability contribute to development. Peaceful, stable and prosperous Northeast Asia meets the interests of all the countries in the region and is a common dream of its peoples. China has long been pursuing the path of amicability and establishing neighbourly, partner relations with adjacent nations, supporting the countries of the region in selecting a development path consonant with their national realities. We are ready to deepen mutual political trust and alignment of interests, jointly safeguard the regional stability and respond to common risks and challenges.

Second – openness and tolerance contribute to prosperity. As the Chinese adage goes, ‘Openness leads to progress while isolation – to lagging behind.’ Amid current globalisation, none of the countries is progressing alone. We back up an open, transparent, inclusive and non-discriminatory multilateral trade system and advocate the creation of an open-type regional economy, unlocking the potential of natural peculiarities and the geographical advantages of the world’s countries. We are ready – through joint consultations, joint construction and joint use – to strengthen cooperation in production and supply chains, remove protectionism, assist in the free movement of capital, market and technologies for the sake of economic integration in the region.

Third – reciprocal exchange and assimilation contribute to cementing mutual understanding. Spiritual bonding of nations is a foundation for friendly relations between our countries. Our countries are bonded by common mountains and rivers, our cultures influence each other. Our peoples maintain close ties while our friendship is rooted in the past.

We need to continue this friendly timeline, deepen reciprocal exchanges and training, enhance cooperation in tourism, education, youth affairs, culture and art. We need to make people’s trips easier so as to foster neighbourliness and friendship.

Ladies and gentlemen,

Friends,

A Chinese adage says, ‘When everyone’s efforts are joined, victory is inevitable.’ Peace and prosperity in our region are inseparable from each party’s efforts. China is ready “to open its doors” so as to share new development opportunities with all countries of the world on the basis of the news results of China’s modernisation and China’s greater openness.

We are ready to promote neighbourliness and friendship, strengthen mutually beneficial cooperation for the sake of joint usage of the results of the development of all the region’s countries for our wonderful common future.

I wish all the participants fruitful work. Thank you for your attention.

Maria Rybakova: Thank you very much.

Right after your remarks, I would like to touch upon your meeting yesterday, which focused on Russia’s reciprocal decision to abolish visas. We discussed this earlier, and you mentioned during your visit to China that China introduced a visa-free arrangement for Russians.

My immediate question is this: While expanded tourism will certainly benefit both countries’ economies and cultural ties, the main concern remains, Mr President, which is the matter of payments.

For example, I want to visit China as a tourist, but I don’t have a Visa card, and my Mastercard is blocked here. I got a UnionPay card issued about three years ago, but it no longer works. Today, very few banks can issue such cards, and those that do are ruble-based, meaning payments are made in rubles. The only option is to carry cash and exchange it or find a more creative solution. Unfortunately, I haven’t mastered cryptocurrency yet.

Are there any preconditions for making the system of payments between our countries more transparent and accessible?

I would like to pose the same question, in turn, to Mr Li Hongzhong.

Vladimir Putin: First of all, I would like to emphasise that the decision by China’s political leadership – clearly made at the highest level – allowing visa-free entry for Russian citizens into the People’s Republic of China came as a complete surprise to us. We had no prior knowledge of it, and it was especially welcome.

Naturally, this decision is a strong sign of friendship, which we deeply appreciate. It will undoubtedly lead to a significant increase in mutual travel, create more favourable conditions for businesses, and further strengthen the ties between our two countries. This is simply self-evident.

To travel to any country, including China, an ordinary person usually needs to visit several authorities, submit documents, and go through various formalities. Now, with this visa-free arrangement, one can simply board a plane and fly – no bureaucracy. Right? This will undoubtedly bring our two countries closer together. Naturally, we will respond in kind to this gesture of friendship and adopt the same measures.

Regarding tourist travel, it is true that the system of payments needs further improvement. We are working on this intensively. Our financial institutions of the highest level are attending to this matter, along with commercial banks.

I do not want to make more comments at the moment, so as not to create any difficulties for future decisions. This is also connected with the need to respect the interests of financial institutions operating under sanctions pressure. Nevertheless, possible solutions do exist.

We are perfectly aware that steps must be taken for tourists to have as few difficulties as possible. They can certainly use our Mir payment card, and similar Chinese instruments. These payment instruments can be aligned, third countries’ bank cards can also be used. I assure you that the central banks of both countries are working on this and will find a solution.

The heads of the financial institutions discussed all these issues in my presence and in the presence of President Xi Jinping right now, during our delegation’s visit to the Chinese People’s Republic. They are maintaining a dialogue and keep discussing this matter.

I am confident that decisions are forthcoming.

Maria Rybakova: OK, then we’ll be waiting.

Mr Li Hongzhong, we would like to hear a comment on the matter from the Chinese side.

Li Hongzhong (retranslated): Thank you for your question.

The Chinese Government is introducing a visa-free regime for Russian citizens. These are important outcomes and agreements between our heads of state. It is a meaningful sign of enhanced large-scale progress in the Russian-Chinese relations.

I have attentively followed President’s Putin’s reply. I think President Putin’s answer is very professional and sets benchmarks for further development.

I will not go into detail either, but I think, since our countries will meticulously work out all the issues together, we are sure to remove difficulties and technical issues related to payments. Therefore, we are confident we will achieve our goals.

For example, circulation of Chinese currencies and payments. Of course, we hardly use cash now in China, we use our telephones for payments. This is a hard time for thieves because we do not use cash, it’s just a payment method.

When I arrived in Vladivostok, I also had a good impression because I used my telephone here just like in Beijing. It means we already have good alignment in telecommunications.

We also have to work on financial communications at the next stage. I think that we will certainly reach these goals through joint efforts.

I have just mentioned Russian-Chinese cooperation. I said we need to ensure the free movement of capital, markets and people. I firmly believe that we will definitely solve this issue.

Maria Rybakova: Thank you for the answer.

Well, it looks like my only hope is the QR codes, no other options.

Then, I want to come over from a good and friendly agenda to a not so friendly agenda and travel to the other part of the planet. As a matter of principle, you have answered media questions at the news conference in China just the day before. I mean the Ukraine crisis and everything concerning relations with America, everything happening in the area of the special military operation.

Just yesterday, another meeting of the ‘coalition of the willing’ was concluded in Paris. Basically, I didn’t see any specific decisions taken at the end of it. So far, it's just talk about deploying military forces in Ukraine. But Donald Trump said he would call. First question: has he called yet? And the second question: What do you think about the decisions proposed by the other side?

Vladimir Putin: We have an open dialogue with President Trump. We have agreed to call each other, if need be, and talk. He knows that I am open to such talks, as well as he is – I know it. However, so far, based on the results of these consultations in Europe, we have not had any discussions. Actually, it was difficult for me to do this, as I have just arrived from China and am here now. We have no communication problems here. This is the first point.

Second, regarding possible military contingents in Ukraine. This is one on the basic reasons for dragging Ukraine into NATO. So, if any troops appear there, especially now, during combat operations, we will deem them legitimate targets for destruction.

And if any decisions leading to peace, a lasting peace, are achieved, then I will not see the sense of their deployment in Ukraine, that’s it.

If agreements are achieved, then no one should doubt that Russia will execute them in full. We will observe the security guarantees, which, of course, would be drafted both for Russia and Ukraine. And I will say it again: Russia will observe these agreements. Anyway, nobody has ever discussed it with us seriously, that’s that.

Maria Rybakova: Thus we will be waiting. Time will tell, as they say.

The next question is about peace settlement. You said earlier that you basically see a certain potential in this regard and even invited Vladimir Zelensky to Moscow. However, the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry has officially declined it. Do I take it right – or maybe I am wrong – that we cannot speak about any steps towards peace settlement in the nearest future?

Vladimir Putin: I would like you to stick closer to the topics of the Asia-Pacific economic cooperation. But I realise that without solving such acute problems, cooperation as a whole is burdened, so these are legitimate questions.

What can I say?

First, just recently the leadership of the Kiev regime spoke unflatteringly of us, to put it mildly, and excluded any possibility of direct contacts. Now we see that they are asking for such contacts, at least they are suggesting having them.

I have repeatedly said that I am ready for such contacts. At the news conference in Beijing that you mentioned I said that I do not see much sense in them. Why? Because it will be impossible to come to terms with the Ukrainian side on the key issues. Even if they have political will – which I doubt – there are legal and technical difficulties which are related to the fact that any agreements on territories must be confirmed, under the Ukrainian constitution, in a referendum. To hold a referendum, a martial law must be lifted, as referenda are not held under martial law. If martial law is lifted, presidential elections must be held right away. After the referendum, if it is held, regardless of its results, it must be endorsed by a Constitutional Court’s ruling. But the Constitutional Court is not functioning because, as I see it, after it received enquiries on the legitimacy of the incumbent authorities, the court dodged rulings while the head of the regime ordered the security guards not to let the Constitutional Court Chairman to his office. This is the kind of democracy they have there. Meanwhile the Supreme Court Chairman is in jail on corruption charges. It is common knowledge that corruption abounds in Ukraine. But is not clear why it is exactly the Supreme Court Chairman who should be put behind bars. Although it is clear that they have reached the point of destroying their judicial system as such. This is yet another vivid example of how “democratic” the current Ukrainian authorities are. So this is an endless process leading to nowhere. Nevertheless, we said that we are ready for a top-level meeting.

Look, the Ukrainian side wants this meeting and suggests it should be held. I said, ‘I am ready, please come, we will certainly provide proper conditions for work and security, with a 100 percent guarantee.’ But if we are told, ‘We want to meet with you, but you should go to some place for this meeting,’ I think these are just excessive demands towards us.

Let me reiterate – if someone really wants to meet with us, we are ready. The best place for it is the capital of the Russian Federation, the hero city of Moscow.

Maria Rybakova: Mr Putin, thank you for the answer.

May I ask one more question? And then we will definitely switch to the Far East.

Vladimir Putin: Go ahead.

Maria Rybakova: I would like to go back to the root causes of the special military operation.

Literally, during the same news conference, you said you saw no obstacles and had no problem with Ukraine accessing the EU. That same day, a statement by former Ukrainian President Yanukovich was released. He enjoyed support at the time, and we got along with him just fine. I understood that he also always said that he wanted and looked to the West. Maybe, I misunderstood it. Were you talking about the same thing, or not?

Vladimir Putin: I have no way of knowing how you understood it. I will tell you how things are, and things are as follows. Indeed, Ukraine set itself a goal – and still has it – to join the EU. To reiterate, this is Ukraine’s legitimate choice. It decides how to build its international relations, how to ensure its interests in the economic sphere, and whom to conclude alliances with.

The problem for us when Yanukovich was president was that Ukraine’s integration into the European system of economic relations entailed certain economic issues, because Ukraine was part of the free trade zone, our customs borders were open, and for us this implied certain consequences. Ukraine had to compare, put on the scales and see what it was losing in contacts with us in direct monetary and cooperative terms, and what it was gaining there. This is what President Yanukovich thought about. He ran the numbers and that made him cry, because opening markets to competitive, highly competitive European products was killing the manufacturing industry in Ukraine and shutting down cooperative and trade relations with Russia. That was the problem. As far as I remember, he did not say no to joining the EU, on the contrary, he wanted to join it. I do not know what he said, but I know for sure that he wanted it and was striving for it, but on terms that were acceptable to Ukraine.

It did not concern us in any way other that it affected our interests in cooperation ties. But otherwise, no problem, we have never objected to any integration moves in Ukraine’s policies with Europe.

Security issues are a different matter. President Yanukovich and Ukrainian prime minister were against drawing Ukraine into NATO. This issue directly affected us and continues to affect us from the point of view of ensuring Russia’s long-term security interests.

What happened next? As a result of the coup, they got Yanukovich out of power. They removed the person who was against Ukraine joining NATO, and used a bloody coup in Kiev to bring to power forces that advocated and continue to advocate for Ukraine’s NATO membership. This does not suit us at all.

Even though each country can choose how it prefers to ensure its own security, such issues cannot be addressed without regard for Russia’s security, because there is a general rule included in the European documents: the security of one country cannot be ensured at the expense of the security of another country.

Maria Rybakova: Thank you.

Russia, and especially the Far East – we are going to talk about wealth – naturally boasts enormous natural resources. This also applies to fish resources. Recently, I came across some interesting statistics, which I would like to share with you.

According to the data, in 2024, Russia’s crab exports to China reached a historic high of over 41,000 tonnes. For comparison: supplies of Russian crab to the domestic market over the same period amounted to about 8,000 tonnes. In other words, we have a sort of crab paradox: the crab really does walk sideways, bypassing us and heading instead to Korea, Japan, and China.

Do you think Russia has sufficient processing capacity at its ports to add value through processing, and supply it to the domestic market instead of just catching and auctioning it? After all, live crab is the most expensive product and, as far as I know, all live shipments are currently going in the opposite direction.

Vladimir Putin: It is not about prices, although that is certainly one of the key factors.

In order to improve and expand the supply of this product to Russian regions, the issue of logistics must first be resolved. We transport it by rail, which is costly, or by air, which is even more costly. That is the problem. Seafood – both fish and crab – ends up mainly in expensive restaurants. Why? Because it has to be flown in. If we could organise transportation and build logistics correctly, the situation would change.

However, I should note that fish products from the Far East – not only crab, but seafood in general – account for about 75 percent of the national catch, if I recall correctly. Of this, about 65 percent is also processed here.

Today, logistics is the most sensitive issue. We are working on it. We are giving it serious attention, and we will expand our capacity to distribute seafood, including crab, to all regions of the Russian Federation. This is indeed a problem.

Moreover, according to Ministry of Health standards, we are not yet meeting recommended levels of seafood and fish consumption. If I am not mistaken, the norm is 28 kg per capita per year, while today we are at around 23–23.5 kg. Clearly, there is work to be done here. We are thinking about it, and I hope this issue will be resolved.

Maria Rybakova: Wonderful.

Since we mentioned transport and accessibility, intraregional flights in the Russian Far East are not, of course, a matter of comfort but a matter of survival. There is simply no other way to reach some areas with such long distances.

I would like to tell you a brief story. I have a friend who lives in Khabarovsk. He needed to fly to Vladivostok but there were no direct tickets available. I think everybody who lives here knows how difficult it is to grab an intraregional flight ticket. And you wouldn’t want to drive 750 km. I hear from drivers they travel with two spare tyres just in case. Anyway, my friend bought a connecting flight through Moscow and flew from Khabarovsk first to Moscow, where he spent four hours in an airport, then boarded a plane and flew to Vladivostok. So, he did all that and, as their plane was approaching Vladivostok, due to adverse weather, their flight was diverted to a backup airfield in Khabarovsk. Overall, he spent 24 hours flying from Khabarovsk to Khabarovsk. Clearly, it is an anecdote but I think it explains a lot.

When do you think we can resolve the issue of medium-haul aircraft? Today, I’ve also come across news that the State Transport Leasing Company signed an agreement to lease 50 Baikal aircraft.

Perhaps I have missed something. Is Mr Trutnev here? I can’t see him. We have spoken and he told me that there is no such thing as a Baikal aircraft. They bought an aircraft that does not exist yet. I am a little confused. I don’t know, perhaps there is a reason to stop by the stand of the Prosecutor General’s Office? Do these aircraft exist or not, Mr President? And what are the prospects of intraregional flights in the Russian Far East?

Vladimir Putin: Unfortunately, although there was a rather decent local airline network set up in the Soviet times, it was lost in the 1990s. It was mostly neglected in the early 2000s, so people had to, and still have to, fly from one city, even if major, to another city via Moscow, like your friend. But we have already established a local airline. Of course, the key issue is the availability of medium-haul aircraft in sufficient quantity. The Government, the Ministry of Industry and Trade and our domestic enterprises have many plans in this area.

Unfortunately, I have to agree that this matter is taking longer than we wanted. But there is Baikal and other small aircraft that are to replace Antonov An-2. This is work in progress.

I will be honest, sometimes we argue with some of our responsible parties. They will have to expedite these efforts.

We have plans and specific models ready. They have been launched, and I have seen them in operation. The next step is serial production and supplies to airlines. We will certainly do all we can to speed up the process.

We are aware of this problem and of the fact that it still persists. We will keep on working on solutions.

I will not list everything. We have Baikal and many other aircraft models. I have seen them in operation. But serial production is not yet launched.

Maria Rybakova: Thank you very much.

In your speech, you mentioned investment growth; and indeed, foreign investment has increased over the past four years.

My question is this: if we look at the investment climate as a whole, foreign investment mainly comes from a few major countries, including China.

Also, it seemed to me that in your speech, you placed considerable emphasis on technological progress, underscoring the need to develop knowledge-intensive and complex industries. Yet, and this is no secret to anyone, investment is still largely directed toward commodity sectors such as mining, oil, gas, coal, and the infrastructure that supports them.

So, perhaps a logical question would be: is there a risk of falling into a commodity trap, where we would be perceived exclusively as an investment partner in these areas?

Vladimir Putin: No, there is no such trap or threat of falling into one. That risk would exist only if we did nothing. You paid attention to my speech, and one of my central – if not the main – arguments was precisely that: when it comes to investment, we must make the region as a whole more innovative.

This is not a problem of our partners that they tend to invest into the extraction of mineral resources. It is our problem. We should create conditions for the development of innovative sectors of the economy, and for people with the right expertise to come to work here. In fact, such a trend is already emerging, as I mentioned. Our task is to build the right environment.

I can assure you that our partners will be eager to invest in promising enterprises, provided that their implementation also brings them benefits. That is the only way it works; there is no alternative. I am confident that we can implement all of these plans.

By the way, we discussed these issues with our Chinese partners, our friends, in Beijing. Overall, we should organise our work, calibrating it to high technology economic sectors. This is what we are going to do. This is the only future for our economies and our countries, the foundation of our shared success. This certainly applies to the regions of the Far East as well.

Maria Rybakova: Thank you.

I would like to ask about the economy more broadly…

Vladimir Putin: One more thing about mineral resources – I have just looked at Mr Miller and recalled it – is that the concept that we can just drill a hole, and oil and gas will just pour through it is a primitive one. Mr Mikhelson here knows very well what liquefied natural gas is. The technologies he and his team have adopted do not exist anywhere else in the world. This is a high technology sector. And I say this without exaggeration, without hyperbole – it is the truth. The same applies to the gas sector as a whole.

Gazprom’s cooperation with our Chinese friends and partners is not limited to supply contracts. It is a genuine strategic partnership, which means that people are working together on technology-intensive industries, including gas. And there is plenty of work to be done to ensure the effectiveness and profitability for both suppliers and buyers. An extensive number of advanced technological solutions are necessary.

This work within the framework of strategic partnerships between interested companies has already been established and is underway. The only task now is to extend it to related and promising industries, such as artificial intelligence, and of course, we will do this.

We have agreements in the aviation industry with China as well. I am going to fly to another Russian city soon, where I will talk about engine manufacturing. There are plans to work on aviation, which is, by the way, well-represented in the Far East, including both military and civilian aircraft. Sukhoi Superjet 100 is manufactured here in the Far East. There are areas that can be improved, and the same applies to shipbuilding.

Maria Rybakova: Thank you.

I have a joke. I did not know how this plenary session would go so I checked a job hunt website in Vladivostok. By the way, I did not find a single job opening for a television presenter but I was curious to see what else is offered. What jobs and professions are really in demand here? I have mostly seen driver jobs – with salaries of up to 400,000 rubles, by the way – junior executives or pressing operators. Mr President, I have hardly seen any jobs for IT professionals. Even the most in-demand professionals section did not mention IT. I found one job opening in software development, but this is not much.

According to a SberIndex analysis, businesses in the Russian Far East are growing faster than on average in the country – and you said so yourself. And yet, this is mainly due to building large production facilities and production of mineral resources. The IT sector is lagging behind.

In your opinion, what could solve this problem if employers start seeking IT professionals? Are they to be ‘imported’? How can the Far East attract highly qualified technology professionals and incentivise them to stay here and treat this region as their home rather than a temporary placement?

Vladimir Putin: I have spoken about this at length in my remarks and said that young people do move here as they see prospects. There is a demand for young professionals. This trend is apparent but it needs reinforcement from the government. The region needs support in shaping a new image of local economic development, mainly with the help of advanced technologies.

I do not know what you have seen on websites, but I know for certain, having heard it from top managers of local companies, that there is a shortage of highly qualified workforce. The Zvezda shipbuilding complex that we have mentioned today is building a large-capacity fleet that we have not had before. We also need aviation professionals here.

It goes without saying that we need to develop all modern technologies so that we can go beyond developing the Far Eastern and Arctic mineral resources and can make this region part of Russia’s technology-intensive production in general. It is what we plan to do and it will elevate the region to a new development stage.

Maria Rybakova: Mr President, another aspect concerns the exorbitant wage demands among blue-collar workers as drivers want 400,000 rubles and welders want 500,000, for example. This is another side of the story. How can this matter be resolved in your opinion? Is it appropriate today to seek such high wages?

Vladimir Putin: I believe the more people earn the better.

Maria Rybakova: Certainly.

Vladimir Putin: It does matter. I said that it is an economic category. The higher the wage the higher the spending. The higher the spending the more Russian products are popular in the market because usually, people wish to buy Russian-made goods, and so on. This is another economic factor – and a positive one. Moreover, it makes people’s lives better.

Maria Rybakova: Thank you.

Of course, since we are talking about wages, I would really like to discuss what is happening with the Russian economy in general. Many statements have been made on the sidelines of the forum.

Vladimir Putin: I am not the only one here.

Maria Rybakova: Yes, of course, Mr President. But you see, I have so many questions for you. I will certainly have questions for the other guests. For now, I would like to focus on what is happening in the economy.

German Gref says he has noted signs of technical stagnation in the Russian economy. Do you agree with this?

Vladimir Putin: No.

Maria Rybakova: Mr Gref, there you go.

Vladimir Putin: He knows this well. We maintain constant contact. He regularly participates in our meetings, including those I hold with the Government and the Central Bank. Some members of the Government share his opinion, mainly because the Central Bank is holding the rate high to combat inflation.

You complained about prices in shops. The goal is not only to bring prices in shops down but also to ensure that economic actors also restrain price growth. We can discuss anything but I do not want to give assessments now. I have my own view, of course, but let me refrain from evaluating the Central Bank’s work. Let me note instead that our Central Bank is highly respected across the international finance community. This is first-hand information.

The Central Bank’s policy is deliberate. In 2023, Russia’s GDP grew by 4.3 percent; and in 2024, by 4.4 percent. At the same time, inflation rose, too. We need to address macroeconomic challenges and ensure a soft, smooth landing of the economy to stabilise key macroeconomic indicators and slow down price growth.

Yes, I know the debates very well: we discuss this daily. Just yesterday we were talking about this. Some experts believe that the economy has cooled down, but lending has not stopped. Ask Mr Gref himself: has lending stopped? No. The pace has slowed down, yes.

I know some industries are going through rough times, and people present here also understand this very well. However, everyone also understands that nothing good will happen if inflation spins out of control. It would become impossible to plan anything, not just years ahead, but even ten days ahead. This is a very delicate issue. Take banks, for example. You can ask the Chairman of VTB. He will tell you: yes, perhaps they have overdone it, maybe the economy has cooled somewhat too much.

Maria Rybakova: Mr Kostin often complains about the key rate.

Vladimir Putin: Yes. The Ministry of Economic Development will tell you the same thing. And all of them are right in their own way. But I am confident that we will eventually find a way to maintain the necessary pace of economic growth while keeping inflation to a minimum. I think that’s enough for this discussion format.

Maria Rybakova: Thank you.

My next question is for Prime Minister Sonexay Siphandone. In 2021, Laos and China launched one of the largest high-speed railways. There have been reports that the railway may be subsequently extended to Thailand. It is a major project that requires complex technology and infrastructure.

My question is: is there an opportunity, a chance, or prospects for connecting the railway to Far Eastern ports? And how can this be done sooner? It would expedite both our trade and cooperation. Is this a realistic prospect? Perhaps discussions have already taken place.

Sonexay Siphandone (retranslated): As for transport, we are using a modern railway that is far more advanced compared to the railway we built many years ago.

As I have already said, we are turning from a country with no sea access into a country connected to others. On this project, we cooperate with China.

As you have noted, we cooperate in railway development. We have successfully completed this project. Of course, the coronavirus pandemic was a certain obstacle, but we have managed to overcome these difficulties in our strategic cooperation.

According to the respective initiative, I am completely certain that there is an agreement between Russia and China. If there is also an agreement between Russia, Laos and China, we will be able to transport products from Laos via China to the Far East, including to Russia.

The railway may open new cooperation opportunities for Russia and ASEAN, China and ASEAN, and improve Lao products’ access to the market. I would like to stress that this is an alternative route that is faster and more sustainable.

The government of Laos is considering the possibility of establishing sea routes to Vladivostok through China, potentially via Hainan or a Vietnamese port. We have already agreed on some aspects of this project to date.

It would be an excellent opportunity for us to cooperate with Vietnam. We have no access to the sea but we have made an agreement with Vietnam that would help us reach both China and Russia.

As for Mongolia, we could also use similar transport infrastructure to exchange products. Certainly, there are many advantages to developing the Laos-China railway network.

Thank you.

Maria Rybakova: Mr President, do you have anything to say in response?

Vladimir Putin: No, we are discussing it with our Lao friends, and we talked about it just yesterday.

We are in contact with our partners from third countries, including from Vietnam. Indeed, we are discussing all these logistic options; we are talking about expanding them. I think prospects are good.

Maria Rybakova: As for the railway tracks here, in Vladivostok, I know that it is a vexed question, I mean we want to have more and better railway tracks. The railway logistics still accounts for a large part [of infrastructure] in the Far East. Will it be renovated? You have already spoken this.

Vladimir Putin: Not large – they account for the larger part of the entire infrastructure. This is the so-called Eastern Operating Domain, the Trans-Siberian Railway and the Baikal-Amur Mainline; now a new railway has been built to Magadan, to the Sea of Okhotsk. This is a very good project and the results will be good. We will continue to develop all this.

I, as well as my colleagues, constantly talk about it. This is a key development area for the Far East and the country in general. The shipment volumes have multiplied. Well, what can I say about it? We will develop the Trans-Arctic Corridor – there are things to work on – together with the Northern Sea Route.

As for our friends in the Asian-Pacific region, I very much expect that all our efforts to develop transport logistics in the Far East would benefit – that was the intention – trade and economic relations with our partners, including our friends in Laos.

Maria Rybakova: Thank you. So, welcome as they say.

I want to note that this is my first time in Vladivostok. And, of course, I am very impressed both by its size and by how interesting it is. Really, it is a well-tended and, let us say, an interactive city. There is much to see here, and it has a certain authenticity. But I went on an excursion not far from here and I was, so to say, a bit surprised by the contrast. Central cities and regional centres really do look great, they are being transformed, but, to put it mildly, we certainly will not see a Zolotoy Bridge anywhere near Pevek.

What do you think should be done to make remote towns comfortable, authentic and beautiful, including from the point of view of infrastructure?

Vladimir Putin: Practically, it is all the same everywhere: the centre of the city looks one way, and the suburbs look differently. Thinking about developing our population centres so that people can live a comfortable life in any part of the city is an issue to be addressed by the municipal authorities, primarily regional authorities.

As for small towns, we have a programme to develop population centres. As far as I remember, there over 800 (I think, 804) towns in the country with the population under 50,000 people, or around 50,000. This is a major programme.

As regards the development of Russia’s towns and cities, there are many areas that work quite effectively for small towns. Without a doubt, this work needs to be expanded.

With regard to the Far East and the Arctic, we have a separate programme that includes 22 towns and cities at the first stage. The appropriate resources have been allocated, development plans have been drawn up, and the work has begun. I have briefly mentioned some of the results, but I believe that this is one of the key areas of work. We have just discussed this with our colleagues who stood, so to speak, at the beginning of this road, who initiated this process, which turned out to be very popular and effective.

I have already covered the importance of giving a new boost to economic growth. We need to bring in well-trained specialists to the region, who, of course, need adequate social conditions. There must be kindergartens, good schools, good education, and medicine. All of that should be developed in small towns as well.

To reiterate, there is a properly funded programme that covers 22 towns. Of course, we will expand this work.

Maria Rybakova: Still, we are discussing spending. I am just trying to smoothly segue to the budget deficit. In 2025, it was planned at about 1.2 trillion rubles. In the summer, it grew, according to official figures, to 3.8 trillion. We are only in September now. Clearly, things may change by the end of the year. I even heard a figure of up to eight trillion rubles. Again, I am not an economist, and I have no idea if it is possible or realistic at all.

How do you think this can even out? What mechanisms are planned to be used in the first place?

Vladimir Putin: I do not operate in terms such as “I think,” I can tell you what I believe, and I believe as follows. Indeed, spendings are growing, which is due to the infrastructure development plans, including in the Far East, because they require large financial resources. The Eastern Operating Domain, the Baikal-Amur Mainline, the Trans-Siberian Railway, and so on, the development of port infrastructure, airports, and so on. Spending on education and healthcare throughout the country, and spending in the defence and security sphere, including spending related to the special military operation – these are all spendings.

First, we need to work on the revenue part, and there are things to discuss, meaning, of course, not an increase in the tax burden, but simply an increase in production efficiency. We need to increase labour productivity, introduce the latest technologies, and better organise production processes. Here, I assure you, we have things to address, and the reserves are countless, meaning the opportunities are vast.

However, there are other things that can quite reassure us, and, rest assured, there is nothing scary about it. Some of our colleagues in the Government believe that this deficit can be increased, and it is not a big deal. Why? Because our debt burden levels – external and internal – are not just acceptable but are low. This guarantees the stability of the entire financial credit system, including the budget system.

The budget is built on a balanced basis. This is not an easy thing to do. It is actually a complex and even stressful effort, if I can put it that way, because achieving a balance between different sectors of the economy is a challenging task. The Government is coping with it.

Maria Rybakova: Mr President, I read the other day, and it was discussed during the forum sessions as well, that the Finance Ministry and, I think, Sberbank – (Addressing German Gref.) – is that correct, Mr Gref? – are planning to introduce artificial intelligence for budget work, to have the artificial intelligence somehow help form the budget? If I understood it correctly.

Mr President, how do you feel about the idea of using AI this way?

Vladimir Putin: My view on this is positive. But AI can only be an assistant, at least at this particular moment, at this stage of AI technology development. Today, these tools can only be used to assist the decision-making both at the level of the Central Bank and at the level of the Government.

Maria Rybakova: Then, the ball goes to Mr Li.

China has achieved quite significant success in the field of AI and is now among the leaders. In fact, the American and the Chinese neural networks are probably the two most popular ones. I know that China has been actively developing the platform economy for a long time now. This is a completely innovative type of economic activity. We are actively implementing these processes as well.

I have a question. How do you generally assess this leadership? What does China plan to do to keep cooperation between AI and the state going? What will it look like? What is the plan?

Li Hongzhong (retranslated): Thank you for your question.

You have touched on a critically important topic. AI is a way for all of humanity to achieve progress. AI is a new production force that drives our evolution, and it is very important to develop it. All countries around the world, including China, Russia, the United States and other countries, pay great attention to developing AI and promoting its technologies.

President Xi Jinping said in 2023 that the world will advance just four main principles of AI development: its universal popularisation, its further advancement, and our joint use of human and machine resources, as well as the promotion of these technologies in our everyday lives. These principles have been put forward.

In general, we will be implementing these principles in approximately three areas, such as scientific and technological innovations, and scientific and technological development. Innovation is the central element of developing the AI concept. Increasing the intended capacity, the computing capacity, and creating neural networks and models. This is connected with the development of high technology and the implementation of high-tech development plans overall. This is connected, of course, with the training of specialists and personnel management. This, of course, helps us train personnel.

We are creating new platforms. The United States is, without a doubt, leading here, but nevertheless China is constantly making great efforts to achieve an advantage in this area. For example, artificial intelligence. The level of forecasting and the degree of monopolisation in China in this area has reached 60 percent. We are making progress in matters of monopolising AI technology at a pace of about 20 percent annually. This, of course, is our advantage. We patent these technologies. This is one of the key areas of development.

The second component is that we are implementing our approaches, viewing AI as a path for the development of humanity, as a path to achieving well-being. President Xi Jinping put forward in his speeches the most important concept of a community of common destiny for humanity. We profess these ideas. One of the key components of this concept is an affluent and powerful state, and the promotion of general welfare for all groups of population.

We are steadily following the path of promoting high technologies. Take, for instance, China’s DeepSeek neural network. This model is already widely known. It makes it possible to achieve great results. It is an advanced technology. We were able to significantly reduce the cost value and thus overcome the threshold of achieving great benefits at minimal costs. This is, of course, one of the ways to develop AI.

Increasing the AI compute capacity offers new opportunities. We have discovered completely new areas of using it. Take, for example, technologies such as unmanned control of production processes. Its open source makes it possible to use these technologies efficiently. We can thus reach new heights in our work, simultaneously developing these AI technology and implementing them. Benefitting from the use of AI, we pay great attention to the environment that is necessary for using these technologies.

All this is designed to increase the production and capacity. Already now, the scope of AI use in production is showing exceedingly high growth. Its capitalisation has reached 700 billion yuan representing growth of about 20 percent annually. There are many areas that can help us improve the well-being of our people, develop these technologies across the board, and improve the lives of people in our country, as well as spread these technologies in the interests of industries and enterprises. This, of course, provides us with new advantages. The multifaceted and comprehensive use of such technologies is the key area of our country’s development.

We have opened the gates to the use of AI technology in people’s lives, and we would also like this technology to make progress in Russia, as you, Mr President, and our President, Comrade Xi Jinping, have already jointly stated. We must make the most out of the Russian Far East and our territories in order to develop AI in our respective countries.

Thank you very much for your attention.

Maria Rybakova: Mr President, I am not going to ask you whether it is possible to use AI to run a country.

My question is: Do you think that AI can be trusted with setting the key interest rate? I hope Ms Nabiullina forgives me for asking this.

Vladimir Putin: I have already said, I think, no, take that back, I believe that the capabilities of AI can be used when making any kinds of decisions, and they should be used in making any decisions across all areas, including in matters overseen by the Central Bank. However, decisions of that kind must be made by a specific person that should bear responsibility for them. You cannot hold AI accountable. It is just a tool. Humans should do the actual work.

By the way, our Chinese participant, our friend from China has a high political rank, he is a member of the Politburo of the CPC Central Committee. But we just heard him provide expert assessments in a fairly serious area of AI. Humans should make decisions. And such people should be in China and in Russia. They should use AI and develop these tools.

Maria Rybakova: I hope AI will not replace me or other people who do my kind of work.

Vladimir Putin: Why not? There are neural networks, and I think there are AI-based television presenters as well.

Maria Rybakova: That is it, I'm done for. But the human side, Mr President, will go away if AI were to ask you questions.

Vladimir Putin: Or it will get better with the help of AI.

Maria Rybakova: Thank you.

Ladies and gentlemen, does anyone have anything to add to the questions that have been asked? We are gradually approaching the finish line.

I have one last question left, which is rather philosophical. Mr President, it is about the Far East, but, not entirely about the economy.

Here it goes. For some reason, I thought that the Far East really does live in the future, because it is 5:00 pm here, and it is morning in Moscow. You and I are in the middle of the day, or rather, it is almost an evening.

Overall, the world looks rather strange today. Everyone is talking about it a lot, including turbulence and crises that flare up non-stop, and this is not only about the Ukraine crisis, but Israel and Palestine as well. Flashpoints like that abound.

What do you think of Russia’s future in this world? This is the first question. And the second is do you think the world of the coming decades will be more Western or Eastern?

Vladimir Putin: It will be multipolar.

Maria Rybakova: Thank you.

All that remains for me to do is to thank you for trusting me with asking you questions today.

Also, in closing, I am very grateful to the Far East for such a warm welcome.

As Mr President has rightly pointed out, tomorrow, and some of us today, will be heading west. Therefore, I would like to sum it up and say that, since we mentioned the double-headed eagle at the very beginning, perhaps our uniqueness and strength lie in the fact that we are not choosing but looking in both directions at once. I think this seamlessly fits with the motto of the anniversary forum on cooperation in the name of peace and prosperity.

Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: For my part, I would like to thank all the participants, including our foreign guests, my colleagues who are working here with me today, and the audience for their joint efforts, because this is also part of the work, as well as our charming moderator for making such an interesting discussion possible.

Thank you very much.

Maria Rybakova: Thank you. This is the best assessment. Thank you very much, Mr President.

Have a safe flight everyone, at least those who are leaving today.

Meeting with editors of history textbooks

2025-07-04T11:59:31+04:00

The President met with editors of the federal lineup of history textbooks for years 5 to 11 of secondary school as well as vocational schools.

Taking part in the discussion were the editors-in-chief of the books to be used for the History of Russia and World History courses: Presidential Aide Vladimir Medinsky, MGIMO University Rector Anatoly Torkunov, Academic Director at the Russian Academy of Sciences’ Institute of World History Alexander Chubaryan, and Minister of Education Sergei Kravtsov.

* * *

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Colleagues, friends.

We gather today on June 22 – a date marking 84 years since Nazi Germany’s treacherous attack on our country, the day the Great Patriotic War began. Let me emphasise: without exaggeration, at the core of our victory over Nazi Germany lay our traditional values and faith in the Fatherland, sustaining the morale and resilience of our people.

That faith was fostered through various channels, including school and church, and our traditional religions. Moreover – you know this better than anyone else – we have often heard since, even from the enemy, that the victory was achieved, or rather, the foundations of that victory were laid in school.

Unfortunately, the 1990s saw a disruption in the continuity of history, as well as a loss of consistency in school curricula. Dozens of history textbooks emerged, offering diametrically opposed interpretations of past events, creating confusion rather than clarity. Let us be clear: we fully support pluralism and contrasting viewpoints. But debate must rest on a shared foundation of basic historical facts – a framework that was lost during this period.

Moreover, when I reviewed some of those textbooks, I was stunned at what I saw. They contained anything but truthful information about past events such as the Great Patriotic War. I could not believe the description of the Battle of Stalingrad in one of them, without any exaggeration. Despite its lengthy interpretations, the book omitted a crucial fact: it was the Soviet Union that broke the backbone of Nazism, paying an enormous sacrifice on the altar of victory. To this day, the full toll remains uncounted – at least 27 million lives. However, what these books did include was outright Russophobia and, I repeat, a distortion of historical facts.

This comes as no surprise, given that foreign grants funded the development and publication of many such textbooks and learning aids. The situation bears resemblance to 1920s ideological campaigns, when entire chapters of Russia’s pre-revolutionary history were either erased as if they never existed or distorted into some mirror-world alternative. Although it is a fact that over the course of 1,000 years, Russians and other ethnic groups of the Russian Empire, the Moscow Tsardom and later the Russian Empire, forged a unified state.

In 2013, a concept for teaching Russian history was adopted, to guide instruction from year five and up, to colleges, vocational schools, and so on. This represented critically important work in preserving our national memory and ensuring continuity between generations. I would like to thank you, your entire team, and all colleagues who have contributed to this vital endeavour.

Now, of course, it is crucial to properly organise feedback collection. I would ask Mr Kravtsov to systematically gather input, including from students, teachers using these materials, and, naturally, parents. Understanding the perspectives of your target audience is essential. Should adjustments be needed, you will be best positioned to determine how to implement them.

Next. Another important matter is social studies textbooks. This presents an equally significant yet perhaps even more complex challenge, with more nuances. I would like to hear your assessment of our current position and the approach you recommend.

Finally, the textbooks you have developed will be used for year five onward. But what about earlier years? A child’s worldview begins forming much sooner. I am not just referring to years one through four. This foundation is critically important even at the preschool level.

All schools now conduct flag-raising ceremonies and hold corresponding lessons. However, implementing this with younger children presents greater challenges as the content must be carefully adapted to their young age, following child psychologists’ recommendations and expertise. This is self-evident. I would like to discuss this particular aspect with you as well.

Thank you.

Minister of Education Sergei Kravtsov: Allow me to thank you for this meeting. The project to develop standardised state textbooks, which you have repeatedly mentioned, has been completed. I want to take a moment in your presence to thank the contributors who invested three years of painstaking work to present the entire lineup of textbooks now. History books for years 10–11 are already used in schools. One-third of the 10^th year History course is devoted to the Great Patriotic War.

The imbalances you mentioned did create unnecessary confusion, unfortunately. There were 54 textbooks – more than 50. As you said, the contents of those books did not always align with historical truth. Nearly each school developed its own curriculum: some of them covered the Battle of Stalingrad, for example, while others would omit this topic, unfortunately.

Today, we have finally corrected this imbalance. All schools now follow a standardised History curriculum, designed by leading experts, which dedicates 30 percent of instructional time to the Great Patriotic War. This includes focused lessons on the Battle of Stalingrad, the defence of Brest Fortress, and the Siege of Leningrad.

Simultaneously, Alexander Chubaryan oversaw the development of the World History course, which emphasises Russia’s interconnectedness with global events, ensuring our country’s history is not taught in isolation. This is a highly important point repeatedly brought up by teachers.

In general, teachers’ reactions to the new books were positive because the books contain truthful historical material, complete with links to museum websites and references to recommended films that visualise the events discussed.

It is no less important that the new books are cheaper than those commercially produced, due to state support.

And at the same time, work is underway to design Social Studies books. Social Studies will not be taught until year 9 to devote more time to Russian history. We plan to shift to the new standardised Social Studies textbooks from the next academic year. I think Mr Medinsky will have something to add because he actually developed the Social Studies textbook.

Mr President, I suggest giving the floor to Anatoly Torkunov as one of the contributors to the Russian History textbook, which is indeed one of the key subjects that shape young people’s worldview.

Vladimir Putin: Go ahead, please.

MGIMO University Rector Anatoly Torkunov: Mr President, you mentioned World War II and the Great Patriotic War. It appears to me that the textbook for year 10 not only focuses on these topics but the historical facts and their significance are expanded with references to a great number of fictional works. Children can use QR codes to access the best films about the war, theatre productions and even music. Of course, this creates a completely different picture, a 5D picture for History learners. I believe this represents the creators’ innovative approach. It is a big team of contributors that includes best experts in different periods in history and specific events. I think this is why we can consider our textbooks innovative. Not only History of Russia textbooks for year 10 but also for year 6 and onward. Starting September 1, all kids will be taught using these unified textbooks.

But I should note that the National Final School Exam results of 2024 and 2025 demonstrate that the students taught using the new textbooks (in use for two years now) are well prepared for the exam and pass it quite well. Almost 90 percent receive good and excellent marks specifically for this period in history. This period covers the war but also modern history, including the latest events, the special military operation, and the 2000s. I find it an excellent achievement.

I should not praise myself, especially since I am just one of the contributors, but it is a big achievement by the entire team that managed to incorporate all the events into a relatively small textbook and present them to the kids. I hope the textbooks for years 6 to 11 will be similarly effective.

But you know, Mr President, I would like to raise one issue that we, historians and teachers, have been discussing for quite some time. Perhaps it is reasonable to consider making National Final School Exams in History a requirement for applicants to Humanities degree programmes.

Today, a substantial part of such applicants, including those applying to study law, take an exam in Social Studies. Even with the new textbook that, I am certain, will be better than the previous textbooks, we believe that in terms of substance, it would be more important for applicants to prepare — not immediately, of course, but after a while — for a National Final School Exam in History if they apply for degree programmes related to Humanities, Social Sciences, and Economics. While maintaining certain Social Studies components in the examination would be valuable, it is worth noting that the existing History curriculum already comprehensively incorporates all essential Social Studies terminology and concepts. This knowledge domain could be improved further by consistently improving the History textbook. As of today, 46 percent of school graduates take Social Studies exams.

If we look at public opinion polls and our own understanding of the matter, we will see a rather poor knowledge of History in general among school graduates applying to study in universities. Why is that? We realise why. Because in secondary school students begin preparing for the National Final School Exam in the subjects required for enrolment and History is not their priority.

Yes, from now on, at your initiative, university students will be taking courses in Russian and World History in their fresher’s year, with respective hours allocated. But when students come completely unprepared in History, I am afraid the number of subjects related to Engineering and Natural Sciences will be overwhelming (take Strength of Materials alone). I assume it would be important to ensure that all students, or at least those applying to study Humanities, Social Sciences, and Economics, had an in-depth knowledge of History. Before this meeting, we discussed this, and the historians are certainly unanimous in this opinion.

Vladimir Putin: Fine. I took a History exam when I applied for university.

Right.

Go ahead, please.

Academic Director at the Russian Academy of Sciences’ Institute of World History Alexander Chubaryan: Mr President, in schools, World History begins in the fifth year – even a full year earlier than Russian History. I must note that most World History textbooks in use today remain Eurocentric – focusing primarily on European history. The key improvement in our new edition is its stronger emphasis on other continents. It includes dedicated sections on the East, specifically, Asia, with expanded coverage of China and India, as well as new chapters on Africa and Latin America, which are also interesting. This, I believe, is one of our most significant achievements. Russian students will gain a more balanced understanding of global historical development now.

Another key improvement is our focus on Russia’s role in world history across all periods, which was one of our core objectives from the start. The new textbook presents global events in a broader context. For instance, while the previous year 5 textbook covered only antiquity, the updated version now includes archaeological discoveries from our own country, Mr President, such as major Siberian excavation sites and their significant finds. This, I believe, marks another important innovation.

Mr President, both Anatoly Torkunov and you stressed the importance of the history of the Great Patriotic War and World War II. We have expanded the World War II section highlighting our country’s role in the East, in the Far East – our contribution to the defeat of Japanese militarism. In my view, the updated version offers richer content and is more engaging.

I would like to propose something. Four years ago, Moscow hosted the World Congress of School History Teachers, a major international event co-organised with our European partners. You sent a message of greeting to the participants. I have a new idea now – to hold the second congress next year while expanding the representation of Eurasia. I have already discussed this with Chinese representatives; South Africa has shown great interest, and Brazil as well. I think we could organise the next congress.

The Council of Europe has established an institutional project to enhance history education in Europe. I propose that the next teachers’ congress launch a similar centre in Moscow – one with a global mission to promote quality history education. This initiative should extend to all countries, not just Europe, and I am confident we have the capacity to realise it. The congress would provide an excellent platform to share our experience and present our new textbooks, which I believe would be of broad international interest.

I have had preliminary consultations with China, South Africa, and Brazil. Everyone supported the idea. I even wrote you a letter saying that we wanted to hold this congress next year. I think that would be important.

Vladimir Putin: Good, thank you.

Once again, I would like to congratulate you on receiving a state decoration that recognises your outstanding contribution.

Artur Chubaryan: Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you.

Presidential Aide Vladimir Medinsky: Mr President, I will mention a few more improvements very briefly. The new textbooks are not just modern in format – they are fully integrated with a growing suite of digital resources we have developed specifically to complement them. Every textbook serves as a gateway to a wider world of knowledge, with direct links to museum collections, archival materials, films and even television shows, and online lectures.

They also feature a more accessible style. We consciously shifted from academic prose to a popular science approach – a change both teachers and students have acknowledged. They are now better aligned with the National Final School Exam format, making exam preparation more straightforward. The content is also more digitally friendly. Predictably, students using the new textbooks have shown better History exam scores in recent years.

Finally, the new textbooks are built to last. Unlike the previous 50 plus paperback versions, which were glued and fell apart within months, forcing annual replacements, these editions feature durable hardcover binding and stitched pages. With a lifespan of up to five years, they represent significant savings for state budgets.

But most importantly, by significantly reworking the content, we got rid of an array of false messages. And our textbooks are now even more deideologised.

Let me give you one example. Consider the year 7 textbook covering 16th–17th century Russian history. Previous editions presented 1954 as a major milestone – the 300^th anniversary of Ukraine’s reunification with Russia, alongside the launch of Crimea’s transfer. This narrative, once widely promoted in films and art, is historically flawed. The very notion of reunification drew ironic smiles from historians. What was the real reason? In reality, the 1954 decision stemmed from Khrushchev’s power struggle: after ousting Beria and Malenkov, he needed votes from Ukraine’s biggest Communist Party faction in the Central Committee. Hence Crimea’s transfer and all that followed.

The actual 17th-century event referenced was the agreement, in which Zaporozhye Cossacks, led by Hetman Bogdan Khmelnitsky, voluntarily aligned their territories with the Moscow Tsardom under a protectorate, retaining limited autonomy. That involved Cossack lands, not Ukraine as a state. What kind of “reunification” are we talking about? No Ukrainian statehood existed to “reunite” with Russia.

In this new edition, we included all the correct historical assessments while clearing it of excess ideology, which gave students a false idea of what really happened. In addition, we emphasise continuity of our history.

Every textbook features what publishers call a ‘flyleaf’– a dual historical map spread. On the left, Russia’s territory at the period’s beginning; on the right, its borders at the era’s conclusion, as you can see. This visual timeline reveals how generations of our ancestors shaped today’s Russia through their collective efforts, from the compact Moscow Principality, through centuries to the Soviet Union and beyond.

Anatoly Torkunov: Interestingly, the year 5 textbook cover features Palmyra’s Monumental Arch, with Chersonesus and Sevastopol visible in the background.

Vladimir Medinsky: It is the same arch that you could see on the cover of the Soviet textbook.

Anatoly Torkunov: This imagery also represents historical continuity – the interconnectedness of national and regional histories, with Russia’s enduring role in this shared historical narrative. We have reviewed some interesting cover designs. The cover is a component that creates immediate visual appeal for young learners.

Mr President, your attention to history education and children’s learning is particularly timely. I believe there have been some noteworthy innovations in this domain recently such as cartoons describing various historical events.

These historical cartoons were recently showcased at a book fair on Red Square. While the execution may have room for refinement, their content remains firmly grounded in historical accuracy. And most importantly, they appeal to children through visually compelling storytelling with educational captions. They are suitable for younger children, five to seven years old, or elementary school students. I think it is an effective approach.

And second, I have noticed that recently, there have been historically-grounded animated films on television. These are educational rather than purely entertainment-focused, covering various historical events. This format appears particularly suitable for preschool education, and it would be a good idea to promote similar projects in general. I think it is a valuable tool for introducing history to young learners.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, it is true.

Regarding 1954, we must acknowledge the historical context. This decision continued the Communist Party’s and the Bolsheviks’ policy of korenizatsiya (nativisation), initiated after those same revolutionary forces had first dismantled the empire, then sought to rebuild Russian statehood through new structures. Their strategy involved courting national elites with political concessions – an approach that ultimately informed Lenin’s concept of nativisation, or creating independent states, entities that had never existed before.

But it is a separate subject matter for experts precisely like yourselves.

<…>

Plenary session of St Petersburg International Economic Forum

2025-06-25T18:26:06+04:00

Vladimir Putin took part in the plenary session of the 28^th St Petersburg International Economic Forum. This year’s theme is Shared Values: The Foundations of Growth in a Multipolar World.

The SPIEF plenary session was also attended by President of the Republic of Indonesia Prabowo Subianto, National Security Advisor, Commander of the Royal Guard of the Kingdom of Bahrain Nasser bin Hamad Al Khalifa, Vice Premier of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China Ding Xuexiang, and Deputy President of the Republic of South Africa Paul Mashatile.

The discussion was moderated by Nadim Koteich, a journalist, General Manager and presenter at Sky News Arabia.

The St Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF) has been held annually since 1997, and since 2006, has taken place under the patronage and with the participation of the President of Russia. In 2025, SPIEF events are being held on June 18–21, bringing together 20,000 guests from 140 countries.

* * *

Journalist, Sky News Arabia General Manager and presenter Nadim Daoud Koteich: Good evening, everyone.

Mr President, thank you so much. It’s a pleasure and an honour to be with you on this panel with your esteemed guests.

If anything, the St Petersburg International Economic Forum is again and again proving itself as a pivotal platform for discussions around global economy, global trends and geopolitics. There is no better time than now, being here and discussing what we are going to discuss after listening to these speeches – one by you and the rest by your esteemed guests.

Thank you again. Thank you so much.

This is a very interesting panel, if you look at the structure of the panel. We have China, we have Indonesia – a very important country from ASEAN. We have Russia, we have Bahrain – a very important and vibrant GCC country, and then we have South Africa, which is a founding member of BRICS.

And still some people would say Vladimir Putin is isolated. So, I don’ know, if this panel says something, it says how multipolar the world has become.

Mr President, the floor is yours for the first speech.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Mr Prabowo Subianto,

Your Highness Sheikh Nasser,

Mr Ding Xuexiang,

Mr Paul Mashatile,

Friends, ladies and gentlemen,

I am delighted to welcome all participants and guests of the 28^th St Petersburg International Economic Forum. The forum’s format traditionally fosters substantive and meaningful discussions on the most pressing issues. We are pleased that representatives from 140 countries and territories have joined this important dialogue.

This year, among the important topics – referred to by our colleagues as key discussion tracks – is the quality of growth in the context of a multipolar world and major global challenges. These include profound shifts in the global economy and demographics, such as the planet’s population dynamics, as well as social, public, and geopolitical tensions that manifest through crises and rapidly escalating regional conflicts, unfortunately visible today in the Middle East.

Finally, these include climate change and urgent environmental issues that demand our attention and response. And, of course, the transition to a new technological era driven by digital platforms, artificial intelligence, and autonomous systems capable of making decisions independently of human input is also a central focus.

The key question is how to ensure that positive technological advancements are accessible everywhere, so that new digital and technological solutions enable countries, regions, and cities to achieve new levels of development and progress. It is essential that the benefits of these technological breakthroughs are shared broadly, transforming society, reducing poverty, improving quality of life, and providing equal opportunities for every individual to acquire the knowledge needed to fulfil their potential. In other words, it is crucial to uphold the fundamental principle of justice.

In my speech, I will focus on the challenges Russia faces in these areas, the steps we are taking in collaboration with business, scientific, and public organisations, as well as the approaches we propose to support economic growth, not only within our country but also through creating joint mechanisms for global and regional development in partnership with our friendly nations.

I will start with the current state of the Russian economy. Despite a challenging international landscape, Russia’s GDP has been demonstrating an annual growth rate of over four percent over the past two years, which is above the global average.

Regarding the structure of this growth, let me share a specific indicator with you – the so-called non-oil-and-gas GDP. It excludes sectors related to hydrocarbon production. In 2023, Russia’s non-oil-and-gas GDP increased by 7.2 percent, followed by an additional 4.9 percent, or almost five percent, in 2024. These are solid figures exceeding the overall GDP growth rates.

In other words, commodities no longer play a defining role in Russia’s economic growth patterns. Moreover, the contribution of the commodities sector is even negative currently.

By the way, defence manufacturing was not the only driver of our overall GDP growth, as some may believe. Of course, it did play a role in this regard, but we must keep a close eye on the way this growth has been structured.

Over the past two years, the top performing industries have included agricultural production, manufacturing in general, the construction industry, logistics, services, finance and the IT sector, covering almost all the key, essential segments of the national economy.

What does this mean? It means that thanks to the efforts of tens of thousands of enterprises and companies, their teams, managers, and their proactive approaches, as well as the work of millions of entrepreneurs, the Russian economy has been steadily developing, achieving new heights in terms of quality, complexity and diversity. The idea of the Russian economy being completely commodity-based and dependent on the exports of hydrocarbons is clearly outdated; it is becoming a thing of the past. We are living in a different reality now.

Russia is the world’s fourth largest and Europe’s number one economy in terms of GDP. I am not talking about the per capita GDP, but about the sheer size of the economy. Still, this is a major milestone.

Of course, achieving this result is not enough. It is essential that we consolidate our standing as a major economy by offering a business-friendly environment so that businesses from Russia and our friendly countries can invest their assets here, as well as upgrade and expand their manufacturing capabilities in Russia.

Our key task this year is to ensure that the economy transitions to a path of balanced growth. What does that mean? We understand it to mean that we must achieve moderate inflation and low unemployment. According to statistics, annual inflation has already dropped to single-digit levels below ten percent. As of June 16, it stood at 9.6 percent. Of course, that is still high, but inflation targeting continues.

Certainly, this outcome is due both to the Government’s steady efforts to develop the supply side of the economy and to the responsible actions of the Central Bank. That said, I would like to highlight the following: inflation dynamics have been better than many experts expected and even better than the forecasts made by the Bank of Russia. This has made it possible to start cautious easing of monetary policy.

However, consumer price changes are only part of the picture. To reiterate, balanced growth means moderate inflation, low unemployment, and continued positive economic dynamic. It is important to keep all indicators of the health of our industries, companies, and even individual enterprises in focus.

I will say more about the labour market later. For now, I would like to note that in the first four months of this year, Russia’s GDP increased by 1.5 percent year-on-year, including 1.9 percent growth in April alone. At the same time, some experts point to risks of stagnation or even recession. That, of course, must absolutely be avoided.

I know that during the forum you have heard the discussions within the Government, and between the Central Bank of Russia and the Government. You have likely dived deep into the materials.

We need to pursue sound, well-designed fiscal, tax and monetary policies, aligning these mechanisms above all with the goals of supporting and stimulating growth, while, of course, maintaining macroeconomic, inflationary, and financial stability.

In other words, our strategic vector is precisely to actively and consistently transform the structure of the national economy, step by step. As I mentioned earlier, we have achieved a great deal in this area, but it is clear that moving forward is critically important, especially in light of the dramatic changes taking place in the world.

We discussed the need for additional measures on this issue at the Council for Strategic Development and National Projects back in December 2024. Working together, the Government, regional authorities, businesses, experts, and the scientific community identified key tasks to accelerate long-term growth and structural changes in the economy. Today, I will focus on these critical areas in a broader context.

Foremost among these is the transformation of employment and consumption patterns. We must create conditions that boost the economic activity of our citizens, enabling both young and mature individuals to realise their potential in the labour market, acquire new skills, build successful careers, and increase their incomes.

In other words, we are aiming for a transition to a high-wage economy, not driven by labour shortages that compel employers to raise wages to attract workers but grounded in improving job quality and boosting labour productivity.

Over the past four years, employment in Russia has grown by 2.4 million people. Since October last year, the national unemployment rate has stabilised at around 2.3 percent, reaching a historic low. Importantly, this positive trend extends to regions where employment challenges have traditionally been acute. Russian colleagues are well aware that this primarily refers to southern Russia and the North Caucasus, where unemployment has been reduced roughly by half – an excellent achievement.

This success is the result of a combination of sound macroeconomic policies, proactive regional government initiatives supported by federal employment programmes, and the broad adoption of modern technological solutions such as platform-based employment and digital marketplaces.

Some of our colleagues, including our guest from Bahrain, recently visited the Chechen Republic and witnessed firsthand its development. Indeed, Chechnya serves as a vivid example of this progress.

I would also like to highlight that employment is increasing notably among young people who are just entering the labour market and securing their first jobs. In terms of youth unemployment, Russia ranks among the best globally, with a rate of approximately seven and a half percent.

For comparison, youth unemployment stands at around 16 percent in France and 11 percent in the United Kingdom. Globally, youth unemployment remains one of the most pressing economic and social challenges. In Russia, however, we are clearly moving in the right direction. I believe we can confidently say that we are coping successfully with this issue.

Of course, there is still room for improvement. However, I want to emphasise once again that the progress made in this area is clear. This is particularly important because the impact of active youth employment extends far beyond the present moment. A strong start and being in demand in the labour market shape a young person’s successful professional career, their role in society, and greatly influence their decision to start a family, care for their parents, and raise children – not just the first child, but hopefully the second, third, and beyond. This is a vital matter for the country’s social, economic, and demographic development.

Next. Employment is growing in the sectors that produce final products, in high-tech economic areas, including the manufacturing sector, information technology, and tourism. Meanwhile, in supporting sectors such as trade, public administration, and finance, employment is objectively and justifiably declining. These – I believe some are aware, though perhaps not everyone – are very positive trends and a commendable indicator.

For reference, if we consider the dynamics: in the information and communications sector, there has been an increase of 353,000 people – a rise of 29.7 percent; in manufacturing industries – 10.2 percent. Conversely, the number of workers in trade, for example, has decreased by 170,000 people – a drop of three percent.

These are gradual but highly significant and important trends that reflect structural, qualitative changes. We intend to continue – through enhancing economic efficiency and implementing digital platform solutions – to facilitate a reduction in the share of employment in so-called supporting sectors. Naturally, we must provide those employed in these areas with alternatives.

To achieve this, we will encourage the creation of modern, more attractive jobs with high labour productivity that align with the new technological paradigm. Labour legislation must be further refined to meet its demands and, most importantly, in the interests of the people. The Government has prepared a package of such amendments, and I request the State Duma to adopt them without delay.

I reiterate: high-quality, structurally new employment is the key to increasing citizens’ and households’ incomes and reducing social inequality. Of course, this remains a challenge for us, but we are addressing it consistently. We have already accomplished much to ensure the accelerated growth of incomes for the least well-off citizens and have achieved – I wish to emphasise this separately – we have achieved a record reduction in the poverty rate in the history of the Russian Federation.

By the end of last year, it stood at 7.2 percent, and the positive trend continues. In the first quarter of this year – compared to the same period last year – the number of citizens with incomes below the subsistence minimum decreased by more than two million people.

Our Russian colleagues here today are aware, but I will repeat for our guests. In 2000, the poverty rate in the Russian Federation was 29 percent, and – let us be frank – as many as a 42.3 million people found themselves in this humiliating situation. By the end of 2024, this was no longer 29 percent but 7.2 percent, and not 42.3 million people, but 10.5 million people. Obviously, we must strive to reduce this figure further – and that is precisely what we intend to do: lowering it to seven percent and then to five percent.

However, the level of wages across the economy in Russia is still insufficient, and I would like to stress this as well. I have said that we need to set ambitious goals and create an economy of high wages. Let me repeat this once again because this is important – this should be done through higher labour productivity. Let me also note that the share of wages in Russia’s GDP increased from a little over 40 percent in 2021 to almost 44 percent in 2024.

So, what do we focus on? First of all, we made it one of our priorities to adapt educational programmes to the needs of the real sector. By the way, the recent downward trend in youth unemployment, which I just mentioned, shows that we are on the right track.

I would like to add that this year, shortly before our forum, Russia released the first official ranking of higher education providers by employment outcomes and graduate salaries. This indicates which professionals are most in demand in the labour market, and which universities offer the highest quality training and, importantly, produce the most sought-after specialists.

This ranking is also a key indicator of how effective a university’s management team is. I would like to ask the heads of relevant ministries and our colleagues at the federal and regional levels to review this ranking and use it as a tool for managing changes in professional training.

Next, to raise individual incomes, we must invest in professional development and retraining programmes, empowering employees to grow professionally, transition between companies or relocate to other regions. Increased workforce mobility doesn’t just benefit workers who seek higher-paying jobs and career advancement. It also fuels economic growth.

Equally critical is investing in modern equipment, embracing automation and robotics. In turn, these advanced technologies demand skilled professionals to operate and maintain them, creating well-paid jobs in the process.

I would like to emphasise that while higher wages primarily benefit workers – raising their living standards, improving family well-being, and creating better conditions for their children – they also strengthen the economy and the nation. Higher incomes and reduced inequality reshape demand. These things are deeply interconnected. When demand becomes more balanced, it stimulates greater consumption of domestic goods and services.

I am referring to essential industries such as tourism, public catering, and sectors that capitalise on our natural heritage, unlock the potential of cities and towns, and make urban spaces more comfortable and convenient for living, working and recreation.

In this regard, I would like to remind you that together with my colleagues from the Government, we have agreed to introduce a new taxation system for catering – with a flat VAT rate. Part of the tax revenues will go directly to municipalities, providing them with additional resources for local development projects and programmes, primarily to improve the quality of life in their communities.

We will also actively support the fast-growing sectors of the creative economy – those connected with science, culture, and arts. This includes architecture and design, film and music, publishing and software development, and all facets of what experts call the experience economy.

This year, a federal law came into force that provides a legal basis for promoting the creative industries. By the end of the year, 70 regions will begin implementing development standards for this modern segment of the economy and public life and will start building the necessary infrastructure.

To make this work more thorough and consistent, I am asking the Government, in conjunction with the constituent entities, to draft a long-term Strategy for the Development of the Creative Economy, and also to consider launching a federal project in this area.

Separately, I would like to mention the improvement of the Russian cities and towns’ tourist appeal. Historic buildings, churches, estates, and cultural heritage sites are the tangible embodiment of our national identity and uniqueness, true tourist magnets.

We have agreed that by 2030 we will renovate and refurbish at least 1,000 such sites across the country, giving them a second lease on life by opening museums, educational and exhibition centres, hotels, and so on.

A pilot programme for restoring cultural heritage sites with subsidised lending provided for such projects has already covered nine Russian regions. The next step is to expand it to cover the rest of the country.

For the allocated funds to have greater impact, I propose using the following solutions, namely, to combine the resources of two subsidised lending programmes – one for developing tourism infrastructure, and the other for preserving cultural heritage sites.

That way, additional low-interest funding can be attracted for restoring and overhauling historic buildings for business use, among other purposes. In addition, I propose extending the umbrella guarantee mechanism from the SME Development Corporation to cover these projects.

In addition, cultural heritage sites typically involve a complex investment and construction cycle. Those involved know what I am talking about. The process is time-consuming and should be reasonably shortened by cutting excessive formalities without compromising the preservation of historical monuments, of course.

I am asking our colleagues from the Presidential Executive Office to prepare, within the framework of the relevant interdepartmental group, solutions both for this matter and for the overall restoration of cultural heritage sites.

Earlier, I mentioned the tourism infrastructure development programme. Let me remind you that we are actively and carefully involving our national parks in the tourism sector, creating conditions for visitors, while ensuring respectful and careful treatment of nature and protected ecosystems.

This is another example of Russia implementing an environmental agenda: not chasing short-term profit at the expense of natural wealth but preserving and increasing it for the benefit of the people and society at large.

To follow up, let me add the following. Over the past decades, millions of tonnes of industrial and mining waste have accumulated in our country. Naturally, it is harmful to nature and people and creates problems.

I propose considering the launch of special projects to extract valuable components from this waste. The appropriate technologies are available, and all we need is to use them. That way, businesses can simultaneously generate revenue, help eliminate accumulated environmental damage and stimulate the development of domestic research and the manufacturing industry, as well as contribute to improving the environmental situation.

Colleagues,

The development of new production, high-tech, and service sectors, along with the expansion of economic activities – these are all elements of structural changes in Russia’s economy.

In this regard, the second key focus of our actions, which I will address today, concerns the new quality of the investment climate. Essentially, we are talking about a fundamental minimisation of business costs for entrepreneurs across all areas – from construction and utility provision for new projects to ongoing operational activities, including all forms of accounting and notarial services.

Here we are working in close cooperation with the regions, business circles, and experts. Together, we are ensuring that business and investment activity grows across the entire country, in every city, town, and locality.

Let me remind you of our target: the volume of investments in fixed capital in Russia should increase by no less than 60 percent by 2030 compared to 2020.

The Government has already launched a system to support investment in the regions. It provides comprehensive, end-to-end support for investors, right up to a facility’s launch, with access to all support mechanisms, including tax benefits and deductions.

We will carefully monitor this practice, make adjustments based on business feedback, requests, and needs, and, of course, learn from the regions that are leaders in raising investment, scaling up their successful experience and best practices.

As is tradition at our forum, I would like to share the results of the national investment climate ranking, maintained by the Agency for Strategic Initiatives. The ranking now covers more indicators – 82 compared to 70 previously – meaning it has become more detailed, thorough, and consequently more informative.

Russia’s capital, Moscow, continues to lead this ranking. It is followed by the Republic of Tatarstan and the Nizhny Novgorod Region, which showed the highest index growth this year. Both regions share second place with equal scores. Moreover, their current investment attractiveness parameters exceed those of Moscow in the previous year.

What does this tell us? That the benchmark for leadership is constantly rising. In improving the investment climate, we cannot stand still – we must always look ahead and set new targets.

Third place in the ranking goes to the Moscow Region and the Republic of Bashkortostan. In total, 57 regions improved their composite index over the past year. Special mention goes to the Chelyabinsk, Tver, Smolensk and Kaluga regions, as well as the Voronezh, Saratov, Sakhalin, Novosibirsk and Lipetsk regions, and the Altai Territory – they showed the highest growth rates.

I congratulate our colleagues, the regional teams, on these results and wish all regions further success in this important domain. Let us acknowledge their achievements.

(Applause.)

Thank you.

As I mentioned earlier, alongside supporting investments, we are improving the conditions for day-to-day business operations. As is well-known, this encompasses numerous tasks – from company registration to resolving insolvency matters.

The Government, together with entrepreneurs, industry experts, and specialists from the Agency for Strategic Initiatives, has launched a comprehensive initiative to develop a National Model of Target Conditions for Doing Business. While based on international methodologies – I emphasise – it takes into account our specifics and national development goals. This model should be finalised by September of this year.

What does this involve? Concrete, measurable changes that businesses can tangibly feel. For instance, by 2030, we aim to reduce by nearly half the time required for grid connection and decrease the time spent on preparing and submitting tax documentation by more than one-third.

The benchmark for the National Model is for Russia to rank among the top twenty business environments globally by 2030, subject to updated international methodologies, and to serve as an example for our BRICS partners and friends.

Above all, it is essential that the business climate allows us to expand and strengthen the foundations of our economy, rendering it both more resilient yet dynamic, with a focus on increasing the production of goods and services, as well as promoting them both domestically and globally – on international markets, for export.

I would like to emphasise that the competitiveness of our domestic industry, agriculture, services sector, and many other industries must be based on our own technological solutions.

This represents the third direction of structural transformations: Russia’s economy must become more technologically advanced. And this is not merely a desire – it is an imperative requirement of today, and indeed of tomorrow, a challenge that must be met if we aim to grow stronger. And we do.

We must fully unleash a new phase of the country’s technological development. The key instrument in this regard should be the national projects aimed at securing technological leadership. These were launched this year, and my colleagues and I have agreed that the measures under these national projects will be updated and expanded.

By 2030, combined public and private spending on research and development in Russia must increase to no less than two percent of GDP. Here, a special role is assigned to private business. Its investments in these areas must increase at least two-fold.

In this context, I would like to highlight the following. Nearly two dozen development funds and institutions are focused on supporting the technological modernisation of Russia’s economy. However, each of them has its own methodology and approaches. As a result, entrepreneurs have to process the same technical and other documentation in different ways.

On the other hand, it also occurs that development funds and institutions compete for the same projects. Yes, competition is certainly beneficial, but in this particular case, such “departmental” rivalry does not serve the cause – on the contrary, it diminishes the efficiency of financial and organisational resources.

Not long ago, we created a special working group under the Council for Strategic Development and National Projects chaired by head of Vnesheconombank Igor Shuvalov. I am asking our colleagues from this working group to analyse the technological activities of the development funds and institutions.

The objective is to eliminate overlapping functions, to coordinate the work of the development institutions, and to draft single requirements for business support procedures ranging from patent registration to the serial production of high-tech products.

Notably, over the past two years, the number of patent applications from domestic companies and research organisations has increased by 13 percent which is a good number. This includes growth in optical and computer technologies, consumer goods, and pharmaceuticals.

However, it is important to not only develop solutions, but also to quickly bring them to the market in the form of goods and services that are in demand both domestically and internationally and can improve quality of life and make life more comfortable and convenient.

We agreed that our colleagues from the Government will personally oversee the implementation of innovative technologies within their respective areas of responsibility and will fine-tune the regulatory framework to support experimenting, testing, and scaling of promising solutions.

Additionally, I believe the Government should compile an annual report on the dynamics of the country’s technological development. This report should assess the current level of technological sovereignty and breakthrough innovations in technological leadership, as well as the pace of their adoption across sectors of the economy.

Unfortunately, the current rate of commercialisation of inventions from the scientific and academic sectors remains low. For example, among small innovative enterprises created by universities and research institutions, only one in a hundred inventions reaches practical application. To reiterate, this number is too small and clearly insufficient. There must be more active cooperation between educational institutions, research institutes, and the business community. We must help them find each other.

We have a programme called University of Entrepreneurs. Within its framework, experienced businesspeople work together with students in specialised university-based workshops to develop cutting-edge technological solutions and products.

We already see the first results. More than 270 million rubles in extrabudgetary funding have been attracted to these projects, and the number of participating universities will double this year.

I am asking the Government to consider scaling up this mechanism and establishing collaboration across all stages from articulating a project idea to launching an independent business and creating joint ventures between scientific schools, universities, and companies in the real sector.

I have one more important point to make. It is necessary to expand the intellectual property market, specifically by expanding lending opportunities secured by patents and trademarks. These assets should become real business assets that help attract funding for creating or expanding production facilities.

By the way, Russia now has about one million active trademarks. Last year alone, Russian entrepreneurs registered nearly 77,000 new brands, primarily in the light industry, software, household chemicals, and some other products. That is a 12 percent increase over the last year, a solid and marked growth. We will continue to support new Russian brands. For instance, in a month, we will announce the results of the next round of the Rising Russian Brands contest (Znai Nashikh, or Proud of Our People) in Moscow.

A significant portion of applications to participate in this contest comes from small and medium-sized businesses, which especially need promotion and access to new markets. A small business, an individual entrepreneur, or simply a craftsman from a small town or village can now find customers for their products or services via marketplaces – something that was nearly impossible in the past. The audience and the customer base of such platforms is steadily growing, both in Russia and around the world.

Unlike most countries that depend on global platforms, Russia has good examples of successful domestic digital marketplaces. This is a real and meaningful achievement by Russian business, one that we can and should be proud of.

We will continue to create conditions that allow Russian digital platforms to grow and compete with international giants. A draft law has been prepared, which will be the first step towards building a modern regulatory framework for the platform economy. I am asking the State Duma to expedite the adoption of this draft law.

I should add that the digital platform sector also has its problems, including unfair business practices, violations of competition rules, and misuse of data. I am asking our colleagues from the Presidential Executive Office, together with the Government and industry representatives, to discuss these issues within the framework of the interdepartmental working group.

Please conduct a thorough analysis of the current regulation of traditional, offline retail operations that is brick-and-mortar stores, retail chains, and so on. Much of this regulation is now outdated: it was developed in a different technological era and simply does not correspond to today’s challenges and opportunities.

Lastly, marketplaces have access to a vast amount of market data, giving insight into the health of businesses. They understand what kind of support businesses need, whether it is advertising, product distribution, personnel recruitment, or access to loans.

It is certainly necessary to use these possibilities for developing small and medium-sized businesses across the country. I ask the Government to prepare proposals on coordinating and aligning information and other support tools for the promotion of business available to digital platforms and the state, including financial and guarantee mechanisms of the SME Corporation.

Further. Our own, independent solutions, including digital solutions, should be used to strengthen the foreign trade infrastructure. I mean logistics, insurance and payment systems.

We have already launched the state system of electronic carriage documents. All basic documents for cargo carriage by vehicles – the consignment note and the shipping manifest – can now be executed in electronic form. More than one and a half million such documents are issued every month.

We will adopt digital, platform solutions for the entire transport network of Russia, including road, air, rail, river and sea transport. In other words, we are talking about creating a National Digital Transport and Logistics Platform.

International transport arteries running across our country, including the Trans-Arctic Transport Corridor stretching from St Petersburg to Vladivostok via Murmansk, as well as others, will be developed based on such modern technological solutions.

As for payment infrastructure, we will keep on working hand in glove with our BRICS colleagues and create efficient, reliable and, I repeat, independent from external interference mechanisms and services.

In this respect, of course, the experience of our countries in creating and circulating digital national currencies is highly demanded. In Russia, the relevant pilot project has been underway for almost two years. All the basic operations have been tested, including opening and closing accounts, transfers between individuals and legal entities, and payment for goods and services.

Our present task is to make the use of the digital ruble massive among citizens, businesses and banks. I ask the Bank of Russia and the Government to accelerate the necessary procedures and set the deadlines for transition to a new stage of technological development in our financial area.

In this context, the fourth area of structural changes is bringing a new quality to foreign trade, both exports and imports.

The goal has already been set to increase non-oil-and-gas exports. To this end, we will develop relations with our partners, lift trade barriers, open new market niches, create infrastructure, and deepen investment cooperation.

Let me remind you that we agreed to develop long-term plans for cooperation with our key international partners. A good example of such an approach is the Strategic Interaction Plan with the People’s Republic of China, extending through to 2030. Similar plans, including one with India, are to be finalised in the near future.

We will continue implementing the International Cooperation and Exports national project. We will support initiatives from our international partners that use Russian technological platforms, which directly translates into increased demand for Russian technological solutions.

For example, in the coming years, major energy projects, including nuclear energy, mining and processing industries, will be implemented in the CIS countries, including Belarus, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan, as well as in Turkiye, Vietnam and a number of other countries. They are based on Russian technological solutions and involve Russian financial structures.

Increasing our non-oil-and-gas exports is just one of our foreign trade priorities. It is equally essential to systematically transform, change the structure of our imports – the products we purchase, while gradually increasing the share of labour-intensive goods and services that require significant labour resources, physical and manual labour.

Russia instead should focus on the production of more sophisticated, more complex goods and services with a high degree of automation and high added value, that will also contribute to improved quality of employment within Russia.

And of course, together with our EAEU partners, we will continue to fine-tune our customs and tariff policies in order to encourage the creation of new production chains and facilitate the transfer of advanced technological solutions to our countries. This will also help improve the quality of employment and create high-paying jobs here in Russia.

I ask the Government to join hands with businesses to conduct corresponding analysis and present their proposals on specific actions in this area in the following months.

Colleagues,

Russia’s finances, infrastructure, and the real sector of the economy are developing on the principles of technological effectiveness, flexibility, and the capacity for rapid response to external challenges, as well as to shifts in demand from our citizens and our foreign partners.

This approach is fully applicable not only to the civilian sector but also to the fields of defence and security, and to the activities of the defence industry. Our meeting has always focused primarily on economic development, economic growth, and the state of the economy. However, in today’s world, the boundary between the defence industry and civilian sectors of the economy is becoming increasingly blurred. In some countries, no such distinction exists at all.

The profound changes taking place in this area represent the fifth direction of structural economic renewal and, more broadly, the strengthening of our sovereignty. The key principles here are as follows.

First, technological effectiveness at every stage – from development and production to logistics, procurement, and supply to specific military units. It is necessary to continuously analyse technological and organisational innovations in the civilian sector and promptly apply them in the defence and security domains.

Wherever feasible, it is vital to achieve integration between the defence industry and the civilian sector, facilitating the production of dual-use goods – though in many cases, this does not require special measures, as certain items are dual-use by their nature – which are in demand in areas such as maritime and river technology, aircraft construction, the electronics industry, medical equipment manufacturing, agriculture, and beyond.

I would go further: we must move beyond the classification of companies as either exclusively defence enterprises or purely civilian ones. As I have just noted, the current trajectory is such that the most competitive actors are high-technology holdings capable of addressing both military and civilian tasks.

Second, the pace of change. Today, for global business leaders – including some of our own companies – the timeframe from concept to product launch has been reduced to quarters or even months. The period from production to consumer delivery is now measured in days rather than weeks. The defence and security sphere must adapt to these standards.

And of course, flexibility. This involves enhancing the role of commanders of military units and formations, as well as the heads of defence industry enterprises, including in decision-making – from maintenance and testing of new equipment and weapons systems to the development of effective tactics to achieve results. The importance of these levels is increasing.

I believe that colleagues in both the military and the defence industry sectors will agree with me on this point. It is also essential to establish a mechanism for the rapid spreading of such best practices. We are achieving this.

Fourth, economic efficiency in ensuring security and addressing defence-related goals. Compelling examples include the implementation of surveillance and monitoring systems using artificial intelligence, which has significantly reduced the number of offences, for instance, in Moscow. Additionally, the deployment of inexpensive unmanned aerial vehicles has proven effective in targeting expensive military equipment. We will, of course, take into account our own negative experiences. Everything is put to good use to make the necessary and correct decisions in our chosen area.

Overall, our defence industry has picked up a good pace. The enterprises have increased the output many times over and are mastering the production of new types of armaments and military equipment.

To reiterate, we will enhance combat capabilities of the Armed Forces on a new technological basis, modernise military infrastructure facilities, and equip them with cutting-edge weapons and equipment that have proven effective in combat conditions.

At the same time, we intend to develop military-technical cooperation with friendly countries. This includes not only supply or modernisation of equipment and armaments, but also joint developments, personnel training, and creation of enterprises and production capacities on a turn-key basis.

Colleagues,

Today, I have focused on five key areas of structural changes in the Russian economy. These tasks are the focus of existing national projects and state programmes. Their work must be constantly fine-tuned taking into account changes in the global situation and emerging opportunities.

I urge the Government to digitise and place under special control key indicators of structural changes in our economy, regularly monitor their dynamics, and adjust the measures we are implementing.

As I have mentioned earlier, the global economy is undergoing the most significant transformation over the past few decades. Countries around the world are increasing their capacities, reshaping the balance of power, and the economic landscape of the planet.

For example, in the early 21^st century, BRICS countries accounted for just one-fifth of the global economy. Today, this figure already stands at 40 percent of the global economy. Clearly, their share will continue to grow. It is a medical fact, as they say. It will happen inevitably, primarily due to the dynamic economies from the Global South.

This growth needs to become more sustainable and encompass as many countries as possible. To achieve this, a breakthrough development model is needed, one that is not based on the rules of neo-colonialism, where the so-called golden billion siphons off resources from other countries in the interests of a small group of the so-called elites. Not even in the interests of the people of these countries, but specifically in the interests of the elites.

If we look at how funds have accumulated, say, in the United States over the past decades, it was the elites who received the bulk of income. These are open data. Ordinary citizens and the middle class did not benefit from these windfall profits. This could be the basis for the ongoing changes, including in the political sphere.

We must strive to ensure that these changes are reflected in the quality of life of people in our countries, in research, education, technology, and infrastructure. These are the priorities that Russia has set for itself while implementing its own development agenda.

The strategic sectors and areas I have outlined today require stable, long-term capital inflows, including from international companies and investors. To ensure this, we need to create an open and equitable platform for global growth. This platform will bring together investment mechanisms, technological standards, financial and logistics services, trade instruments, and other solutions.

Let me reiterate: the task is not to modernise the outdated mechanisms of the era of globalisation – these have largely exhausted or even discredited themselves. Instead, we must propose a new development model, one free from political manipulations, one that takes into account the national interests of states. Naturally, this model must be focused on the needs of citizens and their families.

At the BRICS summit, which took place last autumn in Kazan, as I mentioned earlier, 35 countries – representing nearly two-thirds of the world’s population and half of the global economy – expressed a shared understanding of the approaches necessary for the future of the world.

Already today, BRICS countries are setting the benchmark in the development of so-called human-centric industries. The largest projects aimed at improving living environments are being launched. BRICS states are implementing large-scale initiatives in nuclear energy and aviation, in new materials and the IT industry, as well as in robotics and artificial intelligence.

Of course, special attention is being devoted to strengthening ties within BRICS. The mutual trade turnover of our countries has already exceeded one trillion dollars and will continue to grow.

All of this, in essence, constitutes the elements of a global growth platform, built on the key principles of BRICS: consensus, parity, mutual consideration of interests, and – most importantly – openness to all who wish to join this effort.

After all, the broader the circle of states involved in shaping and developing such a platform, the stronger and more effective it will be, and the greater the benefits it will bring to all who recognise their responsibility to future generations of their nations.

Russia invites its partners to contribute to shaping a new global growth model, to jointly ensure the prosperity of our nations and the stable development of the entire world for many years to come.

Precisely for this purpose, this year we held the Open Dialogue [The Future of the World: A New Platform for Global Growth] in Moscow, with representatives from over a hundred countries participating. We intend not only to make this format a regular one but also to build an entire ecosystem around it for discussing, refining, and implementing breakthrough ideas.

The global challenges facing the modern world undoubtedly demand a global response. Solving these problems on one’s own, let alone at someone else’s expense, is simply no longer possible – it is an illusion. Only joint action within frameworks such as BRICS and some other formats can ensure the progress of civilisation as a whole.

Thank you for your attention. Thank you very much.

Nadim Koteich: Mr President, thank you so much for the speech that actually set the stage for a very interesting debate after the rest of the speeches. I give the floor to the President of the Republic of Indonesia, Prabowo Subianto. The floor is yours.

President of the Republic of Indonesia Prabowo Subianto: Your Excellency, President Vladimir Putin, President of the Russian Federation,

Your Excellency, Prince Nasser bin Hamad Al Khalifa, National Security Adviser to the King of Bahrain,

Your Excellency Paul Mashatile, Vice President of South Africa,

Your Excellency Mr Ding Xuexiang, Vice Premier of the People’s Republic of China.,

Distinguished ministers, business leaders, ladies and gentlemen, participants of this forum,

I am honoured here today to be invited and to speak at this forum, the St Petersburg International Economic Forum 2025. This is a forum that combines and gathers leaders from the West, the Global South, the East, and where Eurasia meets.

Indonesia views this summit as an opportunity to forge strategic trust, an opportunity to make deals in an increasingly complicated geopolitical situation – deals that can benefit our shared survival and our shared success.

On this occasion, I would like to introduce myself. I am Prabowo Subianto, President of the Republic of Indonesia. I was inaugurated on October 20, 2024. This is my first International Economic Forum. So, I apologise if I am a bit nervous.

Indonesia is the fourth largest country by population. Every year there are five million new Indonesians arriving in this world. Every year, 5 million. That means every year a group of people the size of Singapore. In ten years, there will be ten Singapores in Southeast Asia. The size – I give this as an illustration of the size of Indonesia. This gives us great opportunity but also gives us great challenges.

Any leader of Indonesia must think how to feed five million more mouths every year, five million new school places, etc., etc., the hospitals, and more important, and most important, is the food. In my opinion, the duty of a government is first to protect its people. And to protect its people means to protect its people from hunger and from poverty and from the suffering from a challenging environment.

Therefore, when I took over the Government of Indonesia, my main priority was first, to achieve self-sufficiency in food. Number two, self-sufficiency in energy. Number three, to improve the education level of Indonesians to be able to compete in the challenging era of the 21^st century. And, fourth, to speed up the industrialisation of Indonesia.

Indonesia has been fortunate in being given by the Almighty Lord vast economic resources, but these vast economic resources, if not wisely managed, can actually be a curse to our people. We have vast forests. We have vast minerals. We have a lot of commodities that are useful for the world. But this has to be managed well.

Therefore, in my opinion, every country needs its own economic policy and its own economic philosophy. One of the big mistakes of many countries in Southeast Asia is that we tend to always follow the biggest and the most powerful power in the world. In the last 30 years we see the dominance of the neoliberal, capitalist, classical free market philosophy, which basically tends to be laissez-faire. And the Indonesian elite followed this philosophy. Therefore, in my opinion, we have not managed to create a level playing field for all our people.

There is vast growth. We have grown five percent continuously, especially the last seven years. Yes, 35 percent in seven years, but we have not managed to have this so-called trickle-down effect. The wealth remains at the top – less than one percent. This is not a formula for success in my opinion.

Therefore, my position is this. Each country must follow its own economic philosophy, the economic philosophy that is in tune and that can be accepted by each country’s culture and each country’s background.

Therefore, I have chosen the path of compromise, the path [that combines] the best of socialism and the best of capitalism. Pure socialism that we have seen does not work. It’s utopia. Pure socialism – we see many chances, and in many cases, people do not want to work. Pure capitalism results in inequality, results in only a small percentage enjoying the fruits of the wealth. But our path is the path of the middle way. We want to use the creativity of capitalism, innovation, initiative – yes, we need that.

But we need government intervention to overcome poverty, overcome hunger, to intervene and to protect the weak. Because there’s a danger in developing countries like Indonesia of what we consider the danger of state capture – the collusion between big capital, business and government officials, the political elite. In the end, the collusion between these two groups does not result in the alleviation of poverty and the widening of the middle class.

Therefore, we have chosen the philosophy which, in essence, and in simplicity, can be reduced to one sentence: The greatest good for the greatest many. That is our philosophy. Our Government must work to bring the greatest good to the greatest many, and in this case we have to have a clean Government, free of corruption. This, I think is the key to rapid development.

I am proud to stand here before you. In my seven months of administration, we have achieved an increase in rice and corn production of around 50 percent. This is the greatest increase in production in the aggregate in the history of the Republic of Indonesia. We have now in our government warehouses 4.4 million tonnes of rice, which is the largest reserve in the history of the Republic of Indonesia.

In just a few months of my administration we increased efficiency. We fight very strongly against corruption. We deregulate, we cut all the regulations which increase inefficiency. And we have seen the rapid results.

I believe that if Indonesia can play a good role, a positive role in international relations, for instance, our participation in BRICS – we thank the Government of Russia for supporting our bid to become a member of BRICS very fast (I think we were one of the fastest members to be accepted in BRICS).

Also, Madam President, former President of Brazil and President of the New Development Bank, we were also accepted as a member of the New Development Bank, also very fast. We thank also the Government of China for supporting us and the Government of South Africa. We believe that together BRICS can contribute significantly to stability and prosperity of the world.

I would like just to tell you a short story. It is not part of my speech, but I was asked why I did not attend the G7, but I attended the St Petersburg Forum 2025. And it’s not because I did not respect the G7; it’s because I gave my commitment to attend this forum before they invited me. That’s the only reason.

Please don’t read too much into the event. Sometimes political observers, they want to read: Is this a political statement, right? No. Indonesia, by tradition, [has always been] non-aligned, we respect all countries. Our foreign policy is very simple. One phrase: 1,000 friends – too few, one enemy – too many. We want to be friends with everybody. Only with friendship, collaboration can we achieve prosperity.

Thank you very much, President Putin, for inviting me. And because you invited me, I can be here today in this historic city, a city of heroism, a city of great patriotism, and as an amateur student of history, I follow the history of Russia and I know the significance of St Petersburg. I had the honour of attending the cemetery of the victims of the war a few days ago. Thank you very much for this invitation.

I have said many times at many forums that Indonesia has chosen the path of non-alignment. We consider that this world must develop into a multipolar world and is developing towards a multipolar world. The world of unipolar centrality is past. This is the trend of history. This is what's happening in front of us.

I value very much the leadership of Russia and also the leadership of China. I want to be very frank. In the present world, in the Global South, I think many from the Global South will agree with me, Russia and China have never had double standards. Russia and China have always defended the downtrodden, have always defended the oppressed, have always fought for the justice of all peoples of the world.

I say this from my heart. Indonesia wants to be a good partner and a strong partner. My experts tell me that in this first semester, our economic growth is more than five percent. Actually, it can really end up by the end of this year at nearly seven percent or even more. This shows that we have chosen the right path, and we are achieving our goals. I am very convinced that we will achieve our goals within a few years.

I have given the target: four years – self-sufficient in food. We are experiencing that we can be self-sufficient in food within this one year and we will be in a few years a net exporter of rice and corn. Also, now I have formed a sovereign wealth fund, which we call Danantara, which means the future energy of Indonesia.

This fund [aims] to protect the wealth of our children and grandchildren. The fund now has US$1,000 billion of assets under management. This year we have cash to invest of $18 billion. We want to work together with all strategic partners. We do not ask for assistance. We do not ask for handouts, we want to be a real partner, we want to achieve real prosperity together.

We are open for business. We invite all groups from everywhere, especially Russian entities. Before I was elected, I was an entrepreneur and I have good relations with Russian corporations. My brother has been active in this area for many, many years, I think more than two decades. We know Russian corporations and we would like to see Russia participate more in our economy.

I have mentioned our foreign policy. We have always been, and we will continue to be non-aligned. We thank Russia for helping us and for achieving the Indonesian – Eurasian Union CEPA, Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement. We have completed also negotiations with other groups: the block CPTPP, also with the European Union CEPA, and we also request to join OECD.

For us, the world and the planet are getting smaller. We will work together with you for peaceful collaboration, peaceful coexistence with all countries. We view with sincere regret, the escalation and increase of conflicts around the world, especially in the Middle East. We hope that all parties can come to a peaceful resolution as soon as possible.

I think, distinguished guests, I have come to the end of my short speech. I apologise if what I say is not what is expected of me, but what I say comes from my heart. Thank you very much.

Nadim Koteich: Thank you, President Subianto. I’m not sure if this is your first speech. It doesn’t look like it. Actually, you did a great job. Thank you so much.

I’ll give the floor to the representative of His Majesty, the King of Bahrain, for Philanthropy and Youth Affairs, National Security Adviser, Commander of the Royal Guard of the Kingdom of Bahrain and the honour guest of this year’s forum, Sheikh Nasser bin Hamad Al Khalifa.

The floor is yours.

Representative of His Majesty the King of Bahrain for Humanitarian Work and Youth Affairs, National Security Advisor, Commander of the Royal Guard of the Kingdom of Bahrain Sheikh Nasser bin Hamad Al Khalifa (retranslated): In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious and Most Merciful,

Your Excellency Vladimir Putin, President of the Russian Federation, a friendly nation of ours,

Your highnesses, your excellencies, ladies and gentlemen,

May the mercy and blessings of Allah be upon you!

First and foremost, I would like to express my deepest gratitude and appreciation to the Government of the friendly Russian Federation for the kind invitation extended to the Kingdom of Bahrain to attend this year’s forum. I would like to address special thanks to His Excellency, President Vladimir Putin, for his gracious invitation extended to me to participate in this important economic forum as an official speaker.

I would like to convey to Your Excellency greetings from His Majesty Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa, the King of Bahrain, may Allah bless him, and from His Royal Highness Prince Salman bin Hamad Al Khalifa, the Prime Minister of Bahrain, may Allah bless him.

It gives me great pleasure to recall His Majesty’s visit to Russia in May 2024. During that visit he met with Your Excellency. This meeting was an important stage in the development of our bilateral relations, relations of friendship and our mutual desire to strengthen those ties. This is evidenced by the participation of the Kingdom of Bahrain in this year’s forum as well.

Ladies and gentlemen,

The economic policy pursued by the friendly nation of Russia under the leadership of President Putin is the main driver of stable economic growth of Russia. This policy plays an important role in developing strategically important sectors of the economy, particularly, power sector and industry. This certainly has a positive effect on the international investment climate.

Russia is strengthening its economic ties with the countries of our region and beyond it. It also significantly contributes to creation of new trade and economic opportunities and their use in the world today.

I would also like to remind you, I beg your pardon, I am a poet, I love poetry, I would like to recite the words of Alexander Pushkin from his famous poem, The Monument: “And I shall for long years be loved by all the nation because for noble passions with my lyre I call.” And this wise policy, similar to Pushkin’s words, is your policy to the people. This policy is not measured by numbers only.

Indeed, we are currently attending an economic forum, but this forum is not only about numbers, it is also about the hope that it ignites in people and has a big impact on us.

Ladies and gentlemen,

The Bahrain’s Vision 2030 strategy, adopted under the wise leadership of the Kingdom, defines the framework of our economic development. Vision 2030 is not only a strategy, it is a roadmap for building a sustainable future in its own right. Thanks to it, Bahrain has embarked on a reliable path leading to achieving an optimal balance between economic growth and sustainability. This roadmap allowed Bahrain to attract foreign investments and strengthen its own economic potential.

Various strategic initiatives have been introduced to develop all sectors of the economy and, in particular, the digital infrastructure. Based on the achieved results, the Kingdom of Bahrain has begun to develop a new strategy designed until 2050. And this concept is based on an innovative approach, digitalisation and diversification of sources of income. And this strategic reference point testifies to the Kingdom's desire to keep up with the changes taking place in the world.

Clearly, we need to develop constructive international partnership and ensure comprehensive balanced development. The priority role of human capital is the main prerequisite for our progress.

In Bahrain, we believe that investing in people is the foundation of progress, this is why our country supports strengthening public-private partnership. This is very important.

In this regard, initiatives aimed at training the country's young specialists and ensuring their entry into labour market are extremely important. And this, in turn, allows us to create a flexible economy capable of adapting to changes and challenges.

Bahrain has put a lot of effort in creating a well-developed infrastructure, which allowed our country to become a leading digitalisation centre in the region. This allowed us not only to make business easier today, but also to create a favourable environment for innovations and creativity in various fields.

Today, the digital economy is the basis of Bahrain's strategy to building a knowledge-based economy. On the other hand, strategic partnership with friendly countries, including Russia, is a pillar for the development of the business environment in the Kingdom of Bahrain.

Bahrain is developing effective ties with all international actors, which allowed it to become a stable and attractive economic centre for investment. Bahrain continues its policy of attracting foreign investments by creating appropriate legislative benefits to create a favourable business environment.

Ladies and gentlemen,

The Gulf Cooperation Council as of now is an example of business support and development of an investment sector in the region. We pay much attention to that. We assume that innovations and creativity are two extremely important components of sustainable economic growth. This is why we believe the St Petersburg International Economic Forum is an efficient platform for setting forth ambitious initiatives and expanding cooperation horizons for investors and businesspeople from different countries.

Investment is not just about attracting funds. It is also about sharing creative ideas for implementing creative projects to shape a sustainable economy. That is why great importance is attached to supporting innovations and businesses to accelerate technological progress.

I have to point out that stronger economic partnership creates a favourable environment for supporting SMEs which serve as a driver of the economic development. This requires joining efforts both internationally and nationally and opens up new horizons for investment opportunities and for strengthening cooperation among states.

That is why we are pursuing a well-thought-out economic policy so as to build different industries and businesses including those in the innovation sector. We face a task of building a truly creative and competitive environment opening up new spheres for trade and economic cooperation with friendly nations.

In conclusion I would also like to once again thank you, Your Excellency President Putin, for your kind invitation and the excellent organisation of this forum. It testifies to Russia’s sincere desire to strengthen the international economic dialogue.

We consider the St Petersburg International Economic Forum an important platform for expanding our partnership with friendly nations, primarily Russia. We advocate cooperation for the sake of sustainable development which is in line with our Bahrain’s Vision 2030 concept.

Peace be upon you, as well as mercy and blessing of Allah.

Nadim Koteich: Thank you, Sheikh Nasser.

The address by the Vice Premier of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China Ding Xuexiang.

The floor is yours.

Vice Premier of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China Ding Xuexiang (retranslated): Mr President Putin,

Participants in the St Petersburg International Economic Forum,

Ladies and gentlemen,

Friends,

I would like to thank you for the invitation to participate in the 28^th St Petersburg International Economic Forum, which gained a very important subject this year – Shared Values: The Foundations of Growth in a Multipolar World. First and foremost, allow me, on behalf of the Government of China, to express my most heartfelt congratulations on the successful opening of the forum.

Ten years ago, President of the People's Republic of China Xi Jinping addressed the 70^th session of the UN General Assembly, noting that peace, development, equality, justice, democracy and freedom are universal human values and a noble goal of the United Nations.

Peace, as such, that will be able to overcome the differences between nations in terms of national or ethnic origins, social structure and ideological thinking, unite the whole world around the community of the common destiny of humankind. This received the broadest support and positive responses from the international community.

Actions of unilateralism and protectionism are intensifying, hegemony, dictate and harassment are rampant, geopolitical conflicts are escalating, and various risks are predetermined against the backdrop of rapid changes taking place in the world, which we have not seen for a century. Humanity is facing many common challenges.

Once again referring to important statements by President Xi Jinping, we consider it necessary to firmly adhere to universal human values, implement the concept of the Community of Common Destiny for All Mankind, implement initiatives of global development, global security and global civilization, and jointly promote establishment of an equal and orderly multipolar world, inclusive and universally accessible economic globalisation for the sake of a peaceful, secure, prosperous, progressive future of the entire world.

In this regard I would like to share the following ideas.

First. Global governance should be based on principles of joint consultation, joint construction and joint use. International affairs require a collective solution through dialogue. The fate of our planet must be managed by all states of the world, without exception. Genuine multilateralism should be adhered to, equal rights, equal chances and equal rules should be granted to everyone.

Eighty years ago, China, the Soviet Union and other countries of the anti-Nazi coalition won the Second World War at the cost of the lives and blood of their people, laying down standards of centric multilateralism.

Now, eighty years later, it is important for us to reaffirm our commitment to goals and principles of the UN Charter, firmly defend the world order under the auspices of the United Nations and the world order based on international law, to defend the authority of the United Nations and international justice and to promote the creation of a more just and rational system of global governance.

Second. An open diversified global economy must develop through joint efforts of the entire world. The implementation of the 2030 Agenda is suffering from grave problems caused by anti-globalism.

In this situation we urge to be guided by principles of mutual benefit and joint development and take practical steps to uphold multilateral trade system and international trade and economic order, to promote re-organisation and simplification of trade and investment procedures for the economic globalisation to yield more to all the parties.

China is striving to resolve the issues of the global economy unbalance and inequality. It stretched out a helping hand to over 160 countries and set up high-quality cooperation with 150 nations within the Belt and Road initiative with numerous landmark joint projects. It established the Global Development and South-South Cooperation Fund and made a significant contribution to global development.

We will continue to deepen our cooperation with emerging economies and offer ever more opportunities for the Global South partners for the sake of joint modernisation.

Third. The world’s civilisations should complement each other. The progress of civilisations requires mutual enrichment. We must strive to develop civilisations in the spirit of equality, mutual complementation, dialogue and tolerance; we must respect their diversity and people's right to choose their own ways, implementation of values, and to stand firm against the new ‘cold war’ and any instances of ideological confrontation.

The Chinese people advocate for openness and tolerance, and the Chinese civilisation is calling for harmony while retaining differences, from holding a conference on dialogue between Asian civilisations to adoption by the UN General Assembly of a resolution on instituting International Day for Dialogue among Civilisations. The Chinese concept is gaining an increasing consensus in the world.

Together with all its partners, China is ready to assist each civilisation to flourish in its authenticity with their beauty and achievements to be enjoyed by everyone. We must fully promote universal human values while ensuring the interests of our people.

Fourth. It is necessary to uphold peace and development across the globe. Peace brings forth a development potential while development contributes to lasting peace. We have to assume responsibility for peace on our planet and through dialogue, strive for strengthening mutual trust, settling conflicts and ensuring security, facilitate political settlement of international and regional ‘hot spots.’

China is always carrying the banner of peace, development, cooperation and mutual benefit. It is ready, jointly with all nations and peoples advocating for peace and development, to pass the torch of peace from generation to generation for the sake of long-lasting peace and common security.

Ladies and gentlemen,

Friends,

China and Russia, as permanent members of the UN Security Council and the world’s leading growing economies, are trustful friends in the spirit of time-tested friendship and reliable, mutually supporting partners.

Last month, President Xi Jinping made a state visit to Russia at President Putin’s invitation and attended the celebrations of the 80^th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War.

The two heads of state agreed to further strengthen political trust and strategic interaction and jointly called for defending the results of the Second World War and international justice.

Together with our Russian friends, we will implement the important agreements reached by our leaders, play a more essential role in promoting multipolar world and global development as well as in improving global governance.

We have to comprehensively raise the level, dimensions and stability of China-Russia relations. While following the general cooperation trend, we must create, on the basis of the Belt and Road Initiative, together with the EUEU, an interconnected cooperation structure with high standards, effectively tap into the advantages of the resource base and mutually complement production structures of China and Russia, expand high-quality and mutually beneficial cooperation in the economy, trade, energy, agriculture, aviation, space, artificial intelligence and others, to continuously consolidate the material basis for comprehensive strategic interaction for the well-being of our countries’ peoples.

It is crucial to maintain close alignment on numerous platforms including the UN, promote the enhancement of the SCO and BRICS, facilitate the Global South’s engagement in global governance so as to shape a more just, rational and flourishing multipolar world.

Ladies and gentlemen,

Friends,

China is currently pursuing, on all fronts, the building of a powerful state and national revival through China’s modernisation.

This year, despite the unfavourable external conditions, the Chinese economy maintains a positive dynamics. Its GDP grew by 5.4 percent in the first quarter, which makes China the leader among the world’s top economies. I will specially highlight the progress in China’s foreign trade under very uneasy conditions which demonstrates to the whole world the incredible viability and resilience of our economy.

We will intensively pursue a more active macroeconomic policy focusing on supporting employment, businesses and the stabilisation of market expectations, advance predictable and high-quality development in response to unpredictability and utter volatility of external environment and contribute to sustainable revival of the Chinese economy. China will open up even more regardless of any changes in the external situation.

We are unswervingly promoting high-level openness including through its institutionalisation for the sake of creating a better business environment based on market, legal and international principles. We will be happy to welcome to China businesses from across the world. We are ready to share with you the opportunities of China’s modernisation and development.

The path to a multipolar world will be challenging but it promises us a bright future. I urge everyone to be guided by universal human values and jointly unlock the beautiful prospects of a multipolar world.

Thank you for your attention.

Nadim Koteich: Thank you, Mr Xuexiang.

The floor is now for the Deputy President of the Republic of South Africa Paul Mashatile.

Deputy President of the Republic of South Africa Paul Mashatile: Your Excellency, President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin,

Esteemed heads of states who are present,

Your Excellency Prabowo Subianto, President of the Republic of Indonesia,

His Highness Sheikh Nasser bin Hamad Al Khalifa, representative of His Majesty, the King of Bahrain,

His Excellency Ding Xuexiang, Vice Premier of the State Council of the People's Republic of China,

Distinguished ministers and deputy ministers, diplomats, business leaders, and fellow delegates,

Ladies and gentlemen,

I would like to begin by sending warm greetings from the government of the Republic of South Africa, especially from our President Cyril Ramaphosa and the people of South Africa.

This forum, now in its 20^th year, remains one of the foremost platforms for global dialogue on economic corporation, investments, innovation, and inclusive growth. It is therefore an honour to be given the opportunity to address this distinguished assembly at the St Petersburg International Economic Forum, to convey our vision for a more inclusive, sustainable and prosperous world.

The 2025 theme – Strengthening Multipolarity for Sustainable Development – is not only timely, but central to the moment we find ourselves in. I would like to assume that you will concur with me that the concept of multipolarity has become increasingly relevant in the current global landscape, which is constantly changing. It calls for cooperation, dialogue, and respect for diversity amongst nations to achieve shared goals.

The South African government is certain in its belief that the adoption of multipolarity may result in the achievement of sustainable development and economic prosperity for all nations regardless of their size. It is laudable that as I stand here, I can confidently state that South Africa and Russia are committed to a multipolar world order and actively interact in forums such as BRICS and the G20.

Our cooperation covers various sectors, including trade, energy, and technology. Our aim should be to deepen bilateral connections and shaping global governance. Russia has long played a strategic role in the global economy, not only as a major energy producer, but also as a key actor in food security, industrial technologies, and science-based innovation. It is one of the largest exporters of grain, oil and gas. It is also a rising presence in sectors such as space exploration, nuclear energy – particularly for peaceful purposes – artificial intelligence, and advanced manufacturing.

Importantly, Russia’s increasing orientation towards Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America is reshaping global trade routes and creating new corridors for commercial and developmental cooperation.

These reconfigurations are part of a broader trend: the steady emergence of a multipolar global economic architecture. Despite the real challenges posed by geopolitical tensions, sanctions, and fragmentation of financial systems, Russia has demonstrated resilience. It continues to foster deep integration with the Eurasian Economic Union, expand its partnership under the BRICS framework and strengthen bilateral and multilateral engagement with emerging economies.

Our country, South Africa, like many others, has also faced numerous challenges on its path to development. The extent, to which individuals feel connected and share a sense of belonging in society, has also been a significant challenge, particularly in the light of the country’s history of apartheid and persistent socioeconomic inequalities.

However, with tenacity, drive and a commitment to diversity, we have achieved enormous strides in reducing poverty, inequality and creating social cohesion. We recognise that sustainable development is more than simply economic progress. It is also about providing opportunities for all our citizens to prosper and contribute to society.

As we look to the future, the importance of the Global South in shaping international economic governance is undeniable. Africa, in particular, is fast becoming a centre of global growth. With the population projected to exceed 2.5 billion people by 2050, a rising middle class, and a youthful demographic dividend, the continent has a potential to drive the wave of industrialisation, digital transformation, and sustainable development.

Africa is not in search of handouts, rather, it is pursuing equitable partnerships. It seeks equitable access to markets, capital, knowledge, and technology. This is where global platforms like the St Petersburg International Economic Forum become crucial for us.

At the same time, the Global South is increasingly demanding a voice in decisions that shape global trade and finance. The collective call is clear: development cannot be dictated; it must be co-created. Africa and the Global South are not merely passive recipients of investments or aid: they are active architects of a new more just international order.

Ladies and gentlemen,

The St Petersburg International Economic Forum has evolved over the years from a primarily Russian and Eurasian platform into a global meeting for policy makers, economists, CEOs, innovators, and thought leaders. The St Petersburg International Economic Forum provides a space for emerging economies to shape global economic discourse, influence trade rules, and negotiate developmental priorities.

In this regard, South Africa supports the increasing inclusion of voices from the Global South at the St Petersburg International Economic Forum. We support the growing participation of delegates from Africa, Latin America, and Asia. It is essential that this platform not only reflects actively but actively amplifies the aspiration and strategic interest of developing economies.

The St Petersburg International Economic Forum’s value lies in its unique capacity to breach geopolitical divides and promote dialogue beyond the dominant narratives. It enables countries with diverse histories, economies, and political systems to find common ground in promoting trade, innovation, and sustainable development. In an era of growing polarization, the St Petersburg International Economic Forum is a vital pillar for pragmatic cooperation.

South Africa is prepared to contribute to the promotion of cooperation and collaboration among nations, in order to benefit all. We believe that a more equitable, prosperous, and tranquil world can be achieved through collaboration.

This year, South Africa has the privilege of presiding over the G20. We have prioritised issues like debt sustainability, global financial reform, access to technology, and inclusive economic recovery. We are championing the representation of Africa in global decision-making structures, including the full integration of the African Union into the G20 framework. We are also working to ensure that global economic policy aligns with the goals of Africa’s Agenda 2063 – the African Union’s blueprint for inclusive growth and sustainable development. It promotes industrialisation, connectivity, regional integration, and the African continental free trade area.

We offer a compelling value proposition to global investors and partners. We regard ourselves as a gateway to Africa, rooted in a democratic governance, a robust financial system and world-class infrastructure. Our institutions are strong. Our people are resilient. And our vision is clear. We aim to be a centre of innovation, inclusive industrialisation, and green growth.

Moreover, South Africa brings to the table decades of multilateral experience, a commitment to peace-building and development cooperation, and a bridge-building role between advanced and emerging economies. We do not merely seek partnerships – we offer solutions grounded in African realities and global aspirations.

In doing so, South Africa hopes to cement G20 priorities in African reality, ensuring that the recovery from global crises does not exacerbate inequality but rather creates opportunities for inclusive transformation. We are pushing for a new international development-funded agreement that resolves historical inequalities, whilst also preparing the Global South to respond to future shocks with resilience.

Speaking of resilience, we need to reinvigorate multilateralism. The multilateral order is under pressure, and economic nationalism is on the rise. At the same time, we face collective challenges that require urgent cooperation: climate change, energy transitions, food insecurity, global health disparities, and digital inequalities.

It is in this context that we must reaffirm the principles of mutual respect, sovereignty, equality, and solidarity. We must resist a return to protectionism and instead build a global trading system that is transparent, rule-based, and inclusive.

Developing economies must have greater representation in global-standing setting institutions. We must accelerate the reform of the World Trade Organisation, the International Monetary Fund, and other Bretton-Woods institutions to reflect contemporary global realities. Through strengthening multipolarity, we are able to harness the collective power of our nations to construct a future that is more sustainable for future generations.

South Africa is prepared to do its share in promoting international cooperation and collaboration for the future of all nations. The future is not being written in board rooms in the Global North alone; it is being written in the towns of East Africa, in the innovation corridors of Southeast Asia, in the minds and digital labs of Latin America, and the energy, agriculture, and science sectors of Eurasia.

The St Petersburg International Economic Forum is one of the few remaining global platforms where this future can be shaped in dialogue. Let us then seize the moment; let us invest in partnerships that are equitable and mutually beneficial. Let us pursue sustainable growth. South Africa stands ready to work with all partners gathered here to forge a new era of cooperation, shared prosperity, and enduring peace.

Thank you very much.

Nadim Koteich: Thank you so much for the heavily loaded speeches that will only make my mission more difficult.

I’d like to start with President Putin. The overarching theme of this years’ forum is “Shared Values in a Multipolar World”. This is a very high ambitions’ ceiling. What does Russia bring to the table on that regard?

Vladimir Putin: I attempted to convey this in my speech. It seems to me that everything that Russia is doing is aimed at uniting the efforts of all our partners, friends, and everybody who wants to work with Russia to address these global civilisational challenges.

And above all, we seek to make global development balanced and consistent with the interests of as many countries as possible, to shape a multipolar world order where members of the international community would agree with each other and create tools enabling them to find solutions even in most complex conditions – solutions that would benefit everybody rather than certain groups or associations, military or economic blocs.

It is my opinion that today’s meeting, this event, organised by Russia, as you know, serves precisely this purpose.

Nadim Koteich: Sometimes, Mr President, this effort to build a multipolar world seems like more of a resistance of an existing order, rather than a genuine, consistent, coherent effort to create a multipolar world that you’re talking about. Is it an objective-driven effort or it’s only resisting current unfavourable kind of order?

Vladimir Putin: To my mind – and I have already spoken about it on various platforms in the past – changes are occurring regardless of whether we facilitate these changes or not. These are objective global development trends.

In my remarks, I also stated, as I have stated repeatedly, including at the St Petersburg Forum last year, that changes in the world are of a fundamental nature, occurring due to the emergence of new economic leaders.

Look how the so-called G7’s share in the global economy has shrunk in recent years. It continues to shrink year after year. And look how the share of BRICS countries is growing.

This is an objective process, independent of any clashes or acute armed conflicts worldwide. This process has continued for decades. And when they claim that Russia has only recently pivoted toward relations with the Global South and Asia – well, this is incorrect. We made this decision long ago, in alignment with persisting global and objective trends.

Our colleague from South Africa has just said that Africa will soon have a population of 2.5 billion. You know, this is a hard fact. It will happen and nothing can stop it. What will all these countries, peoples and continents strive to do? To improve the well-being of their peoples. They will definitely strive to increase their economic and humanitarian potential. These are inevitable things that are happening to our civilisation.

Our task is to give this inevitable process a civilised framework and to undertake joint efforts that will not only accelerate these trends but also render them more balanced. This is to ensure that decisions are timely, most effective, and mutually beneficial for all participants in this transformation, including, incidentally, those nations that are gradually yet inevitably ceding some of their former positions in the global economy.

We remain willing to negotiate with them as well, prepared to seek common ground on all matters, if they genuinely want this. But should they insist on preserving their monopoly at any cost, should they cling to the instruments of colonial influence in global affairs, then they must reconcile themselves with the diminishing position they inevitably assume through such conduct.

This encapsulates the purpose behind all our efforts – both in the national dimension, with due account for our domestic and foreign policy, and in collaboration with our friends and partners.

Nadim Koteich: And obviously, they have the tools to cripple this endeavour that you just summarised, Mr President.

So, I would ask President Prabowo of Indonesia.

Indonesia has always walked a fine line, has always, as you mentioned in your speech, been a non-aligned state. But, as the world becomes more and more complicated, can Asian countries – ASEAN countries – stay non-aligned, or is this more and more not an option? Or a very narrow option, as we go forward?

Prabowo Subianto: Thank you. I think, in my opinion, it is not easy, but it is a line that we are determined to maintain. As I said, we respect all the great powers. We respect our neighbours. And we really believe that the only way for prosperity is collaboration, cooperation, and peaceful coexistence. And this is what we try to achieve. We want to maintain good relations, and we try to convince all parties that the only way forward in this is that this planet is getting smaller, and we cannot afford the rivalry that is going nowhere. Especially if it goes into confrontation. So, no, I am convinced that we have to maintain this path of non-alignment.

Nadim Koteich: Mr Vice Premier of China, China and Russia are building with others this new order in the world. But if you look last year, things started to ease up between Moscow and Washington; there is more dialogue between President Donald Trump and President Putin. Is this a source of concern for you and China? How do you see the developing relationships between the leading powers in the world?

Ding Xuexiang (retranslated): Thank you for your question.

First of all, I would like to state our firm position to President Putin and all forum participants, our friends. China welcomes the restoration of contacts between Moscow and Washington. Russia and the United States are two leading world powers and permanent members of the UN Security Council. It would be abnormal for them not to maintain contact.

The restoration of contacts between Russia and the United States – the revival of this cooperation – would benefit the entire world by fostering greater global stability and supporting world economic recovery.

China-Russia relations are deeply rooted in history. China and Russia are each other’s largest neighbours, and the friendly cooperation between our countries is developing very well. It is founded on mutual benefit, aligned with historical logic, the cultural traditions and strategic interests of both nations. The China-Russia friendship remains unsusceptible to external influences and is not directed against any third country.

Under President Xi Jinping’s and President Putin’s strategic leadership, China-Russia relations have reached an unprecedented level in history and stand strong and unbreakable like a rock.

As you said, global powers have significant influence over the world order and play crucial roles in its protection. President Xi Jinping has repeatedly urged, across multiple international platforms, that major powers should exercise appropriate responsibility.

As far as I understand, the global powers must, firstly, actively fulfil their international commitments and lead efforts to uphold the UN-centric world order, while adhering to the principle of sovereign equality of states, big and small alike, and safeguard international justice and equity, honouring their pledge to reject hypocrisy and promote greater predictability in global affairs.

China is a responsible global power, invariably serving as a stabilising factor amid international turbulence. We are ready to collaborate with all nations in advancing prosperity around the world.

This is my answer. Thank you.

Nadim Koteich: Thank you so much.

Sheikh Nasser,

Bahrain is a very unique country. You have very good, exceptional relations with Washington, yet you are here today representing your country and His Majesty as a guest of honour in the St Petersburg forum. This is a very unique feature. Those who know Bahrain would say that this aligns with the history of Bahrain as a trade hub, as a political bridge. But how are you manoeuvring and navigating a more and more polar world, with the set of skills and experiences you have in the realm of bridging between East and West?

Sheikh Nasser bin Hamad Al Khalifa: Well, you have mentioned briefly the history. Let me take you back nearly 5,000 years ago. The job of Bahrain where it maintained the between East and West.

So, I believe Bahrain, with its geographic position in the region and certain service in the world, we have no choice but to be the arms and the bridges between the East and West. We have no choice but to follow our wise leadership, not just in Bahrain, but in the GCC in total, where we all share a new state of mind: it is the so-called the single-issue alliance. By single-issue alliance, I mean “I do not get my nation, and we do not get our region sucked into wars. I might agree with you in ten points, but disagree in eight, or vice versa. So, we take every point into verticals, and we discuss them.”

And, most important is how do we build on this relation? How do we maintain our relations? How do we seek to a better future? I’d always say: Our past is not better than our present, but I am sure our future should be better than our present.

So, this is what we are doing. We have seen great leadership here with His Excellence President Vladimir Putin, where he showed a stable, long-lasting enduring vision where does he want to take his country and move forward. We do the same. We always say that. We plan for the next generations.

Nadim Koteich: Thank you, Sheikh Nasser.

Vice President,

South Africa is, as well, one of these unique historical experiences in Africa and on the world stage. You said something very interesting about the St Petersburg forum being one of the very, very few places where shaping the conversation around geopolitics and geoeconomics is happening through dialogue. That is a very solid conclusion in today’s world. I’d like you to elaborate more – what did you mean by that, and why? What makes this one of the few and unique places for such a dialogue?

Paul Mashatile: Thank you very much for that question. I want to start by saying I think we should thank President Putin for his great leadership ensuring that, particularly, countries of the Global South should have platforms to be able to collaborate, share ideas, come up with new innovative plans.

As I said earlier, in South Africa we’ve taken a position that we should not continue to go to others for handouts. We should not be queueing for aid, but we should focus on development. And that countries of the Global South can do it. We can see it. We are developing, we are getting stronger; and I think we should keep it that way. So that is why I was saying that the St Petersburg International Economic Forum is a great platform and thank you to President Putin for this leadership. We are with you.

Nadim Koteich: Let me bring the conversation from values closer to the conflict areas in the world.

President Putin,

Israel said that they…I mean, the statements are normalising the fact that a country might kill the president of another country. That is basically the conclusion of last week’s statements. Yes, Ayatollah Khamenei is not a head of state, but he has enough gravitas to be considered the head of state and to be protected by the articles of international law. But when we normalise the idea – no matter where you stand on Iran – when we normalise the idea of a country killing the president of another country publicly, what kind of new rules are being set? They are obviously contradictory to the kind of values you’re trying to put forward, isn’t that so?

Vladimir Putin: You know, our colleagues have already spoken here, and I am making notes for myself for future reference. For example, I have noted what you have just said. You said the following.

During the discussion with my colleague from the People’s Republic of China, I noted your statement: “The Russian Federation and China are creating a new world order.” Russia and China are not creating a new world order; rather, we are only giving it form.

The new world order is emerging naturally, like sunrise. There is no escaping it. Our role is to help shape its contours, perhaps clearing the way for this process to become more balanced and aligned with the interests of the overwhelming majority of countries.

We strongly anticipate that all nations will come to recognise and eventually understand – as I have previously stated – that this approach to finding a solution proves far superior to coercive pressure or the neo-colonial paradigm in which humanity has lived for centuries, if not millennia.

Nadim Koteich: Would you allow me, Mr President, to go back to the question about normalising the talk about a country killing the president of another country, in the case of Iran and Khamenei and Israel within this conflict. I mean, it seems that those who are making the new values are not the Global South, obviously, not Russia, not China, it’s the Israelis. Are you comfortable with that?

Vladimir Putin: While I would strongly prefer that the issues you raised remain confined to rhetorical discussions, I must nevertheless ask for clarification. What do you mean regarding Israel?

Nadim Koteich: I mean, the new values now is that one country is setting the rules for another country that who has or doesn’t have enrichment, for example. One country is threatening to kill the president or the head of that country.

Are these values defendable in any way?

Vladimir Putin: To me, there is nothing new about it. This is the first.

Second, and I wish to emphasise it, the Russian Federation has consistently advocated for guaranteeing every nation’s security without compromising that of any other state. This remains our principled approach.

This may sound like a generalised answer but let me assure you: it is the actionable policy of the Russian Federation.

Nadim Koteich: Allow me for a very direct question about the situation.

Donald Trump is seeking what he calls the total surrender of Iran in terms of the nuclear project. Would Vladimir Putin seek the total surrender of Vladimir Zelensky in the same way?

Vladimir Putin: First, these situations are fundamentally different. Second, our objective is not Ukraine’s surrender. We insist that Ukraine recognise the established territorial realities.

Nadim Koteich: Sheikh Nasser, I’ll go back to you. You see, this conversation unveils the level of tensions on the global theatre. I will go back to the question about how GCC countries keep moving from one success to another, and Bahrain is one of these successful countries. Despite all of these turbulences, despite all of these flashpoints, in your close vicinity and globally, how do you do that, and what lessons can be drawn from that by others?

Sheikh Nasser bin Hamad Al Khalifa: Let me start by saying, ‘Praise the God’ for a wise leadership we have in our region. We always say, ‘the clever tries to solve the problem, but the wise avoids it.’ So, us in the GCC, and especially in your second home in Bahrain, I love that President Putin loved that quote, and you can use it, Mr President, no copyrights on that.

In our country, we talk numbers, we talk facts, we project our plans. As what we saw today from the President of Indonesia, this is a man who is expediting his KPIs by far. He thinks that he will reach in four years’ time that goal, but he reached it in one year’s time. We are sprinting in our region, and if you go back today, especially during that turbulent and eventful nights, look at the numbers, look at the numbers of our real estate, look at the numbers of our stock markets. There is a lot of confidence from the people, from the investors, with our leaderships over there.

Today, in that beautiful city, I sat with the top chairmen and CEOs of your top companies in Russia, and we exchanged the same vision, we exchanged the same purpose and the same spirit during these conflicts. We are only looking forward. We are only looking to de-escalate. We are only looking for a peaceful world. We are only looking for a better future. And, Mr President, we in the GCC and especially in the Kingdom of Bahrain, we live in a constant sunrise like you, but here we are literally in St Petersburg, every day there is a sunrise ahead of us. I still haven’t seen nighttime.

Nadim Koteich: Mr Vice President, as I mentioned earlier, South Africa has a very unique position in history in terms of how it evolved, in terms of how it fixed its wrongs and mistakes and then fixed its history. One of the things that came to my mind when I was preparing for this is the experience of de Klerk, the last president of the apartheid regime. The thing is that he made himself part of the change, and that saved South Africa a lot of blood and destruction and chaos. What lesson can be drawn from this history? When a regime or a state or an idea hits a wall, how can you advise these states or these regimes to change the same way South Africa changed?

Deputy President of the Republic of South Africa Paul Mashatile: Well, de Klerk is not a good example because he was defeated. He was forced to come to the table by the masses of our people. He didn’t come voluntarily. What we are saying is that leaders must recognise that we can resolve our differences through peaceful means but there are those who need to be directed to them, and I think the example of de Klerk is quite that. He was directed to the negotiating table by the masses of our people, and we were quite happy once he came. He had no option. He had to participate. He did try to portray himself like he’s Nelson Mandela. He’s not. He was directed there by Nelson Mandela to say, “We are going to negotiate peace,” and we want to continue to share this example with other countries.

We are quite involved now in the African continent, engaging in peaceful negotiations in South Sudan, in the DRC, and other places. So, yes, there is indeed value in negotiating, in discussions, but there are situations where the masses have to stand up, and they have to fight for their rights, and that’s what we did in South Africa.

Nadim Koteich: Mr President, you were shaking your head when we were exchanging this question. What are your thoughts on bringing adversaries to the table? Is defeat a prerequisite for dialogue, or we can bypass this phase and go to dialogue? And there are so many crises in the world that cannot afford a victorious end.

President of the Republic of Indonesia Prabowo Subianto: Well, I have to say here that Nelson Mandela is one of my greatest icons, my greatest hero. I think he’s an inspiration. He was put in prison for many years.

He was sentenced to death, threatened to be sentenced to death, accused of many things, and his famous statement was that he was willing to give his life for the principle of freedom. But the greatness of Nelson Mandela: when he got out of prison, he worked for reconciliation with his former enemies. So this is the greatness of Nelson Mandela, and this I try also to carry out in my domestic politics.

I reconciled with many of my former opponents. For instance, we had a very long rebellion, separatist rebellion in Aceh, very long, I think more than 30 years. But can you imagine that the former commander of the Aceh Liberation Army, fighting against us for more than 25 years, now he joined my party. He’s in my political party, and he’s now governor of Aceh, and I’m President of Indonesia. This shows that former enemies can come together, and I think this is the lesson of Nelson Mandela.

I want to say: I was a former soldier, and as a former soldier, I really know the value of peace and reconciliation. As a former soldier, I always try now, even before, I always try to negotiate. Negotiate, negotiate, negotiate. Better to talk than to kill each other. This is my position. Always talk, always negotiate.

Nadim Koteich: President Putin, on a more practical question concerning the crisis in the Middle East, now we will talk about Ukraine in a while, but the current crisis, it touches on geopolitics, energy, and it has repercussions that go beyond the parties involved in the struggle.

Is it a test for how the South can play a role in mending the fences between both countries, in putting some good imagination around the solution, architecting a solution that can be acceptable by two parties that are fighting, you know, head-to-head? Is this a test for what you are proposing and trying to create as political weight for the South?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, I believe it is quite possible. Experience and reality demonstrate that many states of the region maintain in some ways complex and in some ways stable relations with both Israel and Iran. This provides reasonable grounds to believe – and indeed to hope – that the Global South collectively, and regional actors specifically, can exert influence to help put an end to this acute phase of confrontation.

When I said that Russia’s principled position is that no country’s security should be guaranteed at the expense of other countries’ security, here we have (without delving into detail, as the context is clear), on the one hand, Iran’s uranium enrichment programme, Iran’s legitimate right to carry out such activity, its right to peaceful nuclear energy development; and, on the other hand, there is Israel’s security concerns. I am convinced that a mutually acceptable solution can be found. Countries of the Global South, especially countries of the region, can undoubtedly have a positive influence on this process, on this search for solution. I believe such a solution exists.

Nadim Koteich: Actually, today, the Russian Ambassador at the UN said that the only way forward is a political solution for the nuclear file between Iran and the Israelis. Are there any preliminary points about the solution or are we still too fat from that?

Vladimir Putin: In such situations, it’s always better not to run ahead so as not to upset the process. That said, in my opinion, there are certain points of common interest.

We have set forth our position to both parties. As you know, we maintain contact with Israel as well as with our friends in Iran. We do have certain proposals involving Russia.

I must emphasise that we are by no means positioning ourselves as intermediaries. We are merely putting forward ideas. Should these ideas prove to be appealing to both countries, we will be simply pleased.

I will repeat, we maintain contact with Israel. As you are aware, not so long ago, I spoke with Prime Minister Netanyahu, as well as with the President of Iran and the President of the United States, who are certainly directly involved in these developments. I presented them with my vision and a potential path to resolving the situation. We will see.

Our proposals remain under discussion. We maintain near-daily contact with our Iranian friends, so we will see how the situation unfolds. I would like to see our ideas among those implemented.

Nadim Koteich: Sheikh Nasser, during the King’s visit to Moscow, he explicitly talked about the role of Russia in maintaining peace in the Middle East. It was an initiative His Majesty put forward during the Arab Summit in Bahrain, in Manama. He was very particular about the role of Russia in achieving that peace, as a pivotal role. What role do you think Russia can play now, in the current crisis?

Sheikh Nasser bin Hamad Al Khalifa: Yes, you are right. During our previous visit, and after the Arab Summit that was conducted in the Kingdom of Bahrain, we have called out for World Peace Forum to end and to reach to a solution with every conflict. His Majesty is a leader of peace. He drives his country towards peace and ending conflicts, and so is President Putin. As you have heard from the President just now, that he continues talking, no mediation. I believe that mediation will always confuse the situation, but any suggestion, any words of wisdom these days are mostly needed. Avoiding the escalation, I think, is the key word of today.

Nadim Koteich: Thank you, Sheikh Nasser. I’ll go back to President Putin about Ukraine.

How is the war in Ukraine reflective of the values that the St Petersburg Forum is trying to put forward, to defend, to underscore?

Vladimir Putin: It is very easy to explain. And it is directly related to what we said before, what I said before. I said that no country’s security should be guaranteed at the expense of another country’s security.

From the early 1990s and for decades, we received repeated assurances that by no means, never, under no circumstances, NATO would expand eastward. After that, we have witnessed five, or effectively six, expansion waves. Despite our persistent objections, these were ignored. This is the first.

Without doubt, these represent rudimentary manifestations of the old, or even centuries-old, neo-colonial policy upgraded to a certain extent in order to align with contemporary trends, while retaining its fundamental nature. These are exercises of power politics that disregard the legitimate interests of the Russian Federation. This is my general assessment.

Regarding Ukraine, all developments there similarly constitute exercises of power politics. What am I referring to? The bloodstained anti-constitutional coup in Ukraine. What did this represent? More power politics. The previous US administration openly admitted it had invested billions of dollars in orchestrating the coup. These admissions were made publicly, without any constraint.

Our objective was to protect the population that historically and culturally identified with Russia, the Russian culture and its people – specifically, the residents of Crimea. Subsequently, we attempted to settle the situation in southeastern Ukraine, particularly in Donetsk and Lugansk. We made attempts.

However, once again resorting to power politics, our ideological adversaries, so to speak, chose to impose a military solution in Donetsk and Lugansk – in Donbass. It was not Russia that initiated hostilities. Following the anti-constitutional coup, part of the population in southeastern Ukraine rejected both the coup’s outcome and the authority of its perpetrators. It was against them that military operations were first launched.

We made attempts to achieve a peaceful resolution and to put together broken pieces, but our so-called “partners” (let’s put them in quotation marks now), as it was further revealed, initiated the peace talks for one purpose only: to arm Ukraine and continue these hostilities.

Ultimately, we had no choice but to recognise the independence of these republics – Lugansk and Donetsk. For eight years we refrained from such a decision, persistently pursuing diplomatic solutions. But eventually, we were forced to recognise their independence and extend our support, including military assistance, in order to end the war launched by our Western adversaries and by those whom they relied and continue to rely on now in Ukraine – the radical nationalists and neo-Nazis.

Therefore, responsibility for the tragedy in Ukraine lies not with Russia. It is the responsibility of those who refuse to reconcile with the global changes in the world.

Nadim Koteich: Mr President, I am in no position to challenge the narrative you put forward. Let’s say this is the baseline of what the reality is. Let’s assume this is the reality. Your army is advancing beyond the four areas that are considered Russian by Moscow. So, what is your endgame? How is your army going to go and for what effect?

Vladimir Putin: You mentioned the regions in Ukraine that we regard as part of Russia. I have stated on numerous occasions that, in my view, the Russian and Ukrainian peoples are essentially one people. In that sense, we see Ukraine as ours.

However, we also recognise the realities on the ground as they evolve. There are many individuals in the neighbouring country who are committed to asserting their sovereignty and independence, and we respect that. In fact, we have never denied the Ukrainian people’s right to independence and sovereignty.

At the same time, the foundation for Ukraine’s independence and sovereignty was clearly established in its 1991 Declaration of Independence, which explicitly states that Ukraine is to remain a non-aligned, non-nuclear, and neutral state. It would be constructive to revisit these core principles, as they formed the basis upon which Ukraine gained its statehood. That is the first and most fundamental point.

Secondly, from the very outset – when the conflict had already escalated significantly – we proposed to the Ukrainian leadership at the time that hostilities be halted immediately. We called for the withdrawal of Ukrainian forces from the regions where the local population had clearly expressed their desire not to remain within Ukraine, particularly in response to what they perceived as unconstitutional and anti-state actions. These people sought either independence or integration with Russia. Our proposals were rejected.

Furthermore, these are not purely political decisions, but rather the result of military logic. Military commanders assess terrain – rivers, hills, ravines – and determine the most strategic paths to advance while minimising casualties and achieving their objectives. As a result, the dynamics of military operations naturally lead to the presence of troops in various territories. There is an old saying, not quite a proverb, but a long-standing principle: wherever the foot of a Russian soldier steps is Russian land.

I do not want this to sound militaristic. But the truth is – and I want to emphasise this very clearly, as it is absolutely sincere – at every stage of the unfolding events, we proposed dialogue. We consistently urged our counterparts in Ukraine to stop and engage in negotiations.

We said: “Let us talk now, before the situation deteriorates further. Continued reliance on military action alone risks leading to more difficult circumstances, after which any negotiations would have to take place from a much less favourable position for you.” This scenario repeated itself more than once. I will not go into the specifics at this moment.

There are well-known political figures from other countries – thankfully still alive and well – who can personally attest to our repeated proposals to halt hostilities. On several occasions, after hearing our suggestions, they would leave Moscow for Kiev, but later on they would tell us: “We’re being accused of acting as Kremlin agents. That’s it, we are stepping back and will no longer be involved.”

Each time, the response we received was a firm “no.” And we warned: if this path continues, the consequences will be more severe. Still, they refused to engage. Why? Because certain actors, particularly in Europe, still operate with outdated, neocolonial mindsets. They believed that they could easily exploit the situation to their advantage by weakening, destabilising, or even dismantling Russia, all in the hope of reaping strategic or economic gains.

I am sure that this is why former Prime Minister Boris Johnson – undoubtedly at the urging of the former US administration and Mr Biden – travelled to Ukraine and advised against reaching any agreement with Russia. Yet the agreement was already on the table. During the negotiations in Istanbul, as I have said before, we had reached an almost complete consensus on nearly every issue. All that remained was to finalise the accord. I was prepared then to meet with the head of the regime and finalise it.

But no, they had to send Mr Johnson, clearly with the support of the then Biden administration, to dissuade Ukraine from signing the agreements. Instead, they attempted to secure what they called a “strategic defeat” of Russia on the battlefield. The result? New territories came under our control. The Russian Armed Forces are now advancing daily along the entire line of contact.

Look at what they have done – they entered our Kursk Region. First, they lost 76,000 people there. That’s a catastrophe for them – 76,000! In the end, as we said, we pushed them out. But they started posing a threat all along our state border with Ukraine, in two other neighbouring regions as well.

What has this led to? They already lack manpower, and now we’ve had to establish a security zone along large sections of the border, forcing them to divert troops – troops they can’t spare – from critical parts of the frontline.

I have said it before: combat units are only 47 percent manned. Just 47 percent. They are losing combat capability. And on top of that, they have stretched the line of contact by nearly 2,000 kilometres. We already had a 2,000-kilometre front, and now they have created new threats along the border, adding another 1,600 kilometres or so.

They have spread their armed forces thin. From a military standpoint, it’s hard to imagine a more strategically flawed decision. They are creating problems for themselves, and we are forced to respond.

You mentioned “some other territories.” Yes, that’s true. But specifically along the state border, they entered the Kursk Region, committing multiple crimes against civilians.

We pushed them out, inflicting huge losses in the process. And now we must establish security zones along the border because they keep launching artillery and drone attacks. What is this?

Nadim Koteich: How deep is the security zone?

Vladimir Putin: In the Sumy Region, the depth of our operations ranges from 10 to 12 kilometres. Around 8, in some others 10 or 12 kilometres. Then comes the city of Sumy, the regional centre. We don’t have an objective to take Sumy, but I would not rule it out either.

Why are we doing this? Because they are creating threats for us, constantly shelling border areas. This is the result of their utterly reckless, unjustifiable actions.

The only goal was political: to demonstrate that they still can receive something from their foreign sponsors. They have already received nearly $250 billion. But no, it’s never enough. They want more and more – and on top of that, half of it is being embezzled, if not more.

That’s why we are now operating in these territories. This is the logic of how the confrontation has unfolded and what has driven it.

Nadim Koteich: Thank you, Mr President.

I will later go back to some aspects of your answer – mainly about the nuclear aspect of what is happening. But I would like to go back to the other participants.

Indonesia, Bahrain and South Africa are three countries actively deepening relations with Russia. From what I understood, this conflict, unfortunately, and I hope I am wrong, might go longer, might go for long. How are you planning to mitigate the fallout of this conflict in terms of secondary sanctions, in terms of political reputation in the world, and in terms of pressure coming from your other allies. This is a very complicated situation you do not want to be in in any way but that is the reality. I will start with you, Mr President.

President of the Republic of Indonesia Prabowo Subianto: I really do not understand actually your question. What secondary sanctions?

Nadim Koteich: I will make it simple.

Prabowo Subianto: In Indonesia, we are very clear that we have always been non-aligned. In the Ukrainian situation, I think, two years ago, we proposed an immediate ceasefire in place and, I think, at that time, the reaction from the Russian side was quite open, was quite positive, in fact. But the reaction from the Western governments… I have to be fair, not all Western governments but many Western media virulently attacked my proposal. They said I was proposing the peace of the cemetery. That was what many Western journalists accused me of. So we will always propose a peaceful solution.

And at the time, I reminded everybody that, in Korea now, North Korea and South Korea, there is a demilitarisation zone supervised by the United Nations. The war in Korea is officially not yet over but there is a peaceful condition. So, that was what we proposed, to save the people of Ukraine on all sides – the people of the Russian-speaking areas. Just to save them. A cessation in place. We are far from the place but we want to promote a peaceful solution. So, I do not understand, who is going to impose sanctions on us?

Nadim Koteich: Sheikh Nasser, same question about the secondary sanctions on the friends of Russia. Let’s agree that this is part of the reality of the international dynamics and people take care of that, pay attention to that. How are you navigating this in terms of sanctions, in terms of reputation as well?

Sheikh Nasser bin Hamad Al Khalifa: Well, you mentioned it, the friends of Russia, but also the Kingdom of Bahrain, being the friend to the world, the link and the bridge between conflicts. We have always opened our arms as a…

I would never say that we are neutral. Neutral means siding with one side or another. I would say that we are peacekeepers, peace seekers. We are opening our arms. Bahrain is a platform for peace talks. So, what we try to achieve all the time by the guidance of His Majesty is we will always welcome – and you remember, Mr President, we actually offered that Bahrain is always ready for whenever there will be peace talks in your conflict then we are more than happy to host it.

So, if we can achieve that, then definitely we are benefitting something that we secure the world’s interest. Because, at the end of the day, with this conflict and what is happening from left, right and centre, I do not see any benefit out of it. I do not see one side as a loser and the other side as the winner. No one is going to get out of this victorious if we keep looking at the event-driven prospect of that whole image. But what we look for is how we can end up with a solution that is foresight in the future that builds our economy, that secures our generations, and how will we look and how will our world look in the next generation?

So, these are difficult questions to answer today because this is all in the future. But all that I know is today. If I go by every sunrise again, knowing what is happening today and what I see around me today, people are readjusting, people are reshuffling and people are expecting that, hopefully, with the leadership and the wise leadership of Mr Putin, something beneficial is going to happen.

So, I am an optimistic person. I look at these opportunities for my nation and for the better to everyone. So, if we seek together how we can bring these issues into solutions then we are on the right path. If we are not thinking this way, then we are definitely not thinking of a solution.

So, at the end of the day, let’s not get deep into these issues but let’s think forward and let’s readjust our posture of today and then this will shape our future together forward.

So, this is our navigating track, I think.

Nadim Koteich: Excellent. Mr Vice President, same question for you.

Deputy President of the Republic of South Africa Paul Mashatile: We are already facing tariffs as we speak. So, if we are going to face secondary sanctions, it is something that we have to deal with.

I did say earlier that the road to multipolarity is not going to be easy. All the things we want to do to ensure equality in the world, not being dictated upon, those things are not going to come easy. But it is always important that, in times of difficulty, friends must stay together, so that we face the challenges together.

I want to recall here the famous words of former president Nelson Mandela. In times of difficulties, when others tried to say, “Why do you go to this country?” He said: “We are not going to be dictated upon who our friends should be. We choose our friends, we work with our friends even in times of difficulties.”

So, the countries of the Global South must work together. We are already working together. We will face this challenge together, and I am sure we will succeed.

Nadim Koteich: Mr Putin, your satisfaction with the answers cannot be hidden in any way. Any comments?

Vladimir Putin: Listen, first of all, I never doubted it would turn out that way. Not because someone wants to cause harm to someone, or say something nice to them. This is not what it is about at all.

We have circled back to the beginning of our discussion, when I said that global changes take place naturally like the sunrise, you see. Everything is connected to that.

What did you say? “Russia and China are shaping a new world.” We are not breaking anything, you see? That is the issue. We are not creating problems for anyone. The Vice Premier of the State Council said, “The China-Russia friendship … is not directed against any third country.” That is true. That is exactly how it is. We are just formalising what is happening in the world naturally. It will happen anyway.

To bend under the pressure of those who want to preserve the old rules means to fall behind. But overcoming all the difficulties, including tariff wars, sanctions, and so on, means moving forward. We are friends with and cooperate with those who want to move forward, who accept this challenge, and are ready for it.

Nadim Koteich: In a previous answer about Ukraine, you mentioned the nuclear aspect of Ukraine in a very subtle way. To be honest, I have read some reports, most of them are in Russian media, that there is an assumption that Ukraine might opt for using a dirty bomb against Russia. Do you take these reports seriously? Do you have intelligence that supports this kind of probability?

Vladimir Putin: First of all, it would be a colossal mistake on the part of those who we refer to as neo-Nazis on the territory of present-day Ukraine. It might even be their last mistake. Our nuclear doctrine, common sense, and the way we operate in real life indicate that we always respond to threats posed to us in a symmetrical manner. We always respond and always symmetrically.

Therefore, our response would be extremely tough and, most likely, catastrophic for the neo-Nazi regime, and unfortunately, for Ukraine itself. I hope it never comes to that.

Nadim Koteich: From the tone of your answer, I can conclude that you take these reports seriously. Is there evidence supporting these reports? Like intelligence evidence?

Vladimir Putin: No, thankfully, we have no confirmation of any such intentions. However, we operate on the premise that someone with a sick imagination might come up with such ideas. I believe I have provided a comprehensive answer with regard to our potential response.

Nadim Koteich: You absolutely did.

We were talking about friendship a while ago and the friends of Russia in this panel. I would start from South Africa, then Bahrain and then Indonesia. And if China would love to comment on that, the floor is open.

Are you surprised that a friend of Russia, Iran, is under attack and Russia did not step up to help that ally? This is at least one of the narratives in the media. Where is Russia in this conflict? As friends, are you surprised?

Deputy President of the Republic of South Africa Paul Mashatile: President Putin has already indicated that he has been in discussions with Israel and also in discussions with Iran on these matters, and offered solutions. We think that is the correct way to do it. So we are not surprised; in fact, we support that approach that he is taking. South Africa is one of the non-aligned countries. We always advocate for peaceful solutions of this conflict. Our president has already issued a statement in that regard, [saying] that there should be negotiations. And that is really the route that we are going to pursue.

Sheikh Nasser bin Hamad Al Khalifa: Well, let me make it simple to you. I like making things nice and simple. To prove friendship, if I can make a Russian laugh right now, then I am a good friend of Russia. I hear one over there that laughed, so that's more than enough.

Nadim Koteich: Mr President, before I go back to you, Mr Putin, [will you comment] on that question, please.

President of the Republic of Indonesia Prabowo Subianto: My position is the logical one: each country is responsible and will defend its own national interests. So, being friends is being friends, trying to cooperate and trying to help each other. But being friends does not mean that every country must [sacrifice] their national interests for another country’s national interests. So it will be the decision of every country to defend and protect its national interests. That is my position.

Nadim Koteich: President Putin, you are taking some notes on that, and I would add one aspect, if you allow me.

Vladimir Putin: We put everything down, mind you. Every step is documented, every single step. (Laughter.)

Nadim Koteich: Am I in trouble?

Vladimir Putin: You will cope with them. And we will even help you. (Laughter.)

Nadim Koteich: So in Western media, there are reports saying the following, and I leave the opportunity for you to comment on that: actually, the Iran war is a good thing for Russia. First, oil [price] is up. Second, the West has one more problem on its table to take care of. And third, Ukraine is on the back burner, so all the news is on Iran rather than on Ukraine. How would you comment on that?

And what do you say for those who are saying that Russia is unreliable, a lie, because it did not step up for Iran?

Vladimir Putin: Those who promote narratives about Russia being an unreliable ally are provocateurs. They are provoking the situation. But it will not help them; they will not achieve their goals.

Because, first of all, conflicts only look similar. But as a former Defence Minister and to some extent a military conflict and an armed confrontation theorist – my distinguished colleague from Indonesia, who is now the President of that country – accurately noted – we have published his book on the art of war in Russian – “Every country is responsible for what happens within its borders.”

Now, regarding whether Russia is a reliable ally, or not. It has already been mentioned here that we must show certain solidarity, and that is true. But in every case, conflicts are, nevertheless, fairly unique.

I want to draw your attention to the fact that nearly two million people in Israel are immigrants from the former Soviet Union and the Russian Federation. Today, Israel is almost a Russian-speaking country. In modern Russian history, we have always taken that fact into account. That is the first point.

Second, we have traditionally had very good, trust-based, friendly, and allied relations with the Arab and Islamic world. Given that around 15 percent of our population is Muslim, we hold an observer status at the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. That is also a factor to reckon with. We must be mindful of these aspects.

We have friendly relations with Iran. First, we always fulfil our obligations – this also applies to the Russia-Iran track. We support Iran in its efforts to defend its legitimate interests, including its interest in peaceful nuclear energy. We have always maintained this position. Our principled stance on this matter and in this conflict has not changed.

Some say we should have done more. More in what sense? Launch military operations? We are already conducting military operations against those we see as opponents of the ideas that we defend, and those who pose a threat to the Russian Federation. Fundamentally, those forces are the same in Iran and in Russia. They are located somewhere in the rear areas, behind our backs. However, they are not the ones who are on the line of contact.

We have certain obligations, and we defend Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear energy not in words, but in actions. What does that mean? Despite the challenging situation surrounding Iran, we have built a nuclear reactor in Bushehr. We have signed a contract to build two more nuclear reactors. Despite the difficult situation, despite certain risks, we are continuing this work. We are not evacuating our personnel from there.

Moreover, relying on a certain level of relations with Israel and our improving relations with the United States, we raised this issue with Israel and President Trump. We will keep doing our work in Iran based on our view of Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear energy, and of us acting strictly within international law, and we request to ensure that our personnel remains out of harm’s way.

Prime Minister Netanyahu agreed with that, and President Trump promised to support our legitimate request. Does that not count as support of Iran? I believe it is direct support. In addition, we have adopted a particular stance at the UN.

I am deeply convinced that our position at the UN and elsewhere serves the interests of both Iran and the State of Israel.

Nadim Koteich: I would say probably enough with the politics, so one more question before you move to economy and other issues about AI.

The forum this year coincides with the 80^th anniversary of commemoration of the Day of Victory in World War II. Are you concerned that we are heading into World War III in any way?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, I am. I mean it. No irony, no jokes.

The conflict potential abounds and it is growing. Right under our noses – and this directly concerns us – there is a conflict that we are enduring in Ukraine. There are the developments in the Middle East as well. Without a doubt, we are very concerned about the events related to Iran’s nuclear facilities and potential ramifications.

Without a doubt, this requires us to not only focus on the unfolding events, but also to look for solutions, preferably peaceful, across all areas.

I mean it sincerely. This is one of reasons we have come together here.

Nadim Koteich: Vice Premier, back to you. We’ll talk more about economic endeavours now; it concerns you more than anything else as we agreed before at this panel. Sanctions are not only in the realm of politics or military. Some countries are even militarising education, militarising technology and innovation research. And this is a big worry for China, or it is a challenge that China takes very seriously. How are you mitigating that through the relationship with Russia and in the realm of your own sovereignty and decisions with other allies?

Ding Xuexiang (retranslated): Thank you for the question.

Let us take a look at the world in its entirety. Research, technology, and education are of great – unprecedented – importance for the progressive development of humanity.

All of that progress would have been impossible without cooperation between different peoples and countries, without mutual learning. That is why education, research, and technology are an indispensable factor for the further development of human society.

As you mentioned, lately – it is not a recent development – seven or eight years ago, certain countries started using diktat that was based on force. It has even come to the point where they obstructed international cooperation in research, technology, and education. This historical regression is causing serious damage to the sustainable development of humanity.

It is gratifying to note that China and Russia are making rapid strides and cooperating in education, research, and technology. One can safely say that our countries provide one of the best examples of cooperation.

Speaking about education, our cooperation is burgeoning across all areas, including student exchanges and language instruction, and has reached a very high level. Over 800 universities from our countries are forming 15 specialised university associations.

Speaking of the research and technology sector, we have created a joint institute for fundamental research and created top-of the-line joint laboratories. We are successfully carrying out joint mega-research projects and expanding mutual open access to research equipment. In other words, we have impressive results to show.

I believe that even without any particular “great power,” the world continues to move forward dynamically. Even without them, we would have made good progress. There is no need to worry about that.

China’s experience in recent years shows that the stronger the external pressure, the faster the progress and development. The Americans have been trying to block the development of our research and technology, and not just today or yesterday, they have been doing this for decades. But their attempts only make us stronger in the areas they are targeting. All current restrictions are doing is providing us with a strong incentive to pursue tomorrow’s development.

In May of this year, President Xi Jinping and President Putin held a productive meeting. They outlined new plans for advancing cooperation in education, research, and technology. I believe that once these agreements get implemented, they will further expand the scale of our cooperation and broaden its scope, especially in the fields such as artificial intelligence, low-carbon technologies, biotechnology, innovative materials, aviation, and outer space exploration. These are scientific and technological innovations. We will undoubtedly have an impressive package of achievements in these areas.

Our cooperation mechanisms are being improved. The governments of both countries are making every effort to promote cooperation in these sectors.

Thank you.

Nadim Koteich: Mr Putin, I listened very carefully to your speech and you mentioned investments, but it wasn't that clear about foreign direct investments. Where does Russia stand on that? Where do you stand on that? Do you still care about foreign direct investments? Do you see it as an opportunity or as a burden? Help us understand where Russia stands in this regard.

Vladimir Putin: We believe that private investment is what we need, and the Russian economy is unlikely to develop effectively without this. Well, this also concerns foreign investment in full measure.

We did not evacuate our investors (who worked here for a long time) from Russia, and we did not expel anyone from our country. Many investors quit of their own accord, suffering major losses. But our policy in this sphere has not changed.

Yes, in principle, our economic operators boast a sufficiently impressive investment potential, but we certainly welcome any foreign investment.

In the first quarter of 2025, fixed capital investment volumes soared by 8.7 percent. I know that certain problems facing Russia were discussed on the sidelines of the forum; this includes tensions linked with the high key interest rate, and investment will not be retained until the end of the year. Nevertheless, the Central Bank assumes that, in late 2025, the real economy will continue to borrow loans at 10–11 percent interest. We shall see how this works out. I would really like this to come true.

But we certainly welcome foreign investment, and we will do our best to create favourable conditions, so that our partners would feel comfortable here.

Our friend from Bahrain is present here. They have already reached an agreement with the Russian Direct Investment Fund on launching specific work. The first steps have been taken. These projects may not be very impressive, totalling about 15 billion rubles. We are working very actively with the United Arab Emirates in the field of sovereign funds. We are cooperating with Saudi Arabia and other countries. By the way, our partners and our friends did not make this decision yesterday or today; they made it several years ago. They trust their Russian partners and simply automatically (I would like to emphasise, automatically) co-invest in projects financed by Russia’s Direct Investment Fund – 10 percent.

They are doing this promptly, without inquiring about future results. This is a sign of their high trust, and we appreciate this very much. Later, they invest more and more. You should speak with Mr Kirill Dmitriyev who will provide the final statistics. This involes many billions of dollars.

It is possible to use this also through other sources and tools. We have virtually no restrictions for our foreign partners, in terms of applying their efforts and channelling their capital. I believe that this is a key trend in our cooperation.

Nadim Koteich: Having said that, there are two trends that I realised talking to Russian businessmen, either here or back in my country, UAE. A, there is a kind of rejection of buyback. You know, when the war happened, there were some foreign investments that were bought by Russians, and now these might want to buy back their investments.

Russia seems to be blocking that, because new Russian entrepreneurs bought and invested in these operations. The second trend that I realised is that people are a little bit worried about nationalisation. There are some nationalisation efforts taking place within Russia.

I heard, I mean, I read about one of the airports being bought back or even taken by force of court from the Russian owners. So, how do you see these two trends impacting the rebound of the Russian economy?

Vladimir Putin: Nationalisation cannot have a positive effect on Russia’s economic growth, and we realise that. As far as I understand, the case you mentioned is the case of Domodedovo Airport in Moscow.

I apologise for my language but the fuss surrounding this facility has persisted for quite some time. The dispute between the entities involved did not emerge recently. It has continued for many years before ultimately being resolved through judicial proceedings. This case has nothing to do with nationalisation.

Nationalisation is a process stipulated by law. We do not enforce this law or its provisions.

As I previously said during a meeting with the business community, in my opinion, the problem is that during privatisation, significant injustice occurred. Assets worth probably millions were privatised for a nominal price of one ruble. This is clear. From a standpoint of social justice, those decisions were far from perfect. However, it would be an even bigger mistake to reverse everything now.

Therefore, my opinion is, we must establish clear statutory limitations for such transactions and resolve this matter once and for all, conclusively.

The situation you described has nothing to do with de-privatisation.

Regarding the potential return of our partners, so-called “buyback,” several aspects also need careful consideration.

First, we need to identify which companies left our market, under what circumstances, and on what grounds. If some companies departed for political reasons, under the pressure from the political elites in their home countries, this makes them unreliable partners. Their withdrawal put their workers at risk of losing their jobs. This appears to have been the intended outcome. However, the negative impact was mitigated as Russian businesses took over management and filled the opening niches. Frankly, from this perspective, those decisions ultimately changed the quality of the Russian economy by enabling our business leaders to join the management of these companies or become owners.

However, where legally binding agreements exist that guarantee buybacks, well, Russian companies will have to honour these obligations. We support fostering reliable and stable business relationships, yet this has not always been reciprocated by all parties.

In light of these considerations, the Russian Government has received instructions to take action. I am asking members of the parliament to endorse the proposed regulatory improvements. It is necessary to ultimately decide on the return of international companies seeking to re-enter our market. We must support everything that benefits us.

Nadim Koteich (addressing Prabowo Subianto): Mr President, how is your country taking advantage of the current economic situation in Russia? You know, people have left, and businesses have left, too. There are opportunities in the market now for a country like Indonesia. How are you leveraging the situation?

Prabowo Subianto: As I mentioned, I have had good relations with Russian business entities and business groups, but mostly – I have to be very frank – they were interested and they are interested in coming into Indonesia. I think we have a lot of sectors that are still, let us say, at a ground level; they have a long way to grow, so basically, it’s mostly Russian groups that want to come to Indonesia.

But before this, our groups have joined ventures with Russian groups in commodities trading, oil and gas; and now we have opened our markets for Russian agricultural products. So, I think it’s not that we are going to take advantage, but we are going to look for all opportunities, because we have also been given a very heavy dose of tariffs. Everybody knows this, right? From the American market. So, we are forced to look for new markets – Africa, Latin America, Eurasia. We are in the process of concluding a free-trade agreement with the Eurasian Union. And the European Union, of course.

So, for us, it is a matter of diversity, but yes, we are confident; we have our strengths, we have our abilities and our relations with China are very good and very strong. So, we are optimistic, to say the least.

Nadim Koteich (addressing Paul Mashatile): Mr Vice President, there are many aspects of the economic relationship between South Africa and Russia, but one of the main aspects is the energy deficit in South Africa. You have been trying to mitigate or solve this problem by cooperating more with Russia in the realm of energy. So far, this hasn’t been as fruitful as you would want it to be, or as much as Russia is capable of helping. How do you assess this?

Paul Mashatile: Thank you for the question. Firstly, let me say that I have already had good meetings with both the prime minister and the president. We’ve agreed that we need to increase trade between our two countries. Currently, trade between South Africa and Russia is estimated at about $1.3 billion. We think this is quite low, so we want to triple that number in the next four or five years.

So, we have looked at various sectors. We’ve looked at the energy sector. Russia has a lot of good technologies in that space: we are looking at solar, gas, nuclear energy. Our ministers are already talking about the details. We have also talked about critical minerals, particularly, to support our local beneficiation efforts.

We also looked at agriculture. We are exporting citrus fruit to Russia. We are exporting wines. But we need to increase the volumes.

We have what we call the South Africa-Russia Business Council. They are also making deals on what we import from Russia. One of the businesspeople was telling me yesterday: yes, just sign the deal to import Russian vodka to South Africa, and obviously to the African continent.

So, the work has started. We all agreed that we need to do more; we need to increase trade between our two countries. What we have to do as well is cut the red tape. You know, some businesspeople are talking about bottlenecks: things that make it difficult for them to trade with their partners in South Africa: the financial situation, the currency, which our reserve bank is looking at, so that we make it easy for businesspeople to do business.

It is our commitment, and we’ve agreed on all these areas; as we speak, the ministers are already working on the details, including issues like water as well. They are also dealing with that, and infrastructure issues – railways, locomotives, signalling – really a lot of work is now happening. We’re going to see trade increasing between South Africa and Russia. We have started. Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: My colleague from South Africa said that vodka deliveries to the Republic of South Africa have been arranged. I would describe this as a correct and serious move. The reasons is that, as we say, if you drink vodka, you need something to eat with it. Therefore, vodka deliveries will certainly be followed by meat or grain supplies.

For example, we plan to set up a hub for the delivery of Russian wheat with our friends in Bahrain. I would like to remind you that Russia firmly holds first place in the world in wheat exports to the global market, which many Arab countries are interested in. We will proceed in this direction step by step.

As for energy resources, we have many possibilities in this sphere, including nuclear energy. I would like to remind you in this context that Rosatom is the undisputed leader in the world in the development of nuclear facilities. I believe it is currently building 22 nuclear power units across the world. This is more than anyone else is doing, which has put it ahead of all its rivals in the United States, Japan and other countries.

We are also considering joint projects in this sphere in other partner countries, including South Africa. There are many good and promising spheres apart from hydrocarbons, which goes without saying.

Nadim Koteich: There is no doubt that more vodka will help improve the mood in the world.

Vladimir Putin: At the very least, life will be more fun. That is for certain.

Nadim Koteich: Mr President, I will go back to the tensions in the Middle East, not from the geopolitical perspective, but from an oil-related aspect, which is the supply shocks expected in the market due to the Iranian-Israeli war that is taking place. Can Russia step in, or is your capacity constrained by sanctions and limitations?

Vladimir Putin: I have already told you what we are doing. What do you mean by step in?

Nadim Koteich: Can you step in to mitigate the supply shocks in the market due to the events? Can Russia do something about that, if this happens?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, of course. To begin with, it is not only about us. We strictly comply with all our arrangements in relations with our OPEC+ friends and partners. These countries deliberately limit the production of energy resources and their delivery to the global market.

On the other hand, production is being gradually increased as per our agreement. This is being done gradually, so as not to unbalance the global market but to ensure a balance of demand and supply, as we say in such cases, and fair prices that will be comfortable for both producer countries and consumer countries.

Of course, we see that the current situation in the Middle East created by a conflict between Iran and Israel has led to a certain price increase. But our experts believe that this increase is insignificant. How much is it now? US$75 per barrel, and the previous price was US$65. The price has risen by US$10 and has settled at the new level.

Many countries, including the Gulf states, can increase production and deliveries to the global market. But as I have said, we usually do this by agreement. I hope it will be like this now too. The United Arab Emirates are making a large contribution, and the Crown Prince has taken an extremely responsible stance on this matter. Once again, our decisions are always balanced. We will take a look at the matter together depending on the situation. There is no need for an immediate reaction so far.

Nadim Koteich: The latest sanctions on Russia aimed at the so-called shadow fleet, how will this impact the supply to Asia and other places, Africa? How would it impact Russia? How will it impact your friends as well?

Vladimir Putin: You know, the thing is, our adversaries and ill-wishers are constantly trying to come up with ways to damage us economically – and in the end, they are the ones who suffer most.

You just mentioned energy. According to our experts – and not just ours, I believe Eurostat also confirms this – the damage to the eurozone from giving up Russian gas alone is estimated at around 200 billion euros. They’ve lost 200 billion. Prices are rising across the board.

As for the so-called “shadow fleet” and related issues, our Chinese friend put it very well, in my view: wherever someone tries to strike a blow, we eventually come out stronger. Why? Because we always find an answer, a solution.

You mentioned tariff policies. Trade between the United States and China accounts for 20 percent of global trade. In the current situation, where debt levels, huge debt load across the global economy has already reached 300 percent – of course, this affects everyone. Any attempts to harm us, including through actions against the shadow fleet, will lead to broader problems. And mainly for those trying to, excuse the expression, mess with us. Because it will ultimately affect global prices and hit the very countries trying to do this because they are the main consumers. That is the outcome. As for us, we will find new markets.

Nadim Koteich: It is a very interesting tone in this answer. Let me ask you directly. This is my last question before I give one minute for each esteemed participant to finish, or to say some final thoughts. There are enough reports out there – credible reports – that this war is killing the Russian economy. Your inflation rate is very high. Your interest rate is very, very high. Your growth, by the most optimistic scenarios, will not exceed 1.5 percent this year. Is this war killing your economy?

Vladimir Putin: First of all, our debt is not growing – in fact, it is one of the lowest in the world. That is the first point.

Second, as for the idea of “killing” the Russian economy – well, to quote a well-known author, “Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated.” The same applies here.

The main indicator, after all, is GDP growth. Two years ago, Russia’s GDP grew by 4.1 percent; last year, by another 4.3 percent. If I remember correctly, global GDP growth was 3.3 percent. So we were growing faster than the global average. The United States grew at a rate of 2.8 percent, and the eurozone just 0.9 percent. Clearly, Russia is making real progress. And if you strip out everything related to hydrocarbons, our growth is even more significant: 7.2 percent two years ago, and almost five percent (4.9) percent in 2024.

But that is not the most important thing. It’s encouraging, of course, but what matters more is this: the structure of the Russian economy is changing. That is what is truly important. In our GDP growth, more than 43 percent now comes from non-oil-and-gas sectors, and not from defence either. A large share of our growth is concentrated in the core industrial sector, and not even in the defence-related part of it. I spoke about this in my remarks.

You know what truly encourages us? I consider this fundamentally important. We constantly talk about import substitution and have indeed allocated significant financial resources to substitute the products that have left our market due to sanctions or the departure of some Western companies. Currently, we are observing positive results: a growing range of products developed using domestic solutions and our own research and high technology development platform. The scope of these products is continuously expanding, which indicates a transformation in the Russian economy. This is one of our paramount goals and objectives.

Industrial production is expanding at a pace that exceeds Russia’s GDP growth. I believe in 2024, we recorded growth of approximately 7.2 percent. The first quarter of 2025, I believe, is already showing 1.6–1.9 percent. This upward trajectory remains steady.

These positive developments are occurring alongside rather low unemployment levels, with the current rate reaching a historic low of 2.3 percent.

Naturally, we are experiencing inflation as the price we pay for such vigorous economic growth. However, both the Central Bank and the Government are taking appropriate countermeasures, including maintaining the high key interest rate. You have probably observed the discussions in the Government and between the Government and the Central Bank. Yes, certainly, no simple solution exists but overall, we manage to address this challenge as well. After all, you see that the inflation rate is now in single digits. How much? I believe 9.6 percent. Ms Nabiullina will give me a nod. Around 9.6 percent, correct? Some are citing core inflation already at five percent. But I will not elaborate now. Two or three days ago, they lumbered me with an explanation of where these five percent come from. Ultimately, the Bank of Russia anticipates annual inflation around seven or eight percent. My personal expectation is seven. The trajectory confirms that Russia’s financial authorities’ measures are yielding tangible results.

There are plenty of challenges we must address. The Sberbank Chairman is smiling and nodding. He has a good reason to smile. Sberbank has achieved a margin of 5.7 percent. Major Western financial institutions typically report around 3.7 percent, you see? This is also a notable achievement.

There are aspects of the banking sector that require focused attention. But the overall financial landscape remains steady and predictable. I hope it will remain so.

Nadim Koteich: That was my final question. I will keep one minute around for each participant. If there is anything I failed to ask or something you have in mind. Mr President, go ahead.

Prabowo Subianto: I just like to thank President Putin and organisers of this forum for this great opportunity. I think we have learned a lot from each other. Thank you very much.

Nasser bin Hamad Al Khalifa: I will join my voice to you, Mr President. And I would like to thank His Excellency Mr Vladimir Putin, the President of Russia, for inviting us here to the beautiful St Petersburg, to listen to your wisdom and to share our thoughts with you all. Thank you very much.

Paul Mashatile: I would also like to thank President Putin for this invitation for us to participate in this important forum. It is my first time in this beautiful city of St Petersburg and we have learned a lot from the other leaders. We consider Russia and President Putin as our friend and ally. We look forward to continuing to work with President Putin and the people of Russia. I look forward to coming back to St Petersburg. Mr President, I have not had the time to see this beautiful city. Maybe tomorrow I might have some time to look around. But I look forward to coming back next year. Spasibo.

Nadim Koteich: President Putin, this is the second panel I have had the privilege and honour to have with you in less than one year. I cannot be more privileged. Thank you so much. You have always tolerated my questions and, you know, it is really a testament to your belief in open dialogue. Thank you very much, esteemed guests. Thank you everyone.

Vladimir Putin: Friends, colleagues, I would like to thank our moderator.

Thank you to my colleagues who took part in this discussion. I am confident that the audience enjoyed it — and not only the audience here as many statements will be circulated around the world. The remarks made today were noteworthy and engaging, which is important and corresponds with the intensity of the current events.

Thank you very much for being here with us today.

Parade marking the 80th anniversary of the Great Victory

2025-05-10T00:31:32+04:00

President of Russia, Supreme Commander-in-Chief Vladimir Putin attended a military parade marking the 80^th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War of 1941–1945.

The heads of foreign delegations joined the President of Russia on the reviewing stands.

Before the parade, the President welcomed in the Kremlin the leaders of foreign countries who had come to Moscow for the Victory Day celebrations.

The parade began with a march of the banner group bringing the national flag of Russia and the Victory Banner into Red Square. The parade was led by Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Ground Forces General of the Army Oleg Salyukov and reviewed by Defence Minister Andrei Belousov.

The marching column on Red Square included 55 ceremonial units of over 11,500 service personnel, including over 1,500 personnel involved in the special military operation. Military contingents from Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, Egypt, China, Laos, Mongolia, and Myanmar also took part in the Victory Parade.

The mechanised column was led by the legendary T-34 Victory Tank and SU-100 self-propelled artillery units. The Tigr-M and VPK-Ural armoured vehicles, Linza armoured medical vehicles, BRM-1K reconnaissance vehicles, BTR-82A armoured personnel carriers, BMP-2M, BMP-3 and Kurganets-25 infantry fighting vehicles, BMD-4 and BTR-MDM Rakushka airborne infantry fighting vehicles, as well as main battle tanks T-72B3M, T-80BVM and T-90M Proryv were part of the mechanised column as well. Missile and artillery units showcased self-propelled artillery systems, Iskander-M precision missile systems, the S-400 Triumf air defence complex, and Yars intercontinental ballistic missile launchers.

For the first time, the parade presented unmanned aerial vehicles and loitering munitions, including the Orlan, Lancet, Garpiya and Geran drones.

The parade concluded with the renowned Kubinka Diamond formation of Su-30 and MiG-29 fighter jets from the Russkiye Vityazi (Russian Knights) and Strizhi (Swifts) aerobatic teams. Closing the flyover, Su-25 attack aircraft painted the sky in the colours of the Russian national flag.

The music accompaniment for the parade was provided by the combined military orchestra of the Moscow Garrison.

* * *

Speech by the President of Russia at the military parade

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Citizens of Russia,

Veterans, guests,

Comrade soldiers and sailors, sergeants and sergeant majors, midshipmen and warrant officers,

Comrade officers, generals and admirals,

I congratulate you on the 80^th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War!

Today, we are all united by the feelings of joy and grief, pride and gratitude, and admiration for the generation that crushed Nazism and won freedom and peace for all humanity at the cost of millions of lives.

We faithfully preserve the memory of those historic, glorious events. As the heirs of the victors, today we celebrate Victory Day as the most important holiday for the country, which the entire nation, each family, each of us holds dear.

Our fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers saved the Fatherland. And they bequeathed us to defend the Motherland, to stay united and firmly defend our national interests, our thousand-year history, culture and traditional values – everything that is dear to us, that is sacred to us.

We remember the lessons of World War II and will never agree with the distortion of those events or attempts to justify the murderers and slander the true victors.

Our duty is to defend the honour of the Red Army soldiers and commanders, and the heroism of fighters of different ethnic backgrounds who will forever remain Russian soldiers in world history.

Russia has been and will continue to be an indestructible obstacle to Nazism, Russophobia and anti-Semitism, and will stand in the way of the violence perpetrated by the champions of these aggressive and destructive ideas.

Truth and justice are on our side. The whole of Russia, our society and all people support the participants in the special military operation. We are proud of their courage and spirit, and their steely determination that has always brought us victory.

Friends,

The Soviet Union bore the brunt of the enemy’s most savage and relentless assaults. Millions of people, once devoted solely to peaceful labour, took up arms and stood firm to the death on every hill, bridgehead, and defensive line. The outcome of the Second World War was determined by decisive victories in major battles of Moscow and Stalingrad, on the Kursk Bulge and the Dnieper River, by the courage of the defenders of Belarus, who were the first to face the invader, by staunch resistance at the Brest Fortress and in Mogilev, Odessa, Sevastopol, Murmansk, Tula and Smolensk, by the heroism of the residents of besieged Leningrad, by the bravery of all those who fought on the front lines, in partisan units, and in the underground resistance, as well as by the selfless efforts of those who evacuated plants and factories under enemy fire, and who worked on the home front, giving everything they had, working to the limits of their ability.

The Nazis’ plans to conquer the Soviet Union were shattered by the unshakable unity of the nation. The heroism of the Soviet people was common, and every republic shouldered the shared, immense burden of war.

The contribution of the peoples of Central Asia and the South Caucasus was immense. From these regions came a steady flow of trains delivering everything the front needed. Hospitals were established, and hundreds of thousands of evacuees found a second home there. They were offered shelter, food, and heartfelt compassion.

We honour every veteran of the Great Patriotic War and bow our heads in remembrance of all who gave their lives for Victory, the sons and daughters, fathers and mothers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers, husbands and wives, brothers and sisters, loved ones, and friends.

We bow our heads before our fallen comrades-in-arms who laid down their lives as heroes in a righteous battle for Russia.

Let us now observe a moment of silence.

(A moment of silence.)

Friends,

Nearly 80 percent of the world’s population were drawn into the fiery orbit of World War II.

The complete defeat of Nazi Germany, militarist Japan and their satellites around the world was achieved through the combined efforts of the Allied Nations.

We will never forget that the opening of the Second Front in Europe, which took place after the decisive battles in the territory of the Soviet Union, hastened Victory. We highly appreciate the contribution made to our common struggle by the Allied armies, members of the Resistance, the courageous people of China, and all those who fought for a peaceful future.

Friends,

We will continue to look up to our veterans, taking example from their wholehearted love of the Motherland and commitment to defending our homeland and the values of humanism and justice. We will give these traditions and this great heritage the biggest place in our hearts and will pass them on to future generations.

We will always rely on our unity in battle and in peaceful endeavours, in striving for strategic goals and tackling problems for the benefit of Russia and its greatness and prosperity.

Glory to the victorious nation!

Happy holiday!

Happy Victory Day!

Hurrah!

Results of the Year with Vladimir Putin

2024-12-25T20:07:28+04:00

Vladimir Putin summed up the results of the year and answered questions from journalists and the people of Russia in a live broadcast.

Channel One war correspondent Dmitry Kulko and VGTRK presenter Alexandra Suvorova moderated the Results of the Year with Vladimir Putin.

* * *

Deputy Chief of Staff of the Presidential Executive Office – Presidential Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov: Good afternoon everyone.

The President will be here within minutes to review the results of the outgoing year. I would like to remind you that this year we combine two events, the news conference and Direct Line.

Please show respect for your colleagues when I give the floor to journalists and make your questions as concise and clear as possible. This will allow the President to answer more questions.

Our moderators this year are Alexandra Suvorova and Dmitry Kulko, who will talk with the President. They worked hard to personally read extremely many questions from our people, possibly tens of thousands of them. They understand what the people of Russia are talking about and will help the President outline the subjects that are at the top of the agenda throughout the country.

Please.

Alexandra Suvorova: Good afternoon. This is the Results of the Year with Vladimir Putin. As usual, questions can be submitted in a number of ways until the end of our programme. Our colleagues continue working with the incoming questions.

First, you can submit your questions by calling 8 (800) 200 4040 or sending an SMS or MMS message to 04040. Questions can also be submitted via the programme’s official accounts on Vkontakte and Odnoklassniki. You can also use the website and mobile app called москва-путину.рф.

We have already received over 2.2 million questions, including 1.2 million via telephone, about 43,000 via SMS messages, and over 140,000 via the website. We can see that the number of questions is increasing in real time.

Let me share some interesting facts and figures on the Results of the Year with Vladimir Putin programme since this format was created. There was a time when the Direct Line and the news conference were two separate events and formats. This is the third time we are having it in a hybrid format. The first time it happened was before the COVID pandemic, the second was a post-COVID event in 2023, and now we are in 2024. Once again, the programme is taking place in a hybrid format, which means that both the people of Russia and, of course, journalists get to ask questions.

Here are some interesting statistics. For example, the event with the biggest number of questions took place in 2015 when the President received 2.25 million questions. This year, we have not reached this number. However, I believe that this could be attributable to the fact that regions hold their own direct lines, with governors answering questions from their people at the regional level. Therefore, some questions get resolved on the ground.

One thing to note here is that if we add up all the time Vladimir Putin has spent answering questions during events of this kind, the total already exceeds 64 hours. People have been tuning in from the regions since 2001 when the very first programme of this kind took place. It goes without saying that there will also be people joining us via videoconference from the regions today. Throughout the years when we had the Direct Line and the Results of the Year, people have been proactively contributing to these events not only by raising various issues with the President, sharing their concerns or asking for something, but also by expressing their gratitude. This year, considering that we are holding this event on December 19, we also received New Year greetings. This is another trend I wanted to mention.

Of course, social matters are in the spotlight today, judging by the submissions we have selected. Many questions deal with the special military operation. International matters are also high on the agenda, of course. So let us get started.

Dmitry Kulko: President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin.

For the third year in a row, volunteers from the Russian Popular Front have been helping prepare our programme and process the messages and calls. This year, they were also joined by veterans of the special military operation. For ten days since the free telephone line opened, they, too, have been taking phone calls. However, the Russian Popular Front’s work does not end today. In fact, we can say that it is only just beginning, because the moment the broadcast ends, the Popular Front volunteers will continue to work on the appeals people made to ensure that none of them is left unattended.

Alexandra Suvorova: I would like to add that some of the appeals have already been processed during the preparations for the Results of the Year programme, and some of the issues have been addressed by Popular Front volunteers and regional and federal authorities.

There is one more aspect that is different this year. GigaChat, an AI model provided by Sber, has helped us process people’s appeals and questions. Mr President, I know that you have already seen it.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: I have.

Dmitry Kulko: Yes, GigaChat has drawn conclusions. This technology can do more than transcribe audio files into text – it can also extract the message and the essence of the problem, which has significantly accelerated the processing of requests this year. You will be able to see GigaChat’s insights on the screen throughout the programme. You will see the key subjects of people’s appeals, across the country and in each region. We will be using this virtual assistant during the programme today.

Anna Suvorova: Before we start taking questions from our people and our colleagues, journalists, I would like to ask the first general question.

In recent time, everyone has been feeling a disturbing sense that the world is going crazy, or already has, because the potential for conflict is off the charts in every part of the world, and the global economy is struggling. How does Russia manage not only to stay afloat, but also to continue growing in this situation?

Vladimir Putin: You know, when all is calm and life is measured and stable, we get bored. This amounts to stagnation, so we crave action. When action begins, time starts whistling by – or bullets do, for that matter. Unfortunately, bullets are what is zipping past our heads these days. We are scared, yes – but not as “all get out” kind of scared.

Our economics are the ultimate measure of things. As is traditional, I will start with the economy. Although your question was a bit provocative, I will turn to the economy anyway. The economy is number one; it is the cornerstone. It has an impact on living standards, general stability, and the country’s defence capability. The economy is everything.

The economic situation in Russia is generally positive and stable. We are growing in spite of everything, in spite of any external threats or attempts at outside influence.

As you know, last year Russia increased its GDP by 3.6 percent, and this year the economy is expected to grow by 3.9 percent, or possibly even four percent. However, we will have to wait and see the final results, as the year-end figures will be de facto factored into these projections in the first quarter of next year, which will be 2025 in this particular case. It may well be that this indicator reaches four percent. What this means is that our economy will have grown by eight percent over the past two years. After all, the tenths and hundredths of a percent make for a negligeable difference. This is what experts have been telling me – we exchanged views this very morning. About eight percent over the past two years, compared to a growth rate between five and six percent for the United States, one percent for the Eurozone, and zero for Germany, the EU’s leading economy. It seems that next year that country will also have zero growth.

International financial and economic institutions ranked Russia as Europe’s biggest economy in terms of volume, in terms of purchasing power parity, and the world’s fourth largest economy. We are behind China, the United States and India. Last year, Russia surpassed Germany and this year, we left Japan behind. But this is not the time for us to be complacent. We will definitely keep moving forward.

There is development everywhere you look and so much positive momentum across the board. If the Eurozone has fallen asleep, there are other centres of global development that are advancing. The situation in the Eurozone and the United States has been changing too. We must maintain the momentum we have gathered and transform our economy at its core, from a qualitative perspective.

There are other general performance indicators which have been quite satisfactory, to say the least. Unemployment is the first such indicator. All countries around the world, and all economies, pay a great deal of attention to this figure. For Russia, it is at its all-time low of 2.3 percent. We have not experienced anything like this before. This is my first point.

Second, there has been growth in specific manufacturing and industrial sectors. In fact, industrial output increased by 4.4 percent, while the processing sector reported a growth rate of 8.1 percent, with some of its sectors achieving even higher growth rates.

Of course, inflation has been causing some concerns. Only yesterday, while preparing for today’s event, I talked to the Central Bank Governor, and Elvira Nabiullina told me that the inflation rate has already reached about 9.2–9.3 percent year-to-date. That said, salaries have increased by nine percent, and I am talking about an increase in real terms, minus inflation. In addition, disposable incomes have also increased. So, the overall situation is stable and, let me reiterate, solid.

There are certain challenges with inflation and with the economy heating up. Therefore, the Government and the Central Bank have been seeking to ensure a soft landing. Estimates may vary for next year, but we expect the economy to grow at a rate of 2–2.5 percent. This soft landing would enable us to keep improving our macroeconomic performance.

This is what we must aspire to. I think that we will probably raise these matters during today’s meeting. Overall, the economy can be described as stable and resilient.

Alexandra Suvorova: I have a follow-up question, given the numerous questions surrounding price growth, to which we will return. You have cited Germany and Japan as examples. I wish to focus on Germany having a zero percent growth rate, which you mentioned as a case previously known for its economic expansion.

Do you believe this is perhaps linked to politics and sovereignty? Not long ago, at the VTB Forum Russia Calling!, you reminisced about Gerhard Schroeder's birthday celebration, remarking how all the songs were in English, with none performed in German.

Vladimir Putin: There were. It's an interesting episode. Quite some time ago, it was Gerhard Schroeder's birthday, he invited me and I attended. There was a small concert, and, as it happened, all the companies performed in English. I remarked at the time, “Even the Hannover girls' choir sang in English.”

There was, however, one ensemble that performed in German: the Kuban Cossack Choir, which accompanied me. Moreover, this was entirely unexpected on my part. I inquired, “How did you come to know these songs?” They replied, “Out of respect for the Germans, our hosts, we learnt these songs en route and performed them in German, including those from the local region where we are now.”

During the intermission, numerous attendees approached me (I recount this as it truly unfolded) and expressed, “We are embarrassed, truly, that only Russian Cossacks performed in German here.”

I recounted this to a colleague who was present at the event, which has now been recalled. You see, sovereignty is a crucial concept; it must reside within, in one's heart. In the post-war era, I believe this sense – of homeland and sovereignty – has been somewhat eroded among the German people.

Who are the Europeans, after all? They are proud to be European, yet they are foremost French, German, Italian, Spanish, and then European. There is a tendency to smooth out things, to homogenise. Ultimately, this affects everything, including the economy.

I previously spoke about our economic growth – this is largely attributable to the reinforcement of sovereignty, which extends to the economic realm.

Many foreign manufacturers have exited our market. What has been the consequence? Our entrepreneurs have started producing these goods domestically, necessitating further research and the engagement of institutions, including those focused on development. All of this – what we are discussing – is the enhancement of technological sovereignty.

Sovereignty manifests itself in various forms: defence, technology, science, education, culture. This is of paramount importance, especially for our nation, because should we lose sovereignty, we risk losing statehood. That is the crux.

Economic growth is also an effect of bolstered sovereignty.

Dmitry Kulko: Mr President, I suggest we move on to questions from our citizens.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, let us begin.

Dmitry Kulko: You spoke about economic growth. It is true that a look at our economic indicators, which do look good, shows that the majority of Russian enterprises are working to capacity and wages are rising, yet they cannot keep pace with price increases.

Many Russian citizens have written about this, and AI has analysed all the requests and compiled a list of regions where more questions concerned price growth. These are eastern regions, such as the Kamchatka Territory and the Sakhalin Region, and also our westernmost territory, the Kaliningrad Region. Also, the majority of questions from the Irkutsk Region concern price growth. In short, it is a topical issue.

Alexandra Suvorova: It is topical indeed. I will cite the figures which have also been provided by GigaChat, which we are using.

The most frequent questions have to do with the rise in prices of bread, fish, milk, eggs and butter. People also write about the growth of fuel prices. This file contains some of the citizens’ questions about price growth.

If we look at the official data of the Federal State Statistics Service (Rosstat), we got it last night, we will see that the prices of fruits and vegetables have increased by 3.4 percent over the past week. For example, the price of cucumbers has grown by ten percent after rising by 43 percent in November.

Vladimir Putin: First, I would like to apologise to the audience, especially those who are following this event via various media platforms, including online. When I said that price growth or inflation was slightly above nine percent this year, at 9.2–9.3 percent, and that people’s wages and real disposable incomes have grown as well, I cited average figures. Of course, our country is very big, and some people might ask me what I was talking about, that their well-being has not improved but remained at the same level. And some might even say that their well-being has deteriorated. Yes, this can be so and it is so, in some cases. I cited average figures, because when we make plans, we need to have figures to rely on, and we can only rely on average figures.

As for the growth of prices, there are both objective and subjective reasons for that.

What is more important is that the supply in our market should correlate with people’s incomes, or rather, people’s incomes and their purchasing capacity should correlate with the volume of goods produced in the country. Wages and incomes have been growing faster than the mass of commodities and the rate of production.

I will explain. Let’s say, food production in our country is constantly growing. I will talk about this later. There will certainly be questions on agriculture. In fact, I can tell you that it adds three percent every year. We are fully self-sufficient when it comes to meat. One hundred percent.

It is a good indicator. Why does this happen? In Russia, the annual consumption of meat is about 80 kg per capita while in other countries, it is about 42 kg on average. It may seem enough and yet, meat consumption has doubled recently, you see? Doubled.

Now, milk. Milk production grows every year, but consumption grows as well, and there is not enough milk to produce butter. I know that the butter prices have grown by 33–34 percent in some regions, and possibly higher in others.

Simply, the amount of products has not grown as much as consumption has. This is the first reason. The solution here would be to develop industries. And I will talk more about it later.

The second objective reason is harvest.

The third objective reason is that some products have become more expensive on world markets.

Of course, the external restrictions, sanctions and so forth are affecting the prices to a certain extent. They do not play a key role but still, they take a toll as they make logistics more expensive, in addition to other things.

There are also subjective reasons or things we could improve on our side. For example, some experts believe that the Central Bank could have used certain instruments other than raising the key rate, more efficiently and at an earlier stage. Yes, the Central Bank started doing it around summer. But again, these experts believe that it could have and should have been done earlier. There are many instruments. I will not list them now and will not tire our audience with these considerations about the Central Bank and its regulation methods.

The Government works efficiently and does a lot when it thinks about the future – and the future should always be considered. In our country, we always thought about the future even during the harshest times of the Great Patriotic War. We know these examples. There were efforts made and, as it turned out later, correct efforts.

Our Government does think about the future: it formulates tasks, national development goals and national projects. It is wonderful but it would also be great to take timely efforts with respect to industries and consider the development of certain sectors, the production of mass products. I will not list them now – perhaps, there will be questions on specific industries later. Timely decisions should have been made.

Growing prices are not something to enjoy and they have adverse impacts. But I hope that overall, as we preserve macroeconomic indicators, we shall address this issues as well because macroeconomics is the basis for a healthy economy in general.

Dmitry Kulko: Mr President, we are holding today’s event in a combined format, a direct line and a news conference. I now suggest that our journalist colleagues ask a question.

Alexandra Suvorova: We can sense that those present in the hall are eager to ask their questions.

Dmitry Peskov: Indeed, the audience is quite eager. Allow me …

A question from the audience.

Dmitry Peskov: You know, if we behave this way, it would be disrespectful towards everyone else.

Vladimir Putin: Nevertheless, let us refrain from acting this way, and let us begin. What is your name?

Alina Khastsayeva: My name is Alina Khastsayeva, I represent the 15^th Region information website in North Ossetia.

Vladimir Putin: Alina, go ahead, please.

Alina Khastsayeva: The issue of professional service personnel has become increasingly important. Multiple schools, including the North Caucasus Military Institute of Interior Troops in North Ossetia, used to train military specialists in the North Caucasus.

Quite literally, a legendary institute: seven of its graduates became Heroes of the Soviet Union, and 14 more received the title of Heroes of Russia. To this very day, its graduates are successfully carrying out missions set by our state. Its graduates include former Interior Minister Anatoly Kulikov, and Sergei Khairutdinov, a recent graduate, became Hero of Russia while taking part in the special military operation.

Is it possible to reinstate this institute at a time when the North Caucasus and the whole of Russia need it so much? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Alina, thank you for this question. This is a good point, and do not be angry with Alina; here is why.

First, North Ossetia has always been Russia’s outpost in this region, in the Caucasus, and it has always justified its lofty designation. We know how the republic’s residents feel about their region and about Russia, our large common Motherland. They have always defended it and have fulfilled this role worthily and admirably.

You have noted that the number of schools has been reduced. This is not linked to a decision to close them in Ossetia alone. It is related to the fact that, according to military specialists and agencies, there were too many military schools, and the Russian army did not need so many specialists and so much service personnel at the time. Due to various circumstances, we are now increasing the strength of the army, security and law enforcement agencies to 1.5 million people. I cannot say that we will achieve this tomorrow, but I promise you that we will certainly analyse this issue.

Thank you.

Dmitry Peskov: We continue working with the audience. Let us go back to the centre after all.

ITAR-TASS, please.

Mikhail Petrov: Mikhail Petrov, Editor-in-Chief, TASS.

Mr President, before I ask my question, I would like to thank you.

This year, TASS is celebrating its 120^th anniversary. We are this country’s oldest news agency. Earlier this year, in August, you signed an Executive order on awarding TASS the Order for Valiant Labour. On behalf of our large team and at their instructions, I want to take a message of many thanks to you. This is a high praise for our work.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you.

Mikhail Petrov: As for the question, I think this issue is of concern for all of us today. Incidentally, TASS correspondents sent reports from the fronts during the Great Patriotic War. Today, too, our men are working in the special military operation zone, and they are concerned as well.

How do you assess the progress in the special military operation, which has lasted for nearly three years now? Is the victory nearer?

Vladimir Putin: I certainly hoped for questions of this kind. There are many of these within the bulk [of messages] that came in during the previous days. Moreover, I am grateful to you, too, for [asking this question], because this enables us to show what is going on and what our troops are doing at the battle contact line.

You know, the fighting men, with whom I am in regular contact, send souvenirs, chevrons, some weapons, and so on. Not long ago, men from the 155^th Marine Brigade of the Pacific Fleet gave me a copy of their colours.

Who can I ask to assist me? Come over to me, please, and someone from that side. I have a big favour to ask. You take a position here and you – there, and unfold this banner, please, at both ends.

Dmitry Kulko: Pacific Fleet marines.

Vladimir Putin: Yes.

I have brought it along on purpose.

First, I wanted to thank the men for this gift.

Second, let us consider than this banner of the 155^th Marine Brigade of the Pacific Fleet represents all the combat banners of our soldiers, who are fighting for Russia, for the Motherland, along the entire line of contact.

I must say that the situation is changing radically. You know this well and I just want to reaffirm this. The drive is on along the entire frontline every day.

As I said, the advance is not by 100, 200, or 300 metres. Our fighting men are regaining the territory by square kilometers. I want to stress – every day! Why is this happening?

First, last year, and this basically is the classical course of hostilities, the enemy attacks, sustains a heavy defeat, loses a lot of equipment, ammunition and personnel, and then the other side starts to push forward. In our case, this is happening exactly in this way. Combat operations are a difficult thing. So, it is hard – and makes no sense – to think far too ahead. But it happens precisely in this way. And we are advancing, as we said, towards achieving the priority goals that we outlined at the start of the special military operation.

As for our troops, they are acting heroically. I say this regularly and will repeat it, because there is every reason for saying so. Right now, the 155^th Brigade is fighting in the Kursk Region and pushing the enemy out from our land. Of course, they are not alone. Fighting alongside them are the 810^th Marine Brigade of the Black Sea Fleet, the 76^th and 106^th divisions of the Airborne Troops, and motorised infantry of the Sever Group. All of them are fighting heroically in the direct sense of the word. And they are involved in an engagement right at this moment. Let us wish them all success, victory and safe homecoming, meaning those fighting in the Kursk Region and along the entire frontline.

Thank you.

Dmitry Kulko: Mr President, I have just returned from the Kursk Region. We have been working with the units and formations you mentioned, which are currently undertaking the noble duty of liberating our homeland. For several weeks, we have been on the front lines, filming reports. Notably, the 155^th brigade has liberated several residential areas, and we have discussed this.

Our reports illustrate that once the enemy is expelled from a residential area, they begin bombarding these streets with drones and artillery, almost as if in retaliation. We visited the recently liberated Borki, Snagost, and Lyubimovka. The footage clearly shows the houses intact initially, only to be targeted by Ukrainian shells afterwards. Consequently, the residents of this border region now find themselves with nowhere to return to and are striving to build new lives somehow.

I propose we connect with Tatyana Zibrova by telephone. She is currently residing in temporary accommodation in the Kursk Region. Ms Zibrova, can you hear us?

Tatyana Zibrova: Yes, I can hear you.

Dmitry Kulko: Please direct your question to the President.

Tatyana Zibrova: Good afternoon, Mr President.

Vladimir Putin: Hello.

Tatyana Zibrova: I am a resident of the Kursk Region, Bolshesoldatsky District.

I have a question on behalf of all residents of the Kursk Region. When will our region be fully liberated? When will the Ukrainian armed forces be pushed back so far that they will not even dare to show themselves or look in our direction? When will we be able to return to our homes or have our own accommodation somewhere?

Additionally, will the small villages that were destroyed be rebuilt, and will infrastructure be restored? The residents of Bolshesoldatsky District are particularly concerned: will we be included on the list of those eligible to receive housing certificates? Currently, we are not receiving them, as the Ukrainian armed forces have not directly invaded us and we are not on the list for certificates.

Vladimir Putin: Ms Zibrova, rest assured. I cannot and do not want to provide a specific date as to when they will be driven out. Our troops are engaged in combat right now, and the battles are intense. As I have mentioned before, there was no strategic military reason for the Ukrainian armed forces to enter the Kursk Region or to hold their position there as they are, deploying their elite assault groups and units to no avail. Yet, this situation persists.

We will undoubtedly drive them out. There is no alternative. Concerning a precise date – I am afraid I cannot specify one at this moment. I have an understanding of the plans, which are regularly reported to me. However, it is not possible to declare a specific date. The troops can hear me now; if I were to specify a date, they would go to great lengths to meet it, potentially disregarding casualties. We cannot allow that. While a day or two may not make a significant difference, but we will undoubtedly expel them, the damage assessment will follow, and, most importantly, everything will be restored. There is no doubt about that.

We will rebuild the road network, restore utility infrastructure, and reinstate social facilities such as schools and kindergartens. Community centres and housing will be rebuilt, and housing reconstruction certificates will be issued.

We will assist those who wish to relocate to other regions. Currently, about 108 billion rubles have been allocated for this purpose, if I remember correctly. I know that the first funds have already been received. The Administration will work throughout the holidays, meeting with people and addressing their issues, including providing certificates.

I understand that what is happening is incredibly challenging for you: people are experiencing heavy losses, inconveniences, especially families with children. But rest assured, we will do everything in our power to restore everything. Everyone in need of housing assistance will be fully satisfied; everyone will receive what they are entitled to.

I genuinely hope that the new head of the region, who has been appointed to the Kursk Region, is experienced and capable of effectively working with people. That is why I chose him, he has a long history of working in the State Duma and directly with his voters, so he knows how to handle it. I expect that he will work with every person on an individual basis.

Dmitry Kulko: Mr President, our military personnel who are currently liberating the Kursk Region do not have the status of a participant in the special military operation.

Vladimir Putin: Pardon?

Dmitry Kulko: They don’t have the status of a participant in the special military operation.

Vladimir Putin: Why?

Dmitry Kulko: Because they are participants in the counter-terrorism operation. This also affects the payments they receive.

We received several requests, mostly from the wives of the military personnel: “My husband serves in an assault company in the Kursk Region and is carrying out combat missions. In October and November, he received a pay allowance of 42,000 rubles, even though he is on battle positions. Many soldiers have not received combat daily payments for three or four months. It has been argued that they are in the zone of a counter-terrorism operation, not the special military operation.”

Another appeal: “In the Kursk Region, they are paid a monthly salary of 25,000 rubles, not the 210,000 rubles promised in the Ministry of Defence contracts.“

Can this situation be corrected?

Vladimir Putin: It can and should be rectified. This is a mistake on our part. That is no news to me. I understand what you are talking about.

Our servicemen who fought in other parts of the front are recognised as combatants. If they have been transferred to the Kursk Region, they should receive all the payments they are entitled to. I will look into this.

There might be a category of individuals who had not previously participated at all or had not been on the front lines and were deployed to the Kursk Region from the very beginning, so they were not classified as participants in the special military operation.

To be honest, it never occurred to me, and I apologise for that. This will be corrected. It is unfortunate that the military department did not pay attention to this either; after all, it primarily falls under their responsibility.

We will correct everything, and all servicemen who are carrying out their duty to the Motherland on the line of contact will receive all payments due to them. We will recalculate retroactively.

Dmitry Kulko: Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: Absolutely, without a doubt.

Dmitry Kulko: I personally know a few soldiers who are eager to get an answer right now.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, and I want the fighters to hear me. Please, do not worry, and do not let your families worry about it: everything will be recalculated, and all the due payments, including the benefits for combat action, every payment to which you are entitled will be made.

Dmitry Kulko: Mr President, you have already said today that the Armed Forces of Ukraine are sending their special forces for slaughter in the Kursk Region. Indeed, their losses are enormous; this much is quite obvious. To be honest, I have never seen so many abandoned enemy bodies – indeed, all the local forests are littered with them. I do not even have to mention all the destroyed NATO equipment, including Abrams, Bradley, Leopard vehicles. They say the Kursk Region, its soil, is now the world’s biggest burial place of NATO equipment, and that is actually true.

Vladimir Putin: Possibly.

Dmitry Kulko: However, there is one small point to make here.

Vladimir Putin: As far as I know, the number of armoured vehicles destroyed in the Kursk Region has now exceeded the number of vehicles destroyed on the entire line of contact last year – in any case, these are comparable figures.

Dmitry Kulko: Please, could I ask, could I put in a word for the fighters, for those who destroyed that equipment: will they receive the promised reward?

Vladimir Putin: For the damaged equipment?

Dmitry Kulko: Yes.

Vladimir Putin: Of course, they should. Are there any problems with this?

Dmitry Kulko: To be honest, they are facing some difficulties.

Vladimir Putin: That is surprising. I know that the Defence Minister is listening to our conversation now, and this will definitely be done. No one should have any doubt about this.

Dmitry Kulko: Thank you.

Dmitry Peskov: Shall we move on to questions from the audience?

Vladimir Putin: Yes.

Dmitry Peskov: Since we are talking about military issues, let’s start with the Zvezda television channel.

Konstantin Kokoveshnikov: Good afternoon.

Konstantin Kokoveshnikov, Zvezda TV channel.

Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon.

Konstantin Kokoveshnikov: I cannot but ask you about the statements that we have heard over the past few weeks concerning the footage of the first combat tests of the latest Oreshnik missile, which has been shown all over the world. One gets the impression that it really has no drawbacks, but the West continues to refer to Oreshnik as a modification of old Soviet weapons, claiming that this missile can be shot down by air defence even at the launch stage.

How would you comment on this? Does it have any shortcomings?

If you do not mind, I have a clarifying question: what meaning did the creators of the Oreshnik put into the name – hazel tree? There are several versions.

Vladimir Putin: First, regarding how old or new and modern this weapon is. It is a modern, a brand new weapon. All new achievements in any sphere are based on the designs and achievements made in the past, which people use to move forward. This is also true about the Oreshnik system.

Yes, it is based on previous designs, but these designs were made in the contemporary Russian period. Our scientists, designers and engineers used that basis to create something new, coordinating their activities with the Defence Ministry as the contractor. When I was ultimately informed about that system, I joined the discussions on whether to make it or not, in what quantities, when and how.

It is a new system. As I have said, it is an intermediate- and shorter-range system.

You have said that some Western experts believe that this missile can be easily shot down and destroyed, especially in the boost phase of the missile trajectory.

What would I tell those experts? There are several types of air defence systems, as you know being from the Zvezda TV channel, such as Patriot and the more modern THAAD systems. I do not know if Ukraine has them, but I do not think so. If the Americans want, they can send its THAAD systems to Ukraine. These are more modern systems similar to our S-400 systems. The Patriot systems are comparable to our S-300s, while THAAD is similar to our S-400 systems, if only slightly inferior.

Let them send these systems to Ukraine, and we will ask our people in Ukraine to tell us about the modern solutions of these systems which we could use. I am not joking when I say “our people,” because there are people in Ukraine who you can talk to, there are many of such people who are dreaming, together with us, about liberating their country from the neo-Nazi regime.

There are also other strike systems such as the ballistic missile system (BMD), which used to be a hot topic of our discussions. We once asked the Americans not to deploy that system so that we would not have to create weapons that would be able to avoid it.

We have eventually done that. We have created the Avangard glide vehicle, which does not fly by a specific trajectory but hugs the terrain, without going up into space, because it is not a ballistic missile. We have done a great deal to evade air defence systems.

Overall, this whole story is an expensive product for the American taxpayers that can do little to ensure national security. However, that system has been created and produced in large quantities.

Two missile launching areas have been established in Romania and Poland, respectively. Around 24 missile interceptors are already deployed at each site. I don’t remember but I think they are called Standard Missile-3 systems. Standard Missile-3 Block 1B missiles are deployed in Romania. They have an effective range of 300 kilometres and can hit targets 80 to 250 km above the ground.

Even more formidable weapon systems are deployed in Poland, with a range and altitude of 1,000 and 500 km. However, our medium-range Oreshnik missile system can strike targets located 1,000, 1,500, 3,000-plus and up to 5,500 km away. Such is its range.

Supposing our system is located 2,000 km away, the missile interceptors on Polish territory would be unable to hit it. Yes, they say that the missiles are quite vulnerable during the initial boost phase. First, nothing will reach those missile bases, even if they are unprotected. And, of course, we are shielding them. Nothing can hit them. There are no systems capable of reaching these bases.

Second, it takes time to travel this distance, while our missile needs a few second to start dispensing warheads, and that’s it, the ship has sailed. There is almost no chance of shooting down these missiles.

If the Western experts you mentioned think otherwise, they should suggest to those in the West and the United States who are paying them for their analytical services to conduct a certain technological experiment, a high-tech 21^st-century duel.

Let them choose a target in Kiev, deploy all their air defence and missile defence forces there, and we will hit that target using an Oreshnik missile. We shall see what happens.

We are ready to conduct this experiment. Is the other side ready? In any event, we do not rule this out. What I want to say is that all of their air defence and ABM systems are operating.

It would be interesting for us. I am telling you what engineers, scientists and military specialists are telling me. They are also telling some things at the level of the US political leadership.

Let us hold this experiment, this technological duel, and see what happens. This would be interesting and I believe it would be useful for both us and the US side.

Konstantin Kokoveshnikov: Why this name?

Dmitry Peskov: Why this name?

Vladimir Putin: Honestly? I do not know.

Dmitry Peskov: Let’s take one more question from the audience. Let’s go over there. I can see. Rossiyskaya Gazeta. A question on peace perhaps?

Aisel Gereikhanova: Rossiyskaya Gazeta, Aisel Gereikhanova.

Mr President, you signed an executive order changing the nuclear doctrine recently. Do you think the West correctly took the signal and understood it properly?

Vladimir Putin: I don’t know how they took it. You should ask them about it. I know what constitutes these changes – and it is not a new doctrine but actual changes. I will name some key aspects. We are talking about some new military hazards that may grow into military threats. They include missile defence systems and some other things that we list.

Then we speak about increasing the responsibility of non-nuclear states that may participate in an aggression against the Russian Federation alongside the countries that have nuclear weapons. If, like their allies, these countries also pose a threat to our sovereignty and Russia’s existence, then we imply that we have the right to use our nuclear weapons against them.

Finally, another component related to nuclear arms management, and another, fourth important aspect is that we declared that, if similar threats are posed to Belarus, our ally and member of the Union State, the Russian Federation will consider these threats as threats to Russia. And we will do everything to ensure the security of Belarus. We do this upon agreement with the Belarusian leadership and President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko. I believe it is a very important component of the updated nuclear strategy of the Russian Federation.

Alexandra Suvorova: Mr Peskov, let’s take one more question from the audience. I can see that you are holding the microphone.

Dmitry Peskov: Sure.

Darya Shuchalina: Mr President, please give the floor to the Arctic.

Dmitry Peskov: We agreed not to shout out questions and respect each other.

Vladimir Putin: Right, let’s not shout and please be respectful. But we will listen to the Arctic. Let’s do what the boss says.

Darya Shuchalina: Good afternoon, Mr President, Darya Shuchalina, Republic of Komi, Respublika newspaper.

First of all, thank you very much for returning our fellow Komi man, Rostislav Goldshtein. He is now Acting Head of Komi and let’s just say he immediately got down to business because he knows the region very well. Thank you for your choice.

Vladimir Putin: He is a good manager and an empathetic person, stable and organised. I hope he will succeed.

Darya Shuchalina: Thank you for your choice.

Now, to proposals. In the Russian Arctic territories, in the Far East and in the Far North, as well as in the Republic of Komi, there are many residential areas with up to 2,000 residents. Unfortunately, these residential areas are not eligible for a very good state programme on construction of cinemas.

We know that people in the North are dedicated to their home regions; they are not moving to bigger cities and instead serving their country in their towns and villages. There are not many entertainment opportunities in the North. At this moment in time, when the patriotic film industry is growing in Russia, it would be great to have this criterion amended in the law and ensure that northern residential areas with a population of up to 2,000 residents be eligible for this programme. So that residents would be able to go and see films in comfortable modern cinemas.

As for the poster I am holding, you worked in our region as a member of a student construction brigade in your younger years, so you know that this Soviet-era mechanism was very effective. Unfortunately, today there is no legal framework for it.

Would it be possible to amend Federal Law No 44 regarding state and municipal contracts for budget-funded construction projects so that these student construction brigades can carry out at least 10 to 15 percent of contractual work? This way, young people can gain valuable work experience and earn some money. Companies could also benefit from these human resources, and this could serve as a development driver for the regions since they would be able to build social infrastructure they need.

Vladimir Putin: Could you repeat, please: where do these 10 percent come from?

Daria Shuchalina: I was talking about municipalities and regions reserving a specific share in construction contracts for student construction brigades.

Vladimir Putin: I see. You mean allocating some of the funds from the construction sector to these mechanisms?

Daria Shuchalina: Yes.

Vladimir Putin: I will discuss this with Mr Khusnullin. I think it is quite possible. We are currently working to revive this movement, it is re-emerging. I think this has already happened – I am referring to the student construction brigades as a movement.

The funding mechanism you described could probably be an option, and I think it has already been adopted, but let me check with Marat Khusnullin. I will raise this issue with him. Agreed?

Daria Shuchalina: I also had a question about cinemas.

Vladimir Putin: Right. Was it about gyms or cinemas?

Daria Shuchalina: I was talking about cinemas.

Vladimir Putin: What a surprising question, at least for me, you know.

Regarding the Arctic zone, let me tell you, first, that we have kept subsidised mortgages at a rate of two percent for this region, as well as for Russia’s Far East. The Arctic can still benefit from two percent mortgages, and I believe this is something that matters a great deal for people there who have been eager to use this subsidy. We have also kept this two percent mortgage rate for the new territories. This is my first point.

Second, we have an entire programme for specific communities in this zone – I think that it covers 25 cities and metropolitan areas – and we will expand it to a nationwide effort covering 200 cities.

We are talking about small communities here. They may fall through the cracks of the initiatives to develop these 25 metropolitan areas and cities. Of course, we will try to come up with additional measures for these smaller communities and for the Arctic zone in general. It goes without saying that this is very important since most of them have a rather small population.

It could be that there was an idea that providing them with broadband internet and so forth would suffice. That said, I do agree with you that watching a film in a movie theatre creates a different kind of atmosphere, a special mood, if you will. I will look into this issue. Note taken.

Daria Shuchalina: Especially considering that we now have all these great Russian patriotic films…

Vladimir Putin: Indeed. But this is a separate topic. Many producers are leaving Russia, and we wish them well, nonetheless. But this has served as a development driver, including for the film industry. This is a fact.

History-themed films are very important too, considering the enthusiasm we are witnessing in our society and its unifying potential. We are witnessing a revival of our fairy tales, epic sagas and alike. I enjoy watching these films sometimes together with the small children in our family.

You are right. Note taken. We will try to find a way not to leave your request without a response.

Dmitry Peskov: Let’s take another question from the audience and continue.

Dear friends, with all due respect, by asking two questions in a row, you are depriving some of your colleagues of the opportunity to ask their questions.

Vladimir Putin: Do not mind Mr Peskov, go ahead with your question.

Dmitry Peskov: Let’s proceed this way, then.

Krasnoyarsk.

Dmitry Novikov: Good afternoon.

I am Dmitry Novikov with Yenisei TV channel, Krasnoyarsk.

Mr President, you once referred to Krasnoyarsk as the centre of Russia. The city is now preparing to celebrate its 400th anniversary.

Vladimir Putin: Sorry to interrupt, please do not take offense. I did not call it that way; it is, in fact, the geographical centre of Russia.

Dmitry Novikov: Yes, of course. The city is going to mark its 400th anniversary in 2028, and we would like to take this opportunity to invite you to join us in Krasnoyarsk for the celebration.

My question is this: the headquarters of RusHydro is currently relocating to Krasnoyarsk, following your initiative. Wouldn’t it be logical to extend this approach to other companies, not only state-owned but also private businesses? For the region, this would mean additional tax revenues and new opportunities for development. Are you considering this possibility?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Yes.

Firstly, I believe this is a very appropriate approach. Relocating certain entities, including federal bodies, to various regions of the country can stimulate development.

For example, we are working to consolidate the judicial branch in St Petersburg. This approach is common in some countries and serves to separate the judiciary from the Presidential Executive Office and the Government, making it more independent geographically. In this case, it also enhances St Petersburg’s role as a functional capital city.

Other regional centres, such as Krasnoyarsk, certainly benefit from having a stronger tax base tied to local production. Ensuring that taxes are paid at the site of economic activity provides a boost to regional development.

We are committed to advancing this initiative, though the process is complex.

Regarding RusHydro, when Viktor Maryin was being considered for the leadership role, I asked him directly if he was prepared to relocate to Krasnoyarsk. His response was, “Yes.” I followed up with, “What about your wife?” to which he replied, “She will agree.”

This process takes time, as you can understand. The necessary personnel need to be in place. Relocating people from Moscow is challenging, not because they are lazy or unwilling to move to Siberia, but due to other considerations like children, schools, kindergartens, universities and other family matters. It is indeed a difficult process. Personnel need to be trained on site. However, efforts are underway, and RusHydro is in the process of relocating.

We will also work hard so that major corporations and, I repeat, certain other government bodies move to other regions of Russia. This is a vast country – the world’s biggest, in fact. Of course, we must ensure that major manufacturing hubs, corporations and government institutions are spread out across its territory. However, there are also certain limits here, since the President and the Government must be close to one another as they must work closely together.

Nevertheless, we must pursue this path, and this is what we will try to do.

Thank you very much for the invitation.

Alexandra Suvorova: There were business leaders who went as far as to suggest moving the capital to Krasnoyarsk. This is something they have discussed.

Vladimir Putin: There was Krasnoyarsk, and Irkutsk too. In fact, remember Peter the Great? What did he want to do? He wanted a capital in the south, and was choosing between St Petersburg and Taganrog, a southern city. He wanted to move the capital to Taganrog. At the outset, he wanted to have the capital of the Empire in Taganrog.

Dmitry Peskov: Mr President, excuse me, but I spotted Andrei Rudenko, our war correspondent from Donetsk. I feel that I must give him the floor.

Vladimir Putin: Go ahead, Andrei.

Andrei Rudenko: Mr President, I have been working as a war correspondent in Donbass since 2014. Today, I am heading Donetsk State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company.

Here is my question, and it is quite a serious one. There is a massive reconstruction effort underway across Donbass, as well as in the Kherson and Zaporozhye regions. However, the war continues in our region. Our troops are gaining ground, while the enemy keeps destroying cities and villages. Do we have the strength and the resources we need for rebuilding and restoring our historical territories after recovering them?

Vladimir Putin: We do. Make no mistake about that. We have a large-scale programme for rebuilding and developing these territories until 2030. We have already embarked on this effort, and it will carry on across several domains, which include rebuilding roads, housing, putting utilities back into operation, as well as social and cultural infrastructure.

Speaking of roads, our plan consists of bringing the entire road network in these regions in compliance with Russia’s national standards within three years. You come from this region, and you know that this effort is already underway. There is a very useful and feasible initiative to build a ring road circling the Sea of Azov, which is now part of Russia’s internal waters. It will be just as good as the Tavrida motorway in Crimea, with four lanes and all the amenities a highway of this kind must offer.

Part of this road has already been built, even if it is just the beginning. It is quite short, just 40 kilometres, and runs from Taganrog to Mariupol. However, our plan consists of extending it to create a full circle around the Sea of Azov. There is also another road linking Mariupol to Donetsk. It is almost 100 kilometres long, or 97, to be more precise, if I am not mistaken. We will restore the road network in its entirety.

As I have said, the funds have been earmarked. Some social facilities have been finished and put into operation, like a world-class perinatal centre in Donetsk and a medical centre in Mariupol. A large children’s hospital is to be built in the south of the Zaporozhye Region. Local residents have submitted that request, and the governor insisted that they need it. I believe that this project is at the design stage. We will certainly build it.

Overall, we have big plans in these spheres until 2030. We have rebuilt 21,000 facilities, 11,000 of which have been financed from the federal budget and 10,000 from the budgets of regions across the Russian Federation that are overseeing these projects.

I would like to use this occasion, and looking directly into the camera, to express gratitude to the heads and people of these regions for their selfless and tremendous assistance. It is a national mission. I mentioned the projects that have been completed, but we need to restore and rebuild another 20,000 facilities within five or six years, and we will do so.

Andrei Rudenko: Mr President, I would like to say the following about the Lugansk People’s Republic, which never had good roads under the Ukrainian government. Today, the roads are ideal throughout the Lugansk People’s Republic. Our people are extremely grateful for this.

Vladimir Putin: This is the basic thing, which we can and must do. We will do more.

As for individual regions, I would like to address people in these regions and throughout Russia, so that everyone in the country knows that these regions have good development potential and large tax potential. I believe that tax collection in the Lugansk People’s Republic has increased by 97 percent. The relevant figure for Donbass as a whole is 69 percent. The tax collection in the Zaporozhye and Kherson regions has increased several-fold. The figures themselves are smaller there because their tax base is smaller, but the collection of taxes has increased manyfold, by more than 200 percent. In other words, their tax base is good, their revival is rapid, and these regions are approaching the level of self-sufficiency.

It is true that we need to support people, providing assistance and giving a helping hand at the right time. Our country is doing so and will continue doing so until these regions’ complete incorporation into Russia not only in legal terms but also in terms of social and economic development.

Alexandra Suvorova: Mr Putin, I have a follow-up question. Did you mean tax collection when you spoke about taxes in these regions?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, I meant the collection of taxes.

As I have said, I could be wrong but the collection of taxes has increased by about 79 percent in Donetsk, over 90 percent in Lugansk, and over 200 percent in Kherson and Zaporozhye regions. The absolute figures are smaller in the latter two regions because the tax base is smaller there, but it is an upward trend, and it is stable.

Alexandra Suvorova: Incidentally, we are receiving a lot of different questions from the new regions, particularly concerning the calculation of pensions.

The point is that often, the length of work in Ukraine is not being taken into account. People simply don’t have the supporting documents.

Let us now turn our attention to a video message from pensioner Leonid Shipilov.

Vladimir Putin: Please.

Leonid Shipilov: My name is Leonid Shipilov, I am a pensioner from Krasny Liman. I have an employment record spanning 45 years. Currently, I live in Donetsk with my daughter, due to the ongoing hostilities in Krasny Liman.

In May 2022, my home was destroyed in a shelling, resulting in the loss of my employment record book. Consequently, I am unable to secure a fair recalculation of my pension. The only document that could verify my employment history is the OK-5 certificate.

In July of this year, I submitted this certificate to the Pension Fund in the Kalininsky District of Donetsk, yet I still have not received a response.

I appeal to you for assistance in clarifying this matter.

Vladimir Putin: Mr Shipilov, these may appear to be everyday issues, yet they have great importance to people. I fully understand this, as it is essential to validate one's employment history. Previously, it was challenging to do so, but a recent legislative change has been enacted, recognising all prior employment records, even from years or decades past. I believe the pertinent federal law was enacted in November. Therefore, there are now regulatory and legal frameworks in place to address your concern.

All such matters, even in the absence of documents, can be resolved through witness testimonies and the decisions of interdepartmental regional commissions. I urge the republic's authorities to streamline their work in a way that ensures that these issues are resolved without unnecessary red tape.

I recently spoke with Denis Pushilin, the head of the Donetsk People's Republic. He mentioned hosting a delegation from Africa. We are delighted to welcome our friends and guests, and he himself is planning a visit to Africa, which is commendable and necessary for maintaining relations. However, I would like to remind him of Mr Shipilov, who also requires attention. I trust that the interdepartmental regional commissions will be duly organised. I reiterate, especially since a legal foundation for this is now in place: the relevant federal law has been adopted.

Alexandra Suvorova: Indeed, there are numerous queries regarding the loss of documents. This issue extends beyond pensions to include education and property titles. I would like to share a few more messages.

Vladimir Putin: As I have mentioned before, these matters are resolved through the decisions of interdepartmental commissions and based on what is termed witness testimony. We are not talking about legal proceedings, but rather obtaining reliable information from neighbours, former colleagues, and so forth.

Alexandra Suvorova: Housing is another major issue in this region.

We have numerous appeals and calls that came from Mariupol from people who expected to receive housing as compensation, but so far, that has proved problematic. I will quote a few of them.

“Mariupol needs help in building the compensatory housing,” this text message says. “The new buildings were completed last spring, but they have not been open for occupancy yet,” Alexei Tsygankov writes – this is one of the appeals.

In fact, there are many of them – these are just a few that we have selected.

Vladimir Putin: We are paying a lot of attention to Mariupol, which it certainly deserves, as it is a large city. Before the outbreak of hostilities, it was home to about 430,000 people. Local authorities are telling me there were even more people than that, closer to 470,000. More than 3,000 apartment buildings [may be needed] there. I have visited Mariupol; I know this, and my colleagues from the Government report to me regularly. About 1,700 multifamily houses have been rebuilt, but not all of them have been commissioned yet. Paperwork needs to be completed on more than 500 projects, but the buildings are already there.

What is the situation there? Residential buildings are being repaired or rebuilt. Where a building cannot be repaired, local authorities make the decision to demolish it and allocate the land for commercial development. Once developers build new housing there, buyers can purchase apartments with a mortgage at 2 percent.

Home loans with 2-percent interest continue to be available in Russia’s new regions. In fact, that has triggered quite a construction boom there. According to our estimates, at least 300,000 people have returned to Mariupol, and its population continues to grow rapidly.

We are also working to improve local roads, schools, social and cultural facilities, and healthcare – a large medical centre has recently opened there – and educational institutions. We will certainly continue this work. As for housing, again, many projects have been allocated to commercial developers. However, the local residents are entitled to new housing as near as possible to the place where they used to live. Better still, if their building has been repaired, they should be given apartments there. If a development company is building a new multifamily house in its place, they need to ensure that former residents receive new housing in the area, not on the outskirts or even outside the city boundary. There are 5,000 ownerless apartments in the city. Local authorities need to stop holding them, but to distribute them among people – legally, of course. It is important to bear in mind that people are still returning, so we need to give some thought to the procedure. But these issues must be addressed.

One thing I can say for sure: everyone who has the right to compensation will receive a compensation. If not, please contact the relevant authorities at the local or federal levels. I believe there are decision-making centres at both levels; they have been created. If my memory serves me correctly, the relevant agencies are located on Marata Street. Marat Khusnullin has reported this to me.

Alexandra Suvorova: It is easy to remember.

Vladimir Putin: It is easy to remember. If I am mot mistaken, I think they are there.

Dmitry Kulko: Mr President, speaking of the southern regions, I would like to highlight the environmental impact caused by the sinking of two tankers during a storm in the Kerch Strait.

The petroleum products were washed ashore, onto a beach near Anapa. Currently, the pollution is spreading in the direction of Gelendzhik.

The situation is worsening. Currently, the Emergencies Ministry staff, volunteers, and local residents are involved in the cleanup effort. They are making videos, posting footage on social media, and have sent a few to our programme. Let us take a look.

Vladimir Putin: Please.

(A video clip rolls.)

Dmitry Kulko: Mr President, these harrowing images come from a beach resort. I am aware of the fact that you ordered to clean things up as soon as possible. Is there any way to speed up this process and minimise the impact?

Vladimir Putin: First, this is, of course, an environmental disaster. This is absolutely clear. Law enforcement agencies are in the process of assessing the ship captains’ actions. I was informed that, in their opinion, the captains violated certain rules and failed to seek shelter in time. Other ships found safe spots before the storm and are doing just fine, but these did not and dropped anchors in the wrong places. Let the relevant services within the Ministry of Transport and law enforcement agencies deal with it. That is my first point.

I am not sure what is happening right now, but the 4- to 5-point storm raged on yesterday, posing a challenge to relief efforts. I think, by Saturday, the sea will calm down, and cleanup operations can proceed more effectively.

Second, the reason I call this a major disaster is because almost 40 percent of the fuel spilled, which is an established fact. Some tankers have submerged, some have sunk, and others remain partially submerged near the shore. We need to address this.

Various services are at work, including the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Ministry of Transport, and the Emergencies Ministry. This work must be coordinated. I asked the Prime Minister to set up a working group headed by Deputy Prime Minister in charge of transport Vitaly Savelyev. All services are at work, and I receive regular updates on the developments.

We need to study the tankers’ condition. We also need to think about the steps we need to take in the near future. This issue must be addressed in stages.

Stage one: Right now, we must contain the spill with containment booms to prevent the spill from spreading further.

Stage two: The fuel that has washed ashore must be removed. Governor (of the Krasnodar Territory) Veniamin Kondratiev reported to me yesterday or the day before yesterday saying that he had about 4,000 people working in the area. According to him, no additional measures are needed at the moment. However, we will, of course, deploy more Emergencies Ministry teams, if needed.

This is the task at hand. We are dealing with fuel oil, which displays specific properties at certain temperatures. It is a solid material that washes ashore and must be removed. However, a portion of this fuel oil has already settled on the seabed, and by May, when the water temperature rises, it could resurface and wash ashore again. We must get ready for that now. One way or the other, we need to remove the semi-submerged tankers from the water. These tankers need to be secured now to prevent further leakage. We will need to use containment tools, known as “towels,” and later draft a project which is a major undertaking, and to pull the tankers with fuel on the shore.

This is a major effort. The Government is working on it, and I very much hope that no time will be wasted in addressing it.

Mr President, if you don’t mind, I see American journalists over there.

Vladimir Putin: Go ahead.

Dmitry Peskov: I can see NBC News. Please.

Keir Simmons: Mr President, Keir Simmons, NBC News.

Two questions in English, if you don’t mind. Sorry, Mr Peskov.

The first one is about President-elect Trump.

Mr President, you have failed to reach the objectives of your special military operation. Large numbers of Russians have died, including a general assassinated here in Moscow this week. And the leader of Syria, who you supported, has been overthrown.

Mr President, when you face President-elect Trump, you will be the weaker leader. How do you propose to compromise? What are you going to offer?

And my second question, Mr President, is this: the mother of an American journalist who is missing in Syria, Austin Tice, has written to you and asked for your help to try to find him because, she says, you have such connections with the Syrian Government and former President Assad.

Are you prepared to ask President Assad for information about what happened in Syria to try to find the missing, including this American journalist?

Vladimir Putin: Could you repeat the part of your question about the journalist? Where did the journalist disappear? When and what happened to him there?

Keir Simmons: I have a letter here sent to you this week by the mother of an American journalist who is missing in Syria. He has been missing for 12 years. He is called Austin Tice. In this letter, she is asking for your help to try to find him because she says you have such close connections to the former Syrian Government, to President Assad.

Will you ask President Assad for information about the missing in Syria and about Austin Tice, this woman’s son? She says she is prepared to come to Moscow if it will help to find out anything she can about her son.

Vladimir Putin: I see. Please sit down.

Frankly, I have not met with President Bashar al-Assad after his arrival in Moscow. But I plan to do it and will certainly talk to him.

We are adults and understand that the person disappeared in Syria 12 years ago. Twelve years. We realise what was happening in Syria 12 years ago. The country was caught in active military action, on both sides. Does President al-Assad know what happened to this American citizen, the journalist who, as far as I understand, was working in the zone of hostilities? Nevertheless, I promise that I will definitely ask him this question just like we can forward this question to the people who are controlling the situation on the ground in Syria today.

You asked what we can offer or what I can offer to newly elected President Trump when we meet.

First of all, I don’t know when we will meet because he has not said anything about it. I have not talked to him for more than four years. Of course, I’m ready to talk any time; I will be ready to meet with him if he wishes. You said that this conversation will take place with me in some kind of weakened state.

Esteemed Mr Simmons. Why did I say “esteemed”? Because, despite all the persecution of Russian media, we allow you to continue working in Russia and you can do so freely. It is good enough. You and the people who pay your salary in the United States really want to see Russia in a weakened state.

My opinion differs. I believe that Russia has become significantly stronger in the past two or three years. Why? Because we are becoming a truly sovereign country, and we barely depend on anybody. We are capable of firmly standing on our feet when it comes to the economy. I have already talked about economic growth rates.

We are strengthening our defence capability. The combat readiness of the Russian Armed Forces is the highest in the world today. I assure you it is the highest.

The same is true of our defence industry. We are increasing the production of everything our army and navy need now and will need in the future. We are doing so confidently and quickly, unlike our opponents.

I have already spoken about the successes of our armed forces, which are due in large measure to production growth in the defence industry of the Russian Federation. As I have said, we are doing this confidently and quite rationally.

It has been said that our forces are advancing along the front line. One explanation for this is the existence of the equipment I have mentioned. Yes, in fact all NATO countries are fighting against us.

We spoke about our inflation. And what is the situation over there? Take a 155 mm shell, which cost 2,000 euros two years ago and now costs four times more, 8,000 euros. If this trend persists, two percent of GDP spending on defence in NATO countries, which President-elect Donald Trump always insisted on, will not suffice. Even three percent will not be enough. The training and combat standards and the morale of the Russian armed forces are higher than those of any other army in the world.

That is why I believe that Russia has largely achieved the state we wanted to achieve. It has grown stronger and become a truly sovereign state, and we will make decisions without looking at other people’s opinions, only with our national interests in mind.

You have mentioned Syria. You and, as I said, those who pay your salary would like to present the current developments in Syria as Russia’s defeat. I assure you that this is not the case, and here is why. We came to Syria ten years ago to prevent the creation of a terrorist enclave there, like the one that we saw in some other countries, for example, Afghanistan. We have achieved that goal, by and large.

Even the groups that were fighting against the Assad regime and the government forces back then have undergone internal changes. It is not surprising that many European countries and the United States are trying to develop relations with them now. Would they be doing this if they were terrorist organisations? This means that they have changed, doesn’t it? So, our goal has been achieved, to a certain degree.

Next, we did not deploy any ground forces in Syria; they simply were not present there. Our presence consisted solely of two bases: an air base and a naval base. The ground operations were conducted by the Syrian armed forces and, as is widely known, there is no secret here, certain pro-Iranian combat units. At one point, we even withdrew our special operations forces from the area. We were not engaged in combat there.

So, what transpired? When armed opposition groups advanced towards Aleppo, the city was defended by approximately 30,000 personnel. However, when 350 militants entered the city, the government forces, along with the pro-Iranian units, withdrew without resistance, demolishing their positions as they left. This pattern was observed across nearly the entire Syrian territory, with only minor exceptions where skirmishes occurred. In the past, our Iranian friends requested assistance to move their units into Syria; now they have asked us to help withdraw them. We facilitated the relocation of 4,000 Iranian fighters to Tehran from the Khmeimim air base. Some pro-Iranian units withdrew to Lebanon, others to Iraq, without engaging in combat.

The current situation in the Syrian Arab Republic remains challenging. We sincerely hope for peace and stability to be restored. We maintain dialogue with all groups controlling the situation there and with all regional countries. An overwhelming majority of them have expressed interest in retaining our military bases in Syria.

I do not know, we must reflect on how our relations will evolve with the political forces currently in control and those that will govern this country in the future – our interests must align. Should we remain, we must act in the interests of the host nation.

What will those interests entail? What can we do for them? These questions demand careful consideration on both sides. We are already capable of offering assistance, including utilising our bases – we have extended this proposal to our partners within Syria and neighbouring nations. For instance, we suggested employing the Khmeimim air base for the delivery of humanitarian aid to Syria, and this was met with understanding and a willingness to collaborate. The same applies to the Tartus naval base.

Therefore, for those who wish to depict Russia as weakened… since you are an American, I would like to remind you of a well-known writer who once remarked: “The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated.”

Should there be an opportunity for a meeting with the newly elected President, Donald Trump, I am confident there will be plenty to discuss.

Dmitry Kulko: Mr President, I would like to remind you of another question that my colleague asked about the murder of General Kirillov.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, about the murder of General Kirillov.

You have mentioned this was an “attempted assassination.” I thank you for this, because you have indirectly acknowledged that it was a terrorist attack. Why? Because the modus operandi used by the perpetrator for this murder endangered the lives of many.

The regime in Kiev has repeatedly committed similar crimes, acts of terror, and terrorist attacks against many citizens of the Russian Federation, let alone what they are doing in Kursk now, firing at civilians – I mean in the Kursk Region – and in other regions of Russia. They have killed journalists, your colleagues – committed terrorist attacks against journalists.

However, we have never heard – I am not referring to you personally – anyone from the Western journalistic corps openly condemn such attacks. But I am grateful to you for remembering this at least.

Dmitry Peskov: Let’s engage with the audience some more.

Alexandra Suvorova: Go ahead.

Dmitry Peskov: They are showing great interest.

I see a ‘Tatars. BRICS’ poster. We were in Kazan just recently.

Vladimir Putin: I am sorry, I would like to address your American colleague. Can you hear me? If you have any more questions, please ask.

Dmitry Peskov: Let’s go back to Kazan now.

Vladimir Putin: All right.

Do you need some time to think? You can gather your thoughts while we talk to the Tatars. After that, we will talk with the Americans.

Dmitry Peskov: Go ahead, please.

Keir Simmons: My question is, are you prepared to compromise in anyway over Ukraine? You say that Kiev should compromise, the Ukrainians should compromise, but what are you prepared to offer in the potential negotiations potentially led by President-elect Trump?

Vladimir Putin: I apologise for missing this part of your question, which is very important.

Politics is the art of compromise. We have always said that we are ready for both negotiations and compromises. The problem is that the opposing side, both literally and figuratively, rejected negotiations. We, on the contrary, have always been willing to talk, and talking always leads to finding a compromise.

We did reach an agreement in Istanbul in late 2022. I repeat for the umpteenth time: the Ukrainian side initialled that document, which meant that generally, it agreed with what it contained. Suddenly they wanted out. It is clear why. Because your ally, Mr Johnson, the man with an iconic hairstyle, told them they were to fight to the last Ukrainian. This is what they are doing. They will soon run out of Ukrainians who want to fight. I believe there will soon be no one left who wants to fight.

So, we are ready, but we need that country to be ready for both negotiations and compromise.

Dmitry Peskov: Thank you.

Kazan, please.

Vladimir Putin: We have talked with the Americans, now we will talk with the Tatars.

Artur Khalilullov: Good afternoon, Mr President.

Thank you for the opportunity to ask my question. I am Artur Khalilullov from Tatar Inform.

BRICS has obviously been taken to a fundamentally new level after the Kazan summit. In fact, I cannot even remember that dozens of world leaders, including Xi Jinping and Narendra Modi, gathered in Moscow.

Have your expectations regarding opposition to the Western world order materialised? That was my first question.

I also have a follow-up question. Last year, you told me personally in response to my question that Tatarstan is an example of peaceful coexistence of different cultures, nations and religions. The same can be said about BRICS, because BRICS is a group of widely different countries. This brings me to my question. Do you think that Kazan could become the seat of the BRICS headquarters? Of BRICS as a whole or its Russian part?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Artur, you have said that so many world leaders have never met in Moscow. This is correct, they did not, but they have met in Kazan. So, we are grateful to Kazan for giving us this opportunity. This is the first point.

Second, we are not planning to establish a headquarters now. There are several instruments that have been created and are working in the interests of our group. But we will certainly make use of the possibilities offered by the capital of Tatarstan, which have been created there over the past decades.

Kazan has made an astonishing leap in its development. I believe, and it is not an exaggeration, that Kazan is one of the best cities in Europe. I am pleased to say so. We are proud of Moscow, which is one of the largest and best mega-cities in the world, but Kazan is developing very rapidly and actively.

I remember visiting it with Mintimer Shaimiyev. I have told before that we entered a mud hut on the outskirts of Kazan, a real mud hut where people lived. It was a deep hole with a roof above it. However, as is typical of the Tatar culture, it was very clean, and there was tasty chak-chak fried dough dessert on the table.

You will not see anything like this in Kazan now. The city is developing. It is beautiful, and it even has a metro system. I talked with Mr Shaimiyev back then that this needed to be done, and it has been done. Your new leader, Rustam Minnikhanov, has taken over the baton and is working very effectively.

Overall, people in Kazan and Tatarstan as a whole are talented. They come from different ethnic groups, but they live in peace and accord with each other, respect each other and their traditions, and I know that they attend each other’s religious feasts. You are doing this very well. I congratulate you on this.

There is another aspect that I would like to highlight.

You said that BRICS has evolved into a tool for countering the West. This is not true; you are mistaken. BRICS is not a tool for countering the West. Our work is not aimed against anyone. We focus on our own interests and the interests of the group’s member countries. Giving BRICS any kind of a confrontational agenda is not what we are after.

This group has grown within a very short period of time and expanded its ranks. As you know, and we have mentioned this many times, so I will not repeat it to save time, many countries have expressed interest in developing the BRICS format.

Why? Because ensuring reciprocity, mutual respect and respecting each other’s interests have been our core guiding principles in this effort. We adopt all decisions by consensus, which is a very important point. There are no small or big countries within BRICS, no countries that are more or less developed: this is a group based on common interests. And there is one common interest: development. We try to identify available tools and create new ones for generating more economic growth and transforming the structure of the economy in order for it to be in step with the global development agenda, ensuring that BRICS countries and the group as a whole are at the forefront of this progressive movement. This is the way we will be operating.

Thank you very much.

Dmitry Peskov: I suggest that we take another question from the audience.

I see an unconventional media outlet. It is quite new and rather popular too. Readovka, please go ahead with your question.

Vladimir Putin: What was the title again?

Maxim Dolgov: Good afternoon, Mr President.

Maxim Dolgov, Readovka.

Here is my question. Many countries have been facing the issue of ageing and population decline these days, and Russia is no exception. It is interesting that there have been all these measures to increase the birthrate, and you have recently signed a law establishing the Council for Demographic and Family Policy. But if these laws fall short of their promise, what will we do?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: We will improve them.

Take your seat, please.

This is an extremely important matter. In fact, this is one of the key issues for Russia, and not only for our country. You were right to say that demography has become a matter of grave concern not only for Russia, but also for many countries around the world.

The Soviet Union was able to achieve replacement-level fertility of two points. What does the fertility rate mean? It stands for the number of children per woman. There was a time in the history of the Soviet Union when the fertility rate was equal to two. And there was a time in Russia’s recent past when we reached a rate of 1.7. Unfortunately, it fell to 1.41. Is this a lot or a little? Of course, it is very little. However, there are other countries facing a similar situation and located in a similar region. This includes Finland, where the birthrate is even lower, and I think Norway is at the same level. The fertility rate in Spain is lower, and this is also true for many other countries. In some developed countries, for example, in Japan, it is even lower than that, and South Korea has a fertility rate as low as 0.7. This is terrible. We have a slightly better situation in Russia, but just to reach the replacement fertility rate we must have 2.1 children per woman, and we need at least 2.3 for our population to grow.

I have said many times before what happened during the previous decades. There was a sharp decline in birth rate during the Great Patriotic War, especially in 1943–1944, and then, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the birth rate sank again similarly.

What happened next? I will take a couple of minutes to explain. When a low-numbered generation reaches the reproductive age, it reproduces in similarly low numbers. These two birth rate decline trends – the trend of the Great Patriotic War and the trend after the collapse of the Soviet Union – later converged, continuing in similar fluctuations to this day. The number of women of reproductive age has gone down 30 percent. We need more girls, young women.

What are we doing to improve the situation? An entire programme was developed. We address this matter continuously, improving the available instruments. Once again, it works differently in different periods of time.

First, there is a benefit for families with children that is quite effective. We pay this benefit from the moment a woman becomes pregnant and until the child reaches 18. This benefit is now available to over 10 million children and around 320,000 pregnant women.

Second, we invented a unique tool that no other country offers – maternity capital that we continue to replenish.

Next, family mortgage rates with 6 percent interest are still available. I suppose we will talk more about mortgages and construction later. In essence, family mortgage is still available.

We pay 450,000 rubles to families who have a third child, specifically to pay their mortgages.

We are developing the system that encompasses healthcare, childhood and maternity, and we will continue to do everything and improve these instruments further. These matters are very important.

I want to take this opportunity and address the heads of all Russian regions: this is what your working day should begin with and end with because it is a challenge for many countries, Russia included. The population is what makes a country. One territory is good, but it must be populated by the citizens of this country.

Perhaps we are doing a lot, but it is perfectly clear that these measures are not enough. We will be able to say that yes, we are doing something useful when we can overturn this trend and achieve the indicators I mentioned earlier.

Alexandra Suvorova: In fact, we have received many messages on this subject, including from large families. We have a whole selection of those.

The problem is as follows. You have mentioned the uniform allowance, but when the average per capita income in a family exceeds the regional subsistence minimum, the family does not qualify for the benefit. However, in many cases, this is due to a long streak of inaccuracies, or that income is literally just a few kopecks or rubles above the required level, but they fail to qualify anyway.

Now we are about to be joined by Anna Shenkao from Surgut, the mother of five.

Ms Shenkao, good afternoon. Please ask the President your question.

Anna Shenkao: Good afternoon, Mr President.

My name is Anna Shenkao. I was born and live in Surgut, Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Area, and I am a mother of five. One of my children also has a disability.

I have been applying for the relevant benefits every month since July 2023, but all my applications have been turned down because our per capita income exceeds the regional minimum subsistence level. In some cases, it was only 78 rubles above that level, but I was rejected anyway.

This is what I would like to ask. Is a child’s disability pension considered to be family income? Why are they counting the previous year’s income? And there is something else: my husband is officially employed, which implies full compliance with the tax laws. However, when they evaluate the per capita income, they use his gross pay, including tax, which the employer in fact deducts. We do not receive this money, so I would like to ask why it should be considered part of our income.

And, if you do not mind, I have one more question – about holidays.

How can a large family – or not necessarily a large family – afford a holiday in this situation? We really want to go somewhere, but when we analysed airfares a few days ago, most of them hovered around 140,000 −150,000 rubles one way.

I would really like to hear an answer to my question.

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Ms Shenkao, you said that you have five children, didn’t you?

Anna Shenkao: Yes.

Vladimir Putin: I congratulate you on this. This alone makes you a happy person.

Anna Shenkao: Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: I am sure of that. I want our viewers and listeners to join me in celebrating your family, and follow your example, first of all.

Secondly, this is the usual formula for evaluating someone’s income. They take into account everything, and they do use the previous year’s figures. I cited evaluating economic growth as an example – in any case, it is recalculated only the following year. Therefore, they consider the previous year’s income.

Certainly, we can deliberate on this matter. I will ask Ms Tatyana Golikova and the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection to examine the issue. However, that is not the most important point – what truly matters is that the issue you mentioned might arise for other reasons, namely a small excess of income over the threshold at which payments under the flat-rate allowance are still provided. That is purely a procedural approach.

We have given a lot of thought to how we can avert the situation that you and your family are experiencing. In principle, the decision has already been reached – we should recalculate personal income tax and subsequently refund at least seven percent of the tax your family has paid.

We will see how this unfolds. Hopefully, it will offset your loss from not receiving the respective money under the allowance you mentioned. We will see how it all pans out.

The Government’s assumption was that this measure would reimburse you the amount that was underpaid as part of the allowance you receive. That decision was made recently. I reiterate my hope that this issue will be resolved. That is the first point.

Secondly, with regard to holidays and travel, you are right – such a problem does exist. I have already spoken to the relevant executives on this matter.

By the way, our air transportation industry is operating steadily and quite successfully. Last year, they carried, I believe, 105 million passengers, and this year they are set to transport 111 million passengers. What is going on there?

There is a provision – it is stated in the code – that multi-child families, families with children, are entitled to a 50 percent discount, I think, on fares. This applies to the standard fare.

What do the airline companies do? They introduce their own discounts – minor, insignificant, but these are not standard fares. Then they claim, “We have a discounted fare, we already have a non-standard fare, so we will not give a 50 percent discount.”

This practice must be curtailed. I fully agree with you and urge the Government, together with the airlines, to address this problem no later than January 14 next year. We will solve this problem.

As for excess income, the refund of seven percent of the personal income tax, we will also observe how it works.

Anna Shenkao: Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you very much.

Dmitry Peskov: Mr President, I saw there were more questions about demographics.

Vladimir Putin: Go ahead.

Dmitry Peskov: It says here, “Chechnya, important.” It is also about demographics.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, please. Where are you?

Ruzana Veselayeva: Vainakh State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company, Chechen Republic.

Mr President, you often emphasise the importance of demographic growth and have used the Chechen Republic as an example in this regard.

Vladimir Putin: Yes.

Ruzana Veselayeva: Perhaps, it is worth launching a dedicated programme?

Vladimir Putin: I have mentioned the Chechen Republic and Tuva. In Chechnya and Tuva, demographics are good.

Ruzana Veselayeva: But would it not make sense to introduce a separate programme for regions that are most efficient in this area?

If I may, a second question. Last year, you approved the high-speed railway strategy, which includes three stages. One of them – the third stage – covers the Moscow-Adler route.

According to most experts, including Grozny and Makhachkala in the Moscow-Adler Railway would make the project more cost-effective and efficient. What is your opinion on this? Do you see it as a practicable solution?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you for the question.

You mentioned that demographics are in good shape in Chechnya.

Please take a seat.

Yes, demographics are indeed in good shape in Chechnya and Tuva. These are two federal constituent entities where the demographic situation is favourable.

In this regard, are additional measures needed? I would say we should simply say thank you, provide support, and encourage others to follow your example.

For regions where the birth rate is below the fertility rate of 1.41, there is a clear need for a dedicated programme to support them.

This is precisely what we are planning to do for these regions. There are about 35 of such regions, if memory serves. A separate support programme is being developed for these areas, with a funding of 75 billion rubles over the next few years. That is what we are going to do.

Now, regarding the Moscow-Adler-Grozny-Makhachkala railway. We have several questions in this regard. First, we need to ensure traffic along the Black Sea coast, provide proper access to Sochi, and eliminate traffic jams that tend to snarl traffic near Adler, especially during the tourist season. The congestions often leaves people stuck for hours.

This situation arose because, during preparations for the Olympic Games, a bypass road for Sochi was built, which created a bottleneck. It is, in fact, an old road that was slightly renovated, but two traffic flows – the old traffic flow and the Greater Sochi bypass flow – are merging there, creating a single congested access to Adler. This bottleneck needs to be broken up to make sure vehicles are not stuck in traffic. By the way, Chechen construction companies will be involved in this work near Adler, though I am not sure about the details.

With regard to Grozny-Makhachkala, this is also an important consideration which should be addressed in the future. It is a good idea.

Not to hurt anyone’s feelings, let’s take “Chechnya. Magistry” (masters). Did you want to say the same thing or not?

Khamzat Batukayev: Khamzat Batukayev, Grozny Chechen State Television and Radio Company.

My colleague has already asked the question we had for you and you answered it. Thank you very much. However, when you were talking to my colleague from Tatarstan, you shared the way you view Kazan.

By the way, I was also at the BRICS Summit. And this reminded me that you had visited the Chechen Republic not that long ago. So I am asking you: Is Grozny a beautiful city?

Vladimir Putin: It is great. You know, it is a miracle, a present-day miracle for Russia.

You know, I flew over Grozny during the harsh years when we were still fighting terrorists there, primarily international terrorist groups. The city was one big ruin, and you could hear machine gun rounds targeting the helicopter from these ruins.

At the time, there were quite a few people in Chechnya who talked about moving the capital to Gudermes. However, both the first President of the Chechen Republic, and the incumbent President spoke out against these proposals arguing that Grozny had established itself as Chechnya’s historical capital, a capital of the Chechen people, and that it would be rebuilt at whatever cost.

What has been achieved in Grozny over the past two years is a true miracle. Of course, credit for these achievements primarily goes to the current President of the Republic. Even more importantly, this is something the people of Chechnya achieved together. Their hard-working nature and their talent played an instrumental role. I am not even talking about the mosque. What a beauty! And look at all these new buildings and architectural solutions. We cannot fail to feel pride for what has been achieved in Chechnya and in Grozny over the recent years.

I would like to commend and congratulate you on these achievements.

Khamzat Batukayev: Mr President, I remember what you said during your visit to the mosque when you were talking to Chechnya’s mufti. You made an important point when you said that in terms of their spiritual and moral principles, Islam, the Orthodox faith, and all the traditional religions in general, share a common denominator and foundation.

I would like to ask you about the Russian Special Forces University. You have visited this institution. It has recently been given your name, to honour you as the Supreme Commander-in-Chief. What do you think about this training centre? Should it be expanded? Could you share your vision or your assessment? What do you think about it?

Vladimir Putin: It is great. We really need it. The National Guard has been using it all the time. After all, it trains not only people from Chechnya, but from across the country.

When I talk to some fighters who are currently fighting in the combat zone and who do not come from Chechnya, I ask them: “Where are you from?” And they tell me that they got their training at this centre. This centre plays an important role in enhancing our national defence capabilities.

Thank you.

Dmitry Peskov: Let us take a couple of more questions from the audience. I see our Chinese friends from Xinhua, the sector right in front of me.

Huang He: Mr President, good afternoon. My name is Huang He, and I represent the Xinhua News Agency of China. I am delighted to pose a question to you today. I have just two questions.

The first question is this: How do you evaluate the current state of China-Russia relations? Please share with us the main outcomes of cooperation between our two countries.

The second question: Next year, China and Russia will jointly celebrate the 80^th anniversary of Victory in the Second World War and the 80^th anniversary of the founding of the United Nations Organisation. In your view, what role do the interaction and coordination between China and Russia play in upholding global strategic stability and international justice?

Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: We often discuss cooperation between Russia and the People’s Republic of China. Next year, we will celebrate 75 years of diplomatic relations between our countries. A great deal has transpired in our relations over these years, but in the past decade, the level and quality of our relations have reached unprecedented heights in our history.

I will address the economic aspect now, but first and foremost, it is about mutual trust. Everything we do in relation to each other and how we do it is based on absolute trust to policies of both sides. We engage in nothing that contradicts our interests, and we do much that benefits both the Chinese people and the peoples of the Russian Federation.

I have already mentioned the economy: according to various estimates, it stands at US$220–230 billion, and according to Chinese statistics, up to $240 billion in dollar terms. The trade turnover is impressive. Over the past year, despite such a solid foundation, growth continues. It is moderate, with an expected three percent increase, but growth is present. That is the first part.

The second part concerns investment. We have nearly 600 joint investment projects amounting to US$200 billion. What does this indicate? It suggests that the future is secure.

Lastly, a very significant component, in my opinion, is the humanitarian aspect. We regularly hold cross years: the Year of Culture, the Year of Youth Exchanges, and so forth. This is crucial for the people of both countries. It forms the basis for developing economic ties and political cooperation.

The most critical aspect is regional cooperation. Regional leaders engage with one another: Maotai and vodka, of course, play a part there. But everything is in moderation, as far as I understand. This personal vibe is important, and there are exchanges between students, between higher education institutions, and so on.

Now, regarding the Great Patriotic War.

The Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China are the countries that suffered the most and achieved victory in the Second World War at the cost of the heaviest losses. We used to say 20, then 25, and now some historians estimate 27 million dead. The toll is even higher in China. It is not widely discussed, but in China, it exceeds 30 million.

What the Japanese militarists did on Chinese soil was horrific, a dreadful ordeal. The Chinese people endured that trial. We stood together then, and we stand together now, which is the most important factor, I keep emphasising it, for stability in global affairs.

An instrument of stability, originally created for this purpose, is the United Nations Organisation: Russia and China, as founders of the Organisation and permanent members of the Security Council.

We very often, almost always, coordinate our actions on the international stage, and this is a very significant element of international life. We will continue doing so. I extend my very best wishes to the leader of the People’s Republic of China, a man I consider my friend, President Xi Jinping.

Dmitry Peskov: Friends, I kindly remind you to keep your questions brief and to ask one at a time. I see Kuban, please pass the microphone.

Marina Smirnova: Good afternoon. I am Marina Smirnova, representing the Ogni Kubani newspaper, Kavkazsky District, Krasnodar Territory.

My question concerns the current discussions about migration issues and potential solutions. The Krasnodar Territory is large, welcoming, diverse, and strong, but the challenges related to migrants persist. We have tight restrictions, such as patents that give the right to work only in the construction industry. What is your perspective on such restrictions? There is a labour shortage in various regions. How does Russia plan to address this issue? What is your vision for resolving these challenges?

Vladimir Putin: This is a highly sensitive and pressing issue, not just for us, but even more so for Europe. On the one hand, we face a significant shortage of workers. As I have mentioned before, our unemployment rate is just 2.3 percent, which is effectively negligible. Business leaders and government officials consistently report substantial shortfalls, particularly in the construction and industrial sectors, with the demand reaching into the hundreds of thousands. This is an undeniable fact.

What is the solution? First, to reduce reliance on labour migrants, we need to focus on increasing labour productivity. This involves introducing and utilising technologies that minimise the demand for large numbers of unskilled workers. By shifting the emphasis toward high-tech sectors, we can achieve desired outcomes without the need to bring in significant numbers of migrants for unskilled labour. That is the first step.

Second, if the influx of labour migrants is unavoidable, we must collaborate with partner countries, particularly those in Central Asia, to prepare individuals effectively. This includes expanding a network of Russian-language schools, promoting the study of Russian, and familiarising prospective workers with our traditions, culture, and legal requirements. And of course, we need to tighten requirements to migrants that are already in Russia, ensuring that they respect the communities in which they live and work. This responsibility falls on law enforcement agencies. In essence, the solution requires a balanced approach, integrating both economic and law enforcement measures.

There were extensive discussions about whether we should establish a separate agency (which we once had) or keep it within the Interior Ministry.

I believe that today, we need to strengthen this area of work within the Interior Ministry. We should establish a dedicated and robust division or centre either within the Interior Ministry or under its auspices, which should comprise representatives from economic departments to ensure that all decisions are made holistically, in close coordination with other ministries, departments, and regional authorities.

A significant volume of regulation exists and it should primarily be handled at the regional level. However, all of this should be coordinated from a single centre. As the system matures and gains the necessary competencies, there may be a need for a separate agency in the future. This agency should incorporate both a law enforcement and an economic component.

Certain steps in this direction have already been taken, with the State Duma passing a law that grants the right not to accept migrant children who do not speak Russian into schools. This makes sense since it is impossible to teach a child if they do not understand the language. There needs to be separate instruction in Russian for these children, but who will bear the cost of this additional language training?

We need to ensure that, on the one hand, the people who arrive have equal rights, that they have guaranteed access to healthcare and social security, but on the other hand, this should not be an additional burden on the local population in the host region. It is essential that everyone is comfortable.

There are many issues involved. And of course, the Government should pay great attention to this. How could this be developed? I just said that initially, this could be done within the Interior Ministry, and later, perhaps, if the situation requires, we will create a separate agency, which will employ both representatives of law enforcement bodies and economic agencies.

Dmitry Kulko: Mr President, we have been specially monitoring migration issues. This is indeed a very sensitive and complex problem.

A significant part of these questions has come from people who come to our country and not always in search of employment. Many of them are Russian-speakers who wish to return to their homeland, obtain a Russian passport, and become full-fledged citizens of the Russian Federation. We have received such requests from a range of countries, including the CIS and Ukraine – as you said today, there are many Russians there.

We have also received such questions from Germany. For example, we were contacted by Leo Seibel, our compatriot, who left for Germany in 1990 and returned in 2006. He currently resides in Tarusa [Kaluga Region], and says that, although he has a residence permit, he has not been able to obtain Russian citizenship for years, with the authorities always giving him the same answer: you are not entitled, there is no such law. A verbatim quote: only Putin can give you citizenship.

Here is a small detail though. After he told the officials that he had written a letter to Putin, their tone changed, and they gave him a list of documents he needed to bring. The process seemed to have got off the ground, but he would like to bring it to its logical end.

Vladimir Putin: Look, Russian citizenship is indeed granted by Presidential executive orders. But this is a purely formal act that must be prepared locally, by relevant agencies, commissions and committees.

The issue you just raised is part of what we call working with compatriots, meaning individuals who feel that they belong to Russia. They speak Russian, they consider themselves part of our culture, part of the Russian world, and as a rule, they are also highly qualified specialists. We are truly interested in attracting such professionals to Russia; we would like them to work and live here. We actually have a state programme for this. Well, apparently, it is not working as effectively as it should. Clearly, we need to improve these mechanisms.

You mentioned Ukrainians. It is quite possible that there are as many Ukrainians already living in Russia as in Ukraine; maybe even more. I am not kidding – this is quite possible, I mean, if we take into account the people living in our new territories, Crimea as well as those who have moved to Russia, there are millions of people. This suggests we have about the same number of Ukrainians living here as in Ukraine now. Speaking of which, they are welcome in Russia, the door is open to them. These people are part of our culture; they are part of our nation.

As I said, these mechanisms certainly need to be improved. We are interested in qualified workforce, including people who simply – well, not “simply,” as this is not a simple thing at all – who uphold our traditional values. This is difficult to assess. We need to work on this to be able to do this effectively. We will certainly continue doing this.

As for the specific case you mentioned – please send me this person’s details, will you? We will definitely help him.

Dmitry Kulko: Thank you.

Alexandra Suvorova: At the very beginning of the programme we told you that we also used artificial intelligence in our work. GigaChat helped us select most frequent topics in the queries.

Among the top queries, of course, is housing and mortgages. You also said at the beginning of the programme that we are going to revisit this issue more than once. If we look at our monitors now, we will see that this topic is at the top of the list. Actually, the number of queries is also significant.

Let us now bring up a video question from a young family from

Krasnodar.

Question: For three months we’ve been trying to take out a family mortgage. The banks are constantly running out of limits, or they increase the down payment from 20 to 50 percent.

Please, tell us how things will be with the family mortgage in general because at present it is very difficult to get it. Also, in addition to the family mortgage, it is next to impossible to get a rural and IT mortgage. That is, banks are constantly running out of limits, plus they do not want to approve it. They keep changing mortgage plans every day, when you apply.

Banks have recently introduced a so-called “combo-mortgage” plan, when they add their interest, and the mortgage rate goes up from six to 13 percent. In other words, banks simply do not want to issue mortgages for families. What are we to do?

Vladimir Putin: Thank you for this question and for highlighting this problem. This is an outrage, first of all, because there should be no limits, and the Government and I have already discussed this topic. I was promised – and I will check how well this promise is being fulfilled – that there will be no limits.

Because at the end of the day, this is all about subsidies from the state. Banks should enjoy receiving six percent from those who use family mortgage loans, while the difference between the bank rate and this six percent should be reimbursed by the state. And there should be no limits on the part of the state.

This difference ends up in banks, by the way, it is income for them, and not a small one. So if they refuse to approve a family mortgage, it means that the Government does not send this subsidy to the bank in time, probably. I will check, I promise you, I will definitely check. But we have agreed that there will be no limits. This is the first point.

Second, this refers to family mortgages at three percent and to rural mortgages. Family mortgages are issued at six percent, rural mortgages at three percent. This is a very important tool in housing construction. Why? Because of the total volume of housing built – which last year was 110 million square metres, a record high since the Soviet Union, nothing like this had ever happened before – 50 percent were private houses, mostly in rural areas. Moreover, such mortgages are taken out by people under 40 or a little older, they move to rural areas, live there, take out mortgages, and build families. This mortgage plan should not have any limits either. It amounts to a few tens of billions for the budget, which is absolutely uncritical, and it should be preserved.

The same goes for IT mortgages. How much do we have? Six or five percent. In any case, it is a preferential mortgage, and there are not that many people who take it out. We discussed it just recently, and someone suggested that it should be terminated but there is little sense in doing it so as to save budget funds.

Family mortgages are definitely staying, and rural mortgages are definitely staying. I ask the Government to provide the necessary subsidies. We will put things in order here.

Alexandra Suvorova: This also refers to Far Eastern regions and new regions.

Vladimir Putin: Far Eastern mortgages at two percent are staying, so do the Arctic mortgages – two percent, and the new regions – two percent.

Dmitry Kulko: Mr President, I suggest we now address an issue that, unfortunately, remains pressing year after year – the problem of phone scammers.

We warn people daily about this on television.

Vladimir Putin: By the way, sorry to interrupt, 110 million square metres of housing were built last year. This year, it will be slightly less – around 105 million – but that is still a very good figure.

Dmitry Kulko: Phone scammers. The severity of this problem can be understood from just one number: 250 billion rubles –that is how much scammers stole from Russians this year, according to Sberbank estimates.

These miscreants call and say all sorts of things: they claim to represent the Central Bank or the Federal Security Service (FSB), warn that deposits in all banks will be frozen, and demand that people transfer money to other accounts, or even take out loans. Yelena Markelova from Kazan found herself in such a situation. Let us watch her video appeal now.

Yelena Markelova: Good afternoon, Mr President.

My name is Yelena Markelova. I am a pensioner from Kazan, 63 years old.

Recently, I fell for a scam. My account on Gosuslugi (public services) portal was hacked, and as a result of their actions, I now owe two banks 1.9 million rubles.

My appeal is a cry for help. How is it possible that the banks, where I am a client and receive a pension of 18,770 rubles, approve such loans without requesting any income documents, without asking for any of my contacts who could act as a guarantor for me, and for such large amounts with monthly payments that exceed my monthly income?

Given the large number of pensioners being targeted by scammers, is it not time to take more serious measures and require banks to more thoroughly monitor the actions of their employees and rigorously verify applications, especially from elderly people?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, you are right. What is your name?

Dmitry Kulko: Yelena Markelova.

Vladimir Putin: Ms Markelova, you are absolutely right.

There is not much I can add to what you said. Indeed, banks have become adept at issuing loans quickly – practically instantly – but they must assess the borrower’s solvency. There is even a specific rule stating that if more than 50 percent of a citizen’s income goes toward servicing a loan, issuing such a loan becomes more costly for the bank, and the burden on the bank’s capital increases. This rule comes from the Central Bank. However, what is happening now is deeply concerning, because the scale of this fraud is off the charts.

At a recent Sberbank event, German Gref briefed me on this issue. He explained that across the entire banking system, scammers from the territory of Ukraine alone, where fraudulent activity has essentially been elevated to the level of state policy, where entire centres operating under the control of special services are dedicated to swindling money from Russian citizens, have stolen over 250 billion rubles from our citizens’ accounts.

Of course, these practices have reached a substantial scale. In fact, Nazi Germany acted in a similar fashion by printing banknotes of our World War II allies, including the UK. They printed pound sterling notes and placed them into circulation in order to undermine the British economy.

We are witnessing a similar trend in present-day Ukraine as far as these fraudulent practices are concerned. Of course, we need to make sure that there is discipline in this sector, so this is something that deserves our serious attention.

For example, let them grant loans under 50,000 rubles, and let them do this online and instantly. As for the loans between 50,000 and 200,000 rubles, people definitely need at least several hours to carry out additional checks and take a final decision. As for the loans exceeding 200,000 rubles, this process must definitely take at least several days.

I know that both the State Duma and the Central Bank have been discussing these matters and are committed to further improving the decisions dealing with the capital burden with respect to the banks granting unsecured loans of this kind. I hope that these efforts will enable us to achieve the desired outcomes.

There is another problem, as reported by both the Central Bank Governor and the Interior Ministry. Credit cards are opened for people who are not taking part in this fraud, or so it seems. The scammers get money out of their victims by first transferring it to the so-called intermediary cards, and then take hold of the money from these cards.

Meanwhile, those who open these credit cards pretend that they are not involved in any way. There is a proposal to strengthen controls in this regard and to tighten liability for these people, since they are accomplices in these crimes and are taking part in these scams. They may not be doing anything from a formal point of view, but they know why someone is opening a credit card in their name.

The proposal consists of making this a criminal offence. I am not saying that this decision is approved, but we will definitely have to move in this direction.

Alexandra Suvorova: Do you know anyone who has suffered from phone scams?

Vladimir Putin: I do not know anyone in my entourage who suffered from these practices, but there are certainly those who told me that they got calls from scammers.

Alexandra Suvorova: It seems that these phone calls will keep coming.

Vladimir Putin: Maybe so, but as soon as they hear an unfamiliar voice making any kind of proposals to them dealing with doing anything along these lines, they hang up immediately.

And this would be my advice for all people of Russia.

Dmitry Kulko: Quite often, these unfamiliar voices come from call centres in Ukraine. There were reports that the number of phone calls from scammers declines whenever the Ukrainian energy system suffers a strike. It seems that these call centres simply lose their power supply.

Vladimir Putin: They do not have enough electric power capacity.

Dmitry Kulko: What about adding these call centres to the list of our priority targets?

Vladimir Putin: No. The priority targets include military sites and defence industry manufacturing facilities. The list can also include decision-making centres. As for these call centres, we will not waste our munitions on them. There is no reason for doing so. We must take the necessary measures here in Russia and to work through the relevant institutions, including the Central Bank and the federal Government, as well as the Interior Ministry’s departments.

Alexandra Suvorova: Dmitry, Mr Peskov seems to be casting rather unfriendly glances our way.

Dmitry Peskov: Let’s shift our focus back to the audience for a moment.

Ukraine has been mentioned. I see the sign “Other Ukraine.”

Galina Merkulova: Mr President,

My name is Galina Merkulova, I am a deputy head of media resources for Other Ukraine, an international public movement that represents the interests of millions of Ukrainian citizens both within Ukraine, regrettably still under the control of the Kiev regime, and in Russia, Europe, and across the globe, where we have 55 offices in operation.

The Other Ukraine public movement believes that the sole means of rescuing Ukrainians from Zelensky’s criminal illegitimate regime, which has usurped the executive, legislative, and judicial powers, is through the reunification of the Ukrainian and Russian peoples.

Now, here is our question: under what conditions are you prepared to commence negotiations with Kiev? If not with Zelensky, then with whom?

Additionally, one more crucial aspect: in Ukraine, the Russian Orthodox Church is not merely under attack; it is virtually expelled. What is your stance on this matter, and do you believe that the position of the Russian Orthodox Church has been undermined?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Indeed. Firstly, regarding the illegitimacy of the regime, I have previously addressed this issue. I understand that the leader, the mastermind behind this movement, this organisation… Is it the Other Ukraine organisation?

Galina Merkulova: It’s a movement.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, it is, apparently, Viktor Medvedchuk, isn’t it?

We rarely see each other, but I am aware that he shares this view. So, what constitutes the illegitimacy of the regime? Allow me to reiterate: there is no provision in the Constitution of Ukraine to extend the powers of the President, even under martial law. There is only one representative body of power, the Council, or the Rada, whose powers can be extended without elections under martial law. I repeat, this is the Rada.

What is the challenge for Ukraine? I understand that you are cognisant of this: the state system in Ukraine is structured in such a way that a plethora of government bodies are appointed by the president. This includes regional governors, leadership of all law enforcement agencies, and so forth. However, if the head of state is illegitimate, then everything else loses its legitimacy in terms of executive bodies and law enforcement agencies. And everything they do, following his instructions, makes them aware that they are complicit in this unlawful activity. This is the first point.

Now, regarding the conditions for starting negotiations: We have no preconditions. We are ready to engage in dialogue without any preconditions. However, as I have mentioned numerous times before, based on the agreements that we reached during the negotiation process in Istanbul at the end of 2022 and proceeding from the current realities on the ground.

Our positions were clearly outlined, including in my June speech to the leadership of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation. Everything that needs to be said is already there. There is no point in repeating.

If the head of the regime is illegitimate, then with whom? You know, if someone were to go through elections and gain legitimacy, we would talk with anyone, including Zelensky.

If Ukraine truly wants a peaceful settlement, they have the ability to organise this process within their country as they see fit. We can only sign agreements with those who hold legitimate authority, such as the Verkhovna Rada and its Chair, who are fully subordinate to the head of the regime. This is simply a formal legal matter.

They can organise it as they see fit within their country. But if we ever get to the point of signing a document, it can only be done with the representatives of legitimate authorities, that is the bottom line.

Alexandra Suvorova: There was also a question about the Russian Orthodox Church.

Vladimir Putin: You know, what is happening with regard to the Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine is a unique situation. This is a gross, blatant violation of human rights, the rights of believers. The church is being torn apart right before everyone’s eyes. This is like execution by firing squad, and yet the world seems to ignore it.

I think those who engage in such actions will get it back. You mentioned that they are tearing things apart, and that is exactly what is happening. These people are not even atheists. Atheists are individuals who believe in the idea that there is no God, but this is their faith, their convictions and worldview.

But these are not atheists; they are people without any faith at all. They are ethnic Jews, but who has ever seen them in a synagogue? They are not Orthodox Christians either, since they do not attend churches. And they certainly are not followers of Islam, as they are unlikely to be seen in a mosque.

These are individuals without kith or kin. They do not care about anything that is dear to us and the overwhelming majority of the Ukrainian people. Eventually, they will run away someday and go to the beach rather than to church. But that is their choice.

I believe that someday the people in Ukraine, and the majority of Ukrainians are still connected to Orthodoxy, will evaluate their actions accordingly.

Dmitry Peskov: Let us take a couple more questions from the audience. I would be remiss not to give Radio Purga a chance to ask a question.

Anastasia Lavrentyeva: Good afternoon.

Radio Purga, Chukotka Autonomous Area. My name is Anastasia Lavrentyeva. Thank you very much for this opportunity.

I am looking at the monitors showing the relevance of topics for various regions, and I see confirmation that my question is indeed important and concerns many residents of our region. It is about connectivity and internet access.

Mr President, in Chukotka, high-speed internet is available only in the regional capital, the only city. All other residents of the region are deprived of the benefits and opportunities the internet has to offer. Beyond entertainment, essential services like the Gosuslugi portal, banking services for the business are inaccessible to most of Chukotka residents. Could you help address this issue of digital inequality, if possible?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, there is no need for lengthy discussion, because we already have a programme for developing internet connectivity, including high-speed internet, as well as communication infrastructure in general. This involves satellite constellations, particularly those focused on communication systems.

All of this will certainly be implemented. I will not go into the details since they are widely known and publicly available. We are working in this direction, with corresponding resources allocated and plans in place. There will be no disruptions, and we will proceed according to the plan.

I very much hope that residents of remote regions too, including Chukotka, will fully enjoy the benefits of modern civilisation. For a country like ours, this is extremely important, as more and more people work remotely and receive education online. High-speed internet is critical in this regard. We will undoubtedly achieve this. There is no doubt about it.

Dmitry Peskov: Alexander is one of the patriarchs of Russian journalism. Please.

Alexander Gamov: Thank you very much.

Komsomolskaya Pravda website, radio, and newspaper. And “Putin’s team.” I am sitting here today with young ladies, Yulia and Marina, who welcomed me into their group.

This has not been mentioned yet, but I would like to congratulate all of us, and you, Mr President, because, by my estimates, today marks the 20^th news conference, even though some colleagues argue that it is the 21^st conference. There is no other format like this elsewhere in the world, and I hope it continues for as long as possible.

Now, my question. Contrary to sceptics’ predictions, the presidential programme “The Time of Heroes” has not become a fleeting project or a mere formality. It is working. What hopes did you personally have for it? Have they been realised? What hopes do you have for it now?

In the past few days and hours, a question has increasingly occupied my mind: why do we not adequately care for and protect our heroes? I am speaking not only about the death of General Kirillov, which was briefly mentioned here today, but also about numerous instances where participants in the special military operation have been insulted. Fortunately, law enforcement agencies have been vigilant, and justice has prevailed, as was extensively reported.

As concerns the Time of Heroes programme. I represent the heroic newspaper Komsomolskaya Pravda, which served as a frontline publication during the Great Patriotic War and continues to do so today. Our war correspondents work with courage, and since 2014, we have been publishing KP in Donetsk, Donbass.

Next year, we will be celebrating our 100^th anniversary on May 24, 2025. My colleagues have asked me to extend an invitation to you. Mikhail Petrov shared with us how the TASS agency commemorated its 120^th anniversary with great ceremony and was honoured with an order. We look forward to welcoming you on May 24 at about noon. Will you attend, Mr President?

Vladimir Putin: I will make every effort to be there.

Alexander Gamov: Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you very much for the invitation. The Komsomolka newspaper has been an integral part of the lives of many generations of our citizens. People would begin their day with it and continue to rely on it throughout the day. The newspaper is evolving into a modern media platform, operating across all information environments. It remains a stable, reliable, and objective media outlet. I would like to congratulate you on the success of your work and express my gratitude for the invitation.

Regarding the Time of Heroes platform, I have previously mentioned that the idea occurred to me after meeting in St Petersburg with young participants, mainly students, involved in the special military operation. Observing them, I thought: here they are – the future of our country, the future workforce. This is how the concept for such a platform was conceived. I will not conceal that after returning to Moscow and presenting the idea, I requested my colleagues in the Executive Office to bring it to fruition. They are the ones who came up with the name The Time of Heroes, which I believe is an excellent choice.

The first round attracted 43,000 applications. Naturally, the selection process is quite rigorous: we chose only 83 individuals from these 43,000. And understandably so, as we require individuals with experience in administrative work, those who are educated and meet the criteria necessary for future roles as leaders of major companies, municipalities, entire regions, ministries and agencies, among others.

I stated this at the United Russia party congress, and I would like to reiterate it now: certainly, all are worthy – every one of our men and women fighting for their Motherland, risking their lives and health, is deserving. However, there is the matter of their suitability for the professional path they aspire to pursue. Once again, education and experience are prerequisites.

In general, it is one thing to fight for the Motherland and quite another to work with people. You must possess a certain talent and aptitude for it, you know? These are distinct types of activities. We must select the right individuals from this group who are both willing and able to excel in these areas. Thus far, there have been no missteps: they are truly outstanding individuals.

The second enrolment campaign is currently underway, and the number of applications has already exceeded 15,000. It will continue next year until mid-January or February, I think. This is to say that this effort is gathering pace.

As for the first class, its participants continue their training, even though many of them have already received offers, and quite a few are already working in new positions. Some of them went as far as become heads of regions. This genuinely makes me happy. Some are working in the private sector, while others have taken up jobs in government institutions and administrations at all levels, including regional, local and federal agencies, as well as major corporations.

I would like to reiterate what I said at the United Russia congress. During my recent visit to a rehabilitation centre, I met with young men who had suffered severe wounds. Some had lost a leg, or an arm. But here is what I wanted to tell you: there was fire in their eyes. They want and are ready to work and to make a difference. And they have everything it takes to succeed. Thanks to the latest rehabilitation methods – I am talking about the most advanced and recently developed treatments – they can do anything without any health restrictions or limitations. All we need to do is help them get there.

Let me reiterate that one of these men – I remember his face – told me: “I understand that I need an education and experience, but I do not have either an education or any experience; still, I want to do it.” These are the kind of people we need. We need people who want to work. All we need to do is help them. We must find them and support them.

You know, it just occurred to me that when I applied to join a judo club, our coach, Anatoly Rakhlin, told us: go ahead and do as many pull-ups as you can. For some reason, several of those who did more pull-ups than I did were not accepted. Several years later, we asked him: Mr Rakhlin, how come you refused to accept these young men, but decided to take us on board despite the fact that we could not do as many pull-ups? You know what his answer was? He was a wise man, you know. He said, this is because you put in all the effort you had until your arms were shaking, but you still kept trying to reach the bar with your chin, while those who did more pull-ups than you, they did it without any stress, and they could have done more, but they did not put in all the effort they had and did not give it their all.

These men have given all they have, they are willing to go the whole nine yards, and we must help them. They need our support.

Alexander Gamov: There was also a question about protecting our heroes.

Vladimir Putin: This is a very important question, indeed. You are right.

What can I say? First, this has happened before, and we have already seen these attempts and understand what our adversary is after. Unfortunately, this was not a standalone, isolated assassination attempt. In fact, people outside the military have also been targeted. I have already told your American colleague that there have been assassination attempts against journalists and public figures before. Do you remember how Dugina lost her life?

What does it mean? This demonstrates the Kiev regime’s terrorist nature. At the same time, of course, it indicates that our competent law enforcement agencies and intelligence services failed to prevent these attacks and allowed these blows to reach their targets. What can I say in this regard? We must further improve their work and prevent these failures, which come at such a huge cost to us. That is all there is to it.

Alexander Gamov: Thank you.

Dmitry Peskov: You know, I have caught sight of a very popular young blogger. He is getting up.

Vlad Bumaga: Mr President, good afternoon.

My name is Vlad Bumaga, and I am a popular video blogger. I have over 80 million subscribers on social networks, mostly young people.

As we know, young people spend a lot of time online – an average of five to eight hours per day, with half of that time devoted to watching video content. For my part, like many other creators, I am actively involved in developing our Russian platforms, such as VK Video. Of course, these platforms are not yet very large, but they demonstrate good and confident growth and provide high-quality services.

My question in this connection is this: why block YouTube if our platforms are coping well as they are? They are competitive and offer excellent terms and alternatives for creators? Moreover, we can upload content there and transmit our ideas and messages to audiences that extend beyond the Russian-speaking community.

There is another important issue. As I mentioned before, practically all children in this country know and watch me. I will add that I became a father myself earlier this year.

Vladimir Putin: My congratulations!

Vlad Bumaga: Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Please congratulate your wife on my behalf, it is her due.

Vlad Bumaga: I will do so without fail.

I would like to ask what values I, as a person whose videos nurture an entire generation, should communicate to the audience. Or, perhaps, what messages I should not communicate to the audience. What is your personal opinion on the ideas and messages that should be prioritised when it comes to young people? Give us a direction, so to speak. We will take note and start working.

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: First, regarding the YouTube slowdown. Here, there are more questions for YouTube than for us.

Sorry, let me first ask whether Vlad Bumaga is your pen-name?

Vlad Bumaga: No, it is my real name.

Vladimir Putin: I see, excellent! Paper (bumaga), in a well-known game, is stronger than stone. Therefore, I congratulate you: 80 million subscribers, did you say? This is certainly a unique achievement. This means the content you create meets the expectations of these 80 million people. This is the result of your creative work, and I congratulate you on that.

As for the slowdown, YouTube is owned by Google. When it started operating in Russia, it created its Russian subsidiaries, the legal entities on its payroll, as well as the services it should take care of. It worked with the subsidiaries it had created, but when the West started introducing various restrictions and sanctions, Google stopped or reduced the financing of these subsidiaries and the provision of the necessary equipment, thereby creating problems for itself. This is the first point.

Second, YouTube and Google must comply with our laws and avoid dishonest online activities. In other words, they must not use online resources for promoting their governments’ political goals.

Here is what I mean. Suppose you search for some information online, for example regarding culture or music, but instead, you are offered information that has nothing to do with culture or music but promotes a certain political platform. They are also removing the names of our artists, bloggers, politicians and the like from their services.

All this amounts to a violation of Russian laws. As a result, Roskomnadzor and other relevant authorities present their claims, and rightly so. Therefore, the perpetrators face a choice. They can choose to respect our laws, which would expose them to restrictions in their own country, forcing them to limit their operations to their own territory, or they can choose to work in Russia, in which case they must respect our laws.

As for what you have said, nature abhors a vacuum, and competition is growing here with the development of VK, Telegram and Rutube. If Google and YouTube, being aware of that, change the mode of their operations, they will have no problems here.

Regarding the subjects that can be used to enhance the awareness of our young people, how this can be done and what should not be done, I am sure that there is no need for my advice. People like you, especially now that you have become a father, have a growing sense of responsibility. It is a responsibility to your children, their future and the country where your children will live. This feeling of responsibility is a better guide than I could ever be about what would be useful for our children in the future, what is dangerous and unacceptable, and what you should fight against, not on my instructions but at the call of your heart.

Dmitry Peskov: Thank you.

I believe I have overlooked TV-3; they certainly do not deserve this.

Vladimir Putin: May I interrupt you for a second? We were just talking about children, and I see a young woman over there with a “Families with children deceived” sign. How were they deceived?

Anna Suvorova: Apparently, this is not about child benefits, because we have already discussed them.

Vladimir Putin: I could have mentioned them. I think I did.

Yelena Usmanova: I can explain.

Good afternoon, Mr President.

Yelena Usmanova, Business Online newspaper from Tatarstan – this is Tatarstan again.

First of all, I would like to thank you on behalf of Kazan for the honour of hosting the BRICS summit, but my question is about something else, as you can see from the poster.

A group of scammers deceived hundreds of families in Tatarstan who wanted their own homes. Each of them took out a preferential mortgage for individual housing construction under the state support programme, but the houses were never built.

Will the authorities help the defrauded borrowers under that programme, as they once helped the unfortunate co-investors in apartment block projects who were subsequently cheated out of their property? These people continue to pay mortgages for hot air, while the government continues to transfer state support to banks for houses that were never even built. When will they start helping people, not banks?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Please, listen to me. It is not about the banks at all. We have created a system of escrow accounts, where people transfer their money when they take out a mortgage. The money is then frozen in those escrow accounts until the new owners receive their housing. Where have they transferred the money?

Yelena Usmanova: No, this is about the individual housing construction programme. Houses, not apartments.

Vladimir Putin: There is no difference.

Yelena Usmanova: Apparently, that arrangement was not yet in place at the time.

Vladimir Putin: Individual housing construction qualifies for preferential mortgage programmes. As I said, the interest is 3 percent in rural areas. Single-family homes account for 50 percent of the 110 million square metres built in 2023 and 105 million this year. Fifty percent is a breakthrough. But the money should be in escrow accounts. Where have the people transferred this money and why did they do it, if those were not escrow accounts? I really do not understand what you are talking about.

Yelena Usmanova: This is what happened in Tatarstan. Hundreds of families have indeed found themselves in this predicament.

Vladimir Putin: Can you tell me where they transferred the money?

Yelena Usmanova: I am not sure about the details. I know that they took –

Vladimir Putin: Listen, please, what is your name?

Yelena Usmanova: Yelena.

Vladimir Putin: Yelena, these details matter.

Yelena Usmanova: There were definitely no escrow accounts there.

Vladimir Putin: How could this have happened? This may be another fraudulent scheme, like the ones scammers use to steal money from people’s accounts.

We will need to look into this, because this particular case may give us leads on other possible cases of this kind and help prevent this kind of fraud.

Right now, I cannot make heads or tails of what you are saying. Please provide us with more information. All right, Yelena? This is extremely important.

Why? Because the main point here is that we still have numerous unfinished housing projects. However, the total amount we now have in the escrow accounts is about 7 trillion rubles, or maybe even a little more. This is more than 65 percent of the amount needed to complete the projects co-financed by the people in 2025. I can almost guarantee that this housing will be built. And no one will be cheated out of their apartments, because part of the work is already done. The money is in these accounts; it is protected. If you are referring to cases where no escrow accounts were used, please provide this information – this needs to be sorted out.

Thank you.

Dmitry Peskov: Yes, we will request this information.

We wanted to give the floor to the TV-3 channel.

Vladimir Putin: I see someone from Turkiye.

Dmitry Peskov: All right, let it be Turkiye then.

Vladimir Putin: Do not worry, we will get back to you.

Ali Cura: My name is Ali Cura, Anadolu news agency.

Mr President, Israel is violating international law, killing tens of thousands of people, including children, in Palestine and Lebanon. Israel is using the current situation to occupy Syria and is infringing on its sovereignty. What can you say about Israel’s actions? Have you spoken with President Erdogan about the region as a whole? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: I maintain regular contact with President Erdogan. I do not remember when we last spoke, but we certainly discussed the situation in the Middle East.

Everyone is aware of President Erdogan and Turkiye’s attitude to the developments in the Middle East, as well as our stance on Lebanon and Palestine. It does not depend on fluctuations. We have always believed, and continue to do so, that the Palestinian problem can only be settled if the reasons for its existence are eliminated. There is a well-known UN Security Council decision on the establishment of two states – Israel and Palestine. Israel has been established, but the state of Palestine has not been created to this day. That is the problem.

Moreover, Israel continues to implement its illegal settlement policy. I am not aware of Israel’s ultimate goal in the Gaza Strip, but its activities deserve to be censured. We have done this on many occasions and at nearly all levels, from public venues to putting forth our position at the UN Security Council. There is nothing more to add.

The same goes for our stance on Lebanon.

As for Syria, frankly, I believe that Turkiye is doing everything in its power to ensure its security along the southern borders in light of the situation in Syria, to create conditions for the movement of refugees from its territory to other areas, most of which are located in the Turkiye-controlled territories in Syria, and possibly to push the Kurdish forces from the border. All these goals can and possibly will be achieved, to a certain degree. And yet, I believe that the main beneficiary of the developments in Syria is Israel.

You may hold any opinion about Israel’s actions, but Russia condemns the seizure of Syrian territories. Our position on this matter is clear and unchanging. At the same time, Israel is addressing its own security concerns. For instance, in the Golan Heights, Israel has advanced along the front by 62–63 kilometres and to a depth of 20–25 kilometres. They have occupied fortifications originally built for Syria by the Soviet Union, strong defensive structures comparable to the Maginot Line.

We remain hopeful that Israel will eventually withdraw from Syria. However, at present, it is deploying additional troops there. It seems there are already several thousand personnel stationed there. It appears not only that they have no intention of leaving, but they may also be planning to further reinforce their presence.

Moreover, the local population has already expressed a desire to be incorporated into the Jewish state, which could create further complications down the line. If the ongoing developments ultimately result in the fragmentation of Syria, these matters will need to be addressed by the local population in line with the United Nations Charter and the principle of self-determination. It is a complex issue, perhaps best reserved for future discussions.

We are well aware that Turkiye has faced longstanding challenges with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party for decades. While we hope for no further escalation, some European politicians recently remarked in meetings that, after World War I, the Kurds were promised their own state but were ultimately deceived.

The Kurdish population in the region is substantial, numbering in the tens of millions across Turkiye, Iran, and Iraq, where they live in concentrated communities. Estimates suggest there are at least 30 to 35 million Kurds. This underscores the gravity of the Kurdish issue. The Kurds are formidable and resilient, known for their fighting spirit. For instance, they withdrew from Manbij, but only after putting up fierce resistance.

The Kurdish issue requires a resolution. This should have been addressed within the framework of Syria under President Assad. Now, it must be resolved with the authorities currently in control of Syrian territory, while Turkiye must also find a way to ensure its security. We understand the complexity of these matters. However, this is a topic for another discussion, so as not to take up time today.

I want to emphasise that while challenges remain, our position firmly aligns with international law and the sovereignty of all nations, including respect for Syria’s territorial integrity. This extends to supporting the stance of the current authorities governing the territory of the Syrian Arab Republic.

In this regard, we stand with them. Furthermore, we maintain communication with these authorities as well as with all major groups currently exerting control in Syria.

Dmitry Peskov: We’ve promised to call on a TV-3 war correspondent.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, I am sorry.

Alexander Malkevich: Alexander Malkevich, Itogovaya Programma, TV-3.

A brief message to begin with: our soldiers asked me to thank you. Last week, you met with members of the Presidential Council for Civil Society and Human Rights and supported their idea of creating a federal museum of the special military operation. Preserving historical memory, particularly in creative formats, is our media Oreshnik in the information war that the West is attempting to wage against us.

The fighters from St Petersburg convey their special thanks for awarding our legendary Leningrad Regiment the honorific Guards title.

Now, my question is about the Defenders of the Fatherland Foundation. Created in April 2023 by your Executive Order, it has operated for one and a half years. How do you assess its performance in 2024 on a five-point or ten-point scale? What main goals have you set for the foundation for next year? What is the chief criterion of its efficiency, as you see it?

Vladimir Putin: As for the work done by the Defenders of the Fatherland Foundation… I think it was created in June, not April, but this is unimportant. It started operating in June.

It was established after I had a meeting with mothers and widows of participants in the special military operation. I realised that the usual methods of support for the soldiers who needed assistance or had been heavily wounded or handicapped, for the families of our fallen heroes, were not sufficient and it was necessary to create a special mechanism, a special tool for those, among others, who were losing their connection with the Armed Forces. The Defenders of the Fatherland Foundation was created precisely for this purpose, to support the men who are leaving military service and yet require a caring attitude from the state; they need attention that is not formal or superficial but implies an individual approach to each person in every family. The foundation was created with this objective in mind.

What is on its agenda? Addressing social issues, processing various allowances and payments on behalf of those who need prosthetic care or have been registered as disabled, and arranging prosthetics for them.

We must give credit to the foundation: they are doing good work. They not only order an item but provide a comprehensive service. This includes training the men and selecting a facility that offers prosthetic care. They also plan for further care, ensuring that it is straightforward and does not require patients to travel across this country for treatment. Ours is a huge country after all. This problem still exists, but they are working to resolve it. This was their task.

I spoke to Anna Tsivileva not so long ago. She says the requests are now amended with… Do you know what? I was quite happy to learn that the men were sending requests for jobs. This is one of the most important areas of their work, by the way. Increasingly more people are sending requests for engagement in sports and participation in cultural events. And this is a positive development. You see, this means a trend towards better options; it exists, it has emerged. And this is very encouraging.

But employment is certainly the most important aspect. I have already mentioned this – they are young men with shining eyes, and they have received excellent training, something many can only dream of. In today’s conditions, they could certainly continue their service in the Armed Forces – a relevant decision has been made. What I am saying is that their further careers should not be limited to military enlistment offices, where they are unlikely to earn much, as they offer a rather modest level of income. They can work in IT, or in medicine. They can work anywhere, or they could engage in sports – military sports or civilian sports.

There are various ways to achieve fulfilment, and there is a growing number of opportunities, thanks to modern technologies and with due account of personal preferences. They are working on this, and they are generally doing very well. You know, no big project is implemented without a hitch. In this case, however, we have many people working on this who have some connection with the special military operation: the widows of unfortunately fallen soldiers, the mothers of our fighters who are still there at the frontlines, or just people who care. In this sense, and perhaps because of this – incidentally, many veterans who have returned from the front are working there, too – this is probably the key reason the work is going well.

I was reluctant to let the head of the foundation, Anna Tsivileva, go to work for the Defence Ministry, but I finally consented to Minister Belousov’s proposal when he told me that he thought it would be a good idea to build a seamless support system, which would encompass those who continue to serve in the Armed Forces, with the Defence Ministry, those who are still fighting, but need some support measures, as well as those who are now beyond the scope of the Defence Ministry. I thought we needed someone to do this.

Just recently, last summer, I think, the Defence Ministry created a social centre. So today, this social centre and the Defenders of the Fatherland Foundation are working as a one-stop shop, which helps people who are part of the Defence Ministry system and those who are not. This system seamlessly combines both spheres. They are probably struggling with many problems, but overall, the work is improving.

They have actually participated in decision-making on compensation rules for wounded soldiers. Until now, all wounded soldiers in our country received 3 million rubles regardless of the severity of their case – a small scratch, a minor injury, or a serious injury that led to disability – everyone received 3 million. In fact, servicemen themselves have asked the Ministry of Defence and the Defenders of the Fatherland Foundation to change this system, and we did. Now the fighters who are seriously injured, receive 4 million.

But when this was reported to me, I immediately saw that the fighters who had been seriously injured and received disabilities before that, had been paid 3 million. And now, we have started paying four, meaning they have been left out. So, I had a simple idea: those who had earlier received 3 million, need to be given an additional million retroactively. This means the government has underpaid them. So, now all of them are receiving an additional million each, and the payments are being processed quickly.

This work is also organised by the Defenders of the Fatherland Foundation.

Dmitry Kulko: I suggest we return to the concerns of Russian citizens. You've probably seen them.

Vladimir Putin: Excuse me, Ksenia has been raising her hand for a while. Please, Ksenia.

Ksenia Sobchak: Mr President, Ksenia Sobchak, Ostorozhno Media.

You touched on a very important topic regarding the one-stop shop concept and the capabilities of the Ministry of Defence. I would like to discuss this issue from a different perspective.

Many of us – journalists, celebrities and concerned citizens – are involved in various initiatives. For example, for the past two years, we have been running a large-scale project to help residents of Belgorod and Kursk regions – our fellow citizens affected by attacks from the Armed Forces of Ukraine. This year alone, we have managed to help over 600 families.

I believe there are many other compassionate individuals out there. Would it be possible, in your opinion, to create a one-stop shop for these civic initiatives as well? This could help integrate public and volunteer efforts with social workers and existing state structures. Such a platform could function on a voluntary basis but provide a unified mechanism for coordinating assistance across a wide range of needs.

For example, we often encounter challenges like finding employment in new locations or securing spots in kindergartens and other institutions for families with children that are temporarily relocating. Could such a one-stop shop be established to support these civic initiatives?

Vladimir Putin: First, let me thank you for what you are doing. Providing direct assistance to people is extremely important.

Second, I want to express gratitude to all volunteers. Their work is invaluable, but it also comes with risks. Sadly, there have even been losses among volunteers. Their efforts often reach individuals more directly and sometimes reveal where state mechanisms are effective and where they fall short.

As for your suggestion, we do have programmes in place. For instance, there is a recovery programme for the Kursk Region, with allocated funding that is already practically in place. Similar measures are being implemented in other border regions, including Belgorod and Bryansk regions. No one will be left without support. You probably perceive these needs more acutely, given your involvement.

I will personally consider how this can be organised and will consult with the relevant agencies, including the Ministry of Defence and regional governors, to explore how these efforts can be coordinated – whether through a one-stop shop or some other mechanism. We will definitely think it through. Thank you, Ksenia.

I do not have an immediate answer right now, but the question you have raised is absolutely valid, and we will work on a solution.

Thank you.

Dmitry Kulko: Mr President, I suggest we continue the topic of the special military operation and the support for the military and their families.

You must have seen that among the inquiries we received for this programme, there were also requests for assistance with payments and benefits that are supposed to be allocated for the military and their families. There were also requests for assistance with finding people who are reported missing or with whom there is no contact, or who, according to their families, are being held captive.

Mr President, is it possible to issue an instruction to the Defence Military specifically to deal with these cases? The families are struggling without knowing for certain what has happened. Is it possible to improve the notification system for the families of the military?

Vladimir Putin: It is a very sensitive issue for many.

It is one thing when a person is fighting and, God willing, everything turns out well.

There are different forms of benefits. In general, they are quite decent: there is battle pay, sometimes also called detached-duty allowance, for those who found themselves in certain regions before the start of the special military operation and it was considered a tour of duty. There is also pay for participation in offensive and storming operations, and in organising defence. There is a slight difference, but the grounds for pay are real.

When a person disappears from the radar, the matter of family support arises. We discussed this, and the Defence Minister is aware of this issue. There are at least two things that need to be done.

First of all, it is necessary to expedite final decisions. When information is lacking, families stop receiving corresponding benefits because the person is not there; he is not involved in any offensive or defensive operation; he is not receiving battle pay, and so forth. As a result, the scope of family support diminishes.

Here, the Ministry of Defence and the Government must take a different decision – on what can substitute these payments at least partly. There are different ideas: to develop a form of child benefit, or find another solution. But a decision is necessary on temporary measures, and this matter must be resolved promptly. I will not go into details now. Overall, the Ministry of Defence is aware of this problem and is working on it.

Alexandra Suvorova: Meanwhile, we have been working for more than three hours; almost three hours and ten minutes.

We have many questions, and they are different. I propose a a quick round of questions. Dmitry, what do you think? Shall we begin?

Dmitry Kulko: Let’s start with a question from Georgy Arefyev from the Smolensk Region: Why do high-ranking officials have to ask for your instructions at the meetings you hold so that they can start doing something?

Vladimir Putin: There is no need to scold officials.

Why is that so? The decision-making process is difficult; and when it reaches me, there are this kind of questions and problems. There are various ways to approach the solution: some of my colleagues believe it should be done one way, and others think differently. When there is a dispute or a fork, as they say in the Government, as they are deciding on an issue, then my colleagues come to me asking to make the final decision, as the commander. They ask for instructions so they won’t forget anything; the final decision is turned into instructions, and they get down to work.

There are many bureaucratic subtleties; sometimes everyone agrees on something, but it must be put on paper and implemented as a regulation.

Alexandra Suvorova: The next question is: “Who would you like to have a cup of tea with from among currently living or deceased people?”

Vladimir Putin: Considering the living, I would like to meet with my friends and relatives more often, to have tea and talk with them.

As for the deceased world leaders, I was in touch with German Chancellor [Helmut] Kohl, though not very personally, but for a long time.

He was a person of the global scale, and not just because he was a big man but because of his actions and convictions. He came to visit me right after our first meeting in 1993 and continued to do so for a very long time, not very often but regularly, even after his term ended. I had the pleasure – let me stress this – to talk to him.

It was a big political figure of that time, as they used to say in the Soviet Union. He did a lot for his country and for the Germans. He was a major European and global politician.

I vividly recall many of our conversations. They were very useful for me; I am saying this without exaggeration.

President of France [Jacques] Chirac was a very interesting person, too. Just interesting. You know, he was something of an encyclopedist, or an academic: he knew everything you could ask about. It was curious, honestly. He had an opinion about everything, and he always stood for it. He was a very tactful and courteous person. I learned a lot from him, too, to be honest, just as I learned a lot of things from Kohl and made a mental note of them. I noted this in Chirac too: his behaviour, and his intelligence among other traits.

Berlusconi was slightly different, but also very pleasant to talk to, he was active and very tenacious. Just like Chirac, he did a lot for the development of Russian-Italian relations. Despite what is happening today, we can feel that that there is a certain affection for Russia in Italian society, just like we feel affection for Italy.

All of them made a significant contribution to the development of bilateral relations and world politics. Their company was always interesting. They had strong personalities and their own opinions. It was all focused on achieving the maximum result for their countries and strengthening the sovereignty of their states.

I still have many friends in Asia. I have already spoken about friendly relations with…

Alexandra Suvorova: With China, as you said.

Vladimir Putin: With China and India. I have very warm relations with the Prime Minister of India. I have many people I can talk with. However, like any person, I would like to say once again that these are my family and some friends I have had since childhood, and I treasure that a lot.

Alexandra Suvorova: Next question.

Dmitry Kulko: Mr President, I have something between a question and request for advice from Tatyana Prokhorova from Chuvashia: “Do you have bank deposits? If so, in which banks?”

Vladimir Putin: Initially, I had a deposit in Sberbank, I think. Then, when Rossiya Bank was the first financial institution to be sanctioned, I demonstratively transferred my money there. I think, my salary is also transferred there.

Alexandra Suvorova: Next question: “Did Elvira Nabiullina tell you what the Central Bank rate will be tomorrow?” I think this would be interesting not only for Valery Semenov from the Pskov Region, who wrote this question.

Vladimir Putin: No, she does not tell me what the rate will be. Perhaps she does not know this yet, because they discuss it at the board meeting, their “Komsomol cell,” and make the final decision in the course of the discussion. I hope that it will be balanced and will meet today’s requirements.

Dmitry Kulko: Another question: “Vladimir Zhirinovsky’s predictions about the developments in the Middle East and the South Caucasus are coming true. Will other predictions of the LDPR founder come true?”

Vladimir Putin: Of course, I knew Vladimir Zhirinovsky well. He was no fortune teller, but he liked provocations and had fun shocking others. However, he was an erudite, and a well-prepared one; he was a specialist on the Middle East. A true expert. Everything he said came true because he relied on his analysis of what was happening in Russia and the world, and forecast the unfolding of the situation. This really comes true.

However, it was a forecast based on real knowledge and the experience he had as an expert.

Alexandra Suvorova: I propose returning to the blitz a bit later, near the end.

Dmitry Peskov: The blitz can go on forever.

Alexandra Suvorova: Yes, sure, with 2,200 questions.

Dmitry Peskov: I cannot quite see what you have written on the paper, but you’ve been raising your hand for a long time.

Vladimir Putin: There is a man in a mask. You’re next, okay?

Svetlana Shevchenko: I can speak, aren’t I?

Vladimir Putin: Please, please.

Svetlana Shevchenko: Svetlana Shevchenko, Novosibirsk, Novosibirsk Region.

We are an agroindustrial region and produce high-quality products with added value for export. However, recently we have had an acute shortage of young personnel in the countryside. It has had a real impact: there are not enough personnel despite rural mortgages and the development of rural areas.

Mr President, what would you advise us? What measures should we take to attract new youth and retain those who already live in the countryside?

Vladimir Putin: This is a very important question, because agriculture is a key sector of the Russian economy. I have already said that it is developing at a good pace: three percent per year. We cannot but be pleased with what is happening in agriculture.

I have already given this example, but I will still say this, if I remember it right. In 1986, if I remember correctly, the Soviet Union purchased 35 million tonnes of grain. Last year, we exported 56 million tonnes. We started exporting grain back in 2000, but it was only 1.2 or 1.3 million tonnes; and today it is 66 million tonnes. It seems impossible, but it is happening.

Look, we are among the three largest exporters of food to the world market, and the top one wheat exporter in the world. Last year we had a record harvest of 148 million; this year it will be 130 million, but this is also a very large harvest, and we are stable: we have harvested over 100 million tonnes for 10 years and have a stable large supply for export operations. As I have already said, we have completely covered our need in meat – 100 percent – and we export it.

There are problems with dairy, fruit and vegetable products, but there is also a development programme. Everything is growing gradually.

Social issue in the country is one of the most important problems. There is a programme for the socioeconomic development of the countryside, and overall its has funding. Of course, it may be not enough, but the main thing is to increase the level of well-being and income of people living in the countryside. All other issues will be resolved based on this. I am sure that we will make progress in this area.

Personnel is also a key element. We have traditionally focused on personnel since the Soviet Union era, and now work in the rural areas is becoming more interesting. It is a whole industry now. It requires high-class specialists in various areas: biology and chemistry, in addition to traditional agronomists, and genetics as well.

For example, genetics is an important area, and it is currently developing at the highest pace precisely because of and in the interests of agriculture.

I think all this is very interesting, and we should talk about this not only at events like this once a year, but constantly, as well as create conditions for young people who would be interested in coming and working in this sector of the economy.

The government will do everything possible to attract applicants this industry needs; and manufacturers must do what they do in other industries: create conditions to send people for training intentionally, pick personnel they need during the training, and ensure their work at enterprises and industrial practice. We will certainly provide for all of this.

Dmitry Peskov: Mr President, you promised to take a question from the journalist wearing a mask.

Vladimir Putin:Yes, please.

Andrei Knyazev: I have already taken off the mask. I wear it because I use the metro as probably most of those present here do.

I am Andrei Knyazev, a volunteer with Argumenty Nedeli – Uzbekistan, and head of The World of the Young, a studio of young and adult journalists in Moscow.

Here is my question. This year marks 45 years of my journalistic career which I started in Uzbekistan and have been persuing here for the past 30 years. I see that paper journalism is dying out. Maybe bloggers like Vlad Bumaga will help independent newspapers which depend only on their readers, not on the goverment or business people.

What do you think can be done to stop at least weekly press from dying? Becasue the bloggers we have now are not always intelligent, not always sincere and not always good. This is my short question.

I asked my second question to many officials, inlcuding Ms Zakhartova, the Foreign Minsitry spokeswoman. She told me to address the President’s Direct Line. That’s why I am here.

A great number of our scientists and many clairvoyants say that within the coming 10 to 12 years European countries, Japan, the United States and the American continent will be submerged or destroyed. However, the peopole will survive and they will ask to come to us, Mr President. Meanwhile, they are against us. Should they be informed in advance?

This is hypothecal, of course. Yet, there are such forecasts. I read a lot, and I basically read newspapers, not those lying Telegram channels and others of the kind.

So I have two questions to you. Sorry for that.

Vladimir Putin: I am not sure if I should say it. Ok, I will. You know a popular joke, a banter about a family at table with a little boy doing a crossword puzzle, who says: “Tell me a four-letter word.” His mom hits him on the forehead with a spoon – bang! He cries: Why? It’s ‘home.’ Then the father bangs his wife saying: “You should think about your home! Think about your home.”

You have said that some continents would be underwater and we should think about what is to be done with those people. We should think about our home!

Andrei Knyazev: Mr President, but they will run to us. What are we going to do with them?

Vladimir Putin: I was listening to you very attentively. You are a person full of energy! Please, let me finish.

I am saying this because the forecasts you have referred to are ethemeral. They are made by serious researchers who say that permafrost is going to start melting. This carries huge problems for the environment because new emissions into the atmosphere will exceed those from all the vehicles in the world. So if permafrost starts melting, the coastal regions of the Russian Federation are also in danger.

We have entire villages and towns with houses built on stillts in the permafrost. They already hear some crepitation underneath there. That’s what we should be thinking about, our coastal cities, including even St Petersburg, you see? We did build a flood dam there, which they dreamed of building since the times of Peter the Great. But we should think about what will happen to the coastal cities. We should think about our homeland first.

Andrei Knyazev: And about the paper journalism.

Vladimir Putin: I’ll be right with you on that. If people begin relocating to us, we have unemployment at 2.3 percent, it’s practically non-existent. We are talking about labour migration and issues related to it.

You are right, think about that. If there is a massive influx of people, we must think about how to cope with it and where and how to accommodate those people. We are the biggest country in the world but do you know how many people live east of the Ural Mountains? About 12 million people. We do have space to resettle people.

In principle, we have to think about social and other infrastructure and rules in advance. It is not really an empty question. You are so egregious when you say all this, but there is actually an issue. I repeat once again: First of all, we need to think about the problems we have in our country.

As for paper journalism and help from Vlad Bumaga, I think that such fellows, of course, will gladly support you, especially since we are talking about paper journalism in this case.

I think that paper journalism will have its place in this huge changing world, just like the paper book. You can flip through a gadget, and everything is in good font there and in different languages. I myself, frankly speaking, sometimes use it. But picking up a book is a different story. Not only because there are pictures – although that is also interesting to look at – and a book illustration is sometimes a work of art, too.

Picking up an issue of Izvestia or Komsomolskaya Pravda, leafing through it, digging in it – there’s a thrill in that, isn’t there? I hope that those who are engaged in paper journalism will also take this into account and keep this remaining public interest alive.

The most important thing, of course, is the content, because whatever the media, the most important thing, as Vlad Bumaga said, is what’s inside, the content. That’s the most important thing. If paper-based media have a worthy and interesting content compared to some internet rubbish, they will be here to stay, they will not die.

Alexandra Suvorova: Mr President, let us think about home, above all, a healthy one. This topic is among those the Russians are most concerned about. If we look at statistics, healthcare and related issues come second – people ask about the shortage of doctors in outpatient clinics, and pretty often about a lack of some medicines.

I suggest we listen to a telephone call from Irina Sychyova from Nizhny Novgorod.

Mr Sychyova, good afternoon. Please, ask your question.

Irina Sycheva: Good afternoon, Mr President.

My name is Irina Sycheva. I am from Nizhny Novgorod.

I would like to draw your attention to our free medical care. First, I would like to sincerely thank you for the renovated outpatient clinics. Thank God, they are starting to make them look decent.

However, these outpatient clinics are in a dire shortage of medical specialists and primary care physicians as the doctors are leaving to work in commercial clinics. What should we, retired and low-income people, do in this situation?

For over a month, I have been unable to obtain an appointment with a cardiologist for my father who suffered a heart attack recently. This doctor receives patients only once a week. There are no online appointments because the doctor is not working full-time. To get an appointment, people have to queue outside the clinic from 5 or 6 am, and their chances are pretty slim. The people are standing on the street until 7 am, when the outpatient clinic opens. Many elderly people are unable to cope with this situation. We hope that you will resolve this issue.

Thank you very much in advance.

Vladimir Putin: Ms Sycheva, healthcare issues – and I perceive them in the context of the entire range of issues – come second, I think. Yes, second. This is always very important – in all countries, by the way, including those with the so-called developed market economy. It appears that the situation there is now even more acute than in Russia. But why should we care about them? I agree that we should think about our home country.

So, thank you for mentioning the renovated outpatient clinic. This means that things are moving, nevertheless.

We have a whole programme, I’ll talk about it in a second. Because our main problem is human resources. This problem exists in primary care sector. We have hospitals, with doctors and physicians working there, as you know – we have no personnel shortages there, while in primary care this problem does exist. This results in an obvious conclusion: the problem is mostly linked with the way a healthcare system is organised in the Russian Federation’s regions.

Speaking about the hospital bed rotation, we can see that beds in hospitals are not fully used all year round. At the same time, there is a problem in primary care, including outpatient clinics and district hospitals where medical specialists work every day. Local healthcare authorities are supposed to distribute the load correctly. This is the first thing.

The second aspect is linked with personnel training. We are trying, and the Healthcare Ministry is trying to enrol as many applicants at universities as possible. The process is ongoing. We have started paying an additional 50,000 and 29,000 rubles to doctors and nurses at small communities, and this is also quite important. For the first time in several years, we can see an influx of 17,500 specialists, but their number is still not enough.

Going back to the organisation of healthcare and the need to continue strengthening the primary care sector, we should certainly be doing all this much quicker than we did before. I cannot help but agree with this. Speaking of your particular case, my colleagues will give me your data. You do have the information, right?

Alexandra Suvorova: Yes.

Vladimir Putin: We’ll do all we can and will certainly help your father.

Dmitry Kulko: Let us continue with the topic of healthcare. It is important.

Compared to last year, the number of complaints regarding shortage of medicines has gone down this year, but we still have them, and they mainly concern subsidised prescription drugs.

For instance, here is what a pensioner from Kerch wrote us, “I have cancer. I was prescribed free medication, but the last time I had it for free was three months ago. I called the hotline in Simferopol and was told the drugs were unavailable. I have to buy them with my own money now. Please help resolve this issue.”

This is not limited to expensive medications – the situation with absence of normal saline was especially striking. People with diabetes also report difficulties with obtaining insulin. Here are a few examples.

Rashida Gainutdinova had the following to write to us: “In Neftekamsk, I have not been able to obtain insulin for four months now. I used to get it from a hospital, but it is no longer available there. I cannot buy it at the pharmacy either.”

Vitaly Mayorov from Atkarsk, the Saratov Region, “I have had type 1 diabetes for 50 years now. I have never experienced such poor insulin and test strip availability.”

Mr President, where does the domestic pharmaceutical industry stand at this point, and what is your take on patients’ access to essential medications for cancer and other acute conditions?

Vladimir Putin: This is a critically important issue, just like ensuring we have enough medical specialists and doctors.

The pharmaceutical industry is high on our list of priorities. You might be aware that as far back as 2008, when I served as the Prime Minister, we started working on developing our own pharmaceutical industry.

We began discussing this in 2008 and started creating programmes to this end. These programmes were finalised in 2009. They went by different names, but they came down to one and the same thing which was developing our own pharmaceutical industry. I cannot give you the exact budget we set aside back then, but this sector has largely grown with the help and support of the state, mostly through federal funding.

More recently, our pharmaceutical companies have begun investing their own resources into growing this business, and the investment amounts to impressive tens of billions of rubles, around 40 billion, I believe.

We now have development programmes of our own in place and have started creating our own medications based on our own molecules and producing our own APIs, which we did not have before. We have begun manufacturing complex medicines, including for cancer treatment. This sector is doing quite well, particularly in St Petersburg. The same goes for insulin.

As for test strips and similar supplies, the issues arise from operational shortcomings and delays at local levels. Overall, funding for these medications is allocated in full. The challenge lies in organising procurement and making timely decisions.

I will certainly discuss this with the colleagues in the Government and regional administrations. It is essential to act promptly and understand the market’s needs.

We have a programme for expanding the pharmaceutical industry, which is part of the technological leadership initiative. This programme specifically addresses medication production. By 2030, we aim to meet 90 percent of the demand for vital medicines with domestic medications, and 40 percent of the demand for medical products.

Overall, this work is moving, and the pace is good. However, this is a major undertaking, and things do not always go without a fault. Please provide the details, and we will see if there are any disruptions. I am sure there are.

Regarding insulin, we have always had sufficient supplies of it. Normal saline is not a problem. I am following these developments. It is not about the saline solution itself, but the package. What happened is that two agencies – the Ministry of Industry and Trade and the Healthcare Ministry – failed to agree on the package price in time. The proposed price made production a loss-making operation, forcing manufacturers to import packages.

All due decisions have been made by now, and I hope these setbacks are a thing of the past. We will certainly look into this specific case.

Thank you.

Dmitry Kulko: Mr Peskov, please take the baton.

Dmitry Peskov: Thank you. Let’s go into the audience.

Remark from the audience.

Dmitry Peskov: You know, we won’t go far like that.

Vladimir Putin: Go ahead, please. But let’s not act that way. Chaos will reign this hall, and we won’t be able to cope with it. Please.

Ksenia Aksyonova: Thank you. I apologise.

Ksenia Aksyonova, Spas TV channel.

I will ask questions that have in common a phrase of a person whom I know you respect very much and whom the entire Russian church loves. This is the spiritual father of our Patriarch, Elder Iliy (Nozdrin).

At the beginning of the special military operation, he listed three conditions for victory: ban abortions, ban foul language, and bury Lenin’s body.

I have three questions on these three points.

First, abortions. Our Patriarch has been talking about removing abortions from the compulsory medical insurance system each and every year, because it is not a medical procedure, and it does not help but maims. The leaders of traditional religions in Russia support the Patriarch in this. Will this be done?

Second, foul language. Recently, you have given an exhaustive opinion on the subject saying that it is anti-prayer and an invocation of dark forces. In order not to repeat myself, I will ask specifically about dark forces, because esoterics, occult science, fortune telling, accessible pornography are currently booming in Russia, and people are now spending more money on psychics than on doctors. Porn sites are now the most visited in our country. Will there be any measures taken to restrict these clearly dangerous types of activity?

Third, burying Lenin’s body. I am not talking about an assessment of his actions right now. You have done that many times. I’m referring specifically to fulfilling his will and that of his family, and that keeping an embalmed body in the Mausoleum is a pagan and ungodly custom. Please tell me what is preventing us from burying Lenin's body?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: These questions are clearly not for an extended news conference or a direct line. All of them are very sensitive.

As for abortions, of course, here we should be thinking about how not to harm people’s religious beliefs and at the same time deal with our demographic challenges. However, we should also think about the level of well-being of Russian families with children, their future and women’s right to make decisions. This is a delicate issue that cannot be resolved at a news conference, just like porn sites and so on.

See, some people don’t like that YouTube is slowing down. You say, “in our country,” but I think porn sites are visited all over the world. First come porn sites, and then one can think about ordering a cutlet, you see. All over the world. This is not just our problem; it is a problem in many other countries.

What answer can there be? In fact, any bans are possible, but it is always about offering a more interesting alternative to porn sites, so that a person would go to a porn site and say: I have already seen this, I want to watch something different. Something captivating. (Laughter in the audience.)

The same goes for the burial of Lenin’s body. Someday, society will probably come to this. But today, especially today, we must not take a single step that would split the society in Russia. That’s how I see it.

Overall, Iliy is right, of course. I like him and always listen to what he says. I know, he told me about it.

Dmitry Peskov: Can we take a question from that sector?

Mr President, Kolesnikov is there. I have completely forgotten about him. If I may.

Vladimir Putin: Please go ahead, Andrei.

Andrei Kolesnikov: Good afternoon.

Andrei Kolesnikov, Kommersant newspaper.

Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon.

Andrei Kolesnikov: Mr President, the war has been on for nearly three years now, and we all have changed much. The war changed everyone. How have you changed? Have you found out anything new about yourself?

I have one more question, if Mr Peskov does not object. No one has asked this question yet, and perhaps never will, but I am curious. Some time ago, as is widely known, US President Joe Biden pardoned his son Hunter, who had been convicted of making a false statement when buying a firearm. This caused quite a stir around the world, and everyone had something to say about that, yet you remained silent. Perhaps, you have nothing to say about that. What do you think about that anyway?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: They say silence is golden. It is better to keep things to yourself sometimes.

Thank you for the question, though.

Regarding Biden pardoning his son, even though he promised not to do so, it is a delicate matter. Our history has other examples to offer. Everyone saw the famous painting, Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan. That story may be a legend or not, just like what happened to the son of Peter the Great, Alexei. Or take Stalin – and this is no legend, when he refused to exchange his son Yakov, who was in captivity, for Field Marshal Paulus, saying, “I will not exchange a marshal for a soldier.”

You see, it is a personal decision, but during the war even surrendering was considered an act of treason. Why? You can cite all kinds of reasons, but at that time the country was facing possible annihilation of not only its statehood, but also its people. It was a battle for survival of the ethnicity, our nation. The measures taken to ensure victory were harsh, if not cruel.

Considering this public mindset, which Stalin likely abided by, he was unable to save his son. He said what he said and did what he did.

As we know, Stalin’s son was executed in a camp, while Paulus was “used” during the Nuremberg Trials. When Paulus entered the courtroom, everyone gasped as no one expected to see him there.

As for Biden, he is a politician, you know, and it is always important to understand what is dominating you – a politician or a human. It turns out Biden is more human than politician. I would not judge him for that.

Alexandra Suvorova: The first part of Andrei Kolesnikov’s question was about the three years of the special military operation and the ongoing hostilities.

Vladimir Putin: What has changed?

Andrei Kolesnikov: How have you changed over the past three years?

Vladimir Putin: You know we all change every day, and every hour. I think everyone in the audience and the people who are listening or watching us also change. That is the fact of life: everything changes, and nothing stands still. These past three years, or rather over two years, have been a serious test for all of us, including our country and me personally.

Let me give it to you straight: we are sitting here, joking occasionally, with laughter being heard in the audience, but I now make fewer jokes and almost stopped laughing.

There is another circumstance. I am now honing what I consider my skills – let us call them that – in identifying key issues and concentrating my attention and energy on solving them.

Dmitry Peskov: Moving on. Let's go to the diametrically opposite sector.

I see RBC. RBC, please.

Polina Khimshiashvili: Good afternoon.

Polina Khimshiashvili, RBC.

Just to follow up on the question already posed. You have said that now you laugh and smile less. If it were possible to go back to February 2022, would you change your decision?

Vladimir Putin: Such a hypothetical question: “If it were possible…” You know, if I could look at the situation in 2022, knowing what is happening now, what would I think? That the decision that was taken in the beginning of 2022 should have been taken earlier. This is my first point.

And second, being aware of this, we should have simply started to get ready for these measures, including for the special military operation. Indeed, the Crimean events were simply spontaneous and we also started the events of 2022 without any special preparations. But why did we start them? It’s because it was impossible for us to stand still any longer and tolerate and wait until the situation becomes worse for us. That's what it's all about.

After all, the Kiev authorities declared that they were not going to honour the Minsk agreements. They said it in a straightforward manner, laying their claims on some sort of weapons of mass destruction. We saw that we had been deceived regarding the Minsk agreements, with war and massacre and destruction of people in Donbass going on for eight years. Nothing was happening, they repudiated the Minsk agreements.

What’s more, we saw that they simply set on military development of these territories while at the same time destroying everything connected with Russia. We could no longer remain in the state we were in. They forced us to do what we did. If we had known in advance what was going to happen, of course, we would have engaged in serious systemic preparations. That’s what I would mean.

Dmitry Peskov: Friends, we have already been working for four hours.

Vladimir Putin: Let’s give the floor to the colleagues. Please pass the microphone.

Yekaterina Lazareva: Thank you, Mr President.

Hello,

Yekaterina Lazareva, URA.RU agency.

Today, you mentioned European leaders as well as the new and the current American leader.

My question is: in 2025, Russia will mark the 80^th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War, and I know that you are already extending invitations to leaders from various countries. However, if we recall, this year, for the anniversary of the Allied landing in Normandy, France did not invite us. Additionally, there will be memorial events at Auschwitz in January 2025, and to my knowledge, we have not been invited either.

Have you extended invitations to our allies in the Anti-Hitler Coalition for Victory anniversary celebrations in 2025, encouraging them to come to Moscow? Is it important to you that the leaders of the United States, the United Kingdom, and perhaps France attend, or at least send representatives?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: First, as for being invited anywhere, we are not seeking invitations. We are happy here at home. Our focus is on strengthening ourselves, that is the essence of our work.

Second, we will never forget the sacrifices our people made in the fight against Nazism. The most important thing is that we remember. If other countries are trying to forget, it reflects the priorities of today’s leaders, who are focused on undermining Russia as a whole, forgetting, erasing, and shifting focus. But that is their own business.

We will be happy to welcome anyone who wishes to join us in celebrating this significant anniversary. While I personally sign some invitations, the Foreign Ministry handles most of the arrangements. My stance is that we are open to all who wish to be with us in Moscow on those days and mark this important anniversary.

We will be happy to welcome everyone, including the participants of the Anti-Hitler Coalition, who made a significant contribution to the victory over Nazism, such as the United States and Great Britain with its northern convoys. There were many heroes among them too, and we honour and respect them. Moreover, I believe there are still veterans among them. The British sailors demonstrated true heroism, and the Americans fought during the landing in northern France.

Indeed, their participation and losses are not comparable to those of the Soviet people in the Great Patriotic War. We lost 27 million, while the United States lost around 500,000, and Great Britain lost even less: around 400,000, if I am not mistaken. Although in World War I, they lost 1.5 million. So, the scale of their contribution to Victory is different, but their involvement was still significant, especially since they were with us. They supported us through Lend-Lease. It is true, though, that we eventually paid for it in full. When I became President, we paid off the entire Lend-Lease debt. The Americans got that money from us, you see. We paid that in full, even though so many years passed by.

Nonetheless, we value the contribution of our allies to the shared struggle and will be happy to welcome anyone who wishes to join us in celebrating the joy of Victory.

Dmitry Kulko: Mr President, we still have many questions left, including personal ones.

Vladimir Putin: Let’s take another question from the audience.

Yamal. What is Yamal up to?

Andrei Zhizhin: Good afternoon, Mr President.

Andrei Zhizhin, Yamal-Media.

Western countries have imposed over 20,000 sanctions…

Vladimir Putin: It is 40,000, I believe.

Andrei Zhizhin: 40,000?

Vladimir Putin: Frankly, I stopped counting.

Andrei Zhizhin: They have a particular issue with our progressive development in the Arctic. It has come to the point where they openly declare their goal to destroy and kill the liquefied natural gas production projects in the Arctic.

What are they afraid of? Do they have any success with slowing the pace of our development in the Arctic? How are we going to respond?

Vladimir Putin: They are afraid of the competition. They are leveraging political tools to engage in unfair competition.

Take the well-known company NOVATEK. It is not an industry leader; other countries, including the United States, produce more LNG. However, we are getting bigger, and they are trying to hamper our growth using unfair methods for keeping competition in check.

This may backfire if they continue to deal with competitors using non-economic methods. They will eventually lose their competitive edge. Not tomorrow, perhaps, but someday they will if it goes on like that.

Are they in our way or not? Yes, they are. Are they creating problems for us? Yes, they are. Will they be able to completely shut us down or to destroy us? No, they will not. They might cause us a certain amount of harm, but, without a doubt, we will overcome these difficulties, just as we have overcome energy supply challenges in the past. Moreover, the global demand for energy resources did not go anywhere, as the global economy still needs them. The demand for them is on the rise and will continue to grow (this is not our data; it comes from the world economic institutions), and this product will remain in demand on international markets. We will continue to expand our share on the global LNG market.

By the way, the same applies to pipeline gas supplies. Ukraine refused to renew the transit contract. It was not us who did it. Ukraine did. They refused to renew the contract, even though they used to receive about US$700–800 million a year under it.

Now, the question is what to do with it. But that is not our problem. It was Ukraine who cut off our gas supply to European consumers. On one hand, it is eating from their hand because it can survive, not just war, but survive only with the support of the West, including Europe, but at the same time, it is creating problems for them by cutting off supplies of our relatively cheap gas. That contract is clearly history. Fine, we will survive. Gazprom will survive.

By the way, the other day our intelligence services told me that saboteurs, clearly Ukrainian ones, were detained in Slovakia. They had maps of Slovakia’s gas infrastructure facilities on them.

I was briefed about this just recently. I will ask our intelligence agencies to request information from their colleagues about what exactly occurred, the connections are still in place. You see, it is not enough for them to carry out terrorist attacks in our country; now they are targeting European countries.

Once again, they are eating from their hand, and now they are attempting acts of terror in Europe. But that is their choice. Our choice is to pursue cooperation, and we will push forward to achieve our goals.

Kosmos, go ahead. And I can see BBC, too. You will soon get your chance to put us under fire. Go ahead. All we do is defend ourselves.

Dmitry Maslak: Thank you.

I am a staff correspondent for the Russian Service of China state television in Moscow. We work here in Russia, and I am a Russian citizen, although I am considered a foreign journalist.

If I may, I will start with a question from China state television, from CGTN, because thanks to them I got here, and we have been working here for the second year already.

First question. Today’s programme is called “Results of the Year,” and throughout the year you have been saying that Chinese peace initiatives are among the most – I cannot remember the exact wording – but you have said that they were more realistic than all the others proposed by the mediator countries.

We have all heard and remember that the West has exhausted its trust limit, and Russia has been deceived by European leaders, as they themselves admitted. But if we talk about specifics, Mr Trump and his assistant Keith Kellogg say that it is possible to end the war even before the inauguration on January 20.

We are not talking about any country joining NATO… But is it possible to cease fire in one minute? Is Russia ready to at least take this simple step if European and American partners manage to convince Kiev?

The entire world is really tired with the Ukraine crisis, and I think people in Russia now want peace, too. This is a simple step: nobody risks anything if everything just stops where it is. If promises are not kept or broken, it may continue. No one will lose anything if it just stops at some point

And my second question, since this is a mixed-format event. I live in Korolev and would like to draw your attention to the largest science town in Russia, because in fact we, the residents of Korolev, have many questions.

Currently, a National Space Centre is being built at the Khrunichev centre, and many residents of Korolev, and we are talking about a quarter of a million, residents of the Moscow Region are perplexed: are we still the historical space capital, where Korolev and leading designers worked, or not? For example, perhaps we need a special economic zone on the territory of the integrated house-building factory, which they are trying to divide now; because the city needs a boost, it needs to regain its title as the country’s historical space capital, because Energia RSC continues to work there, among other things.

This calls for building a third entrance to the city. Everyone is asking for it, because people spend up to four hours in traffic jams. When this event is over, we will drive all the way up there to be stuck in that notorious traffic jam for three and a half hours. We need a flyover. We have a little problem with democracy in the city. Sorry, these are pressing issues.

Dmitry Peskov: You have combined two roles: a citizen and a journalist.

Dmitry Maslak: A direct line and a news conference.

Alexandra Suvorova: Since you are already here.

Dmitry Maslak: In fact, yes. A third entrance to Korolev. You have used this flyover personally. A third entrance is necessary, because we are stuck, we cannot waste time in these traffic jams. I believe the entire city is applauding now, because if you can solve this problem, it would make us very happy.

Thank you very much.

Colleagues, I apologise.

Vladimir Putin: Your employer will not be happy about the second part of your question. It is not what he has sent you here for. But you got me right: you should care about your home. This is absolutely true.

The idea of a third entrance to Korolev was discussed. I know about it from our previous discussions on the development of Korolev as a space capital. Another centre that is under construction in Moscow is extremely important for the development of the space industry, but Korolev remains a prominent space centre. I will not go into detail now, but Korolev as a science city certainly deserves to be given attention. I will discuss this matter with my colleagues by all means, both in the Moscow Region and with those who are working in the aircraft and space sector. They have various plans.

There are grounds for the idea of a special economic zone [in Korolev]. I will not present a final decision now, but this is something that can and should be given attention. You are right that we should think about using the potential of Korolev. This is the first point.

Second, regarding the peace initiatives of the People’s Republic of China, Brazil and South Africa. We have taken note of them because this is a sincere attempt to find a solution. We regard it as a balanced attempt that is not being imposed on either side, Ukraine or Russia. That is because these initiatives have been proposed by neutral countries, which are not interfering in the conflict, unlike the Western countries, which are actually waging a war against us by the proxy of Ukrainians. And so, their initiatives must be analysed very carefully because they are actually a party to the conflict.

As for stopping the conflict where it is, you see, I have already spoken about the situation. We see the exhaustion of weapons, equipment, ammunition and, most importantly, personnel in the Ukrainian armed forces. They are running out of all this.

What do we really see on the battlefield now? Our army is advancing, while the opponent is unable to become entrenches in the positions in has retreated to at any given day or moment. Its troops have retreated in an organised manner, but they cannot consolidate their hold on them, because our men will continue to advance tomorrow, and so on and so forth.

We pause for a week – we give the enemy a chance to gain a foothold and fortify their positions. It will give them the opportunity to rest, regroup and rearm. Most importantly, it will allow them to recruit and train soldiers. With the current shortage of personnel, they literally grab people off the streets, as I told the Defence Ministry board – they cart people off like stray dogs. But stray dogs at least are taken to animal shelters, and subsequently put up for adoption, and eventually get a new home. Unlike them, Ukrainian men are being sent for slaughter.

They have no time for training, and our military see this on the battlefield: their training is lacking, it is not anything like a Soviet military school; this is a totally different story. Even those who are trained in Western countries are not good enough compared to the Soviet training because their instructors have never fought themselves; they have never participated in real action. How can they train anyone?

The point is that a lengthy period of relative truce will give the enemy the opportunity to improve this aspect as well – train and retrain, and consolidate their personnel. Some battalions of the Ukrainian army have only 35 or 40 percent of the required number of fighters. You have a battalion, but no personnel in it. Do you really want to give them the opportunity to reman their units?

We do not need a truce. We need peace: a long-term and lasting peace with guarantees for the Russian Federation and its citizens. It is difficult to say how these guarantees can be provided, but it is a place to start.

In fact, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban put forth a proposal for a short-term truce. This is what he told me – I do not think Victor will be angry with me if I reveal a part of our conversation – he said, it will not hurt to call a Christmas truce, just for a day or two, and the enemy will not be able to do anything in these two or three days. I said, you are probably right, but you should first ask the Ukrainian side. We have earlier agreed to at least three such proposals – on navigation in the Black Sea, on energy infrastructure, and so on.

Erdogan contacted me; ask your President. This is true, he made a proposal to me as an intermediary. I said I had to think about it. The next day, just a day later, I called him and said we agreed. Suddenly, the head of the Ukrainian regime announced there would be no talks and no truce. So, I called Erdogan and asked what that meant? He said: this is what our partners do. I said: well, all right.

I have asked Orban the same question. He proposed a Christmas truce, and he also proposed a prisoner exchange. I have not refused anything. I said we needed to think, but you should ask them. He did. The next day, the head of the [Kiev] regime said that there would be no truce, no prisoner exchange. This is the answer to your question.

Dmitry Kulko: We have been on the air for over four hours now. Let’s wrap it up.

Vladimir Putin: I promised [to take a question from] the BBC.

Go ahead.

Alexandra Suvorova: They promised to attack.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, you promised to attack. They gladly do so even without promises. This is their job; it is what they are paid for.

Steven Rosenberg: BBC News.

Exactly 25 years ago, Boris Yeltsin resigned, transferred power to you, and said, “Take care of Russia.” After 25 years, do you believe you have taken care of Russia? Because looking from the outside, what do we see? We see substantial losses in the so-called special military operation that you declared; and we see Ukrainian soldiers in the Kursk Region. You criticise NATO expansion, but there is more NATO now on Russia’s borders: Sweden and Finland. There are sanctions, high inflation, and demographic problems. But what do you think? Have you taken care of your country?

Vladimir Putin: Yes. I believe I have not just taken care of it, but I believe we have stepped back from the edge of the abyss, because with everything that was happening in and around Russia before and since was leading us towards a complete, total loss of our sovereignty. Without sovereignty, Russia cannot exist as an independent state.

Let me draw your attention to what you said about Boris Yeltsin. Everything seemed fine; they patted him on the back patronisingly, and turned a blind eye when he drank. He was welcome in all Western circles. But as soon as he raised his voice in defence of Yugoslavia, as soon as he said that it violated international law and the UN Charter, as soon as he said that striking Belgrade, the capital of a European country, without UN Security Council approval was unacceptable in modern Europe, they immediately started having a go at him, calling him names, saying he was a drunk, and so on. Do you not remember that?

I have done everything so that Russia can be an independent and sovereign state that is capable of making decisions in its own interests, rather than in the interests of the countries that were dragging it towards them, patting it on the back, only to use it for their own purposes. I could stop there. But I understand you have laid out the entire set of arguments that seem support your stance.

You mentioned inflation. Yes, there is inflation. We will fight it. But we also have economic growth. We rank fourth in the world in purchasing power parity. Please share that with your readers. We are first in Europe, far ahead of the United Kingdom, which, I believe, is not even in the top five.

But we are ready to work with the UK, if the UK wants to work with us. If not, that is fine. We will cope without our former WWII Allies.

Dmitry Kulko: Mr President, there are numerous questions from Russians, including some of a personal nature. Time is short, so I suggest we proceed in a rapid-fire manner.

Dmitry Peskov: We have already been at it for four and a half hours.

Vladimir Putin: Let's bring it to a close.

Alexandra Suvorova: Do you have a dream? Not one related to governance, but a personal one. What is your dream?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, I do, of course. But it is a personal dream. May I keep it to myself?

Dmitry Kulko: A question from social media. Alexandra Pukhova asks: Are you a happy person?

Vladimir Putin: Do you consider this a rapid-fire question? Am I meant to respond with a simple yes or no? How can I possibly convey that with just yes or no?

You see, the point is this: everyone knows I was born into a humble, working-class family. My ancestors crossed the Danube back in the 19^th century, and I have a document from the archives showing one of my ancestors was awarded the Cross of St George, one of the first Crosses of St George. Then my father, along with all my relatives on both my mother's and father's sides, fought on the fronts of the Great Patriotic War. Many died, indeed a great many; probably every second one fell. My father was left disabled by the war. I myself served in the foreign intelligence services, and my work has always been linked to serving the Fatherland. And of course, the fact that it is not the first time the people, the citizens of Russia, have entrusted me with leading the Russian state is a profound honour and an immense responsibility. So, in principle, one could say, ”That's it, I am happy, thank you.“ One might also say, ”God forbid, what more could I want?“

But you know, the reality is that happiness cannot be complete until our lads return from the front, until their mothers and wives reunite with them, until their children embrace them, until our young men and women form the right number of families for us, for the country, for Russia, and have children.

I deeply desire for our scientists, artists, and cultural figures to realise their aspirations. Only then, perhaps, might it be possible to claim that I am happy.

Alexandra Suvorova: There's a question from St. Petersburg: Why do various foreigners insult you, and yet you remain silent?

Vladimir Putin: It comes down to one's level of culture. I have said before: ”He who calls names is called that himself.“ In my opinion, such behaviour is born out of impotence. Why should we showcase such impotence? We have ample arguments to state our position clearly and succinctly.

Dmitry Kulko: An SMS from the Stavropol Region: Are there any duties you despise?

Vladimir Putin: No, there aren't. You see, if people have entrusted me with the responsibilities of the presidency, there are certain obligations, and I aim to fulfil them with honour, at least with complete dedication.

I am aware that if I begin to harbour aversion towards any aspect of my official duties, the desired outcomes will not be achieved. That's why, long ago, I resolved that everything I am required to do should be approached with a sense of satisfaction.

Alexandra Suvorova: A question from the Nizhny Novgorod Region. Whose portrait is hanging in your office?

Vladimir Putin: I do not have a portrait in my office. I have an icon in one of my offices, and a bust of Lomonosov in the other.

Dmitry Kulko: Another text message from Moscow. Would you grant political asylum to Zelensky? He will sure need it soon.

Vladimir Putin: I do not know. I do not think he will need it. In the most likely scenario – I cannot say what he will do, probably the same as other individuals from the top political leadership of Ukraine who went abroad – he will leave. I think those people whose interests he serves today will take care of him.

If by any chance he suddenly popped out of nowhere, like a jack-in-the-box, appearing when we would least expect it, and said he needed political asylum – Russia never refuses anyone.

Alexandra Suvorova: A question from Tatyana Kostyuchenko. What is Russia for you?

Vladimir Putin: This is a complex issue.

You see the map opposite us. Russia, like any other country, is first of all a vast territory. But it is not just the territory – it is history, culture, our customs and traditions. This all is Russia. And in any case, the most important component is the people.

You know what I sometimes find myself doing lately? When I watch something – I rarely watch television, I do not have time, I almost never go online – I always note our achievements, the successes of our people.

I recently watched the World Swimming Championships. The swimmers – strong torsos, healthy, confident, world champions, beautiful women. I look at the boys and girls who achieve success at international [student] Olympiads. I look at our young scientists with whom I recently met. Honestly, I look at them and I feel happy and proud, as I would have felt at the success of my family members. Without any exaggeration, I look at them, and I am happy and proud as if they were my family. What I am saying is I view Russia as a family.

Alexandra Suvorova: Mr President, millions of viewers have been watching us for more than four and a half hours. We have answered numerous questions, and it is clear that there will be many more.

In conclusion, what else would you like to say to the nation?

Vladimir Putin: I just said that I view Russia as my family.

We are holding this conference ahead of the best time of the year, a season of joy – the New Year and Christmas. I speak to many representatives of different religions, and they all say that they celebrate Christmas, just as our neighbours celebrate Eid al-Adha, Passover, and so on.

When I meet with clergy, I often ask them: what do your people share with you at the everyday level, what do they most often talk about, what do they regret? I do not expect them to break the Seal of Confession, of course, but do you want to know what they answer? What is the most common regret? Giving too little attention to their children.

The New Year’s is a family holiday, and Christmas even more so, so I would like to wish you to spend more time with your loved ones. And I want to wish you all every success, happiness and prosperity.

Alexandra Suvorova: Thank you very much.

Dmitry Kulko: Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you.

Statement by the President of the Russian Federation

2024-11-22T11:46:58+04:00

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: I would like to inform the military personnel of the Russian Federation Armed Forces, citizens of our country, our friends across the globe, and those who persist in the illusion that a strategic defeat can be inflicted upon Russia, about the events taking place today in the zone of the special military operation, specifically following the attacks by Western long-range weapons against our territory.

The escalation of the conflict in Ukraine, instigated by the West, continues with the United States and its NATO allies previously announcing that they authorise the use of their long-range high-precision weapons for strikes inside the Russian Federation. Experts are well aware, and the Russian side has repeatedly highlighted it, that the use of such weapons is not possible without the direct involvement of military experts from the manufacturing nations.

On November 19, six ATACMS tactical ballistic missiles produced by the United States, and on November 21, during a combined missile assault involving British Storm Shadow systems and HIMARS systems produced by the US, attacked military facilities inside the Russian Federation in the Bryansk and Kursk regions. From that point onward, as we have repeatedly emphasised in prior communications, the regional conflict in Ukraine provoked by the West has assumed elements of a global nature. Our air defence systems successfully counteracted these incursions, preventing the enemy from achieving their apparent objectives.

The fire at the ammunition depot in the Bryansk Region, caused by the debris of ATACMS missiles, was extinguished without casualties or significant damage. In the Kursk Region, the attack targeted one of the command posts of our group North. Regrettably, the attack and the subsequent air defence battle resulted in casualties, both fatalities and injuries, among the perimeter security units and servicing staff. However, the command and operational staff of the control centre suffered no casualties and continues to manage effectively the operations of our forces to eliminate and push enemy units out of the Kursk Region.

I wish to underscore once again that the use by the enemy of such weapons cannot affect the course of combat operations in the special military operation zone. Our forces are making successful advances along the entire line of contact, and all objectives we have set will be accomplished.

In response to the deployment of American and British long-range weapons, on November 21, the Russian Armed Forces delivered a combined strike on a facility within Ukraine’s defence industrial complex. In field conditions, we also carried out tests of one of Russia’s latest medium-range missile systems – in this case, carrying a non-nuclear hypersonic ballistic missile that our engineers named Oreshnik. The tests were successful, achieving the intended objective of the launch. In the city of Dnepropetrovsk, Ukraine, one of the largest and most famous industrial complexes from the Soviet Union era, which continues to produce missiles and other armaments, was hit.

We are developing intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles in response to US plans to produce and deploy intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles in Europe and the Asia-Pacific region. We believe that the United States made a mistake by unilaterally destroying the INF Treaty in 2019 under a far-fetched pretext. Today, the United States is not only producing such equipment, but, as we can see, it has worked out ways to deploy its advanced missile systems to different regions of the world, including Europe, during training exercises for its troops. Moreover, in the course of these exercises, they are conducting training for using them.

As a reminder, Russia has voluntarily and unilaterally committed not to deploy intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles until US weapons of this kind appear in any region of the world.

To reiterate, we are conducting combat tests of the Oreshnik missile system in response to NATO’s aggressive actions against Russia. Our decision on further deployment of intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles will depend on the actions of the United States and its satellites.

We will determine the targets during further tests of our advanced missile systems based on the threats to the security of the Russian Federation. We consider ourselves entitled to use our weapons against military facilities of those countries that allow to use their weapons against our facilities, and in case of an escalation of aggressive actions, we will respond decisively and in mirror-like manner. I recommend that the ruling elites of the countries that are hatching plans to use their military contingents against Russia seriously consider this.

It goes without saying that when choosing, if necessary and as a retaliatory measure, targets to be hit by systems such as Oreshnik on Ukrainian territory, we will in advance suggest that civilians and citizens of friendly countries residing in those areas leave danger zones. We will do so for humanitarian reasons, openly and publicly, without fear of counter-moves coming from the enemy, who will also be receiving this information.

Why without fear? Because there are no means of countering such weapons today. Missiles attack targets at a speed of Mach 10, which is 2.5 to 3 kilometres per second. Air defence systems currently available in the world and missile defence systems being created by the Americans in Europe cannot intercept such missiles. It is impossible.

I would like to emphasise once again that it was not Russia, but the United States that destroyed the international security system and, by continuing to fight, cling to its hegemony, they are pushing the whole world into a global conflict.

We have always preferred and are ready now to resolve all disputes by peaceful means. But we are also ready for any turn of events.

If anyone still doubts this, make no mistake: there will always be a response.

Valdai Discussion Club meeting

2024-11-12T19:10:26+04:00

Vladimir Putin took part in the plenary session of the 21^st annual meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club.

The theme of the meeting is Lasting Peace on What Basis? Common Security and Equal Opportunities for Development in the 21^st Century.

* * *

Research Director of the Foundation for Development and Support of the Valdai International Discussion Club Fyodor Lukyanov: Ladies and gentlemen, guests, friends, participants of the Valdai Discussion Club meeting!

We are starting the plenary session of the 21^st annual meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club. We have spent four wonderful days full of discussions and now we can try to sum up some of the results.

I would like to invite President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin to the stage.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Thank you. Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, friends,

I am delighted to welcome all of you to our traditional meeting. First of all, I would like to thank you for taking part in acute and substantive discussions of the Valdai Club. We are meeting on November 7, which is a significant date both for Russia and the entire world. The Russian Revolution of 1917, like the Dutch, English and great French Revolutions in their time, all became, to a certain extent, milestones in the development path of humanity and largely determined the course of history, the nature of politics, diplomacy, economies, and social structure.

We are also destined to live in an era of fundamental, even revolutionary changes, and not only to comprehend but also to take a direct part in the most complex processes of the first quarter of the 21^st century. The Valdai Club is already 20 years old, almost the same age as our century. By the way, in cases like this they often say that time flies by quickly, but not in this case. These two decades were more than filled with the most important, sometimes dramatic events of truly historical scale. We are witnessing the formation of a completely new world order, nothing like we had in the past, such as the Westphalian or Yalta systems.

New powers are rising. Nations are becoming more and more aware of their interests, their value, uniqueness and identity, and are increasingly insistent on pursuing the goals of development and justice. At the same time, societies are confronted with a multitude of new challenges, from exciting technological changes to catastrophic natural disasters, from outrageous social division to massive migration waves and acute economic crises.

Experts talk about the threat of new regional conflicts, global epidemics, about complex and controversial ethical aspects of interaction between humans and artificial intelligence, about how traditions and progress reconcile with each other.

You and I predicted some of these problems when we met earlier and even discussed them in detail at the Valdai Club meetings. We instinctively anticipated some of them, hoping for the best but not excluding the worst scenario.

Something, on the contrary, became a complete surprise for everyone. Indeed, the dynamics is very intensive. In fact, the modern world is unpredictable. If you look back 20 years and evaluate the scale of changes, and then project these changes onto the coming years, you can assume that the next twenty years will be no less, if not more difficult. And how much more difficult they will be, depends on the multitude of factors. As I understand, you are coming together at the Valdai Club exactly to analyse all these factors and try to make some predictions, some forecasts.

There comes, in a way, the moment of truth. The former world arrangement is irreversibly passing away, actually it has already passed away, and a serious, irreconcilable struggle is unfolding for the development of a new world order. It is irreconcilable, above all, because this is not even a fight for power or geopolitical influence. It is a clash of the very principles that will underlie the relations of countries and peoples at the next historical stage. Its outcome will determine whether we will be able, through joint efforts, to build a world that will allow all nations to develop and resolve emerging contradictions based on mutual respect for cultures and civilisations, without coercion and use of force. And finally, whether the human society will be able to retain its ethical humanistic principles, and whether an individual will be able to remain human.

At first glance, it might appear that there is no alternative. Yet, regrettably, there is. It is the dive of humanity into the depths of aggressive anarchy, internal and external splits, the erosion of traditional values, the emergence of new forms of tyranny, and the actual renunciation of the classical principles of democracy, along with fundamental rights and freedoms. Increasingly often, democracy is being interpreted not as the rule of majority but of minority. Traditional democracy and the rule of the people are being set against an abstract notion of freedom, for the sake of which, as some argue, democratic procedures, elections, majority opinion, freedom of speech, and an unbiased media can be disregarded or sacrificed.

The peril lies in the imposition of totalitarian ideologies and making them the norm, as exemplified by the current state of Western liberalism. This modern Western liberalism, in my view, has degenerated into extreme intolerance and aggression towards any alternative or sovereign and independent thought. Today, it even seeks to justify neo-Nazism, terrorism, racism, and even the mass genocide of civilians.

Moreover, there are international conflicts and confrontations fraught with the danger of mutual destruction. Weapons that can cause this do exist and are being constantly improved, taking new forms as the technologies advance. The number of nations possessing such weapons is growing, and no one can guarantee that these weapons will not be used, especially if threats incrementally multiply and legal and moral norms are ultimately shattered.

I have previously stated that we have reached red lines. The West’s calls to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia, a nation with the largest arsenal of nuclear weapons, reveal the reckless adventurism of certain Western politicians. Such blind faith in their own impunity and exceptionalism could lead to a global catastrophe. Meanwhile, the former hegemons, who have been accustomed to ruling the world since colonial times, are increasingly astonished that their commands are no longer heeded. Efforts to cling to their diminishing power through force result only in widespread instability and more tensions, leading to casualties and destruction. However, these efforts fail to achieve the desired outcome of maintaining absolute, unchallenged power. For the march of history cannot be halted.

Instead of recognising the futility of their ambitions and the objective nature of change, certain Western elites seem poised to go to any lengths to thwart the development of a new international system that aligns with the interests of the global majority. In the recent policies of the United States and its allies, for instance, the principle of ”You shall not belong to anyone!“ or ”You're either with us or against us“ has become increasingly evident. I mean to say, such a formula is very dangerous. After all, as the saying of our and many other countries goes, ”What goes around comes around.“

Chaos, a systemic crisis is already escalating in the very nations that attempt to implement such strategies. The pursuit of exclusivity, liberal and globalist messianism and ideological, military, and political monopoly is steadily depleting those countries that pursue these paths, pushing the world towards decline and starkly contradicting the genuine interests of the people in the United States and European countries.

I am confident that sooner or later the West will come to this realisation. Historically, its great achievements have always been rooted in a pragmatic, clear-eyed approach based on a tough, sometimes cynical but rational evaluation of circumstances and their own capabilities.

In this context, I wish to emphasise once more: unlike our counterparts, Russia does not view Western civilisation as an adversary, nor does it pose the question of ”us or them.“ I reiterate: ”You're either with us or against us“ is not part of our vocabulary. We have no desire to teach anyone or impose our worldview upon anyone. Our stance is open and it is as follows.

The West has indeed amassed significant human, intellectual, cultural, and material resources which enable it to thrive as one of the key elements of the global system. However, it is precisely ”one of“ alongside other rapidly advancing nations and groups. Hegemony in the new international order is not a consideration. When, for instance, Washington and other Western capitals understand and acknowledge this incontrovertible fact, the process of building a world system that addresses future challenges will finally enter the phase of genuine creation. God willing, this should happen as soon as possible. This is in the shared interest, especially for the West itself.

So far, we – meaning all those interested in creating a just and stable world – have been using too much energy to resist the destructive activities of our opponents, who are clinging to their monopoly. This is obvious, and everyone in the west, the east, the south and everywhere else is aware of this. They are trying to preserve their power and monopoly, which is obvious.

These efforts could be directed with much better results towards addressing the common problems that concern everyone, from demography and social inequality to climate change, food security, medicine and new technology. This is where we should focus our energy, and this is what all of us should be doing.

I will take the liberty of making a number of philosophical digressions today. After all, this is a discussion club, and I hope these digressions will be in the spirit of the discussions we have been holding here.

As I said, the world is changing radically and irreversibly. Unlike previous versions of the world order, the new world is characterised by a combination or parallel existence of two seemingly incompatible elements: a rapidly growing conflict potential and the fragmentation of the political, economic and legal spheres, on the one hand, and the continued close interconnection of the global space as a whole, on the other hand. This may sound paradoxical. We have grown used to these trends following and replacing one another. For centuries, the times of conflicts and division were followed by more favourable periods of interaction. This is the dynamics of historical development.

It turns out that this principle no longer applies. Let us reflect on this. Violent, conceptual and highly emotional conflicts greatly complicate but do not stop global development. New links of interaction emerge in place of those destroyed by political decisions or even military methods. These new links may be much more complicated and sometimes convoluted, yet they help maintain economic and social ties.

We can speak from experience here. Recently, the collective West – the so-called collective West – made an unprecedented attempt to banish Russia from global affairs and from the international economic and political systems. The number of sanctions and punitive measures applied against our country has no analogues in history. Our opponents assumed that they would inflict a crushing defeat, dealing a knockout blow to Russia from which it would never recover, thereby ceasing to be one of the permanent fixtures in the international community.

I think there is no need to remind you of what really happened. The very fact that this Valdai conference, which marks a major anniversary this year, has attracted such a high-profile audience speaks for itself, I believe. Valdai is just one example. It just brought into perspective the reality in which we live, in which Russia exists. The truth is that the world needs Russia, and no decisions made by any individuals in Washington or Brussels who believe others should take their orders can change this.

The same applies to other decisions. Even a trained swimmer will not go very far upstream, regardless of the tricks or even doping they might use. The current of global politics, the mainstream, is running from the crumbling hegemonic world towards growing diversity, while the West is trying to swim against the tide. This is obvious; as people say, there is no prize for guessing. It is simply that clear.

Let’s return to the dialectics of history, the alternation of periods of conflict and cooperation. Has the world really changed so much that this theory no longer applies? Let’s try to look at what is happening today from a slightly different angle: what is the essence of the conflict, and who is involved in it today?

Since the middle of the last century, when Nazism – the most malicious and aggressive ideology, the product of fierce controversies in the first half of the 20^th century – was defeated through timely action and at the cost of tremendous losses, humanity was faced with the task of avoiding the revival of this evil and a recurrence of world wars. Despite all the zigzags and local skirmishes, the general vector was defined at that time. It was a total rejection of all forms of racism, the dismantling of the classical colonial system and the inclusion of a greater number of full-fledged participants in international politics. There was an obvious demand for openness and democracy in the international system, along with rapid growth in different countries and regions, and the emergence of new technological and socio-economic approaches aimed at expanding development opportunities and achieving prosperity. Like any other historical process, this gave rise to a clash of interests. Yet again, the general desire for harmony and development in all aspects of this concept was obvious.

Our country, then called the Soviet Union, made a major contribution to consolidating these trends. The Soviet Union assisted states that had renounced colonial or neo-colonial dependence, whether in Africa, Southeast Asia, the Middle East or Latin America. I would like to emphasise that in the mid-1980s, it was the Soviet Union that called for an end to ideological confrontation, the overcoming of the Cold War legacy, an end to the Cold War and its legacy, and the elimination of barriers that hampered global unity and comprehensive world development.

Yes, our attitude towards that period is complicated, in light of the consequences of the national political leadership’s policies. We have to confront certain tragic consequences, and we are still battling with them. I would like to highlight the unjustifiably idealistic urges of our leaders and our nation, as well as their sometimes naïve approaches, as we can see today. Undoubtedly, this was motivated by sincere aspirations for peace and universal wellbeing. In reality, this reflects a salient feature of our nation’s mentality, its traditions, values, and spiritual and moral coordinates.

But why did these aspirations lead to diametrically opposite results? This is an important question. We know the answer, and I have mentioned it repeatedly, in one way or another. The other party to the ideological confrontation perceived those historical developments as its triumph and victory, viewing them as our country’s surrender to the West and as an opportunity and the victor’s right to establish complete dominance, rather than as a chance to rebuild the world based on new and equitable concepts and principles.

I mentioned this some time ago, and I will now touch on it briefly, without mentioning any names. In the mid-1990s and even in the late 1990s, a US politician remarked that, from that point on, they would treat Russia not as a defeated adversary but as a blunt tool in their own hands. That was the principle they were guided by. They lacked a broad outlook and overall cultural and political awareness; they failed to comprehend the situation and understand Russia. By distorting the results of the Cold War to suit their interests and reshaping the world according to their ideas, the West displayed flagrant and unprecedented geopolitical greed. These are the real origins of the conflicts in our historical era, beginning with the tragedies in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, and now Ukraine and the Middle East.

Some Western elites thought that their monopoly and the moment of unipolarity in the ideological, economic, political and partially even military-strategic sense were the destination point. Here we are. Stop and enjoy the moment! This is the end of history, as they arrogantly announced.

I do not need to tell this audience how short-sighted and inaccurate that assumption was. History has not ended. On the contrary, it has entered a new phase. And the reason is not that some malicious opponents, rivals or subversive elements prevented the West from establishing its system of global power.

To tell the truth, after the collapse of the Soviet Union as a Soviet socialist alternative, many thought that the monopoly system had come to stay, almost for all eternity, and they needed to adjust to it. But that system started wobbling on its own, under the weight of the ambitions and greed of those Western elites. When they saw that other nations became prosperous and assumed leadership in the system they had created to suit their needs – we must admit that the victorious nations created the Yalta system to suit their own needs after WWII and later, after the Cold War, those who thought they had won the Cold War started adjusting it to suit their own needs – so, when they saw that other leaders appeared within the framework of the system they created to suit their own needs, they immediately tried to adjust it, violating in the process the very same rules they upheld the day before and changing the rules they themselves had established.

What conflict are we witnessing today? I am confident that it is not a conflict of everyone against everyone caused by a digression from the rules the West keeps telling us about. Not at all. It is a conflict between the overwhelming majority of the global population, which wants to live and develop in an interconnected world with a great deal of opportunities, and the global minority, whose only concern, as I have said, is the preservation of its domination. To achieve this goal, they are ready to destroy the achievements that are the result of a long period of movement towards a common global system. As we see, they are not succeeding and will not succeed.

At the same time, the West is hypocritically attempting to persuade us that the achievements humanity has strived for since the Second World War are jeopardised. This is not the case at all, as I have just pointed out. Both Russia and the vast majority of nations are committed to bolstering the spirit of international advancement and the aspirations for lasting peace that have been central to development since the mid-20^th century.

What is truly at stake is something quite different. What is at stake is the West's monopoly, which emerged after the collapse of the Soviet Union and was held temporarily at the end of the 20^th century. But let me reiterate, as those gathered here understand: any monopoly, as history teaches us, eventually comes to an end. There can be no illusions about this. Monopoly is invariably detrimental, even to the monopolists themselves.

The policies of the elites within the collective West may be influential, but given the limited membership of this exclusive club, they are neither forward-looking nor creative; rather, they focus on maintaining the status quo. Any sports enthusiast, not to mention professionals in football, hockey, or martial arts, knows that a holding strategy almost invariably leads to defeat.

Turning to the dialectics of history, we can assert that the coexistence of conflict and the pursuit of harmony is inherently unstable. The contradictions of our era must eventually be resolved through synthesis, transitioning to a new quality. As we embark on this new phase of development, building a new global architecture, it is crucial for us all to avoid repeating the mistakes of the late 20^th century when, as I have previously stated, the West attempted to impose its, in my view, deeply flawed model of Cold War withdrawal, which was fraught with the potential for new conflicts.

In the emerging multipolar world, there should be no nations or peoples left as losers or feeling aggrieved and humiliated. Only then can we secure truly sustainable conditions for universal, equitable, and secure development. The desire for cooperation and interaction is undoubtedly prevailing, overcoming even the most acute situations. This represents the international mainstream – the backbone course of events.

Of course, standing at the epicentre of the tectonic shifts brought about by profound changes in the global system, it is challenging to predict the future. However, understanding the general trajectory – from hegemony to a complex world of multilateral cooperation – allows us to attempt to sketch at least some of the pending contours.

During my address at last year’s Valdai Forum, I ventured to delineate six principles which, in our estimation, ought to underpin relations as we embark upon a new phase of historical progression. I am persuaded that the events which have unfolded and the passage of time have only corroborated the fairness and validity of the proposals we advanced. Let me expound upon these principles.

Firstly, openness to interaction stands as the paramount value cherished by the overwhelming majority of nations and peoples. The endeavour to construct artificial barriers is not only flawed because it impedes normal and advantageous to everyone economic progression, but also because it is particularly perilous amidst natural disasters and socio-political turmoil, which, unfortunately, are all too common in international affairs.

To illustrate, consider the scenario that unfolded last year following the devastating earthquake in Asia Minor. For purely political reasons, aid to the Syrian people was obstructed, resulting in certain regions bearing the brunt of the calamity. Such instances of self-serving, opportunistic interests thwarting the pursuit of the common good are not isolated.

The barrier-free environment I alluded to last year is indispensable not merely for economic prosperity but also for addressing acute humanitarian exigencies. Moreover, as we confront new challenges, including the ramifications of rapid technological advancements, it is imperative for humanity to consolidate intellectual efforts. It is telling that those who now stand as the principal adversaries of openness are the very individuals who, until recently, extolled its virtues with great fervour.

Presently, these same forces and individuals endeavour to wield restrictions as a tool of pressure against dissenters. This tactic will prove futile, for the same reason that the vast global majority champions openness devoid of politicisation.

Secondly, we have consistently underscored the diversity of the world as a prerequisite for its sustainability. It may appear paradoxical, as greater diversity complicates the construction of a unified narrative. Naturally, universal norms are presumed to aid in this regard. Can they fulfil this role? It stands to reason that this is a formidable and complicated task. Firstly, we must avoid a scenario where the model of one country or a relatively minute segment of humanity is presumed universal and imposed upon others. Secondly, it is untenable to adopt any conventional, albeit democratically developed code, and dictate it as an infallible truth to others in perpetuity.

The international community is a living entity, with its civilisational diversity making it unique and presenting an inherent value. International law is a product of agreements not even between countries, but between nations, because legal consciousness is an integral part of every unique culture and every civilisation. The crisis of international law, which is the subject of broad public discussion today, is, in a sense, a crisis of growth.

The rise of nations and cultures that have previously remained on the periphery of global politics for one reason or another means that their own distinct ideas of law and justice are playing an increasingly important role. They are diverse. This may give the impression of discord and perhaps cacophony, but this is only the initial phase. It is my deep conviction that the only new international system possible is one embracing polyphony, where many tones and many musical themes are sounded together to form harmony. If you like, we are moving towards a world system that is going to be polyphonic rather than polycentric, one in which all voices are heard and, most importantly, absolutely must be heard. Those who are used to soloing and want to keep it that way will have to get used to the new “scores” now.

Have I mentioned post-WWII international law? This international law is based on the UN Charter, which was written by the victorious countries. But the world is changing – with new centres of power emerging, and powerful economies growing and coming to the forefront. That predictably calls for a change in the legal regulation as well. Of course, this must be done carefully, but it is inevitable. Law reflects life, not vice versa.

Thirdly, we have said more than once that the new world can develop successfully only through the broadest inclusion. The experience of the last couple of decades has clearly demonstrated what usurpation leads to, when someone arrogates to themselves the right to speak and act on behalf of others.

Those countries that are commonly referred to as great powers have come to believe that they are entitled to dictate to others what their interests are – in fact, to define others’ national interests based on their own. Not only does this violate the principles of democracy and justice, but worst of all, it hinders an actual solution to the problems at hand.

In its very diversity, the emerging world is bound to be anything but simple. The more fully-fledged participants involved in this process, the more challenging it becomes to identify an optimal solution that satisfies all parties. Yet, once such a solution is achieved, there is hope that it will be both sustainable and enduring. This, in turn, allows us to dispense with arrogance and impulsive flip-flop policies, instead fostering political processes that are both meaningful and rational, guided by the principle of reasonable adequacy. By and large, this principle is spelled out in the UN Charter and within the Security Council.

What is the right of veto? What purpose does it serve? It exists to prevent the adoption of decisions that do not suit players on the international stage. Is this beneficial or detrimental? It may be perceived as detrimental by some, as it allows one party to obstruct decision-making. However, it is beneficial in that it prevents the passage of decisions that are unacceptable to certain parties. What does this imply? What does this stipulation signify? It urges us to enter the negotiating chamber and reach consensus. That is its essence.

As the world transitions to a multipolar reality, we must develop mechanisms to broaden the application of such principles. In each instance, decisions must not only be collective but must also involve those participants capable of making a meaningful and significant contribution to resolving the issues at hand. These are primarily the actors with a vested interest in finding a positive resolution, as their future security – and, consequently, their prosperity – depends on it.

There are countless examples where complex yet solvable contradictions between neighbouring countries and peoples have escalated into intractable, endemic conflicts due to the manoeuvrings and blatant interference of external forces, who are, in essence, indifferent to the fate of the conflict participants, regardless of the bloodshed or casualties inflicted. Those who intervene externally do so purely out of self-interest, without bearing any responsibility.

Moreover, I believe that regional organisations will assume a significant role in the future, as neighbouring nations, irrespective of the complexity of their relations, are invariably united by a shared interest in stability and security. For them, compromises are indispensable to achieving optimal conditions for their own development.

Next, the key principle of security for all without exception is that the security of one nation cannot be ensured at the expense of others’ security. I am not saying anything new. It has been set out in OSCE documents. We only need to implement them.

The bloc policy and the legacy of the Cold War colonial era run contrary to the essence of the new international system, which is open and flexible. There is only one bloc in the world that is held together by the so-called obligations and strict ideological dogmas and cliches. It is the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which continues expansion to Eastern Europe and is now trying to spread its approaches to other parts of the world, contrary to its own statutory documents. It is an open anachronism.

We talked on many occasions about the destructive role NATO continued to play, especially after the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Treaty Organisation, when it seemed that the alliance had lost its formally declared reason and the meaning of its existence. I believe that the United States recognised that this instrument was becoming unattractive and redundant, but it needed the bloc and still needs it to exercise command in the zone of its influence. That is why they need conflicts.

You know, even before the modern-day acute conflicts began, many European leaders told me: “Why are they trying to scare us with you? We are not frightened, and we do not see any threats.” This is an exact quote, do you see? I believe that the United States was aware of or sensed this as well, and regarded NATO as an organisation of secondary importance. Trust me, I know what I am speaking about. However, experts there knew that they needed NATO. How could they maintain its value and attraction? They needed to scare everyone and to divide Russia and Europe, especially Russia and Germany and France, by means of conflicts. This is why they pushed the situation towards a state coup in Ukraine and hostilities in its southeastern regions, in Donbass. They simply forced us to respond, and in this sense, they have attained their goal. As I see it, the same is taking place in Asia and on the Korean Peninsula now.

Actually, we see that the global minority is preserving and strengthening its military bloc in order to maintain its power. However, even the bloc countries themselves see and understand that the Big Brother’s harsh dictate does not help achieve the goals they are facing. Moreover, these aspirations run contrary to the interests of the rest of the world. Cooperating with countries that can benefit you and developing partner ties with those who are interested in this is a clear priority for the majority of countries worldwide.

It is obvious that military-political and ideological blocs are yet another form of obstacles created to hinder a natural development of a multipolar international system. I would like to point out that the notion of a zero-sum game, where only one side wins and all the others lose in the end, is a Western political creation. During the period of Western domination, this approach was imposed on everyone as a universal approach, but it is far from being universal and not always effective.

Eastern philosophy, as many here are deeply familiar with – perhaps even more so than I am – takes a fundamentally different approach. It seeks harmony of interests, aiming for everyone to achieve their essential goals without compromising the interests of others, the principle of “I win, and you win too.” All the ethnicities of Russia, throughout history, whenever possible, have similarly emphasised that the priority is not to impose one’s views at any cost, but rather to persuade and to foster genuine partnership and equal cooperation.

Our history, including the history of our national diplomacy, has repeatedly demonstrated the values of honour, nobility, peacemaking, and leniency. One needs only to recall Russia’s role in shaping the order in Europe after the Napoleonic wars. I am aware that some people there interpret this, to a certain extent, as an effort to preserve monarchy, and so on. But that is not the point now. Rather, I am referring to the broader approach taken in addressing these challenges.

The emerging community within the BRICS framework serves as a prototype for new, free, and non-block relationships between states and peoples. This also highlights that even some NATO members, as you know, are interested in closer cooperation with BRICS. It is likely that other countries may also consider deeper collaboration with BRICS in the future.

This year, our country held the chairmanship of the group, culminating in a recent summit in Kazan. I cannot deny that building a unified approach among many countries, each with distinct interests, is a challenging task. Diplomats and government officials had to invest considerable effort, employ tact, and actively practice listening to one another to reach the desired outcome. This required significant dedication, but it fostered a unique spirit of cooperation grounded not in coercion, but in mutual understanding.

We are confident that BRICS serves as a strong example of genuinely constructive cooperation in today’s evolving international landscape. Additionally, BRICS platforms – where entrepreneurs, scientists, and intellectuals from our countries meet – can become spaces for deep philosophical and foundational insights into the current global development processes. This approach embraces the unique characteristics of each civilisation, including its culture, history, and traditional identities.

The future Eurasian security system, now beginning to take shape across our vast continent, is founded on a spirit of respect and mutual consideration of interests. This approach is not only genuinely multilateral but also multifaceted. Today, security is a complex notion which encompasses more than just military and political dimensions; it cannot be achieved without socio-economic development and the resilience of states against a range of challenges, from natural to man-made. This concept of security spans both the physical and digital realms, including cyberspace and beyond.

My fifth point is about justice for all. Inequality is the true scourge of the modern world. Countries face social tension and political instability within their borders due to inequality, while on the international stage the development gap that separates the so-called Golden Billion from the rest of humankind may not only result in more political differences and confrontation, but also, and even more importantly, exacerbates migration-related issues.

There is hardly a developed country on this planet that has not faced an increasingly uncontrolled and unmanageable inflow of people seeking to improve their wellbeing, social status and to have a future. Some of them are simply trying to survive.

In wealthier societies, these uncontrolled migration flows, in turn, feed xenophobia and intolerance towards migrants, creating a spiralling sense of social and political unease and raising the level of aggression.

There are many reasons to explain why many countries and societies have been falling behind in terms of their social and economic development. Of course, there is no magical cure for this ill. It requires a long-term, system-wide effort, beginning with the creation of the necessary conditions to remove artificial, politically-motivated development barriers.

Attempts to weaponise the economy, regardless of the target, are detrimental to everyone, with the most vulnerable – people and countries in need of support – being the first to suffer.

We are confident that such issues as food security, energy security, access to healthcare and education, and finally, the orderly and free movement of people must not be impacted by whatever conflicts or disputes. These are fundamental human rights.

My sixth point is that we keep emphasising that sovereign equality is an imperative for any lasting international framework. Of course, countries differ in terms of their potential. This is an obvious fact. The same applies to the capabilities and opportunities they have. In this context, we often hear that achieving total equality would be impossible, amounting to wishful thinking, a utopia.

However, what makes today’s world special is its interconnected and holistic nature. In fact, sometimes countries that may not be as powerful or large as others play an even greater role compared to great powers by being more rational and results-driven in using their human, intellectual capital, natural resources and environment-related capabilities, by being more flexible and smart when tackling challenging matters, by setting higher living and ethical standards, as well as in administration and management, while also empowering all their people to fulfil their potential and creating a favourable psychological environment. This approach can bring about scientific breakthroughs, promote entrepreneurial activity, art and creativity, and empower young people. Taken together, all of this counts in terms of global influence and appeal. Let me paraphrase a law of physics: you can outperform others without getting ahead of them.

The most harmful and destructive attitude that we see in the modern world is supreme arrogance, which translates into a desire to condescendingly lecture others, endlessly and obsessively. Russia has never done this. This is not who or what we are. We can see that our approach is productive. Historical experience irrefutably shows that inequality – in society, in government or in the international arena – always has harmful consequences.

I would like to add something that I may not have mentioned often before. Over several centuries, the Western-centric world has embraced certain clichés and stereotypes concerning the global hierarchy. There is supposedly a developed world, progressive society and some universal civilisation that everyone should strive to join – while at the other end, there are backward, uncivilised nations, barbarians. Their job is to listen unquestioningly to what they are told from the outside, and to act on the instructions issued by those who are allegedly superior to them in this civilisational hierarchy.

It is clear that this concept works for a crude colonial approach, for the exploitation of the global majority. The problem is that this essentially racist ideology has taken root in the minds of many, creating a serious mental obstacle to general harmonious growth.

The modern world tolerates neither arrogance nor wanton disregard for others being different. To build normal relationships, above all, one needs to listen to the other party and try to understand their logic and cultural background, rather than expecting them to think and act the way you think they should based on your beliefs about them. Otherwise, communication turns into an exchange of clichés and flinging labels, and politics devolves into a conversation of the deaf.

The truth is that we see how they engage with other cultures that are different. On the surface, they show genuine interest in local music and folklore, seeming to praise and enjoy them, but beneath this facade, their economic and security policies remain neo-colonial.

Look at how the World Trade Organisation operates – it does not solve anything because all Western countries, the main economies, are blocking everything. They always act in their own interests, constantly replicating the same models they used decades and centuries ago – to continue to control everyone and everything.

It should be remembered that everyone is equal, meaning that everyone is entitled to have their own vision, which is no better or worse than others – it is just different, and everyone needs to sincerely respect that. Acknowledging this can pave the way for mutual understanding of interests, mutual respect and empathy, that is, the ability to show compassion, to relate to others’ problems, and the ability to consider differing opinions or arguments. This requires not only listening, but also altering behaviour and policies accordingly.

Listening and considering does not mean accepting or agreeing, not at all. This simply means recognising the other party’s right to their own worldview. In fact, this is the first necessary step towards harmonising different mindsets. Difference and diversity must be viewed as wealth and opportunities, not as reasons for conflict. This, too, reflects the dialectics of history.

We all understand here that an era or radical change and transformation invariably brings upheavals and shocks, which is quite unfortunate. Interests clash as if various actors have to adjust to one another once again. The world’s interconnected nature does not always help mitigate these differences. Of course, this is quite true. On the contrary, it can make things worse, sometimes even injecting more confusion into their relations and making it much harder to find a way out.

Over the many centuries of its history, humanity has grown accustomed to viewing the use of force as the last resort for resolving differences: “Might makes right.” Yes, sometimes this principle does work. Indeed, sometimes countries have no other choice than to stand for their interests with arms in hand and using all available means.

That said, we live in an interconnected and complex world, and it is becoming increasingly complex. While the use of force may help address a specific issue, it may, of course, bring about other and sometimes even greater challenges. And we understand this. Our country has never been the one to initiate the use of force: we are forced to do that only when it becomes clear that our opponent is acting aggressively and is not willing to listen to any type of argument. And whenever necessary, we will take any measure we need to protect Russia and all its citizens, and we will always achieve our goals.

We live in an intrinsically diverse, non-linear world. This is something we have always understood, and this is what we know today. It is not my intention today to revel in the past, but I can remember quite well the situation we had back in 1999, when I became Prime Minister and then went on to become President. I remember the challenges we faced at the time. I think that Russian people, just like the experts who have gathered in this room, all remember the forces which backed terrorists in North Caucasus, who supplied them weapons, sponsored them, and offered moral, political, ideological and informational support and the extent of these practices.

I can only scoff, with both ridicule and sadness, at what we were hearing at the time: We are dealing with al-Qaeda, which is evil, but as long as you are the target, it is fine. What kind of attitude is that? All this brings nothing but conflict. At the time we had a goal to invest everything we had and spend all the time at our disposal and all capabilities to keep the country together. Of course, this served everyone’s interests in Russia. Despite the dire economic situation in the wake of the 1998 economic crisis and despite the devastated state of our military, we came together as a nation to fend off this terrorist threat and went on to defeat it. Make no mistake about that.

Why have I brought this to your attention? In fact, once again some have come to believe that the world would be better off without Russia. At that time, they tried to finish Russia off after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Today, it seems that someone is once again nurturing this dream. They think that this would make the world more obedient and pliant. However, Russia stopped those aspiring to global dominance in their tracks many times over, no matter who it was. This is how it will be in the future, too. In fact, the world would hardly get any better. This message must finally get across to those trying to go down this road. It would do nothing but make things even more complicated than they are today.

Our opponents are coming up with new ways and devising new tools in their attempts to get rid of us. Today, they have been using Ukraine and its people as a tool by cynically pitching them against Russians and turning them into cannon fodder, all while perorating about a European choice. What kind of choice is that? Let me assure you that this is not our choice. We will defend ourselves and our people – I want this to be absolutely clear to everyone.

Russia’s role is certainly not limited to protecting and preserving itself. It may sound a bit grand, but Russia’s very existence guarantees that the world will retain its wide colour gamut, diversity and complexity, which is the key to successful development. These are not my words. This is something our friends from all regions of the world often tell me. I am not exaggerating. To reiterate, we are not imposing anything on anyone and will never do. We do not need that, and no one else needs it, either. We are guided by our own values, interests and ideas of what is right and what is not, which are rooted in our identity, history and culture. And, of course, we are always ready for a constructive dialogue with everyone.

Those who respect their culture and traditions have no right not to treat others with the same respect. Conversely, those who are trying to force others into inappropriate behaviour invariably trample their own roots, civilisation and culture into mud, some of what we are witnessing.

Russia is fighting for its freedom, rights, and sovereignty. I am not exaggerating, because over the previous decades everything, on the face of it, looked favourable and nice when they turned the G7 into the G8 and, thankfully, invited us to be members.

Do you know what was going on there? I witnessed it first-hand. You arrive at a G8 meeting, and it becomes immediately clear that prior to the G8 meeting, the G7 had got together and discussed things among themselves, including with regard to Russia, and then invited Russia to come. You look at it and smile. I always have. They give you a warm hug and a pat on the back. But in practice they do something opposite. And they never stop to make their way forward.

This can be seen particularly clearly in the context of NATO’s eastward expansion. They promised they would never expand, but they keep doing it. In the Caucasus, and with regard to the missile defence system – take anything, any key issue – they simply did not give a hoot about our opinion. In the end, all of that taken together started looking like a creeping intervention which, without exaggeration, sought to either degrade us or, even better for them, to destroy our country, either from within or from outside.

Eventually, they got to Ukraine, and moved into it with their bases and NATO. In 2008, they decided at a meeting in Bucharest to open the doors to NATO for Ukraine and Georgia. Why, pardon me for my plain language, why on earth would they do that? Were they confronted with any difficulties in international affairs? Indeed, we did not see eye to eye with Ukraine on gas prices, but we addressed these issues effectively anyway. What was the problem? Why do it and create grounds for a conflict? It was clear from day one what it would lead to ultimately. Still, they kept pressing ahead with it. Next thing you know they started expanding into our historical territories and supporting a regime that clearly tilted toward neo-Nazism.

Therefore, we can safely say and reiterate that we are fighting not only for our freedom, not only our rights, or our sovereignty, but we are upholding universal rights and freedoms, and the continued existence and development of the absolute majority of the countries around the world. To a certain extent, we see this as our country’s mission as well.

Everyone should be clear that putting pressure on us is useless, but we are always prepared to sit down and talk based on consideration of our mutual legitimate interests in their entirety. This is something that we urge all international dialogue members to do. In that case, there may be little doubt that 20 years from now, in the run-up to the 100^th anniversary of the UN, future guests of a Valdai Club meeting, who at this point may be schoolchildren, students, postgraduates, or young researchers, or aspiring experts, will be discussing much more optimistic and life-affirming topics than the ones that we are compelled to discuss today.

Thank you very much for your attention.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr President, thank you for this broad and multi-dimensional description of the world and Russia’s views on it. It is especially pleasant for us that it was at this platform that you presented your basic principles last year and you elaborated on them today.

I believe that it starts looking like a doctrine. We do not expect you to name it after the Valdai Club, but it is nice that it is being born here.

Mr President, we discussed many of the issues you have addressed here at our 21^st meeting. I would like – all of us would like to tell you about some of our ideas, which were not voiced at all our sessions, of course, because there were many of them, but the ones we discussed at the most important of them. You have mentioned one of them.

I would like to ask your permission to start with Ruslan Yunusov, a long-running member and colleague whom you know very well. He attended our session on artificial intelligence, a stand-out issue.

Ruslan Yunusov: Good evening, Mr President.

It is true that we discussed one of the issues you have mentioned today – artificial intelligence. We had a separate session at our meeting, called Artificial Intelligence – A Revolution or a Fashion Trend?

Before telling you about the results of that session, I would like to mention a unique event this year, namely the two Nobel Prizes awarded for achievements in the field of AI. They were awarded in both physics and chemistry, which has never happened before. Does this mean that we are witnessing an AI revolution? I would rather say “yes” than “no,” although the Nobel Committee’s decisions are often influenced by fashion trends.

Regarding the theme of our discussion, I would like to emphasise some of the aspects were discussed.

We began with an issue of concern to many. Will artificial intelligence replace human beings or not, especially in the fields that require a creative approach, like science and arts? What is the situation in science today? AI already has a role in the scientific process indeed. Many achievements have been made with AI’s assistance. At the same time, we also see that humans have not been removed from the scientific process but rather than the process itself has been accelerated and that the demand for skilled young scientists has increased. So, we do not see any risk here. We also discussed some aspects of an AI economy. During the Covid pandemic, around 2020, we thought that recovery from the global economic recession would be ensured above all by a driver such as artificial intelligence.

We discussed whether the forecasts came true or not. It is true that AI is making its way into the economy, in various economic sectors. But if we look at the figures, we will see that our optimistic expectations have not materialised. The result so far is more conservative than we expected. Moreover, these expectations have not abated, and we see the development of investment bubbles, which is fraught with negative economic effects in the future. At the same time, artificial intelligence as a technology will most likely continue to develop and will form the basis of the economy.

We have also engaged in discussions concerning security matters. Today, it is impossible to overlook the fact that terrorist and extremist organisations are extensively utilising artificial intelligence technologies for recruiting new members and in their broader propaganda efforts. Fake news and videos have become standard tools within their arsenals.

Conversely, artificial intelligence is also being used in anti-terrorist and counter-extremist operations. It aids in identifying these very extremist elements within society. Moreover, it serves to influence those harbouring doubts, steering them away from such dangerous paths, thereby preventing them from succumbing to extremism. This, too, proves effective.

We deliberated on the balance between the positive and negative aspects of artificial intelligence in this realm. It appears that the positive aspects hold sway, and we are hopeful that this balance will continue to tip in favour of the positive.

Naturally, at the Valdai forum, we cannot overlook the political dimension of artificial intelligence. Studies have been conducted where researchers evaluated the basic generative models of artificial intelligence for political inclinations. It emerged that artificial intelligence is not neutral; its political leanings are markedly skewed towards left liberalism, closely mirroring the views of its creators.

Furthermore, in recent years, artificial intelligence training has increasingly relied on synthetic data rather than real-life material, which has contributed to the radicalisation of these models’ perspectives.

In the coming years, we will witness the first university graduates who have integrated artificial intelligence into their academic endeavours. Previously, students engaged deeply with primary sources when crafting term papers and essays. Now, with a mere prompt to artificial intelligence, the result is produced. This shift is poised to diminish educational quality. More perilously, however, is the subtle influence artificial intelligence exerts, shaping the worldviews of the youth and instilling ideologies. These ideologies are often forged not within our country but abroad, or even further afield, across the ocean.

Summing up, we recognise the imperative to bolster control over the regulation of artificial intelligence. However, relying solely on prohibitive measures will not yield the desired outcomes. Instead, we must support and advance our domestic artificial intelligence technologies.

It is encouraging that we have established a robust foundation, and significant progress is evident. We must continue to build upon this, as it will likely form the cornerstone of technological sovereignty in this domain.

It is worth noting that Russia stands among the trio of nations globally with a comprehensive IT technology stack, which indeed underpins our sovereignty.

To conclude my brief remarks, our foreign guests have observed that certain countries have already imposed restrictions, if not outright bans, on the use of artificial intelligence technologies. For us, for Russia, this presents an opportunity. We have the potential to assert ourselves as a technological leader by exporting artificial intelligence technologies to our partner countries.

Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: I would also like to say a couple of words, if I may.

First, of course, artificial intelligence is a highly important development tool. AI development ranks among our priorities, primarily, of course, in the economic sphere and in other fields, including the use of big data. We are facing major workforce shortages and posting minimal, 2.4 percent, unemployment rates. This amounts to a shortage of human resources. In the future, we believe that these economic problems can be resolved by developing state-of-the-art technologies, and we prioritise the use of AI technologies in this context.

Do pros outweigh cons? Does the development of nuclear energy technologies spell more benefits or more negative consequences? Civilian nuclear technologies play a tremendous and highly important role in medicine, agriculture and transportation, and their role will continue to increase. I am confident that this will become particularly relevant in the context of climate change issues.

At the same time, there are nuclear weapons. This creates major threats for humankind. The same is absolutely true of AI technologies. How is this regulated, and how do people use them? This is a good question. Of course, many countries regulate this. As you say, certain countries ban them. I believe that it is impossible to ban them. AI will eventually make its way, no matter what, especially in conditions of greater competition. I am not talking about armed confrontation, but overall economic competition is increasing. AI will inevitably continue developing in conditions of a competitive struggle. In this respect, we can certainly join the ranks of leaders, considering our certain advantages.

Sovereignty is a highly important component. Of course, these platforms are mostly created abroad, and they form people’s world outlook; this is absolutely correct. We should realise this and expand our sovereign AI network. Of course, we need to use all available assets, but we have to develop our own aspects here.

Sber and Yandex are actively engaged in this area, and overall, their work has been quite successful. We will certainly persist in our efforts, there is no doubt about that, especially as AI begins to replicate itself, which is both fascinating and highly promising.

However, there are, of course, potential risks involved. We must recognise and understand these risks and adjust our work accordingly. As I mentioned, this is one of our most critical areas of focus. By “our,” I mean the state, industry specialists, and society as a whole, because the development of AI technologies inevitably raise many moral and ethical issues that require our full attention.

You mentioned the risk of forming radical views, and so on. Indeed, we must counter these risks by offering our own perspective and worldview on the events unfolding within our society and globally. This is something we will address together.

Thank you for highlighting this issue.

Ruslan Yunusov: Thank you very much. We will continue to analyse the developments in this area.

Vladimir Putin: By all means.

Ruslan Yunusov: And indeed, artificial intelligence in Russia should be trained on Russian data to ultimately reflect our culture.

Vladimir Putin: Absolutely. We certainly have the capability to do this, that’s clear. I am confident we will succeed, and it will provide strong support for our development, bringing us significant benefits.

Thank you.

Ruslan Yunusov: Thank you.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr President, when we have sovereign artificial intelligence, will it be able to offer us the Russian idea for the 21^st century?

Vladimir Putin: It can only assist us in addressing the challenges we face, and it is very important how we define these challenges.

Given that AI works with big data, we have all the necessary resources: intellectual and technological capabilities, along with abundant free energy. There is much for us to collaborate on, including tackling profound philosophical and fundamental issues that you mentioned.

We need to make use of all the resources at our disposal. It is up to us to decide whether we trust or not the results of research based on modern principles, which, among other things, involve the use of artificial intelligence.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Thank you.

We have also discussed a related topic: artificial intelligence and digitalisation go together with information and everything happening to it right now, and there are indeed many things happening: both positive and negative.

Our Indian colleague, Arvind Gupta, took part in this session.

Please, go ahead.

Arvind Gupta: Thank you.

My name is Arvind Gupta, Mr President, and I come from India. I work at the intersection of technology and society, and building a digital public infrastructure for population-scale problems.

Thank you, Mr President. You have already addressed some of the issues that my colleague Ruslan has talked about on AI. I thank you for listening to our summary. Our expert panels discussed the issue of something which is adjacent to AI – and I will in the end mention that – of information manipulation, surveillance, using technology and data, and the lack of transparency in all technology systems today.

Mr President, you know, the group discussed that internet was designed about 40–45 years ago to be a global public good. Unfortunately now, like many other things it has become very unipolar. It is controlled by a few big tech firms with their own ideological leanings. And some of these platforms or big tech firms are not allowed to operate in countries like India, Russia, Indonesia and many others for their roles in manipulation and surveillance.

The second issue we discussed, Mr President, was the algorithms that, again, that we discussed previously in the AI session also, really define how we think.

AI is actually becoming a new buzzword today, but the algorithms have been around for a long time. And they really define how we think, how we consume, how we elect our governments. You know, as all of us have agreed, they have a leaning towards an ideology and definitely are not neutral. So, the algorithms themselves are biased.

The other thing the group discussed was the whole weaponisation of information and data, and that, coupled with the biased technology platforms, is giving certain nation states massive power and it is influencing national security, democracy and the public order in general.

So, Mr President, you are aware that this has been the form of Western technology platforms, but India presented an alternate model during its G20 Presidency to these Western technology platforms. It is a platform which takes society into account. It is a bottom-up platform built around identity – a universal identity system, a universal payment system. It is actually used by more than a billion people in India, and more than 20 other countries use it. This is to present how India has created a different vision for technology from the Western vision that exists today.

Mr President, I must commend Russia for succeeding, making the MIR platform very successful in Russia in a very, very short time. That also shows the power of technological sovereignty that was just mentioned, that it can be done if the desire is there.

Mr President, the issue that you just discussed – I mean progress with this biased nature of technology and technology platforms, and the non-neutral nature with what is coming head on to us – the artificial intelligence era. Given that we let a few big companies control the Internet, how do we ensure that our culture, our society, our national interests are going to be protected in this whole era of artificial intelligence?

What kind of guardrails do we need to build from the start to have fair and responsible AI? How do we ensure that like-minded states work together for non-weaponisation of AI, for non-weaponisation of artificial intelligence?

Lastly, Mr President, we would like to hear from you how do we build trust in the information that we see in news and technology at large. That was one of the most defining things that the group debated and we are looking forward to hearing your view.

Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: Of course, this is a very important topic similar to the previous question about artificial intelligence, its use and development. There are several aspects here.

First, of course, the use of the internet should be based on sovereign algorithms. We must strive for this.

Second, it is very difficult for us as a state – it is possible, but it will be partly counterproductive – to prohibit everything. In Russia, the professional community arrived at the conclusion that it is necessary to decide on the rules of behavior in the internet, and independently adopted certain self-restraints, especially related to some possible destructive impact on society as a whole, especially on the children. It seems to me that this is a way to ensure the interests of the majority of people and society as a whole.

Of course, the internet must obey the domestic legislation of the country where work in this area is taking place. This is obvious.

What we witness is an information manipulation. Most unfortunate, this is happening. But, let me repeat: if the activity of the internet is subject to internal laws, to internal legislation, then we will be able to minimise possible negative consequences.

I understand that there are technological limitations and technological difficulties to implement all this. But if we take the relevant efforts together with the professional community, which sees where threats to society as a whole can emerge and works professionally to suppress these threats, then the state will by all means support these efforts.

For such countries as India, as Russia, this problem is quite solvable, because we have very good specialists, very good maths schools, and there are people who are already leaders themselves, if not their companies, then they themselves are leaders in this field. We have all the resources for this. I repeat once again, this is not a problem for such countries as India or Russia.

As for the Mir payment system, then yes, this can be regarded as success. It works well, reliably. It would work even better, in more countries, if there were no artificial obstacles created to hinder its operation. But even though these obstacles are being created, it is developing, and we will replicate success of this kind.

The theme of the internet has already become eternal, to my mind. You said that it was created to be used for the benefit of humankind. It was certainly created for other purposes but at some point, its intended purpose categorically changed. And it is necessary that activity in the internet, just like any human activity, be subject to the moral and ethical rules and laws of the states where this system operates.

I repeat once again: it is not always easy to do this in terms of technology, but we should certainly try to achieve this. Society must protect itself from destructive influence, but it should do everything to ensure that the exchange of information is free and that it benefits the development of a particular state, and indeed the entire international community.

We in Russia will aspire to this. I know that India is following the same path. We will be happy to cooperate with you in this area.

Thank you for paying attention to this. On the other hand, it is impossible not to pay attention to this and not to engage in this work. I wish you every success.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr President, do you use the internet yourself?

Vladimir Putin: You know, in a very primitive way: I press a few buttons from time to time to look something up.

Fyodor Lukyanov: But still, you do it, right?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, of course.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Using our search engines?

Vladimir Putin: Yours, yours.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Fine. Thank you, that’s comforting. (Laughter.)

We discussed in great detail the environment and the state of the world in terms of climate, among other things. I would like to ask our good comrade Rasigan Maharajh from South Africa to tell us more about it.

Rasigan Maharajh: Thank you very much, Mr President, also for updating us that the dialectic of history continues itself.

Environmental problems, as you mentioned as well, cannot be solved separately from redressing global inequality problems. The World Meteorological Organisation, the international weather body, recently noted that human-caused climate change has resulted in widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere. The year 2023 was the warmest on record by a large margin, with widespread extreme weather.

This trend continued into the first half of 2024 and continues. According to the WMO, the science is clear: we are far off track from achieving vital climate goals. The impacts of climate change and hazardous weather are reversing developmental gains and threatening the wellbeing of people and the planet. Greenhouse gases and global temperatures are at record levels. The emissions gap between aspiration and reality remains high.

The colonial and imperial phases of globalisation largely established the current wealth systems. And they are essentially premised, as mentioned by you in various parts of your update, upon unequal exchanges between the Global North and the Global South or, as you framed it, the Global Minority and the Global Majority.

Some colleagues – Hickel and associates working at the London School [of Economics] – calculated that the Global North extracted raw materials, land, energy and labour worth approximately $10.8 trillion in 2015. Just that number could have ended extreme poverty 70 times over.

Between 1990 and 2015, the 25-year period, the cumulative drain from the Global South was approximately $242 trillion. It is abundantly clear that unequal exchange is a significant driver of global inequality, uneven development and ecological breakdown.

Whilst the heroic struggles for national liberation challenged aspects of colonial and imperial subjugation, the institutional apparatus established after the Second World War, or the Great Patriotic War, has served to maintain the hegemony of the Global North, and specifically the advantages of the G7.

The global Covid-19 pandemic exposed the structural flaws in our international system, while reminding us, as you have mentioned as well, that no one is safe unless we are all safe. Our collective scientific and technological competences, however, generated rapid solutions that helped us save lives.

Notwithstanding, we are again witnessing attempts to weaponise intellectual property systems. There are thorough restrictions on how knowledge is shared and against the transfer of technologies. These must be collectively resisted and condemned. All countries should seek wider and deeper cooperation and collaboration to accelerate the co-construction of knowledge, to enable just transitions from the unsustainability of the extractive exploitation without receiving the benefits of this value addition.

Efforts at reforming international institutions that continue to facilitate the process of unequal exchange, however, generate more and more frustration and despair. Even as acknowledged recently at your successful 16^th BRICS Summit in Kazan – this was from the Secretary-General of the UN –the current international financial architecture is outdated, ineffective and unfair.

This was echoed recently, just to the west of us, in a global policy forum in Germany, which determined that these institutions have failed in their mission to prevent and mitigate crises and to mobilise sufficient financing for internationally agreed development goals.

Our common security can only be enhanced by actively reducing these inequalities in world systems, actively promoting knowledge sharing, and ensuring equitable opportunities for the development of all.

Now, I want to round up by saying that our very survival is at risk, should we fail to match our rhetoric with our actual practices and the resources to support all countries facing increased environmental degradation, climate change and ecological precarity. Enduring peace could be a collateral benefit of such progressive transformations. Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: Without a doubt, everything that you have discussed with your colleagues here at the Valdai Club clearly represents a critical area of research for humanity. We will not go into detail or debate the causes of ongoing developments now.

Clearly, climate change and global warming is what is happening. Why is it happening? Is it caused by human activity, or are there other factors at play, including outer space, or is it something that happens to Earth now and then, which we do not really understand? However, changes are clearly there. That is a fact. It would be reckless on our part to do nothing about it, and that is undeniable.

We in Russia know this first-hand because warming in our country is going at a faster pace than anywhere else around the world. Over the past 10 years, we have seen temperatures go up by 0.5 degrees, and even more – by 0.7 degrees – in the Arctic. We see this clearly. For a country with 60 percent of the territory in the permafrost zone, this factor has practical consequences. We have entire towns and cities, as well as production facilities and more, built on permafrost. This is a very serious matter with serious consequences for us. So, we understand what this is all about.

Incidentally, we have one of the world’s greenest energies, 40 percent of which comes from gas and nuclear generation, as well as hydrogeneration. Overall, low-emission energy accounts for 85 percent of the total energy generation in Russia, which makes it one of the greenest operations globally. Also, I believe Russia is home to about 20 percent of the world’s forests, which represents a significant absorption capacity.

We are pondering this and we have plans, which we made public some time ago, stating the year by which we will work to reduce man-made emissions. And, of course, we will work on it.

By the way, those who made the biggest fuss over this issue are, unfortunately for everyone and most likely for themselves as well, moving in exactly the opposite direction.

For instance, coal generation in Europe is sharply up. Not long ago, there was a lot of clamour in Europe against coal-fired generation. What they did after all is they have expanded it instead of shutting it down. This is strange, but it is a fact. Again, they did so for some far-fetched political reasons. But that is a separate topic.

Now, regarding artificial obstacles to the development of the emerging economies linked to the environmental agenda. These so-called green obstacles, which some countries have started creating for the emerging economies and markets, are nothing other than a new instrument they have invented to hinder development.

If they are concerned, really concerned about climate change, which is something we should think about, of course, they should provide sources of funding and technologies for the countries that are ready to work in this sphere, so that they can calmly adopt these innovative technologies without sustaining losses. Otherwise, they would be trailing behind progress.

Some rightly tell those who demand immediate conversion to innovative technologies that they themselves had used up all the sources of energy and had polluted everything, including the atmosphere, and now demand that we immediately move to new levels of power generation. They wonder how they can accomplish this. Should they spend all their remaining resources on purchasing innovative technology from them? This, again, is a tool of neo-colonialism.

Give people an opportunity to live and develop, if you really and sincerely think that we all must take care of this issue together. Provide the sources of funding and technologies instead of limiting access to them. I fully agree with you, if that is what you hinted at in your speech. It cannot be any other way, the way I see it.

The same goes for funding. As I have said, according to our experts, whom I fully trust, the United States cashed in $12 trillion out of thin air over the past 10 years simply because the US dollar is a global currency. They did it by printing and circulating more dollars, which usually get back to their banks and their financial system, which are getting an additional income and profit from that. It is a tactical position. They just make money out of thin air, and this is what everyone should bear in mind.

If they simply issue this money which represents windfall profit for them. This money should be used as a source of funding, including for the environmental agenda. Share your windfall profits with us, if you are really concerned about the environment. If that is what you hinted at, I can say that you are absolutely right, and it is difficult to argue with this approach. This is how it should be done.

Well, this is probably all I can say. I have nothing more to add to this. That is, there is much more to say, but I have outlined the main points.

Thank you.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr President, has President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev invited you to the climate conference scheduled for next week?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, he has.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Will you go?

Vladimir Putin: I have recently been there, and President Aliyev and I have agreed that Russia would be represented at a high level. Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin will participate in this event.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Excellent.

Let us segue to the next topic that concerns us all, since most of us here specialise in international affairs. You initiated the idea of Eurasian security. We have dedicated many discussions to this issue, and this year’s Valdai paper largely focused on it as well, and the session was quite engaging.

I would like to ask our friend Glenn Diesen from Norway to share the main takeaways with us.

Glenn Diesen: Thank you. Mr President, my name is Glenn Diesen. I am a professor of political economy from Norway. Our panel was on Eurasian security. I would like to outline three main points. The first was that the source of conflict today appears to be a conflict between unipolarity and multipolarity. To a large extent, this represents a new phenomenon in international affairs, as in the 19th century we had Great Britain as the dominant maritime power in conflict with the Russian Empire as the dominant land power. In the 20th century, we had the United States as the dominant maritime power against the Soviet Union. And in the present time it is somewhat different, as we have the United States again as the dominant maritime power.

But on the Eurasian continent we are now seeing the emergence of multipolarity, which also presents a lot of new opportunities because even the largest economy, China, does not really have the capability and does not even display the intention of attempting to dominate this continent. Instead, we see initiatives being put in place for a multipolar Eurasia. So, this puts us in conflict between the unipolar system attempted to be restored by the United States versus a multipolar system. And the global majority seems to obviously prefer multipolarity, which is why I think BRICS has been such a great attraction for many countries.

However, in our discussions we also discovered a consensus that there were some concerns or at least a desire for Eurasia to be an anti-hegemonic movement as opposed to being an anti-Western one, as the objective should be to harmonise interests and end this era of bloc politics as opposed to Eurasia merely becoming a bloc. And again, the attraction of the BRICS countries towards this Eurasian format largely rests on the idea that we could overcome bloc politics rather than succumbing to it.

The second point we had was that the appeal of Eurasia is also to a large extent the multivectoral foreign policy, that is, the ability to diversify economic connectivity with all the major poles of power. And this is seen as a necessity, a requirement to have more political independence, more autonomy in the economy and foreign policy, and not merely being a spectator in international affairs. And yet again, this is why most countries do not want to choose between competing blocs but instead find a way of harmonising. And again, the global majority wants Eurasian multipolarity, as this is a requirement for genuine multilateralism and not the false one, which is also being promoted under Washington.

And the third and final point was that multipolar Eurasia has certain systemic incentives for harmonising interests because the great powers in Eurasia have somewhat different formats for Eurasian integration, and different interests. We can see this also with Russia and China, but we also see that none can really pursue their objectives or formats for integration without cooperation with these other centres of power. So, this creates incentives to harmonise interests. It seems that this is also what has made BRICS successful.

I remember a decade ago many people expected Central Asia to be a clash point between China and Russia. Instead, we see it becoming an area of cooperation. So, this gives optimism to other parts of Eurasia as well. And this is drastically different from the alliance system, which is usually used to advance unipolarity. In your speech, you referred to the imperial impulse of dividing countries. So, under the alliance system, there is always an interest in having division between China and India, between the Arabs and the Iranians, between Europe and Russia, simply because this helps to divide the region into dependent allies and weaken adversaries.

So, in the spirit of harmonising interests I also had a question premised on the inability we had in Europe to establish a mutually acceptable post-Cold War settlement after the Cold War. And I think this has been a source of many of our tensions. We never established a system based on indivisible security. Instead, we returned to bloc politics and abandoned some of the hopes we initially had in the early 1990s by instead going with NATO expansion.

So, my question was if Eurasian multipolarity can offer a different format for cooperation between Russia and Europe as well. I ask this because a few years ago I had a book with the title Europe as the Western Peninsula of Greater Eurasia, and I was wondering about your opinion, if you see a possibility of this path forward. Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: I apologise. Could you please repeat what you said at the end? Please rephrase your question.

Glenn Diesen: My question was premised on the idea that across Eurasia we have seen many countries being able to overcome their differences, their political differences through economic connectivity. We see the deals the Chinese were promoting between the Arabs and the Iranians. And I was wondering if there were some format for Greater Eurasia in which Europe would be a part of this Greater Eurasia, if there was an ability to use BRICS or some other institution to also foster better relations between Russia and Europe, so [that] we can overcome this bloc politics in Europe, which we were never able to overcome after the Cold War.

Vladimir Putin: You know, once the Cold War was over, there was a chance to overcome the bloc mentality and bloc policy itself. I will say it again: when the Cold War was over, there was a chance to overcome bloc mentality and policy.

I mentioned earlier in my remarks that I am convinced that the United States did not need that. Clearly, they were afraid that this would weaken their control over Europe, whereas they wanted to keep it, which they did and have tightened it even more.

I think this will eventually weaken the vassal subordination system. I do not mean anything bad by what I am about to say, and, God forbid, I am not accusing or reproaching anyone of anything. We can see, however, that many European countries, nearly all European NATO members, are in fact acting against their own interests for the benefit of the US politics and economy.

In some US states, energy is 65 to 80 percent cheaper than in the EU countries. They are making deliberate taxation moves, such as reducing revenue tax, or creating favourable conditions for relocating entire businesses and industries from Europe to the United States. And some do relocate.

Sectors directly relying on primary energy sources, such as the fertiliser and the glass industries, to name a few, were the first ones to get affected by it. These industries have wound down their operations because they no longer made economic sense, and are relocating to the United States.

The second phase of restructuring affected the metallurgical industry, and now the automotive industry.

Governments can blame corporate management for inefficiency all they want, but the current state of affairs primarily stems from the government policies, and the management was forced to find ways to save their businesses and jobs in these circumstances, which it is not always doable.

So, the conflict of which we are, unfortunately, part, has made it possible for the United States to reinforce its leadership, to put it mildly. In fact, the countries have found themselves in a state of semi-colonial dependency. Frankly, I did not expect to see that happen, but it is their choice.

The same is happening in Japan, which is surprising. What have we done to deserve this? We have done nothing wrong, in word or in deed. But they have imposed sanctions on us. Why would they do that to us?

Now, the question is what we should do about that. We have not done anything wrong. There are colleagues from Japan here, maybe they have questions.

The situation with Europe is even worse. I have already said this, but I will indulge in recalling a conversation with former Chancellor Kohl in 1993, when I chanced to be present during his conversation with the then mayor of St Petersburg. I had not forgotten my German then and acted as the interpreter. He let the official interpreter go. “Take some rest,” he said. I stayed with them to do the interpreting.

As a man who only recently was an officer of the Soviet Union’s foreign intelligence service, I was surprised by what he said. Frankly, I listened, interpreted and was surprised, to put it mildly, because my head was filled with Cold War clichés, and I was a KGB intelligence officer.

Unexpectedly, Kohl said that the future of Europe, if it wanted to remain an independent centre of the global civilisation, could only be together with Russia, that we must join our efforts. My jaw dropped. He went on in the same spirit, speaking about his views on the situation in America and where and how the United States would direct its efforts. I will not repeat what he said, but he did not say anything bad about the United States. He spoke as an analyst and an expert, not as a German chancellor.

However, 80, 85 or even 90 percent of what he said is happening now. I can see this happening; all of us can see this. Of course, we must try to create a Eurasian security system. It is a vast continent. And Europe obviously can, and I believe that it must, become an integral part of this system.

You have said that China does not have the capability or the intention to dominate this continent. You also mentioned Central Asia; I will speak about it here too. I think our friends from China are certainly with us today. There is nothing about domination in the Chinese philosophy. They do not strive for domination. That is the point and the attraction of the concept or initiative which President of the People’s Republic of China Xi Jinping has formulated, the Belt and Road initiative. A common belt and a common road. This is not just a Chinese road; it is a common road. This is what we believe and how we act, at least in bilateral relations, that is, in the interests of each other.

What is happening in Central Asia? Many expected it to be a site of conflict or clash between China and Russia. This has not happened. You see, the point is that these are young states with economies that need to be developed. Demography is on the rise there, for example, the population of Uzbekistan grows by a million every year. A million every year, can you imagine that? It has a population of 27 or 28 million, and it grows by a million every year. The population of India grows by 10 million a year, as my friend, Prime Minister Modi, told me. But India’s population is 1.5 billion, while Uzbekistan has 37–38 million people, and will have 40 million soon, up one million every year. That is a lot. There are many problems there.

If the People’s Republic of China comes and helps these economies, this means that their economic cooperation helps stabilise their domestic processes and statehoods, which is in Russia’s interests. We want to see a stable situation and stable development there. This is in our interests as well. That is why there is no rivalry there; there is cooperation there. It is not hindering our traditional relations with that part of the world. The countries of Central Asia, which had been part of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union for centuries, not just remember but also value the special contacts and special ties between us. This is benefitting everyone.

If we are doing this to create a security system for the Eurasian continent… Incidentally, I see and hear that some European countries have again started talking about creating a common security system from Lisbon to Vladivostok, and have returned to the idea which, I believe, was proposed by Charles de Gaulle in his time. Actually, he proposed a common security system to the Urals. But it should be created all the way to Vladivostok, of course. So, the idea has been revived. If our colleagues decide to do this…

But the most important thing that you have said and I have mentioned, which is set out in the OSCE documents, is that the security of some must not contradict or infringe on the security of others. This is extremely important. If all of us do so, and if we increase the level of trust, as you said… The lack of trust is the main problem on the Eurasian continent and in relations between Russia and European countries.

You can criticise Russia as much as you want, and we probably make many mistakes as well, but when they tell us that they had signed the Minsk agreements on Ukraine only to give Ukraine an opportunity to rearm, and had not at all intended to settle the conflict peacefully, what trust is there to speak of? Come on, guys, what kind trust are you talking about? You have openly said that you cheated us, that you lied to us and played foul, and now you expect us to trust you? However, it is necessary to gradually revitalise the system of mutual trust. We can sit here talking about it all night, but this could be the first step towards creating a common system of Eurasian security. Can we do this or not?

Mr Kohl, whom I mentioned at the beginning, believed that this is not just necessary, but absolutely indispensable. I share this view.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr President, why do you think that Mr Kohl was more sincere than Ms Merkel, whom you mentioned and who spoke about the Minsk process?

Vladimir Putin: You know, we were just talking, the three of us. It was in Bonn where the German government was sitting, whereas Ms Merkel, whom you have mentioned, spoke in an atmosphere of a certain public pressure and in conditions of a crisis. The situation was different. Unlike Ms Merkel, who spoke in the presence of and for the media, Mr Kohl spoke calmly, freely expressing his views not just in the absence of the media but also in the absence of his interpreter whom he had sent away. That is why I proceed from the assumption that he was speaking absolutely sincerely.

Fyodor Lukyanov: One more question, if I may, on the same subject raised by Glenn and mentioned by you. In the neighbouring countries the population is growing, and in your remarks, you mentioned migration flows. This has been a very hot topic lately, including in our country.

Do you see this as part of Eurasian security? Do you discuss this with your Eurasian colleagues?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, certainly, we discuss this frequently.

I have already said that unemployment is at its all-time low today at 2.4 percent. In fact, this amounts to full employment. We have a labour shortage. And of course, we need labour to develop the economy.

Moreover, labour shortage is currently one of the main obstacles to our economic growth. We have half a million people or even 600,000 who can get a job in construction right now, and the industry will not notice. We need 250,000 people in manufacturing industry right now, and it would not cover all its needs either.

At the first stage we need to create conditions so that people who come to work for us are ready for this: they must have a good command of the Russian language, know our traditions – we have talked about this many times – know our laws, and not only know all of this, but be ready to abide by them.

This way, there will be no irritation or rejection on the part of our citizens; and we need, above all, of course, to focus on the interests of the people of Russia. This is absolutely obvious. I want my colleagues in the regions of the Russian Federation – the heads of regions, to hear me, as well as the law enforcement agencies.

As for the people that come to us: they must also benefit from a modern environment and live in dignity, enjoy all the benefits of civilisation in health care, education and so on. There are distortions here too. I will not go into details now, but we must work on this.

My colleagues, my friends, the leaders of the republics of the former Soviet Union and I discuss this all the time. And they themselves want to train people who would like to come and work for us, to prepare them for this kind of work in the Russian Federation.

What is needed for this? We must answer this question too. We need to create schools, we are now building schools, we are creating schools. We need to send Russian language teachers, who are in short supply and whom they would gladly accept and would accept ten times more. So here, too, the ball is to a certain extent in our court. They are ready and willing to do this. We will do this together.

However, in the future, hopefully in the not-too-distant future, we need to make sure that the Russian labour market receives, first of all, people with good education, well-trained professionally – and some of the people who come to us today would stay to work at home – and that we create manufacturing facilities there that would be included in the overall value-added chain for making of certain goods. We would give them orders, they would produce certain components, and the final assembly could be either with us or with them, and then people not only in Uzbekistan, but also in Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan would have jobs there, in their homeland, living in the environment of their native language, their culture. In general, we could work together this way.

To a certain extent, we need to restore the cooperation chains that we had in the Soviet Union, of course, on a new technological basis, on a new logistical basis. And then the overall system will be more sustainable, and growth rates for all participants in this process will be guaranteed. And there will not be such tension in this sphere.

We have just talked about artificial intelligence and other possibilities. We need to deal with labour shortages – of course, this is what all the experts are talking about – by relying new technological capabilities, and to adopt a new technological framework, improving performance and efficiency. I looks quite possible to me.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Thank you.

Mr President, something important happened yesterday, and the whole world was watching, holding its breath. The United States elected its next president. This will be already the sixth head of state for the United States on your presidential watch, but he was also the fourth. It happens, you know.

Did any of them leave any trace in your memory? Maybe you have positive or less positive memories about some of them. And whom did you enjoy working with?

Vladimir Putin: You know, they are all interesting people. I can hardly imagine a man getting the highest political office in one of the world’s leading countries while being mediocre, dumb or uninteresting.

What do I mean? In fact, domestic politics in the United States has been evolving towards more political infighting and more political tension with opponents and political rivals of the head of state using all kind of tricks to derail his agenda. Quite often, they use dirty tricks which are far removed from the kind of political culture they pretend to adhere to.

Remember all the attacks Bush had to face? He was called illiterate, not smart, or ignorant. But this was not true. We had a lot of differences and contradictions. I believe that in terms of US policy towards Russia, most of them focused all their efforts in staging what amounted to a covert intervention, once you take a general view of their actions.

However, as a person, I can tell you that George W. Bush, who was the Governor of Texas before becoming President, and was in charge of a very challenging state, a huge one, by the way – he succeeded in this position. Judging by my experience with him, he is just as smart as anyone in this room, no matter what they say about his low IQ, etc., and he was just as smart as any of his political rivals. And I know this for a fact, since I talked to him in person, and I spent a night at his ranch in Texas. I also met his parents many times who invited me to their home, and they visited me too.

Here is what I can tell you: when I talked to his father, who was former President of the United States too, but when we talked he was no longer President, of course – he told me quite honestly and in a calm voice: “We made a big mistake when we decided to stonewall the Moscow Olympics. This prompted Russia to do the same with our Olympics. This did not make any sense.” This is what he told me face-to-face: “This was nonsense, and a big mistake. Why are we doing all this?”

But so what? This did not change anything. Faced with outside pressure, the International Olympic Committee literally turned into a circus. They have gone the whole nine yards in transforming the Olympic movement into a marketing ploy, and are destroying it with their own hands.

But that is not what I am getting at – I am not talking about that now, I am talking about the people I have had to work with. Each of them is a remarkable person. They reached as high as they did for a reason.

Fyodor Lukyanov: What is the next President like from this point of view?

Vladimir Putin: You know, you can regard him in any way you like. After all, at the outset – during his first presidential term – everyone said that he was mainly a businessman and that he did not understand much about politics, that he could make mistakes.

But, first, I can tell you: his behaviour when he faced an assassination attempt really impressed me. He turned out to be a courageous man. And it was not just the raised hand and the call to fight for their shared ideals. It was not just that, although, of course, this was more of a reflex. A man shows himself in extraordinary conditions – this is where a man shows himself. And he showed himself, in my opinion, in the right way: he showed his courage, as a man.

As for politics during his first term in office, I do not know whether what I say reaches him, but still I will say it now. I am saying this absolutely sincerely: I have the impression that he was hounded from all sides, that they would not let him do anything. He was afraid to take a step to the left, to the right, to say an extra word.

I do not know what will happen now, I have no idea: this is his last term after all, so it is up to him to make his choices. But what has been said publicly so far is mostly… I do not want to comment now on what was said during the presidential campaign, I think it was said consciously trying to win votes, but whatever. And what has been said in terms of trying to restore relations with Russia, to help end the Ukrainian crisis, in my opinion at least deserves attention.

Availing myself of this opportunity, I would like to congratulate him on his election as President of the United States of America. I have already said that we will work with any head of state who has the trust of the American people. We will live up to this pledge.

Fyodor Lukyanov: And if he fulfils everything that he has been talking about all the time, and if calls you before the inauguration and says: “Vladimir, let us meet”?

Vladimir Putin: You know, I do not think it would be shameful for me to call him. I do not do this because there was a time when the leaders of Western countries have been calling me almost every week, and then suddenly they stopped. If they do not want to do it, so be it. As you can see, we are alive and well, and are developing, moving ahead.

If someone of them wants to resume contacts, I have always said and I want to say again: we have nothing against it. We are ready to resume our contacts and have discussions. But there are many people willing to have discussions, there is a whole audience here, but if not, we will have a discussion with you then.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Does this mean that you are ready to have discussions with Trump?

Vladimir Putin: We are ready, of course.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Good.

Well, since Trump is not in this room, I suggest that we have a discussion with those who are here. Let us start with Professor Feng Shaolei.

Feng Shaolei: Mr President.

I am very glad to see you once again. First, I want to convey the gratitude on behalf of my Chinese colleagues for the brilliant organisation of the Kazan Summit by our Russian friends.

I also want to say a big thank you to you for personally supporting our club, including for this lively and interactive discussion.

I have recalled that eight years ago at this forum I had the honour of asking you: what are your thoughts on the relationship between Russia, the United States and China? Your answer was spot on: you said that they should be mutually respectful and mutually beneficial. Eight years have passed since that time. There are so many changes taking place around the world. On the one hand, there is all this competition, and all these terrible sanctions. But, on the other hand, China has been there for Russia as its strategic partner, and there has been a lot of positive momentum in developing cooperation within BRICS.

Here is my question: what is your assessment of the current and future development of the Russia-China strategic partnership?

Second, will it be possible to bring relations between Russia, the United States and China back to normal in the new environment?

Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: Regarding relations between Russia and the Chinese People’s Republic, they have reached a historical high and are based on mutual trust, which is something we lack in our relations with other countries, above all with Western countries. I have already said why.

I know, if we had representatives here of those whom I am targeting in my remarks, they would have presented a lengthy list of claims against Russia and against me. But this is not the point right now. I just want to say that the level of trust between Russia and China is at its highest point in recent history. And this, precisely this, and our personal, friendly – genuinely friendly – relations with President of the People’s Republic of China, Xi Jinping, offers a solid foundation for enabling our two countries to forge closer ties.

I will not go into details now but still, 240 billion in trade does not make you the biggest trade partners, but it is still the fourth largest trade balance among China’s major trade and economic partners. This is quite a result already, and also a very important fact. And we really complement each other well. We started with energy, including nuclear energy. As our technological capabilities grow, we share these technologies, this is very important, and this importance is growing. Therefore, we are expanding our cooperation across the board, the palette of our capabilities, focusing more and more on high technology in all kinds of domains.

China has achieved a lot. I have already said – I do not remember if I mentioned this here during the previous session – but at other events I said that our experts believe that China has adopted and developed an economic model organically, based on its needs. This model has proved to be much more effective compared to many other leading economies around the world. Let us admit that Chinese specialists have been able to combine economic planning with a market economy, while at a political level, our friends have managed not to stand in the way of these specialists and let them do their job. This is very important. And the results are there. This goes to say that the Chinese economy outperforms other economies despite a slight deceleration in terms of growth rates lately.

Unfortunately, the United States adopted a double containment policy by trying to contain and deter both China and Russia. Why do they need this, considering that they have to focus on two fronts at the same time? Of course, it is clear that the United States views China’s growing economic might as a threat, a threat to their dominance.

In my opinion, if they want to work and be effective in their efforts, these are the wrong methods. They must change them. They need to prove that they have an edge through fair and open competition, which would enable the United States to trigger its internal resources and development drivers. But what has the United States been doing? It has been undermining its own development with all these bans and restrictions. It seeks to ban Chinese goods or Chinese technology on the US market. But what will come out of this? Higher inflation and higher manufacturing costs. This will be the result – nothing more.

As for our interactions, our cooperation with the People’s Republic of China can be quite complementary in the sectors where the United States has been trying to contain China.

For example, we started with the energy sector. And there has been a lot of momentum in the oil and gas sector, and in the nuclear industry too. We are proactively working together to build new units at nuclear power plants, and on oil and gas deliveries too. All this contributes to China’s efforts to achieve its energy security in a reliable and sustainable manner. In fact, we are neighbours, so there is no one who could stand in our way – no storms, or efforts to close down navigation routes. Nothing can stand in the way of our cooperation, since we share the same border. This way, we can guarantee supplies today and in the future.

I think that everyone would win and there would be no losers if the United States, for example, changes course in the way it treats both Russia and China by moving away from its double containment policy towards a trilateral cooperation framework.

Fyodor Lukyanov: There was another question on the topic of trilateral cooperation.

Vladimir Putin: This is what I have just said in the end of my reply. You missed my point.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Sorry, I got distracted.

Vladimir Putin: You had something else on your mind.

Fyodor Lukyanov: I believe General Salik from Pakistan had a question; I saw him raise his hand.

Naeem Salik: Thank you very much, Mr President.

My question is about the stability between the global powers. The New START Treaty is expiring in February 2026, and there appear to be no chances of its renewal or extension. No other treaty is being negotiated.

How do you see, at the end of this agreement, maintaining the stability of relations between the global powers?

Vladimir Putin: As you know, we have never turned away from continuing dialogue on strategic stability. It is no secret – this is well known not just in this room, but worldwide – that the United States and, if I may say, its satellites (there is no other way to call these leaders in present-day conditions) are following a course set from overseas with respect to Russia, often against their own interests. The United States has made it its goal to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia.

What does it mean to inflict a strategic defeat on a particular country? If it does not mean destroying that country, then perhaps it is about reducing it to an insignificant role. In that case, why do we need nuclear weapons? And yet, they say they want to engage in dialogue with us on strategic stability. How does that add up? And they are presumably rational, mature leaders. We are open to dialogue, but under current conditions, there are numerous complexities to consider.

Your colleague from China just raised a question about the dynamics within the Russia-China-US triangle. I deliberately chose not to delve deeply into this topic and opted to keep issues of international security outside the scope of my response.

Cooperation between Russia and China is a key factor in ensuring international stability in general but it also concerns strategic stability in the sphere of nuclear weapons. For years, we have been urged to “work with your friends in China” and get them involved in discussions about reducing their nuclear arsenals. In response, our Chinese counterparts have said, “What are you talking about? We have fewer carriers and warheads. What is there to reduce? Either you reduce your arsenal to our level, or we increase ours to match yours, and then we can discuss reductions together.” It is a logical stance, right? Anything else is simply nonsensical.

At the same time, we observe the nuclear arsenals of NATO countries, aside from the United States, expanding – specifically those of the United Kingdom and France. They are not merely growing; they are undergoing qualitative changes. Not so long ago, I was told, ”NATO is not a military political alliance; it is first and foremost a political alliance, and only secondarily, a military one.“ However, we see this is not the case. Indeed, the United States, whether intentionally or not – I suspect, intentionally – has shifted the military aspect of NATO back into the spotlight, collectively declaring their intention to inflict a strategic defeat upon us. And how can we overlook the nuclear arsenals of the UK and France?

This issue today is not straightforward; it is even more complex than it was 20 or 30 years ago. Yet, we recognise our responsibility as a nation. In terms of our capabilities, the number of carriers and warheads, and the quality of our modern weaponry, which we are enhancing – we are now on the brink of deploying our latest advancements, developments I mentioned five years ago, with tests nearing completion – we all understand this. In general, we stand ready for dialogue. However, it is imperative that the other side approaches it with honesty, considering all facets of our relations.

It is untenable to claim that while they aim to inflict a strategic defeat upon us, they simultaneously reassure their citizens, ”Everything is fine, business as usual. Don't worry, don't give it a second thought.“ It simply won't wash: a strategic defeat for us, yet they dismiss it as inconsequential. So, let us lay our cards on the table, engage in a calm, business-like discussion, free of double, triple, or indeed quintuple standards. We have suggested this numerous times. But each time we attempt to engage substantively, the conversation stalls. We shall see how the new administration will articulate its proposals, if any, on this matter.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr President, you mentioned a demonstration of the latest developments. Are there any state-of-the-art innovations in the pipeline?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, new developments are continually emerging. Just yesterday, I had a conversation with one of the heads of our major concerns, and he shared his ideas in this area. However, it is simply premature to discuss this further at this stage.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Thank you.

Professor Nogueira, Brazil, in the first row.

Paulo Nogueira Batista: Thank you for the opportunity. I am Paulo Nogueira Batista from Brazil.

I would like to ask you, Mr President, if you could expand a little on two topics you touched upon in your presentation and comments: BRICS and the US dollar.

What role do you see for BRICS in constructing alternatives to the unreliable and dysfunctional dollar system? Russia proposed during its 2024 chairmanship of BRICS a detailed, interesting proposal for a new system of cross-border payments based on national currencies.

How do you see this discussion going forward? Are you confident that we can move forward on this basis?

My second point is a more difficult one. Don’t you agree that payments in national currencies have a limit and that we ultimately must move step-by-step, gradually and carefully towards new means of payment and a new reserve currency? President Lula, by the way, made this point in his statement to the Kazan Summit, and I would like to hear your views on that.

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: You know, my position is based on the recommendations of our experts, and I have complete trust in them. They are undoubtedly world-class professionals. I have already discussed our proposal in detail. When an idea is presented, my role is to promote these ideas within the country, among experts, the Government, and the Central Bank, to ensure it is formalised appropriately. Once I have a clear understanding of the discussion, I present these ideas to our partners.

I presented one of these ideas to President Lula, and he expressed interest. He welcomed our experts to Brazil at a very high level, inviting representatives from the Central Bank and the Ministry of Finance, as well as almost the entire economic team. Our colleagues and friends in Brazil were genuinely engaged. Now, let me briefly explain what we are discussing.

We adopted a similar approach with other BRICS countries. I had productive discussions with nearly all the leaders, and in general, everyone found these ideas appealing.

So, what exactly are we proposing? What is new? We suggest establishing a new investment platform utilising electronic assets and advancing their development. Specifically, we are talking about creating an electronic payment platform designed to facilitate investments in emerging markets, particularly in South Asia, Africa, and parts of Latin America.

Let me reiterate our reasoning. We believe this is necessary due to significant demographic trends occurring in these regions: population growth and capital accumulation. Urbanisation remains relatively low, but it is certain to increase. As urbanisation expands, new economic growth centres will emerge, and people in these areas will strive to improve their living standards, with governments likely to follow suit in supporting these efforts.

In our view, these regions of the world will experience the highest growth rates. We believe that countries like China, the Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, some other countries will also see growth, but the regions I mentioned earlier will demonstrate much faster and more significant growth. They will require investments, technology, and skilled personnel. We are confident that by leveraging new investment opportunities and a new platform, we can help meet these needs.

Moreover, we can make these digital tools almost inflation-free, because in case of an oversupply we can withdraw some of them, and if there is a shortage, we can issue more and regulate them with the help of oversight on the part of central banks and the BRICS New Development Bank. The BRICS New Development Bank senior executives liked this idea as well.

There are different opinions, different approaches. Overall, some have more interest in these ideas, others less, but we agreed to create a working group at the expert level, at the government level. We will be addressing this issue now at the government level. We are in no hurry.

This is not a response to ongoing events. It is not even our way to counteract financial restrictions. I will say more about that later. No, it is just an idea for organising our work on promising and fast-growing markets. This applies to BRICS countries and beyond. We see this as an investment opportunity and an opportunity to tap into these markets, and for them, an opportunity to take advantage of our capabilities.

If it is impossible to do it any other way, we will rely solely on promising projects which we will implement and have them pay us back. This mechanism can be launched, and it will work well, we believe.

Speaking of today, the use of national currencies is already yielding positive results. For example, two-thirds of Russia’s trade and 88 percent of BRICS countries’ trade are now conducted in national currencies.

We are discussing ways to use digital tools for financial information exchange between our countries' central banks known as BRICS Bridge system which we discussed at the expert level with all our BRICS partners. The second system, also within BRICS, is for stock exchange settlements. I think this is the best solution today. This is what we are working on and should focus on in the near future.

I have heard a lot of discussions at the expert and journalistic levels about the need to consider creating a single currency. However, it is too early to talk about that, and it is not a goal we have set for ourselves. To even consider a common currency, we would first need to achieve a higher level of economic integration among our countries. Secondly, the quality of our economies must reach a certain level, ensuring they are similar and compatible in terms of structure and performance. Anything beyond that would be unrealistic and could even be harmful. Therefore, there is no need to rush into this.

I would like to conclude by reiterating something I often emphasise when answering questions like this. We never aimed to abandon the dollar, nor do we have such an intention. It is the political and financial authorities of the United States or Europe when they refuse to accept payments in euros. The euro has yet to establish itself as a global currency, and yet, they are undermining it themselves. It is absurd.

The issue with Europe is that economic decisions are often made by politicians who, unfortunately, lack expertise in financial economics. This harms their countries. As for us in Russia, we are not abandoning the dollar, nor did we ever intend to. We have simply been denied the use of the dollar as a payment method. If they choose to deny us, so be it. However, I believe this is a terrible mistake by the US financial authorities, because the strength of the US today is built on the dollar. And yet, they are cutting off the very foundation of their own power.

It seemed to me that the dollar is like a sacred cow, something that should never be disturbed. But no, they have taken it into their own hands and essentially cut off its horns, stopped taking care of it, and instead are exploiting it recklessly. What is this? Yet, it is their own doing. Payments in dollars have not declined drastically around the world just yet, nor has its role as a means of accumulation been significantly reduced. However, even among their closest partners, the use of the dollar is slowly diminishing, and this is becoming a clear trend. They are bringing this upon themselves.

We are not engaged in a battle, our proposals are not set against the dollar. In response to the challenges of our time, in response to new trends in the global economy, we are thinking about creating new instruments. First and foremost, as I mentioned earlier, our goal is to create a system, use the systems already developed in each country, that facilitates the exchange of financial information, and we will develop the instruments I have mentioned.

Thank you.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Aleksandar Raković, Serbia

Aleksandar Raković: Mr President, I am Aleksandar Rakovic, a historian from Belgrade, Serbia. It is my honour to see you, listen to you and talk to you again. My question for tonight for you is this: according to your opinion, what are the state and individual mechanisms that Russians, Serbs and other people around the globe must use to defend our traditional values and protect ourselves and our identities from the invasive and imposing Western ideology that we saw this year at the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games in Paris? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Regarding what transpired at the opening ceremony, to be honest, I didn't watch it at first. But then, I was informed that something noteworthy was happening, so I took a look. Frankly, I am at a loss as to what the organisers aimed to achieve, or why the International Olympic Committee permitted it. It was undeniably insulting to millions of devout Christians. Why is there a need to insult anyone, to affront their religious feelings? Those responsible might claim they did not mean any insult and see nothing insulting in their actions.

Yet, similar situations arise for followers of Islam when the Quran is burned or when illustrations, including comics of the Prophet, are published under the guise of freedom of expression. I shall reiterate what I have often stated: the freedom of one individual or society ends where another's begins. For if you feel like you can insult someone, insult their religious beliefs, and declare, ”This is my freedom; I do as I please,“ this logic could dangerously extend to acts as grave as murder – ”I want to kill.“ ”I want to kill.“ Off he goes and kills. ”This is my freedom in action.“ Is that justifiable? It's utter nonsense, of course.

People seem to have a lack of boundaries, or as we say, ”they don't see the limits.“ If you've got a vision, by all means, pursue it. But if you realise it might insult someone else, then perhaps it's best to hold back. It's that simple – a straightforward rule.

They seem to think it's acceptable to behave in such a manner. This is akin, by the way, to allowing men to compete in women's sports, which effectively undermines women's athletics. In my view, and I hope I'm not stepping on any toes here, some sports don't seem suited for women. I apologise if this offends women, and some might argue I'm mistaken. Fair enough, that's a separate discussion.

However, if women choose to participate in these sports –weightlifting, boxing, wrestling, for instance – let them compete amongst themselves. When a man, claiming to be a woman, enters the fray and dominates, even breaking noses, it essentially kills women's sports. Soon, it will be increasingly difficult for women to compete anywhere. It's all rather nonsensical.

Let those individuals compete amongst themselves. Those who identify as women, let them participate in their own category at the Olympic Games. Similarly, those who possess medical certificates indicating lifelong ailments and thus use performance-enhancing drugs, let's establish a separate competition for them. It's quite simple, really. What's the problem? It doesn't offend anyone, by the way.

And how should we safeguard our values? By employing all means at our disposal.

Wang Wen: My name is Wang Wen, I am from Chongyang Institute, Renmin University of China. I am so glad to see you again. My question is about Russia’s China policy in the coming four years, as well as the changes in the future international system, because we know that Trump is back.

Just imagine, if one day President Trump calls you and asks to join forces to compete with China, how would you respond? Would you accept President Trump’s suggestion about uniting with Russia and resisting China?

My second question is about the future international system, because you often mention that the international system is undergoing fundamental change.

So, in your view, what will the international order and framework look like in the future?

And in your view, in the future international order and system, what roles should Russia, China and the United States act upon in the future?

How do you propose to coordinate the relationship among Russia China and the United States? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: I will try to keep my answer brief. First, our cooperation and friendship with China are not directed against any other country, including the United States. Our relations with China are focused on fostering the development of our countries and ensuring the security of nations.

The same approach applies to our relationship with the United States. I find it unlikely that such a question would come from the President-elect, as I believe he understands that it does not reflect the current realities we face. Russia does not align with anyone against others. This would be especially unrealistic regarding China, with whom we have reached an unprecedented level of mutual trust, cooperation, and friendship, as I have mentioned before.

I believe that countries like China and Russia, which share thousands of kilometres of border and a deep history of coexistence within a shared region, possess a significant legacy of common values despite cultural differences. This is an extraordinary achievement that we should actively build upon today, preserving and strengthening it for future generations.

Regarding the possibility of restoring relations with the United States, we are open to it. However, much depends on the United States, as we have not damaged our relationship with them, nor have we imposed restrictions or sanctions against them. We have never contributed to fuelling armed conflicts near their borders, nor have we ever been striving for this. I want to emphasise that we never allowed ourselves to do things like that.

It remains unclear why the United States feels justified in doing otherwise. I hope they will eventually recognise that such things should not be done if we wish to prevent global conflicts.

The US President-elect, Mr Trump, has expressed similar sentiments. We will have to see how this will play out in practice, given that the presidency in the United States is influenced by certain established commitments and the interests of those who supported his path to power.

Jacques Chirac once told me, “What kind of democracy are we really talking about in the United States? Without a billion dollars in your pocket, you should not even think about running in elections, let alone actually participate.” That is the reality. And those who provide these billions naturally play a role in shaping the future team. If they back someone, they are able to influence those they supported as part of that team.

It is crucial for an elected leader to effectively establish contact not only with influential groups and the so-called deep state, but also with the public, with the voters themselves. If the leader fulfils promises made to the people, their authority strengthens, enabling them to become a more independent political figure, even in dealing with the influential groups that supported their coming to power. This is a highly complex process.

What will happen in the United States is something neither you nor I can predict. However, I sincerely hope that our relations with the United States will eventually be restored. We remain open to this possibility.

Please.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Thank you.

You mentioned Japan. Please, Mr Abiru.

Taisuke Abiru: Thank you. Taisuke Abiru, Sasakawa Peace Foundation.

Let me ask a similar question, but also related to Japan. The strategic situation in East Asia is getting increasingly tense, primarily due to the strategic rivalry between the United States and China. Russia is clearly on China’s side in this rivalry. The frequency of joint military exercises between Russia and China has noticeably increased in the region.

On the other hand, Asia is a region that has many values, and Russia’s strategic interests there should not be limited to relations with China. How is Russia trying to reconcile two challenges: on the one hand, its position in the US-China standoff in East Asia, and the preservation of space for Russia’s strategic multilateral interests in this region?

One more thing: How would you assess the future of Russian-Japanese relations in this strategic context, say, in five years?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Indeed, the situation in East Asia is not getting any calmer or more stable, but China has nothing to do with it. Of course, China is our closest partner, our friend, but I will try to be reasonable.

Is China creating any blocs? I am not trying to be China’s advocate here, but I understand that there are many interior problems there, but there are always problems between neighbours. We know – there is no secret here – that there are certain tensions on the Chinese-Indian border, but people with experience and skills who think about the future of their nations look for compromises and find them, like the Prime Minister of India and the President of China are doing now. They are having a dialogue, in Kazan at the BRICS summit as well, and I hope this will have a positive impact on the future development of Chinese-Indian relations.

As for the overall situation in East Asia: is China creating blocs there? It is the United States that is creating blocs: one bloc, a second, a third. NATO is formally interfering. Nothing good happens when closed military-political blocs are created under the obvious leadership of one major country. As a rule, all other countries work in the interests of this state, which creates these blocs. Let those who agree with everything so easily think about it.

Should issues arise – and neighbours always have issues – the goal is for the leaders of these countries to always strive to muster their strength, courage, and patience, as well as willingness to push for a compromise at the regional level, without resorting to external interference. If this attitude gains momentum, such compromises can always be arrived at.

Considering this, accusing China of harbouring aggressive intentions at a time when it is not China but rather the United States is creating aggressive blocs, appears to be an entirely flawed approach.

Now, with regard to the idea that Russia has sided with China rather than with those who are creating these blocs. Well, of course, we are on China’s side. First, because of what I mentioned earlier: we do not believe that China is pursuing an aggressive policy in that region.

Taiwan is the focal point of many developments that are unfolding in the region. Everyone formally agrees that Taiwan is part of China. But in practice, they are acting in a completely opposite manner and stoking tensions. Why? Is it not for the same reason they provoked the crisis in Ukraine? Are they not seeking to instigate a crisis in Asia and then tell everyone else, “Get over here! You need me to cope with this.” Perhaps, this is the logic that underlies the events in Asia as well?

That is why we support China. We believe it pursues an absolutely balanced policy, and China is our ally. Our trade volume is substantial, and we maintain cooperation in the sphere of security.

You mentioned that we are conducting exercises. Yes, we are. But is the United States not conducting regular exercises with Japan and other countries?

I pointed out once that we have not been using our strategic aviation since the late 1990s. It no longer made long flights in the neutral zone, at a time where the United States continued to do so. We watched, we watched, and we watched it until eventually we resumed our strategic aviation flights.

The same is true in this case: the United States has been conducting exercises there endlessly, and eventually we, Russia and China, started conducting exercises as well. Exercises pose no threat to anyone and are conducted with the sole purpose of ensuring our security. We believe they are a proper tool to stabilise the situation in Asia and around the globe.

The countries in that region have nothing to fear. To reiterate, our cooperation with China in general and in the military and military-technical fields, among others, is aimed at strengthening our security and is not directed against third countries.

Regarding Japan and our bilateral relations, I shall reiterate what I conveyed to your colleagues: we have not deteriorated our relations with Japan. Have we, in recent times, committed any transgressions against Japan? We have been engaged in negotiations, endeavouring to resolve the challenging matter of the peace treaty.

Incidentally, there were questions concerning potential compromises based on the Declaration of 1956, which the Soviet Union had ratified. However, it was subsequently renounced by the Japanese side. Still, at Japan's request, we revisited this Declaration and resumed our dialogue. Admittedly, it was no facile task, yet we listened to our partners and contemplated how to proceed based on the Declaration of 1956.

Then, quite unexpectedly, Japan imposed sanctions against us, positioning Russia as a threat – third or fourth on their list. What threat do we pose? Why are we perceived as a threat by Japan? Sanctions were imposed. What grievance have we caused you? Why such measures? Merely because of a directive from Washington? You might have simply replied, ”Hi, guys, we’ll think about it,“ without offending your partner, your ally. Was it imperative to comply without question? Why did you do that? I find it perplexing.

Thankfully, there remain astute individuals in Japan: they persist in cooperation, particularly within the energy sector. They do not forsake our companies and recognise the reliability of our engagements. Despite Japan's imposition of certain sanctions, we have refrained from retaliation. Japanese enterprises have collaborated with us and continue to do so; they wish to maintain this partnership, and thus they shall.

We now observe indications even from American companies that they wish to re-enter our market. They may return, albeit under new conditions and with inevitable losses. However, this is not our fault.

We stand prepared to cultivate relations with Japan for the ensuing five years and indeed the next fifty. Japan is inherently our partner, being our neighbour. Our shared history has seen varied epochs, including both tragic chapters and those of which we can take pride.

We in Russia love Japan; we love Japanese culture, we love Japanese cuisine. We have not dismantled anything. You may draw your own conclusions, and we shall not engage in tomfoolery or assign undue blame. We are ready; we welcome your return, and that is all.

That is all, I believe there is nothing more to add.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr President, is our strategic cooperation with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, like with China, also aimed at strengthening our security?

Vladimir Putin: We have an agreement with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and other countries, which was signed with the Soviet Union, but it naturally expired. In fact, we have returned to it, that’s it. There is actually nothing new there, whatever they may be saying.

Everything, practically everything, that was written in the treaty between the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the Soviet Union, just with some new nuances, is reproduced in the new treaty.

Yes, of course, it is aimed at ensuring security in the region and our mutual security.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Will we hold drills with them?

Vladimir Putin: We’ll see; we can hold drills, too, why not? The Treaty’s Article 4 is about mutual assistance in the event of aggression from another state. It has everything. I repeat once again: there are almost no updates from the treaty, which simply expired back in the days of the Soviet Union.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Thank you.

Question: Thank you, Mr President, for a brilliant presentation and this interaction. My question is about India-Russia relations. You have met Prime Minister Modi several times in the last few months. Prime Minister Modi, at one point in time, mentioned to you that this should not be an era of wars. How do you see that statement? How do you interpret that statement? What is the meaning of that statement for you? That's one.

Secondly, if you could also tell us, in this concept of Eurasian security, what role do you see for India? And thirdly, in this changed geopolitical environment, and you also mentioned the importance of civilisations, civilisational values, Russia being a civilisation state, India being a civilisation state, what are the new areas in which India and Russia can work together? Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: India has been our natural partner and ally for decades.

I believe everyone is very well aware of the role the Soviet Union and Russia played in India’s gaining its independence. We have supported the Indian nation for decades. Over this time, we have developed unique relations with the Indian nation in terms of quality and the level of trust. I will say this directly in this context. As far as we understand and feel, our Indian friends have the same nationwide consensus regarding the development of relations with Russia.

We are guided by this in developing relations with India in all areas. It refers to the economy as well which is developing at a good pace, and in different fields such as energy. By the way, we are ready: in addition to oil supplies, other supplies to the Indian market have increased many times over, which also concerns the possibility of LNG (liquefied natural gas) supplies. We are actively working in the nuclear energy sector and are building nuclear power plants in India. We have great respect for Prime Minister Modi’s Make in India idea, to his initiative Make in India, and we are ready to invest.

As for the energy sector, Russian investments are among the largest foreign investments: US$20 billion. We are ready to further develop this in the same vein.

At present, we definitely have to think about new technologies. We are thinking about this and will move in that direction. At our last meeting, the Prime Minister noted that the Indian agricultural producers have an urgent need to increase the amount and volume of fertiliser supplies. We have done this and are ready to increase them in view of the needs of Indian agriculture. There are many other areas, too.

India stands as a truly great nation, now the most populous in the world, with a 1.5 billion people and an annual increase of 10 million. It is galloping forward leading the charge in economic growth among the major global economies. To put it in numbers, India's GDP is expanding at a rate of 7.4 percent per annum.

India is, indeed, one of those nations poised to outpace even the most developed economies of our time. Thus, our perspective on the direction, scope, and speed at which our bilateral relations should evolve is firmly grounded in present-day realities. And the reality is that the scale of our collaboration is multiplying exponentially.

While our trade may not yet match that with China, it nonetheless approaches almost US$60 billion – 58+ billion, and it continues to grow with each passing year. This upward trend, notably, has persisted throughout the first nine months of this year.

Turning our attention to the resolution of acute crises, we hold the Indian leadership in high regard and gratitude, particularly the Prime Minister, who has been vocal in expressing his concerns regarding conflicts, including the Ukrainian conflict. His proposals for settlement are indeed within our purview, and we are, without reservation, thankful to the Prime Minister not only for his attention to these issues but also for his constructive suggestions and actions in this domain.

Overall, I believe that our relations with India have been advancing at a commendable pace, and we have every reason to anticipate that, based on our achievements thus far, we shall proceed at an even swifter pace. Incidentally, it is well acknowledged that our relations are also progressing traditionally in the area of security and military-technical cooperation. Just look at the number of Russian equipment that the Indian army has in service – we are advancing here with an established, indeed high, level of mutual trust.

We are not merely vendors of armaments to India; rather, we are partners in designing them. The BrahMos system is a testament to this partnership, having been transformed into a comprehensive surface, water, and air system. These developments serve India's security interests and are well known to all, raising neither questions nor ire from any quarter, but instead attesting to the high calibre of our trust and cooperation. We remain committed to continuing this collaboration in the immediate future and, I earnestly hope, in the years to come.

Fyodor Lukyanov: I saw someone raise their hand.

Vladimir Putin: May I say a few words here because we are running out of time?

Fyodor Lukyanov: “It is almost midnight.”

Vladimir Putin: Yes, and “still no sign of Hermann.”

Dimitris Konstantakopoulos: Konstantakopoulos Dimitris, Mr President, from Greece – a country, I am sure you will agree with me, that has no other options than to remain a friend and a brother of Russia for reasons which we cannot escape. They are part of our deepest cultural and historical identity. My question is the following: forty years ago, both the European welfare Keynesian capitalism and the Soviet hyper-centralised system collapsed. During the four decades that have passed, we have seen the multiplication of economic crises, wars, ecological problems, and many other problems. I wonder if the time has not come to orient ourselves towards a kind of planned economy at the national, regional and international levels. I do not mean the sclerosis of the past, so to say, a little bit of military socialism. I mean a system like the one you described, a combination of market and plan, a system like the one you tried to apply in your country just as it was some years after the October Revolution with a new economic policy, even to introduce some elements of socialism, as you referred to in your revolution at the beginning of your intervention. Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: The more acute the crisis, the more planning is required, because greater state intervention is required to address the emerging problems. But as wealth and accumulated resources grow, calls for a purely market-based approach become louder. Then, let’s imagine, liberals and democrats come in and start spending all that was amassed by the conservatives. Then some time passes, and crises of overproduction emerge again – notionally, or crises related to it, and the whole thing repeats over and over again, everything comes full circle.

Each country has the sovereign right to shape its own economic policy. China has found these opportunities. And do you know why it succeeded? Largely because China is a sovereign state.

However, many of today’s economies, for various reasons and due to their commitments within economic or military-political alliances, have voluntarily given up part of their sovereignty. As a result, they are unable to make independent decisions in areas like the economy or their security. I am not urging anyone to do anything; I am simply responding to your question.

At some point, having the drachma, a national currency, might have been a reasonable choice, because it would allow some regulation of social processes, even if through inflation, and help ease social tensions rather than placing the entire burden of economic challenges on the population.

However, Greece once chose a different path, subordinating itself to regulation through a single currency and economic decisions made in Brussels. That is not our concern; it is the sovereign choice of the Greek state. I cannot say what is the best way to proceed under these conditions. But some of my friends and colleagues from the European Union – yes, I still have a few – have told me that more binding decisions are now made in Brussels for EU member states than were made by the Supreme Soviet of the USSR during the Soviet Union’s existence.

This has both pros and cons, but that is not for us to judge. I tried to answer your question, though I am not sure if it is sufficient. That is my view on the matter.

Yes, please, go ahead.

Irina Abramova: Thank you very much, Mr President, especially since I am the first woman so far to participate in today’s discussion.

Not long ago, in 2023, the African agenda became a part of the Valdai agenda. This is critical, because what is discussed at the Valdai Club matters not only for intellectuals and experts, but for our entire country as well.

It is symbolic that one day after our work here concludes, the first Russia–Africa ministerial conference will open, also in Sochi.

At the BRICS news conference, you mentioned that Africa, along with Southeast Asia, was the new centre of global growth. Today, you reiterated this point.

Clearly, intense competition is underway for the African people. Russia is viewed very favourably, despite the belief that Russia withdrew from Africa in the 1990s. When you cross the border they ask you, “Where are you from?” You tell them you are from Russia, and they go, “Oh, Russia, Putin.” This is true across most of Africa.

In my view, this is because unlike the West, which exploited the [African] peoples for its own prosperity, Russia provided Africans with not only political but also economic sovereignty, and helped African countries create their economies and develop the humanitarian space, among other things.

Amid fierce competition from China, India, traditional players, and even Turkiye, the Gulf countries, and Iran, Russia needs to identify its own niche where it will be the best partner for the Africans.

As experts, we are also putting forward our own ideas about what matters should be prioritised. You have talked to dozens of African leaders, even more than once with some of them. Was there a single promising area that all African leaders mentioned?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: You know, Africa is a vast continent, and the economic development and security levels vary greatly.

I concur that we have virtually no disagreements with any African country. The level of trust and mutual affinity is high, mainly because the history of our relations with Africa has never been clouded by any shadow. We have never been involved in the exploitation of African peoples or engaged in anything inhumane there. On the contrary, we have always supported Africa and Africans in their struggle for independence and sovereignty, and their efforts to create basic conditions to promote economic development.

In this day and age, we need to approach this work differently. It is very important for nearly everyone if there’s something common with creating favourable conditions for development in the security sphere, because Western countries have retained neocolonial tools in their approaches to the economy and security. All of that taken together provided them with certain advantages and the ability to use these neocolonial tools. But people are tired of that, especially so since they do not see any significant benefits coming from it.

As I mentioned earlier, at our meetings, summits, and bilateral encounters, Africans never ask or beg for anything. They do not come with their hands out. Firstly, their countries are developing rapidly. Secondly, they know they possess resources and capabilities. And thirdly, they only ask for one thing: to establish natural and mutually beneficial cooperation. That is something we strive for, too.

Of course, we cannot do this at the state level in the same way it was done during the Soviet Union. We are trying to create conditions for our leading companies to operate, especially since our companies’ investment potential is very high – indeed, exceptionally high. There is the possibility of investing hundreds of millions of dollars, without exaggeration. In Egypt, for instance, we are building a nuclear power plant, investing nearly US$20 billion, just to give you an idea. We are ready to work in the same way with other countries and in other industries.

Of course, it is very challenging to work on economic matters if there are no conditions for security in place. After all, in Sahara-Sahel region, for example, people are still being terrorised by various semi-terrorist or terrorist groups. There is significant internal political instability across many countries, and practically everyone turns to us for help. We are happy to help, within the framework of international law.

At the same time, we are not trying to squeeze anybody out. Sometimes the Europeans blame us for creating conditions that force them out, but it is not our fault. They are simply not welcome there anymore, that is all. To prevent a security vacuum, they ask us to fill it. We try to help but very carefully, while still being effective enough to address this problem.

First and foremost, there is a lot that needs to be done in the economic sphere. We will try to work in this direction.

Meetings like the ministerial conference we are hosting tomorrow or the day after, are designed to create favourable conditions for this.

Personnel training continues in both civilian industries and the military sphere. Future armed forces personnel from these states study at our military educational institutions, as do future law enforcement personnel. To sum it up, we will work in all directions. Culture-wise, Russia shows great interest in the cultures of the African peoples, and this interest is mutual. We will work intensively, responsibly, and consistently in this area.

Question: I am happy to be the second woman reading a question to you, Mr President. I am from the Beijing Club for International Dialogue.

If we make this assumption and go back to two years ago, probably February 2022, what would you say to the Chinese leader about the Taiwan issue at that time?

And if we look forward to another quarter from now, 25 years, say 2049, what in your mind would the multipolar world look like? Isn’t a major force pushing towards the multipolar world be a unified country? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Let me begin where you concluded. I would like the world to be balanced and for the emerging multipolar system to consider, as much as possible – and as far as practicable – the interests of all participants in international dialogue. The aim is to establish a system that respects each other’s interests and to devise a mechanism for compromise. I remain hopeful that we can develop such a system; we must, in any case, strive towards it.

Are there forces advocating for this? Indeed, there are. Primarily, these include the BRICS nations. We recently discussed this, and the matter was addressed at the summit in Kazan. If I may, this is not a trivial matter.

These countries include your homeland – the People’s Republic of China, and also India, South Africa, Brazil – the largest nation in Latin America, and Russia, which I proudly represent today. Rest assured, the entire Russian people is committed to fostering a peaceful development of global affairs and creating conditions for all international participants to thrive. Admittedly, predicting the future is challenging, but our efforts must focus on this goal.

Now, let’s proceed. Would you please stand up.

Go ahead, please.

Question: Mr President, thank you for your insightful remarks and responses to the questions. You have previously noted the complexities involved in discussing means, including military resources. I have a question pertaining to this.

Russia has traditionally criticised the use of military force to address complex international issues, yet in 2022, Russia resorted to such measures. You have convincingly articulated the necessity for this action and Russia's right to employ military force in this instance. However, you cannot deny others the very right you claim for yourself.

Specifically, may I inquire about the Middle East? Which entities in this region does Russia recognise as having the legitimate right to employ military force and whose military actions does it deem unlawful under the current crisis conditions?

Additionally, a clarifying, perhaps technical question in this context: Within which borders does Russia recognise Israel? This question of borders arises, of course, when discussing aggression, self-defence, and the invocation of this fundamental right.

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: The question itself is not complex, although the situation is intricate. I shall address it in two parts forthwith.

Russia maintains that it is imperative to implement all resolutions passed by the Security Council and the United Nations General Assembly regarding Israel and Palestine.

This stance is not borne of convenience. It is a position that has been consistent since the Soviet era, and Russia has perpetuated this policy. Thus, if all Security Council and General Assembly resolutions concerning the establishment of two independent sovereign states are enacted, this, in my view, will provide the foundation for resolving the crisis, no matter how severe or acute it may appear today. That is all.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr President, I feel compelled to inquire, given our discussion on borders: within what borders do we recognise Ukraine?

Vladimir Putin: You see, we have consistently acknowledged Ukraine's borders as delineated by our agreements following the dissolution of the Soviet Union. However, I would like to draw your attention to the Declaration of Independence of Ukraine – supported by Russia – which stipulates Ukraine as a neutral state. It was on this basis that we recognised the borders. Subsequently, however, as you are aware, the Ukrainian leadership amended its Constitution to express a desire to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which was contrary to our initial agreement. This is the first point.

Secondly, we have never supported – nor do we support now – any state coups, including in Ukraine. We empathise with and support those people who opposed this unconstitutional coup, and we acknowledge their right to defend their interests.

I have discussed this matter with the UN Secretary-General [António Guterres] on numerous occasions, and there are no secrets here. I trust he will not take offence when I say this. He aligns with those who assert that we have breached the rules and principles of international law, as well as the UN Charter, by initiating hostilities in Ukraine. I have addressed this before, but your question provides an opportunity to reiterate the rationale behind our actions.

If we consider Article 1 of the UN Charter, which affirms every people's right to self-determination, then certainly the people residing in Crimea and the south-east of Ukraine, who objected to the state coup – an illegal and unconstitutional act – have the right to self-determination. Correct? Indeed, correct.

The UN International Court of Justice, when considering Kosovo, determined that a territory declaring independence is not required to seek the opinion or permission of the central authorities of the country it is part of at the time of the declaration. Is that correct? Indeed, it is, as this is the conclusion of the UN International Court of Justice.

Therefore, these regions, including Novorossiya and Donbass, had the right to make a decision on their sovereignty. Is that correct? Indeed, it is. This aligns with current international law and the UN Charter. If this is so, then we were within our rights to enter into appropriate interstate treaties with these newly established states. Is that correct? Indeed, it is. Did we do so? We did.

These treaties contain provisions on mutual assistance. We ratified them and undertook certain commitments. Subsequently, these newly formed states requested our assistance under those treaties. We possessed both the capability and the obligation to respond, which we did, in an effort to halt the hostilities initiated by the Kiev regime in 2014. We did not instigate any intervention or aggression; we are trying to stop it.

The [UN] Secretary-General listened to all of this, nodded quietly, and remarked, ”Well, yes, all right. But it is still you who attacked.“ I am not joking – this is verbatim. There is no rational response. Where is the flaw in this reasoning? What did I state incorrectly? Where did we contravene international law and the UN Charter? Nowhere – there are no violations.

And if this is the case, then Ukraine's border should be delineated in accordance with the sovereign decisions of the people residing in certain territories, which we refer to as our historical lands. Everything hinges on the developments that are currently unfolding.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr President, if we return to the initial point in your reasoning, should it be interpreted that the discussion of borders will occur once neutrality is established?

Vladimir Putin: If neutrality is not achieved, it is difficult to imagine any kind of good neighbourly relations between Russia and Ukraine.

Why? Because without neutrality, Ukraine will continue to be used as a tool in foreign hands, working against the interests of the Russian Federation. This would prevent the creation of the basic conditions needed to normalise relations, and the situation will become unpredictable. We would very much like to avoid that.

On the contrary, we are committed to creating conditions for a long-term resolution, so that Ukraine can ultimately become an independent, sovereign state – not a tool in the hands of third countries that is used for their interests.

Look at what is happening now, for example, along the line of contact or in the Kursk Region. They entered the Kursk Region – the losses are enormous. In just three months of fighting, the Kiev regime’s casualties exceed those of the entire last year – over 30,000. They have lost fewer tanks this year, about 200 so far compared to 240 last year, but that is only because they simply have fewer tanks left and are using them less.

Why are they still there, despite these heavy losses? Because they have been ordered from across the ocean to hold their ground at any cost – absolutely any cost – at least until the elections, to show that the Democratic administration’s efforts on the Ukrainian front have not been in vain. Hold at all costs, they are told. And this is the price they are paying. I see it as a terrible tragedy, both for the Ukrainian people and for the Ukrainian army.

These decisions are driven not by military considerations, to be honest, but by political ones. We have now encircled enemy forces and established two pockets in certain sectors, including the Kupyansk sector; I do not know whether the military have announced this or not so far. One pocket has been virtually sealed tight, with Ukrainian forces numbering about 10,000 pinned down near a reservoir. The Kupyansk pocket contains about 5,000 enemy soldiers. They are trying to establish pontoon crossings in order to extricate at least some of their personnel, but our artillery is destroying them immediately.

In the area under the responsibility of our Centre group, there are also two or three zones of encirclement—two for sure, and a third likely soon. Ukrainian military leaders see this happening, but the decisions are being made on a political level, not in the interest of the Ukrainian state or, even less, the Ukrainian people.

If this goes on indefinitely, it will not create favourable conditions for restoring peace, stability and cooperation between neighbouring countries in the long term, which is precisely what we should be aiming for. And that is precisely what Russia aims for.

This is why we say: we are ready for peace talks, but not on the basis of ever-changing demands that shift from month to month. We are ready to negotiate based on current realities and the agreements reached in Istanbul – grounded in today’s reality.

But this is not about a temporary truce for half an hour or six months to allow them to stock up on ammunition. It is about creating favourable conditions for restoring future relations and cooperation between two nations that are undoubtedly brotherly, no matter how strained things are by today’s rhetoric and the tragic events between Russia and Ukraine.

So our position is clear and consistent. We will continue to act and move in this direction.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr President, it is 11:18 pm now.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, I think it is time to wrap up.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Let’s have a few final questions, and then we will conclude.

Vladimir Putin: Go ahead.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Let’s go, Algeria.

Akram Kharief: Akram Kharief, from Algeria. Mr President, in regard to this horrifying genocide happening in Palestine, would Russia endorse and help the international community reintroduce the bill regarding the criminalisation of Zionism that was retrieved in the 1980s from the UN?

And the second thing, Mr President, you mentioned the Olympic Games and the case of the female boxers. I think we all know about that case, about the Algerian one. It is a lady; her father says she is a lady. Our society is a very conservative one, and this would never happen. Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: You know, if she is a woman, I wish her good health and continued success in sports. My earlier comments were not aimed specifically at her. What I intended to convey was that it should not be acceptable for someone to simply declare themselves a woman and then compete in women’s sports when, frankly, their physical characteristics suggest otherwise. Yet, some sports theorists argue that physical characteristics are irrelevant; as long as a person identifies as a woman, they should be allowed to compete accordingly. But where does that lead? You can see the point I am making here. This is my main concern.

Secondly, regarding Zionism, I have addressed this issue many times, emphasising that any response must be proportionate to the threat and actions on the other side. We firmly condemn all acts of terrorism, and the attack on Israel on October 7 was undoubtedly such an act. However, it is essential that any response remains proportionate.

Right now, it is crucial to focus on minimising the suffering of the Palestinian people, and ideally, to eliminate it altogether. The fighting must be stopped immediately, and efforts should be made to bring Israel and Palestine – in this case, Hamas – to an agreement. Escalating, assigning blame, or condemning will not resolve the immediate crisis; the top priority is to halt the violence. Israel is engaged in active warfare, and although it may seem there is little ground left to cover, the fighting persists, with Hamas forces continuing to fight. How long can this go on?

In southern Lebanon, a force of around 63,000 troops is positioned, with some already having entered the area, while the main contingent remains at the border. We must prevent this from escalating into a tragedy and instead focus on finding mutually acceptable solutions.

The question is, do such solutions even exist? Is peace achievable? I believe it is, as unlikely as that may seem. We even have ideas on the matter and are actively engaging with all parties to the conflict to explore options that could be acceptable to everyone involved. There may indeed be light at the end of the tunnel. This is something we all need to consider carefully now. It may sound optimistic, even naive, but I genuinely believe it is possible. We are in regular contact with nearly everyone involved, if not daily, then at least weekly.

Let us continue down this path. I am deeply concerned about undermining any of the efforts we are currently making. We are not alone in this; we are also in contact with some of our partners on this matter. There is a shared desire to move forward. I speak honestly when I say it feels like we are heading in the right direction.

I sense that today, nearly all the participants in this difficult process are not seeking further escalation or confrontation. On the contrary, they are thinking about how to reach some form of agreement. Let us focus on that now, shall we?

We are actively working on it. As strange as it may seem, despite our own conflict with Ukraine, many parties involved are approaching us with ideas and proposals. Since we maintain natural contact with everyone, we are doing our best to make a careful and modest contribution toward resolving these issues on this path.

Fyodor Lukyanov: You used to have a very good personal relationship with [Benjamin] Netanyahu. Has that relationship remained?

Vladimir Putin: I try not to spoil anything, but only to improve things. However, today’s circumstances are quite unique, to say the least, and they leave their mark on everything, including our relationship.

I had a good relationship with [Emmanuel] Macron, too – and it is true. I also talked with [Olaf] Scholz. But at some point, they decided that they did not need it. As I have already said, if they do not need it, fine. I had a good relationship with [Donald] Trump. I don’t know if he wants to talk now or not. I even had good relations with [Joe] Biden. We met in Switzerland, where we had a conversation, and we talked on the phone, called each other, joked, and laughed.

Fyodor Lukyanov: (Presenting a speaker.) Saudi Arabia.

Remark: I am glad to see you, Mr President.

Vladimir Putin: It is mutual.

Question: While I was listening to your speech here in this hall, I could not help but recall your speech at the Munich Conference in 2007.

Indeed, the world order has ceased to be unipolar. There are now three great powers: the US, Russia and China. In all likelihood, these countries will compete with each other. It is doubtful that there will be a hot war between them, because each of them has weapons of mass destruction. However, the West has already begun trade wars and sanctions. This could devolve into financial wars.

Therefore, Mr President, my question is this: Is Russia ready for these developments, especially if these wars are long-term, or do you think the world order has a development alternative? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: First, of course, India should be included in the list of great powers as well: it has 1.5 billion people, the highest rate of economic growth among major economies, and an ancient culture, as well as excellent growth prospects.

However, there are other rapidly developing countries as well, which have a great influence on current politics, on world development, and on the future of humanity. Look at what is happening in Indonesia, a country with a population of 300 million. What about some African countries? By the way, Saudi Arabia also plays a major role in the world energy sector. That alone is enough. One move or one word from the Crown Prince is enough to influence the world energy markets, and this influence is colossal.

As for the countries you have mentioned, you also spoke about competition between them. You know, healthy competition is always good; it has never hurt anyone. I am saying this without irony. It only helps one side or another build up its internal forces, and helps it develop.

There is nothing good about monopolies. Overseas, they say that there is only one case when a monopoly is good: it is good as long as you own it. Jokes aside, monopolies are actually harmful since they deprive those who benefit from them of the energy, willpower and ability to grow and prosper.

Therefore, there is nothing extraordinary in this regard. It is essential that natural competition does not prompt anyone to become aggressive towards others. It is instrumental that we abide by the rules as devised and agreed – and I would like to emphasise that they must be agreed upon – by all the parties involved in international affairs, and that they devise these rules for their own sake and in their interests. We must do away with what we call illegitimate restrictions and sanctions and ensure that they are not used as a competitive tool. I referred to them as illegitimate for a reason. In fact, they run counter to the existing international norms, WTO norms, etc. This is what makes them illegitimate. And how can they be legitimate? This is quite obvious. They are being used as part of a political agenda and serve as a tool for gaining a competitive edge.

Quite often, those who impose sanctions against Russia or China are the ones who suffer from them.

The scale of economic interaction between the United States and China is huge. Ok, the US imposed sanctions against China, so what’s next? It may well be that this backfires on the United States.

In Europe, for example, they have restricted some Chinese imports and imposed certain limitations. But what were the key economic development drivers for Europe? Ask the Europeans and they will tell you that they had two major advantages: relatively cheap Russian fuel and energy, as well as inexpensive consumer goods from China. But what will they get now? They are closing the taps. They stopped buying our energy resources, which used to be relatively affordable, out of their own free will. We can see that they are balancing on the brink of recession. And now they are about to stop importing Chinese goods, which are also relatively inexpensive. What will happen? They will have inflation. And the United States will go down the same road. They have quite a few challenges there already. They are facing three deficits: a US$34 trillion debt, a foreign trade deficit, as well as a budget deficit – I think it is about six percent. As for Russia, despite all the restrictions they have been imposing on us, our deficit is about two percent, in fact even below two percent. And they have six percent in the United States. They are the ones undermining their development drivers and institutions with their own hands.

This is to say that competition, when it is healthy and fair, is a natural phenomenon which can be accepted. But using illegal tools to gain a competitive edge is bad and is detrimental to those who use them. I do hope that this will dawn on reasonable people at the right political level so that we can reach common ground. As for how we can get there, I discussed this matter in my speech.

Thank you.

I suggest that we round up this meeting. Otherwise, we will stay here until morning.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr President, I believe it is time to wrap up. However, I hope you will indulge me, as I hold a degree in German philology…

Vladimir Putin: A “philologist-harmonist” [t/n – the story has it that a university graduate got his diploma with a mistake: his area of specialization read ‘harmonist’ instead of ‘Germanist’; in Russian these words are consonant].

Fyodor Lukyanov: Indeed, a ”harmonist.“ But you, too, were once a ”harmonist.“

Vladimir Putin: No, I am a lawyer.

Fyodor Lukyanov: I was quite concerned when you mentioned that you were beginning to forget the German language.

Vladimir Putin: I simply do not practise it. It is akin to a musical instrument – it requires daily use. The vocabulary begins to fade.

Fyodor Lukyanov: May I give the floor to Roger Koeppel? He is our primary representative of the German language here.

Vladimir Putin: Who?

Fyodor Lukyanov: Roger Koeppel from Switzerland. Please.

Vladimir Putin: Ah, yes, please. But this is Schweizerdeutsch.

Fyodor Lukyanov: He is quite capable of speaking Hochdeutsch too.

Roger Koppel: Thank you very much, Mr Lukyanov, Mr President. It was a very impressive, outstanding evening. I have never seen a leader of your stature communicating on this level for so long, so late in the evening. Congratulations. It is fantastic.

However, I want to challenge your term ‘collective West.’ I am probably considered to be part of the collective West. I do not consider myself to be part of any collective.

And I do not see a collective West, but I see a group of politicians with increasing problems. We see governments hanging by the ropes, we see a leadership crisis.

I had the summit meeting organised in Vienna with former Chancellor Schroeder and Prime Minister Orban. Chancellor Schroeder was the last guardian of the strategic autonomy of Europe, as you well know, and it was interesting, because I could see there was a huge interest in this kind of event, and I see there are rather seismic changes about in Europe. The landscape is changing, and this is where I allow a slight criticism of you.

With great power comes great responsibility, and I think you are neglecting the communication to the wider public in Western Europe, in older Europe, in the German-speaking part of Europe, because you, as a person, as a president, as a politician with your country, are an extremely important topic in politics. And if you communicate, if you encourage these people, this would have an effect. Without interfering in elections, but it would have an effect in helping to bring about changes that many people want in Europe.

And my question is, do you share this view and would you be willing to give interviews to independent journalists, without naming some of those present? Thank you very much.

(Laughter.)

Fyodor Lukyanov: You are familiar with this journalist.

Vladimir Putin: You mentioned Mr Schroeder. I have maintained, and continue to maintain, a very good personal relationship with him. He stands out as an exceptional figure within the modern European political sphere. I say this without irony or exaggeration. What makes him exceptional? He has his own viewpoint and expresses it openly.

When relations with Russia began to sour, he was not afraid to articulate his stance and state it publicly. He faced accusations of all manner of sins. I merely endeavoured to remain uninvolved, refraining from commentary.

What did he achieve, and what did we accomplish together? We built the Nord Stream pipeline, ensuring the supply of gas to Europe. What is the problem with that? At present, there is no Russian gas in Germany. The repercussions are severe, not solely because of this, but partly due to it. And as of now, we have yet to see any viable alternatives.

In conversations with our experts… allow me to share, although I did not express this before; I will only echo their sentiments. I hope not to offend anyone, God forbid. It may not sound particularly flattering. I still ask our colleagues, my colleagues, experts, ”What does Europe currently lack?“ The response is this: ”They lack brains.“ Not because they are unintelligent, no, but because economic decisions are being made by politicians unfamiliar with economic principles. These decisions are politicised, lacking thorough consideration and genuine rationale.

This pertains as well to the green agenda. Is the fight against climate change a commendable pursuit? Absolutely. Are we all concerned by it? Yes, indeed, and it alarms some. But it is unfair to the electorate to deliberately incite fear to advance resolutions that are not feasible. That, simply put, is unjust.

“The green agenda is good.” Yes, it is. Are new tools and technologies necessary? Yes, they are. Is it possible for an economy like Germany’s to survive solely on the new green technologies? It is not possible; they would have to reduce output or return to coal generation, like many European countries are doing now, including Germany itself.

Under pressure, they stirred up public opinion, frightening people. They excluded nuclear power generation and then coal energy from the equation, and now they do not need gas. Then they realised it was not a great idea, and we started supplying them with gas via different channels. Mr Schroeder did that. He did that not in the interests of the Russian Federation and not because he created sales conditions for us, or to benefit economically. He did it only in the interests of the German people and fought for the most favourable conditions of the supplies, and for creating these infrastructural possibilities.

Based on what has been happening in the German economy since these possibilities were lost, his work produced excellent results. Now that it is gone, we can see the result. Mr Schroeder made decisions that were unpopular from the perspective of internal economic policy. He consciously risked his political career. He had to make some unpopular decisions on cutting social expenditure, and so on. But economically, it was absolutely necessary. He knew it would entail unfavourable political consequences for him. And he still did it. He was a person who made decisions in the interests of Germany rather than in his own interests.

His strategy with respect to foreign policy relations was similar. If we look at the developments in Iraq, he was against the US intervention and he publicly stated this, just like Jacques Chirac, causing discontent among those who thought differently and those who issued orders from overseas. Eventually, he found himself out of the running. He was a very decent and consistent man. There are not many people like him. There are people like him in Europe but very few. I could count them on one hand.

I think it will be happening in Europe either way. People can see the reality with the gap growing between the so-called ruling elites who, for very different reasons, must consider someone else’s interests, so to speak, and the general population. We can see that. The nationally oriented political forces will see further growth as well.

Regarding the fact that, as you said, I avoid communicating with a wide audience in Europe, I do not think it is correct to directly address people in those countries whose leadership anathematises us and does not want to listen to any arguments.

We have relevant agencies working there – they are facing discrimination, too, despite the declared freedom of speech. Our journalists are not allowed to work anywhere: neither in Europe nor in the US. They close everything down or create a multitude of complications. Ask Margarita Simonyan, she will tell you how their journalists are treated. We have only one point of support there: Russia Today, and that is it. We do not have an extensive system like the Anglo-Saxons with their global media. We do not possess that. But they are trying to shut this down too, and they are afraid of it.

I am open to interviews as far as it is possible. As you know, I met with Tucker Carlson, and from time to time, I have contacts with Western journalists.

If we were to contact them directly, we would provoke an unhealthy reaction: each word would trigger a stream of consciousness.

Do you recall that the newly elected President of the US was accused of having connections with Russia? Later, they held hearings in Congress and created a commission to investigate his ties to Russia but found nothing. There was nothing, so there was nothing to be found. They did not prove anything. Yet they persisted in using imaginary ties to Russia almost until the last moment with unimaginable energy, which could have been put to better use. It is total nonsense. I do not want to create problems for anyone there. This is the third point.

Fourthly, all processes occurring within a country should remain within that country. This is how it will happen. These nationally oriented political forces will grow not because I say something to like-minded people in Europe, though there are many of them, as well as in the US, but because this is dictated by the laws of society’s internal development. This is the most solid foundation for future changes. They will undoubtedly happen.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr President, one last question. There is a recurring thought in Western commentary – I came across it again recently, just yesterday, or so…

Vladimir Putin: If there are thoughts, that is already a good sign.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Yes, there are. And it’s actually quite an interesting thought from those who seem to be somewhat positive. They write: “With Putin, nothing is possible, but sooner or later, he will leave, and then we will need to rebuild relations with Russia and integrate it back, because it will return to its previous path.” Do you think Russia will return to that path?

Vladimir Putin: Russia is following its own path, and I hope it will continue to prioritise its national interests. Of course, integration is important, and we have never rejected that idea. However, I would not want Russia to return to the trajectory it was on before 2022, as I mentioned in my speech. That path involved covert interventions aimed at subordinating Russia to the interests of other nations that believed they had the right to do so. Russia cannot exist in such a subordinate or semi-subordinate position. I believe that our people, the ordinary citizens, have come to understand this, especially after realising what our geopolitical opponents have been trying to impose on us.

The logic of events reveals that people have come to understand what was happening and what others were trying to impose on us, no matter how appealing it appeared or how condescendingly they offered their support. This realisation is at the heart of the remarkable, even unprecedented, consolidation of Russian society. It stems from a deep understanding of the country’s core strategic interests, specifically the strengthening of its independence, autonomy, and sovereignty.

During our presidential election campaign, I recall there was not much time to watch everything, but I did tune in to the TV for a moment. I saw a foreign correspondent – I do not remember which country he was from – approach a man on the street in Belgorod, in the Belgorod Region. You might even find this footage in the archives. The reporter asked the man, “Where are you going?” The man replied, “To the polling station.” The reporter said, “But it is dangerous, drones could strike, you might get hurt. Why aren’t you afraid?” The man, a middle-aged local resident, looked him in the eye, answered simply, “I am Russian,” and continued on his way.

Today, representatives from any ethnic group in the Russian Federation could respond in the same way. Whether from the Volga region, the North Caucasus, the northern parts of Russia, or any of the 190 ethnic groups across the country, the sentiment is the same. The events of today have brought about an unprecedented consolidation of Russian society and a deep understanding of what sovereignty truly means for our nation. This sense of unity and sovereignty forms one of the key, vital foundations for Russia’s future development and survival.

Thank you.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you very much both to you and our host. I appreciate it.

Strategic Deterrence Forces exercise

2024-10-29T19:30:06+04:00

Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Armed Forces Vladimir Putin led a training exercise that involved the forces and resources of the ground, sea and air components of the strategic deterrence forces.

During the drill, practical launches of both ballistic and cruise missiles were executed.

A Yars intercontinental ballistic missile was launched from the Plesetsk state testing cosmodrome, targeting the Kura training ground in Kamchatka.

Sineva and Bulava ballistic missiles were launched from the nuclear-powered strategic missile submarine Novomoskovsk in the Barents Sea and from the nuclear-powered submarine Knyaz Oleg in the Sea of Okhotsk.

Additionally, Tu-95MC long-range strategic bombers participated in the training, firing air-launched cruise missiles.

The practical launches were directed from the National Defence Control Centre of the Russian Federation.

During the exercises, the level of preparedness of military command bodies as well as the skills of senior and operational personnel in organising and managing the troops (forces) under their command were assessed.

The tasks set for the training of the strategic deterrence forces were fully accomplished, with all missiles successfully hitting their designated targets, thus confirming their performance specifications.

* * *

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Comrades, good afternoon,

Today, we are conducting a regular training exercise for our strategic deterrence forces. This exercise will involve practising the procedures for officials in managing the use of nuclear weapons, including practical launches of ballistic and cruise missiles.

I would like to emphasise that Russia reaffirms its principled stance that the use of nuclear weapons is an extreme, exceptional measure for ensuring state security. That said, we fully recognise that the nuclear triad remains a solid pillar of our country's sovereignty and security. It enables us to achieve strategic deterrence objectives and uphold nuclear parity and the balance of power globally, which are key factors underpinning global stability.

In light of escalating geopolitical tensions and the emergence of new external threats and risks, it is imperative for us to have modern strategic forces that are in a state of constant combat readiness. We shall continue to enhance all their components, as we possess the necessary resources to do so. I must stress that we do not intend to be drawn into a new arms race; however, we will maintain our nuclear forces at a level of necessary sufficiency.

This year, the modernisation of the strategic deterrence forces' arsenal has reached approximately 94 percent. In line with the State Armament Programme, we will progressively transition our strategic missile forces to new fixed-site and mobile missile systems, which, compared to previous generations, are more precise, need less pre-launch time, and what’s crucial, have advanced capability to penetrate missile defence systems. Furthermore, the commissioning of the latest nuclear-powered submarine cruisers into the Navy continues, alongside the modernisation of long-range strategic bombers.

These measures are essential for the effective defence of the Russian Federation and our citizens. Let us proceed with our duties.

<…>

Meeting of the Security Council standing conference on nuclear deterrence

2024-09-26T09:22:14+04:00

Vladimir Putin held a meeting of the Russian Federation Security Council standing conference on nuclear deterrence.

The meeting was attended by Deputy Chairman of the Security Council Dmitry Medvedev, First Deputy Prime Minister Denis Manturov, Defence Minister Andrei Belousov, Finance Minister Anton Siluanov, Director of the Federal Security Service Alexander Bortnikov, Director of the Foreign Intelligence Service Sergei Naryshkin, First Deputy Secretary of the Security Council Rashid Nurgaliyev, General Director of the Roscosmos State Corporation for Space Activities Yury Borisov, and Director General of State Atomic Energy Corporation Rosatom Alexei Likhachev.

* * *

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon, colleagues,

Today we are holding a planned meeting, which is called Standing Conference on nuclear deterrence. We hold it twice a year. And today, we will discuss an issue related to updating the Basic Principles of State Policy on Nuclear Deterrence.

Alongside the Military Doctrine, this is a document that officially defines and details Russia’s nuclear strategy. First of all, it sets forth the basic principle of using nuclear weapons: the use of nuclear forces is the last resort measure to protect the country’s sovereignty.

Let me stress that we have always been highly responsible in matters like this, being well aware of the colossal power these weapons have, striving to strengthen the international legal foundation for global stability and prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and their components.

At present, our nuclear triad remains the most important security guarantee for our state and citizens, an instrument for maintaining strategic parity and balance of forces in the world.

At the same time, we can see that the modern military-political situation is rapidly changing and we have to factor that in, including the emergence of new sources of military threats and risks for Russia and our allies.

It is important to predict the development of the situation and adjust the provisions of the strategic planning document in accordance with current realities.

Over the last year specialists from the Defence Ministry, Foreign Ministry, Security Council Office and other agencies have made an in-depth and comprehensive analysis and evaluated the need for adjusting our approaches to a possible use of nuclear forces. Based on the results of this work, a number of updates have been proposed in terms of defining the conditions for using nuclear weapons.

Thus, the draft Basic Principles expand the category of states and military alliances in respect of which nuclear deterrence is exercised and expand the list of military threats to be neutralised by nuclear deterrence measures.

I would like to draw your attention specifically to the following. The updated version of the document is supposed to regard an aggression against Russia from any non-nuclear state but involving or supported by any nuclear state as their joint attack against the Russian Federation.

It also states clearly the conditions for Russia’s transition to the use of nuclear weapons. We will consider such a possibility once we receive reliable information about a massive launch of air and space attack weapons and their crossing our state border. I mean strategic and tactical aircraft, cruise missiles, UAVs, hypersonic and other aircraft.

We reserve the right to use nuclear weapons in the event of aggression against Russia and Belarus as a member of the Union State. All these issues have been agreed upon with the Belarusian side and the President of Belarus. Including the case when the enemy, using conventional weapons, creates a critical threat to our sovereignty.

In conclusion, I will note that all the updates have been deeply calibrated and are measured against contemporary military threats and risks to the Russian Federation.

Let’s get down to work. I give the floor to Defence Minister Andrei Belousov.

<…>

Plenary session of the St Petersburg International Economic Forum

2024-06-25T21:55:56+04:00

Vladimir Putin took part in the plenary session of the 27^th St Petersburg International Economic Forum.

Other session participants included President of the Plurinational State of Bolivia Luis Alberto Arce Catacora and President of the Republic of Zimbabwe Emmerson Dambudzo Mnangagwa.

Sergei Karaganov, a political analyst, historian and Academic Supervisor of the Faculty of World Economy and International Affairs at the Higher School of Economics, moderated the discussion.

The St Petersburg International Economic Forum has been held annually since 1997. The event has become one of the world’s leading platforms for discussing key issues of the global economy.

The 2024 forum’s key theme is ‘The Formation of New Areas of Growth as the Cornerstone of a Multipolar World. More than 12,000 people are attending the forum, including shareholders and top managers of major corporations, recognised experts and analysts, political and public figures, and government officials.

* * *

Plenary session moderator Sergei Karaganov: Good afternoon, presidents.

Colleagues and friends.

I was offered a huge honour and great pleasure to host this session. We have a brilliant and strong group of speakers, so the session promises to be interesting.

Allow me to start with Mr Emmerson Dambudzo Mnangagwa. He is a legendary figure, the last leader of an African country who has been fighting for almost all his life – a significant part of his life, with arms in his hands – defending his home country’s independence. He spent ten years in one prison and two in another. He survived, then he was sentenced to death penalty twice. After he became president, he abolished capital punishment in his country.

We would really appreciate it if Mr Mnangagwa could share his experience with us. Zimbabwe has been under sanctions for many years because they dared to nationalise white colonisers’ property.

Mr Luis Arce is an outstanding economist and a descendant of the people who fought alongside the great Simon Bolivar for the independence of their homeland. His fate is slightly less dramatic but nevertheless brilliant, eventful and triumphant.

Mr Arce was Bolivia’s minister of economy and finance for 15 years. Over those years, his country increased its GNP [gross national product] by 250 percent and reduced the number of people below poverty line by more than 50 percent. He carried out remarkable and most noteworthy reforms, including nationalisation of a significant part of foreign companies’ property, and natural resources. He also successfully introduced import substitution. Certainly, we would love to hear about his experience.

I believe Vladimir Putin needs no introduction and for me as a citizen of the country where he is president, it is inappropriate to sing him praises. But I will say only one thing. I clearly remember 1998 and 1999 when our country was on the edge, or rather, beyond the edge, of collapse. It was completely tragic. I remember myself and my fellows fighting desperately, almost without hope. And finally, there was a time when God had mercy on us.

Now, Mr President, your challenge is difficult as never before. Not only do you have to win but also to save the world from heading for and being pushed to a world war. Although today we will speak about something else.

President Putin, the floor is yours.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon, friends and colleagues.

Mr Arce. Mr Mnangagwa. Friends. Ladies and gentlemen.

I am delighted to welcome all of you to the 27th St Petersburg International Economic Forum.

More than 12,000 people from more than 100 countries are taking part in the forum this year. They include shareholders and top managers of major corporations, recognised experts and analysts, political and public figures, and public officials.

Traditionally, the St Petersburg forum not only provides an opportunity to establish business contacts, agree on cooperation or launch promising projects, but also facilitates open discussions on topical trends in global and regional markets. It allows participants to examine the processes that are dynamically developing in today’s world through the prism of economic relations.

We can see that a real race is beginning between countries to promote their sovereignty at three key levels: the state, cultural values, and the economy. At the same time, countries that until recently were leaders in global development are striving to maintain their elusive role as hegemons, using any means necessary. In reality, there is nothing unusual here, when a country or a person tries to maintain or strengthen their positions in life, but resorting to lies for this purpose is unacceptable. Strengthening positions honestly is commendable, but doing so through lying is not.

Of course, it is evident that China currently holds the position of the world’s number one economy by a significant margin from the second place. India is the third largest economy in the world and a global leader in terms of development dynamics.

The voices of South Asian and African countries are becoming increasingly prominent, with their high birth rates and a low level of urbanisation so far, as well as rapid, catch-up economic growth. According to expert assessments, these countries will shape the global economic landscape closer to the middle of this century.

It is worth noting that today the world is undergoing explosive technological growth in almost all areas of life. This growth is transforming management, production processes, and even entire industries. It is evident that countries that not only produce new solutions, but also ensure their rapid and advanced implementation will be able to fully take advantage of technological progress.

Russia has demonstrated its high level of readiness and receptiveness to technological change. We can see how our financial sector, e-commerce, transport services, and public administration system have already undergone significant changes. Similar processes are now beginning to unfold in the Armed Forces, where a high rate of technological renewal is also required. This is the most important and defining issue for our country.

I am sure that at present, as much as in the long run, the role, weight and, I daresay, even the future of states depends on how effectively they are able to respond to global challenges, to use their potential, capabilities, and their competitive advantages, and work around their weaknesses, and maintain and strengthen partnerships with other countries.

Last February, I outlined the priorities for Russia’s development in my Address to the Federal Assembly; since then, a comprehensive programme of economic transformation has been formed, through the end of this decade and beyond.

The format of this forum warrants a focus on the economic aspect of our development, on the qualitative and structural changes that are taking place in our country, and which we intend to vigorously and purposefully support by directing financial, human and organisational resources at the federal, regional and municipal levels to this end, and through implementing national projects, which we discussed at length at the recent meeting of the Council for Strategic Development.

What kind of changes am I talking about?

First, in view of the international status of this forum, I will start with foreign economic relations, the presence that Russia strives to gain on international markets, and our plans for restructuring our exports and imports.

Despite all the obstacles we are facing and the illegitimate sanctions imposed against us, Russia remains one of the key participants in global trade and is rapidly expanding the new logistics and geography of cooperation. We are strengthening ties with the countries in Asia (a growth of 60 percent from 2020 to 2023), the Middle East (100 percent), Africa (69 percent) and Latin America (42 percent). I assume that my colleagues, the guests of this forum, the presidents of Bolivia and Zimbabwe, will touch on this subject in their remarks.

Today, the countries that are friendly to Russia – and as we can see, these are the countries we should primarily focus on, the rapidly growing economies that will determine the future of the global economy – account for three-quarters of our trade.

We continue to work productively with our EAEU partners, ensuring a balance of interests of all parties. Last year, the EAEU’s total GDP grew by 3.8 percent, and mutual trade, by 4.7 percent. Moreover, its structure has qualitatively improved, namely, the supply of finished high-tech products has grown. We will continue to actively support non-resource and non-energy exports from Russia. By 2030, these exports should grow by at least two-thirds compared to 2023.

Again, this is not just about scaling up exports in terms of tonnes, cubic metres or units of finished products, but about high-value-added goods. It is about bigger changes than Russian companies’ expansion to new regional markets and greater geography of cooperation. All of this is important, but today, it is not enough.

With regard to other countries, we are willing to come up with an offer of creating full-fledged technological or industrial partnerships that include the provision of a full-life cycle for goods and services replete with training of national staff, localising production, and providing engineering support, as well as technical service, insurance, and so on.

Such approach to cooperation that relies on equal partnership and technology and competency transfers rather than market control makes it possible to establish stronger ties between the countries, improves our companies’ sustainable positions on the global market, and enables them to establish lasting partnerships with their foreign partners. This is exactly how one of our leaders, Rosatom, the undisputed leader of the global nuclear industry with broad horizons and plans for the future, operates.

Clearly, foraying into new markets is hard without strong transport links. The Eastern Operating Domain is our key project with regard to China, and the countries of the Asia-Pacific region. Its third phase of upgrading was approved in April. By 2030, the Eastern Operating Domain’s capacity is expected to have increased to 210 million tonnes, and to 270 million tonnes by 2032.

We will keep a close eye on the southern direction. Plans for developing the North-South international corridor and the Azov-Black Sea corridor have been approved.

The Northern Sea Route is on track to become a global artery that enjoys high demand. Last year, it carried 36 million tonnes of cargo, and this number is projected to increase to over 150 million tonnes over time. To get there, we will continue to expand the Northern Sea Route infrastructure, and to build access roads to the Arctic ports. The leaders of the northern constituent entities of the Federation are to play a special role in this work. In this regard, we will form a State Council commission on the Arctic regions and the Northern Sea Route.

The cargo volume carried along international transport corridors across the Russian territory is expected to increase by 50 percent in 2030 compared to 2021, primarily due to increased competitiveness and the ease of use of these routes for businesses and carriers.

Development of the cross-border payment infrastructure is a separate issue which is important both for the exporters and importers. It is no secret that the reliability and trust in Western payment systems have been fundamentally undermined, by Western countries themselves. In this regard, I would like to note that last year the share of payments for Russian exports in the unfriendly states’ so-called toxic currencies was halved. At the same time, the share of the ruble in export and import transactions is growing. Today it is approaching 40 percent.

Over 2021–2023, the share of the ruble in payments for Russian exports almost tripled, went up to 39 percent. Tripled.

Together with our foreign partners, we will increase the use of national currencies in foreign trade payments and improve the safety and efficiency of these operations. Among other things, BRICS is working to establish an independent payment system that is not subject to political pressure, abuse and external sanctions interference.

Let me remind you in this context, that new participants have joined the BRICS activities this year: Saudi Arabia, Iran, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and Ethiopia. Thus, the share of our association in global GDP increased to 36 percent, and in the planet’s population to 46 percent. That said, BRICS has great potential for the accession of new members. Of course, we welcome and support this intention of interested partners to develop contacts with BRICS on different continents.

We will continue to develop relations within BRICS not only in the economic and finance sector, but also in security, humanitarian and cultural cooperation, and other areas. We will act considering global challenges and objective trends and, I want to emphasise this, the growing capabilities of national economies.

In this regard, let us talk about the second significant structural change. This is the achievement of a new quality and content of economic growth in Russia, and a change in the sectoral structure due to an active supply-side economy policy.

As you know, at the end of last year, Russia’s GDP growth amounted to 3.6 percent, and in the first quarter of this year, it amounted to 5.4 percent, so our rates exceed the world average. It is especially important that these dynamics are ensured primarily by non-resource sectors.

Let me also add for reference, that in 2023, 45.5 percent of economic growth was ensured by basic industries, as I said. What are they? Manufacturing, construction, logistics, telecommunications, agriculture, electricity and other housing and utilities services. And 61.6 percent was ensured by providing industries, which are trade, hotels and restaurants, financial and other services).

We have set the goal of ranking among the four largest economies in the world. By the way, according to certain information, including assessments by the World Bank – it made additional calculations the previous week and put Russia in fourth place. We are ahead of Japan now.

Russia is placed fourth by GDP and by purchasing power parity. As I said, ahead of Japan. But I’d like to stress the following. Of course, the point is not the GDP estimation and calculation system, not even the formal fourth place achievement. We are close by: Russia, the Federal Republic of Germany and Japan. The difference is small. Russia is ahead, but the difference is small. Given this, we do understand that leadership positions have to be permanently proven and consolidated. Other countries are not standing still either. It is important for us to ensure consistently high rates and quality of growth for a long term. This is our goal today. And it is not just the economies of Germany or Japan, which are next to us on the scale. The point is that other countries are moving forward too. Indonesia is close on everybody’s heels. The population is growing, the economy is growing. We should never forget it.

The solution to this challenge requires stronger financial, technological and personnel sovereignty, building up of production capacities and higher competitiveness of Russian products both in foreign markets and our own domestic market.

The development of such a model of supply-side economy should result, among other things, in the reduction of imports to 17 percent of GDP by 2030. Our dynamics are quite good. Look: in 1999, the share of Russia’s imports reached 26 per cent of GDP, and in 2023, it was 19 per cent of GDP, or 32 trillion rubles. That is, as I said, the dynamics are absolutely clear and positive.

I make it a point that the share of imports should be reduced, certainly not at the expense of administrative and prohibitive barriers but thanks to our own competitive production facilities, which are ready to satisfy domestic needs in the products of the manufacturing industry, agriculture, services, IT and many other sectors.

There are many successful examples of such strategy. For example, we have created a modern meat industry in the agro-industrial sector. Its capacity has almost doubled over 15 years. Today, Russia ranks fourth in the world in meat production and is increasing the supply of these products to foreign markets. By the way, Russia has reached 100 percent self-sufficiency in meat products. Meat consumption last year, in 2023, updated its record and exceeded 80 kilograms per person. For comparison, the world’s average is 42–43 kilograms per person.

I would like to repeat: Our country can and will produce more consumer goods, machine-tools, equipment, vehicles, medicines, and so on. To this end, we need to launch new projects, create modern jobs, and do it everywhere, in all regions of the country.

By 2030, investment in fixed capital should be up by 60 percent in real terms compared to the level of 2020. Everyone here is a knowledgeable specialist and is fully aware of what investment in fixed capital means, what it leads to, and what kind of prerequisites it creates for future growth in the medium and longer term.

I would like to emphasise that, in general, we have done pretty well in this most important area in recent years. In 2021, the planned investment growth stood at 4.5 percent, but was 8.6 percent in fact. In 2022, the plan was 9.5 percent, the actual figure was 15.9 percent. In 2023, the plan was 15.1 percent, but it actually turned out to be 27.2 percent, which is almost double the initial plan which is good.

Of course, investment activity should be properly funded. I have earlier said that we will set aside additional funds for industrial mortgage programmes and almost double the size of the Industrial Development Fund.

We will also increase the capacity of the Project Finance Factory at the VEB-operated Development Institute. Projects worth over 2 trillion rubles are being implemented under this programme. I suggest incrementally expanding the limits of the fund. At the first stage, we will increase it to 600 billion which will allow us to additionally support real sector projects worth up to 6 trillion rubles.

Increasing the volume of bank lending for technological sovereignty projects is important. We will fine-tune the taxonomy of such projects, i.e. line up the priorities for supporting and increasing investment in key industries and technological projects aimed at structural changes in the economy. We will increase the number of projects under this system, which will make it possible to attract additional funds which will go into implementing them.

The state is willing to share risks with investors. For example, the Foundation of Funds for Advanced Industrial and Infrastructure Projects is now operational. We have been discussing its parameters for a long time. The Government debated it, and we tried to coordinate it with the business community. People who were involved in this are here with us today.

Private investors are heavily investing in the Russian economy alongside the Russian Direct Investment Fund which is another area of our work.

The State Duma is considering draft laws that will expand the public-private partnership mechanism to include industries and the space sector. Please have these regulations adopted as soon as possible.

And another thing: to support investment activity, we naturally need to develop the capital market, increase its capacity and appeal for businesses and investors, and, of course, pay special attention to the safety and profitability of people’s funds invested in these assets.

Today there are almost 30 million so-called retail investors in our country – these are our citizens. The total volume of their assets increased by 50 percent over the year and totalled more than nine trillion rubles. At the same time, the demand for the shares of Russian companies has steadily exceeded the supply.

The goal has already been set: by the end of the current decade, the capitalisation of the Russian stock market should approximately double and make up two thirds of the gross domestic product.

I ask the Government, together with the Central Bank, to propose additional measures to encourage companies to list their securities on the stock exchange. Among other things, we should think about compensating the costs of initial public offerings for small technology companies.

This is an appeal to the Ministry of Finance and the Central Bank. The companies’ costs, including those related to bank posting, placement and so on, should be reduced as much as possible. And of course, it is necessary to ensure the inflow of so-called long money into the financial market, including long-term savings of citizens.

I would like to remind you that starting January 1 of this year, a special programme to support voluntary long-term savings of citizens has been launched. Now they are insured and co-financed by the state and can also be tax deducted. The programme has only recently been launched and is still lagging behind its targets. I propose to fine-tune it, namely, to increase the period of co-financing of citizens’ savings. Now it is three years. I believe it is right and reasonable to extend it to at least ten years.

At the same time, I ask the Government, together with the Central Bank, to consider additional incentives for businesses so that employers could also co-finance their employees’ savings under this programme. Now, given the shortage of labour, this would be appropriate and would even benefit the enterprises themselves, which would retain employees.

I would like to add that a new instrument – a savings certificate – will be introduced this year. It will make it possible for citizens to place funds in banks for a period of more than three years and at a higher interest rate than on ordinary deposits, although even now the deposit is quite solid, and our leading financial institutions are pushing this bar higher and higher. I don’t know whether this is justified or not, but it is certainly a bonus for deposit holders, so much is clear. But I would not like you, Mr Gref, along with Mr Kostin, to suck everything out of other banks like a vacuum cleaner. We will talk more about this later.

On January 1, 2025, contributory life insurance will be launched. What is it about? People’s insurance premiums can be invested in more profitable assets, such as shares, and bring benefits to the insurance buyer. That is, the principle of classical insurance and investment is combined, and in order to further guarantee the return of these funds, I propose providing state insurance in the amount of 2.8 million rubles, like for long-term savings.

Next, today there is an investment tax deduction mechanism in the regions. Thanks to it, companies that invest in development can decrease their income tax. Starting this year, the deduction is tied to projects of technological sovereignty and structural adaptation of the economy. This makes it possible to manage the quality of investments and stimulate capital expenditures in priority areas.

I am asking the Government to make sure that the deduction can be applied not only within one company, but also within a group of companies, and also to provide additional resources for the financing mechanism to replenish the tax deduction.

In this regard, I will remind of the decision that has been made: regions will be able to use part of the funds released after writing off budget loans to cover their shortfall in income due to the investment tax deduction. The Ministry of Finance has taken this step. I think it is justified in today’s conditions and will help all active participants in economic activity. I will elaborate on this later. In addition, I am confident that the regions will also support investors directly through their budgetary capabilities, which are also growing there.

Let me emphasise: what I have said is about the investment tax deduction in the Russian regions. In addition to it, a federal deduction will be introduced as part of a reconfiguration of the tax system, aimed at encouraging business investment in development, achieving greater social justice, and reducing inequality between citizens. In the near future, it is necessary to determine the parameters and volumes of the federal investment deduction together with business associations, so that it becomes an effective, widely used tool.

Going back to the regions’ efforts to support business activity, I would also like to note such mechanism as the regional investment standard. Its purpose is to ensure uniform principles for attracting investors throughout the country, based on businesses’ requests and recommendations, that is, to create a universal investment ecosystem in each region and a clear algorithm of actions for businesses to locate production facilities in.

Of course, these support measures are available to all of us and are in high demand. Today, the regional investment standard has been introduced in all the regions, and relevant specialists responsible for interaction with investors have been trained.

Colleagues, friends.

I would like to say words of gratitude to regional teams and business associations, as well as the Government, for their efforts. I am aware that there is a proposal to enshrine the investment standard in legislation. I suggest that the Government discuss this with the business community and the regions.

Importantly, our primary goal is to get this mechanism rolling and to use it widely in real life. This is our immediate goal. I believe the top-performing teams should be incentivised at the Government level.

Notably, launching the regional investment standard enabled many constituent entities of the Federation to make a leap in the investment climate national rankings. As is customary, its results are presented on the platform of our forum. I will say more about them later.

Over the past year, the exchange of experience and replication of leadership practices made it possible for 74 Russian regions to improve their integral index which is significantly more than last year. The republics of Buryatia and Mordovia, as well as the Lipetsk, Ryazan, and Arkhangelsk regions are among the regions with the best dynamics. I congratulate our colleagues on their top performance results and wish them every success as they go forward.

On top of that, we will focus on improving the national investment climate rankings, including sharing advanced solutions in this area with our BRICS partners. In addition, at a recent meeting of the Supervisory Board of the Agency for Strategic Initiatives we agreed to finalise the ranking compiling technique and to build it on the basis of the national model of targeted conditions of doing business. This is our improved and more objective answer to international rankings.

Colleagues,

The new quality of the labour market is the third major structural change that we are looking for. Unemployment in Russia was at a record low of 2.6 percent in April. Importantly, we have brought down its structural component, meaning that youth unemployment and unemployment in the regions and localities where it was historically high is significantly down.

Fifteen to 20 years ago, the main question was how to find employment whereas now it is where to find employees. Given the circumstances, it is important to reconfigure the vocational education system to meet the labour market demands, to train specialists with up-to-date and sought-after skills, and to open opportunities for employees to advance their professional skills throughout their career.

For this purpose, we are making a forecast of the staffing needs of the national economy. We will transform the system of vocational training and development based on the forecast. By the end of the current decade, the share of qualified employment, i.e. specialists working in industries with high added value and, therefore, higher wages, should increase in our labour market. Let me reiterate: the objective of the human resource development system is to ensure this transformation.

The Professionalism federal project plays a major role here. It has already made it possible to start upgrading the material and technical base of colleges and technical schools, update educational programmes for aircraft- and ship-building, pharmaceuticals, electronics, defence and other industries. By 2028, about one million specialists in vocational professions will have to be trained for these sectors. We have already talked about this on many occasions, and I just want to remind you of it today.

As for higher education, in the next ten years Russia will have 40 university campuses with advanced conditions and opportunities for students to study, research, live and work. I would like to emphasise once again: we will assess the work of higher education institutions, Russian universities, colleges and technical schools by how much their graduates are in demand and how their salaries are growing.

At the same time, our economy needs not only young personnel, but also experienced, knowledgeable specialists who are competent in their profession and can teach their young colleagues a lot and become real mentors for them. In this regard, it is important to support the aspirations of people who have reached retirement age to continue working and do good. Their knowledge, skills and competences are an important resource for the economy and social sphere.

What are we talking about? We are talking about the level of wages for working pensioners. We have been discussing this topic for a long time. We just talked about this at a meeting with the governor of St Petersburg [Alexander Beglov], just before our meeting.

I want to talk about a decision that has been raised more than once during my meetings with citizens. Due to financial and budgetary constraints, pensions for working pensioners were not adjusted for inflation in previous years. During this time, this issue, which concerns millions of our citizens, has come to a head, and today we have the resources to begin to resolve it to meet people’s interests.

I propose resuming the practice of adjusting the pensions of working pensioners for inflation starting next year. (Applause.) Effective February 1, 2025 onwards, pensions will be increased annually not only for those who have already retired, but also for those who continue working. This will be truly fair.

I ask the United Russia Party together with the Government to prepare a relevant bill and pass it in the spring session. I know that all the other parties represented in parliament will certainly support this.

Further. The fourth structural change is directly related to higher economic efficiency. This indicator until the end of the current decade has been set in the May executive order. Given the demographic challenges that we have faced, the real personnel shortage, the most important condition for achieving high rates of economic growth is an increase in labour efficiency. This is the main resource.

Today I have already said about the need to increase investments and upgrade our enterprises. It is important to do this on a qualitatively new technological basis with the broad use of automation. Thus, Russia must be among top-25 countries of the world in terms of robotic process automation in the short period of time. It means installation of over 100,000 robots. That said, their production must be developed at an accelerated rate in our country based on our own technology, and no doubt, we have such an opportunity.

At the same time, it is also important to improve the efficiency of the existing equipment and technological processes. The key tool here is the adoption of prudent production methods. Such work is being carried out as part of a relevant national project. More than 6,000 enterprises and over 120,000 specialists are already involved in it.

This year is the final year for the current national project. It is necessary to extend the federal projects included in it within the framework of the new national project Efficient and Competitive Economy. Moreover, this practice should be expanded in order to involve in the projects of increasing labour productivity no less than 40 percent of medium-sized and large enterprises in the core non-resource sectors as well as all government and municipal organisations in the social sphere by 2030. For enterprises and companies, this will mean an increase in production, higher quality of services and more comfortable labour conditions and, of course, higher salaries for their employees. Let me remind you that in the next six years, they must grow at a rate higher than the gross domestic product.

The fifth structural change is a genuine digital platform revolution. In today’s environment, labour productivity is directly linked to digitalisation, to the use of artificial intelligence technologies. By 2030 we are to create digital platforms in all key sectors of the economy and social sphere. These tasks will be addressed under a new national project – the Data Economics.

I will add that within six years no less than 80 percent of Russian entities in the key economic sectors should switch over to Russian-made software in production and managerial processes. To support the IT industry, we will stipulate a number of measures, including taking into account the costs of domestic digital solutions with an increased coefficient when calculating profits tax, as well as establishing a reduced corporate profits tax rate of five percent for Russian IT companies. It will be effective until 2030, inclusive.

I ask the Government to elaborate additional steps to support domestic software designers, including identifying the level of purchases by companies partly owned by the state from small technology companies and start-ups. I repeat, this should be a guaranteed level. Purchases may not be lower than this level. We are already using this tool, and it works quite effectively. We need to continue using it.

And of course, it is important to actively apply digital solutions in the construction and housing and utilities sectors, using them to reduce the time and cost of projects. I would like to point out that over the past five years, the duration of the investment construction cycle has almost halved due to the elimination of administrative barriers and clearly excessive requirements. I will not list everything that has been done. Quite a lot has been done. Yet there is still much to work on. We will continue relevant efforts so that more roads, bridges, factories and plants are built in Russia and, of course, more comfortable affordable housing with high modern parameters of energy and resource efficiency.

In this regard, the housing and utilities sector and road construction have enormous potential, including the use of recoverable resources, the application of so-called smart solutions and ‘green’ standards based on advanced technologies.

In this connection, the sixth structural change is the accelerated, advanced saturation of economic sectors with modern technologies and innovations. This is one of the priorities. In six years, we plan to become one of the world’s top ten leaders in terms of research and development. Domestic expenditures for these purposes should increase to at least two per cent of GDP.

In this logic, a number of new national projects will be launched in the field of technological sovereignty in such key areas as production and automation equipment, new materials, chemistry, advanced space services, energy technologies and a whole range of others.

These projects will aim at a whole range of solutions: from popularisation of science and personnel training, support for research and starting serial production to the creation of guaranteed demand for high-tech products. I would like to emphasise that the projects will identify so-called backbone colleges, universities and research institutes. They should become the foundation for a rapid growth of new industries in our country.

Of course, legal base must be improved for the work of businesses and for companies to feel confident when investing in knowledge-intensive initiatives with a long horizon. I would like to note that we have enormous intellectual and creative potential, and it is important for us to fully realise it; and positive trends, of course, are emerging. For example, over the first four months of 2024 alone, almost 8,000 applications for inventions and 3,500 applications for utility models were filed in Russia, primarily in areas critically important for our country: metallurgy, energy, transport, and engine building.

It is critical to ensure that our developers’ intellectual property is protected, along with their solutions’ commercial effectiveness, so that their inventions are not shelved but go through the entire chain, from procurement to embodiment in a specific product. In particular, it is necessary to provide for the possibility of transferring patents for specific research results (as some experts believe) from the customer to their creators, as well as to small innovative enterprises and technology companies that know how to commercialise inventions and are ready to do so. However, as someone with basic legal education, I understand perfectly well where the “roadblock” is, and legal arbitrariness cannot be allowed. If someone pays for a certain invention, he or she is the owner, this is obvious. But it is necessary to create a soft market mechanism for using these inventions so that they are not shelved. Of course, we should all think about this together with the parliament and the Government.

In this context, the seventh critical structural change is a transformation to strengthen the role of small and medium-sized businesses in economic development. Today there are about 6.5 million small and medium-sized businesses in Russia. When six years ago we set a goal to increase the number of people employed in this sector up to 25 million, it seemed very difficult. Let me remind you that some of our colleagues laughed and said that this was an unrealistic task. Today we can say with confidence: this goal has been achieved ahead of schedule.

Our entrepreneurs, including the younger generations, are steadily gaining momentum, occupying the market, and launching manufacture of products that often surpass foreign analogues in their characteristics.

In addition, Russian businesses are aware that one’s own trademark is a token of quality and a solid economic asset. The number of applications for trademarks is growing for clothing and footwear, software, pharmaceuticals, household chemicals, perfumes and cosmetics, confectionery, and so on. Last year, more than 143,000 trademark applications were filed, twice as many as in the pre-Covid 2019.

Incidentally, the trademark registration process in Russia is one of the most convenient and fastest in the world, it is fully digitised. The application review period is 4 months, and following that period an electronic protection certificate is issued.

Importantly, distinctive regional local brands are increasingly being registered. This is, of course, a tribute to the culture and traditions of our peoples, evidence of entrepreneurs’ pride in their homeland, the region where they do business. And of course, businesses see that people want to buy domestic goods produced in Russia.

By the way, many of the regional brands belong to the so-called creative industries. More than half of the Russian regions are doing a lot to promote their development. I ask that as early as the spring parliamentary session, we adopt a federal law that will set a clear legal framework for creative industries, and in the future will make it possible to establish common standards for their support.

We will create every condition for small and medium-sized companies in our country to grow even faster. We will improve the effectiveness of existing support measures, and we will offer new ones in addition to them.

I would like to point out that so-called marketplaces play a significant role in the development of emerging small businesses. Together with Russian Post, they build a modern infrastructure, a kind of circulatory system for the delivery of domestic products, allowing companies even in remote towns and villages to gain access to the large market of Russia and the entire Eurasian Economic Union.

I ask my colleagues in the Government to lay special focus on the development of such commodity flows when implementing the updated strategy of Russian Post and, in general, when shaping national projects.

I would like to add that to help domestic businesses promote their products, a nationwide ‘Know Our Own’ competition has been launched. This year, the number of applications for the competition has increased by 150 percent, and they came from all regions of the Russian Federation. In short, the competition is growing and has proved to be a real business lift.

Importantly, such successful practices should be actively applied at the regional level. I draw the attention of my colleagues, regional governors, to this.

I would like to highlight one more point. Virtually all of the competition participants and, in general, many domestic entrepreneurs support the servicemen and veterans of the special military operation, their families, relatives and friends of our heroes, sending their products to the military units, buying things and equipment, and helping hospitals. Such a high awareness of their social mission, responsibility, patriotism in the best sense of the word is certainly very valuable and deserves great respect. Thank you.

Colleagues,

The next, eighth most important structural change is related to unlocking the potential of Russia’s regions. This is about a new geography of development, the creation of growth points in cities and towns across the country, opportunities for people not only in the capital cities, but also in small towns and villages to acquire a profession, find a well-paid job or run their own business, fulfil themselves, live and raise their children in comfortable and modern conditions.

Next year, new national projects and state programmes will be launched to develop the education and healthcare systems, sports and culture, and to improve the environmental well-being of our towns and villages.

We obviously need an economic base for all our measures in the social sphere and demography, for the implementation of federal and regional programmes. It is formed locally, in Russian regions. We will be enhancing the economic capacities of the regions.

In this regard, plans are being discussed, including in the Government, to move the head offices of our largest corporations and state-owned companies to the regions of the Russian Federation. The idea undoubtedly requires elaboration, but it deserves consideration and support. There are positive examples of this. For example, RusHydro’s relocation from Moscow to Krasnoyarsk.

And of course, it is important to concentrate resources on promising growth points. This is exactly the approach envisaged in the master plans for the Far Eastern and Arctic regions. We have agreed to approve similar programmes and documents for another 200 towns and cities. These will include all regional centres, as well as cities that play an important role in strengthening Russia’s technological sovereignty.

To ensure the regions’ vigorous and long-term development, it is essential to eliminate limitations in the energy sector and in the transport system, and to build and repair roads, engineering and utility networks. The Russian regions receive infrastructure budget loans for the implementation of such projects. As I have already said, their volume will be increased next year.

This portfolio will grow by at least 250 billion rubles annually, and in total, by the end of 2030, the amount of infrastructure budget loans issued will amount to 2.5 trillion rubles. Moreover, the funds will be distributed not only based on caps for each region, but also based on the results of the competition of regional and inter-regional projects.

There is one more decision. It has already been taken, and it will support regional finances. We are about to write off two-thirds of the previously issued budget loans. Importantly, the constituent entities of the Federation will need to use the freed-up funds to support investment, including the creation of industrial parks and the infrastructure in the priority development areas, as well as infrastructure, namely, to renovate housing and utilities, to build roads and bridges, to upgrade public transport and to relocate residents of the structurally deficient housing, to fund master plan events, and so on. I would like the Government to work out the details of this mechanism in a dialogue with the regions, and do so soon.

Next, in addition to breaking through the infrastructure bottlenecks, it is necessary to widely bring inefficiently used land plots with abandoned and unfinished buildings back in the economy. There are tens of thousands of such sites in the country. With a proper approach, they will serve people and bring profit to business. According to the General Prosecutor's Office, there are over 181,000 derelict and abandoned buildings and structures in Russia. More than a third of them are not officially registered, and only a fifth of them have titles.

Sometimes, abandoned territories are used as dumps which are usually illegal, and municipalities have no budget to liquidate them. I propose the following solution. If an entrepreneur is willing to liquidate such a dump at his own expense, we can think about giving him a land plot free of charge for use or ownership.

I would like the Government to hold appropriate consultations with the constituent entities of the Federation and to review which ones are owned by federal agencies and which ones are abandoned and unused. It is important to work through every detail and avoid creating bureaucratic barriers, to prevent abuse or “stealing” land plots from cities and towns. Of course, this needs to be thought through, but we absolutely need to do something about it.

I am positive that an effective solution to this issue will not only improve the urban environment and make life more comfortable, but will also directly contribute to increasing capitalisation of urban assets and attract small and medium-sized businesses, as well as developers with interesting residential development projects.

In this regard, I’d like to say a couple of words about mortgage loans. As you know, we have extended the family mortgage programme until 2030. All Russian families with children under six are eligible for a preferential loan with a six percent interest.

I propose additional special solutions in the social sphere for families who live or want to buy housing in small towns or in regions where housing construction is still insufficient. There, families with two children will be able to take advantage of a six-percent family mortgage regardless of their children’s age. The only condition is that at least one child in the family must be a minor at the time of the mortgage formalisation.

And one more point. The same preferential mortgage terms will be in effect in all Russian regions for each family set to build a house. This is particularly important for big families with many children.

I ask the Government to launch these programmes starting with July 1 of this year.

I should add that in order to improve the look of our cities, we will continue the nationwide competition of best projects of a comfortable urban environment. This programme is really popular, and people offer a good feedback. We will also launch a programme for construction and improvement of embankments and parks.

Restoration and reconstruction of cultural and historical heritage sites will be a separate track. By 2030, at least a thousand of such sites across the country must be put in order, given a second life, so that they serve people, serve to preserve and promote our identity, make towns and villages more beautiful, and increase their tourist attractiveness.

The development of domestic tourism is one of the priorities in our long-term strategy. In six years, the share of the tourism industry in the gross domestic product should increase to 5 percent, and the number of trips across the country with hotel accommodation should grow to 140 million people. We will create comfortable and affordable conditions for holidays, including the construction of hotels and small campsites, ski resorts and amusement parks.

Our economic and social policy measures must be not only effective, but also fair. And in this sense, the next, ninth structural shift is to reduce poverty, reduce inequality, and increase the incomes of Russian families, which, in turn, has a direct effect on the quality of people’s life, on increasing domestic demand and the domestic market capacity. All instruments, including payments to families with children, tax deductions, and social contracts, should be used to deliver on this objective.

Without a doubt, as I said earlier today, the main tool is to ensure that salaries grow at a rate that exceeds inflation. There is an important decision that concerns adjusting the minimum wage which, as of now, exceeds the subsistence minimum, as the Constitution says, and we will tie its adjustment in with the overall growth of wages in the economy as we move forward.

Starting next year, we will introduce a ratio of the minimum wage to the median wage received by the majority of the employees in our economy. In 2025, the minimum wage will amount to 48 percent of the median wage, thus exceeding 22,000 rubles per month, meaning that it will grow by about 15 percent more. Then the ratio with the median wage will increase so that, as agreed, the minimum wage will amount to at least 35,000 rubles a month by 2030.

Finally, the tenth structural change, which is essentially integral, is about improving the quality of life of Russian families. This was discussed in detail in the Address to the Federal Assembly. To reiterate: all areas are critically important in this regard. That includes supporting child birth and large families, protecting motherhood and childhood, increasing the availability of long-term care for the elderly and people with disabilities, improving the education and healthcare systems, and the quality of life.

These changes should manifest in longer life expectancy, with an emphasis on active and healthy life and, of course, forming equal opportunities to help younger generations rise to their full potential and thus improve the standard of living of Russian families.

Colleagues, friends,

The global economy has entered an era of major changes. A multipolar world with new growth centres, investment and financial ties between states and companies is taking shape. Russia’s economy is responding to these challenges and is also changing dynamically, as it gains more strength and stability.

To a great extent, the credit for this goes to our workers, engineers, managers and, of course, entrepreneurs, who are increasing investment in growing their companies, enterprises, cities and regions, and bringing to the fore values such as responsibility, trust, and service to their people and their country.

We will increase the support for positive changes in society and the economy. Our long-term systemic plans to strengthen the financial, technological and human resources sovereignty of our country and to improve the business climate are focused on achieving national development goals. In this work, we are open to the broadest possible cooperation with all interested partners, including foreign companies, countries, and integration associations.

I thank you for your patience and wish you every success.

Thank you very much.

Sergei Karaganov: Thank you very much, Mr President, for this brilliant speech. I think that it really inspired this audience, as well as everyone who tuned in to listen to us from across the country. This also goes for our men on the frontlines who are there to fight yet another Western aggression. You said it right.

I now have the privilege to give the floor to President of Bolivia Luis Arce so that he can deliver his remarks.

President of the Plurinational State of Bolivia Luis Alberto Arce Catacora (retranslated): Thank you very much.

I wish everyone a nice evening.

I would like to welcome my colleague President of Russia Vladimir Putin. Thank you for the invitation to this important forum.

I would like to welcome the President of Zimbabwe and our moderator, and all those present in this hall today. I would like to extend to you warm greetings on behalf of the Bolivian people whom I am proud to represent here.

I would like to thank the organisers for their hospitality and the wonderful invitation to participate in this major international forum in the historic city of St Petersburg on the Neva River, home to the first socialist revolution in the world where fascism was defeated years later. The siege lasted three years and was broken.

I am sure we all believe that the world order is moving today towards a more just and a more balanced state based on multipolarity and multilateralism. We certainly expect that there will be different discussions on the transition to a new multipolar model of the global economy, in which we will undoubtedly be able to learn valuable experience from the Russian economy and see the serious role it will play in the new world.

This exchange is very important for all, especially for the countries represented here. Many of them have fallen victim to an economic model that is divided into centres and periphery.

As a result, we have become a deindustrialised country that produces and exports only one group of goods. That is why the Bolivian economy has become dependent and has become an enclave, basically, an import market.

Today, we have a large number of miners who extract minerals and supply them to world markets. But state-building in Bolivia was unable to change that situation because neo-colonialism was unfolding its networks. Therefore, our government, within the framework of the new plurinational state, heeded our people’s demands and aspirations and began the process of industrialisation to achieve national sovereignty and liberation.

Industrialisation and import substitution have been an essential item on our country’s agenda since the 19^th century, and we must gain a true economic independence and a political sovereignty to achieve that goal. We see that there is a big number of challenges we face.

This is the reason Bolivia thinks that the possibility of joining BRICS is an excellent chance for our country to carry out transformations and reforms in our country alongside with accelerated industrialisation.

By getting together, the economies of this successful association have been able to undermine the hegemony of the United States. They are the hope for the development of cooperation and complementarity between countries.

As we all know, today’s world reflects the crisis of capitalism with many dimensions. It is a financial, climate, energy, food, water, macroeconomics crisis as well as the crisis of institutions. We see this in international organisations. One of the features of this multidimensional crisis is that today a climate has been created that is at variance with the development of the world.

To confront this international environment and speaking of a development model different from a canonical one, we are developing in Bolivia our own model of economy, the communitarian productive socioeconomic model. It is a model that differs from what neoliberalism has tried to impose on us, because we have very serious social protection and support measures.

We are building on our basic, fundamental values that are indigenous and, of course, we focus on production which is a mechanism for increasing wealth. This model was developed based on characteristics that are typical of our Bolivian economy and our society. It is valid and active.

First and foremost, this model is based on economic growth and development, it is based on the use of natural resources for the benefit of our Bolivian people. It is a model that aims to industrialise and increase production.

Since colonial times, enormous natural resources have been discovered in Bolivia. We can think of Cerro Rico de Potosí, for example. It is a silver deposit, the biggest, largest silver deposit we have had. We also have the largest lithium reserves on the planet, deposits of gold, zinc, gas, silver, copper, rare earth metals, and so on. All of these strategic sectors of our economy will help us achieve better development, and they certainly serve the purpose of distributing the benefits to the members of society, given the programme that our governments are pursuing and the emphasis on those sectors of the economy that raise the incomes of our people and provide jobs.

This process is not only aimed at a more equitable distribution of income and reducing inequality which is very common in many countries. We also want to invest in other sectors of our economy, diversifying the economy, creating jobs, raising incomes and ensuring sustainable development and growth with a broad-based economy.

In our case, our ambitions include import substitution, attracting tourists, developing tourism and increasing productivity in agriculture, always in harmony with Mother Earth. Therefore, our model pursues diversification of the economy on a broad foundation and improving our population’s quality of life. The ultimate goal of this entire process is, of course, eradicating poverty and reducing inequality.

Bolivia started implementing its socioeconomic development model in 2006. We have achieved serious economic and social results and good progress. For example, Bolivia’s GDP has grown from US$945 million in 2006 to US$45.46 billion in 2023; GDP per capita has grown from US$1,037 to US$3,736 by 2023. In December 2023, we had more than six million employed citizens, which amounts to the highest employment rate in history, or 75 percent.

We managed to reduce poverty from 71 percent in 2005 to 36 percent in 2023 and extreme poverty, from 38 percent in 2005 to 11.9 percent in 2023. The Gini index went down from 0.6 to 0.43 in 2023. The economic model has thus achieved serious economic success and social progress.

In the context of the global economic slowdown and lower growth rates across many developing economies, along with rising poverty and inequality in many countries, Bolivia’s model of mutually supportive socioeconomic development is an alternative for developing countries. This model has shown that it is possible to stimulate steady growth that would be less susceptible to fluctuations, unlike in the countries that support a free market.

Additionally, our model for developing the Bolivian economy serves the purpose of reducing inequality and poverty thanks to the distributive policy and price stability. We can see that inflation continues to hit new highs in the rest of the world.

Also, in view of the global economic challenges, we have noted growing logistics expenses and international interest rates. We can see that these factors are destabilising the situation in many countries. Meanwhile, we demonstrated a 3.1 percent growth last year, which is the second highest result in South America and is also above the forecasts that international organisations made for Bolivia.

This model and its socioeconomic effects are evidence of the fact that there may be more than one vision of developing the economy and society. Different development frameworks may co-exist on our planet and, certainly, this comes from countries’ sovereign decisions. They are responsible for their own decisions regarding their economic and political systems, and this must be the leading idea across the globe.

We see our model as an alternative to dollar-based neocolonialism, where economies depend on the dollar, and neocolonial powers undermine multilateralism by imposing a unilateral world order. Bolivia’s economy guarantees socioeconomic inclusion of the population.

We have reduced inequality and succeeded in creating a more homogeneous society, thereby proving that a country can grow faster when revenue is distributed more evenly across the economy.

And today, we see that we need to work to eliminate inequality in a multilateral and multipolar world. The truth is that emerging economies are trying to strengthen their domestic markets, boost incomes, and reduce inequality.

But our model stands out because we have been able to become one of the fastest-growing economies in Latin America over the past two decades.

Another aspect of a multipolar world is cooperation and technology exchange between countries. Countries that are still developing need to build up their technological potential. Bolivia and the Russian Federation share the concern that today, technology is not allowed to actually serve humanity. Technology should serve humanity rather than companies, multinational corporations, or specific countries.

Paradoxically, development in the poorest countries is the most expensive today. In any project, the cost of infrastructure requires a bigger budget in order to meet the environmental standards that developed countries are imposing on us.

We deem it necessary to maintain cooperation, exchanges and technology transfers in healthcare as well. This became evident when the world was confronted with the COVID-19 pandemic. In the same way, we may have to fight new pathologies and new diseases in the future. At the same time, we are fighting for a healthier society that has embraced the values of our thousand-year old traditional cultures. I am referring to indigenous cultures, in which there is no place for the principles that are currently being implanted across the globe in unilateral world of capitalism.

We see that today, a multipolar world is being created, and in this world, we must promote our own currencies for financial settlements between countries. We must not allow any one country to become the world’s central bank and determine monetary policy around the globe. Those times are gone, because the structure of the economy and finance has changed dramatically.

We also follow countries’ socioeconomic development while respecting their sovereignty, without interference from outside. All peoples, all nations and their sovereign decisions regarding the use of their natural resources must be respected. Therefore, Bolivia has been consistently in favour of multipolarity, which is part of the historical destiny of humankind.

However, building a multipolar world is exposed to risks and threats. For example, it is necessary to guarantee there is enough food for the population, which continues to grow. We have already mentioned that one of the serious problems of modern capitalism is the food crisis, and this problem must certainly be addressed within the multipolar paradigm. We need to create cooperation programmes aimed at producing food around the world. It goes without saying that to achieve this, we need to exchange technologies that will increase agricultural productivity. This should also be one of the pillars of economic development in a multipolar world.

Today, unfortunately, many countries see high rates of poverty, malnutrition and lack of public services. We see that a large amount of money is directed to the arms race and building bases in other countries, that is where the country hosting these bases is not the one building them. We, like Russia and the BRICS countries, are also concerned about the threats of a hybrid war across many dimensions, which harms our development and industrialisation.

What we see today is an oligarchy that serves other people’s interests; we discuss this at academic and security conferences. For example, Bolivia’s lithium is a strategic resource that can facilitate industrialisation in Russia, China and other developing countries. With the existing threats to the stability of our government, further industrialisation, and our economic development model, our political project could be eventually curtailed.

We have immense stocks of priceless natural resources, and we seek to extract these resources with the least possible harm to the environment and for the benefit of humanity. This should certainly involve mutually beneficial cooperation. No country should rely on growing one crop species or mining one mineral only.

What we are saying is, today, we are shifting to a multipolar world concept, moving to create new blocs such as BRICS. We need to promote the development of such alliances as soon as possible in order to advance the goals of this forum. They also align with Bolivia’s national goals.

We must join forces and arrive at a multipolar world. This is the road that guarantees stability, peace, development and happiness of our nations, in balance and harmony with Mother Earth. We must live happily on our planet.

Thank you.

Sergei Karaganov: Thank you, Mr President, for sharing your insightful and instructive remarks. In your speech, you demonstrated that the economy as a research discipline cannot be nationalised or viewed as a science. It is an art, and every country must be free to pick its own economic model.

In this context, I have a question for President Putin.

Mr President, may I suggest that we make up our mind so that you instruct us to work with economists like Luis Arce to devise our own economic model? We are clearly up to something here, although it is just as obvious that we have yet to decide what exactly we are up to. Moreover, we have embarked on an effort to expand defence manufacturing, and have been quite successful, even if this has so far been more of a hit-and-miss situation for us. I do not think that there is any general outline or master plan guiding these efforts.

What do you think about establishing a permanent structure within this economic forum or somewhere around it with the primary purpose of using our own intellectual capacity by reaching out first and foremost to those who work on the ground, the practitioners? Unfortunately, most researchers in economics have been sticking with an obsolete model, and I know what I am talking about, since I used to be one, even if we it is true that the once an economist, always an economist.

Mr President, we would like you to instruct us, the St Petersburg Forum to set up a working group for devising this new model. This group can hold its meetings on the sidelines of this forum or somewhere around this place. Maybe we can come up with something new and interesting to have a better idea of where we are headed.

Vladimir Putin: I feel that we will have a debate rather than a conversation here. The Government of the Russian Federation as well as other government bodies may well take offence at what you have just said. You said that we are up to something, but I spent an hour spelling out what exactly we are doing. (Laughter). You have probably dozed off while I was speaking, and we may have heard you snoring, so you missed what I talked about. I spent an hour explaining what we were going to do, about the ten-point programme we have.

In fact, we are not simply up to something. We are working on a new development strategy. We have it, and it took us a year to draft it. We were not alone in these efforts; we reached out to the brainpower you mentioned, I mean the business community and their associations, by holding regular meetings with them. This has always been an inclusive effort for us.

You suggested establishing a corresponding structure of some sort. But we already have them – the Government of the Russian Federation, the Central Bank, as well as the Presidential Executive Office.

As for what you said about creating a working group within the St Petersburg International Economic Forum so that it can do something on its sidelines, you know, there is a famous saying, and we know who coined it: if you want something to fail, set up a working group.

I have to say that we have so many working groups that I can hardly understand which ones of them I must chair. When I am told that there is yet another group and I must chair it, I say fine, I will think about it. You can well meet on the sidelines [literal meaning in Russian – “in the fields”] of this forum, but please do this in summer, since it may get too cold here in St Petersburg out there in the open in winter.

Overall, generally speaking, the country knows you not just as an economist, but also as a political scientist, and quite a brilliant one too. You have been quite proactive and assertive when working on several major issues. Listening to people like you is always quite interesting, and I am not saying this to flatter you. Moreover, I must confess that sometimes I read your writings and listen to what you say. Therefore, I do not reject your offer. We are open to engage in any debate as long as it benefits our economy.

Sergei Karaganov: Of course, I agree with my President, but I have a small question: Do we know what model we are building? I would say that authoritarian social capitalism would be ideal for Russia, so that we know where we are headed, because we are allegedly moving along the right-wing path, and before that we moved along the liberal path. I do not understand this.

Of course, the Government is up to something, and we are proud of what it is doing or has started doing, thankfully. However, it has only started doing it when the rooster crowed, because nothing happened before that.

Vladimir Putin: We will east the rooster, because it is not doing its job anyway. What do we need such a rooster for?

As for the development model, I have recently said at a meeting with the heads of international news agencies that we should look at what is taking place in the world. What exactly did I say? For example, many experts regard the Chinese economic model as more effective than any before it, including the North American and European models. It is true that it is more effective, and you have said approximately the same just now, because it combines the elements of a planned economy and a market economy. The Chinese have done it in their conditions, which is an assessment I share, and we can see that this is so from their economic growth figures. It is an objective fact. But this model is effective for Chinese society and the Chinese economy.

Do you know what I would agree with? When you summed up the remarks by my colleague, you said that the economy is a science but it is also an art, to a degree. This is probably true. Such models can be rigid. When they are applied to different countries living in different conditions, at different development stages, such rigid models are ineffective or do not work well. Therefore, we must always proceed from reality, from the realities in our country. Everything is important here: our history and culture, the situation in our society, and the objective development level is extremely important as well. We must know what is effective in our society and what is not.

There are certainly basic elements. We take them into account. Rooster or no rooster, but a 3.4 or 3.6 percent of [GDP] growth last year – the final figure has not been calculated so far – is a good figure. And a 5.4 percent growth in the first quarter of this year is a god figure too. But it is the result of the joint efforts of the Government, the business community and, to a degree, of the Central Bank and the Presidential Executive Office. It is the result of our purposeful actions.

I have said just now about the foundation of our model that we are building it. We continue to take decisions related to the adjustment of our economic model.

Sergei Karaganov: Like any other citizen of Russia, I am happy that over the past two years we got down to business in connection with our special military operation. Before it, we moved along with the currents. That is why I am speaking about the need to come up with a clear understanding of where we are moving. In principle, we will talk about this later.

And now, let us listen to Mr Emmerson Mnangagwa. Please, let us listen to your experience. Your country has been developing in extremely difficult conditions. How many years has it been living under sanctions? Nearly since its establishment, hasn’t it? Nevertheless, you have survived and even started developing. How did you do it?

President of Zimbabwe Emmerson Mnangagwa: Your Excellency Vladimir Putin, the President of the Russian Federation,

Your Excellency Luis Arce, President of the Plurinational State of Bolivia,

Distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen,

Allow me to extend my heartfelt appreciation to our gracious host, my dear brother, His Excellency Vladimir Putin, for the warm hospitality and for creating this platform for us to discuss critical issues that affect us in today's global landscape.

Your Excellency, may I, on behalf of the people and the Government of Zimbabwe, and on my own behalf, personally congratulate you once again on your re-election as the President of the Russian Federation. Your commitment to the welfare and the prosperity of your people and the defence of independence, peace, security and territorial integrity of the Russian Federation is unparalleled. Zimbabwe is confident that your continued leadership would accelerate progress and development of your Motherland, the Russian Federation.

Your Excellencies,

It is regrettable and unacceptable, but the collective West continues to pursue hegemonic tendencies that blatantly violate sovereign equality of nations, justice and fairness as embodied in the United Nations Charter. There is general consensus that unipolarity has no place in modern global politics and international economic relations. The reality points to a redistribution of power among nations, as well as the emergency of multiple centres of economic growth, innovation, and cultural influence. We recognise that a multipolar world is the panacea to both opportunities and challenges that confront humanity today.

The old geopolitical global order, dominated by a select few, resulting in the perpetual marginalisation of most of us in the Global South is no longer acceptable. A situation where some Western countries try to dictate to us who our friends are and who our friends should be will also never be tolerated by us in Zimbabwe.

Advancing and embracing multipolarity has great potential for us is Africa and the developing Third World, to realise balanced inclusive development, modernisation and industrialisation, as for the Second Republic in Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe is guided by the philosophy that we are a friend to all and enemy to none. We are convinced that mutually beneficial cooperation, partnerships and investments, encradled by complementarity are a more sustainable foundation for a multipolar world and the formation of new areas of growth.

To this end, we welcome the transformation of the global economic relations in the geopolitical landscape, through BRICS, with additional new members, along with other emerging economies.

In these efforts, the role of Africa remains critically important not as a major supplier of raw materials, but as a dependable global partner in every facet of human endeavour and development. As we pursue new areas of growth, the abandoned subsoil assets of Africa should be a leverage to drive shared sustainable development and economic prosperity. The new global supply chains demand that Africa be accorded the requested support with regard to value addition and beneficiation. Further, there is need to enhance the productive capacities of Africa. This is more urgent in view of Africa’s vast natural resources in critical green minerals, large tracks of arable agricultural land, and youthful population with robust entrepreneurial spirit coupled with the united market presented by the Africa continental free trade area. All this leads to the right mix for shared growth under a fair, just and mutually beneficial multipolar global order.

In our case, this of Zimbabwe, we call for the removal of illegal sanctions, which you have mentioned. They have held back our economic development and growth for the past 24 years. What is our crime? The crime of the people of Zimbabwe was that they demanded their land to be united with the people and the people to be united with their land.

As all other nations have the same goal and the status, but how for Zimbabwe to achieve that with sanctions imposed on us? To this end, strategic investments in the key areas and sectors of our economy are essentially to unlock our potential. These include infrastructure, education, science and technology, renewable energy sector, and the climate change adaptation.

Your Excellencies,

Zimbabwe is open for business and welcomes investments, partnerships, and collaboration in all sectors of the economy. Technology and innovations serve as catalysts for growth, possessing the capacity to build bridges, grow new industries, and revolutionise our economy.

For us, to leapfrog the development of our economy, we do not need to invent the wheel. As a result, we are embracing the digital revolution investing in science, technology, and innovation, ecosystems, and promoting education with digital literacy at all our state universities.

Our aspiration is to leapfrog Zimbabwe into an upper-middle income country by 2030. In this regard, we actively seek partnerships and collaboration to realise this vision. As a nation, we are leveraging our strategic geographical location at the centre of southern Africa, as well as skilled and educated workforce, abundant resources, and manufacturing expertise to harness the opportunities presented by new prospects for growth and increased trade.

We once again extend a cordial invitation to our brothers in the Russian Federation, investors, to explore business opportunities which are abundant in Zimbabwe.

Your Excellencies,

In a multipolar world, solidarity and cooperation among nations are indispensable. The challenges we confront in the sphere of peace and security, climate change, pandemics, and economic inequalities, among others, demand collective global action and cooperation. This should remain rooted in our shared desire for peace, unity, and development that leaves no one and no place behind.

In this respect, Zimbabwe considers the Russian Federation as a consistent global ally. To harness the opportunities presented by a multipolar world, it is necessary to shift the paradigms in our approaches to cooperation, synergies, investments, and partnerships. Zimbabwe is committed to play its part in this transformative process.

As we embark on this journey together, let us remain mindful that strength lies in our unity, adaptability, and innovation. Together, we can forge a multipolar world that is more just and inclusive and prosperous for all.

Zimbabwe, in spite of 24 years of sanctions by the West for the crime of claiming our land, which every country has done… Sanctions have been imposed on us for the last 24 years. However, because of resilience, peace prevailing in the country, Zimbabwe’s GDP has grown during the Second Republic, from $26 billion in 2018 to now $69 billion in 2023, despite of the sanctions imposed on us.

We also embrace the policy, as a people living under sanctions, to move on with everybody of our people, with the philosophy that a country is built, developed, defended and prayed for by its own people.

As a small country in the southern hemisphere, Zimbabwe has abundant land for agriculture. And with the modernisation and mechanisation of agriculture, we can easily become the basket of food security in our region. And to that end, we seek assistance of those in the first world, in developed world to assist us to leapfrog in the modernisation and mechanisation of agriculture.

As I conclude, allow me, Your Excellency, my dear brother President Putin, to thank you on behalf of the people and the Government of Zimbabwe, and indeed on my own behalf, for the generous and timely donation you have given to our country in the critical time of need.

I also appreciate, Your Excellency, for availing, through Uralchem and Dmitry Mazepin, a vessel for the transportation of fertilisers to Zimbabwe. We are grateful that we received it correctly, at the time we needed it in terms of the tropical season for agriculture.

This, however, my dear brother, is a demonstration of your commitment to support small and developing countries like Zimbabwe. And, in your endeavour for the consolidation of our relations, we in Zimbabwe look upon you as a dear and trusted friend of the people of Zimbabwe, who for the last 24 years suffered under sanctions.

There is no light that can be removed. In spite of that, my dear brother, our economy has grown, and it is the fastest growing economy in the region now in spite of the sanctions imposed by the West. Therefore, as a demonstration of your commitment to support small countries like Zimbabwe, we have achieved food security, as you supported us in fertiliser acquisition.

May I, on behalf of my country, my people and myself, cherish your consistent support to a country under sanctions. And in that regard, I wish to promise you, Your Excellency, that we are better off with the continued imposition of sanctions, because they cause trade to survive.

For that, my dear brother, I thank you.

Sergei Karaganov: Thank you very much, Mr President.

We are proud of you, but we are also proud of ourselves to some degree, because we are contributing to your success in the time of ordeal. Now we will get down to formal discussion.

In fact, all states’ development is based on three factors: the factor of military power, the factor of ideas, spirit, and will, and, finally, the factor of the economy.

For many years, we believed – like a certain president of a very large country – that everything is decided by the economy. Do you remember everyone saying, “It’s the economy, stupid.” The stupid one was the person who said this, because in fact all these three factors play a role.

Of course, now, at a geostrategic turning point, military strength and the strength of spirit, the power of ideas, come to the fore. Nevertheless, the economy is essential: there will be no strength without the economy, and without the economy, without bread, the spirit of the people will be undermined. We have already been through it – in particular, in the 1980s. Therefore, let us begin with economic and political issues.

Mr President, I am turning to point eight of your programme. Though you have not said where we are going, all points are great. Point eight of your programme is about territorial development, though you did not list one area that I find strategically important.

We have completed our journey to the west, which was very useful and gave us a lot. It is completely clear that in the current global circumstances, we need to shift the centres of our spiritual, economic and partly political development towards Siberia and the Far East, as well as because of the long enmity with the West – God willing, it will not go completely violent – but most importantly, due to the fact that we have turned to another world that is emerging.

At some point, you proclaimed “a turn to the east,” but this turn happened initially only because of the Far East; later the Northern Sea Route was added. In your speech at the 2019 forum, you said it was necessary to develop large scientific and production centres in Central Siberia. After that, the coronavirus outbreak happened, followed by the special military operation, and this idea plunged into oblivion.

Perhaps we should go back to it. We really need to move the entire country there, “siberialising” Russia. You have mentioned the Minusinsk Basin. Perhaps we should create new industrial centres for the deepest processing of non-ferrous metals and new energy, especially new power engineering there, as well as centres to produce all wood-chemical products closer to Lake Baikal. Maybe we should still develop a new strategy for the development of the entire Siberia: the “Siberialisation” of Russia. Why don’t we dare to do this? Of course, we had a project for the development of the Siberian (Federal) District. I studied it, and, as far as I know, you did not like it either. However, I believe that the development of the entire Siberia must begin as soon as possible.

Vladimir Putin: I agree that we need to develop our eastern regions such as Western Siberia, Eastern Siberia, and the Far East.

We started with what was not only the most relevant but also the most urgent thing in terms of territories preservation and development; we started with the Far East. There was a drastic decline in population, and we could not allow this process to continue. I hope that the efforts taken over the past decade to develop the Far East are obvious. I am not going to mention them all now; we have a fairly comprehensive programme.

The same applies to Siberia in its entirety – once again, both Western Siberia and Eastern Siberia. The former has traditionally developed since the Soviet era, given its [vast] mineral resources that our country still uses. But gradually, these centres of economic development are shifting to the east and north. To quote a famous saying of the past (and we remember who said it), “Russia’s power will grow with Siberia.” Now, we can say that Russia’s power will grow with the Arctic as it appears to have major mineral resources; they are still complex and expensive to develop – yet, the prospects are vast.

Essentially, this is what we are doing now. I just mentioned the development of the Eastern Operating Domain’s railway network. But we started this work there a while ago. When did Russia actually start building it? Was it during the construction of the Trans-Siberian Railway? It was even prior to the Russo-Japanese War, and then during the Baikal–Amur Mainline construction in the Soviet era. In our recent history, we have also set the goals of achieving progress in this regard.

We made certain miscalculations by thinking the load would not be as severe, as the Government believed, so we slightly shifted the development of the Eastern Operating Domain to later dates. But it went on anyway, although not as extensively as we initially planned. We will certainly work on this.

But in today’s conditions it cannot be implemented the way it used to be done in the Soviet era. And it even cannot be done the way it was carried out under Stolypin. He simply distributed strips of land, which was the main means of production at the time. But today, the main means of production is brains. We need to develop technologies, build universities, and train the professionals we need. And these are the efforts we are taking as well.

When I spoke about campuses at 40 universities and mentioned advancement of science and education, as well as the need to use robotic devices and AI, what I meant was that this all will largely develop in Siberia. This is what we are doing; we will have our respective major companies relocated there. Also, unfortunately, this cannot be done through a solely administrative way.

I mentioned RusHydro, a company that already operates in Siberia, one of the world’s largest, if not the largest, hydroelectricity company. Also, when appointing head of the company, I asked him, “Do you accept it on the condition that you move to Siberia and the headquarters move to Krasnoyarsk?” He said, “I accept.” And when I asked whether his family would travel there with him, he said they would do so.

You know, it is not as easy as simply constructing a building; you have to employ professionals. He was ready to move there right away. But hiring professionals is not easy; you need to do it on location. Some people are willing to move, while others aren’t; some are simply indispensable. This is a process that should occur naturally. But this is certainly our goal, and I totally agree with you on it. We need to eventually move in that direction. I mean that the centres of global development are located there, and obviously, we need to get closer to them.

Long ago, Peter the Great opened the window to Europe. He did so because major development processes were occurring there, which is understandable. Today, centres of global development are shifting to Asia, there is no doubt about it. And, obviously, we need to move towards these development centres. So you are right.

Sergei Karaganov: I have a quick question that I have prepared a long time ago. Peter the Great made history by opening a window to Europe, thus strengthening Russia. Back then, it was the most promising market. Why don’t we establish a third capital and finally stand on three pillars? It could be located near one of the major cities. Young, energetic individuals would flock there, rejuvenating the elite. By your order, several ministries could be relocated there. You said earlier that it is impossible to relocate something using administrative resources, but it is feasible. Many companies would be willing to relocate if incentivised by competitive salaries. It’s all up to your decision.

Are you willing to repeat Peter’s feat? After all, he succeeded.

Vladimir Putin: Peter the Great is a historical figure who served as the Tsar of All Rus and later as the Emperor. However, the conditions, the state of society, and goals during his reign were vastly different from today’s.

In the contemporary world, it is crucial to employ tools that will be effective today. While our inclination may be to make swift administrative decisions, we must also consider the implications of our actions and what we offer to society in a spontaneous manner in the form of an order.

In my opinion, it is essential to prioritise capturing people’s interest in progressing forward. By fostering conditions conducive to development, the centres of economic activity will naturally shift towards those areas.

As an example, let us consider the Far East. Many years ago, I visited a shipyard near Vladivostok. It was in a state of disrepair. I told them, “We won’t just restore this place; we will create new competencies, we will build new ships.” I had to face the scepticism of the workers and engineers who surrounded me. I must say, it took tremendous effort to establish the cluster that is now being built there.

It is not just about the money, which was consistently embezzled – I have to admit this unfortunate reality. We attempted to revive the project two or three times. Eventually, Igor Sechin, the current head of Rosneft, took charge and launched there impressive large-tonnage shipbuilding – a huge enterprise. However, it required tremendous effort; it is not easy to accomplish all of this.

Why am I mentioning this? Because qualified personnel emerged there. As salaries increased, people began relocating there. This led to higher wages, improved technological culture, and the emergence of cooperation with neighbouring countries in this field of activity.

Now, VTB and Mr Kostin, who sits across from me, are leading our shipbuilding industry. I am delighted that he has embraced this endeavour as if he were always involved in shipbuilding, despite his background as a financier. But what am I trying to convey? We are currently choosing the location for another enterprise, possibly near the ocean or close to it.

This is the natural progression – forgive me if I may seem to challenge your imperial mindset – in a market-oriented manner. And in this case, success awaits us. Certainly, it is challenging work, but it will be meticulously executed.

When I referred to Stolypin, yes, it was all spontaneous, we remember everything associated with it, including “Stolypin’s neckties” and so forth. However, at that time, it was the primary means of production, and it made economic sense to implement Stolypin’s approach: distributing the primary means of production, i.e. land, to the people and creating favourable conditions for them. Back then it worked. Now it is merely an order… I believe that my proposal will be more comprehensive, leading us to success along this path.

Overall, you are absolutely right. We need to move in this direction.

Sergei Karaganov: Mr President, I don’t consider myself more of an imperialist than you; it is just that I am more strongly in favour of this idea. However, I do know one thing: we have studied this extensively. The countries that relocated or established new capitals invariably experienced significant economic advancement. This is an undeniable truth. Therefore, we must bear this in mind, and I believe we shouldn’t overlook the possibility of a third capital.

Vladimir Putin: All right, thank you very much.

Sergei Karaganov: Let’s move on now to a broader issue. We can see that the old global economic system is in a state of collapse. It is collapsing due to many reasons. One of the main reasons is that first the Soviet Union and then Russia cut the ground from under the system, the ground of the Western 500-year domination in the world economy, politics and culture, its military supremacy. We began to cut it, the system yielded, then stopped for a while, then we flopped, and now we have risen up and started cutting out this superiority again, and the system has crumbled. It's going to fall apart endlessly and for quite some time. This is good, but it is also bad, because there are virtually no new regulatory mechanisms emerging. There is no master plan about what to do.

Our Chinese friends are painting something with very broad strokes, and someone else is also doing something. Have you thought about Russia taking the initiative to create a masterplan for a new world economic system (gathering brains from new countries, and maybe, after a while, good brains from old countries will also come)? To set up, say, in St Petersburg, next to the Forum, on the Forum's site a think-tank, which would create a new world economic and financial system, its outlines.

The Bretton Woods is dead or practically dead. What about creating a St Petersburg system? They will not be afraid of us, by the way, like of the Chinese. If the Chinese take it up, everybody will be afraid of them, and the Indians will not fit. Both Chinese and Indians will come to us. We see that our African friends will also be happy to participate. I think that the Latin American friends will also work with us, and we will be able to use their experience for our domestic construction as well. Could we engage in such work? This is not an imperialist idea. (Laughter.)

Vladimir Putin: They want to create such system. (Laughter.)

Look, the Bretton Woods system died a long time ago, in 1976. It was succeeded by the Jamaica Accords.

The Bretton Woods system was based on the gold equivalent. In 1976 (when decisions were still being made), the United States decided to depart from the gold equivalent, and the Jamaica Accords appeared. It detached the dollar from gold. What is the basis of this Jamaica system that is still in place today? Trust in the US economy.

Look what is really happening today: there is no other collateral, that is, except trust in the American economy, in today's world financial system.

It goes without saying that the United States is taking advantage of its monopolistic status on the global financial market and is making serious money in the process. According to publicly available data, the United States owes the global economy a contingent debt of US$54.3 trillion.

Here is what this figure is made up of: US$12.6 trillion is what individuals keep in their bank accounts and their pockets, or under the mattress, as we say, outside the United States. The US companies account for another ten trillion which adds up to a total of US$22.6 trillion that are backed by nothing else but faith in the US economy. The remaining amount is what people from other countries have invested in the US companies, and their investment in the US companies is secured by reliability of those companies and their market value. Eventually, their reliability also depends on the US economic system.

Here is what is happening around the world in this regard. The US economy is shrinking and its foundation is occasionally becoming cracked. It is not just their debt, which is through the roof, but also the fact they are not always meeting their inflation targets. They have their inflation target set at two percent, but they are cutting through this limit, as they did most recently during the pandemic, all the way to 7.8 percent, which undermines credibility of the US economy.

What is the economy backed by if it is shrinking? It is backed by nothing, and that is a problem. It is an unconditional problem for everyone who holds the US dollar.

Since it is shrinking, and its share in the global economy is shrinking as well, it means we are witnessing an absolutely natural movement towards the creation of multipolarity in the global economy and finance.

We can, no doubt about it, come up with all sorts of systems, but the value of a particular currency depends on the value of the underlying economy.

So, what are we doing now? We are building this joint work with our BRICS partners, and Russia’s role can be quite substantial. We have created the New Bank, and we are in the process of creating our own currency instruments. The whole world, well, not exactly the whole world, but a significant portion of the participants in international economic activity is switching to payments in national currencies. I mentioned earlier that 90 percent of our trade with China is regulated in yuans and rubles. In the post-Soviet space, the share of the ruble is nearing 70 percent, meaning that our role here is significant. However, we must join our efforts to make it more robust.

What are the US financial authorities up to now? My colleagues and I discussed today’s session and potential topics late into the night yesterday, and we came to the conclusion that the US authorities are acting like the Luddites in England who were destroying the tools that they used in their work. Today’s US authorities are breaking their “tools of greatness.” The dollar is one of the few instruments of today’s greatness of the United States. They are pushing the global economic agents away from the dollar with their own hands. It will happen anyway due to the shrinking of the US economy, but they are accelerating this process.

Naturally, new instruments are emerging, such as financial instruments of the central banks, which we discuss within BRICS.

There are other angles to consider as well. Our colleague from Zimbabwe mentioned attracting investment. Indeed, it can be done, and not only in relation to Zimbabwe. It can also be done with regard to other African countries, South Asian and Asian countries in general, fast-growing developing economies. However, these instruments should provide safety guarantees for this investment and return on the investment. What is the best asset to guarantee that if not gold? The quality of the proposed investment projects? If we ensure the quality – the quality and stability of the political regimes – and we will need to do so as a team, then we will be able to develop a payment system which will be almost volatility- and inflation-proof. It can be done. I discussed this with my friend and colleague President Xi Jinping during my visit, and I will discuss this with other BRICS leaders. This is a critical area of joint work.

Sergei Karaganov: That is comforting to know. But we are running a little late. We keep talking about the basket of Euro-Asian or BRICS currencies for eight or nine years now, but there is no progress, because, as you are aware, competition is rife.

Vladimir Putin: Well, there is some progress.

Sergei Karaganov: But it is still moving slowly.

Vladimir Putin: Payments are made in national currencies.

Sergei Karaganov: I am talking about creating SDR. Well, never mind.

I think if we assume some kind of perhaps not even true leadership, but at least get some serious work underway, we will help all of us, primarily, our small economies. I am almost certain that Mr Arce and Mr Mnangagwa will agree with me saying that if Russia starts coming up with concrete solutions, they will join in these efforts.

Vladimir Putin: You are right, we need to move faster.

Sergei Karaganov: We will all benefit from their advice.

Vladimir Putin: You are right. We need to speed things up. I agree.

Sergei Karaganov: Good. I have one more question related to the economy.

Currently, there is a significant increase in military spending and a rise in the military economy. This development is encouraging as it signals a return to our roots. As one insightful historian from St Petersburg remarked, Russia historically thrived and expanded as a military organisation of its people. When we lost sight of this, we began to decline.

As we strengthen ourselves, especially given the circumstances, there is an issue that warrants careful consideration. Presently, eight percent of our GNP is allocated to defence. This pales in comparison to the purported 13 percent during the Soviet era. However, it is challenging to ascertain the exact military spending in the Soviet Union since there was no comprehensive tally for such expenses. Moreover, substantial funds were channelled towards supporting socialist and socialist-leaning states, significantly inflating the country’s foreign policy and military budget.

However, drawing parallels with the Soviet era raises concerns. Sooner or later, we must emerge victorious from this war. From my perspective, the sooner, the better, ideally within two years, by employing the most resolute measures, which we can discuss later. Concurrently, we are already formulating conversion plans in collaboration with enterprises, responsible individuals, and business strategies. I recall the harrowing ordeal of the early 1990s, when we found ourselves trapped in similar circumstances, witnessing the erosion of high-tech industries and the exodus of millions of skilled workers and intellectuals to the streets or elsewhere.

Are we currently devising partial conversion plans to ensure that they are readily available once we start scaling down military production?

Vladimir Putin: In the 1990s, we not only wasted this potential, but also destroyed it.

Sergei Karaganov: Of course.

Vladimir Putin: I am well aware and remember vividly, especially since I worked here in St Petersburg. Back then, 70 percent of the city’s economy relied on defence industries, and much of it was dismantled, if not all of it. However, starting from the early 2000s, we had to focus on rebuilding, and we have achieved a lot on a foundation of modern technology.

We have always recognised the need to consider conversion. It is not just about conversion; we must also think about the modernisation of these facilities.

What do I mean? Companies all over the world that manufacture specialised equipment and weapons at the same time produce civilian goods. This combination of two aspects creates a positive synergy and makes it possible to attract investment as well as high technologies. On the whole, we are managing this successfully.

We have a relevant plan in place and we are consistently implementing it. In 2022, civilian goods accounted for approximately 25.1 percent of defence industry enterprises’ output, and this share reached almost 30 percent (over 29 percent) last year. Therefore, this process is ongoing.

Of course, we must continuously align our defence spending with current requirements and our economic development levels. We cannot rely on and exploit others, as the United States does.

Every year, the United States has a US$1 trillion trade deficit. What is this? I believe everyone present here will understand what I mean. This is a modern version of neocolonialism. By using the dollar’s monopolistic status, the United States consumes US$1 trillion more annually than it produces. It extracts these resources from other countries.

We spoke about the pandemic period earlier. What did they do? I do not recall the exact amount of money the United States printed, but it totalled over US$5 trillion. By the way, Europe printed an estimated 3.4 trillion euros. What did they do next? They circulated all these banknotes domestically and then started buying foods on the global food market. They absorbed all these resources within their country, acting like a vacuum cleaner, and for the first time in many years, they became net food buyers and importers, rather than exporters. As a result, global food inflation skyrocketed.

However, we cannot behave in the same way, and we do not monopolise the global currency market, the way the US dollar is doing. We have never acted like colonialists or neo-colonialists. In this case, we should, of course, rely on our economic potential and assess it realistically, which is what we are doing. Naturally, we are considering diversification in order to balance the current industrial situation, the real economy and the future situation. This is how everything is developing.

Sergei Karaganov: I will ask one more question on the economy because I know it is of great concern to a considerable part of the audience, not as much to me, but still, I also sense these concerns.

Currently, the country is undergoing partial nationalisation. It is said that this is being done, among other reasons, to correct the huge mistakes made during privatisation. Those reforms were indeed foolish; we established capitalism without protecting private property. This led to rampant corruption because property could only be protected by turning either to the state, which in turn led to corruption, or to criminals, or simply by transferring funds abroad.

Now we are witnessing a reverse adjustment – a de-privatisation. But where are the limits? Perhaps, we can determine them after all? The point is that if we are talking about rectifying the mistakes made in the 1990s, then there were mistakes all the way during that time, since everything we were doing was illegal and done unlawfully, with violations in each case.

I was involved in the economic processes at that time, because research could not provide an income, and I had to support the institutes. So, I know what was happening at the time. This is why, in principle, it is now possible to de-privatise everything.

However, this would undermine the foundation of our success. We have seen that private capital, even in our challenging military conditions, is quickly adjusting to fill new niches, creating a more flexible economy for us than it would have been if it were solely state-owned.

Can we stop at some point? Let’s declare, for example, that the unused mineral resources go to the state, we prohibit the export of capital and declare property to be sacred after a certain limit. And the level of protection for private property will serve as a basis for the KPI of all governors and other leaders.

Vladimir Putin: Regarding mineral resources, they belong to the state as it is. We only allow our companies to produce them, but they remain the property of the state. This is the first point.

Second, you mentioned the unwise, misguided or criminal privatisation of the 1990s. Though it might be painful for many people in the country, I still would not use such words. Why? Because I do not think that it was a deliberate criminal plan. Yes, it was largely an unwise decision based on the opinion of world-famous economists, including Russian ones, who said that everything should be privatised as quickly as possible, and the price does not matter, even if it is only one dollar. The main goal was to hand these assets to effective owners, which the state cannot be.

Reality has shown that in our country, under the conditions we lived in and are living in now, it was a wrong method, to put it mildly, to achieve the best possible result and maximum efficiency. It turned out that the state can be an effective owner, and it has demonstrated that in many cases, especially in industries that depend on large-scale investments.

At that time, nobody made any investments. It was a period when fraudulent schemes were used, when money was borrowed from banks for that pseudo-privatisation or more precisely, the theft of government property, which was bought for a song and the products it produced were used or not used to repay loans to state-owned banks. It was fraud.

Therefore, I would not do anything about economically incorrect but nevertheless legal decisions related to privatisation. The prosecutor’s offices only address cases of criminal privatisation of state property.

However, you said correctly that reasonable limits should be set for such actions. We are discussing this issue with our business community. I believe that a decision should not be formulated as a presidential executive order or a government resolution, but as a law. We are discussing this issue with our colleagues in the business community, and I think that we will find a solution.

Sergei Karaganov: Thank you.

Let us move on to more political matters. You always say you want to hold talks to settle the conflict with the West in Ukraine. Of course, this intention is commendable and positive.

But with whom could you hold talks? Our Western partners have deceived us numerous times and are violating all the agreements we make with them. The Kiev regime is morally, politically and even legally illegitimate, even from the perspective of the failed state that exists there.

How can we possibly hold any talks with them without first defeating them. achieving their complete surrender and holding a nuclear gun, so to speak, over our Western opponents, so that they do not resist any further? In fact, right now no agreements will be implemented until they are defeated. They are illegitimate and unreliable partners.

How can we deal with that?

Vladimir Putin: Well, yes, but as Josef Stalin said, “I have no other writers.” He said this about the USSR Union of Writers back when [Lavrenty] Beria came to denounce them once again. He said: “I have no other writers.” It is the same with our partners. So should we fight with all of them?

Of course, we need to reach agreements and conditions that align with our interests and are as dependable as possible. You are right in saying that it is very difficult to negotiate with people like this, who deceive us at every turn. They say one thing and then do another. It is unfortunate, but all military conflicts eventually conclude with peace treaties. However, as a former leader of a major European country told me, these agreements can be based on either military defeat or victory. Of course, we will strive for victory.

Of course, there are concerns about the legitimacy of those we have to negotiate with, because a preliminary or even superficial analysis of Ukrainian legislation reveals that the current executive authorities have lost their legitimacy.

Article 103 of the Constitution of Ukraine states that “The President is elected for a five-year term,” while Article 83 of the Constitution of Ukraine, stipulates that under martial law, the powers of the Verkhovna Rada can be extended, but there is no mention of extending the president’s powers.

There is a law on the martial law, which states that presidential elections are not held under martial law, but it does not mention the extension of the term. As a graduate of St Petersburg University’s Faculty of Law, I understand the significance of this point. If it is not explicitly stated, then it does not exist.

The Criminal Code includes articles on the usurpation of power, which seems to be the case here. Nevertheless, talks can still be held because, in accordance with articles 109, 110 and 111 of the Constitution, powers are transferred to the speaker of the Rada. So, if there is a wish to engage in talks, there is someone we can speak with.

We are ready for these talks, but only, I repeat, on the terms that we agreed upon when we started these negotiations in Minsk and later in Istanbul, not on some arbitrary terms. Even if we take the Istanbul agreements as a basis, we must still proceed from today’s realities. These are the general terms.

Sergei Karaganov: Mr President, it is commonly asserted that all wars end in negotiations, but this is a misleading maxim imposed upon us. In reality, most wars end with the defeat and surrender of the enemy. This is the only way to bring an end to this war.

Now I move on to the next question, which concerns the fact that in the current circumstances, when America finds this war advantageous, they will continue it, driving Ukrainians to slaughter and finishing them off. Now they will drive Europeans to slaughter as well. Without accelerated movement towards nuclear escalation, it will not be possible to end this war in the near future. That is the first point. .

Secondly, the tectonic plates of the global system have shifted apart. It is inevitable that numerous conflicts will arise objectively. Previously, there was a nuclear deterrent, the fear of nuclear weapons which has now significantly weakened. Do we understand the enormous responsibility upon us not only to achieve victory in this war – which requires us to escalate much more forcefully and be prepared to use [nuclear weapons] –but also to restore this nuclear deterrent to the international system to prevent a surge of conflicts? Who else will do this besides us? Who else besides you?“

You bear a tremendous responsibility. If we continue to ascend this ladder so slowly, even though there is progress, I fear we are somehow evading this responsibility. However, I understand the gravity of the moral choice.

Vladimir Putin: Regarding nuclear escalation, we never initiated this rhetoric. I cannot recall the name of that lady, the former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, who, when asked about this upon assuming office, said she was ready to press the nuclear button.

We have never made such statements. This is how it all began. . We simply responded that this should be taken more seriously, and immediately they began to claim that we are brandishing nuclear weapons. We are not brandishing them. That is the first point.

Secondly, we should clarify what constitutes the or non-use, as well as specific scenarios in which they can be used. We have a nuclear doctrine, and everything is laid out there. I discussed this yesterday with the heads of news agencies. It states clearly: nuclear weapons can be used only in exceptional cases – when there is a threat to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country, in exceptional circumstances.

I do not believe that this moment has come – there is no such need. However, this doctrine is a living instrument, and we are closely monitoring developments in the world around us, and we do not rule out the possibility of making changes to this doctrine.

Now this is also connected with the testing of nuclear weapons. In the past, we signed and ratified this document; the United States signed it but did not ratify it. Under the current conditions, we have withdrawn our ratification. However, if necessary, we will conduct such tests. Currently, there is no such need, as our information and computing capabilities allow us to conduct this entire process in its present-day form.

Now, concerning speed and outcomes. You mentioned my big responsibility, and indeed, it is substantial. Can we expedite the resolution of the challenges before us? Yes, it is possible, but it correlates directly with potential losses. Despite this responsibility, my approach aligns with the recommendations put forth by the General Staff and the Ministry of Defence. While speed is crucial, prioritising the safety and well-being of our service people on the front lines is paramount.

Combat operations continue. In my understanding, since the beginning of this year, approximately 47 communities totalling 880 square kilometres have been liberated. We are steadily pushing the enemy out of the Donbass and surrounding areas. The General Staff and the Ministry of Defence have devised plans for achieving our objectives, and we are proceeding according to these plans. I am confident that we will successfully execute all of them.

Sergei Karaganov: However, we are fully aware that accelerating the nuclear escalation process can potentially save numerous lives by imparting a sense of caution to our adversaries, who have exploited our relatively permissive doctrine.

I am confident that it will be revised, and I hope it happens soon, granting you the formal right to respond with a nuclear strike to any attacks on our territory, which is a sovereign necessity. I anticipate that such a declaration will be incorporated into our doctrine sooner or later, which will likely deter our adversaries and ultimately safeguard our soldiers.

Certainly, it may be premature to escalate to nuclear options at this moment, but we should proceed in that direction to deter our adversaries. Especially the Europeans seem to be going mad, considering they are heading towards war for the third time in a century. Unlike the Americans, who are much more cautious, they dispose of Ukrainians and push them while being more cautious themselves.

I am experienced in hunting and understand animal behaviour well. When faced with a pack of wild dogs or hyenas, if you only have a stick, you might manage to scare them off. However, they will likely tear at your trousers and then will kill you if you tire out. But if you have the chance to take down a couple of them, they will flee, I guarantee it.

President Mnangagwa understands the behaviour of hyenas well. Would you agree with me, Mr President, that this is how hyenas can be scattered?

Emmerson Mnangagwa:

Vladimir Putin: We have a lot of our own.

Sergei Karaganov: In Europe.

Again, I emphasise this question, I bring it to the forefront. If we do not proceed more decisively up the escalation ladder, will we not provoke divine wrath? After all, the Almighty once showed us the way when he destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah with fiery rain for their decadence and depravity. Humanity remembered this lesson for many years and acted cautiously, but now it seems to have forgotten about Sodom and Gomorrah.

So perhaps we should recall that lesson and attempt once more to instil some reason into humanity, or at least into that part of humanity that has lost its faith in God and its sanity?

Vladimir Putin: Maybe without me? You will really turn up the heat there! They are already scared.

Although, of course, one might consider: when talking about Europeans, any logic seems possible. If, heaven forbid, it comes to some sort of strike, everyone should understand that Russia has an early warning system, a missile attack warning system. The US has it. There is no such developed system anywhere else in the world. We have it. Europe lacks such a developed system; in this regard, they are more or less defenceless. That is the first point.

The second issue is the power of the strikes. Our tactical nuclear weapons are four times more powerful than the bombs the Americans used against Hiroshima and Nagasaki, by three to four times. We possess significantly more of them – both across the European continent and even if the Americans were to deploy theirs from the US – we still maintain a substantial advantage.

If, God forbid, it comes to that – which we sincerely hope it does not, then, instead of what you said about “minimising the victims,” in reality, casualties could potentially escalate indefinitely. That’s the first point.

Second, the Europeans must also consider: if those with whom we engage in such conflicts cease to exist, will the Americans participate in this conflict at the level of strategic weapons or not? I have serious doubts about it, and Europeans should reflect on this as well.

Nevertheless, I firmly believe that such a scenario will never materialise, as we do not foresee such a necessity. Our Armed Forces continue to gain experience and enhance their efficiency, while our defence sector consistently demonstrates its effectiveness. I have stated this multiple times, and I will say it again: our ammunition production has increased by over 20 times, our capabilities in aviation technology far surpass those of our adversaries, and our superiority in armoured vehicles is significant. There is no need to dwell on this matter. Therefore, I kindly ask everyone not to mention such things unnecessarily.

Sergei Karaganov: You demonstrate such responsible behaviour and speak with such responsibility, but we are engaging with partners who exhibit absolute irresponsibility and have lost their sense of reason.

Vladimir Putin: You are a scary person.

Sergei Karaganov: No, you know… You have observed these partners from an external perspective, like most of us, but I grew up within that system; so it happened in my life. I have known them since I was young, and I assure you, I have valid reasons for saying what I do.

While I understand and support your reluctance, because it is a terrible decision that should only be made as a last resort, if they know you are not prepared to make this choice, they will continue to challenge and harm us endlessly.

And at the same time, they are not just fighting against us, they are also opposing our friends in the Global Majority, as we form the military-strategic foundation of this majority. If they succeed in undermining us, they will likely resume suppressing our allies. I wonder if the esteemed presidents would agree with this assessment.

Vladimir Putin: Allow me to make one remark.

The decisions made by both myself and my colleagues, with whom I collaborate in this field, are not based on hesitation. There is no room for hesitation in our approach. All our decisions must stem from a thorough analysis, a genuine, objective assessment of the present circumstances. That is our practice.

Sergei Karaganov: The day before yesterday, you had a meeting with the heads of international news agencies, where you said an interesting thing: that we are ready to send our long-range weapons to the countries that are enemies of our enemies. It made me happy because we should have done this long ago. Will we send both precision and hypersonic weapons to them, together with our technical personnel? This would seriously improve the global situation. For example, aircraft carriers, which have become useless instruments in current conditions, would depart from the global stage, and countries will stop spending huge amounts of money on them.

So, what will we send? How will we do it, and when? Of course, I understand that we must not do this without being asked first, or at least we must say that we are not doing it.

Vladimir Putin: Regarding aircraft carriers, you said that they are useless. No, they are only useless strategically in a global conflict. But they can be useful for addressing geopolitical tasks, as a geopolitical instrument, for approaching the territories which the Americans, French or British plan to fight against or intimidate into doing something. However, they are becoming useless, in a way, now that Russia and China have modern hypersonic weapons. You say that they are not worth spending money on. Let them spend their money. Why did you say that? Let them do it.

Sergei Karaganov: I said this for our Chinese and Indian friends. They are wasting their money.

Vladimir Putin: And I said that there could be geopolitical considerations. They are like non-strategic weapons. They have become useless as strategic weapons, but they can have other applications. Let other countries spend money on them, why not?

As for exporting weapons, we have not exported these weapons so far. But we reserve the right to send them to the countries or even legal organisations that are facing pressure, including military pressure, from the countries that are sending weapons to Ukraine and urging it to use them against us inside Russia. If they send weapons to the zone of hostilities and urge [Ukraine] to use them against targets inside Russia, why cannot we do the same? Why cannot we respond in kind?

I am not prepared to say that we will start doing this tomorrow, because such deliveries are in any case associated with a range of conditions that affect certain parts of the world in one way or another, and we must certainly consider this.

Sergei Karaganov: Let us wrap up this unpleasant military discussion for now. At the moment, to advance, if we find ourselves rapidly escalating in the near future – which I am advocating for but believe we can negotiate as we proceed – there may be a need for partial mobilisation at least. Do you think it is possible to defeat the enemy without mobilisation, or will mobilisation still be necessary?

Vladimir Putin: If we proceed with your suggested recommendations and aim for swift execution, our current forces are insufficient. However, our strategy remains focused on driving the enemy out of the territories we aim to control. Therefore, there is no need for mobilisation; it is not part of our current plans.

We mobilised 300,000 people. However, in the past year, without any mobilisation, over 300,000 patriotically minded persons voluntarily came to the military commissariats and signed contracts with the Armed Forces. (Applause.) Since the start of this year, more than 160,000 people have voluntarily signed contracts at military commissariats. Every day, over a thousand people continue to volunteer for service.

When we witness the strength of the Russian character and the resolve of our citizens, we draw inspiration. With this, we believe that ultimate victory does not require nuclear weapons. (Applause.)

Additionally, I should mention the forced mobilisation happening in Ukraine. It is evident that the age for mobilisation is decreasing. According to Ukrainian sources, the Americans have made reducing the age requirement for mobilisation – possibly to 25, 23, 20, or even 18 – a condition for ongoing support. This matter is beyond our control; let them handle it and perhaps change the current leadership in Ukraine, as I have previously mentioned.

But what matters to us? It is that they might have gained 30,000, 50,000 or as I believe, even 70,000 people recently. This number is likely to decrease. What does this indicate? It suggests that the newly mobilised personnel will only suffice to compensate for their losses. There might be a marginal increase, so to speak. We can interpret this in various ways; the numbers are known to us, though I will not mention them now.

However, in this situation, when our people voluntarily step forward to defend their Motherland, there is no need for mobilisation to be discussed.

Sergei Karaganov: Mr President, I understand your arguments, but I am well aware of our country’s history. I remember 1916, when we were winning, but the people were exhausted. Therefore, there will come a time when we must accelerate. In 1917, we let victory slip from our grasp.

Now, thankfully, because we initiated this operation, albeit perhaps later than ideal, we have seen a significant surge in the nation’s morale. It is clear that the economy has begun to function again, as it can only operate under such conditions. Traitors and fifth column elements have fled, and our Western adversaries will deal with them. These are all positive factors. However, this state of affairs must not continue indefinitely. Therefore, I urge you not to disregard the arguments regularly communicated to you by me and my colleagues.

Vladimir Putin: We consider everything carefully; thank you for your recommendations.

Sergei Karaganov: And now I go over to the issue (we'll come back to the global economy later) that you’ve already raised.

We all, including me and you, are fed up with the single communist ideology, so, of course, we do not want a communist ideology. But a state, a great state, cannot exist without a national ideology, without a great idea. States that lost their national idea, their national ideology, inevitably collapsed. The world is full of graves or shadows of such states. By the way, we collapsed twice, too: once when we lost faith in the Tsar and the Fatherland, and the second time when we lost faith in communism. And we are now resisting the introduction of a rigid state ideology.

It is clear that such an ideology is very easy to formulate; you yourself have already partially formulated it in your speeches. It is clear that such an ideology should not probably be mandatory, but it should be mandatory at least for those people who want to be the leaders of the country, who want to be the elite of the country. It is a code of honour.

This code of honour is easy to formulate, we know it. By the way, we are working on it, it is very close to the ideal of a Confucian superior man. We have discussed it with religious figures, our Orthodox and Muslim ones. They all agree on one thing – this code can be formulated.

Why are we formulating a code not for everyone? These people want to live an ordinary life – let them live, and that's fine. But if you want to lead, if you want to succeed in society, you have to follow absolutely clear rules, and these rules must be formulated. I'm not going to formulate them now, so as not to take up the audience, because it comes in quite easily. But why are we still afraid? We don't need to change an article of the Constitution. Why are we afraid of introducing a single state ideology that is mandatory for all those who want and are ready to serve the state and society?

Vladimir Putin: We are not afraid of anything.

Sergei Karaganov: Yes, we are.

Vladimir Putin: We have the Constitution, which you mentioned, and it says that we must not have a dominant ideology.

We had a dominant ideology during the Soviet Union, as you mentioned. However, this ideology did not prevent the collapse of the Soviet Union; things did not work out.

Of course, a multiethnic country needs a unifying idea. You noted that we first lost faith in the Tsar and the Fatherland, and then in communism. It is important to clarify that faith was lost in the Tsar, but not in the Fatherland. That’s point number one

Point number two. People continued to believe in the Fatherland, but their understanding of what was good or bad for it differed. This is a separate issue, and indeed, new ideas are necessary. Many lost faith in communism, but not all; otherwise, we would not have the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, a legitimate political party with numerous supporters. This is a fact, and I believe it deserves respect.

But you are right; we need unifying ideas. Today’s events demonstrate that patriotism, in its truest and most genuine sense, can serve as such an idea. People who voluntarily go to the front, risking their lives and health, exemplify this patriotism. However, it is essential that this idea is communicated and presented properly, thoroughly, beautifully and clearly. Please assist us in this. We would be very grateful.

Sergei Karaganov: With pleasure. This is indeed necessary. I remember how communist ideology faded away, and I did not regret its passing. However, its demise created a vacuum that led to the country’s collapse. We need to fill this vacuum with concrete ideas. Just give the order, and we will make it happen. However, it must be presented to society and the elite and made more or less mandatory for it to be effective. This is how communist ideology worked for us: it was mandatory for everyone, it drove our country forward for many years and enabled us to win a terrible war. This is why a unifying ideology is essential.

Vladimir Putin: I suggest we do not escalate our discussion. I am happy to debate these issues with you, but let us not focus solely on communist ideology, even though it played a significant role in Victory in the Great Patriotic War. If it were the only factor uniting a multinational people, then…

But then why did they fly over Moscow with icons? Why was the church later legalised, and the patriarchate restored? As our soldiers say today, there are no atheists in the trenches. It was the same back then.

Certainly, communist ideology played a role. People stood up and marched forward for the Motherland and for Stalin. But the Motherland always came first. Let us not forget this.

Sergei Karaganov: Of course, but many countries have collapsed when they lost their ideology. That is for sure.

Here is another peaceful, important question. As you know, our country is currently engaged in a major discussion about migration issues. Unfortunately, there are also chauvinistic sentiments, which pose a threat to our multiethnic nation.

At the same time, the police department is addressing migration issues. Whether this is positive or negative is debatable. However, their objective is to limit migration. I believe that we should take a stricter approach to limiting the negative aspects of migration.

In my opinion, we face not only the task but also an opportunity to start actively seeking and attracting skilled migrants from abroad. Climate migration will begin, value-based migration is starting to occur, and crisis-related migration will also happen, it is already underway.

By the way, we missed the opportunity to welcome a wave of very interesting people from Afghanistan who could have come to our country after they fled theirs due to the actions of the US.

Do we need to modernise our migration policy concept? I read it some time ago and found it to be amazingly unrealistic and liberal. The police department is allegedly engaged in implementing it. Perhaps you should establish a government agency to regulate these issues, develop a modern migration policy concept, and attract migrants while also implementing stricter measures to control their influx? We currently lack such a policy.

Vladimir Putin: I have no objections. You are right.

However, we should think about allowing interesting people from Afghanistan to come here. Today, many interesting people are coming here from other countries.

But you are certainly right in saying that we have not yet developed a well-thought-out migration policy. We had a single agency in the past, but it later merged with the Interior Ministry for security reasons. It is worth questioning whether this division is functioning effectively or underperforming. I have discussed this with my colleagues. I have instructed the Government and the Security Council to re-examine this issue as soon as possible.

It is undeniable that there is a problem. We need to attract migrant workers, as this is crucial. With minimal or zero unemployment, a shortage of workers hampers economic growth.

You are also correct in stating that we need individuals with specific skills, education levels, fluency in the Russian language, knowledge of our traditions, and more, rather than just any migrants. Our colleagues from countries that provide the majority of migrants also recognise this. We are discussing how to collaborate and teach these individuals Russian, our traditions and culture and our laws, so that they can feel comfortable in Russia. Most importantly, we want to ensure that local residents do not face any issues in the employment market or their daily lives. Where do migrants usually settle? In places with active economic life. And what are these places? These are Moscow, the Moscow Region, St Petersburg, and a few cities in Siberia that offer high wages. I wholeheartedly agree with you that there is much work to be done in this area.

Sergei Karaganov: We simply fail to use our guests’ excellent experience, and I want to ask President Arce the following question. You have said a lot of interesting things, and we will incidentally distribute your speech as a teaching guide. I will ask my colleagues to distribute it to universities, because it is a wonderful guide. Thank you, because it is an alternative to what is still being taught in most of our universities. And you are a living example that there is an alternative correct and effective economic policy. However, my question is a little bit different.

Your country is relatively well-off, you need to attract investments, and you also have plans of a transcontinental canal. Do you think that you still can turn to the International Monetary Fund, for instance, or to the World Bank for such funds? Or such times have gone and some other instruments are required? What instruments you see? We are establishing the BRICS Bank, there is something else in place.

What is ideal from your, efficient economist’s, point of view; what an ideal international system should be like to enable independent development,? What should be developed in it?

President of the Plurinational State of Bolivia Luis Alberto Arce Catacora (retranslated): Thank you very much for the question.

Actually, Bolivia’s only wish is to see development in utilising our natural resources. In this sense Bolivia is open to direct foreign investments following the model with foreign investment making up the biggest part. If it concerns natural resources, then it primarily should go to Bolivian state-owned companies and the state.

But there are absolutely different sectors like tourism, agriculture, etc, where natural resources are not so much involved. Here, of course, any foreign investor can participate, unless these are strategic natural resources for our country, where the state must have at least a 50-percent stake.

So, for example, for lithium, we held bidding rounds, and more than seven companies came to this bidding to participate in lithium mining. In Bolivia we already have three companies working with us, two Chinese companies and one Russian company. We issued a new invitation for new companies again at the end of last year, and in August we will finalise this procedure. We have the largest lithium reserves in the world, so of course, there is an opportunity for many foreign companies to develop these deposits. We have certain investments in the mining industry but evidently lithium production is the most important area for foreign investment.

More opportunities to invest may be available to those who see eye to eye with our economic model. We can create from the perspective of the state, providing certain conditions for sustainable development and revenue. Of course, BRICS, the New Development Bank, offers an excellent opportunity, because we are anticipating a kind of financing that is not conventional, as in the case of the IMF or the World Bank, because they have their own terms and conditions and they, of course, pursue their own objectives when providing loans. Regional organisations, such as the Inter-American Development Bank in Latin America, or other Latin American banking associations, offer financial resources. Or let’s say, there are associations of five countries of the region with better lending terms, and of course, international alternative solutions such as, for example, the BRICS Bank. It offers an excellent opportunity to bring onboard foreign investment and foreign investors for them to participate in such investment projects. Our Government uses caution when it comes to using our natural resources. We are open to private foreign investment, primarily, in other sectors.

Sergei Karaganov: Thank you.

Mr Mnangagwa, I also have a question for you, which I think is quite important. As a BRICS summit host country in which three African countries have confirmed their participation, our Government is drafting a programme. I think there will be other countries as well. What do you expect from BRICS? What direction should BRICS be heading from your perspective? What institutions should it create, let’s say, to help and then, maybe, to bring onboard countries like Zimbabwe? Maybe it should be a BRICS food facility or a BRICS fertiliser programme, maybe a BRICS emergency relief agency? An agency like that does not exist anywhere in the world at this point, and our countries can, perhaps, pool resources. Speaking of which, we will not need additional resources to do so. Could it be something along these lines? What would you like BRICS to do?

President of Zimbabwe Emmerson Mnangagwa: Thank you very much.

Currently, Zimbabwe is going to host SADC, which is an original body, in August this year. And to achieve that, we are building a new city which, we believe, will be completed by the end of August and September. We will host SADC nations in Harare.

With the BRICS countries, we are currently not aware of any intention to hold a BRICS summit in Zimbabwe. What I am aware of is the SADC summit of the heads of state in Zimbabwe. This [summit] rotates among SADC countries. We do so in order to, first, give every single SADC member the opportunity to host the SADC heads of state. But in the process, we create facilities – because it is necessary for holding a summit of that nature that facilities are created.

So, Zimbabwe is currently busy 24 hours. We do not sleep, creating a new city where the SADC heads of state are going to host the SADC summit in August.

After that, we are going to have facilities available for future international and regional conferences in Zimbabwe. We are not like the big boys here who have facilities that have been established for a very long time. We are growing up and I am happy that we are likely to be able to achieve the standard required to host a regional conference. And it means that in the future, a Zimbabwe-Russia summit could be held in Zimbabwe because we are creating such facilities. It is necessary, of course, for our region or, in fact, countries in Africa and maybe the world, to make sure that they create conditions to promote summits to come into their jurisdiction because that also brings technology. You cannot host a summit of this nature if you don’t have communication equipment or the facilities required for such a summit.

So, we in our region are, in my view, standing up to the challenge of hosting not only a regional summit but continental summits. We should be able to do so. For instance, now you have a Russia-Africa summit, you have a China-Africa summit, you have a Spain-Africa summit. I think in the future, we should have a Zimbabwe-Russia summit where we host the Russian Federation, or a Zimbabwe-China summit where we host China in Zimbabwe. We are conscious of that possibility.

And what is important is to be focused. Yes, we need external support, but it is critically important that, as a nation, we must also make sure that we develop primarily based on the domestic resources that are available and only be supported where we feel fully deficient. That way we become focused, and we become proud that we have created such institutions and such facilities.

So, I am looking forward to a day when I hold a Zimbabwe-Russia summit and my brother will come and attend a summit in Zimbabwe with all the facilities that I see here. As I look at them, I believe that, when you build after [somebody], you build better. So, we are likely to create better facilities for my brother because I have seen what you are doing. Thank you.

Sergei Karaganov: Thank you very much.

I will reach out to you with a letter later and ask you to elaborate on what you expect from the BRICS summit in particular. Perhaps, you have suggestions? We would be interested to find out. We are collecting such requests, because BRICS is gathering momentum. We need to identify the proper course of action to ensure its further development.

I am being signalled that we have to wrap it up. I had many interesting questions, you shouldn’t do that. (Laughter.) But if they say so, let it be.

Then my last question is for you, Mr President. You are a Russian European, born in St Petersburg, a city loved by many Russians, including myself. The European journey undertaken by [Tsar] Peter is over. You are completing it now with a certain delay. But there is one problem: our European genes are too strong. Europe has become part of our identity. How can we preserve them, avoid scattering them en route, as we do quite often in Russia when we toss the baby out with the bath water?

Could we perhaps make St Petersburg the centre of real European culture, hold festivals there for real Europeans, and declare at last that we are Europe? We are Northern Eurasia, of course, and primarily a civilisation of civilisations, but let us make St Petersburg the centre of European national culture. This is one question.

Here is another question to follow up on the first one. I think that our friends from Africa and Latin America will be glad if we start turning St Petersburg also into the centre of global culture. There was Paris – now it is on its way out. New York has changed as well. Could we perhaps make St Petersburg the centre of world culture? It already has all the infrastructure. What needs to be done here is to create a few festivals and – excuse my English – happenings. These events will attract huge crowds of people. St Petersburg residents will profit from them, while everyone in the Global Majority and in the Europe we are leaving will find them useful.

Vladimir Putin: As for the likely loss of some elements of European culture, or, say, genes of the European culture in Russia as we are turning towards the East and Asia, [I would like to say the following:]

First, we are not making a pivot for considerations of momentary advantage. This pivot is taking place in the world at large in connection with the growth of new centres of development. We started this work long before the current tragic developments in Ukraine.

I said at the very beginning – the economy is shrinking as does the impact the world development centres that have been active so far have on the global economy. The combined GDP of the BRICS countries is higher right now than the total GDP of the so-called Group of Seven. These trends not only persist but grow stronger and faster – I am talking about the economic growth today and in the short term. This is an inevitable development, and nobody can do anything about it. Whatever happens, this trend will persist.

Of course, as we have just discussed, long time ago, Peter the Great hacked a window through to Europe because Europe was the centre of economic development, prospects, markets and technologies. As an example, he would hang his boots outside that needed stitching, like they did in Holland or elsewhere. But the world is becoming more diverse, and we must react to this diversity, which is what we try to do.

As for elements of European culture, it is not us who are losing these genes and elements of European culture. Where is this culture in the part of Europe that is called Western? There will be nothing left of it quite soon. Only architecture will remain. But culture mainly means cultivating people. Lately, this effort has been poisoned by today’s global liberals who place utmost importance not on the interests of their own people and their own cultural code but on their ideas associated with global liberalism that are out of touch with reality. In my opinion, this is the key problem.

By definition, we are becoming centres of traditional European culture and traditional European values that, if we look a little further into history, are based primarily on Christian culture even for non-believers.

For us, for Russia, a multifaith country – you said (I don’t know who originally said it) that before anything, it is the military machine of the Russian people – whoever said that, I do not agree because Russia was originally formed as a multifaith state. Let’s remember the order from Catherine II or other, as we would say these days, leaders – tsars and emperors. When acquiring new territories, they would always say: respect the local population, their traditions and beliefs. This is how Russia came to be.

And of course, European culture represents a significant part of Russia’s culture, and we are becoming carriers of this culture, the one that is being killed in European countries today. However, realising this, many Europeans are now striving for their further development to be driven by their traditional values. Whether they succeed or not will become clearer when we see the results of the European Parliament election. But in our country, we will certainly promote further development guided by our historical traditions, which have shaped it as a multiethnic and multifaith state; this certainly can and must be done.

You mentioned the role of St Petersburg, and I agree. This is what we are doing – expanding our cultural activities here across the board, also cooperating with our friends and partners around the world: from Europe, from Asia, from Latin America, from Africa.

You spoke about St Petersburg. I am looking at the picture on my left and the picture on my right. Look at the one to my right: we see St Isaac’s Cathedral in the middle, the Senate and Synod to the right, and the Admiralty to the left. This is the view from the university where I studied, from the side of the Twelve Colleges, which housed the first Government of Russia. Further to the right is the Menshikov Palace. In the picture on the left is the Strelka, the spit of Vasilyevsky Island, the Rostral Columns, the Exchange, and St Isaac’s Cathedral again. This is a view from the Hermitage.

If we cross to this side and look backwards, at the Twelve Colleges or the Hermitage, the view will be just as beautiful. Why? Because the planning was guided by the most important principle and law, which is called ‘harmony.’ This is the principle we will be guided by in building our policy. Russia will certainly be part of this harmonious multipolar world. It is natural for us to also rely, to a large extent, on European principles, on European culture, because the Russian people are bearers of those as well, but we will treat with no less respect the culture and traditions of other ethnic groups of the Russian Federation. This unity is our strength. (Applause.)

Thank you! Thank you very much.

Sergei Karaganov: Thank you very much, friends, colleagues.

This was a very lively, intense, intellectual and political event. I hope that it has kept our audience interested.

Thank you, Messrs Presidents.

Vladimir Putin: I would like to thank our guests and our moderator.

Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin has been sworn in as President of Russia

2024-05-07T15:09:00+04:00

Vladimir Putin has been inaugurated as President of Russia in a ceremony that took place at the Kremlin.

The ceremony opened as the National Flag, the President’s Standard, the Russian Constitution and the President’s Badge were brought into St Andrew’s Hall of the Grand Kremlin Palace.

In accordance with Article 82 of the Russian Constitution, Vladimir Putin took the oath to the people of Russia in the presence of Federation Council members, members of the State Duma and judges of the Russian Constitutional Court. Constitutional Court President Valery Zorkin officially declared Vladimir Putin as the new President of the Russian Federation.

Afterwards, Vladimir Putin, the President of Russia and the Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Armed Forces, reviewed the Presidential Regiment on Cathedral Square to mark his inauguration. The President congratulated the Presidential Regiment on its 88^th anniversary.

Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia held a thanksgiving service at the Annunciation Cathedral in the Kremlin.

* * *

Speech at the inauguration ceremony as President of Russia

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Citizens of Russia, ladies and gentlemen, friends,

In these solemn and crucial moments of assuming the office of the President, I would like to extend my heartfelt gratitude to the citizens of Russia across all regions of our country, as well as those living in the historical territories of Russia who have won their right to stand united with our Motherland.

I humbly honour our heroes, the participants in the special military operation, and all those who are fighting for our Fatherland.

I would like to thank you again for the trust you have placed in me and for your unwavering support. These words are directed to every citizen of Russia.

I have just taken the oath of office of the president. The words I spoke convey the essence of the supreme mission of the head of state: to protect Russia and serve the nation.

I understand that this is a tremendous honour, a major responsibility and a sacred duty. These have always been the guiding principles of my work in the past. I assure you that the interests and security of the people of Russia will continue to be my foremost concern.

The consolidated will of millions of people is a tremendous force, as well as evidence of our shared firm conviction that we will determine the fate of Russia ourselves, and only ourselves, for the sake of present and future generations.

You, the citizens of Russia, have confirmed that the country is on the right course. This is of great importance right now, as we face serious challenges. I see this as your deep awareness of our common historical goals, and unwavering resolve to defend our choices, our values, our freedom and Russia’s national interests.

I am confident that we will pass through this difficult pivotal period with dignity and emerge even stronger. We will undoubtedly accomplish everything we have planned for the long term, all the far-reaching projects aimed at achieving our development goals.

Our top priority is the preservation of the people. I am confident that the support of centuries-old family values and traditions will continue to unite public and religious associations, political parties, and all levels of government.

Our decisions regarding the development of the country and its regions must be effective and fair and must promote the prosperity of Russian families and improve their quality of life.

We have been and will continue to be open to strengthening good relations with all countries that view Russia as a reliable and honest partner. Indeed, those constitute the global majority.

We are not rejecting dialogue with Western states. The choice is theirs: whether they intend to continue trying to contain Russia’s development, continue the policy of aggression, the relentless pressure they have been exerting on our country for years, or seek a path to cooperation and peace.

To reiterate, we are open to talks, including on security and strategic stability, but not to negotiations from a position of strength. We are open to a conversation without arrogance, conceit or exceptionalism – a dialogue on an equal footing and with respect for each other’s interests.

Together with our partners in Eurasian integration and other sovereign development centres, we will continue to build a multipolar world and an equal and indivisible security system.

In this complex, rapidly-changing world, we must strive to be self-sufficient and competitive, opening up new horizons for Russia, as we have done many times throughout our history.

But we must also remember its lessons and never forget about the enormous price we paid for internal unrest and troubles. Therefore, our state and socio-political system must be strong and resistant to any threats and challenges, ensuring the progressive and stable development, as well as the unity and independence of our country.

However, stability is not equal to inflexibility. Our state and social systems must be flexible, creating conditions for renewal and progress.

We can see that the atmosphere in society has changed, and how much we now value reliability, responsibility, sincerity, integrity, generosity and courage. I will do everything in my power to ensure that those who have displayed these admirable human and professional traits, and who have proved their loyalty to the Fatherland through their deeds, achieve leading positions in state governance, the economy and all other spheres.

We must ensure reliable continuity in the development of our country for decades to come and bring up new generations who will strengthen Russia’s might and develop our state based on interethnic accord, the preservation of the traditions of all ethnic groups living in Russia, a civilisational nation united by the Russian language and our multi-ethnic culture.

Friends,

I will do everything its takes, everything I can, to justify your confidence in me, using the powers granted to me as the head of state by the Constitution. At the same time, I would like to emphasise that the success of this endeavour depend above all on our unity, integrity and our desire to serve our Fatherland, protect it, and work to the best of our abilities.

Today, we must answer to our thousand-year-long history and our predecessors. They attained seemingly insurmountable heights because they always put the country first. They knew that truly challenging goals can only be achieved together with the country and its people, and they created a great power, our Fatherland, leaving a legacy of glorious achievements from which we continue to draw inspiration today.

We look forward with confidence and plan our future by outlining and already carrying out new projects and programmes, which are designed to inject even more momentum in our development effort and make it even stronger.

We stand as a united and great nation. Together we will overcome all obstacles and ensure that everything we conceive becomes reality. Together we win!

Address to citizens of Russia

2024-03-23T18:18:37+04:00

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Citizens of Russia,

I am addressing you today in connection with a horrific and savage act of terrorism, which claimed the lives of dozens of peaceful, innocent people – our compatriots, including children, teenagers, and women. Doctors are fighting to save the lives of the victims in critical condition. I am confident that they will do everything within their power, and even beyond, to preserve the lives and health of all those injured. I extend my heartfelt gratitude to ambulance crews, air ambulance teams, special forces, firefighters, and rescuers, who made every effort to save lives and rescue people from the gunfire, from the epicentre of fire and smoke, preventing even greater losses.

I cannot but acknowledge the help provided by ordinary citizens who, in the immediate aftermath of the tragedy, did not remain indifferent or apathetic and provided first aid and transported the victims to hospitals, working alongside doctors and special agencies’ personnel.

We will provide the necessary support to all the families whose lives have been affected by this horrible atrocity, to the wounded and the injured. I express my deepest and most sincere condolences to all those who have lost their loved ones. The entire country, all our people are grieving together with you. I declare March 24 a day of national mourning.

Additional anti-terrorist and anti-sabotage measures have been introduced in Moscow, the Moscow Region, and all regions of the country. Our top priority now is to prevent those behind this bloody massacre from committing another crime.

Regarding the investigation of this crime and the results of the operational search action, we can currently say the following. All four perpetrators, who were directly involved in the terrorist attack, all those who shot and killed people, have been found and apprehended. They attempted to escape and were heading towards Ukraine, where, according to preliminary information, a window was prepared for them on the Ukrainian side to cross the state border. A total of 11 people have been detained. The Federal Security Service and other law enforcement agencies are working diligently to identify and expose the accomplice base behind these terrorists: those who provided them with transport, planned escape routes from the crime scene, and prepared caches with weapons and ammunition.

The investigative and law enforcement agencies will spare no effort to establish all the details of this crime. However, it is already clear that we are confronted not simply with a carefully and cynically planned terrorist attack, but a premediated and organised mass murder of peaceful, defenceless people. The perpetrators cold-bloodedly and deliberately targeted our citizens, including our children, with the intent to kill them at close range. Like the Nazis who once carried out massacres in the occupied territories, they planned to stage a demonstrative execution, a bloody act of intimidation.

All perpetrators, organisers and masterminds of this crime will face fair and inevitable punishment, whoever they may be and whoever directed them. I emphasise once more: we will identify and bring to justice each and every individual who stands behind these terrorists, those who orchestrated this atrocity, this assault against Russia and our people.

We understand what the terrorist threat means. In this regard, we rely on cooperation with all states that sincerely share our pain and are ready to really join forces in the fight against a common enemy, international terrorism and all its manifestations.

Terrorists, murderers, those inhumane individuals who have no nationality and cannot have one, face one and the same gloomy prospect – retribution and oblivion. They have no future. Our common duty now, shared by our comrades–in-arms at the front and all citizens of our country, is to stand united as one. I am confident that we will, for nothing and no one can shake our unity and will, our determination and courage, the strength of the united people of Russia. No force will be able to sow the poisonous seeds of discord, panic or disunity in our multi-ethnic society.

Russia has weathered the most arduous, sometimes unbearable trials more than once, yet it has emerged even stronger. And so it shall be now, as well.

Address to the citizens of Russia

2024-03-13T20:03:36+04:00

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Citizens of Russia, friends,

Tomorrow, March 15, the polling stations will open across our vast country, and the three-day voting in the presidential election will begin.

This is the eighth time a presidential election will be held in Russia, which shows the inviolability of the principle of holding regular elections which is one of the basic principles of a democratic state. The outcome will directly affect the development of the country in the coming years.

This is an important high-stakes event and, as the incumbent head of state, I believe it is necessary to address you today.

I would like to emphasise that the people are the only source of power in our country. This key legal provision is enshrined in the Constitution. It means that only you, the citizens of Russia, determine the future of the Fatherland.

You will not just cast your vote, but will firmly declare your will and aspirations, and your personal involvement in the future of Russia, because an election is a step into the future.

I am confident that you realise that our country is going through a difficult period, and we are facing formidable challenges in almost all spheres. In order for us to continue to meet them with dignity and to successfully overcome difficulties, we need to stay united and confident in ourselves.

We have proven that we can stand together as we defend Russia’s freedom, sovereignty, and security, uphold our values, traditions, history and culture, and act in line with what conscience, truth and justice are telling us. We have our own view on what kind of a country we want and how we should build it, and what plans we should carry out. Today, it is critically important not to stray from this path, to achieve what we have set out to achieve, and to fulfil our ambitious goals.

So, a lot depends on each of you in the coming days. Let me be frank with you: participating in the election today is a manifestation of patriotism. This is well understood by the residents of Donbass and Novorossiya who, under the most trying circumstances, voted during referendums on unity with Russia and will make their choice now as well.

Our military on the frontlines will vote as well. They display courage and heroism, defend our Fatherland, and participate in the elections to set an example for all of us.

It is imperative to confirm our unity and our resolve to move forward together. Your every vote is valuable and important. So, I urge you to exercise your right to vote during the next three days. Polling stations will open everywhere, in every city, town, and village of our large country.

Friends,

All of us, the multi-ethnic people of Russia, are one big family. We care and worry about our native country. We want it to flourish, to be strong, free, and prosperous. We want the standard of living and quality of life to improve. And so it will be. We will do everything exactly the way we want it.

So, please come to the polling stations and make your civic and patriotic position clear, vote for the candidate of your choice, and for the prosperous future of our beloved Russia.

Thank you.

Presidential Address to the Federal Assembly

2024-03-01T10:19:00+04:00

Vladimir Putin delivered his Address to the Federal Assembly. The ceremony took place in Gostiny Dvor, Moscow.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Senators, State Duma deputies,

Citizens of Russia,

The primary purpose of every Address to the Federal Assembly is to offer a forward-looking perspective. Today, we will discuss not only our short-term plans, but also our strategic objectives and matters which, I believe, are instrumental in ensuring steady long-term development for our country.

This programme of action and the specific measures it includes largely result from my trips to the regions and the conversations I had with workers and engineers at civilian and defence plants, as well as with doctors, teachers, researchers, volunteers, entrepreneurs, large families, with our frontline heroes, volunteers, soldiers and officers of the Russian Armed Forces. Of course, it’s clear that these conversations, these meetings don’t come out of nowhere – they are organised. Still, these exchanges do offer people an opportunity to talk about their pressing needs. Many ideas came from major civil society and expert forums.

The proposals submitted by our people, their aspirations and hopes became the foundation, served as the main pillar of the projects and initiatives that will be also announced today, during this Address. It is my hope that public discussion on these topics will continue, since it is only together that we can fulfil all our plans. In fact, we have major tasks ahead of us.

We have already proven that we can deliver on the most challenging objectives and respond to any challenges, even the most formidable ones. For example, there was a time when we fended off international terrorist aggression and preserved our national unity, preventing our country from being torn into pieces.

We supported our brothers and sisters; we supported their decision to be with Russia, and this year marks the tenth anniversary of the legendary Russian Spring. But even now, the energy, sincerity and courage of its heroes – the people of Crimea, Sevastopol, and the rebellious Donbass – their love for the Motherland, which they carried through generations, naturally makes one proud. This certainly inspires us and strengthens our confidence that we will overcome anything, that we will be able to do anything together.

This is how – all hands on deck – we were able to eliminate the deadly threat of the Covid-19 pandemic just recently. Moreover, by doing that, we also showed the world that values such as compassion, mutual support and solidarity prevail in our society.

And today, when our Motherland is defending its sovereignty and security, defending the lives of our compatriots in Donbass and Novorossiya, our citizens are playing the decisive role in this righteous struggle – their unity and devotion to our country, and our shared responsibility for its future.

They clearly and unequivocally demonstrated these qualities at the very beginning of the special military operation, when it was supported by the absolute majority of Russians. Despite the hardest trials and bitter losses, people have remained adamant in their choice and are reaffirming it by trying to do as much as possible for their country and for the common good.

Russian industries are working in three shifts to roll out as many products as the front needs. The entire economy, which provides the industrial and technological foundation for our victory, has shown flexibility and resilience. I would like to thank every business leader, engineer, worker and farmer for their responsible and hard work in the interests of Russia.

Millions of people have joined the We Are Together campaign and the Russian Popular Front’s project Everything for Victory! Over the past two years, Russian businesses have donated billions of rubles to volunteer organisations and charitable foundations that support our soldiers and their families.

People send letters and parcels, warm clothes and camouflage nets to the front; they donate money from their savings, sometimes very modest. Again, this kind of assistance is invaluable – it is everyone's contribution to the common victory. Our heroes at the frontline, in the trenches, where it is most difficult, know that the whole country is with them.

I would like to acknowledge the Defenders of the Fatherland Foundation, the Committee of the Warriors of the Fatherland Families, and other public associations for their tireless efforts. I urge the authorities at all levels to continue providing unwavering support to the families of our heroes, including their parents, spouses, and children, who anxiously await the safe return of their loved ones.

I am grateful to the parliamentary parties for uniting around national interests. Russia’s political system stands as one of the pillars of our country’s sovereignty. We will continue to advance democratic institutions and resist any external interference in our internal affairs.

The so-called West, with its colonial practices and penchant for inciting ethnic conflicts around the world, not only seeks to impede our progress but also envisions a Russia that is a dependent, declining, and dying space where they can do as they please. In fact, they want to replicate in Russia what they have done in numerous other countries, including Ukraine: sowing discord in our home and weakening us from within. But they were wrong, which has become abundantly clear now that they ran up against the firm resolve and determination of our multi-ethnic people.

Our soldiers and officers – Christians and Muslims, Buddhists and followers of Judaism, people representing different ethnicities, cultures, and regions – proved with their actions which are stronger than a thousand words that the centuries-old cohesion and unity of the people of Russia are a formidable and invincible force. All of them, shoulder to shoulder, are fighting for our shared Motherland.

Together, as citizens of Russia, we will stand united in defence of our freedom and our right to a peaceful and dignified existence. We will chart our own course, to safeguard the continuity of generations, and thus the continuity of historical development, and address the challenges facing the country based on our outlook on the world, our traditions and beliefs, which we will pass down to our children.

Friends,

The defence and the strengthening of sovereignty are going on across the board, primarily, on the frontlines, where our troops are fighting with steadfast and selfless resolve.

I am grateful to everyone who is fighting for the interests of the Fatherland, who endure the crucible of military trials, and put their lives on the line every day. The entire nation has the deepest respect for your feat, mourns the dead, and Russia will always remember its fallen heroes.

(A moment of silence.)

Our Armed Forces have acquired a lot of experience, including in terms of coordinating all the wings of the military, as well as mastering the latest tactics and methods of war. This effort has given us so many talented and seasoned commanders who treasure their men and are diligent in performing their missions, know how to use new equipment and are effective when fulfilling their assignments. I would like to emphasise that this is happening at all levels, from platoons and operations units to the highest command.

We are aware of the challenges we face. They do exist. That being said, we also know what needs to be done to address them. There is an ongoing and unrelenting effort unfolding both along the frontlines and in the rear in this regard in order to improve the striking power of the Army and the Fleet, to make them more tech-savvy and effective.

The Armed Forces have expanded their combat capabilities many-fold. Our units have seized the initiative and will not surrender it. They are confidently advancing in several operational theatres and liberating more territories.

We were not the ones who started the war in Donbass, but, as I have already said many times, we will do everything to put an end to it, eradicate Nazism and fulfil all the objectives of the special military operation, as well as defend sovereignty and ensure that our people are safe.

The strategic nuclear forces are on full combat alert and the ability to use them is assured. We have either already accomplished or are about to accomplish all our plans in terms of weapons in keeping with what I said in my 2018 Address.

Kinzhal, the hypersonic air-launched complex, has not only entered combat duty, but has been effective when carrying out strikes against critical targets during the special military operation. By the same token, Zircon, a ship-based hypersonic missile complex, has already served in combat. It was not even mentioned during the 2018 address, but this missile system has also entered combat duty.

Avangard hypersonic ICBMs, as well as the Peresvet laser complexes have also entered combat duty. Burevestnik, a cruise missile with an unlimited range, is about to complete its testing stage and so is the Poseidon, an unmanned underwater vehicle. These systems have proven that they meet the highest standards and it would not be an exaggeration to say that they offer unique capabilities. Our troops also received the first serially produced Sarmat heavy ballistic missiles. Soon, we will show them to you on their combat alert duty in the areas of their deployment.

Efforts to develop several other new weapons systems continue, and we are expecting to hear even more about the achievements of our researchers and weapons manufacturers.

Russia is ready for dialogue with the United States on issues of strategic stability. However, it is important to clarify that in this case we are dealing with a state whose ruling circles are taking openly hostile actions towards us. So, they seriously intend to discuss strategic security issues with us while simultaneously trying to inflict strategic defeat on Russia on the battlefield, as they themselves say.

Here is a good example of their hypocrisy. They have recently made unfounded allegations, in particular, against Russia, regarding plans to deploy nuclear weapons in space. Such fake narratives, and this story is unequivocally false, are designed to involve us in negotiations on their conditions, which will only benefit the United States.

At the same time, they have blocked our proposal which has been on the table for over 15 years. I am referring to the agreement on preventing the deployment of weapons in outer space, which we drafted back in 2008. There has been zero reaction to it. It is totally unclear what they are talking about.

Therefore, there are reasons to suspect that the current US administration’s professed interest in discussing strategic stability with us is merely demagoguery. They simply want to show to their citizens and the world, especially in the lead-up to the presidential election that they continue to rule the world, that they would talk with the Russians when it will benefit them and that there is nothing to talk about and they will try to inflict defeat on us otherwise. Business as usual, as they say.

But this is unacceptable, of course. Our position is clear: if you want to discuss security and stability issues that are critical for the entire planet, this must be done as a package including, of course, all aspects that have to do with our national interests and have a direct bearing on the security of our country, the security of Russia.

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. Let me remind you that in 1981–1988, the Soviet Union’s military spending amounted to 13 percent of GDP.

Our current imperative is to bolster our defence industry in such a way as to increase our country’s scientific, technological and industrial capabilities. We must allocate resources as judiciously as possible, fostering an efficient economy for the Armed Forces, and maximising the return on each ruble of our defence spending. It is crucial for us to expedite the resolution of social, demographic, infrastructural and other problems we face while simultaneously advancing the quality of equipment for the Russian Army and Navy.

This primarily applies to general-purpose forces, refining the principles of their organisation and deploying advanced unmanned strike systems, systems of air defence and electronic warfare, reconnaissance and communications, high-precision weapons and other types of weapons to the troops.

We need to shore up the forces in the western strategic theatre in order to counteract the threats posed by NATO’s further eastward expansion, with Sweden and Finland joining the alliance.

The West has provoked conflicts in Ukraine, the Middle East, and other regions around the world while consistently propagating falsehoods. Now they have the audacity to say that Russia harbours intentions of attacking Europe. Can you believe it? We all know that their claims are utterly baseless. And at the same time, they are selecting targets to strike on our territory and contemplating the most efficient means of destruction. Now they have started talking about the possibility of deploying NATO military contingents to Ukraine.

But we remember what happened to those who sent their contingents to the territory of our country once before. Today, any potential aggressors will face far graver consequences. They must grasp that we also have weapons – yes, they know this, as I have just said – capable of striking targets on their territory.

Everything they are inventing now, spooking the world with the threat of a conflict involving nuclear weapons, which potentially means the end of civilisation – don’t they realise this? The problem is that these are people who have never faced profound adversity; they have no conception of the horrors of war. We – even the younger generation of Russians – have endured such trials during the fight against international terrorism in the Caucasus, and now, in the conflict in Ukraine. But they continue to think of this as a kind of action cartoon.

Indeed, just like any other ideology promoting racism, national superiority or exceptionalism, Russophobia is blinding and stupefying. The United States and its satellites have, in fact, dismantled the European security system which has created risks for everyone.

Clearly, a new equal and indivisible security framework must be created in Eurasia in the foreseeable future. We are ready for a substantive discussion on this subject with all countries and associations that may be interested in it. At the same time, I would like to reiterate (I think this is important for everyone) that no enduring international order is possible without a strong and sovereign Russia.

We strive to unite the global majority’s efforts to respond to international challenges, such as turbulent transformation of the world economy, trade, finance, and technology markets, when former monopolies and stereotypes associated with them are collapsing.

For example, in 2028, the BRICS countries, with account taken of the new members, will create about 37 percent of global GDP, while the G7 numbers will fall below 28 percent. These figures are quite telling because the situation was completely different just 10 or 15 years ago. You have heard me say it publicly before. These are the trends, you see. These are the global trends, and there is no escaping them since they are objective reality.

Look, the G7 countries’ share in global GDP in terms of PPP stood at 45.7 percent in 1992, while the BRICS countries (this association did not exist in 1992) accounted for only 16.5 percent. In 2022, though, the G7 accounted for 30.3 percent, while BRICS had 31.5 percent. By 2028, the percentage will shift even more in favour of BRICS, with 36.6 percent, and the projected figure for the G7 is 27.8 percent. There is no getting away from this objective reality, and it will remain that way no matter what happens next, including even in Ukraine.

We will continue to work with friendly countries to create effective and safe logistics corridors, relying on cutting-edge solutions for building a new global financial architecture that would be free from any political interference. This is especially important considering that the West has been undermining its own currencies and banking system by literally sawing off the branch it is sitting on.

The principles of equality and respect for each other’s interests guide us in our interactions with our partners. This is why more and more countries have been proactive in seeking to be part of the activities of the EAEU, the SCO, BRICS and other associations involving Russia. We see a lot of promise in the project to build a Greater Eurasian Partnership and aligning integration processes within the Eurasian Economic Union and China’s Belt and Road Initiative.

There has been positive momentum in Russia’s dialogue with ASEAN. The Russia-Africa summits have been a real breakthrough, with the African continent becoming increasingly assertive in pursuing its interests and enjoying genuine sovereignty. We sincerely support these aspirations.

Russia has long-standing and positive relations with Arab states, which have their own unique and vibrant civilisation spanning across North Africa and the Middle East. It is our belief that we must find new points of convergence with our Arab friends and deepen our partnerships across the board. The same vision will guide our relations with Latin America.

On a separate note, I would like to ask the Government to allocate more funding to international programmes for promoting the Russian language and our multi-ethnic culture, primarily within the CIS space but also across the world.

Incidentally, friends and colleagues, I am sure that many of you have been to the Russia exhibition. People go there to see how rich and vast our homeland is and to show this to their children. The Year of the Family has been launched there. The values of love, mutual support and trust are handed down from generation to generation, just like our culture, traditions, history, and moral principles.

But the main purpose of the family is to have children, to procreate, to bring up children and hence to ensure the survival of our multi-ethnic nation. We can see what is taking place in some countries where moral standards and the family are being deliberately destroyed and entire nations are pushed to extinction and decadence. We have chosen life. Russia has been and remains a stronghold of the traditional values on which human civilisation stands. Our choice is supported by the majority of people in the world, including millions in Western countries.

True, today birth rates are declining in Russia and many other countries. Demographers say that this challenge is related to changes in social, economic, technological, cultural and value perceptions throughout the world. Young people get an education, try to make a career, and improve their living conditions, leaving children for later.

It is obvious that the economy and the quality of the social sector are not the only factors affecting demography and the birth rate. The life choices encouraged in the family and by our culture and education also have a tremendous impact. All levels of government, civil society, and the clergy of all our traditional religions must contribute to this.

Support for families with children is our fundamental moral choice. A multi-child family must become a norm, the underlying social philosophy, and the focus of state strategy. (Applause.) I join your applause.

We must ensure sustainable growth in the birth rate within the next six years. With this aim in view, we will make additional decisions regarding the education system as well as regional and economic development. I will speak about supporting families and improving the quality of their lives in nearly all parts of the Address. Pease bear with me, for I have barely started. Everything I have already said is important too, but now I will speak about the most important issues.

I will begin with a major issue, to put it mildly, which is the low incomes experienced by many large families. In 2000, more than 42 million Russians lived below the poverty line, but the situation has changed dramatically since then. As of the end of last year, the number of people living below the poverty line declined to 13.5 million which is also a lot, though. But we are constantly focused on finding a solution to this problem.

A number of measures have been adopted relatively recently. For example, a single monthly allowance for low-income families was introduced on January 1, 2023. It is payable from the time a mother becomes pregnant until the child reaches 17 years of age. Last year, more than 11 million people received it.

We have drastically simplified the procedure for concluding a social contract, prioritising large families. Now, an application for a social contract can be submitted through the Gosuslugi (government services) website with a minimum set of documents. We will work to expand the availability of this service, which will require extra funding to the tune of 100 billion rubles. This money has already been set aside. In general, all the additional spending I am going to mention has been budgeted.

To reiterate, poverty remains an acute problem which now directly affects more than 9 percent of the population. According to experts, the poverty rate among families with many children is about 30 percent. We must set clear goals and consistently achieve them. By 2030, the overall poverty rate in Russia must be below 7 percent, and for large families, it must be no more than 12 percent, or less than half of today’s 30 percent. That is, we must place special emphasis on the effort to reduce poverty, first and foremost for families with many children.

I know that overcoming poverty is not easy and is an absolutely systemic and multi-vector effort. So, to reiterate, it is important to make sure that everything we do in this area, and every tool we use, is effective and efficient and produces tangible real results for our people and our families.

What we need is an uninterrupted effort aimed at improving the quality of life of families with children and supporting the birth rate. To achieve this goal, we will launch a new national project titled “Family.”

I will now talk about a number of specific initiatives.

First, in addition to federal programmes, Russian regions are implementing their own measures to support families with children. Above all, I would like to thank my colleagues for this work and propose providing additional assistance to the regions where the birth rate is below the national average. This is especially important for central and northwestern Russia. In 2022, 39 regions had a total fertility rate below the national average. By the end of 2030, we will channel at least 75 billion rubles to these regions so that they can increase their family support programmes. The funds will begin to be disbursed next year.

Second, last year, more than 110 million square metres of housing were built in Russia, or 50 percent more than the highest Soviet-era level, which was achieved in 1987. At that time, 72.8 million square metres were built, and now, the result is 110 million.

More importantly, over the past six years, millions of Russian families have moved to bigger or better housing; over 900,000 of them took advantage of the family mortgage programme – the one launched in 2018, for reference. We have been steadily expanding eligibility for this programme over time, from families with two or more children, to families with one child today. The programme will continue until July 2024. I propose further extending it until 2030 while maintaining its basic parameters. Particular attention should be paid to families with children under six; the preferential loan interest rate will remain at six percent for such families.

There is something else. The government currently subsidises 450,000 rubles of a family’s mortgage when they have a third child. I also propose extending this measure until 2030. This year, this support plan will require almost 50 billion rubles; the amount will increase further, but we have the money for this.

Our wider goal is to make the housing that is now under construction more affordable for families, and to ensure a system-wide renewal of the housing stock in the country.

Third, there are over two million families in Russia with three or more children. It goes without saying that we are very proud of these families.

Here is what I wanted to say in this regard. Look at these numbers – these are real-world figures. Between 2018 and 2022, the number of families with many children in Russia increased by 26.8 percent, which is a positive result.

I signed an executive order creating a single national status for families with many children. This is what people have been asking for. We must follow up on its provisions by taking concrete federal and regional decisions in keeping with people’s aspirations, of course.

Families with many children have so many matters they have to take care of, so parents must have more resources on hand to deal with their everyday challenges. I suggest doubling the tax deduction parents get when having their second child to 2,800 rubles per month and increasing this benefit for the third and every consecutive child to 6,000 rubles.

What does this mean? Let me give you an example: this will enable a family with three children to save 1,300 rubles per month. I also suggest increasing the annual income counted towards this deduction from 350,000 to 450,000 rubles. And this support measure must apply automatically without people having to apply for it.

On a separate note, I would like to mention the maternity capital benefit. Today, parents can receive 630,000 rubles when their first child is born, and when the second one arrives, the family gets another 202,000 rubles. We have regularly adjusted this benefit for inflation. For now, the maternity capital programme is set to expire by early 2026, but I suggest extending it until at least 2030.

Colleagues,

I would like to thank charity foundations and community service non-profits which are helping the elderly, people suffering from various diseases and children with disabilities. They have done a great deal to raise the issue of long-term care at the national level. They were the ones who constantly raised these issues.

I believe that we need to allocate more federal funding to this system and follow a single high standard of care. This includes improving its availability for about half a million Russians who are most in need of this kind of assistance.

By 2030, we need to make sure that 100 percent of the people who need this kind of long-term care can benefit from it.

Presently the average life expectancy in Russia has exceeded 73 years. We have returned to the level we were at before the COVID-19 pandemic. By 2030, life expectancy in Russia should be at least 78 years, and in the future, as we planned, we will reach the level of 80 plus.

Particular attention should be paid to rural areas and regions where life expectancy is still lower than the average in Russia. The Long and Active Life national project will focus on achieving these objectives. It is especially important to prolong the healthy and active period in a person’s life, so that he or she can enjoy family activities, be with loved ones, children, and grandchildren.

We will continue to implement federal projects to combat cardiovascular diseases, cancer, and diabetes.

Furthermore, I propose launching a new comprehensive programme to protect motherhood and help children and adolescents maintain good health, including their reproductive health, ensuring that children are born healthy and grow up to be healthy adults, and produce healthy children in the future.

The new programme’s priorities should include expanding the national network of women’s health clinics and upgrading perinatal centres, children’s clinics and hospitals. In total, in the next six years we will additionally allocate more than a trillion rubles for the construction, repair, and equipping of healthcare facilities alone.

Next. The number of Russians who engage in sports activities on a regular basis has increased significantly in recent years. This is one of our major achievements. We need to encourage people who take responsibility for their own health. As early as next year, we will introduce tax deductions for those who regularly undergo scheduled medical examinations, as well as successfully pass the standard GTO physical fitness test.

Do you remember this popular slogan? Everyone remembers that joke: “Stop drinking – start skiing!” Appears to be the case, the time is now. By the way, on the subject of drinking, we have achieved a noticeable, positive result. In fact, we have significantly reduced the consumption of alcohol, primarily strong alcohol, without imposing any extreme restrictions, which should certainly improve the health of the nation.

I suggest channelling federal money into building at least 350 additional sports facilities every year in the regions, primarily in small towns and rural areas. This could include multi-purpose venues, as well as structures that can be erected quickly to be used by children, adults, and families. We will allocate some 65 billion rubles in federal money to this effect over the next six years.

Universities, vocational colleges, schools, and preschool institutions must also create conditions for doing sports. By the way, many of our kindergartens opened back in the Soviet era and need refurbishing. Next year, we will launch a major renovation programme for them. I have been hearing about this issue from the people I talk to all the time.

As for the schools, about 18,500 buildings need major repairs. We will help the regions deal with their backlog of issues in this sector so that they can switch from urgent to planned repairs. Judging by what has been achieved so far, we are on the right track. Overall, we will allocate over 400 billion rubles for undertaking major repairs at kindergartens and schools.

In addition to this, I propose renovating or opening medical rooms in schools that are in need of this type of service. Today, I mean in 2022–2023, only 65 percent out of 39,000 schools we have (and we have 39,440 schools in total), had medical facilities, which means that we have room for improvement here.

There is another important topic. Many big cities are rapidly expanding, which in turn increases the burden on their social services. Many schools have had to switch to double or even triple shifts. Of course, this is a challenge and we must deal with it. We will have to engage federal resources for resolving this issue by building at least 150 schools and over 100 kindergartens in the worst-affected cities facing overcrowded educational institutions.

Colleagues,

The dreams and accomplishments of our ancestors are within our reach and we can take pride in these achievements, while it is the aspirations of our younger generation that will determine the future of our country. Their coming-of-age, their successes, their moral guidelines, which can stand up to any challenge, are the most important guarantees of Russia’s sovereignty and the continuation of our history.

I propose consolidating the positive experience we have achieved with our youth policy and launching a new national project this year, the Youth of Russia. This project should focus on our country’s future and work towards that future. This is what our schoolteachers see as their calling, their grand mission, as they realise that they are responsible for younger generations, and we are grateful to them for their selfless work.

Mentors play a major role in making children feel like they are part of a united team and in providing them support in life. I propose establishing a 5,000 ruble monthly federal benefit for advisors to directors who consult them on child development at schools and colleges, with a launch date of September 1, 2024. This will be a new support measure. I also propose we implement support measure for class teachers at schools, as well as for group supervisors, both at colleges and technical schools, in communities with a population of less than 100,000 people. Such communities need special attention, and in fact, most small towns and villages across Russia fall in this category. So, from March 1, 2024, I propose doubling the federal payment for classroom management and group supervision to eligible education workers to 10,000 rubles.

There is one more thing I would like to add. In 2018, the May executive orders set forth the requirements for the remuneration of teachers and other public sector employees based on an average monthly income from employment in a particular region of Russia. These provisions of the so-called May executive orders must continue to be strictly adhered to. At the same time, we need to improve the system of remuneration in the public sector and to boost the incomes of its employees.

The average pay in the economy differs from region to region, which means that people’s incomes in the public sector are sometimes widely different even in neighbouring entities of the federation. But the jobs of teachers and doctors are difficult and demand that they accept extreme responsibility no matter where they are. Without question, this large difference in salaries between regions is unjust.

I know that it is an old, complicated, and capital-intensive issue, if I may address it this way. I have discussed this with my colleagues from federal agencies, the heads of regions, teachers, doctors, and other professionals. And it is clear we must do something about it.

I will not go into detail now, but it is most certainly a complicated matter. The members of parliament and the Government know what I am talking about. I ask the Government to coordinate in 2025 a new system of payment for public sector employees within existing pilot projects in the regions and to adopt a final decision for the country as a whole in 2026.

A separate issue has to do with creating additional incentives for attracting young professionals to schools where they will see professional and career opportunities. Towards this end, we will approve targeted allocations of over 9 billion rubles from the federal budget for improving the infrastructure of teacher training universities.

Our system of school education has always been famous for its innovative teachers and unique teaching methods. It is teams of such teachers that will take part in creating forward-looking schools. The construction of the first leadership schools of this kind will begin this year in the Ryazan, Pskov, Belgorod, Nizhny Novgorod, and Novgorod regions. They will subsequently be built in all the federal districts, in the Far East, Siberia, and Donbass. Overall, we will open 12 such schools by 2030.

As for educational content, the workload of our children must be reasonable and balanced. And it is definitely not good when children are taught one thing during lessons and asked completely different things during exams. This discrepancy, to put it mildly, between the curriculum and the questions asked during exams, which regrettably happens, is forcing parents to hire private tutors, which not every family can afford. I ask our colleagues in the Government to work together with teachers and parents to settle this most-evident problem.

In this connection I would like to say a few words about the Unified State Exam. which is a matter of broad public discussion and debate, as we all know. It is true that the mechanism of the unified exam must be improved.

What do I suggest at this stage? I propose taking one more step by giving high school graduates a second chance. In particular, they will have an option to re-sit an examination in one of the unified exam subjects before the university enrolment period ends so that they can resubmit their new grades. Such matters may seem mundane, but they are in fact quite important to the people.

Colleagues,

Last year, Russia's economy grew faster than the world economy, and we outperformed not only the leading EU countries, but all G7 economies as well. Here is what I would like to note in this regard: the massive reserves created over the past decades have had much to do with that.

The share of non-commodity industries in the growth structure now stands at well over 90 percent, which means that the economy has become more complex and technological, and thus, much more sustainable. Russia is Europe's largest economy in terms of gross domestic product and purchasing power parity, and the world’s fifth largest economy.

The pace and, most importantly, the quality of growth make it possible to hope and even assert that we will be able to take another step forward in the near future and become the world’s fourth largest economy. This kind of growth should have a direct effect on household incomes.

The share of wages in the national GDP should increase within the next six years. We are adjusting the minimum wage ahead of inflation rates and average wage growth rates in the economy. Starting in 2020, the minimum wage has increased by 50 percent from 12,000 to 19,000 rubles per month. By 2030, the minimum wage will have almost doubled to 35,000 rubles, which will certainly make a difference in the number of social benefits and salaries in the public and economic sectors.

We are aware of the risks and factors that may lead to a slowdown in economic growth and our progress in general. These include, primarily, shortages in skilled personnel and our own advanced technology and even total lack of it in some areas. We need to be proactive in this regard, so I will discuss these two strategically important topics in detail today.

I will start with personnel. Russia has a large young generation. Strangely enough, we are facing demographic issues related to population growth, but still have a fairly large young generation. In 2030, this country will have 8.3 million people aged 20 to 24, and 9.7 million, or 2.4 million more than now, in 2035. Without a doubt, this is the result of the demographic measures in previous years, among other things.

Importantly, today's teenagers should become professionals primed to work in the economy of the 21^st century. This is the focus of the new Personnel national project.

We have been discussing this a lot, but we really need to strengthen the link between all levels of education from school to university. They should work as one for a common result. Of course, the involvement of future employers is important. A career guidance system has been launched in all schools nationwide this year. Sixth-graders and up can get familiar with different specialties.

I am now urging the heads of enterprises, research and medical centres to encourage schoolchildren to visit them. Let them see the workshops, like I was offered to do during one of my trips, the museums, and laboratories. Please make sure to join in this effort.

Promoting close cooperation between educational institutions and the real economy has guided us in the Professionalitet project for promoting vocational training. It enabled us to update educational programmes for the aviation, shipbuilding, pharmaceutical, electronics, and defence industries, among others.

We will have to train about a million highly skilled workers for these sectors by 2028, while making sure that the vocational training system as a whole transitions to these approaches, including in terms of developing human resources for schools, hospitals, outpatient clinics, the services sector, tourism, cultural institutions and creative industries.

On a separate note, I am instructing the Government to work with the regions on a programme to refurbish and equip vocational training institutions. This effort must go beyond renovating educational facilities and also cover athletic facilities, as well as student dormitories serving these vocational training schools and colleges. We will allocate 120 billion rubles in federal funding for these purposes over the next six-year period.

We will also spend an additional 124 billion rubles to carry out major repairs at about 800 university dormitories over the next six years.

As for higher education in general, our task is to develop research and educational centres all across our country. For that, we will build 25 university campuses by 2030. We have already discussed this but it bears repeating. I suggest that we expand this programme to build at least 40 student campuses of that kind.

To do so, we will have to allocate some 400 billion rubles from the federal budget in order to ensure that students, post-graduates, faculty members and young families have all they need to study, work and bring up their children.

Overall, we must sift through all the different situations young mothers or young parents face in their lives and use this information to fine-tune and improve public services, the social sector, healthcare, as well as urban and rural infrastructure. I am asking the Government and the region to take due care when working on this agenda.

Moving on, in last year’s Address, I announced major changes in the way our higher education system operates and talked about the need to use best national practices. The foundation of future success in a profession is laid in the first years of university, when core subjects are taught. I believe that we need to offer those who teach these subjects higher salaries. Therefore, I am asking the Government to suggest specific modalities for making this happen and launch a pilot project beginning September 1.

This will require additional resources. According to preliminary estimates, this would amount to about 1.5 billion this year and 4.5 billion down the road. We have factored these amounts into our projections.

It is important for us to bolster the capabilities and quality of the national higher education system, to support universities that are striving for development. These targets are being met by our Priority 2030 programme. The funding for this has been allocated through the end of this year. I certainly propose extending it for another six years and allocating an additional 190 billion rubles.

The efficiency criteria for participating universities should include personnel and technology projects with Russia’s regions, industries and social sector, the creation of effective innovative companies and start-ups, and the ability to attract foreign students. In addition, we will certainly assess all Russian universities, colleges, and technical schools by the demand for their graduates from the labour market and their pay growth.

Friends,

I would like to say a few words about the technological foundation for development, and here, science is certainly the cornerstone. At a meeting with scientists from the Russian Academy of Sciences, which marked its 300^th anniversary this year, I said that, even during the most difficult periods, Russia has never given up on addressing its fundamental imperatives, has always thought about the future, and we must do the same now. As a matter of fact, we are trying to do exactly that.

For example, no other country in the world has such a range of mega-science facilities as Russia has today. These centres provide unique opportunities for our scientists and for our partners, researchers from other countries, whom we invite for collaboration.

Russia’s scientific infrastructure is our strong competitive advantage, both in the context of fundamental research and in creating innovations for pharmaceuticals, biology, medicine, microelectronics, chemicals, and new materials, as well as for space programmes.

I believe that we should more than double the total public and private investment in research and development, to as much as two percent of GDP by 2030. This should secure Russia’s place as one of the world’s leading scientific powers.

I would like to reiterate that private business should simultaneously increase investment in science, at least doubling the current programmes by 2030. It is understood that these funds should be spent effectively, should be instrumental in achieving a specific result in each specific research project. In this regard, we need to use the positive experience of our federal research programmes in genetics and agriculture, as well as projects promoted by the Russian Science Foundation.

In light of the current goals and challenges, we have adjusted Russia’s Strategy for Scientific and Technological Development which we use as a starting point to launch new technological sovereignty national projects. I will give you a list of the main areas.

First, we must be independent and own all the technological keys in sensitive areas, such as safeguarding public health and ensuring food security.

Second, we need to attain technological sovereignty in critical spheres that determine the resilience of our economy in general, such as means of production and machine tools, robotics, all modes of transport, unmanned aerial, underwater and other systems, data economy, innovative materials and chemistry.

Third, we must create globally competitive products relying on unique domestic innovations, including space, nuclear and new energy technologies. We must start working now to create a legal environment that fosters industries and markets of the future, to generate long-term demand − at least through the end of the current decade − for high-tech products so that companies have consistent rules to play by.

It is also imperative to establish internal cooperative chains and international technological platforms, to launch serial production of our own equipment and components, and to guide geological exploration towards the search for rare-earth materials and other raw materials for the new economy. We have all this.

To reiterate, we are talking about a strategic foothold for the future, so let us use all available development tools and mechanisms to achieve these objectives, and to ensure priority budget financing. I urge the Government and the Federal Assembly to be mindful of this when drafting the budget. Please always treat this as a top priority.

Technological sovereignty projects should become an engine to renew our industry and help the entire economy reach an advanced level of efficiency and competitiveness. I propose setting the goal of increasing the share of domestic high-tech goods and services on the domestic market by 150 percent within the next six years, and increasing the volume of non-commodity and non-energy exports by at least two-thirds.

I will cite a few more figures. In 1999, the share of imports in our country reached 26 percent of GDP meaning that imports accounted for almost 30 percent of our market. Last year, it was 19 percent of GDP, or 32 trillion rubles. Before 2030, we need to reach a level of imports of no more than 17 percent of GDP.

This means that we must produce ourselves many more consumer and other goods, including medicine, equipment, machine tools, and vehicles. We are unable to produce everything, and we do not need to, but the Government knows what it needs to work on.

I would like to point out that in the next six years the gross added value in manufacturing should increase by at least 40 percent compared to 2022. This accelerated industrial development implies the creation of thousands of new enterprises and modern highly paid jobs.

We have already prepared an industrial “menu” of sorts. The companies that implement industrial projects will be able to choose suitable support measures, agreements on investment protection and incentives, special investment contracts, a cluster investment platform, and the like. We have devised and are already implementing a great deal of such instruments. And we will further develop these mechanisms.

In the next six years, we will additionally allocate 120 billion rubles to subsidise corporate R&D projects and to bolster the system of industrial mortgages. We will also use this programme to additionally build and renovate over 10 million square metres of industrial floorspace.

I would like to add the following for the sake of comparison, in addition to the pace we have already achieved.

So, let’s draw some comparisons. Today, in Russia we build about four million square metres of industrial floorspace every year. It is a substantial indicator of the modernisation of our industrial capacities as it is, and we will additionally build 10 million square metres, as I have stated.

Next, we will invest 300 billion rubles in the Industrial Development Fund. We will almost double its capital and will focus its attention on supporting high-tech projects. At least 200 billion rubles will be additionally allocated within the framework of a cluster innovation platform to subsidise interest rates for projects that manufacture prioritised industrial products.

I propose increasing the depreciation calculation base to stimulate the modernisation of industrial facilities in the manufacturing sector. It will amount to 200 percent of spending on Russian-made equipment and R&D. It may sound boring, but I will explain what it means. If a company buys Russian-made lathes for 10 billion rubles, it can reduce its tax base by 20 million rubles. It amounts to substantial assistance.

We will continue to develop industrial technology parks focused on small and medium-sized companies in the priority technological spheres. It is important to make use of the advantages of the cluster approach, when companies grow together with their subcontractors and suppliers, and their cooperation will have a beneficial effect on all parties. I would like to point out to the Government that we must create at least 100 such platforms by 2030. They will act as growth points throughout the national territory and encourage investment.

We have set a goal to add 70 percent to investment in key sectors by 2030. By the way, we have had good dynamics here; very good, I would say in fact. Good.

In 2021, the cumulative growth of investment was 8.6 percent, against a target of 4.5 percent. In 2022, it was 15.9 percent, with a target of 9.5 percent. In the first nine months of 2023, the increase was 26.6 percent, when the plan for the year was 15.1 percent. We must continue to move ahead of the plan.

Our banking system and the stock market must fully ensure the influx of capital into the economy, into the real sector, including through project and equity financing. In the next two years, industrial projects worth more than 200 billion rubles will be supported through equity funds. Essentially, this means that the VEB.RF Development Corporation and several commercial banks will join the share capital of high-tech companies and assist them during the most active growth phase.

I have already issued instructions to introduce a special IPO regime for companies in priority high-tech industries. I would like to point out to my colleagues in the Finance Ministry and the Central Bank that we need to expedite the launch of this mechanism, including compensation for the company’s costs associated with floating securities. This needs to be done without delay.

Again, the Russian stock market needs to play a bigger role as a source of investment. Its capitalisation should double by 2030, from the current level to 66 percent of GDP. At the same time, it is important that individuals have the opportunity to contribute to the nation’s development while also benefiting from investing their savings in low risk projects.

A decision has already been made: voluntary investment in non-state pension funds of up to 2.8 million rubles will be insured by the state, which means a return is guaranteed.

In addition, long-term individual investment accounts will be insured up to 1.4 million rubles. We will extend the unified tax deduction to individual investments in long-term financial instruments up to 400,000 rubles per year.

At the same time, I deem it expedient to launch a new tool known as a savings certificate. By purchasing this product, individuals will deposit their savings in banks for more than three years. The certificate will be irrevocable; therefore, banks will offer their clients a more attractive interest rate. In addition, the holders of savings certificates will have their money insured by the state up to 2.8 million rubles, which is twice as much as regular bank deposit insurance.

I would like to emphasise that all the measures of state support for investment, and the creation and modernisation of industrial facilities, should lead to higher salaries and better working conditions, and social packages for employees.

Of course, as a matter of principle, Russian companies must operate within our national jurisdiction and refrain from moving their funds abroad where, as it turns out, you can lose everything. So now, my colleagues from the business community and I have to hold brainstorming sessions for coming up with ways to help them get their money back. Do not transfer your money there in the first place. This way, we will not have to figure out how to recover it.

Russian businesses must invest their resources in Russia, its regions, in developing companies and staff training. Our strong and sovereign country offers them unrivalled protection for their assets and capital.

An overwhelming majority of business leaders prioritise national interests and are patriots. Therefore, businesses working here in Russia must benefit from the guaranteed inviolability of their property, assets, and new investments. Of course, domestic investment and protecting investment go hand in hand with defending the rights of business owners, and it is our job to make this a reality. This will serve our national interests and society at large, as well as the millions of people who work for private companies, whether they’re large corporations or SMEs.

I have been saying this all along, but let me repeat it: no one, no government official or law enforcement officer, has the right to harass people, break the law or use it for personal, selfish objectives. We must be there for people, for our business owners – I am talking about them right now. They are the ones creating jobs, giving people work and paying their salaries. Being there for others and helping them is what the mission of the government is all about.

Colleagues,

Small and medium-sized enterprises are playing an increasingly important role in driving economic growth. Today, they account for over 21 percent of the manufacturing, tourism, and IT sectors. Hundreds of Russian brands have demonstrated outstanding results. Last year, there were 1.2 million new SMEs registered in Russia.

Let me draw your attention to the fact that this is a five-year high. People want to start their own businesses and believe in themselves, their country, and their success. I would like to emphasise that the number of young entrepreneurs under 25 years old increased by 20 percent in 2023. There are now over 240,000 of them.

We need to make sure to support these creative and result-driven undertakings in order to ensure that the average income for SME workers outpaces GDP growth over the next six years. This means that these businesses must enhance their efficiency and make a qualitative leap forward in their performance.

I have already said that we must eliminate situations where expanding operations becomes a losing proposition for companies because they have to switch from a streamlined tax framework with its beneficial rates to a general tax regime. When this happens it means that the state is basically promoting corporate fragmentation or compelling businesses to use other means for optimising their tax liabilities.

I am asking the Government to work with the parliamentarians on the terms of an amnesty for SMEs which had no other option than to rely on tax optimisation schemes as they expanded their operations.

Importantly, these companies should steer clear of the practice of artificial, essentially fraudulent, splitting of businesses, and embrace civilised and transparent operations. To reiterate, there will be no fines, no penalties, no sanctions, no recomputation of taxes for the earlier periods. This is what the amnesty is all about.

In addition, I hereby instruct the Government to introduce a mechanism for a gradual – not abrupt – increase in the tax burden for companies that are transitioning from the simplified to the general taxation procedure starting next year.

Next, we decided to introduce a temporary moratorium on inspections. This measure has fully justified itself. Companies that guarantee the quality of their products and services and act responsibly with regard to their consumers can and should enjoy our trust.

So, from January 1, 2025, I believe we can rescind temporary moratoriums on business inspections and instead, building on our experience, fully switch to a risk-based approach and enshrine it in the law. If there are no risks, we should use preventive measures and thus minimise the number of inspections.

There is more. I propose granting special credit holidays of up to six months once every five years to small and medium-sized businesses, without impacting their credit history.

Again, we must create proper conditions for small and medium-sized companies to grow dynamically, and to enhance the quality of this growth through high-tech forms of manufacturing. In general, the taxation regime for small and medium-sized manufacturing companies should be relaxed.

I urge the Government to make specific proposals in this regard. We have discussed this many times. Please do that. The proposals have been articulated, in fact.

I would like to emphasise the work of small and medium-sized businesses in rural areas, in the agriculture sector. We are now fully self-sufficient in terms of food, and Russia is the leader on the global wheat market. We are among the top 20 food exporters. I thank agricultural workers, farmers, and specialists engaged in agriculture in general for their impressive performance.

By 2030, the output of the Russian agro-industrial complex should grow by at least a quarter compared to 2021, and exports should increase by 50 percent. We will definitely continue to support the sector and the programme of integrated rural development, including renovation and modernisation of post offices.

We will use a special solution for the development of coastal regions. Let me remind you that we have a “quota for the keel” rule. It must be strictly followed. As some of you here are aware, we are talking about the companies obtaining quotas for seafood production against an obligation to buy new Russian-made fishing vessels and renew the fleet.

At the same time, this year the federal budget received a substantial amount of money – about 200 billion rubles – from selling seafood quotas. Mr Siluanov is here, and we have arrived at an agreement. I propose that part of these funds be earmarked for the social development of municipalities, which form the basis of our fishing industry.

Colleagues,

In today’s conditions, increasing efficiency in all spheres of labour productivity is directly connected with digitalisation and the use of AI technology, as I said. Such solutions enable us to create digital platforms for streamlining interaction between people, businesses and the state in the best possible way.

So, we need to create a platform that will help people use the capabilities of our healthcare system to keep their health in check and remain healthy throughout their life. For example, they will be able to use data from their digital identities to remotely request and receive advice from specialists at federal medical centres, and general practitioners will be able to form a comprehensive picture of a patient’s health, forecast possible illnesses, prevent complications, and choose individual, and thus, more effective treatment.

Everything I am saying is not a picture of a distant future. These practices are being introduced at our leading medical centres today. The goal is to apply them throughout the country and make them accessible to all.

I believe that by 2030 we must formulate digital platforms in every major economic sector and in the social sphere. These and other comprehensive tasks will be addressed within the framework of the new national project The Economy of Data. We will allocate at least 700 billion rubles to implement it in the next six years.

Such technologies and integration platforms offer great opportunities for the economic planning and development of individual sectors, regions, and cities, as well as for the efficient management of our programmes and national projects. The most important thing is that we can continue to focus the efforts of all levels of government on the interests of every individual and every family, and to proactively provide state and municipal services to our people and businesses in a convenient form and as quickly as possible.

Russia is actually one of the world leaders in digital government services already. Many countries, including European ones, have yet to reach our level. But we have no intention of slowing down.

Artificial intelligence is an important element of digital platforms. Here, too, Russia must be self-sufficient and competitive. An executive order has already been signed approving the updated version of the National Strategy for the Development of Artificial Intelligence. The document sets new goals, including the need to ensure technological sovereignty in such revolutionary fields as generative artificial intelligence and large language models. Practical application of such systems promises to produce a real breakthrough in the economy and social sphere, and so it shall. For this we need to increase our computing resources. By 2030, the total capacity of domestic supercomputers should be at least 10 times greater. This is a completely realistic goal.

We need to upgrade the entire infrastructure of the data economy. I would like to ask the Government to propose specific measures to support companies and start-ups that manufacture data storage and processing equipment and develop software. Investment in domestic IT should grow at least twice as fast as overall economic growth.

Conditions need to be created to allow Russians to take advantage of digital technology not only in megacities, but also in smaller towns, in rural communities and in remote areas, along federal and regional thoroughfares, as well as local roads. I am referring to the need to provide access to high-speed internet almost everywhere in Russia within the next decade. To address this task, we will need to considerably expand our satellite constellation, for which we will be allocating 116 billion rubles.

Colleagues,

At this point, I would like to dwell on regional development. What are my suggestions on this matter? Our priority is to lower the debt burden of the Russian regions. I believe that we must write off two thirds of the debt regions owe under so-called budget loans. According to our projections, this will allow them to save about 200 billion rubles annually between 2025 and 2028.

Let me draw your attention to the fact that these savings must be used for a specific purpose – the regions should channel them into support for investment and infrastructure projects. Colleagues, I would like to draw your attention to this point.

Moving on, in 2021, we launched a programme worth 500 billion rubles to issue infrastructure budget loans and went on to expand it to one trillion rubles. As you remember, the regions benefit from a 3 percent interest rate on these loans with a term of up to 15 years. What a great development tool. These funds go towards development projects, and the regions have appreciated this mechanism for its effectiveness. There will be no write-offs for these loans, but this year the regions will start repaying them. I suggest re-investing the money they return to the federal budget in the regions by issuing new infrastructure budget loans. Overall, we will expand our infrastructure loan portfolio for Russia’s regions starting in 2025 by at least 250 billion rubles per year.

I also believe that the regions must have more leverage when it comes to managing the funds at their disposal for fulfilling national projects.

Let me give you an example: a region upgrades an outpatient clinic and does a good job refurbishing it. If it did not spend all the funds allocated for this, it would not have to return the remainder to the federal budget. Instead, it can use them to buy equipment for the renovated clinic or for other purposes.

Of course, we will support the regions to enable them to unlock their potential by launching projects in the real economy and infrastructure development as development drivers for these territories.

Today, ten regions of the Federation that have low fiscal capacity are carrying out tailor-made socioeconomic development programmes. I am asking the Government to renew these programmes for another six-year term.

By 2030, all our regions must achieve economic self-sufficiency. Let me repeat that this is a matter of justice and offering people equal opportunities, as well as guaranteeing high living standards across the country.

Colleagues,

As you can see, big plans call for big spending. Large-scale social, demographic and economic investments will be made, as well as science, technology, and infrastructure investments.

In this regard, I would like to discuss the taxation system. It goes without saying that it must ensure the flow of resources to address national goals and to implement regional programmes. It is designed to reduce inequality not only in society, but in the socioeconomic development of the constituent entities of the Federation as well, and to take into account individual incomes and corporate revenues.

I suggest developing approaches to modernising the fiscal system and more fairly distributing the tax burden towards those with higher individual incomes and corporate revenues.

Conversely, we need to reduce the tax burden on families, including through deductions, which I mentioned earlier today. We need to incentivise businesses that invest in growth and in infrastructure and social projects. It is likewise important to close loopholes that are used by some companies to avoid taxes or underreport their taxable revenue. I urge the State Duma and the Government to submit a specific set of proposals to address these matters soon. In the future, taking into account the adopted changes, I propose locking in key tax parameters until 2030 to ensure a stable and predictable environment for implementing any, including long-term, investment projects. This is what the business community is asking for during our direct contacts.

Colleagues,

Decisions regarding financial support for the regions and economic growth should be designed to improve the quality of life in all constituent entities of the Federation. We have already renewed until 2030 special programmes for the development of the regions such as the North Caucasus and the Kaliningrad Region, Donbass and Novorossiya, Crimea and Sevastopol, the Arctic and the Far East. Master development plans have been drafted for 22 Far Eastern cities and metropolitan areas, and the same work is underway for Arctic communities.

Now we have to take the next step. I propose making a new list of more than 200 cities and towns, with a master plan to be developed and implemented for each of them. Overall, the development programme should span about 2,000 communities, including villages and small towns. Every policy to support the regions that I mentioned today, including infrastructure loans, should apply in these cases.

I would like to address the heads of the regions now. These resources should be used, among other things, to expand the capabilities of the municipalities. I remember meeting with the heads of some municipalities at their forum here in Moscow. The local level of government has a special role and responsibility. It includes the agencies and bodies where Russians go with their daily needs. I would like to thank our mayors, heads of districts, and local deputies for their work, for their attention to people’s needs. And I would like to specially recognise the staff of the municipalities working in the immediate vicinity of the combat zone and sharing all the adversities with the local residents.

Local residents should in fact be co-creators of their local urban development plans. Municipalities need to step up the use of mechanisms where residents can vote for projects, facilities or problems that require priority financing. I propose increasing the federal and regional co-financing of people’s projects like this.

We will also extend, until 2030, the national competition for best projects to create a comfortable urban environment in small towns and historical communities.

In total, we will improve more than 30,000 public spaces in Russia in the next six years. I would like to ask the Government to provide additional support to the regions that are renovating local embankments, parks, gardens and historical downtown areas. We will allocate 360 billion rubles for major landscaping and improvement projects like this.

Old buildings, estates and churches are the visible embodiment of our national identity, an inextricable link between generations. I would like to ask the Government, parliament and relevant State Council commissions to involve the public and review the regulatory framework for the protection and use of cultural heritage sites. Any obviously redundant or contradictory requirements need to be eliminated. In some cases, a piece of cultural heritage may be crumbling right before our eyes, but formally, such imperfect regulations make it impossible to take prompt measures to save it.

I suggest developing a long-term programme for preserving Russia’s cultural heritage sites, and I hope it will cover a 20-year period and include support measures for people, companies, and public associations willing to invest their work, time and money into restoring landmarks.

This year, we will test these mechanisms as part of a pilot project carried out by DOM.RF Development Institution covering five regions: the Trans-Baikal Territory, Novgorod, Ryazan, Smolensk and Tver regions. Our goal is to repair at least a thousand cultural heritage sites across the country by 2030, giving them a new lease on life so they can serve people and embellish our cities and village.

We will make sure to keep major culture-related projects running by continuing to fund them. We will undertake infrastructure upgrades for museums, theatres, libraries, clubs, arts schools and cinemas. Creative cinematic, online and social-media projects in education, awareness building, history and other areas will receive over 100 billion rubles over the next six years.

I suggest expanding the Pushkin Card programme, which enables school students and young people to access film screenings, museums, theatres and exhibitions for free, while offering cultural institutions an incentive to expand their operations and launch new projects, including by reaching out to the private sector. I am asking the Government to draft additional proposals to this effect.

In addition to this, we will launch a programme called the Rural Cultural Worker in 2025 along the same lines as the Rural Teacher and the Rural Doctor programmes. People keep raising this issue during our meetings. A specialist who moves to a rural area or a small town will be entitled to a non-recurring grant of 1 million rubles or twice as much, i.e., 2 million rubles, when moving to Russia’s Far East, Donbass or Novorossiya.

There is another additional decision we need to work on and adopt. I am asking the Government to offer special lending terms for family mortgages in small towns, as well as in regions that do not build many blocks of flats or none at all. We need to do this as quickly as possible and define the main terms for these loans, including the down payment and interest rates. I am asking you to keep this on your radar; I look forward to your proposals.

Moving on, we will renew targeted mortgage lending programmes with a 2 percent interest rate for Russia’s Far East, the Arctic, Donbass and Novorossiya. Special military operation participants and veterans will also be entitled to these subsidised loans.

We will provide separate support for the integrated development areas, the construction of residential areas replete with the infrastructure in the regions with inadequate levels of socioeconomic development, where many of our usual proposals do not work. For these territories, we will set aside an additional 120 billion rubles.

In this regard, we are faced with another system-wide challenge. With the federal backup, many regions have significantly increased the pace of relocating residents from dilapidated blocks of flats. A total of 1.73 million people have moved into new flats over the past 16 years, and it is important not to lose this momentum in the next six years. I urge the Government to draft and launch a new programme for relocating residents from dilapidated and structurally unsafe buildings.

With regard to housing and utilities, we will step up the pace of updating the utilities infrastructure. A total of 4.5 trillion rubles, including private funds, will be allocated for these purposes until 2030.

We will continue to implement the Clean Water Project. Clean water is a top priority for many of our urban and rural areas. We are primarily talking about a reliable supply of high-quality drinking water.

Gas distribution is a separate subject. Our plans include providing this environmentally friendly fuel to towns and districts in Yakutia and Buryatia, as well as the Khabarovsk, Primorye and Trans-Baikal territories, the Murmansk and Amur regions, the Jewish Autonomous Area, Karelia, and the major Russian city of Krasnoyarsk. We will also supply LNG to the Kamchatka Territory and certain other regions.

Naturally, this will make it possible to expand the social gas supply programme which was already used to build the gas distribution infrastructure free of charge to the property lines of 1.1 million land plots. Applications continue to be accepted, and we are helping entitled groups of citizens, including the families of those in the special military operation, install gas lines within their plots of land.

On a separate note, there are horticultural non-commercial partnerships within the boundaries of many communities outfitted with gas grids. For years, sometimes from generation to generation, people have been tending to their land plots, and are now building houses suitable for year-round living, but they are unable to hook up to the grid because these partnerships are not included in the Social Gas Infrastructure Development programme.

This problem affects millions of households and must be resolved in the interests of our citizens, meaning that the social gas infrastructure development programme should be expanded to include them, and the grid should be extended to the boundaries of the partnerships.

Residents in remote northern and far eastern territories, where grid gas will not be available any time soon, will also be supported. Today, they heat their homes with coal or wood. Now, with the state subsidies, they will be able to purchase modern and domestically produced, environmentally safe equipment. The neediest families should be supported first. We will allocate an additional 32 billion rubles for these purposes.

We will develop public transport considering today’s environmental standards and lower its average age. The Russian regions will receive an additional 40,000 buses, trolleybuses, trams, and electric buses by 2030. We will allocate an additional 150 billion rubles from the federal budget for this public transport renewal programme.

We will also replace the school bus fleet at a rate of at least 3,000 vehicles per year, which is especially important for small towns and rural areas. Both residents and heads of municipalities and regions are talking about this. This programme is indeed very important. Therefore, we will allocate an additional 66 billion rubles for the purchase of school buses. And, of course, they must either be entirely made in Russia or with a high degree of localisation.

As you know, we have managed to reduce harmful emissions in the atmosphere in 12 industrial centres of Russia as part of the Clean Air project, with 29 more cities having joined it last year. The volume of harmful emissions into the atmosphere across the country must be halved. We will move towards this goal step by step. A comprehensive environmental quality monitoring system will be created to assess the results.

Over the last five years, thousands of kilometres of rivers and banks have been cleaned, and dirty runoff into the Volga has been almost halved. Now I propose setting a goal of halving the pollution of Russia’s main bodies of water.

Over the last five years, 128 large landfills in cities and 80 sites of accumulated environmental damage that were literally poisoning the lives of people in 53 regions of Russia have been cleared. The territories of the Krasny Bor landfill, the Baikal Pulp and Paper Mill and Usolye-Sibirskoye have been brought to a safe state.

In this regard, colleagues, I would like to emphasise that only the most urgent measures have been carried out so far at these sites, but that is far from the end. Under no circumstances should they be left in the condition as they are now. We must complete this work and create all the necessary infrastructure there.

Overall, we will continue clearing the most hazardous sites of accumulated environmental damage. In the next six years, at least 50 of these sites must be cleared.

It is necessary to create incentives for businesses, introduce green technologies, and switch to a circular economy. Moreover, we have in fact created an advanced waste management industry from scratch: 250 enterprises have been built to process and dispose of waste. The goal by 2030 is to sort all solid waste and everything that needs to be sorted and reuse at least a quarter of it. We will allocate additional financing for these projects, and together with businesses we will build about 400 new waste management facilities and eight eco-industrial parks.

What else do I want to say? At meetings in the Far East, Siberia and other regions, people spoke a lot about the need to preserve our wealth of forestland, deal with illegal logging and protect our forests. This issue hugely resonates with the public. It is important to almost every person. All of us are pooling efforts here and the situation is gradually changing.

A very important milestone – since 2021, Russia has been restoring more forestland than it clears. I would like to thank all the volunteers, school and university students and everyone who planted trees and took part in environmental activities, and, of course, businesses that supported such projects. We will certainly continue restoring forests, parks and gardens, including those surrounding metropolitan areas and industrial centres.

I suggest making a separate decision on increasing salaries of specialists engaged in the forest industry, meteorology and environmental protection – all those dealing with the most important issues of environmental sustainability. We must admit frankly that they are doing vital work but their pay is very modest.

To support civil environmental protection initiatives, I believe it is necessary to establish a fund for ecological and environmental projects. It will start off with grants totaling one billion rubles a year.

We will continue working to preserve specially protected natural areas, as well as protect and restore populations of rare and endangered species of flora and fauna. I suggest considering the opening of a network of centres for rehabilitating injured and confiscated wild animals.

By 2030, we will create infrastructure of environmental tourism in all national parks of the country, including eco-trails and tourist hiking routes, weekend tours for schoolchildren, outdoor recreation areas, museums and visit centres.

We will build modern safe facilities near bodies of water as well, including Lake Baikal. A year-round resort will open there by 2030. It is important to strictly adhere to the zero pollution principle, that is, to ensure that no waste or untreated sewage of any kind enters the lake. The construction of the Baikal resort will be part of the large project of the Five Seas.

Modern hotel complexes will also appear on the coasts of the Caspian Sea, the Baltic Sea, the Sea of Azov, the Black Sea and the Sea of Japan. This project alone will make it possible to add another 10 million tourists a year.

Tourism numbers are expected to practically double to 140 million people a year by 2030 in the country as a whole, considering the dynamic development of such tourist centres as Altai, Kamchatka, Kuzbass, the North Caucasus, Karelia and the Russian North. Importantly, the contribution of tourism to Russia’s GDP will also double to five percent. We will soon draft additional decisions on this issue.

Transport infrastructure is crucial for the development of tourism and the region as a whole. High-speed auto traffic between Moscow and Kazan has already opened; this year, we are going to extend the route to Yekaterinburg, and next year, to Tyumen. In the future, a modern and safe transport artery will cross the entire country to Vladivostok.

Also, more than 50 city bypass highways should be built in Russia in the next six years. Another significant road project is certainly the Dzhubga-Sochi motorway. It will cut travel time from the M-4 Don to Sochi by three quarters – up to an hour and a half – and will promote Black Sea coast development.

I must say this at the outset – I have reached an agreement with the Government, and I want to say this publicly – that this is a complex and very capital-intensive project. It includes many tunnels and bridges; it is an expensive project. Nevertheless, I would like to ask the Government to develop a funding arrangement for it. Work it out.

We have already repaired Russia’s federal roads and almost 85 percent of roads in major metropolitan areas. It is essential that we keep this up. At the same time, in the coming years, we will place special emphasis on the improvement of regional roads.

Air travel should become more affordable. We need to increase Russians’ so-called air mobility. By 2030, air service volumes in Russia should increase 50 percent compared to last year.

To this end, we plan to expedite the development of intra- and interregional air travel. In this regard, the Government has very specific instructions: to modernise the infrastructure of at least 75 airports, which is more than a third of Russia’s airports, over the next six years, allocating at least 250 billion rubles in direct budget financing for this purpose.

The air fleets of our airlines definitely need upgrades by adding our own Russian-made aircraft. These new planes must meet all modern requirements for quality, convenience and safety, which is a challenging task. We used to buy too many planes abroad instead of developing our own domestic production.

Advanced Russian developments in mechanical engineering, construction, communications and digital systems will also be highly needed in building high-speed railways. I would like to say a few words on this.

The first high-speed rail line between Moscow and St Petersburg will pass through Tver and our ancient capital, Veliky Novgorod. Later, we will build similar lines to Kazan and the Urals, to Rostov-on-Don, to the Black Sea coast, to Minsk, our fraternal Belarus, and other popular destinations.

The all-out modernisation of the Central Transport Hub will continue. The Moscow Central Diameters, the new surface metro lines will become part of a network connecting the Moscow Region with the Yaroslavl, Tver, Kaluga, Vladimir and other regions by modern high-speed routes.

It is also imperative to upgrade the network of major inland waterways. This should ensure additional economic effects with regard to tourism, industry, as well as the development of certain sensitive regions that are very important for us, including the regions of the Far North.

What can I add to this? Modern infrastructure offers added value and increases market capitalisation for all national assets and regions serving transit tourist flows, while also helping develop manufacturing and agricultural facilities and encouraging people to build single-family homes for their households and create a better living environment for them. This also means new business opportunities, including on foreign markets.

In this context, there is a special matter we discussed during one of the meetings I had. I am talking about the waiting times at border checkpoints. This has become an urgent matter in Russia’s Far East. Customs clearance must take 19 minutes according to our standards, but in reality truck drivers usually have to wait for hours to cross the border.

Our colleagues from the Ministry of Transport have a specific objective to reduce customs clearance times for freight transport on the border so that it does not exceed 10 minutes. The latest technological solutions can make this happen.

These requirements are also essential for the North-South transport corridor to be effective. This route will link Russia to countries in the Middle East and Asia, and will rely on motorways, as well as seamless rail connections, from our ports in the Baltic and Barents seas all the way to the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean. We will also increase the carrying capacity of our southbound railways to make better use of our ports in the Azov and Black seas.

The effort to expand the Eastern Operating Domain covers the Baikal-Amur Mainline and the Trans-Siberian Railway. We are about to launch the third stage. We slacked off at one point, if you will excuse this expression. In fact, we failed to act when we should have, but that’s okay – we now have to catch up, and catch up we will. These two railways will increase their annual throughput capacity from 173 to 210 million tonnes by 2030. At the same time, there will be an effort to expand the Vanino and the Sovetskaya Gavan ports.

Northern Sea Route development deserves special attention. We invite foreign logistics companies and foreign countries to use this global transport corridor. Last year, freight volumes along this route reached 36 million tonnes. Colleagues, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that this exceeds the Soviet-era maximum five times over. We will make the Northern Sea Route operational year-round and will expand our northern ports, including the Murmansk transport hub. This includes an effort to expand our Arctic fleet, of course.

The Severny Polyus (North Pole), a unique research icebreaking platform, sailed last year. This year, the Baltic Shipyard started building the Leningrad, a new nuclear icebreaker. Next year, we will start building the Stalingrad, which belongs to the same class of ships. As for the Zvezda Shipyard in Russia’s Far East, it is building the Lider (Leader), a new-generation icebreaker that will have double the power of its predecessors.

Russia’s shipyards will upgrade much of our commercial fleet, including tankers, gas carriers and container ships. This effort is expected to enable Russian businesses to streamline their trade operations considering the changing logistics environment and radical shifts in the global economy.

Fellow citizens, friends,

I would like to make special mention of something. I meet regularly with participants in the special military operation, including career military personnel and volunteers, as well as people of civilian professions who were mobilised for military service. All of them took up arms and rose in defence of our Motherland.

You know, I look at these courageous men, sometimes very young men and, without exaggeration, I can say that my heart overflows with pride for our people, our nation and these people in particular. Without a doubt, people like them will not back down, fail or betray.

They should take leading positions in the system of education and upbringing of young people, in public associations, state-run companies and privately held businesses, federal and municipal administration. They should head regions and enterprises, as well as major national projects. Some of these heroes and patriots are quite low-key and reserved in everyday life. They do not brag about their accomplishments, or talk big. But at pivotal moments in history, such people come to the fore and take responsibility. People who think about the country and live as one with it can be entrusted with the future of Russia.

You know that the word “elite” has lost much of its credibility. Those who have done nothing for society and consider themselves a caste endowed with special rights and privileges – especially those who took advantage of all kinds of economic processes in the 1990s to line their pockets – are definitely not the elite. To reiterate, those who serve Russia, hard workers and military, reliable, trustworthy people who have proven their loyalty to Russia by deeds, in a word, dignified people are the genuine elite.

In this regard, I would like to announce a new decision which, I believe, is important. Starting tomorrow, March 1, 2024, the veterans of the special military operations, as well as soldiers and officers who are currently fighting in active units, will be able to apply to be in the first class of a special personnel training programme. Let us call it Time of Heroes. Truth be told, this idea came to me when I met with the St Petersburg students who served in the special military operation. This programme will be built according to the standards of our best projects, namely, the Higher School of Public Administration, also known as the “school of governors,” and the Leaders of Russia contest. Their graduates tend to reach high positions in many spheres, and even become ministers and heads of regions.

Active military members and veterans with university degrees and managerial experience will be welcome to enroll, regardless of their rank or position. What matters is that those individuals have shown their best qualities, have shown that they know how to lead their comrades.

The course of study will begin in the coming months. The first cohort of participants will be mentored by senior officials from the Government, the Presidential Executive Office, federal ministries and agencies, heads of regions and our largest companies. In the future, we will expand such personnel training programmes, launch management courses at the Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, and I deem it expedient to raise the status of the Academy at the legislative level.

In addition, veterans and participants of the special military operation will have priority entitlement to join higher education programmes in civilian specialties at our leading universities.

I would like to ask the Defence Ministry and all unit commanders to support their soldiers and officers’ interest in joining the new personnel training programme, to give them the opportunity to apply and to physically attend classes. I would like to note that the special military operation participants, including privates, sergeants and combat officers, are already the backbone of our Armed Forces. And, as I have said, those who intend to continue their military careers will receive priority promotion, enrollment in command courses, military schools and academies.

Friends,

Independence, self-sufficiency and sovereignty must be proven and reaffirmed every day. This is our responsibility for Russia’s present and future, something no else can do but us. This is about our Motherland, the Motherland of our ancestors, and no one will ever need it and treasure it the way we do – except our descendants, to whom we must pass on a strong and prosperous country.

Over the past few years, we have successfully built a management system, and implemented our national projects relying on large amounts of data and modern digital technologies. This has enabled us to increase efficiency, manage risks, build on the entire amount of available information, and continuously fine-tune our projects and programmes while relying on feedback from our people.

I would like to thank my colleagues from the Government, agencies and regions that were meticulously building this system all these years – during the pandemic and in the face of the sanctions aggression against Russia. I know that this was a challenging and difficult job, but the main point is that it is already paying off. We are seeing this in the results.

We will continue following precisely this logic. It is necessary to endorse and coordinate with each other all the national projects I spoke about today. I would like to emphasise again that these are not projects of separate departments. They should work for common system-wide objectives and for our national development goals. That said, I would like to ask the Russian Popular Front to continue monitoring the implementation of decisions at all levels of government.

I would like to stress that the main result of our programmes is measured not in tonnes, kilometres or money spent. The main thing is that people see changes for the better in their life. The scale of historical challenges facing Russia requires extremely clear, coordinated work of the state, civil society and the business community.

I consider it necessary to not only prepare a draft budget for the next three years but also to plan all major spending and investment further on, up to 2030. In other words, we must draft a perspective six-year plan for our national development that we will definitely supplement with new initiatives. Naturally, life will make its own adjustments to it.

We are mapping out long-term plans despite this complicated period, despite the current trials and difficulties. The programme that I set out in the address today is based on facts and tackles fundamental matters. This is a programme of a strong sovereign country looking to the future with confidence. We have both resources and enormous opportunities to achieve the goals we set ourselves.

But now I will emphasise the main thing. Today, making good on all these plans directly depends on our soldiers, officers and volunteers – all military personnel that are now fighting at the front. It depends on the courage and resolve of our comrades-in-arms that are defending the Motherland, going on the offensive, moving forward under fire and sacrificing themselves for the sake of us, for the sake of the Fatherland. It is our fighters that are creating today the absolutely essential conditions for the future of the country and its development.

You have our deepest respect, guys.

I would like to thank all of you, colleagues, and all citizens of Russia for their solidarity and reliability. We are one big family; we stand together and for this reason we will do everything we plan and desire and dream.

I have faith in our victories, successes and the future of Russia!

Thank you.

(National Anthem of the Russian Federation plays.)

Results of the Year with Vladimir Putin

2023-12-17T11:56:00+04:00

Vladimir Putin summed up the year’s results and answered questions from journalists and the people of Russia in a live broadcast.

In 2023, the direct line with the people of Russia and the annual news conference have been merged into a single event taking place in Moscow’s Gostiny Dvor.

* * *

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: We have been accepting questions from across the country for precisely two weeks, and we have received an incredible number of submissions. It would not be an exaggeration to say that this broadcast brings together Russia in its entirety. We are in for a direct, honest, and open conversation.

Pavel Zarubin: Yekaterina and I took a very close look at all these submissions by reading thousands of pages and watching so many video messages.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: I can compare what happened over the past two weeks with holding the biggest national public opinion poll. Pavel and I felt as if we were not just journalists but also pollsters.

Pavel Zarubin: Of course, answering all these millions of questions would be impossible, but there are cross-cutting topics, of course. What were the most popular ones? It goes without saying that the special military operation came on top. We received messages from the service personnel and their family members dealing with payments, certificates, and supplies. We will definitely discuss all this in detail today.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: As usual, there were traditional – popular – questions about utilities, sports and so on.

So shall we start?

Good afternoon.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: This year, the Russian Popular Front got involved already at the stage of collecting the questions. There is no doubt that all questions and appeals will be processed, and none of it will go unanswered. Activists from the Russian Popular Front have a whole year to do this. And the sharpest, most interesting and topical questions will be asked live today.

Pavel Zarubin: “Yesterday morning, I posted a complaint about not getting paid on the moskva-putinu.ru website, and in the evening the money came in.” Many problems were solved proactively, but there are many more that remain unsolved. And most importantly, we all live in a completely different world now and people are naturally concerned about more than social issues.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: What time is better than now, two weeks before the New Year, to review the past 12 months’ results? December is always rich in events.

Mr President, last week you announced your decision to run for president. In this regard, what goals do you consider the most important, at home and abroad?

Vladimir Putin: I have spoken about this many times, but it would not hurt to say it once again. For a country like Russia, existence, mere existence, is impossible without sovereignty. Without sovereignty, Russia would cease to exist, at least in the form it exists today and has existed for a thousand years.

Therefore, our main objective is to strengthen sovereignty. But it is a broad concept. For example, strengthening sovereignty on the international stage involves enhancing our defence capability and security on the external contour. It also includes strengthening social sovereignty, which means providing safeguards for the rights and freedoms of our citizens, as well as developing our political and parliamentary systems. And lastly, it includes economic security and sovereignty, as well as technological sovereignty.

I think that right now, to answer your question, there is no need to be specific about all these vectors and avenues, but I am certain that people in this audience and across the country understand perfectly well that Russia would not survive without this. Just like any other country, Russia must assert its financial, economic, and technological sovereignty in order to have a future.

These are the main vectors from a conceptual standpoint.

Pavel Zarubin: Since we are discussing the economy, the fact that the Russian economy has not crumbled under pressure from its so-called former partners surprised many people around the world. However, these former partners have been openly seeking to finish their job by exerting even more pressure, as we have been hearing in their public statements.

How strong and resilient is the Russian economy? What is its margin of safety?

Vladimir Putin: Big enough so that we not just feel confident but also progress.

This margin of safety, as we have said on numerous occasions, but let me say it again, rests on several components.

The first and most important element is the high level of unity in Russian society.

The second element is the stability of our financial and economic system. As it turned out, and this came as a big surprise to our so-called partners and, frankly, many of us, over the previous decades Russia has accumulated a sufficient margin of safety and stability in finance and the economy.

And the third element is, of course, the growing capability of our security component, that is, the army and security agencies.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Mr President, what specific economic indicators can we be proud of?

Vladimir Putin: You know, I have brought a chart with me, as I usually do. There is nothing we do not know, and I believe the Finance Minister spoke about some figures yesterday. The main indicator of economic growth is GDP, which is expected to have grown by 3.5 percent as of the end of the year. It is a good indicator, which shows that we have recouped last year’s losses (when GDP decreased by 2.1 percent). If it grows by 3.5 percent this year, it means we have recouped the losses and have taken a significant step forward.

Unfortunately, inflation has increased and is expected to reach 7.5 percent as of the end of the year or slightly higher, around 8 percent. But the Central Bank and the Government are taking the necessary action. We can talk more about this, I mean raising the key interest rate and other measures being taken by the Central Bank and the Government. Our expectation is that we will be able to return to our target indicators.

Our industrial output is increasing steadily, at 3.6 percent. I am particularly pleased with the results in manufacturing, where output has grown by 7.5 percent year-on-year. It is a result we have not seen in a long time.

It is especially uplifting to see that investment in fixed capital has risen by 10 percent. What does this mean? The growth in industrial output and GDP are obvious. Plus 10 percent in fixed capital investment, what does it indicate? It indicates there will be sustainable growth in the medium term. Investors provide funding; production will expand; and new jobs will be created. I will talk about the unemployment rate later.

Businesses have added 24 percent in profit, not to mention the banks, which will earn almost three trillion rubles, in fact, over three trillion rubles by the end of the year. Of course, I know that people in the audience and generally across the country will say: banks are rolling in clover and so on. It is true. But it is good news for people who keep their money in Russian banks because it signifies the resilience of the banking system.

Now, real wages will grow by around eight percent after inflation. I understand that it will not be true for everybody but on average across the country, this statistic is accurate. And real disposable income is already on the rise. This indicator depends on more factors so the increase will be around five percent.

I mentioned the unemployment rate. Only recently, we were proud to see it drop to a historic low of three percent. Yesterday, when my colleagues and I were preparing for today’s meeting, we noted that the unemployment rate is now 2.9 percent. It is something we have never seen in Russian history. It is a very good integrated indicator of the economy’s health.

Since I talked about the rise in real income, I should mention that the minimum wage will be increased by as much as 18 percent from January 1. We do not do this very often.

The foreign debt is decreasing. This also indicates macroeconomic stability, financial stability. Government debt has been reduced from US$46 billion to US$32 billion. And private foreign debt has also decreased (our companies are duly repaying all the loans taken from foreign financial institutions) from US$337 billion to US$297 billion. That is, repayment is proceeding at a steady pace, often even ahead of schedule.

And this is an integrated social indicator. We will probably have a lot of social issues to discuss today, but still, there is such an integrated indicator – the growth in life expectancy, something we always talk about and strive for.

Look at the dynamics: in 2021, life expectancy in Russia was 70.06, in 2022 it was 72.73, and in 2023 it is expected to be 74 years. Still, this is a measure of how the state’s efforts in both the economy and social policy are reflected in the most important social indicator.

Pavel Zarubin: The other day you honoured the Heroes of Russia, and we saw you saying that we should save the young men, but we should do it, do it, do it.

For almost two years now, our country has been living under the conditions of the special military operation, and of course there has been a flurry of questions from the public. I will just read out some of them, literally. ”How do you assess these two years?“ ”What is the situation now? What are the dynamics?“ ”The goals and objectives of the operation – are they the same as they were at the beginning or not?“ And of course, the most important thing: ”When will there be peace?“

Vladimir Putin: There will be peace when we achieve our goals, which you have mentioned. Now let’s return to these goals – they have not changed. I would like to remind you how we formulated them: denazification, demilitarisation, and a neutral status for Ukraine.

Look what is happening in terms of denazification. During the negotiation process, there was a certain stage after the drafting of a possible agreement, which was recently mentioned by officials in Kiev, where, in general they did not agree that some kind of denazification was needed, and they said that there was no fascistisation, no growth of such sentiments. How could there not be? When a national hero – a famous, not just a nationalist, but a Nazi – Bandera is elevated to the rank of a national hero, what do you mean, there is not?

And when the head of today's Kiev Administration in front of the whole world gives a standing ovation to a former SS soldier who directly participated in the Holocaust, in the extermination of 1.5 million Jews in Ukraine, Russians and Poles. Is this not a manifestation of Nazism? Therefore, the issue of denazification is relevant. It is true that during the negotiation process we, our negotiators, were told that in principle they did not rule out the possibility of adopting some legislative acts in Ukraine. That was then, during the negotiations in Istanbul.

Now, as for demilitarisation. If they do not want to reach an agreement, then we have to resort to other measures, including military ones. Today Ukraine produces very little; they are trying to maintain some production, but it is almost non-existent. Everything they get is a freebie, and I apologise for such talk. But these freebies may end one day; in fact, they are already coming to an end little by little. But that is not even the main issue. I believe they will still be receiving these freebies, but they are being destroyed. I will not go into specific numbers for aircraft and air defence systems. They received 400 tanks, around 420 or 430, as promised. By the way, they got everything as promised. Ukraine received everything, and even more than what was promised by the West. But ever since the start of the so-called counteroffensive, we have destroyed 747 tanks. This is as of yesterday evening. We have also destroyed almost 2,300 armoured vehicles of various types. This is what is called demilitarisation. Alternatively, we can agree on demilitarisation and establish certain parameters. We actually agreed on them during the Istanbul talks, although these agreements were thrown out later, but we managed to reach agreement. There are also other possibilities to either reach an agreement or resolve the conflict by force. This is what we will strive for.

Pavel Zarubin: There is a short but important question that many people are concerned about: will there be a second wave of mobilisation?

Vladimir Putin: I understand that this is a burning issue. Look, we had a partial mobilisation, and at that time we called up 300,000 people. By the way, at first there was a lot of irony, many giggles about the mobilised personnel, and silly nicknames given to them. I remember this well. But these guys are fighting incredibly well. There are 14 Heroes of the Russian Federation from among those mobilised, not to mention other medals and orders. If I am not mistaken, there are 244,000 soldiers directly in the combat zone, in the special military operation zone. We formed regiments for equipment maintenance because there are many experts in this field who are in great demand. If I am correct, 41,000 were discharged due to mandatory retirement, health reasons, and so on.

After this, we launched a fairly broad campaign to attract volunteer fighters to sign contracts with the Armed Forces. Our goal was to recruit a little over 400,000 people by the end of the year. As of yesterday evening, I received a report that 486,000 have been recruited, and the number of men who are ready to defend the interests of our Motherland with arms in hand is not decreasing. There are 1,500 volunteer fighters being recruited every day throughout the country. So, together with the volunteers there will be about half a million people by the end of this year. This is just a conventional division into two groups: the contract is signed for two or three years, and the so-called volunteers, although, in fact, they are all heroes fighting for the Fatherland, but they have a one-year contract, which is a shorter period. So, what do we need mobilisation for? There is absolutely no need for it today.

Dmitry Peskov: If I may, I would like to remind everyone that today’s event is a combined format, Direct Line and a news conference with the President, so could we start the Presidential Q&A now?

Lyudmila Kolieva: If you don’t mind, can a young lady from the Caucasus go first?

Dmitry Peskov: Just a second, excuse me.

Vladimir Putin: You see, we have a democracy here. (Addressing Lyudmila Kolieva.) You can say what you wanted to say. Mr Peskov, please.

Dmitry Peskov: Please pass on the microphone.

Lyudmila Kolieva: Good afternoon. My name is Lyudmila Kolieva, I am from North Ossetia.

Mr President, North Ossetia has always defended the interests of our country. Issa Pliev and Hadji-Umar Mamsurov – great commanders and Heroes of the Soviet Union – fought courageously in the Great Patriotic War. And now, people from North and South Ossetia, as well as from other North Caucasus regions, continue to defend the interests of North Ossetia – that is, the interests of Russia.

What I want to say is that a lot of volunteer fighters are involved. We have two volunteer detachments in North Ossetia – Storm.Ossetia and Alania. Today, military personnel who serve under contracts are entitled to numerous benefits and support measures. Will volunteers be able to count on them as well?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Actually, I have looked through the questions coming in, but it really is impossible to even leaf through all of them. How many are there, Dmitry?

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Over two million.

Dmitry Peskov: Already 2.1 million.

Vladimir Putin: Nonetheless, a few days ago, Mr Peskov brought me a pile this tall, and I looked through them, and there were many questions like yours. I would like to repeat my view, and I am sure that there will be more questions like this. All volunteers who have taken up arms to defend Russia’s interests, who are fighting for it and risking their health and lives, must be ensured absolutely identical conditions.

There have been a few problems, and we are aware of them. Only yesterday, analysing the incoming letters, I spoke about this with the Defence Minister and the Chief of the General Staff. I also discussed this with Ms Golikova in her capacity as the Deputy Prime Minister who leads the social bloc in the Government. We will need to adopt amendments to laws to address specific issues. We may come back to that. I am sure that the State Duma deputies will support them 100 percent; we just need to formulate them correctly.

We will definitely ensure that everyone has the same conditions and receives the same level support from the state.

I know that both Storm.Ossetia and Alania are fighting valiantly. The head of the region also spoke about this and reported to me.

Pavel Zarubin: Can I show you how many questions I have here? These are only those I selected on issuing certificates to veterans proving their status.

I suggest that we hear a question on this topic in a recorded video. Sergei Sobolev from Iskitim, Novosibirsk Region.

Sergei Sobolev: Good afternoon, Mr President.

It is a great honour and privilege for me to submit this question to you from Donbass. I am very close to the frontline right now and can hear the war very well. Here with me I have fighters from the Defence Ministry assault brigade, veterans of the brigade which bears your name. All the men here have been taking part in the special military operation for almost two years now. They have been fighting on the frontlines and are now near Donetsk. They have been highly effective in gaining ground, and the enemy is struggling to hold them back, with its defences cracking at the seams, as they say. Every new day brings new achievements.

Mr President, victory is already within reach, and even the enemy understands this. But when the war ends, there will be a need to provide support for the people who fought in it. Take the veterans – these are people with immense combat experience, who represent the example of true patriotism. They could help educate the younger generation and train a new generation of fighters for the Russian army.

Do you think that it would be sensible to create a military and patriotic educational organisation for our young people? Do you have any plans in this regard?

Vladimir Putin: First, I would like to thank you for what you are doing. This may sound a bit too formal but trust me – I sincerely mean it. The Chief of the General Staff, as well as other commanders have been briefing me on the situation in specific locations. Now that we have the veterans over there, we will have the situation under control, no doubt about that. These simple words offer an assessment of what you are doing, and what you can do and will, no doubt, accomplish on the battlefield.

As for whether people like you can contribute to educating the younger generation, our school students, young people in general, this is something that is extremely relevant. It is obvious and absolutely necessary for any country when it reaches a turning point in its history, as we have today.

Mentioning Bismarck may not be appropriate here, but there was a time when he served and lived in Russia, even if he went on to become an outstanding German leader. He once said that wars are not won by generals, but by schoolteachers and parish priests. He was absolutely right.

Educating young people in the spirit of patriotism – and I use this term in its most positive sense without referring to any form of crude patriotism – is crucial, and we are already moving in this direction. More than a thousand of your colleagues and comrades-in-arms who have completed their service and returned to civilian life are already working in schools or work with children and teenagers in other formats.

We will definitely continue this work and expand our efforts. It is one thing to read a patriotic book or watch a patriotic film, but teaching patriotism through your own example is quite another matter. The best way to do it is by personal example. There is no one better than you for this job.

Pavel Zarubin: We are broadcasting live which means that it goes the way it goes. Go ahead, Mr Peskov.

Dmitry Peskov: Thank you, Pavel.

Vladimir Putin: Excuse me, Dmitry.

“They’re killing the Volga.” What do you mean? What is wrong with the Volga?

Pavel Zarubin: It seems that we will be sticking to this format…

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Indeed, the Volga is among the issues mentioned in the messages we have been receiving.

Yelena Usmanova: Good afternoon, Mr President. My name is Yelena Usmanova from Business Online, a business newspaper in Tatarstan.

This year, people living along the Volga region suffered from a disastrous decline in the water levels of the Kuybyshev Reservoir. Throughout the summer, the operator has been releasing water and sending it downstream while arguing that otherwise Astrakhan’s fishing industry would suffer.

Do you think that we need to address the issue of the declining water levels in the Volga? Do you think that the way we approach this issue could cost us Russia’s most prominent river?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: I do hope that this never happens. There is a conflict of interest involving the energy sector and other water users downstream. The energy sector wants to keep water levels at a sufficient level in order to generate enough power along the Volga cascade to meet the needs of industrial users and utilities. Meanwhile, there are water users downstream who want water levels to be high over there. Of course, sailors and ship owners want to ensure that Volga remains open to navigation and the deeper its waterway, the better. We know all this.

Trust me, the Government is working on it and will not let this situation spin out of control. Of course, this issue is real. I do agree with you on that.

Dmitry Peskov: Moving on, there are many questions, and we need to have some parity here.

Vladimir Putin: I suggest that we put Mr Peskov back in charge.

Dmitry Peskov: I can see ITAR-TASS in the middle sector. Go ahead, over there in the first row. Representative of the Kremlin pool, by the way. Go ahead, please.

Yekaterina Korostovtseva: Mr President, good afternoon. TASS news agency, Yekaterina Korostovtseva. We have a question on international matters for you. It has three parts.

What are the prospects, in your opinion, for bringing relations with the European Union back to normal? It has been becoming increasingly obvious lately that the Western countries have grown tired of helping Ukraine. What do you think about this new factor?

I have another question for you. The right has been gaining traction on the European political stage. What do you have to say about this topic and is this a matter of concern to you?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: As for normalising relations, it does not depend on us alone. We did not do anything to sour them; it was them who did it and who consistently tried to push us further back, disregarding our interests.

How did the conflict in Ukraine begin? Let us look back, even though it may take three or four minutes. It began with the state coup in Ukraine in 2014. Before that, we did our best for decades, I repeat, for decades, to develop normal relations with Ukraine, even after the events that amounted to a state coup, when Viktor Yanukovych was prevented from assuming office after he won the [presidential] election in the second round. But they decided to hold a third round. What was it if not a state coup? The [Ukrainian] Constitution did not allow for a third round. It was a gradual coup. But we accepted that.

What happened next? He [Yanukovych] won the next election, and what did our so-called opponents do? They staged a state coup.

Do you see the core of the problem? The problem is, as I have always said and as I am saying today, that despite the current tragic developments, Russians and Ukrainians are essentially one people. What is happening now is an immense tragedy; it is like a civil war between brothers who stand on different sides [of the conflict]. But overall, they are not, to a large extent, responsible for this.

The southeastern part of Ukraine has always been pro-Russian because it is historically a Russian territory. I see a colleague holding up a sign saying “Turkiye.” He knows, and people in Turkiye know that the entire Black Sea region was incorporated into Russia as the result of Russo-Turkish wars. What does Ukraine have to do with that? Neither Crimea nor the Black Sea region has any connection to Ukraine. Odessa is a Russian city. We know this. Everyone knows this. But they [Ukrainians] have concocted some historical nonsense.

Well now, Vladimir Lenin incorporated these regions into Ukraine when the Soviet Union was established. We did not dispute that after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and we were ready to live within that paradigm. However, this southeastern part is pro-Russian, which was important to us. They aways voted for those who advocated a pro-Russian stance in Ukraine’s domestic and foreign policy. On the whole, this suited Russia.

But after the 2014 state coup, it became clear to us that they would use force to prevent us from developing normal relations with Ukraine. They spent US$5 billion on that state coup, as the Americans openly admitted, without any hesitation.

In 2014, three foreign ministers from Europe (from Poland, Germany and France) went [to Ukraine] to sign off as guarantors of agreements between the government – President Yanukovich – and the opposition. They agreed to resolve their disagreements peacefully. Two days later, they carried out a coup d’état. Why did they do it? They could have run and won the next election. But no. They wanted it straight away, and they wanted to create a conflict – that is why.

Who did it? Our American “buddies.” And the Europeans, who signed the agreements between the government and the opposition as guarantors, pretended they did not know anything about it. Today, if you ask them in Europe if anyone remembers this – no, they do not. But we have not forgotten and we will not forget.

That, combined with a burning urge to creep up to our borders and drag Ukraine into NATO – all of this has led to the tragedy. In addition, there has been bloodshed in Donbass for eight years. All this taken together has led to the tragedy that we are now experiencing. They forced us to take these actions.

So, as I say, in a situation where the United States conceived and orchestrated this act with Europe standing by and averting its gaze, or playing along and singing along with them, how can we build relations with them in these circumstances? We would – we did not break off any ties – but they pretend they do not know or remember anything. Only two or three times did they mention the Minsk agreements, saying they were not for real and were never going to be implemented. In 2014, they also signed those guarantees, those agreements between the government and the opposition in Ukraine just like that, and immediately forgot about them or threw them away.

Do you see my point? My point is that they have lost their sovereignty to a large extent, as we can see now, and they are making many decisions to their own detriment. To their own detriment! But they do it, nonetheless.

Outwardly, many European politicians may look like General de Gaulle, who took up arms to fight for his country’s interests, who rallied whatever resources France could muster to resist the occupiers. But in reality, they are more like Marshal Pétain – although he was a WWI hero, he became a collaborator and succumbed to the invaders during World War II.

Almost everyone [in Europe] behaves this way, except for a few people. Robert Fico became a new leader [in Slovakia] after the election, and Viktor Orbán in Hungary. I have said many times that they are not pro-Russia politicians, they are pro-national – they are defending their countries’ interests. But there are too few politicians like this; I do not know why they do not exist. Maybe this has to do with Europe’s excessive dependence on the Big Brother – the United States. But we are ready to build relations with them.

In fact, we are ready to build relations with the United States as well. We believe that America is an important country on the world stage. But this absolutely imperial policy the country pursues is bad for them, not even for us. Why? Because the public expects them to act like an empire, and if they agree to compromise on something or concede something to someone, their voters will see this as a failure or a flaw. That may partly be the reason the elites have to act in this way.

As soon as they change on a deeper level, and begin to respect other people, other countries, start searching for compromises instead of addressing their problems using sanctions and military force, which would create the underlying conditions for restoring full-fledged relations. So far, there are no such conditions. But we are ready for this.

Dmitry Peskov: Mr President, not all of our war correspondents are on the frontline. I see Nikolai Dolgachev in the studio. Ask your question, please.

Nikolai Dolgachev, Mr President, good afternoon!

I am Nikolai Dolgachev, Vesti correspondent and now the director of the VGTRK affiliate in Lugansk.

The Lugansk Republic has almost been fully liberated. Peaceful life is being restored, but we are worried about the whole front, knowing what heavy fighting is going on in the south and along the Dnieper. People have even been talking for some time about a certain bridgehead on the left bank of the Dnieper, in the Krynki township area. What kind of a bridgehead is it and how do we stand there?

And, I would like to ask you an additional question, with your permission. Large-scale work on restoring social and other infrastructure facilities is really going on in the liberated regions that are already a bit further from the front. We see this with our own eyes and life is changing a lot, but many people ask, and I will join them, what is the future of the new regions of our country? What is the goal? What will they be like in our country in several years?

And we know, Mr President, whatever you say will happen, so please tell us what will happen.

Vladimir Putin: It would be good if whatever I say would happen but, unfortunately, this is not always the case. Such is the world’s practice. I think everyone sitting here, listening to us and looking at us has the same experience. We talk about something, we want something to happen, and some things happen and others do not. This is normal, but it is certainly necessary to strive to reach one’s goals.

Now about Krynki. The enemy announced a big counteroffensive but nothing came of it anywhere. The last attempt – at any rate it looks like the last attempt for now – was to break through to the left bank of the Dnieper and ensure the movement towards Crimea. Everyone is talking about this, it is common knowledge, and it is nothing new. What happened in this section?

The Armed Forces of Ukraine focused its artillery shelling on a very narrow section of the left bank. To keep our men alive and not to subject them to excessive risk, not to sustain losses, the military command decided to retreat for several metres (I will tell you and as a war correspondent you understand what I am talking about). They are hiding their personnel in the forest to save it from unnecessary losses.

The Armed Forces of Ukraine walked into this section. It is small – about 1,200 metres long and some 300 metres wide. I do not even understand why they are doing this – they are simply pushing their people into death. The Ukrainian military say themselves that this is a one-way trip. To get the personnel there – about 80 people were there the whole time, but now the number is somewhat smaller – they are using only boats, and the boats are under fire from artillery, drones and other weapons. The sanitary losses among our personnel are two or three people, and there were six wounded three days ago. The enemy has dozens of dead. They were simply caught in a “fire bag.” They are throwing their men into it only for political reasons – I believe it’s just for political reasons.

Where does this come from? One can only guess and speculate. Apparently, it has something to do with foreign travel by Ukrainian leaders to beg for more money to keep the country running, to pay for the military component, equipment, and munitions. It appears that their approach is based on the assumption that as long as they travel and beg for arms, everyone will believe that the “counteroffensive” by Ukraine’s armed forces has at least some chances of achieving success, regardless of losses. They are just being driven out of there; that is all there is to it. They can build bridges and pontoons, but they don’t do this because they know these structures will be destroyed instantly, since they are within our reach. That is what is happening.

Here is what I would like to draw your attention to. These are not just servicemen of the Ukrainian armed forces; they are the elite, the assault squads. There are not many of them, actually. If you tally the losses sustained by the Armed Forces of Ukraine over the past 45 days, you will know how tangible it is. I believe this represents foolish and irresponsible behaviour on the part of the country's political leaders. But it is up to them.

This is no longer a secret. Some time ago, I told the Chief of the General Staff, “Do not rush to push them out of there.” I will be open about it: it is good for us if they mindlessly continue to send more troops there. This is unfortunate, but that is the logic of hostilities. But they continue to do so, and it is their tragedy, I think. Nevertheless, the Minister and the Chief of the General Staff said, “No, we will continue to gradually narrow down their latitude of movement.” This is what is happening. I think that everything will be over soon.

Now, you asked me about the overall state of affairs on the front. You already know it yourself, you are an expert. By the way, I watch you there and my heart sinks, especially when I see female reporters on the front line. I think maybe we should tell the main channels to remove women from there; it is a scary sight. Well, ok.

You are aware of the situation. Let us be humble about it, but our Armed Forces are improving their position almost along the entire line of contact. Almost all of them are engaged in active combat. And the position of our troops is improving along [the entire line of contact].

Now, about the future of these regions. There are many questions about this coming from the new regions and from other parts of the Russian Federation: what will become of them? Annually, the federal budget provides for over a trillion rubles for the development of these regions and their gradual integration into Russia’s economic and social life.

Of course, the situation in other regions is much better. This is because, for some reason, just like in Crimea, Kiev’s previous authorities never focused too much on these regions. However, over a trillion rubles are invested annually and will be invested in the coming years. Plus, these regions and other regions of the Russian Federation have established twin-region relations and these regions have already invested, I think, about 100–140, around 150 billion. Other regions will chip in and invest about 100 billion more.

Here is what I would like to share with you. Importantly, this year these “new regions” paid 170 billion rubles into the federal budget, meaning that the economy of these regions is recovering and getting back to normal. Of course, much remains to be done, and we will handle it.

Pavel Zarubin: We are working live and there can always be technical nuances. A little earlier, we saw a video question from VGTRK war correspondent Sergei Zenin.

Vladimir Putin: May I?

Pavel Zarubin: Of course.

Vladimir Putin: I noticed some of your colleagues. The person over there has a sign that says “Turkiye.” Let’s hear them.

Pavel Zarubin: And then we will get back to the war correspondent.

Vladimir Putin: Certainly, I promise.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Some war correspondents are actually women.

Dmitry Peskov: Please introduce yourself.

Ali Jura: Ali Jura, Anadolu Agency.

Mr President, as a result of Israel’s attack on Gaza, a child dies every 6–7 minutes. Eight thousand Palestinian children and more than 6,000 women have already died. Unfortunately, the UN and world major powers are not able to stop these attacks. Do you think the UN has lost its function?

Also, with respect to Palestine, are Turkiye and Russia working together to ensure peace in the region? What are Moscow and Ankara’s common plans on international and regional issues? Do you plan to visit Turkiye any time soon? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: First of all, of course, I am watching the developments in Gaza. I will tell you what I think. In general, I agree with you, but it should be noted that President of Turkiye Erdogan is playing a significant leading role in improving the situation in Gaza. He is certainly one of the leaders of the international community who is paying attention to this tragedy and doing everything to change the situation for the better, so that conditions are created for a lasting peace. This is obvious. He is very active in this matter. And God bless him. Because what is happening is, of course, a disaster.

We were just talking about the Ukraine crisis – and we will return to it later. You and the audience here, everybody in the world can see (compare the special military operation and Gaza and you will see the difference): nothing of this kind is happening in Ukraine.

You mentioned the deaths of thousands of women and children. The Secretary-General of the United Nations called today’s Gaza the biggest children’s cemetery in the world. This opinion speaks volumes. It is an objective opinion, what else can I say?

As for the UN’s role, you know, it is nothing out of the ordinary and I have already said that. During the Cold War, there were different forces and different countries that often blocked decisions promoted by other countries. But the United Nations was initially created for the purpose of finding a consensus. Without a consensus, decisions cannot be made. So, nothing out of the ordinary is happening at the UN; it was always like this, especially during the Cold War. There is a reason why Foreign Minister of the USSR Gromyko had the nickname, Mr No, because the Soviet Union very frequently vetoed decisions. It is very significant. When there is a veto, no steps that a country sees as hostile towards itself will be taken. And it is important. It is important to preserve such mechanisms in the UN; otherwise it will simply be reduced to a talking shop as happened during a certain period after World War I.

But it does not mean that we cannot and should not seek these consensuses. We should. We, like Turkiye, proceed from the premise that the UN decisions to create a Palestinian state with its capital in East Jerusalem should, after all, be implemented, and this is extremely important. It is necessary to create the foundations for an Israeli-Palestinian settlement.

Now let us talk about plans. President Erdogan and I are in constant contact on these issues, and our positions are very similar. I think that we will manage to meet; in fact, I am planning to do just that. I also planned this quite recently, but I can say – there are no secrets in this regard – that it did not work out on account of President Erdogan’s busy schedule. I was prepared to take a flight to Turkiye, and I told him so, but it failed to transpire because of his busy schedule. He was unable to meet, not me. This happens sometimes. But we continue to have talks and perhaps we will arrange this visit early next year.

And now let us look at our efforts. As you may know, I visited two Arab countries not so long ago and had consultations with our friends in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. We are also in contact with Egypt.

First, it is necessary to keep people in Gaza.

Second, it is necessary to bring humanitarian aid on a massive scale to these people.

When I was on my visit to the Emirates, it transpired that the UAE had opened a field hospital in Gaza, not far from the Rafah border crossing and the Egyptian border. We discussed whether it was possible for Russia to open a hospital of its own at a stadium in the same area. But for this to happen, we need to have consent from both Egypt and Israel. I talked to the President of Egypt, and he is in favour of this idea. I also talked to Prime Minister Netanyahu, and they consulted various armed agencies. The Israeli side believes that opening a Russian hospital in Gaza is not safe.

But this does not mean that we will discontinue our efforts. If today this is not safe and the Israeli side does not support the idea, we nevertheless have agreements with the Israelis, and they asked us to step up our deliveries of medical equipment and medicines, and we will certainly do that. So, we are in contact with all parties involved under the current developments and will work actively on this.

Pavel Zarubin: We would like to say a few words about our brave young women, our war correspondents. They are real reporters. We have a link with Channel One correspondent Valentina Solovyova who is working in the Zaporozhye Region again.

Valentina Solovyova: Good afternoon.

We are visiting the Melitopol Regional Oncology Clinic. Here is one of its wards. Look at the beds squeezed inside. We see three beds here, and another six over there.

Allow me to introduce Konstantin Lakunin, the Head Physician of this Clinic.

Konstantin Lakunin: Good afternoon.

Valentina Solovyova: Mr Lakunin, we can see that you have many patients. What is the situation like with doctors?

Konstantin Lakunin: We have many patients, and, of course, we are hard-pressed for doctors, as everywhere in Russia. However, our situation is perhaps even more dramatic: we are not only short of oncologists, haematologists or child oncologists. Actually, we just do not have them at all, so the clinic has to assume all these functions. We would like to thank the federal research centres that provide clinical and methodological assistance and take our patients for treatment.

Valentina Solovyova: How many patients does one doctor treat?

Konstantin Lakunin: A doctor receives 50 to 60 people every day compared to the standard 30-patient quota. Their workloads have increased by about 100 percent. Doctors at hospitals have similar loads, with one doctor treating at least 20 oncology patients; this also exceeds the standard care quotas by about 100 percent.

Valentina Solovyova: Nevertheless, you continue to develop, and I see that you are receiving new equipment.

Konstantin Lakunin: Yes, we are renovating our surgery ward on a large scale, and we have already received the new equipment for it under the federal programmes. It is already here, including an operating table for the new operating rooms. So, we believe we will see new successes in our work.

Valentina Solovyova: You are facing serious personnel shortages. What is your question?

Konstantin Lakunin: Here is my question and proposal: it would be appropriate to discuss the issue of drafting a special federal programme for attracting human resources to the new regions, to healthcare and social sectors. This might imply housing projects, the provision of land plots or low interest mortgage loans. It is necessary to attract qualified people here through various methods.

Valentina Solovyova: Do you offer competitive wages?

Konstantin Lakunin: Our current wages are very competitive; to be honest, specialists come here and sign up because of the salary. We can’t say that nobody is coming, they do come, but these measures are obviously not enough.

Valentina Solovyova: Thank you very much. So, this is our question.

Vladimir Putin: The question is clear. You know what was pleasant to hear? When the doctor said that we lack professionals, doctors, all across Russia, he said. That is, he considers his region part of Russia. From this point of view, I would like to note this question.

The problem is clear. The proposal to create a special federal programme that would help purchase housing, etc. I do not know whether it is necessary to create a special programme, but I agree that we need to pay attention to this issue. We have preferential two percent mortgage for these regions, it is more than preferential and even better than for families with children overall.

But what is the problem there, as I understand it? The problem is that the preference only works for new housing, and there is not much new housing being built there. So, it is necessary to extend it to the pre-owned property market as well, like in the Far East; it will then work quickly and take effect immediately. This is the first thing.

Second, regarding the creation of additional incentives. If the salary is competitive, as the doctor said, what do we need?

(Addressing the audience and commenting on the poster.) Shumbrat. Shumbrat is “hello” in Mordovian. Yes, I will answer your question in a minute.

So, what is it necessary to do? It is necessary to increase the relocation allowance for participants in the County Doctor programme, like in the Far East. Increase it to two million rubles for doctors, and one million rubles for paramedics. I think this would be a good incentive.

I will definitely discuss this with the Government; the budget has already been adopted but we still can give it some thought and come up with solutions for the short term.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Mr President, we see that our colleagues cannot even wait until you finish your answer. Let’s give the floor to…

Dmitry Peskov: Mr President, you said “shumbrat,” right?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, I promised. You are from Mordovia, right?

Dmitry Peskov: Let us give the microphone to the young lady in red, please.

Anastasia Vidyayeva: Mr President, good afternoon.

Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon.

Anastasia Vidyayeva: I am Anastasia Vidyayeva from the Mordovia State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company, branch of VGTRK. I represent our multi-ethnic republic.

I want to invite you to visit our pavilion at the Russia exhibition.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you.

Anastasia Vidyayeva: First, I want to thank you for this idea; the feedback is amazing, Mr President. A poll has been held recently: 97 percent of Russians pride themselves [in Russia’s achievements] after visiting this expo. Of course, the regions have a lot to be proud of.

Thanks to your support, Mordovia has been developing innovative production. It includes import substitution, the production of fibre-optic and other cables, as well as pharmaceuticals, and the calling card of Mordovia, our black diamond – fumed oak. We harvest it from the bottoms of rivers and create beautiful things from it.

Mr President, this expo is not only an opportunity to see beautiful things, but also to discuss various issues, resolve issues with the business community, etc. So, I invite you to visit it and I would also want to be there myself. Every girl, even a grown-up girl, dreams of a New Year miracle. So, I think you will not refuse the invitation.

Vladimir Putin: Ok. Thank you very much for the invitation. It is true, Mordovia is a very beautiful republic. I very much like how the local people treat their traditions and their culture, national dress, and the traditions in the broad sense of the word.

As for the regions and the regional part of the exhibition, it is really a success. Regional expos at VDNKh are probably one of the most interesting places for visitors. I agree with you, and I will try to visit the exhibition.

Thank you very much.

Dmitry Peskov: Before we go back to answering people’s questions, here is another one from the media, Match TV. I would guess it has something to do with sports, judging by the channel name.

Maria Korobova: Good afternoon,

I am Maria Korobova from Match TV. Obviously, my question is about sports as there is something to be asked and addressed.

A week ago, the IOC introduced very strict eligibility conditions for Russian athletes to take part in the 2024 Olympic Games. Meanwhile, no special restrictions or requirements were introduced for, say, Israeli athletes. Given this, is it worth going to the Olympics at all? And overall, what are the developments around elite sports in our country?

And another one we cannot omit, as we receive many questions from the regions. Amidst the challenging situation, will efforts continue to implement the programme for the development of physical fitness and sports, particularly in Russia’s remote areas? Thank you.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Mr. President, before you respond, let me say that you are a person that engages in sport, calling judo your first love. This is so, indeed. We have many requests from parents, coaches and even kids, who say they have the will to compete and win – but that there is no place for training and that the conditions are simply poor.

Let’s watch a video message from Crimea.

(Video is shown.)

Artemy Doroshenko: Mr President.

We are people from Crimea; we live in the village of Solnechnaya Dolina in the urban district of Sudak. We are athletes who play football and field hockey; we have competed in several events, including regional and national events, and have always won medals, cups, certificates and even first place.

The gym in the club building has always been our workout place, but this year training there has become completely impossible for us. The gym has not seen any upgrade for over 40 years and now has long-rotted floors, walls covered with mold, broken windows, and water dripping from the ceiling. It is even colder in the building than outside. Our coaches have sent requests to various authorities, but the local and other officials ignore them. Now, in December, we are holding our training sessions outside.

We are asking you to provide assistance in renovating our gym, and help us to be heard and receive help. We are willing to grow up strong and healthy to defend and support our Motherland. We wish you victory!

Vladimir Putin: Good. I will now answer these athletes, of course.

As for the IOC and comparisons with other athletes such as Israelis and others, first, everything international officials are doing towards Russian sports totally contradicts and distorts the words spoken by Pierre de Coubertin, “Oh sport, you are Peace!”

This is why the Olympic movement was created in the first place: to unite people, not separate them. Today, international officials have become too consumed by the business aspect of sports movements, having become vastly dependent on sponsors. The latter care about the cost of ads per minute on TV and so on. They have enough problems of their own. If they continue acting this way, they will bury the Olympic movement. The very idea of Olympism has been tarnished.

You have mentioned Israel and Israeli athletes in this connection, despite the events in Gaza… If I supported this in any way now, I would have been like those international sports officials. Sport should be beyond politics, it is designed to unite people.

That is why we, just like… You know, we say that it is not nice to count money in other people’s pockets. The same goes for this case as well, it is not nice to point your finger at other athletes. There are problems there, as your Turkish colleague and I have spoken about just now. But what do athletes have to do with this? Let them go and take part in competitions without any restrictions. And the same should be done with regard to Russian athletes.

But this isn’t happening; yielding to the influence of Western elites, they adopt decisions that suit them but are not beneficial to global sport. Likewise, European politicians adopt decisions that benefit the United States and its economy but are detrimental to themselves. The same is happening in this sphere as well.

So, should athletes take part in these competitions or not? There is one more detail here. It is necessary to take a close look at what the conditions are, including the flag and the anthem. I always said that athletes train for years and should be given an opportunity to take part in major tournaments, including the Olympic Games. Everyone knows whose flag it is, and everyone knows that these are our athletes. This is obvious. And this is why I supported, in principle, the idea that our athletes should take part in such competitions.

But today we must scrutinise the conditions the IOC is pushing. If these artificial conditions are politically motivated, artificial conditions that are designed to cut off our leaders, our athletes who are capable of winning gold, silver or bronze medals, to decapitate our national team, in this case… For example, our athletes from CSKA or Dynamo could be unable to compete because they are allegedly connected with our Armed Forces, even though CSKA has no relation to our Armed Forces now, it is a private organisation.

They can invent any reasons, but if their goal is to cut off our leading athletes and to show that Russian sport is not progressing or is even deteriorating, our Ministry of Sport and the National Olympic Committee of Russia should analyse the situation and adopt a balanced decision.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Mr President, you promised to respond to the video address from Crimea.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, from Crimea, I certainly will do that.

I have taken note of their address, and I would like to tell them that we must develop sport and all our programmes. Incidentally, I believe that about 1.5 billion rubles, or even more, 1.7 billion rubles, were allocated from the federal budget in the past years for the development of regional and municipal sports. This year, the [sports] budget is less than 700 million rubles.

But we must certainly resume this funding, which will be done, incidentally in the next presidential programme. We must do this by all means, and we will do this.

As for this particular question from Crimea, I will discuss the matter with Mr Aksyonov, and we will provide federal assistance. We will definitely address this issue in a targeted manner.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: There are many such questions here. Here is a whole stack of them, including some regarding hockey in the Tyumen Region and other sports.

Mr Peskov, back to you.

Vladimir Putin: Their question has reached us, and we will help them.

Dmitry Peskov: The Russian Popular Front will be tasked with processing all these requests throughout the following year, as we have said.

Friends, I see Dmitry Kulko, who is also a frontline correspondent. Seeing him wearing a suit and a tie is quite unusual. Can he have the microphone, please?

Dmitry Kulko: Dmitry Kulko, frontline correspondent for Channel One. Good afternoon, Mr President.

Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon.

Dmitry Kulko: I have several questions from fighters deployed in the special military operation zone, if I may.

First, do you think that the system for paying military personnel has been running smoothly? Can it be improved? I know people who have not received money for months.

My second question deals with the wounded and the Defenders of the Fatherland foundation. Its purpose is to support the families of those killed in the special military operation and its veterans. What is your assessment of the way this foundation has been working?

Mr President, if you will allow me, I would like to submit a proposal. As a matter of fact, today fighters who get wounded and get hospital treatment must then return to their units in order to be examined by a military medical commission. This means that they must return to the special military operation zone after suffering severe wounds. This applies to those who, sadly, have lost arms or legs. This is a major challenge for them. It would be better to have these men undergo this examination where they get their treatment or rehabilitation.

My last question is about drones. There is still a deficit of drones on the frontline, Mr President. The fighters have been pleading for more all the time, and we have been running fundraisers to make it happen. People have been willing to donate – and I would like to thank them for their effort. Still, there is not enough.

For example, we have recently held a fundraiser together with the Popular Front and delivered several dozen drones to the 4^th Brigade, which is fighting courageously in Kleshcheyevka right now. Regretfully, in less than a month, they only have a half of the drones left. The troops have to sacrifice the drones they have all the time: operators have to fly them during assault operations regardless of rain or electronic interference, since it is our men, our youngsters down below. There is no way we can leave them without the intelligence they need. When will we see any improvements?

Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: You surely must have noticed some improvements. Things are getting better, are they not?

Dmitry Kulko: They are, but in present-day warfare…

Vladimir Putin: This is a fact, but you are right, of course, we do not always have enough, and not everything works out the way it was supposed to.

As I have already said, the frontline is almost 2,000 kilometres long, you know. And it may well be that we are not always able to supply all of it on time. In fact, this is what is happening. But the production volumes have been growing. By the way, private actors have been buying many drones, including abroad. The state, the Defence Ministry, manufacturers are also proactively involved in these efforts, of course.

You also know that there are many new things in terms of electronic warfare too. You know these designations probably better than I do. We currently install the Lesochek systems on almost all combat vehicles as far as possible. Of course, we will expand their use.

As concerns public response and the Popular Front and its work, an entire movement was created called Everything for Victory. You know, of course, the state could do without this sort of support, but it cannot be stopped. With all my heart, I want to thank our citizens who are so passionate about the needs at the front and our people fighting for Russia’s interests.

People have donated more than ten billion rubles. Of course, the state has this kind of money, especially now when our economy is on the rise. But the fact that people send their own money, weave nets, knit mittens and socks and send all this… Three million children have sent letters to the front, three million! And you know how much these letters warm our fighters’ hearts. We will support this in every way possible. I want to express gratitude to all volunteers.

Perhaps glitches happen occasionally. You know it, we meet with you on a regular basis, I mean with war correspondents, and you monitor the situation there. I hope that these contacts will continue, and you will, along with the Defence Ministry, communicate any problems to me.

As for the fact that wounded soldiers have to return from hospitals to military units for paperwork, I have seen these questions in letters. The situation has changed though. Either you have outdated information or I have inaccurate data. The Defence Ministry told me that paperwork can be obtained in rehabilitation centres rather than at hospitals, because after hospital, they are immediately sent to rehabilitation centres. I was told the process is running well.

I will certainly check that all is working well when it comes to housing and benefits, as well as paperwork, so they do not have to return to their military units. But if this is still happening, I will certainly speak to the Defence Minister. Changes must be made.

As for the Defenders of the Fatherland foundation, it operates well. There is a strong team of people. I met with the director, Anna Tsivileva, and visited a regional branch [in Veliky Novgorod]. These people are wonderful and very passionate about this positive work. Their responsibilities are limited though. Under the foundation’s constituent documents, they have no direct involvement formally. For example, I have always been against them managing any funds. But I think they should have broader rights with respect to controlling allocations and controlling the result of allocations, including funding for rehabilitation.

I do not want to go into detail, but I know that State Duma deputies are also dealing with this matter after my visit to one of the branches. We will be improving this foundation and ensure that it becomes an effective tool for protecting the interests of our people involved in combat operations.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Mr President, you mentioned earlier the enormous role that volunteers play in the current circumstances, and their generous spirit. They have submitted many questions.

Marina Makeyeva from the Moscow Region has the following question for you. Today, people are widely engaged in helping the armed forces by sending humanitarian aid, building materials, supplies, and transport. Why are ordinary people doing this rather than the state?

Vladimir Putin: I just covered this and think I answered this question. The state accounts for 99.9 percent of these efforts. But people do so of their own volition. We welcome this and will not put any restraints on it. I just want to thank them for that.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: You said a few words about electronic jamming devices. Wounded assault unit member Andrei Nikishin from the Omsk Region asks you to provide electronic jamming devices against drones. They simply do not have them.

Vladimir Putin: Give me the specific information later. What location is in question? We will check. There may be a shortage at some point in a particular unit. Again, the contact line is over 2,000 kilometres long, and there is a force of 617,000 deployed in the combat zone. So, yes, of course, there may be setbacks somewhere. Please give me the specifics, and I would like the war correspondents, whom I meet with regularly, to update me on his matter as well. We will definitely look into it.

Pavel Zarubin: And let us follow up on an important video call. Sergei Sobolev from the Novosibirsk Region.

Sergei Sobolev: Mr President,

Sergei Sobolev here. On November 13, 2022, I signed a six- month contract with a private military company. Upon returning home, I contacted the military commissariat of the town of Iskitim to obtain a combat veteran certificate, but my request was turned down. I then reached out to the Defenders of the Fatherland Fund, but was turned down again. I contacted the Social Support Centre of the town of Iskitim and was turned down this time, too.

Please help me sort this matter out as most of my comrades-in-arms also served in this private military company.

Pavel Zarubin: There are many questions like this.

Vladimir Putin: You know what the problem is all about? There is a problem. I think these are setbacks that the Defence Ministry should have prevented.

The problem is that formally and legally there are no private military companies in Russia. They are not provided for by law; that is the problem. This is my first point.

Second, the military who participated in the hostilities as part of private military companies, so to speak private military companies, did not conclude contracts with the state. This is the main problem. Commanders of these private military companies were in some kind of a relationship with the state. Unfortunately, payments were also made in cash. And that is also a big problem. It is very difficult to even establish any lists of the personnel serving in these military units.

However, all these people, I know these people firsthand, children of some of my close associates fought in private military companies. Among the people around me who work with me, there were family members, some of whom have given their lives for the Motherland fighting as part of this private military company.

By all means, their rights must be reinstated. They are entitled to the kind of social benefits and support from the state that other participants in hostilities enjoy. There is no doubt about it; it is my absolutely principled position.

I will not delve into details now, but it needs to be done. The Defence Ministry is aware of this, and the Government is aware of this approach. If needed, and maybe this is the only way to go, we will have to amend the law, and we will amend it, we will definitely make it happen. In any case, I promise, we will do our best to make it happen.

There are lines appearing on the screens, and one just read, “Yelpatyevo, Yaroslavl Region: please connect us to gas.” We will definitely consider this. Perhaps, we need to return to the issue of gas supply infrastructure. I already marked Yelpatyevo, Yaroslavl Region.

Pavel Zarubin: Let's make a video call now. Yulia Bereza, village of Rysaikino.

Ms Bereza, if you can hear us, please ask your question.

Yulia Bereza: Mr President, good afternoon, sir,

I am an active military member, and I am not in Rysaikino right now, but in Lugansk. Junior Sergeant Yulia Bereza, medical motor rifle battalion.

Ever since the beginning of the special military operation, I have been making every effort to go to Donbass as a volunteer, like my husband. On May 10, 2022, I signed a voluntary mobilisation paper at the enlistment office in Donetsk and was enlisted in the rifle regiment of the People's Militia of the DPR. I will say right at the outset that both of us joined up due to our convictions – to defend our Motherland and people, to protect our loved ones, as well as to uphold truth and justice.

However, because we were mobilised in the DPR, and not in the Russian Federation, I could not apply for benefits as a special military operation participant. I wanted to ensure benefits for my mother who is still in Rysaikino. In particular, I have obtained a war veteran identification card in the DPR, but it is valid only in the DPR. When I tried to login to my military member profile to apply for benefits, I found there was no such service member with the number on my personal file. My husband is in the same situation.

Therefore, I am appealing to you to facilitate the procedure for obtaining benefits for our mothers. Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you for your question.

Here is the problem. As you are saying, you were enlisted in the People’s Militia of the DPR. The People’s Militia, so that everyone understands, is mostly the same as the Armed Forces – they have been active on the line of contact and they still are.

But the problem is that you signed your contracts before the Lugansk People's Republic and the Donetsk People's Republic became part of the Russian Federation. As far as I understand, Comrade Senior Sergeant is a citizen of the Russian Federation, but it is an even bigger problem for those who did not have Russian citizenship.

The papers you have entitle you to benefits in the DPR or LPR. One way to change this could be to have them recognised in the Russian Federation. But there is another way to solve the problem – to issue relevant documents directly on behalf of the Russian Federation.

Relevant commissions have been set up in the Donetsk and the Lugansk republics, and these commissions are considering such issues. As far as I know, about 4,500 people in the DPR have had their rights confirmed, and 17,500 more in the LPR. In Donetsk, several thousand ID cards have already been issued, about 2,000, I think, and another 1,700 in the Lugansk Republic.

We are already moving in this direction and we will step up the work to restore and confirm the rights of war veterans. You should have no doubts about that. If something is still pending, I am sure that we will get it done. But if you have any difficulties with contacting your commission, you just need to tell us what these difficulties are, and we will resolve them.

Vladimir Putin: I suggest that we go with “the North.”

Darya Shuchalina: Good afternoon, Mr President.

I am Darya Shuchalina from the Komi Republic. I represent the municipal newspaper Panorama of the Capital and am a member of the Civic Chamber in our region.

I am passing on a question that people in our northern territories – Inta and Vorkuta – instructed me to ask. You know, unfortunately a very important programme for resettling people from the far north and areas with the same status is being carried out too slowly. This concerns the whole country, not only our region. We have six such municipalities in Komi. Naturally, people who have spent their entire lives developing the North and are now in well-deserved retirement would like to spend their pension time in areas with a milder climate.

I will cite only two figures. People in our republic received only 129 housing certificates this year, but there are 21,000 people on the waiting list. Obviously, it would be unrealistic to ask you to resettle every applicant instantly, so I will suggest two alternatives.

Option one: give priority to two categories on the waiting list – people with disabilities and pensioners. These two categories in our region should really enjoy priority.

Option two: either find the possibility of additional funding in our already tight federal budget for next year or, if this is too difficult, our region is prepared, if our authorities receive a budget loan a with a low interest rate, to resettle Inta and Vorkuta residents within the region, for instance, in Syktyvkar, our capital, or south of Komi were the climate is more or less acceptable.

Is it possible to consider one of these two alternatives? Maybe there are some other options. Thank you.

And thank you for resolving our issue of transferring the Vorkuta Airport complex to the federal authority. This was a long-awaited, very important decision. Thank you very much for that.

Vladimir Putin: The important thing is that it develops.

Darya Shuchalina: Yes.

Vladimir Putin: Because it happens that when we transfer something to a region, it all gets stuck there and then the region comes and asks us to give it federal money for development.

Darya Shuchalina: The administration of our republic is very proactive and, considering that Mr [Vladimir] Uyba asked you about this, all the decisions have already been taken.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, I know.

Mr Uyba is a very proactive and well connected person. He worked in the federal government, and he can do a good job in his current position.

Can you repeat your proposal, please? You suggested focusing attention during the relocation programme on two…

Darya Shuchalina: Yes, on two groups of people waiting to be relocated – people with disabilities and pensioners. There are two possibilities, as we see it.

The first one is very simple: to request additional funding from the federal budget.

The second option, which we can implement with regional funding, is to relocate the people who are taking part in this programme within Komi. To do that, we need a government guaranteed loan at a low interest rate, so that we can give these people housing in Syktyvkar or in the south of the republic. Komi is a large republic, and relocating people from the north to the centre or the south is an acceptable solution.

Vladimir Putin: You know, if the Finance Minister was with us today, he would say that there is no money available. The Finance Ministry never has money available. However, we can and should consider expanding this programme, of course. Indeed, those who have been working all their lives in the north want to move to regions with a milder climate at a certain period in their lives. This is understandable.

First of all, we will continue the programme. This is the key point.

Second, regarding the allocation of additional funds, this issue needs to be analysed. The budget for next year has been approved. I hope there will be additional revenues. It is this part of the budget that we should look at.

As for relocation within the republic, it is a possible solution. We will discuss this matter with the head of the republic. I will also talk with the Government. Loans are a complicated thing, but it could be a simpler way to help the region and not so burdensome on the Finance Ministry, although it will be a burden, nevertheless. But we should consider this option and try to implement it.

As for focusing attention on people entitled to benefits, it is the right decision. We will discuss it with the Government by all means. Thank you for your proposal.

Dmitry Peskov: Mr President, if I may, can we come back here, please? I suggest that we give the microphone to the young man over there. I think he is in the third row. Please, introduce yourself.

Vladimir Seroukhov: Vladimir Seroukhov, RBC. I have a currency-related question, if I may.

Javier Milei was elected President of Argentina the other day, and one of his main campaign promises was to replace the peso with the US dollar. Russia, on the contrary, has adopted a policy to dedollarise its economy by moving away from both the dollar and the euro in its international settlements.

What do you think about this process? Do Russia’s settlements with its economic partners in rubles and national currencies of countries friendly to us make any sense and offer us any benefits? Since we are talking about the ruble, what are the factors that affect the rate of the ruble the most, pushing it up or down? What are the main driving forces today?

Vladimir Putin: Allow me to begin with Argentina, so that we do not have to come back to this question later. Indeed, we all know about the idea that Argentina’s President-elect had to introduce the dollar in his country. Every country makes its own sovereign decisions, of course.

However, inflation in Argentina stands somewhere around 143 percent, I think, which creates a lot of challenges, as the country’s preceding leaders told me, in terms of repaying the loans Argentina contracted here and there. So the logic here is quite clear.

But this means that the country loses much of its sovereignty. If today’s leaders in Argentina do not see any other solution for addressing the country’s financial and economic woes, this is their decision to make. Still, this would substantially undermine their sovereignty.

There is also a socioeconomic aspect here. You are from RBC, right? Your channel specialises on these matters, so you have specialists who will understand what I am about to say, and ordinary people will also understand because this is not rocket science. You see, even pegging your national currency to the dollar can have serious socioeconomic consequences.

There was a time when Argentina faced major financial challenges, and people went as far as to attack banks. But what will happen if they switch to the dollar or peg their currency to the dollar? Any government seeking to solve its economic issues always thinks about honouring its social commitments.

I can note with satisfaction that the Government of the Russian Federation has been able to fulfil its social obligations in full despite the fact that defence spending and security costs have increased to a certain extent. Of course, some may say that this is not enough and that we must do more, like in Komi, for example, as I have just said, where we need to allocate more funds for relocating people, and so forth. That said, whenever the state promises something, it delivers on its commitments and honours them.

As for the dollar peg, there is non-discretionary spending: pensions, salaries for public sector employees, social benefits, and the like. Quite often, a state does not have enough money to cover these expenses. So what happens when you peg your currency to the dollar?

If they have a national currency – the peso, they have a tool to slightly increase inflation. True, this is certainly not very good, but still, it is a tool for balancing between a healthy economy and the fulfilment of social obligations.

But if you do not have a national currency, you cannot print more money. This leaves the government with only one option – to cut social spending, slash wages, pensions, benefits, spending on medicine, on roads, other things, and on internal security. There are no other options. And in this regard, any government puts itself in a very difficult position in terms of domestic political stability. If our partners make this choice, it is their right; any country can determine what it should do and how it should be done.

As for us, you said that we were the ones who rejected these settlements, but we have not rejected anything. The situation is that they have been creating problems with foreign currency settlements for us. By the way, in doing so, they are once again shooting themselves in the foot. Why are they seeking to restrain the dollar and the euro’s standing as universal currencies, as international reserve currencies? First of all, the dollar, of course.

In 2021, if I remember correctly, we used 87 percent of foreign currency to service our exports, including the dollar and the euro. The ruble, I think, accounted for about 11–13 percent, and the yuan, about 0.4 percent. As of September 2023, the ratio was as follows: the ruble, 40 percent; the yuan, 33 percent; and the dollar and the euro combined, 24 percent. Their share dropped from 87 to 24. Why did they do this? I repeat: they shot themselves in the foot.

Is this bad for us or not? Not really. Actually, the more we use the national currency in economic and financial transactions, the better. This boosts our sovereignty and our capabilities.

What does the exchange rate depend on? We have a floating exchange rate and it depends on market conditions, on the prices of our export goods, on growing demand within the country – and demand is growing. There is one more aspect – the Executive Order that was designed to regulate the foreign currency situation has played a role, and that, too, partly influenced the exchange rate.

What is the reason for this? In previous years, there was no need for any restrictions, because we received enough information from the countries that imported a significant volume of our goods, and we could track the movement of capital. Now we do not get any information from them because they cut off access. The Government and the Central Bank have no way of seeing what happens with the money that our exporters receive. The Central Bank and the Government have a legitimate interest in observing the ruble amounts accumulating, coming and going. In this sense, the Executive Order did introduce a few controls. But I believe that things will return to normal, so this is a temporary situation.

Overall, the financial market is generally stable. It is our priority to ensure this stability and predictability. And I believe we are succeeding in this.

Dmitry Peskov: Let’s take one more question from the hall.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, go ahead, please. The sign reads “Kuban.”

Maxim Zhmutsky: Good afternoon, Mr President.

Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon.

Maxim Zhmutsky: I am Maxim Zhmutsky, TV Channel ‘Krasnodar,’ Krasnodar Territory.

Mr President, this year, the resorts in Kuban have broken yet another, this time, historical record – 17.5 million tourists spent their vacations in our region. This was in the summer alone. Now we are having an intensive winter period. Of course, this is a huge burden on the infrastructure, primarily transport, especially in view of the closed airports.

Mr President, are there any federal plans for developing transport accessibility to the south of the country? Maybe high-speed roads or railways?

I am bound to ask you the following question: literally yesterday, there was a report that a test flight will take place tomorrow, on December 15 from Moscow to Krasnodar Airport, and if, God willing, everything goes well, our Krasnodar Airport will be opened. How true is this?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: As for opening airports, the main criterion here is passenger safety. Passenger safety is the top priority when making a decision to open an airport. This applies to the Krasnodar Airport as well. Although it is far from the area of hostilities, the Defence Ministry has been instructed to continuously monitor the situation and eventually make the decision. If they are getting close to it, they will report to me and we will act then. It is necessary to look at this situation and analyse it again.

As for the development of other means of transport – air service, railways and autos, they are all making progress. You mentioned a high-speed railway. Yes, we are planning to build this. The first stage will be Moscow – St Petersburg, and later it will be possible to go south. I mean it is not just possible but we are planning for it. But right now we must do the main thing – create an effective, capable structure that can take charge of this and that will draft a good business plan and a development model.

This is all possible. The Government and the initiators of this process are thinking about it and offering solutions. I am referring to Sberbank, the Moscow Mayor’s Office, and the Government, I repeat, is getting involved in this work.

Of course, if it takes two hours and 15 minutes between Moscow and St Petersburg – people spend more time getting to work in Moscow – this will be a completely different story, a completely different development. The same applies to the south of the country: Krasnodar, Kuban as a whole, the Stavropol Territory, the Rostov Region and Crimea as well. So, we are working on this. I hope it will be effectively continued.

Now, regarding the development of transport and passenger volumes. They are growing. Air service is seeing record numbers of passengers, increases of more than 16 percent; I think 16.4 percent in one year. Railway growth is second – plus 10 percent – 10.4 percent, and roads – cars and buses – plus about 7 percent – 6.4 or 6.5 percent. To sum up, passenger transport volumes are growing substantially.

Of course, everyone involved in this process should think about the next tourist season and do all they can to meet the interests of travellers. Domestic tourism is being developed at a good pace. I would like to thank all those who work in this area, including those who work in Kuban, for upgrading the quality of their performance. I hope, they will continue working like this in the future.

Dmitry Peskov: Let us take another question. Please, pass the mic over here, the first row. “Life” is sitting right there, the very bottom, first row.

Alexander Yunashev: Good afternoon, Mr President. Alexander Yunashev, Life.

We realise that we are living in unusual times. There are so many war correspondents in the audience, one could say, it is wartime, and much is required from everyone, triple the usual amount. There are the Criminal Code articles that were written in the 1990s. According to them, murder can get you 12 years, while the Prosecutor's Office may seek 14 years in prison for online extortion. Like, for example, for a seriously ill journalist, Alexandra Bayazitova, accused of being paid to block “negative” content about banker [Alexander] Ushakov who, it should be noted, works at a bank servicing the state defence order. She did not use a soldering iron in a garage to extort money from him, did she?

Vladimir Putin: So, are you trying to justify what she did?

Alexander Yunashev: I'm not trying to justify anyone. I am just stating the facts. To what extent do her actions match these extremely high sentencing requests made by the Prosecutor's Office? Is it not time, perhaps, to rewrite some of the Criminal Code articles? Maybe the threshold for particularly large amounts needs to be revised? Where is the line that separates bringing actual wrongdoers to justice and launching a witch hunt?

Vladimir Putin: You are taking this too far, what witch hunt are you talking about? I am not familiar with the details, but why a witch hunt? Did she do something so big that she now needs to be hunted down? Is she a major opposition figure? What did she do that she must be hunted down now? I am sure no one is after her.

All lawyers know: dura lex, sed lex – the law is harsh, but it is the law.

You know when you say such things – I know there are 14 to 15 year sentences for economic crimes… Frankly, I was stunned when I heard about it, I know about it, it is clearly too much. But in many countries, economic crimes, tax crimes, and crimes in the antitrust sphere, the fight on cartels, they add up these sentences, and perpetrators get time that is beyond belief, like a hundred years.

But why does it happen? Because society and the lawmakers proceed from the assumption that at some point of the development of society or the economy, the public danger of such actions is so great that it calls for an appropriate, as the legislators believe, response to put a stop to this unlawful activity.

This specific case (or other cases of similar nature) raises questions with me as a citizen. I am not sure it is necessary to put a person behind bars for 14 years. Or, they tell me about a former minister who was given more than 19 years for certain violations. He or that woman did something wrong. Do they need to spend 19 and a half or 14 years behind bars? The lawmaker should give it some thought. True, this needs to be thought about. As long as the law exists, it must be followed.

Remember the wonderful film that we all love, Belorussian Station? In it, the actor Anatoly Papanov plays an accountant at a major Soviet enterprise, and he is constantly pestered by a young director who pleads with him to break some rule. Papanov's character responds to him: you are a young and energetic person, and maybe you are right. But if you are right and so full of energy, go and get this rule changed, but as long as it remains in force, I will follow it.

There is something to that. It is about the stability of the legal system and how it is appraised in public opinion and what society thinks about the committed crime. But it does not mean that you should be stuck with it forever and not change anything. I agree with you, and I will ask lawmakers, the State Duma, to reassess this and to respond accordingly. I agree with you in general.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Mr President, we have been live for almost two hours. I suggest having a little fun, in the good tradition of Direct Line.

Vladimir Putin: Please.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Our people send various questions that do not fit into the usual topics. For example, Yaroslav from St Petersburg: “Today our country and you personally are being denigrated and insulted in the world. Do you think that in the future someone from some German town will say: “Damn, Putin did everything right.” Or, for example, one more question to follow. “How do you cope with stress when the entire rotten world is against you?”

Pavel Zarubin: There is also: “Do you play chess? If so, who did you play with last time and who won?” and “What do you recommend Russians do on long holidays, such as New Year’s?” Lots of questions, yes.

Vladimir Putin: So, a German city… And then what?

Pavel Zarubin: How do you cope with stress when the entire rotten world is against you?

Vladimir Putin: Stress. Next?

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: How do you stay motivated to do everything?

Pavel Zarubin: Do you play chess? If so, who did you last play with?

Vladimir Putin: Chess.

Pavel Zarubin: And what do you recommend Russians do during the long New Year holidays?

Vladimir Putin: Holidays.

Why just a German city? I not only believe, I know that not only in German cities, but also in many other cities in Europe, and in the United States, not to mention other regions of the world, many people believe that we are doing everything right. We are not afraid to fight for our national interests without encroaching on others. And a lot of people support this. First.

Second, we have a huge number of supporters in the world for the way we protect our traditional values. And the number of them is increasing exponentially.

A sense of duty is what helps me survive stress, or the fact that we are being attacked, I can say this without fanfare. Over many years, I have taught myself that I need to strive to choose the most important thing and do everything to achieve my goals, without paying attention to all the fluff. Of course, this field of vision must nevertheless be wide; everything must be understood and analysed. But you need to confidently move towards your goal if you believe in what you are doing, and I believe in what I am doing.

Regarding chess. You know, I recently asked a young man: “Want to play a game of chess?” He says: “Sure.” I ask: “Do you think I will win?” He looked up at me and said: “Doubt it.” What does this mean? This means one needs to constantly work on himself. I will try to do this.

New Year. You know, I think that on New Year you must think more about your family and loved ones, do something together, and find something common to do: exhibitions, theatres, sports, of course, and have an active lifestyle. I think it would be good to spend it with your family.

Pavel Zarubin: There has already been a quick response to the issues that were raised in the course of our programme. People from Crimea who study at the school of governors have already called the Direct Line centre. They are ready to go and repair this gym in Crimea.

I believe people are expecting a similar quick response to the following question as well. Price increases are not a new subject, but this year there are definitely more signs of this problem – many, many complaints about price increases on a particular product. This is what people are saying: “It is very sad to buy eggs in our country,” grieves Andrei Samoilov from the Tomsk Region. Anastasia Plastinina from Ivanovo asks: “Are these eggs laid by golden hens or what?”

And a video question from the Krasnodar Territory. Let’s watch.

(Video demonstration.)

Irina Akopova: Good afternoon, Mr President, my favourite President,

My name is Irina Akopova and I would like to ask you to intervene. Ten eggs in our region cost between 180 and 220 rubles. Where and when have we ever had such prices? Chicken breasts were 165 rubles per kilogramme, and now it is 350 rubles. Wings were 165 rubles and now they are 250 rubles.

Mr President, have pity on pensioners. Our pension does not run into the millions. Put things in order. There is nobody else we can ask for help. It is not good that you conduct this only once a year, but this is the website we have. We should have such lines three times a year so people can talk to you.

I am very grateful to you and hope you can help.

Vladimir Putin: Ms Akopova,

You said, “once a year,” but believe me, I spoke to the Minister of Agriculture recently and asked about the egg situation. They told me everything was fine. I told him, and I am being frank with you – this was my direct response: “But our citizens have problems. The price of chicken eggs has increased by 40 percent and even more in some places. Prices are much higher for chicken meat as well.”

This is what happened. As I said, we had a slight increase, but still an increase in income, the level of salaries and so on. The demand went up. This is a relatively cheap source of protein; it is popular with people. I am happy to eat scrambled eggs myself, and at one time, I could easily gulp down ten at once in the morning. But what happened? Demand grew but production did not. This is the first point.

The second point. Imports were not started soon enough or in the needed volumes. Incidentally, some Turkish companies are now offering us additional imports. We are developing our economic ties, including in agriculture, very well. Other countries, including Belarus, also have proposals. But we didn’t start our imports on time. We should have resolved these problems within the EAEU.

Decisions were made, I think the other day, but at any rate they must be made in December, so the situation is bound to improve – there is no doubt about this. I am hoping for this very much. Because these conversations with the Ministry of Agriculture took place at least two weeks ago.

I am sorry about this and want to apologise for this problem. This is a setback in the Government’s work. Although they say this is not the case, I still think it is – the problem is related to a failure to increase imports enough. Apparently, they hoped to make more money, but they promised to fix this soon.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Mr President, housing and utilities prices are also of concern to our citizens. They write with such bitter irony that the light at the end of the tunnel has become more expensive. But in reality, of course, this is no laughing matter. Many point out that pensions will be indexed by 7.5 percent, but utility prices will be set higher. They see this as unfair.

Let us watch the video message.

Vladimir Leontyev: Mr President!

In 2024, our pensions will be increased by 7.5 percent. At the same time, from June 2024, our city of Novosibirsk plans to hike our utility bills from 9 to 14 percent, which will effectively eat up the 7.5 percent indexation of our retirement benefits. Please take note of this.

I am enclosing the draft resolution by the Governor.

Best regards.

Vladimir Putin: Our interlocutor did not introduce himself, did he?

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Vladimir Leontyev.

Vladimir Putin: Mr Leontyev, I agree. I will look into the utility prices in Novosibirsk (I can see them on the screen). We will definitely look into this situation and analyse it.

Indeed, the plan is to index pensions by 7.5 percent, and I hope that this will not be below inflation. But I would like to point out that we indexed retirees’ benefits by 10 something percent for previous years very recently, in December 2022. Last spring, again, we added more than 4 percent to compensate for inflation, and in January 2024, there will be another indexation of 7.5 percent. Utility prices, on the other hand, have not been raised since last July, and will be only increased in July 2024. That is a year and a half. Over this period, there will be three indexations of pensions, by a total of over 23 percent. Right? Approximately.

I know how important the timing is, and utility bills must grow comfortably over time, while people's incomes must grow at a faster pace.

There is one more point here. There is a law that says, if a family's utility bill exceeds 22 percent [of income], the family is entitled to a subsidy. Hundreds of thousands of people took advantage of this opportunity last year. In some regions, this threshold is even lower than 22 percent – if a family spends 15, or maybe 20 percent, they can apply for a subsidy.

Again, I will need to look specifically at the ratio of these figures in the Novosibirsk Region. We will definitely do so, I promise.

Pavel Zarubin: Is it right that you also have to pay a bank commission for such a basic service, paying utility bills? There are many such questions.

Vladimir Putin: This is certainly wrong, especially when it comes to pensioners. The decision has just been made: Retirees will not be charged any bank fees when paying their utility bills.

Pavel Zarubin: That is news. Big news.

Dmitry Peskov: We have forgotten about the audience a bit. BAM, please.

Irina Voroshilova: Blagoveshchensk, Amur Region, gateway to China. Irina Voroshilova, Amurskaya Pravda.

Mr President, our question is this. Next year will mark the 50^th anniversary of The Construction of the Century – this is what the Baikal-Amur Mainline was called. But today, you see, there is an injustice. Today the BAM is divided between the Far Eastern and East Siberian railways. Don’t you think it’s time to return the BAM to the map of Russia? Today we have construction projects along the BAM; the BAM-2 and BAM-3 are wonderful projects that are very important to our country in today’s situation.

Vladimir Putin: Please explain what you mean, “return it to the map of Russia”? What does that mean?

Irina Voroshilova: There is no single BAM. There used to be a Baikal-Amur Mainline; it was there. It was later divided and removed in the 1990s. Today the BAM is also divided: part of the BAM route belongs to the East Siberian Railway, and part to the Far Eastern Railway. There is no single section called the BAM. And now the BAM Association (this organisation includes hundreds of thousands of people from the post-Soviet space) proposes creating a Baikal-Amur Railway from Taishet to Sovgavan as part of Russian Railways. BAM veterans believe this would speed up the implementation of the BAM-2 and BAM-3 projects and would kickstart the construction of new railways in the east of Russia.

Vladimir Putin: You know, to be honest, I have never paid any attention to this; this is the first I’m hearing that such a problem exists, that it is divided between different sections of the railway. After all, it is still all part of Russian Railways, one way or another. Oleg Belozerov, head of Russian Railways, has never mentioned this to me. Nevertheless, I will talk with him, and with Minister Savelyev, and I will ask Mr Belozerov if they think it is necessary to merge it, if so, they can do it, I have nothing against it.

Irina Voroshilova: On the contrary, single out the BAM, the Baikal-Amur Mainline.

Vladimir Putin: I understand that it is necessary to create one line, as you said, from Taishet to Sovgavan.

Irina Voroshilova: This includes funding, projects; everything at once.

Vladimir Putin: I see, but this should be initiated by Russian Railways or the Ministry of Transport. No one has ever raised this question. Please. I will talk to them: I will talk to Minister Savelyev, and to the head of Russian Railways. If it makes sense, they should do it; I would not object. This is the first time I am hearing about this.

Will this help new construction? I do not really understand how this would help with our projects there. They constantly have, excuse the bad manners, tiffs about whom, how much and who will build, and on what terms. This is something Deputy Prime Minister Khusnullin is working on. I am generally aware of what is happening. I hope these projects continue on schedule.

It continues in difficult conditions too, but our goals will be achieved. I definitely promise you that I will look into this. It is just that this is the first I am hearing about this problem, but we must treat it with respect, especially since it’s coming from BAM workers. We will definitely look into it. And, of course, we should properly celebrate the 50^th anniversary of the BAM.

Here's BRICS, Tatarstan. What do we have?

Artur Khalilullov: Artur Khalilullov, Tatar-Inform.

Mr. President, as we know, the BRICS [summit] will be held in Kazan. I have two related questions.

First, what impact will the summit have on changing the world order based on so-called rules, primarily Western rules, as we understand, right?

And the second question. Is the choice of Kazan related to the fact that the capital of Tatarstan has recently become a kind of diplomatic hub in relations with eastern countries and countries of the Muslim world? Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: No, it is simply because Tatarstan is developing well, and Kazan is one of the best examples of such development. The conditions are good. Both the former President and the current one Minnikhanov have been doing good work, and we can see the results.

I remember when I visited Kazan with Mr Mintimer Shaimiev, we went to people's homes. Do you know what pleased me then? You could hardly call them houses – they were actually dugouts. It was in the early 2000s. Dugouts in the full sense of the word. But they were so clean, we went into the house – it was clean, everything was tidy. I still have this feeling of respect for people who lived in such modest conditions and kept everything at such a level, you know? That level of internal culture of the people is not what strikes you, but it inspires respect. I think that this is the reason for the confident development of Tatarstan, the capital of Tatarstan – Kazan, first of all.

The city is in good condition, the infrastructure is developed. Kazan has held a number of major international events, both sporting and general political events. It is naturally becoming a center of attraction, if you prefer the word ”hub“ – here you are, hub. Tatarstan is a multi-ethnic, multi-religious republic, relations between different faiths are properly arranged, a good example in principle for the whole country. And this is why Kazan was chosen.

As for the rules-based world order, there are no such rules in reality. They change every day depending on the current political situation and the immediate interests of whoever is talking about it. How will this affect the situation? It will affect it in the right direction. It will show that there are quite a large number of forces in the world, powerful countries that want to live not by these unwritten rules, but by the rules prescribed in fundamental documents, including the Charter of the United Nations, and those that are guided by their own interests and the interests of their partners. They do not impose anything on anyone, do not create any military blocs, but create conditions for joint effective development.

This will be the focus of Russia's work as BRICS chair next year.

Pavel Zarubin: What planes will we fly to this summit on? After all, among the hardest hit by Western sanctions is aviation, and it quickly became clear that our airlines, which, in previous years, you literally forced to buy Russian planes, and they, frankly, were not eager to comply, have now queued up to buy the Russian-made planes. So far, we have been mainly flying foreign aircraft, and people now have safety concerns. Any news about an aviation incident now causes much more of a stir.

I suggest that we take a video call now. Maxim Saltykov from Moscow. Maxim, go ahead with your question if you hear us.

Maxim Saltykov: Good afternoon, Mr President. My name is Maxim. I am a cadet at a civil aviation flight school.

What will become of our civil aviation in the current geopolitical circumstances, sanctions, where our airlines are unable to purchase Western-made planes? The domestic MС-21 and Il-96 are undergoing a certification process and will not be mass-produced anytime soon. And the service life of the planes currently operated by Russian airlines will eventually come to an end.

In this regard, there is one more issue. A fairly small percentage of flight school graduates find jobs with our airlines, despite the fact that training schools undertake good-faith and consistent effort to prepare us for feats of labour.

To sum it up, will we fly, Mr President, and what on?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: We will, of course, we will.

Regarding foreign-made aircraft, indeed, Pavel [Zarubin] mentioned the fact that I had unending disputes with our companies, which were making unchecked – with reservations, of course, but nevertheless – too many, if you ask me, purchases of foreign-made aircraft, backing their decision up with valid reasons, such as efficient engines, compliance with international noise standards, and so on – they came up with multiple arguments. However, they would be better off now had they made timely moves to create a market for domestic aircraft.

We have been talking about this all the time and managed to create this market. But, indeed, our aircraft fleet is overstocked with foreign-made planes. I think our companies did the right thing and chose not to respond to the unlawful moves by leasing companies. Nonetheless, the process is ongoing: no one wants to lose revenue, and we are buying back some of these planes and they become the property of Russian airlines.

We must expand our own aircraft manufacturing. I hope that all our plans – we plan to produce more than 1,000 aircraft by 2030, our own aircraft, MC-21, and to re-equip existing aircraft with the domestic PD engines. Now, we need to move on and make the next more powerful engine – PD-35 – with a powerful thrust. This will help us increase the number of long-haul aircraft, including the Il-96–400. By the way, it is already in service as a cargo version. It has a longer body, almost 12 metres longer. So we need to work on it. We have all we need to implement all our plans.

To reiterate, I hope all these plans will get implemented, and both pilots and passengers will have something to fly on. Of course, we should also work on small aircraft for regional flights.

Pavel Zarubin: The audience is close to the boiling point.

Mr Peskov, please.

Dmitry Peskov: One more question from the audience. I actually saw the New York Times. Pass the microphone, please.

Vladimir Putin: No, let Xinhua go first, and then the New York Times.

Liu Kai: Good afternoon, Mr President.

Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon.

Liu Kai: I am delighted by this opportunity to ask you a question. China News Agency Xinhua. My name is Liu Kai. I have two questions for you.

First. As we know, Russia will take over the BRICS chairmanship next year. What do you think is the significance of interaction and coordination between China and Russia in BRICS, and in general?

And the second question: what are your expectations for the expansion of Chinese-Russian relations next year?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: We know – just to repeat, since I must – that the level of our cooperation with the People’s Republic of China is unprecedented. We have said many times that we hope to reach US$200 billion in trade next year. We will actually get there this year, not next year, over US$200 billion this year. We will do the calculations in the first quarter, and I think we will have US$220–230 billion. This is a very decent level. Last year, we achieved a 31 percent increase in trade, and we will see a 30 percent increase this year.

We are steadily deepening our economic ties across the board. I am also pleased at the diversification of our relations. We are expanding ties in infrastructure, building bridges and roads, and cooperating in high-tech industries, and we will continue in the same vein.

Chinese President Xi Jinping’s visit last March gave a significant boost to our relations, and the progress continued thereafter. We have agreed that we will consistently expand ties in eight core areas. Relevant documents have been signed. The governments of Russia and China are deeply involved in achieving the goals that we set together, my friend President Xi Jinping (also Russia’s friend) and I. The work is progressing rapidly, steadily and confidently.

As for BRICS and our role, I will not say anything new here either, but this axis is obviously strengthening, namely, Russia-China relations constitute a major factor in guaranteeing global stability.

We see what is happening around Russia and China. We see the West’s attempts to redirect NATO’s activity to Asia and towards Asia; these attempts clearly go beyond the statutory goals of this organisation, the North Atlantic bloc. It is called the North Atlantic bloc – what business can it have in Asia? But no, they are looking to interfere in Asia, using provocations, escalating the situation, creating new military-political blocs with various members.

I would rather not repeat what everyone knows: Russia and China are not doing anything of the kind. Yes, we are engaged in military, economic and humanitarian cooperation, but we are not creating any blocs. And our friendship is not directed against third countries – it is aimed at benefiting ourselves, but not at harming anyone.

Unlike us, the West is always trying to use its friendships against third countries. We are closely monitoring their actions and will be sure to respond together, effectively and promptly. No one should have any doubt about this.

Dmitry Peskov: We promised to give the floor to The New York Times.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, The New York Times, go ahead.

Valerie Hopkins: Valerie Hopkins, The New York Times.

For almost a year now Western journalists have been unable to take part in events like this. I am very happy that we can attend [this news conference] today. Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: It is Mr Peskov’s fault. (Laughter.) I am an open person with democratic beliefs and views.

Valerie Hopkins: We will talk about this. Let me please ask a question in English.

Vladimir Putin: You are welcome.

Valerie Hopkins: My colleague, a Wall Street Journal correspondent Evan Gershkovich, has been held in Lefortovo prison without a trial for 37 weeks. The extension on his detention was today, again, upheld. Paul Whelan, another US citizen, has been in prison for nearly five years.

A spokesman for the US State Department, which considers both men wrongfully detained, recently said that Moscow had rejected what it called a substantial offer to return both of them to the United States. Is that true? What will it take to bring them home? And do you think that finding an agreement with the United States to bring them home to their families can be a way to improve the severely strained relations between the United States and the Russian Federation? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: You mentioned your colleague from a journal. Which one is it?

Valerie Hopkins: The Wall Street Journal.

Vladimir Putin: You said that he was kept in jail without trial, and at the same time you said that his detention term had been extended. But if his detention term was extended it was done under a court ruling. So, it is incorrect to say it was done without trial.

Regarding the possibility of extraditing these people to their native countries, you said: “Why not let them go back to their countries?” I’d say, why don’t they avoid violating the law in the Russian Federation? But this is all just rhetoric. It is not that we have refused to send them back – we have not, but we want to come to terms [with the American side] and we want these agreements to be mutually acceptable to both sides.

We keep in contact on this issue with our American partners, and we are maintaining a dialogue on this issue, and it is not an easy one. I will not go into detail now but, generally we seem to be speaking a language that is clear to each other. Hopefully, we will find a solution. However, I want to repeat that the American side should hear us and take an appropriate decision – one that considers Russia’s point of view.

Of course, humanitarian considerations should underlie these decisions. I could not agree more with you on this point.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Mr President, I have a season-related issue: winter, low temperatures, everyone is sick (we are jumping from subject to subject, but this is the format).

Rospotrebnadzor is recording the incidence of influenza and coronavirus simultaneously. In addition, there is a record incidence of measles this year: 300 times as high as last year.

Vladimir Putin: 30 times?

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: 300 times as high.

Vladimir Putin: 300?

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Yes, for measles. And our citizens, quite reasonably, associate this with a shortage of vaccines.

For example, we received the following message from the Samara Region. “The Samara Region has lacked vaccines for measles, rubella and mumps for more than four months now.” And a few words about medicines for good measure: we receive a great number of requests from our citizens who need Western medicines that have left the Russian market. Not all analogues are suitable; sometimes, unfortunately, they have the opposite effect. How is our pharmaceutical industry adapting in this regard? How are these things going?

Vladimir Putin: As for immunisation medicines against measles, the mumps and rubella, unfortunately, there is also a technical failure here. What’s the reason? Oddly enough, this is also due to the lack of eggs, because chicken eggs are the raw material for measles vaccines. We need to have enough high-quality eggs to produce medicines. But we just failed to resolve this problem in a timely manner. This is the first point.

Second. The decisions have been made regarding this issue, and I believe that the problem will no longer be relevant soon.

You mentioned mumps and rubella.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: A three-component vaccine.

Vladimir Putin: Well, this is a vaccine against three diseases at once. I believe this problem will be resolved in the near future. In general, we have no problems with vaccinations and vaccines. One issue arose, but it will be resolved soon. That’s first.

Second. By the way, there is a wave of measles in the world every four years. Why is this? Unfortunately, this is due to low immunisation in the native countries of labour migrants, as well as in Ukraine, because millions of people have also moved to Russia from Ukraine. But Ukraine had a very low immunisation rate, and it is probably even lower now. This is also a real problem, as is our technical failure. I hope all this will be resolved soon, as our experts have told me.

Yes, a number of companies left our market, and this is a problem. However, if I am not mistaken, there are only 14 vital medicines on the list. But the industry is actively working at this, and we have not suspended any imports. Our Health Ministry and the Government see these problems; a special commission on import substitution was created, and is functioning. They assure me that they do understand what is happening, and that they are doing and will ultimately do their best to satisfy the needs of people who require certain medicines.

As for replacement, yes, sometimes something goes wrong, and it is necessary to look for alternatives; and industry must operate, and doctors must work on this, too. It often happens that psychologically a person has grown used to a certain medicine; but this is important, even the psychology is very important. A person either believes in a medicine or does not, I understand that. We will both purchase imports and produce our own, and the volume is growing.

Pavel Zarubin: Medicine and the state of primary care remains a hot topic; there are many questions coming even from large cities on how impossible it is to get access to specialists, that there are not enough doctors and nurses; and there is a flood of requests from towns and villages.

Let us call Yegor Perminov from the Sverdlovsk Region, the urban-type settlement of Reftinsky. Yegor, if you can hear us, please ask your question.

Yegor Perminov: Good afternoon, Mr President.

My name is Yegor, I am from the urban-type settlement of Reftinsky in the Sverdlovsk Region. Our trouble and problem is with healthcare, or rather, the lack of it. The authorities are actively working on landscaping, but not the hospitals, which lie in ruin: lack of equipment; salaries leave much to be desired; most of the renovations took place back in the Soviet time; and everything is falling apart before our eyes. We cannot receive normal medical care in these conditions. We are asking you to help. Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Where is this?

Pavel Zarubin: The Sverdlovsk Region.

Vladimir Putin: I will definitely look into this; what exactly it is about and what specific settlement.

Pavel Zarubin: Reftinskyб it is not far from Yekaterinburg, as far as I remember.

Vladimir Putin: Give it to me later; I will write it down now: Reftinsky, right?

Pavel Zarubin: Yes.

Vladimir Putin: We have a programme to modernise primary care, with very substantial funds allocated. I think 14,000 vehicles alone were provided. Paramedic centres are being built and upgraded. This is probably not enough. And, by the way, we will definitely extend the programme to modernise primary care; this will also be part of the future presidential programme.

Pavel Zarubin: You can see footage from this settlement right now.

Vladimir Putin: A lot has been done, in fact; but judging by what we see now, it is clearly not enough. I would like to say again: we understand this problem; that’s why we created a special programme for primary care, and we will carry it on.

Here, it is very important to pay special attention (it is envisaged in the programme, by the way) to rural areas and settlements, of course. A little more than half of all funds allocated for the development of primary care go there. This is what we will continue to do. And, of course, we will work on specific facilities.

Dmitry Peskov: Let’s come back to journalists. Mr President, RT is here. Let’s give them the floor because they are sitting on the very edge and nobody will notice them.

Murad Gazdiyev: Thank you.

Mr President, I am from the Russia Today TV Channel, my name is Murad Gazdiyev. This question is particularly painful for us as an international channel and for our country as a multi-ethnic community. Mr President, what do you think about the growth of nationalism in Russia and the rest of the world, and not only nationalism but also anti-Semitism?

I will simply say that we don’t have this problem at the front. A Jew, a Christian and a Muslim can sit in one trench or a tiny dugout and they are all fine. But once you come out of it, this is a growing problem in both Russia and the whole world for some reason. What should be done in this respect, Mr President?

Vladimir Putin: You know, I think the latest VCIOM studies show that 96 percent of the Russian citizens believe that inter-religious and inter-ethnic accord in our country is a greatest competitive advantage over other parts of the world. It is enormous. This is indeed the case.

This is so primarily because we (I will now turn to our traditional values from this side) cherish traditional values. And traditional religions are making a big contribution to the preservation of this situation and relations between representatives of different ethnic and religious groups.

As for the growth of Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, Russophobia and other similar manifestations, they really exist and tend to grow. Do you know what it is linked with in my opinion? This is because people encounter some injustice.

Look what is happening in Gaza – there is a definite reaction to these events in the whole Islamic world and the number of people with radical ideas is going up. This growth is obvious. The number of such people is on the up. There is nothing good in this and yet this is a result of the policy pursued by certain elites, a failure to resolve issues for decades and the absence of a solution to the Palestinian problem. The reaction of the Islamic world is followed by the growth of these anti-Islamic phobias. This is very bad.

As I have already said, religions and our appeal to our traditional values are playing an enormous role in our country. But our balanced policy at home and in the international arena is also playing an important role. After all, we are doing all we can to achieve justice in all of these areas. And I believe people still appreciate this. This is exactly why we are in this situation.

As for Russophobia, it is one of the vectors of struggle against Russia, one of the areas. Yes, it exists in the world. At home, we must do everything we can to prevent anything like this and nip in the bud any attempts to shake our society from within. This is what we will do.

TF1. Is it a French company?

Jerôme Garro: Thanks.

Jerôme Garro, for TF1, the French TV.

Mr Putin, you have been in contact for a very long time with Emmanuel Macron. Could you tell us, how do you perceive France and its President today? Do you plan to meet him once again?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, we used to have fairly good and friendly working relations. As you know, I have been to France, and Mr Macron has visited Russia. We have always had a busy bilateral and international agenda to work on. We are ready to continue to interact with France.

However, at some point, the President of France stopped communicating with us. It was not us, not me who stopped talking with him. He did. If there is an interest, we are ready to resume our relations. If there is no interest, we will manage without it. That is all; there is nothing unusual here. We are not avoiding contacts. If European countries, and the President of France, in particular, do not wish to communicate with us – so be it, no means no. We have things to work on and to keep ourselves busy. If there is an interest, we are ready to reciprocate.

Please go ahead. Let us pick the Magadan Region.

I have a request to make. Try not to announce ourselves so loudly, otherwise everything gets lost in the cacophony.

Alexander Orlov: I apologise. But, as we know from practice, sometimes it works.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, it helps.

Alexander Orlov: Alexander Orlov, Kolyma-Plus, Magadan Region.

Good afternoon, Mr President.

Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon.

Alexander Orlov: I would like to begin by saying that the Magadan Region fully feels the support of the Government, partly because we see federal projects being implemented in our region, which is good for its development and is also good for the image of the President among our people. Frankly, that includes me as well. We all support your decision to run for president next year.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you.

Alexander Orlov: Because, as long as I can remember, you have always been at the helm, so to speak.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you very much.

Alexander Orlov: Perhaps, I should now move on to the questions.

The first question. The connection with the mainland is very important for our region. Few people from the Far East and the Magadan Region (I think my colleagues from the Far East will agree) spend their vacations at home.

This is where we start running into difficulties. Magadan has three subsidised flight destinations including Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, Blagoveshchensk, and Moscow. However, such important destinations as Khabarovsk, which is nearby, and Novosibirsk, are not on the list of subsidised destinations. Because of this, one flight to a destination can take more than a day, and it can also set you back a hefty sum, because it is much cheaper to fly to Moscow than to Khabarovsk, which is close by.

For residents of the Magadan Region, like me, who have neither children nor disabilities, and are ineligible for discounted ticket – I am 22, and I cannot fly as a young, promising person.

Vladimir Putin: Start a family then.

Alexander Orlov: I agree with you. I am working on it.

Vladimir Putin: That is the way forward to solve the problem and have access to flat rates.

Alexander Orlov: Yes. But we have Far Eastern rates.

Vladimir Putin: You are a young, active, handsome young man. What are you talking about?

Alexander Orlov: Is it possible to expand the list of subsidised flights for passengers from the Far East, given that it can also help promote tourism in our region? To fly across the Far East using subsidised rates. This is my first question.

And second. I believe everyone in the Arctic regions and the Far East knows that we also receive northern supplements to our salaries; this is no secret. Each region has its own way of calculating the maximum coefficient. But in general, you need to work about five years to get the maximum. The problem is that we, the people who were born and work in the Far East, are just as likely to earn this coefficient as the visiting specialists, but without getting it right away. Is it possible to bring back the law that was in effect before? That is, those who were born in the Far East and the Arctic used to receive all the coefficients at once. Is it possible to bring back this law? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: You know, your question is clear. This is being discussed in the Government, and I would do this. I would not wait for a certain period of time to pass, to live, to work. This would help keep people in the Far East, which is beneficial to the country, and which is necessary for Russia. This is a question of fiscal capacity and the possibilities in terms of the federal budget. But we will think about it. And I will once again ask the Government to put this back on the agenda.

As for flat airfares. First, I want to say that this will be extended. This is usually done at the end of the year, after my consultations with Aeroflot, and primarily with the other companies and the Ministry of Transport. We will certainly extend the flat airfare directive.

Of course, I understand this, it would be good to extend it. This is also just a matter of additional budgetary funding. We'll see, okay? But we will extend it, that's for sure.

Although I understand that the region is huge, it's simply breathtaking. The Far East is a separate world. And of course, it's not easy to travel such large distances, even internally, I understand. We'll take a look, okay?

Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: Veliky Novgorod. The girl holds the poster as if she has nothing to do with it. (Laughter.) She was surprised.

Natalya Khmelyova: It’s the first time I was lucky.

Natalya Khmelyova, Novgorod Regional Television.

We have a question on the healthcare sector. The situation in our region has been improving in recent years: equipment is being purchased, and measures to support young specialists are also being taken. But still the key, a very significant part of mortality rates is cardiovascular disease.

In this regard, we also have a question about the federal program: maybe we can create a federal program for the construction of cardiac centers in the regions? This would be very helpful in our region. I think that other regions would also support us, but unfortunately, we will not be able to do this without federal assistance. Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you.

I will, of course, talk to Andrei Nikitin, the Governor, and the Ministry of Health. I don't know whether it is necessary to create a separate programme specifically for cardio. Yes, we have a separate program for cancer, and it works well. Cardio is really one of the problems and one of the causes of a high mortality rate – vascular, cardiovascular diseases. We will certainly look into it. But the first thing we need to do is extend the programme for the development of primary healthcare. And maybe there should be a separate area that would ensure health maintenance for people subject to certain risks, timely detection, dispensary and subsequent decision-making. Let’s take a look. The Ministry of Health deals with cardiac diseases very intensively. I think the number of fatalities is decreasing.

But I heard what you said. We will see.

Dmitry Peskov: Alexander Gamov, Komsomolskaya Pravda.

Vladimir Putin: Go ahead.

Alexander Gamov: Thank you very much. Alexander Gamov, Komsomolskaya Pravda internet radio station and newspaper.

Thank you very much for having supported the initiative of war correspondent Sergei Zenin, who is in Donbass now. He suggested that the authority, knowledge, experience and heroic deeds of participants in the special military operation be used for peaceful purposes, so that all of this is not lost in the work being carried out to promote the patriotic education of our youth, our children.

I have the following question. First, why, in your view, Mr President, did we need a new history textbook? History is following its own course. Does it matter to history what type of history textbook we write?

Second, next year we will mark the 80^th anniversary of lifting the siege of Leningrad and ten years since Crimea returned to its native harbour as you put it. In 2025, we will mark the 80^th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War. What does each of these events mean to you personally?

Well, in passing, since I am already holding the microphone, we invite you to the celebration of the 100^th anniversary of Komsomolskaya Pravda, which will be marked in 2025. Maybe you can tell Mr Peskov to enter this date on your schedule, and we will look forward to seeing you.

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you for your invitation. 2025 is a long way off.

Alexander Gamov: It is just around the corner.

Vladimir Putin: Well, around the corner from the historical perspective but it is quite a lot of time in one’s life. Anyway, I will do my best, with God’s help, and everything will be alright.

Regarding the anniversaries you mentioned, I believe that they are of immense moral and ethical importance not only to me but to all Russian people and even to all peoples of the former Soviet Union. They also have a personal dimension for almost every Russian family. For example, as you know, my older brother lies in a mass grave at Piskarevskoye Memorial Cemetery in St Petersburg; of course, I have never seen him because I was born much later but, nevertheless, it also means a great deal to me personally.

What was the first part about?

Alexander Gamov: I just thanked you on behalf of Komsomolskaya Pravda for supporting Sergei Zenin, a popular frontline reporter for the VGTRK state television and radio company, who is now in Donbass. And he said that this human capital, these men now fighting in the special military operation – that capital should be used for peaceful purposes, they should teach at schools. I remember my military instructor at school, a Great Patriotic War veteran, who embodied the state programme for patriotic education.

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: I already touched on this, there is nothing to add. Wars are won by teachers, and education – especially at the hands of those who directly took part in combat operations and risked their own lives, who fought for the Motherland – is of particular importance.

When I studied law in Leningrad, we had professors who had fought in the Great Patriotic War, and we listened with attention and special respect to what they had to say and looked up to them. They were the best role models. We will certainly use these men the same way.

Pavel Zarubin: This is definitely new for your news conference and Direct Lines…

Dmitry Peskov: Excuse me. (Addressing Alexander Gamov.) You also asked about the textbook.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, about the textbook, why we needed the new textbook.

Alexei Gamov: Yes, why do we need a new history book?

Vladimir Putin: I got it. There were more than 60 versions, 65 versions of textbooks I think, and Russian audiences will know what I mean… We have just talked about our anniversaries related to the Great Patriotic War, among other things. Many of those books mentioned all kinds of things – the importance of the second front and the opening of the second front – but never mentioned the significance of the Battle of Stalingrad, or mentioned it only in passing. Is this normal?

Of course, we need a fundamental state-approved version of history that all those who read this textbook will need to know. Today’s child is tomorrow’s citizen; you must realise that. This is extremely important. So, yes, we did need a new textbook.

I know that there have been questions and even criticism, which is normal. It is up to the academic community and the teaching community – preferably with the involvement of the parent community – to think this over, to finalise and amend the book taking into account the current reality. All the complicated historical issues – like any country, Russia has had its share of historical and internal problems – need to be treated with gentleness, benevolence and patience. We all need to be tactful and good-natured about all this. But still, all these textbooks must tell the truth, they must be accurate, and not serve anyone’s interests, as used to be the case.

Pavel Zarubin: Well, this is certainly something new for Direct Line and for news conferences generally – people have almost stopped complaining about the condition of Russia’s federal roads and are even happy with them.

We are expecting the opening of the Moscow-Kazan motorway very soon, and an extension is planned. The Rostov-on-Don bypass and the motorway to St Petersburg have been completed. In general, a lot has been completed in this area.

But people do have questions about the new toll roads. Why are they so expensive? Why are the tolls to use them so high? We are calling Sergei Gvozdev-Karelin from Moscow.

Mr Gvozdev-Karelin, ask your question.

Sergei Gvozdev-Karelin: Good afternoon, Mr President. I am from Moscow.

My question is on the tolls for using the long-awaited M-12 Moscow–Kazan motorway. The toll for a recently opened section of this road is seven rubles per kilometre on average. So, we expect a trip from Moscow to Kazan to cost about 6,000 rubles, which is, of course, very expensive for most drivers. A year ago, Avtodor cited a toll of four rubles per kilometre and the cost for the whole trip would have been between 3,000 and 4,000 rubles. I think this was more reasonable.

Mr President, please consider the possibility of instructing the relevant departments to reduce the tolls for the M-12 to make it affordable for a broad range of people. Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: Mr Gvozdev-Karelin, frankly, I don’t know where you got this figure – 6,000 rubles for the trip from Moscow to Kazan. Has this been publicly…

Sergei Gvozdev-Karelin: Look at this: Moscow–Arzamas is 2,800 rubles. Double it and you get 5,600 rubles for the Moscow–Kazan trip.

Vladimir Putin: Maybe, the toll will not be the same for each section because I know that the cost should be 4,000 or 4,500 rubles. I will check it. But it seems to me that such simple arithmetic probably doesn’t apply here. I will check. I will certainly look at it.

Sergei Gvozdev-Karelin: Thank you.

Look, it costs less than 4,000 rubles to drive to Crimea even though it is such a long way. It costs less than 4,000 rubles to get to St Petersburg. So it would be nice if Kazan does not become an exception in this respect.

Vladimir Putin: It is so nice to see Muscovites feel concern for Kazan. You see, everything is developing harmoniously.

Sergei Gvozdev-Karelin: A lot is connected to Kazan, thus our concern.

Vladimir Putin: But let me repeat – I don’t quite understand why you’re saying 6,000 because in reality they promised to charge 4,000.

Sergei Gvozdev-Karelin: I said about 6,000, sorry about that.

Vladimir Putin: I understand. According to my information, it is supposed to be no more than 4,500. I will definitely check it out, Mr Gvozdev-Karelin.

Sergei Gvozdev-Karelin: All right, thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: But generally, according to the law, there can only be toll roads when there are alternative roads available. So, there is always an opportunity to avoid a toll and drive free, though there may be other issues.

Nevertheless, the road authorities try to avoid imposing an excessive financial burden. You mentioned Kazan, I think to the south of Kazan they have built a bridge, and until now there was a ferry. The ferry cost 300 rubles, and driving across the bridge will cost around 260–270 rubles, which is a bit cheaper. I will definitely keep pushing the service contractors and the appropriate services on this. But I will check the Moscow-Kazan motorway.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Mr President, now that we are talking about roads, as Pavel and I were coming to this event through the peak hour traffic congestion, it was impossible not to see a huge number of Chinese-made vehicles, like a real invasion. Analysts say that literally 60 percent of our market has been taken by Chinese cars. They are by no means cheap, but domestically produced cars are not much cheaper. Many people write and ask a very reasonable question: why have AvtoVAZ prices have gone sky high?

Vladimir Putin: Not “sky high,” but I do think they went up around 40 percent.

Pavel Zarubin: There are very few mid-class cars left, it is impossible to buy a car under 1 million rubles.

Vladimir Putin: Right, I agree. But 40 percent is also a lot, I understand.

What is the reason for this? I do not think an explanation is really needed as everything is clear to everyone. However, if you still have a question, I will talk about it.

Obviously, when the European, Japanese and South Korean brands left Russia, several issues cropped up. They left with all their components. Developing the capability to make these parts and components on our own became an urgency. I will say that AvtoVAZ manages to produce enough vehicles, but the higher the output, the lower the price will be.

Certain costs are still caused by the fact that the manufacturer has to dig and scrape for these imported components one way or another, but at a different cost, and this leads to an increase in prices, and small quantities at this point. The higher the volume, the cheaper the product, and AvtoVAZ is following this path. I hope that this will lead to lower prices. But it is instrumental that we create our own platforms and develop them. This is what AvtoVAZ and other carmakers are doing, but this effort takes time. I do hope and I am even certain that this will materialise and will lead to lower prices.

The second crucial goal is to create our own parts and component industry, because we put too much faith in our “partners,” and almost lost our auto parts and components industry, and now need to recreate it. The Ministry of Industry and Trade is working on it. You know, I am trying to speak cautiously.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Not to get anyone’s hopes up.

Vladimir Putin: Correct. If I say tomorrow, and they will not get it done by tomorrow, people will say: see, he promised and failed to deliver on his promise. But rest assured, the Ministry of Industry and Trade is working hard on it, and the manufacturers are working hard as well. I am sure they will deliver.

Pavel Zarubin: LADA Granta seems to be available for under a million.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Yes, you can find it at that price.

Vladimir Putin: But still, the growth is around 40 percent.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: If you read the incoming messages, you could get the impression that everyone wants to drive nothing but Aurus. There were several messages saying that.

Vladimir Putin: Aurus is a very expensive vehicle produced in limited quantities. It is now produced abroad as well. There is an Aurus assembly line in the Emirates. Our friends in the Emirates like this car among others. We have a whole line of Aurus vehicles including limousines, sedans, SUVs, and a minivan is coming up.

All of this exists, but these vehicles need to be mass produced and prices will go down immediately. But this takes time. In any case, here is what I would like to emphasise: I think those who thought that everything in Russia would collapse are disappointed. Nothing collapsed.

As for Chinese cars, our Chinese friends are aware of what is going on. This is typical not only of Russia. Chinese manufacturers have a prominent presence on the global markets and have already begun to push out European manufacturers, including on the European market. Look at what is happening in the automotive cities in Germany: their situation is deteriorating.

More and more electric cars are being sold. US factories are opening there. It is not clear how this meets the interests of European, especially German, manufacturers. At some point, a few years ago, an attack was launched in the United States against Volkswagen. So what? They have caused enormous damage. How does the government protect the car manufacturers? The traditionally powerful German and other European car makers? It does not. They have left them hanging, and that is all there is to it.

The Chinese government is working hard to support its car manufacturers, and they are ousting Europeans from the market. This is happening not only in Russia. Price considerations matter as well. And the quality is improving. The quality for price allows our motorists to choose what they want. We will work as a team.

The young man opposite me has his hand raised. Go ahead, please.

Andrei Klimenyuk: Andrei Klimenyuk, GTRK Slavia, Novgorod Region, Veliky Novgorod.

My question concerns the region’s power grid. Most power lines were built in the post-war years; they are now obsolete. The current level of power line wear is about 70 percent. The slightest snowfall can lead to blackouts in entire districts in the Novgorod Region, affecting thousands of residents. A major outage occurred in December 2021, when several districts had no electricity for two or three weeks.

Governor Andrei Nikitin asked you to help improve the reliability of power grids. You supported his appeal. Six months later, in the summer of 2022, an agreement was signed between the regional government and Rosseti. The plan was to allocate 6 billion rubles to upgrade power lines and purchase the necessary equipment.

It has been a year; nothing has changed. So, I would like to know how soon power companies will begin to carry out your instructions, and the Novgorod Region will have an upgraded power grid.

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Rosseti is quite active throughout the country. To be honest, I do not know about the 6 billion rubles or what Rosseti was planning. I will find out. I will look into this and definitely talk to the management of Rosseti and the governor. We will try to support the region and help with the implementation of these plans.

The power grid sector in Russia is huge, due to our vast territory. But this is the European part, and there have been failures. We also have heavy snowfall now, and that also puts a heavy burden on it.

I will find out how much they planned to allocate – they have plans for regions and territories, and Mr Nikitin and I will certainly discuss this. I will try to help and support you.

Young man over there, please.

Alexander Zarubin: Good afternoon, Mr President.

My name is Alexander Zarubin, but a multi-million audience know me as Alexander Stone. I am an actor at Gazprom Media Holding and a resident of the Insight People production centre. I represent the blogosphere.

This sphere has been developing rapidly, especially recently, gathering momentum very fast. There is various information and widely different news, with new platforms opening and old ones closing. I would like to ask your opinion about the future of the blogosphere and what I personally can do for it to continue working, developing and producing new ideas, and for our operation to be fully transparent so that there are no questions to us.

Vladimir Putin: If there are no questions, what is there to talk about? But the blogosphere is a free and extremely democratic area. The main thing is for the state not to interfere with your work. If it does interfere, tell us about it, and we will try to help. But if everything is developing as you said and as you want, bless you. We will continue working to create this atmosphere and such conditions for the operation of the blogosphere.

The only thing I would like to say is… We understand that those who work in this sphere have a colossal responsibility exactly because the state is not controlling them. But there must be corporate ethics and self-restraint. You know what I mean because the matter concerns morals, ethics, and the safety of children. This is obvious. Therefore, the best option is for the professional community [in this sphere] to be organised on the same principles as in the sphere of high technologies and so on. But if there is anything you need help with, please formulate your wishes and we will try to help.

Alexander Zarubin: There are very many issues and many different opinions. Many young people become popular very quickly, and there is no one around them who has life experience or business experience to help with simple things such as how to pay taxes or register a sole proprietorship. Regrettably, there are many young people in this sphere who are not aware of this responsibility, as you have pointed out. It would be good if the majority of people working in this sphere could receive advice and recommendations, so that we adopt a responsible attitude to our work and continue working creatively.

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: They need somebody they can rely on who could give them competent and professional recommendations. Very good. Incidentally, this is very important. You have highlighted an issue that should certainly become a priority for the state. I have taken note of that.

Thank you very much.

Dmitry Peskov: I suggest that we take one more question from the audience. I see Mir – so Mir it is. After all, this media outlet covers the vast CIS space.

Elina Dashkuyeva: Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr President. Good afternoon, colleagues.

Elina Dashkuyeva, Mir Interstate Television and Radio Company.

Russia will be presiding over the CIS in 2024. On October 13, you said in Bishkek that Russia is committed to upholding its efforts to preserve and enhance the CIS as a prominent platform. But Moldova has been talking about possible withdrawing from the CIS, while Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan has been a no-show at all the leaders’ summits held by the CIS, the EAEU and the CSTO lately.

To what extent does Yerevan’s position matter for the CSTO? What is your general assessment of the integration associations in the post-Soviet space?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: We, I mean Russia, designed all our integration plans based on our unwavering commitment to the principles of voluntary and mutually beneficial cooperation for all those participating in them.

EAEU countries have been steadily expanding trade between them. We are opening up our markets, including in terms of labour, capital, and mutual cooperation. We also make efficient use of our shared infrastructure, including in the transport sector, but not only, inherited from the Soviet era, which is also an advantage. We also have a language we can all use to enable our people to communicate with one another. President Tokayev came forward with the initiative to create an international institution for promoting the Russian language, and we are grateful to him for this proposal. All these factors make us more competitive on international markets and help us not only deliver on our economic agenda but also to meet our social objectives and improve the wellbeing of our people too.

If Moldova does not want to be part of this process, and this is what Moldova’s leadership chooses, so be it. Moldova is one of Europe’s poorest countries. Only recently, it was the poorest of them all. Today, Ukraine holds this title. But if one of Europe’s poorest countries which has been buying our energy resources at a price that was quite low wants to follow in Germany’s footsteps, go ahead. Today, Germany buys its energy resources from the United States and pays 30 percent more compared to what it imported from the Russian Federation. So, if they have some extra money to spend over in Moldova, let them go down this road. The same goes for other sectors, for example in agriculture: farmers in Moldova are quite active on the Russian agricultural market. But if they do not want to work with us, they do not have to. But where will they sell their products?

You can see that in Europe, in countries pretending to be Ukraine’s allies, people are blocking roads to stop Ukrainian agricultural products from entering their territory, even transit shipments. They just blocked access. They have their own interests and those willing to fight for them. Where will the Moldovans go with their goods?

There was a moment when they started talking about giving up on Russian gas imports, but as a matter of fact they are not giving up on anything. Let them do as they please. For us, Moldova’s CIS membership does not create much added value, but we are ready, and we are not turning our backs to anyone or pushing anyone out. If they want to work with us, be our guests. If not, this is their choice, not ours.

As for Armenia, there are complex processes underway over there, connected with Karabakh. We can all relate to these issues. However, we were not the ones who left Karabakh to its devices. It was Armenia which recognised Karabakh as being part of Azerbaijan. They did so on purpose, to tell you the truth, without warning us that they were about to take this decision. This is just a way of presenting facts, since there are both pros and cons here. This is how it goes – there are complex processes underway in Armenia’s domestic politics. I do not think that withdrawing from the CIS, the EAEU, or the CSTO would be in Armenia’s best interests. But, at the end of the day, it is up to Armenia to choose.

As for Armenia’s Prime Minister’s attendance at these summits, we do know, or as far as we know, that this is attributable to certain developments inside Armenia and cannot be viewed as their willingness or unwillingness to continue working within these integration structures. Let us wait and see how the situation unfolds.

Pavel Zarubin: There are a lot of questions. We need to move faster.

Small and medium-sized businesses have also been instrumental in helping Russia to withstand the blow from sanctions. Let us watch a video sent by Vasily Babintsev from Izhevsk.

Vladimir Putin: Let’s do it.

Vasily Babintsev: Mr President, good afternoon.

My name is Vasily, I am from Udmurtia and I represent the Bungly Boo brand.

We make clothes for adults and children, for example, like these beautiful and stylish jumpsuits that mothers and children love. Recently, we won the Znai Nashikh contest organised by the Agency for Strategic Initiatives. The prizes we received were just what we needed to promote our products on marketplaces and enabled us to boost sales considerably. I would say we were lucky to win just the right prizes.

I have a similar example involving my colleagues – the Splav company, which manufactures clothing for tourists. After the start of the special operation, they, too, were able to increase sales due to a new category of consumers – the military and the mobilised. Again, we can say that it was a fortunate coincidence.

So here is my question. Is it possible, in today’s circumstances, to build a comprehensive support system for domestic brands and entrepreneurs to help them grow instead of relying on a chance luck?

Vladimir Putin: Look, you have just said that you have achieved success, and not you alone. You mentioned a contest held by the Agency for Strategic Initiatives; in fact, it was co-organised by VEB (Vnesheconombank), which is a state agency. The Agency for Strategic Initiatives, although an independent agency, is also supported by the state. Those two agencies held that contest of national brands after it was agreed upon and supported by the state.

The presence of our local brands in our domestic market has grown by more than 30 percent, 31 percent, I think. But you are right that this process should continue and that it must be comprehensive.

In this regard, we certainly need to involve not only federal agencies but also regional agencies in this work. I am now addressing the heads of the regions – colleagues, we need to take this under review and promote regional brands in every possible way. This should significantly diversify our market, make it more vibrant, rich, and more attractive to consumers.

We have a lot to be proud of in our regions. One of my colleagues here, I think from Mordovia, spoke about the Mordovia pavilion at VDNKh and invited everyone to visit, to see what is being manufactured in the regions. We need to promote this. Each region needs to have its own programme to support small and medium-sized companies, to support and promote our brands.

Pavel Zarubin: We are closely watching the development of artificial intelligence and one must admit that many people are quite apprehensive about it.

Arina Simonova from the Volgograd Region has a question.

(a video comes on)

Arina Simonova: Good afternoon, Mr President.

My name is Arina and I am eight. I was told at school that in the future, humans may be replaced by robots. What if they replace me, my mum, dad and my grandparents? Should we be scared of robots?

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Mr President, before you answer, we have another, very impressive, video on this topic. Let’s have a look.

Video question: Good afternoon, Mr President.

I am a student at St Petersburg State University. I am curious: is it true that you have many doubles?

Also, what do you think about the risks that artificial intelligence and neural networks bring into our lives? Thank you.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: The young man from St Petersburg did not introduce himself.

Vladimir Putin: I see that you can look like me and speak in my voice but I have thought about it and decided that only one person should look and speak like me. And that person is me. This was a joke by one prominent figure.

As for artificial intelligence, yes, this is my first double, so to speak.

Answering Arina’s question, I can say one thing for certain: Arina, remember that nobody can replace your grandma. It is impossible.

Should we be afraid of artificial intelligence? Preventing the evolution of artificial intelligence, including superintelligence that has feelings, can recognise scents and has cognitive functions and self-development capability – preventing this is impossible. You cannot prevent development. It means we should take the lead. At any rate, we must do everything to become leaders in this industry. Nobody knows the outcome. This is the reality, at least today.

Yes, there may be potential restrictions and self-limitations but it is important for leaders to reach agreement so as not to create any conditions that could jeopardise humanity.

Back in the day when nuclear energy was transformed into a nuclear bomb and people realised that those possessing this weapon are facing growing threats, people started to negotiate. This threat and this damage become unacceptable. People started to negotiate. It will probably be the same with AI: when leaders of the industry realise that threats have emerged, they will probably begin to negotiate. It is unlikely any tangible agreements can be reached before that stage. Although we should start thinking about it today.

Dmitry Peskov: Let us return to the auditorium and the journalists.

Vladimir Putin: Please.

Dmitry Peskov: Mr President, I suggest we have two questions at this end: we’ll give the mic to RIA Novosti and next to the Republika Srpska, our friends.

Yelena Glushakova: Good afternoon, I am Yelena Glushakova, RIA Novosti.

Generally, the grand agenda includes extensive discussions on both the special military operation and the new regions. In principle, today’s news conference reflects this agenda.

But there are regions facing no less difficult problems and complications. Yet, they are not much of a talking point, they are mentioned less frequently. I am referring to the Belgorod Region and the Kursk Region, which are exposed to [Ukrainian] shelling and have to exist under very difficult conditions.

I talked to my colleague from the Valuyskaya Zvezda newspaper, and she said that the shelling was a regular feature of their daily life, their normal everyday existence.

Do you think enough is being done to support the residents, protect their rights, and rebuild their houses?

My second question is about the businesses that continue functioning over there. There is a huge factory in Shebekino, there are businesses in other areas and districts of the Belgorod Region that regularly comes under artillery fire. Do you think the Government is doing enough to help them? Is it at all necessary to continue to work and promote business enterprise over there, given that the special military operation is still in progress? Thank you.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Mr President, we happen to have a video from Shebekino with questions from entrepreneurs.

Vladimir Putin: Ok.

(A video is being screened.)

Oksana Kositsina: I am Oksana Kositsina, factory director, Shebekino.

Last June, many businesses in Shebekino came under terrorist attack from the armed forces of Ukraine and were seriously damaged.

In this connection, we want to ask and draw your personal attention to this problem. Please help us to receive federal grants that will help us restore what has been destroyed and preserve over three thousand jobs. The grants will also contribute to reviving unique manufacturing facilities for food products, which are currently on the sanctions list. We produce these food products in the Russian Federation, in particular in Shebekino. It is also necessary to create a special economic zone in Shebekino for at least the next three to five years to help restore businesses after Ukraine’s terrorist attack.

Vladimir Putin: I will answer briefly. I think we should support the idea to create a special economic zone in Shebekino. I will ask the Government to submit their proposals in this regard in the nearest future. It is necessary to preserve jobs there and restore the economy within a brief timeframe, including in the zone you have mentioned.

(Addressing Yelena Glushakova.) This seems to be an answer to your question, as well.

Dmitry Peskov: I promised to Republika Srpska…

Vladimir Putin: Just a second. While this question was being asked, I read another question on the big screen on the left here. It is a very important question. A family with children, with two children, and the preferential mortgage programme is almost over… It is true that the family mortgage programme is ending. I believe it will end next July, and the Government is thinking about extending it. Of course, the Government must also consider the real possibilities of the federal budget, but I think it would be reasonable to think about extending the family mortgage programme. The programme stipulates the lowest possible down payment, only 20 percent, and the annual interest rate is 6 percent. If a family has three children, as I have pointed out, the family gets a subsidy of 450,000 rubles.

Therefore, we must certainly think about [extending it], and I will definitely give an instruction to the Government to prepare and submit proposals regarding this.

Dmitry Peskov: Let us give the floor to Republika Srpska and after it, to some other region.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, good, let us do this.

Darinka Petrovic: Good afternoon, Mr President. My name is Darinka Petrovic, I am a journalist at Alternativna TV, Republika Srpska.

You have spoken just now about the serious situation in the world, with conflicts raging on an area from Ukraine to the Middle East. All this also has an impact on the Balkans, further complicating the already serious and complicated situation there, especially in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Republika Srpska.

You know very well about the political situation in Bosnia, which is actually a Western protectorate. There is an illegitimate Office of the High Representative. The Serbs have been accused of supporting Russia, that is, for having good, fraternal and friendly relations [with Russia]. Russians, as well as our citizens and the Government of Republika Srpska have been accused of promoting the malicious Russian influence, as they put it. So far, there are no Russian media outlets or NGOs in the republic. At the same time, Western media and other organisations are mushrooming there.

I would like to ask you about your vision of the future of Republika Srpska and the region as a whole and to comment on the situation considering that all the biggest wars began in the Balkans.

I have many other questions, but I will not take up my colleagues’ time. I will leave my questions for the day in the future when you can grant an interview to us.

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you. I will try to give a brief answer. We are aware of the situation in Republika Srpska and in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and our views on this situation coincide with the opinion of your political authorities. This is the first point.

Second, the regarding Russian media. It is true that none of them have a presence there, which is regrettable. I do not know if you can watch RT in your republic. You cannot? We must think about this; I will ask our colleagues, Mr Dobrodeyev at the VGTRK, to think about what can be done in this sphere.

As for the future, it is for the people who live there who must determine their future. No matter what decisions from the past or present day are forced on the people who live there or in any other territory, the bottom line is that if we want to live in a balanced world where the interests of all people are respected, primarily the people who live in a particular area, we must take their sentiments, plans and wishes into account. Our policy towards that region, including Bosnia and Herzegovina and Republika Srpska, will be based on these principles.

Vladimir Putin: LPR, DPR, please, go ahead.

Yevgeny Murilev: Good afternoon, Mr President.

Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon.

Yevgeny Murilev: My name is Yevgeny Murilev, Lugansk 24.

Thank you so much for giving me the floor. Let me be honest: we came here without a question, since we do not have one. I believe that today the Lugansk People’s Republic has nothing and nobody to complain about.

We came here just to thank you personally for the fact that today Donbass is part of the Russian Federation. I would like to thank the Government for the work it is carrying out. The integration and the related processes are all running as smoothly as possible. I have a special thank you for our sponsor regions. They have done a great deal and have been working day and night. Our children can finally play outside and have new playgrounds, as well as modern kindergartens and schools.

Thank you so much. Please accept our deepest gratitude and a friendly handshake on behalf of Donbass in its entirety. Thank you very much.

The question I have is in fact very short: When will you come visit us?

Vladimir Putin: Thank you very much. I will be happy to visit you. To be honest, I have already been there, even if in a somewhat confidential manner. Still, I did have a tour of Lugansk and saw the city.

Let me reiterate what I have already said. You know that it all looks quite modest compared to Moscow. But Moscow is one of the world’s best megacities, and this is how it looks today. Lugansk is a much more modest place, but everything is tidy and clean, and very neat, which tells you a lot about the way people who live and work there behave. I do not have to explain what kind of people live in Donbass, including in the Lugansk People’s Republic. They have been fighting for all these years, never giving up, and now they are winning the field. I am certain that victory will be ours, and this will be our shared victory.

I would like to thank you and people in Donbass and to wish you every success.

Pavel Zarubin: We are still getting so many questions. I suggest that we take a look, please.

Vladimir Putin: Hold on, there is a man standing over there.

Mikael Minasyan: Good afternoon.

My name is Mikael Minasyan. I am a volunteer from the Donetsk People’s Republic.

For the past nine years, we have always been there for Donbass, ever since hostilities started there.

During a humanitarian mission, I lost some of my friends, who were also volunteers. I was wounded myself and saw them die. Mr President, we are hanging between life and death every day while performing our humanitarian missions. There are volunteers from other regions who join us, and when they arrive, they are issued insurance policies, so that if they die or get wounded, their family members can get the insurance money.

There have been no insurance programmes of this kind for LPR and DPR residents so far, which means that we are risking our lives just like the men from other regions, but the only difference is that we are doing this in our home region. In this context I would like to ask you to guarantee equal treatment for all volunteers from across our vast country.

Vladimir Putin: I fully agree with you. I have already expressed my views on a similar topic. Everyone must be treated equally. Does it make any difference where a person lives? Even if a person was not a Russian citizen when he or she was wounded, it does not matter, and it matters even less in your case. This has special importance for volunteers who chose to help our men and civilians on these territories and are willing to risk their lives and health. Of course, we must do this. We will definitely move in this direction. I will make sure that we enact the corresponding regulations.

Mikael Minasyan: Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: And thank you very much.

Pavel Zarubin: We are receiving a great number of calls and video messages. Just a second please, I beg your pardon, these are very important questions, including those coming from rural communities. Let us see one more.

Vladimir Putin: Just a second, may I?

Pavel Zarubin: Yes, of course.

Vladimir Putin: I read on the large screen: “When will microfinance institutions be closed?” But is it necessary to do this?

Yes, there may be a lot of problems there but they occupy a certain niche and help many people. It is different if they abuse people’s confidence or do things that they should not do, then they must be brought to their senses, it is true.

I will raise this issue once more – I have talked many times with our financial authorities about how these microfinance institutions work. We will look at this again.

Pavel Zarubin: Now, a question from rural residents.

Vladimir Putin: Go ahead, please.

Dmitry Panin: Mr President,

My name is Dmitry Panin, and I am the head of the Sokol Agro-Industrial Company, a Don Cossack from the village of Serebryansky, Volgograd Region.

For several years now we have been working to kick-start a cattle farm for the meat and dairy sector. Basically, all is going well. As I see it, farms with 100 to 200 livestock are the best option for developing the meat and dairy industry in the future.

In this context, I have the following question: Does the Agriculture Ministry plan to come up with new programmes to support farms like this?

My second question is about the lack of roads, which makes it immensely difficult to transport milk, as we must use tractors. I would like to ask you whether I shall be so happy as to live to see the road they have been promising to build for many years.

In the conclusion I would like to send my regards to our fellows, soldiers from our Cossack village. We are waiting for them – our entire host – to return as soon as they win.

Long live Russia!

Pavel Zarubin: May I add another question to this one?

Vladimir Putin: Where was this question from?

Pavel Zarubin: This question was from the Volgograd Region.

There is another question, which has also been asked by rural residents: “Would it be right to say that the issue of food security in the country, as far as staple foods are concerned, has been resolved?”

Vladimir Putin: First, I will answer Mr Panin’s question.

To begin with, the Ministry of Agriculture has many programmes to support agriculture, and the state has been investing heavily in this sector. That said, we would have achieved nothing if not for the active and dedicated efforts by our farmers in the rural areas. The overall results are quite positive.

As for smaller farms, they account for 40 percent of the funds allocated by the government to support agriculture. True, farmers supply more and more agricultural products – if I am not mistaken, it is 15 percent of the total – to the domestic market, which is quite a lot. This is my first point.

Second, their produce tends to diversify our domestic agricultural market. This is very good.

I would like to address everyone who works in rural areas, at large agribusinesses and small farms, to all farmers: I would like to thank you for the results of this year’s work.

This year, Russia again saw a record harvest – more than 150 million tonnes of grain. This is its bunker weight though, before drying and cleaning; the clean weight total will be about 146 million tonnes. This includes the so-called new regions, which will produce about 5–6 million tonnes. The result is very good.

I have mentioned the leadership of the Agriculture Ministry when we talked about eggs and poultry shortages here today. They deserve criticism in some areas of their work, but on the whole, the sector’s performance exceeded expectations again this year, and therefore deserves approval and praise, as do the Agriculture Ministry’s efforts.

The Government is providing assistance to small livestock companies – there are a number of support programmes they can take advantage of. If something is missing, we can talk about it later. I will even ask the Ministry officials to contact this particular company and discuss this. There are other options for supporting such farms. Do they need more? They just need to take advantage of what is already in place. But again, I want Mr Panin to know that we will continue this work. The top officials at the Ministry will contact you and talk about this.

So, we can say in all confidence that Russia has ensured its food security. There are a few problems with seeds, for a variety of crops. There is a lot to work on here; we need to develop several seed breeding projects. We have a seed programme, until 2030 I believe, and it is being implemented. The necessary financial resources are being allocated for this purpose. This is a problem that we must resolve. It is being addressed, and we will resolve it once and for all.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Mr President, next year is the Year of Family in Russia. It is a wonderful occasion to once again think of our families and friends. You once said that there is nothing better than a family with many children. This year, I became a mom myself, my daughter turns 6 months today.

Vladimir Putin: Congratulations.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: But, you know, the issue of having children is very sensitive. It happens that when a woman finds out that she is pregnant, she has her personal, serious reasons to terminate the pregnancy. The abortion issue is currently a very hot topic in the country; our citizens are concerned about it.

I will read out several messages from Moscow: “Please stop the mayhem with banning abortions. The ban on conducting terminations at private clinics will lead to an increased load on state clinics, whose number is being reduced due to healthcare reforms,” “Bans will lead directly to back-alley abortions and increase the mortality rate among women. It is simply irresponsible.”

What is your position on this issue?

Vladimir Putin: Well, do we have a ban?

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Not yet. But it is possible that the number of abortions performed by private clinics will decline.

Vladimir Putin: So why are they talking about some mayhem, bans? There are no bans.

As for bans, I just recalled the ban on alcohol. We remember what it led to: people began drinking surrogate alcohol, make moonshine themselves and get poisoned by these surrogates. As regards abortions, we also need to act very carefully.

Naturally, I know the position of the Church; it cannot have any other position. The Church fights for the life of each person, and it has its own stance on abortions, which is understandable. But at the same time, I just spoke about the sad results of the alcohol prohibition campaign, and we need to keep them in mind.

But the state is interested in dealing with the demographic problem so that women, after learning about their pregnancy will decide to keep their baby. This is obvious. But, I reiterate, the rights and freedoms of women also must be observed.

I think that the solution to this problem lies in at least two areas. The first has to do with addressing our traditional values, which include, first of all, a large family. They teach us that children are a gift from God for both women and men. And the other area is the financial wellbeing.

We spoke about primary healthcare earlier. But in addition to that, it is necessary to pay attention to women’s health clinics: there is much to be improved, and it is necessary to do so. We need to think about in what way and how fast it is necessary to improve maternity wards in regional hospitals and outpatient clinics. This area requires our attention.

And the third thing: it is necessary to find more ways to support families with children. This includes mortgage, subsidies and the further improvement of all the measures developed by the state over the past years to support families with children. This is my approach in brief.

Dmitry Peskov: I suggest returning to the regions and the journalists again.

I see Pivot to the East in the middle row. Please introduce yourself and the media outlet you represent.

Pavel Zaitsev: Hello, Mr President,

I am Pavel Zaitsev, Obshchestvennoye TV (Public TV) of the Primorye Territory. I am not as young as my colleague from Magadan, but hopefully I am no less energetic.

Mr President, Pivot to the East is a global strategy that was discussed in the previous period. Today, however, it is being implemented in a planned and consistent manner, particularly in the economy.

You have already broached many issues and fields, including rail and air transportation, the automotive industry, and so on, which is a matter of great concern for people who live in the Russian Far East. One of the main indicators has to do with Russian natural gas supplies to friendly countries in Asia.

You have also mentioned gas infrastructure development. This is another essential issue, including for the Russian Far East. What promise does the Asian market hold for our country? What possible advantages are there for the Russian Far East?

At the same time, I would like to ask this. Many Russians, including Internet users, wonder why one of our most important resources, natural gas, continues to be supplied to the West, given the immense sanctions pressure brought to bear on Russia in the current geopolitical situation. You mentioned Moldova as well as the Ukrainian transit to Europe…

Wouldn’t it be easier to focus on friendly partners in Asia and on developing gas infrastructure in Russian regions? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: First of all, we have been expanding gas infrastructure for some time now. I already addressed this point and can repeat what I said: 450,000 households have been connected to gas mains and another million have been technically enabled to do so. This work will be continued.

Why do we supply gas to Europe? Gazprom is a reliable partner. It has contractual obligations, and it has always met its contractual obligations and is meeting them now.

The fact that Europe receives less gas than it needs is their problem. Strange as it may seem, they attempted to blame us for this shortfall in deliveries. This is absolute nonsense, because it was not us but Poland that shut down the Yamal-Europe pipeline and not us but Ukraine that shut down the second gas pipeline running through its territory. Neither did we blow up the Nord Stream 1 and part of Nord Stream 2 pipelines. More likely than not, this was done by the Americans, or by someone else at their instigation. It is not we but Germany that failed to open the Nord Stream 1 pipeline, because at least one pipe in this system is in a working condition. Germany is reluctant to do that – let them, we couldn’t care less. They are facing price rises, and whole industries are shutting down: glass-making, chemical, metals industry and all related branches are being affected as well. They are confronting real problems.

Most likely, the German economy will slip into the red, slightly but it will. It is their decision, not ours. Gazprom fulfills all its obligations, including obligations concerning gas transit via the territory of Ukraine.

We also receive money. Of course, Ukraine receives transit fees. We may not be supplying gas to Ukraine directly but in fact, they are consuming our gas.

Do you know how Ukraine’s gas network works – and it has since Soviet times? It is linked to the main gas pipeline running to Europe. So, when gas enters the territory of Ukraine, it is immediately distributed across the country. And the gas that Ukraine accumulated over the summer in the underground storage facilities at its Western border goes to Europe as if directly from Gazprom. This is how obligations to consumers are fulfilled.

First of all, Southern Europe. Why would we punish Hungary or Slovakia? We have no such intention; moreover, they pay us like clockwork – and pay decent money. So, we have never done anything for political reasons and are not going to.

As for turning east, I have said it many times, it did not happen because of the escalation around Ukraine. No. It started a long time ago. The Power of Siberia pipeline was not built because of Ukraine. We started building it earlier. Why? Because we can see development trends in the world economy. New centres of economic growth are being created and it is where our primary consumers are emerging. We send our supplies where our oil, gas and coal are bought. I hope all the economies consuming our energy and paying us do well. We are thinking about expanding supplies to China and looking to other countries as our potential customers.

By the way, Japan has not refused our supplies. And it is welcome to take them. We do not mind. In the Arctic, Novatek is still developing relations with certain European partners in addition to partners from Asia. China is also present there, actively involved and intending to work further. We welcome that. So, our situation is stable and is not based on the current political conditions. In fact, Russia is seriously interested in, and oriented toward the world’s emerging economic centre.

Pavel Zarubin: To be sure, we cannot help but mention one more issue that is making people quite worried, specifically, labour migration. Heavy snowfalls have now hit largest megacities, and many people are grateful to migrants who helped with snow removal (local residents are highly unlikely to work in this field). However, to put it very mildly, there are people concerned about the number of migrants and the consequences of this migration. Some regions are even restricting the work of migrants. What do you think about this issue?

Vladimir Putin: This is a complicated issue. It is typical of many countries, including Russia. According to various estimates, over ten million labour migrants live here. As I said at the beginning, the national labour market features low, 2.9 percent unemployment rates, meaning there is almost no unemployment, while the labour market has its needs. But this does not mean that we should address economic issues at any price and solve labour market problems to the detriment of the local population. Is it necessary to attract migrants here? Yes, it is. Of course, we are mostly interested in skilled workers. It appears that we cannot do without unskilled workers too. However, we need to start working with our partners in countries (where these workers come from) well in advance. One should say that our friends from these countries wholeheartedly support this approach. They open Russian-language schools, as well as affiliates of our higher education institutions and universities. We welcome all this, and we will do our utmost in every way. They are in need, and they are asking us to send our teachers, to expand these programmes and curricula and to supply them with textbooks. We need to prepare for this in advance. This is the first thing.

Second, all migrants should, without reservation, respect our laws and traditions of the peoples of the Russian Federation, and the relevant institutions of state authority should monitor compliance with these requirements, and they should respond to violations on time.

Third, it is necessary to create normal human conditions for these migrants. I saw a question on the screen here: How much will we spend on resolving social issues of migrants’ families? Yes, of course, I realise that this is a sensitive issue. However, the situation would hardly be better were we to leave these people, these children, and the wives of migrants to their own devices. How will things develop? We are better off influencing them.

Yes, all aspects of this issue are not that simple; they are not painted in white or black. More and more children of migrants enrol at certain schools, and their number exceeds that of local children. However, we need to address these issues in advance, we need to work with them, instead of pretending that these problems are emerging only now.

Quite possibly, we need a special agency, not just the Interior Ministry, which deals with technical legal issues. We need a special agency that would analyse this entire issue, and that would find timely solutions for every aspect of this issue.

This amounts to large-scale work. However, we should be guided by the interests of the local population, citizens of the Russian Federation, in the first place. I would like to draw the attention of representatives of all branches and levels of authority to this aspect.

Pavel Zarubin: Incidentally, Yekaterina and I have noted that there are very many messages and requests for Russian citizenship from citizens of various European countries and the United States.

Yekaterina Beresovskaya: We received some from Italy, Sweden, and Germany, and the stories they have reported are absolutely horrible. For example, a family in Sweden was evicted from its own house when the special military operation began. These people want to return to Russia and to live here permanently.

Vladimir Putin: We have rules and legal regulations on granting Russian citizenship. We will welcome such decisions and all law-abiding citizens of other countries who decide to move to Russia, to live and work here, and to tie their fate and that of their children with Russia.

The number of such people is probably not as large as the masses of migrants from Africa and the Middle East moving into Western Europe or from Latin America into the United States. This is changing the ethnic composition there and will soon change it irreversibly. The balance of ethnic groups in the United States will inevitably change, and the share of Latin Americans there will inevitably increase. We should monitor this situation closely. As for the people you are talking about, those who knowingly want to move to Russia, and not even for economic reasons, we will welcome their decision, but we will also act in accordance with our laws.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Mr President, we have been talking more than four hours now.

Vladimir Putin: It is time to end this.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Maybe a few blitz questions?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, please.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: What did you dream of becoming as a child?

Vladimir Putin: I have already spoken about this. Every person’s view of the values surrounding them change in different periods in their lives. I wanted to be a pilot. But when I was in high school, I mostly wanted to become an intelligence officer, and, as you now, I became one.

Pavel Zarubin: A New Year question then: What do you like more, dressed herring or Russian salad?

Vladimir Putin: It depends on what you are drinking.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: What is the best present you received from Father Frost?

Vladimir Putin: The best present? I think that very many people in this room and those who are watching us will agree that the best present is our children and the children of our children. They are a gift from the Almighty.

By the way, regarding presents. It is not the presents we receive but the presents we give that please us the most, because we look at ourselves in the mirror and pat ourselves on the back. I am sure that people, especially the male part of this audience and the country, like to give presents more than to receive them. On the other hand, both instances are pleasant.

Pavel Zarubin: What advice would you give to young people?

Vladimir Putin: Well, we have folk wisdom, sayings, very many of them. One saying is “a good name is sooner lost than won.” You know, that would be my general advice. One should think today about what will happen tomorrow.

I would also add, always set ambitious goals. Set goals that may look unachievable. Having set such goals, a person will strive to achieve them and will certainly succeed.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Mr President, what are you reading these days?

Vladimir Putin: I will re-read the Criminal Code because some people believe that for some insignificant, as your colleagues think, wrongdoings, punishments are too harsh.

I have little time for reading. I have a Lermontov book on my nightstand. I love it. He was a brilliant young man. I am very curious about the way of thinking of such geniuses of that time. I would like to learn more about their values and what makes them relevant today. Lermontov was a genius. I am really enjoying his works.

Pavel Zarubin: Mr Peskov.

Dmitry Peskov: We have gone over four hours. Mr President, shall we finalise it by taking journalists’ questions?

Vladimir Putin: Sure. Buryatia. Buryats do not back down, I remember.

Yekaterina Yelistratova: Yes, Buryats do not flee, as you said.

Vladimir Putin: I did not say that.

Yekaterina Yelistratova: No. Our hero did.

Hello, Mr President.

My name is Yekaterina Yelistratova. I am from Ulan-Ude, Buryatia. Tivikom television company.

As you know, there is a unique oriental medicine centre in Buryatia. It is the only centre in Russia that uses traditional and even some non-conventional diagnostic and treatment methods based on oriental practices. The centre currently produces medication and provides enormous support to special military operation veterans in their rehabilitation. We really wish the centre could expand its capacities because the demand is high and we want more military personnel to receive proper treatment, more fighters to undergo rehabilitation. There have been cases of extraordinary recovery. We would like to ask you to support construction of a new building for this oriental medicine centre and grant the centre the status of a research institute. We need your support.

Vladimir Putin: I need more specifics: what centre is it and where is it located?

Yekaterina Yelistratova: The Oriental Medicine Centre. There is only one in Buryatia.

Vladimir Putin: Alright, I took a note. Ok, ok.

Dmitry Peskov: We will get all the details.

Vladimir Putin: We will try. Please get the details. It’s a deal.

Yugra.

Lolita Kurbanova: Hello, Mr President.

Following the August meeting with members of the Government, you issued an instruction to consider building a railway connecting Yugra with Siberia, Yakutia, and China. How realistic do you think this project is and when can Yugra residents expect it to be completed?

Vladimir Putin: This project is in demand. The Government and Russian Railways are considering possible options. This has to be coordinated with RZD’s investment programme. Of course, its current priority is the development of the Eastern Operating Domain, and they have to focus their efforts on this project, but again, it is related, in one way or another, to our trunk line plans. I do not want to get it wrong, so I will just ask Oleg Belozerov and Andrei Belousov, who is in charge of all these projects at the Government. Let us get back to that and look at it again, okay?

Next, Siberia.

Yelena Belyayeva: Good afternoon.

Yelena Belyayeva, GTRK Irtysh, Vesti Omsk.

Today we have talked about the pivot to the east. Naturally, we have a certain economic interest there, as the Omsk Region is located at the intersection of major transportation lines. As you know, we have the Trans-Siberian Railway, the navigable Irtysh River, the federal motorway that connects eastern and western Russia, so most of the cargo traffic from Europe to Kazakhstan and Central Asia goes through the Omsk Region.

But there is a problem. A rather long section of the busiest Tyumen-Novosibirsk highway – for us, towards Novosibirsk – it is a two-lane road. It is mostly worn out and unsafe; I also use it and see trucks in roadside ditches. So are there any plans to expand this motorway? This is my first question.

And the second question. To attain the logistics objectives that the country has set for us as efficiently as possible, for the benefit of the country, we need a large, up-to-date and world-class airport. Can we count on federal support?

Vladimir Putin: Look, at the beginning of our conversation, we talked about the road to Kazan, and then also the ones to Tyumen and Novosibirsk. We want to build a ring road there. We have the funds for this; they have been allocated, and we will implement these plans. These projects are already underway. But we will need to look at this particular area.

I will definitely speak with Mr Khusnullin about this. But this requires a lot of investment, so we need to see. We need to implement our current plans, the ones the builders are already focusing on – the routes have already been approved, and so on. All right, I will tell the Ministry of Transport and the Deputy Prime Minister in charge. We will think about it.

Dmitry Peskov: Friends, one final question, because we have already exceeded four hours.

Please, Andrei Kolesnikov, you will conclude this part of the news conference.

Andrei Kolesnikov: Good afternoon.

Kommersant newspaper.

Mr President, you said that the world will never be the same again. What would you say to Vladimir Putin from 2000 if you had the chance? What advice would you give? What would you warn him against? Do you have any regrets?

Vladimir Putin: What would I say? I would say: you are on the right track, comrades.

What would I warn him against? Against naivety and excessive trust in our so-called partners.

As for tips and advice, I would say this: We must have faith in the great Russian people and nation. This faith provides a pathway to reviving, shaping and developing Russia.

Thank you.

Please do not get angry with me if I haven't answered all of your questions. Indeed, one needs to know where to stop.

Thank you, and all the best!

Conversation with participants in the ceremony marking Heroes of the Fatherland Day

2023-12-08T18:36:04+04:00

After the ceremony to present Gold Star medals to Heroes of Russia, marking Heroes of the Fatherland Day, the President talked to its participants.

Artyom Zhoga: Mr President, you have done so much for our Donbass.

The Federation Council has set the date for the presidential election in the Russian Federation. On behalf of our people, of Donbass as a whole and our reunified lands, I would like to ask you to take part in this election. After all, there is so much work that needs to be done.

It is thanks to your actions and your decision that we have obtained our freedom and the right to choose. We want to take part in the election of President of the Russian Federation, and you are our President. There is so much work ahead of us in terms of integration into the social fabric, as well as in economic terms, and also in terms of the way we live our everyday lives as civilians. We would like to do this under your leadership.

You are our President, and we are your team. We need you, and Russia needs you.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Thank you very much. Make no mistake, I had all kinds of thoughts on this matter at different times. However, you are right – the time to decide has come. I will run for President of the Russian Federation.

Sapizhat Mazayeva: Mr President, as the mother of the First Hero [of Russia, a participant in the special military operation], and a primary school teacher for 25 years, I know that heroes are brought up not by family alone. Teachers also make a big contribution to their upbringing. If they start working on this at school, if they instill these values in children – love for the Motherland, patriotism and a desire to work – our boys and girls will become heroes.

We need to continue this work. I support Artyom Zhoga’s idea – you must stand in the upcoming election. You are our President. We are your team.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you very much.

Viktor Polyakov: We must go forward. We stand for you. We are with you. We are asking you to go ahead. Russia needs you, the manufacturing sector needs you. Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you very much.

Maria Kostyuk: As a mother, I would like to thank you for the memory of our sons on behalf of fathers, mothers and widows who are present here. Thank you for thinking about our dead boys and truly appreciating their achievements – and we see this – for the sake of our Fatherland. We are grateful to you for this opportunity, a really unique opportunity to be here and attend this historical event. You have succeeded in restoring the great glory of our Fatherland. And today you are presenting our boys, our great warriors our highest state award. We share the feeling of happiness for them with their parents and the whole country, and we are praying for them.

Our boys are performing their military duty on the frontline. We understand this and we are performing our civilian duty on the home front. Our boys have not left the front and will not do this. So, you should not leave us either. We are here at this meeting and I feel proud: Hero Of Russia, Hero of the Soviet Union, Order of Courage, Hero of Labour, the parents of our dead heroes. We are all here and everything is clear – we are your front, we are with you, we are for you, we are at one with you.

I will repeat what our boys are saying today: You are our President. You are our Commander-in-Chief.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you.

Maria Kostyuk: Today we have to do a lot for our Russia, but we need to do even more, to continue what our sons are doing. And we are marching together with you, and we must continue to stand by your side.

But why am I talking? I think these men from the front line can say more (Addressing Yury Mizerny.) Yermak here… God forgive me, Yury – I am using their call signs.

Yury Mizerny: Comrade Supreme Commander-in-Chief, allow me to relay the words from the men who are now on the front line. The guys there were concerned – before you said it just now – if you would run for reelection or not. So, they asked me to tell you, Mr President, that they want you to stay with us, because together we are strong, and with you, we will win. You are our President.

Vladimir Putin: We will be together.

Maryana Lysenko: Mr President, I know so well what the soldiers mean and why they need you so much now – only recently, we have taken a long and challenging path together, in medicine, and we did it with you. You were one of the first to walk into the red zone. You supported us with whatever we needed, and we felt an extraordinary amount of support and a truly human concern. And that was very important. That is why we won that battle on our small front. And not because the pandemic is over, but because our results are incomparable with global or European results, or any other results.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, we know that.

Maryana Lysenko: Your personal involvement was very important, even essential. In healthcare and medicine, we still have goals and objectives that we must work towards with you.

Vladimir Putin: In medicine, we cannot do without you. Your contribution is crucial in industry, and on the battlefield…

Remark: Rosatom miners and people in the Trans-Baikal Territory want you to know that we are always with you, we believe in you, and we are proud that we have such a President. We are in this together.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you. I would like to say again that I used to have second thoughts on this matter, but I realise that today, as I said, there is no other way.

Remark: We hope so.

Vladimir Putin: I will run for reelection as President of Russia. And thank you for these words, especially in this context, especially today.

Artyom Zhoga: The recently reunited territories will participate in a Russian election for the first time, and we will vote for you.