Website of the President of Russia: Videos

Future Technologies Forum plenary session

2026-02-25T22:53:13+04:00

Vladimir Putin took part in the plenary session of the Future Technologies Forum. The discussion theme is Bioeconomy for Humanity.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Ladies and gentlemen,

Dear friends, good afternoon,

I was informed that you have already had a professional discussion as part of the Future Technologies Forum. This year, it is dedicated to bioeconomy. In continuation, let me say a few words on the steps the state is taking to develop this vital sphere.

Since the audience of today’s discussion are not just experts but also the broader public, I would like to take a moment to elaborate on issues that may be well known to specialists yet could be something new to a wider audience.

I venture to outline what the bioeconomy entails and what practical prospects and opportunities it offers for people, the economy, agriculture, and healthcare, as well as the role it plays in enhancing the country’s industrial and technological sovereignty and ensuring environmental safety.

My colleagues have just introduced me to some of the advanced developments showcased at the exhibition that is being held on the sidelines of the Forum. They are indeed impressive.

By drawing on the principles and wisdom of nature and unlocking its immense creative potential, researchers and manufacturers are developing solutions that support quality of life, health, and active longevity. These include healthy foods – high-quality food products are all good for health anyway – as well as vitamins, supplements, and vaccines. This is very important, and Ms Skvortsova promises me every year that such vaccines will be delivered soon. Unfortunately, the Healthcare Minister is not here today to specify this, but I very much hope that the relevant certification procedures and technical clarifications will be completed without unnecessary delays or red tape, so that these important health innovations can become available as soon as possible.

These are medicinal products. And even tissues, blood vessels, and – something that is no longer fantastical – individual human organs. True, the creation of a living heart has yet to be achieved, but progress is being made in this direction.

Biotechnologies have a wide range of applications in industry, where natural microorganisms and other living systems are used instead of chemical reagents. They serve as catalysts for complex technological processes and initiate closed cycles, where waste from one production process becomes raw material for another. Mr Kovalchuk has been explaining this to me for many years, and I am deeply grateful to him for that. These technologies are applied in bioenergy, environmental solutions, and agriculture – enhancing soil fertility, aiding in plant protection, and purifying water, soil, and air. After purification, I observe fish swimming there, which require clean water – so it works.

Thus, bioeconomy is far more than just a field of scientific knowledge. Through their bold ideas, scientists and engineers are, in essence, shaping a new reality and an industrial paradigm, applying breakthroughs in biology and genetics to improve people’s lives and preserve our planet and its fragile ecosystem.

In Russia, we take pride in the fact that our contributions to the life sciences have been significant, thanks to the discoveries and philosophical and scientific teachings of Vernadsky, Mechnikov, Timiryazev, Koltsov, Vavilov, Engelhardt, and other outstanding domestic scientists, including our contemporaries. I will certainly return to this topic later in my speech today.

We will continue to expand our capabilities and move forward. Especially since biotechnologies, bolstered by the power of computational systems and artificial intelligence, are advancing at an unprecedented pace, helping to address key challenges of our time – such as climate change, food shortages, and the depletion of renewable resources – and can serve to implement projects both on Earth and in space.

I have repeatedly emphasised: equal access to future technologies, rather than privileges for the chosen few, is an indispensable condition for the equitable development of our civilisation. Therefore, on the platforms of BRICS and other groups, as well as within the framework of bilateral cooperation, we are ready to implement joint scientific, educational, and investment programmes in biotechnology for the benefit of all humanity.

For our part, we intend to harness the colossal potential of bioeconomy to strengthen the nation’s health, address other priority tasks, and accelerate technological and industrial development without compromising the unique natural potential of our country.

This year, we launched a national bioeconomy project. Its overarching objective is to secure our sovereignty in several critical areas within this field and, where we already have the potential and groundwork done, to achieve leadership positions.

I would also ask the Government to step up the development of a long-term vision – a national strategy for bioeconomy up to the mid 21^st century. Its provisions should be integrated into the policy documents that shape our responses to challenges in Russia’s food and bio-security, as well as the systemic development of healthcare, energy, agriculture, industry, and other key sectors.

To reiterate, we are discussing the development and implementation of truly cross-cutting, universal technologies and products that impact virtually every area of our economy. It is therefore critically important to establish effective cross-sectoral and supra-departmental governance for bioeconomy and to focus our efforts on significantly increasing its contribution to the nation’s GDP. The relevance of this was clear from the exhibition we just visited. Representatives from a wide range of fields are, in effect, articulating the same need – solving common challenges.

A primary implication of this is a substantial increase in funding, not only for the respective national project but also for other bio-industry initiatives, with the central focus on attracting private investment.

We must also remove the barriers that hinder active business participation in shaping bioeconomy. Existing support measures need to be focused on accelerating its development, and we should introduce additional instruments to encourage private investment by providing tax incentives and other benefits to companies that develop and introduce such technologies. These and other tools must be applied consistently at every stage – from scientific research right through to the launch of breakthrough solutions and competitive bio-based products.

To enable our domestic biotech companies to pursue long-term plans and recoup their investments more quickly, I ask the Government to propose effective mechanisms for cultivating and protecting domestic biotechnology market and develop clear scenarios for their practical application across various sectors of our economy and social sphere.

When I speak of maintaining our competitiveness, I am also referring to what I have just witnessed: how our competitors are faring and the scale of their investment in developing these technologies. But we must certainly protect our domestic market – using only modern, market-based mechanisms, of course – but this effort is absolutely essential.

It is important for us to create domestic demand for such innovations on the system level. And, of course, we need to expand the output and to secure a strong position on global biotechnology markets. Therefore, we must establish an effective system to support high value-added bioproduct exports, as well as promote our standards, technological platforms, and competencies in other countries.

And of course, my colleagues, especially the Russian audience, will understand what I am saying. We need to work with our closest neighbours, with whom we already have strong and friendly relations and enjoy decades-long cooperation across many areas.

A crucial issue is the availability of our own instruments, equipment, enzymes, and biocatalysts, as well as other critically important components. In these key areas, we must speed up the transition from import substitution objectives to production of globally competitive products based on our own platforms and solutions. Please supplement the national bioeconomy project with specific decisions in this regard.

Friends,

To accelerate the development of bioeconomy, it is necessary to create a modern legal and regulatory framework, as well as a system of standards and rules to access the market of bio-based solutions.

Regulation should support and stimulate the creation and rapid implementation of innovations, while at the same time guarantee safety and quality of products for individuals and society. I emphasise that this applies to all areas from biopolymers for packaging purposes to artificially grown organs and tissues. Everything is important.

It is essential from the beginning to set clear ethical boundaries for the application of biotechnology, to prevent potential threats, primarily to human health and life, and to ensure the protection of personal data.

At the same time, I repeat, as in any advanced field, we must create conditions for scientific breakthroughs. For example, in the field of unmanned systems and artificial intelligence, the experimental legal regimes have proven effective. I propose extending such regimes to individual areas of the life sciences. Our innovation-driven scientific, technological, and educational centres can serve as platforms to develop and to conduct controlled testing of innovative biotechnologies and products, including the already well-known federal territory of Sirius.

I am asking the Russian Science Foundation to award this year grants named after our great scientist Yevgeny Velikhov to create innovative solutions for the agro-industrial sector, biotechnological production facilities, the pharmaceutical industry, healthcare, and other sectors. Such technologies should be developed using bioinformatics and artificial intelligence, among other methods.

Friends, I would like to invite scientific teams to actively participate in the Russian Science Foundation’s competition. Its winners will, over five years – and, I believe, with an additional three-year extension – be able to receive up to half a billion rubles from the state for research, as well as co-financing from leading domestic companies.

To develop new biotechnologies, we will also utilise Mega-Science-class research. This year, the Siberian Circular Photon Source in Koltsovo, Novosibirsk Region, will undergo a technical launch. It will soon operate at full capacity. I believe that by 2027, our scientists should finally gain full access to this facility. We are ready to implement international scientific programmes in the life sciences, and in biology, medicine, and pharmaceuticals using this unique installation.

At the same time, it is crucial that research and development in bioeconomy are not only fundamental but also applied in nature. They should enhance the economic and technological potential of the regions and thus serve the objectives of spatial development in Russia, with its vast territory.

For example, in the country’s northwest, we need to set up recycling of timber industry waste; in the Far East – the production of bio-based products derived from aquatic bioresources; and in Siberia and southern Russia – the deep processing of grain.

I reiterate, these are just individual components of major regional programmes in the sphere of bioeconomy. They must, without a doubt, take into account the unique requirements of such territories, their resource base, and economic specialisation. Naturally, regions must have the necessary personnel and appropriate technologies for such projects.

In this regard, I propose creating a broad network of engineering development centres for bioeconomy in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, at universities and research institutes. These centres are intended to shorten the path from laboratory research to full-scale industrial production, providing access to equipment and computational resources for scientific and student teams, as well as for small technology companies from across the country. And they – I want to emphasise this particularly – must become full-fledged participants in the national bioeconomy project. Let me stress this once again.

I would like to address what is most important – and I think you will all agree with me – what is most important? What is the most crucial element? It is the specialists, people like you, whose expertise is the foundation of building a bioeconomy. We must acknowledge that, for now, the competencies and knowledge of graduates from many universities and colleges do not align – moreover, they significantly lag behind even the current level of biotechnology development. But this is understandable; much here is new, and thus much remains to be done. The personnel challenge in this sphere is one of the most complex and systemic, and of course, we must respond to it.

In this regard, we must first ensure the training of senior and mid-level specialists with strong interdisciplinary expertise at the intersection of biology, chemistry, engineering, and artificial intelligence. To achieve this, it is essential to work closely with businesses so as to significantly update vocational and higher education curricula and to expand practical training for students directly at enterprises.

This work must take into account cutting-edge trends in microbiology, genetics, and bioinformatics. I therefore propose establishing new advanced engineering schools at universities and colleges and extending the Professionalitet educational project to these areas.

Second, I would like to ask the Government, together with regional authorities and businesses, to carefully review the workforce forecast for biotechnology, taking into account the demand for specialists to implement major regional projects in this field. If necessary, decisions should be made to increase the number of state-funded places in bioeconomy programmes at universities and colleges across the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.

Third, it is important to use this new foundation to adopt a more focused approach to career guidance for schoolchildren, aligning it with the needs of the biotechnology sector, and to expand specialised education in the natural sciences. Overall, I propose launching a comprehensive programme to promote bioeconomy. This effort should actively engage the media and leading digital platforms. The earlier people become familiar with this field, the better, as it is complex and multifaceted.

I would also like to use this opportunity to thank Russian biotech companies, scientists, philanthropists, and enthusiasts for their significant educational efforts. Let me repeat: this work must undoubtedly be expanded, opening new horizons and career opportunities for young people and for citizens overall. Public outreach in this area – let me even say “propaganda” – is extremely important and must be carried out in a systematic and timely manner.

Friends,

At the forum, we traditionally discuss the trends and innovations shaping the future of humanity. Advances in biology, genetics, and other life sciences are rightly referred to as the technologies of the 21^st century. Together with the IT sector and artificial intelligence, they are transforming the economy and society, creating new opportunities for millions of people.

I propose dedicating the next Future Technologies Forum to the creation and implementation of digital platforms. These platforms are already enabling scientists to carry out research projects more efficiently, connecting entrepreneurs from small towns with customers in major cities, allowing residents to participate in managing their homes and communities, and analysing medical data in record time, thus helping doctors save lives. This is only a small share of what the platform economy can do. In Moscow, such solutions are already being successfully implemented. For example, we have recently discussed that when an ambulance is dispatched, doctors receive their patient’s medical history on screen in advance, enabling them to prepare the necessary equipment and make informed decisions even before arriving. This is just one illustration, just one example of such platform services.

In this field, Russia is developing world-class solutions and is ready to share its experience and expertise for the benefit of all humanity.

I am pleased to invite everyone interested in cooperation to take part in the Future Technologies Forum in 2027.

Thank you for your attention. I wish you all the best.

We will be meeting now with some of the colleagues to continue the discussion and the conversation. Thank you.

Ceremony for presenting letters of credence

2026-01-15T21:02:36+04:00

Vladimir Putin received the letters of credence from newly appointed ambassadors of foreign nations. The ceremony took place in the St Alexander Hall of the Grand Kremlin Palace.

The letters of credence were presented to the President of Russia by: Alenka Suhadolnik (Republic of Slovenia), Mohamed Abukar Zubeyr (Federal Republic of Somalia), Sosthene Ndembi (Gabonese Republic), Shobini Kaushala Gunasekera (Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka), Nicolas Louis Marie Olivier de Rivière (French Republic), Stephan Sylvain Sambou (Republic of Senegal), Joseph Nzabamwita (Republic of Rwanda), Daniel Kostoval (Czech Republic), Sidati Cheikh Ould Ahmed Aisha (Islamic Republic of Mauritania), Mawlawi Gul Hassan Hassan (Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan), Toufik Djouama (People's Democratic Republic of Algeria), Sara Feronha Martins (Portuguese Republic), Nazrul Islam (People's Republic of Bangladesh), Sérgio Rodrigues dos Santos (Federative Republic of Brazil), Heidi Olufsen (Kingdom of Norway), Anna Christina Thérése Johannesson (Kingdom of Sweden), Hamdy Shaaban Abdelhalim Mohammed (Arab Republic of Egypt), Jorge Ignacio Zorro Sánchez (Republic of Colombia), Sami Mohammed Al-Sadhan (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia), Koma Steem Jehu-Appiah (Republic of Ghana), Monica Ndiliawike Nashandi (Republic of Namibia), Gerhard Sailler (Republic of Austria), Enrique Orta González (Republic of Cuba), Faisal Niaz Tirmizi (Islamic Republic of Pakistan), Lee Sok-bae (Republic of Korea), Manuel Augusto De Cossío Klüver (Republic of Peru), María del Rosario Portell Casanova (Oriental Republic of Uruguay), Bashir Saleh Azzam (Republic of Lebanon), Jürg Stephan Burri (Swiss Confederation), Abdul-Karim Hashim Mostafa (Republic of Iraq), Stefano Beltrame (Italian Republic), and Abdul Raheem Abdul Latheef (Republic of Maldives).

* * *

Speech at the ceremony for presenting letters of credence

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Ladies and gentlemen,

First, I would like to warmly welcome you to the Kremlin for this formal ceremony to present your letters of credence. Our meeting comes at the very start of a new year – a time when we all look to the future with our plans and, naturally, with the hope that difficulties, hardships, mutual recriminations, and conflicts will be left behind. Therefore, I would like to take this opportunity to offer my heartfelt wishes for prosperity and success in 2026 to you, your families, and the peoples of the nations you represent.

You will, I trust, agree that international cooperation is fundamental to humanity’s sustainable development and prosperity. In today’s diverse and interconnected world, global stability and security depend directly on the ability of states to interact constructively. Open and honest partnerships create the conditions needed to tackle our shared challenges, even the most complex ones.

There is a reason why people say that peace does not come by itself. It must be built, day-by-day, and it is a painstaking process. Achieving peace requires effort, a sense of responsibility and the ability to make deliberate choices. This posture is especially relevant today considering the increasingly deteriorating international environment. I think that no one would claim otherwise. Old conflicts are escalating, while new serious hotbeds of tension emerge.

At the same time, unilateral and dangerous actions often substitute diplomacy, efforts to come to a compromise or find solutions which would suit everyone. Instead of having states engage in dialogue with one another, there are those relying on the might-makes-right principle to assert their unilateral narratives, those who believe that they can impose their will, lecture others how they must live and issue orders.

Dozens of countries across the world have been suffering from the infringement of their sovereign rights, from chaos and lawlessness. They lack the strength and resources to stand up for themselves.

Placing a greater emphasis on having all members of the international community respect international law, as well as facilitating the advent of new emerging trends and a fair multipolar world order can be viewed as a reasonable solution. In this world order, all states would have the right to follow their own development models and to define their future independently, without outside interference, while preserving their unique culture and traditions.

I would like to note that Russia is sincerely committed to the ideals of a multipolar world. Our country has always pursued and will continue to pursue a balanced, constructive foreign policy course that takes into account both our national interests and the objective trends of global development.

We are determined to maintain truly open and mutually advantageous relations with all partners interested in cooperation, deepening ties in politics, the economy and culture, and jointly confronting acute challenges and common threats.

Russia advocates for strengthening the key, central role of the United Nations in global affairs, the organisation that celebrated its anniversary last year.

Eight decades ago, our fathers, grandfathers, and great-grandfathers, having emerged victorious in the Second World War, were able to unite, find a balance of interests, and agree on the fundamental rules and principles of international communication, enshrining them in their entirety, completeness, and interconnectedness in the UN Charter.

The imperatives of this foundational document, such as equality, respect for sovereignty, non-interference in internal affairs, and the resolution of disputes through dialogue, are now more relevant than ever. Most importantly, we must proceed from the understanding that security must be truly comprehensive and, therefore, equal and indivisible, and it cannot be ensured for some at the expense of the security of others. This principle is enshrined in fundamental international legal instruments.

Disregarding this basic, vital principle has never led to anything good and never will. This has been clearly demonstrated by the crisis around Ukraine, which became a direct consequence of years of ignoring Russia’s legitimate interests and a deliberate policy of creating threats to our security, including the advancement of the NATO bloc towards Russia’s borders – contrary to the public promises made to us. I want to emphasise this: contrary to the public promises made to us.

Let me remind you that Russia has repeatedly put forward initiatives to build a new, reliable, and fair architecture of European and global security. We have proposed options and rational solutions that could satisfy everyone in America, Europe, Asia, and across the world.

We believe it would be worthwhile to return to a substantive discussion of these proposals to establish the conditions under which a peaceful settlement of the conflict in Ukraine could be achieved – and the sooner, the better.

It is precisely a long-term and sustainable peace, one that reliably ensures the security of all and everyone, that our country strives for. Not everywhere, including in Kiev and the capitals that support it, are they ready for this. But we hope that an awareness of this necessity will come sooner or later. Until then, Russia will continue to consistently pursue its objectives.

At the same time, I would like to reiterate and ask you to bear in mind in your activities that Russia is always open to building equal and constructive relations with all international partners for the sake of universal prosperity, well-being, and development.

Ladies and gentlemen,

Taking part in today’s ceremony are ambassadors from 32 countries. Every one of them is an active member of the United Nations and makes their own contribution to addressing essential tasks on the global agenda.

Many of you represent countries that are Russia’s strategic partners and allies with whom we share relations of friendship, cooperation, and mutual support; countries with which we work actively within large international and regional associations.

I am confident that the Brazilian ambassador will agree that our two states, who were the founding members of BRICS, share the same views regarding the necessity to build a truly just multipolar world order.

Russia-Brazil cooperation is developing progressively, gaining new mutually beneficial projects across various fields. As you know, just yesterday I had a telephone conversation with President Lula da Silva. This conversation reaffirmed our shared approaches to global and regional processes, as well as the fact that our positions on many key issues either coincide or are very close.

I would like to emphasise that Russia and the Republic of Cuba enjoy genuinely strong and friendly relations. We have consistently provided assistance and support to our Cuban friends. Russia stands in solidarity with Cuba’s firm determination to defend its sovereignty and independence.

The Russian-Cuban alliance has withstood the test of time and is rooted in the sincere mutual goodwill of our peoples. Together, we are implementing projects of critical importance to the Cuban economy in areas such as energy, metallurgy, transport infrastructure, and healthcare, while also expanding cultural and humanitarian exchanges.

I would also like to underscore that Russia has long maintained close, constructive relations with many countries of Latin America, treating the states of the region with the utmost respect as equal, sovereign partners.

This fully applies to the countries represented here today: Colombia, Peru, and Uruguay. We can see significant potential for expanding trade, investment, and business cooperation, as well as collaboration in healthcare, pharmaceuticals, education, and professional training.

In the same spirit of partnership and mutual trust, Russia remains committed to further strengthening its engagement with the countries of the Middle East and North Africa.

A special role in this region is played by Egypt, a friendly country to Russia. Our relations are based on the Comprehensive Partnership and Strategic Cooperation Agreement. Our two countries are successfully implementing major joint initiatives, such as the construction of the El Dabaa Nuclear Power Plant and the establishment of a Russian industrial zone in the Suez Canal area.

In a month, we will mark the centenary of establishing diplomatic relations between Russia and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Our bilateral partnership has evolved into a comprehensive and steadily expanding relationship. Close coordination within the OPEC Plus format has been established and continues to play a genuinely important role in maintaining stability in the global oil market.

We welcome the Kingdom’s decision to serve as a guest country at the St Petersburg International Economic Forum to be held in June. Of particular note is Saudi Arabia’s intention to host the Intervision International Music Competition, which has been revived at Russia’s initiative.

Relations with Lebanon and Iraq have traditionally developed in the spirit of mutual respect and goodwill. Russia has consistently supported the unity, sovereignty, and independence of these states and firmly opposes any external interference in their domestic affairs.

We maintain close cooperation with Pakistan, a full member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, the largest regional organisation in terms of economic, technological, and human potential. Russian-Pakistani relations are genuinely mutually beneficial.

Afghanistan holds observer status in the SCO. In recent years, Russian-Afghan cooperation has gained notable momentum, facilitated by Russia’s decision last year to officially recognise the country’s new authorities. We are sincerely interested in seeing Afghanistan emerge as a united, independent, and peaceful state, free from war, terrorism, and drug trafficking.

Our cooperation with Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and the Republic of Maldives is progressing very effectively. We are successfully expanding engagement in traditional areas such as tourism, fisheries, agriculture, and energy, while remaining committed to developing cooperation in other spheres of mutual interest.

Today’s ceremony is attended by a broad representation of ambassadors from friendly African nations: Somalia, Gabon, Senegal, Rwanda, Mauritania, Algeria, Ghana, and Namibia. Russia maintains relations with all states on the continent based on genuine partnership, mutual support, and solidarity.

The foundations of these relations were forged during the period when African nations were fighting for freedom and independence. Our country made a significant contribution to liberating African states from colonial oppression, to establishing their statehood, to developing their national economies and social sectors, as well as to the training and equipping of their armed forces.

We remain steadfast in our commitment to expanding mutual political, economic, and cultural ties. We continue to provide assistance and support to African nations in their pursuit of development and active participation in international affairs.

All these matters were discussed in detail at the Russia–Africa summits in Sochi and St Petersburg, as well as at the ministerial conference of the Russia–Africa Partnership Forum held a month ago in Cairo. Preparations are underway for the third Russia–Africa Summit, which is scheduled to take place this year.

Unfortunately, much of the positive momentum in our relations with the Republic of Korea has been eroded. Yet in the past, by adhering to pragmatic approaches, our countries achieved truly positive results in trade and business. We look forward to restoring relations with the Republic.

With each of the European states represented here – Slovenia, France, the Czech Republic, Portugal, Norway, Sweden, Austria, Switzerland, and Italy – our relations have deep historical roots and are rich in examples of constructive partnership and mutually enriching cultural cooperation.

The current state of bilateral ties between the aforementioned countries and Russia leaves much to be desired. Dialogue and contacts – through no fault of ours, I must emphasise – have been reduced to a minimum, both at the official level and in business and civil society circles. Cooperation on key international and regional issues has been frozen.

It is my hope that, in time, the situation will nevertheless change, and our nations will return to normal, constructive dialogue based on respect for national interests and due consideration of legitimate security concerns. Russia has been and remains committed to such approaches and is prepared to restore the required level of relations.

More broadly, as I have stated on multiple occasions, we are open to constructive and mutually beneficial cooperation with all countries without exception. Naturally, we are keen to ensure that the work of each ambassador present here yields the most fruitful results.

Ladies and gentlemen, you may rest assured that all constructive initiatives you propose will receive support from the Russian leadership, executive authorities, the business community, and civil society.

Allow me to wish you success and all the best in your endeavours.

Thank you for your attention.

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.

Meeting of the International Forum Peace and Trust: Unity of Goals for a Sustainable Future

2025-12-13T13:42:30+04:00

In Ashgabat, Vladimir Putin participated in the forum marking the International Year of Peace and Trust, the International Day of Neutrality, and the 30^th anniversary of Turkmenistan’s permanent neutrality.

Prior to the plenary session, the President of Turkmenistan held a welcoming ceremony for the heads of delegations participating in the International Forum, which was followed by a group photograph of the attending delegation heads.

* * *

Remarks at the plenary session of the International Forum themed Peace and Trust: Unity of Goals for a Sustainable Future

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Mr Berdimuhamedov, ladies and gentlemen,

I am pleased to participate in this forum, which is dedicated to the International Year of Peace and Trust, the International Day of Neutrality, and the 30^th anniversary of Turkmenistan’s proclamation of permanent neutrality.

It is symbolic that on December 12, exactly thirty years ago, the United Nations General Assembly unanimously adopted a resolution formally granting your country the status of neutrality. This day is celebrated in Turkmenistan as a national holiday, and it was precisely this date that, at the initiative of our Turkmen friends, was later proclaimed by the UN as the International Day of Neutrality.

I would like to offer my sincere congratulations to everyone on this significant occasion, to all our Turkmen friends and, of course, first and foremost, to President Serdar Berdimuhamedov, National Leader of the Turkmen people Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedov, and all the people of our friendly Turkmenistan.

Your country’s leaders chose permanent neutrality 30 years ago, and this decision has de facto defined Turkmenistan’s development as an independent and sovereign state, as a state which commands the respect and authority it deserves in Central Asia and around the world. Turkmenistan has been building on its rich historical, cultural and spiritual heritage to develop and succeed in various economic sectors and in social affairs. Your country has a balanced foreign policy and makes a meaningful contribution to strengthening regional and international security and stability, while making serious efforts to foster an atmosphere of cooperation and mutual trust in international affairs.

In this context, I would like to praise the draft Ashgabat Declaration. Prepared by our colleagues from Turkmenistan, it is designed to present the key outcomes of our deliberations at this forum. Of course, Russia supports this document and the way it affirms a commitment to the key principles governing international relations as set forth in the UN Charter. These principles include the commitment to peace and non-interference in the domestic affairs of other countries, respecting the right of countries and their people to choose their own development and growth models, their own worldview, traditions and religion. Let me emphasise that the UN designated 2025, which is drawing to an end, as the Year of Peace and Trust. The United Nations also celebrated its anniversary in 2025.

Established 80 years ago, it has been worthy of its mission. In fact, it presents a unique and often the only mechanism for balancing interests on the international stage and, importantly, for finding coordinated solutions to challenging issues by taking into consideration the positions and opinions of all countries.

We firmly believe that it is precisely within this logic, and based on the principles of the UN Charter, that truly honest, open, and mutually beneficial relations between states can and must be built in this new era of a multipolar world. A testament to this is the strategic partnership between Russia and Turkmenistan, which continues to develop successfully in a spirit of friendship and good neighbourliness.

Bilateral economic ties continue to expand. In the first ten months of 2025 alone, trade turnover increased by 35 percent, a figure that already surpasses the total for the entire previous year. Russian companies are pursuing new investment projects in the Turkmen market, while cooperation in energy, transport and a number of other sectors is being strengthened.

With the active participation of Russia and Turkmenistan, large-scale multilateral economic initiatives are being implemented, including in the Caspian region and Central Asia. The construction of the North–South international transport corridor is underway, bilateral interregional contacts are progressing steadily, and exchanges in cultural, humanitarian, and educational spheres are growing. Particularly noteworthy is the fact that more than 54,000 students from Turkmenistan are currently studying in Russia.

Our countries are engaged in integration processes within the Commonwealth of Independent States. In 2026, Turkmenistan will assume the CIS Chairmanship. In this regard, I wish our Turkmen colleagues every success and would like to assure them that the Russian side will provide all necessary assistance.

In conclusion, I would like to express my gratitude to the leadership of Turkmenistan, President Serdar Berdimuhamedov, and all our Turkmen friends for their warmth and hospitality. Once again, I congratulate everyone on International Day of Neutrality and on Turkmenistan’s Neutrality Day.

Thank you for your attention.

Meeting with President of India Droupadi Murmu and state reception in honour of the President of Russia

2025-12-06T11:11:27+04:00

The President of Russia met with President of the Republic of India Droupadi Murmu. Thereafter, a state reception was held on behalf of the President of the Republic of India in honour of the President of the Russian Federation, which was also attended by Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi.

Speeches by the President of India and the President of Russia at the state reception

President of India Droupadi Murmu (retranslated): Your Excellency Vladimir Putin, President of the Russian Federation,

Mr Vice President,

Mr Prime Minister Narendra Modi,

Ladies and gentlemen,

It is an immense pleasure for me to welcome His Excellency Mr Vladimir Putin, President of the Russian Federation, and members of his delegation.

This evening’s gathering is indeed a momentous occasion, as we celebrate the 25^th anniversary of the Indian-Russian strategic partnership. Its foundation stone was laid personally by His Excellency President Putin during his visit to India in October 2000, and this partnership was elevated to the status of a special privileged strategic partnership in 2010.

The partnership between India and Russia is based on a shared commitment to peace, stability, and mutual socioeconomic and technological development. This year has been particularly fruitful for our multifaceted partnership. Significant progress has been achieved across all spheres – high-level political engagements, trade, economy, defence, civilian nuclear energy, outer space, science, technology, education, culture, and people-to-people ties.

The joint communiqué of the 23^rd India-Russia Annual Summit reflects the unique nature of our bond and provides a comprehensive framework for the further deepening of our bilateral relations.

Ladies and gentlemen,

The dialogue between our two cultures spans centuries, from Russian travellers who visited India and Indian merchants who journeyed to Russia, to the inspiring correspondence between Mahatma Gandhi and Leo Tolstoy, and our mutual admiration for each other’s rich cultural, literary, and artistic heritage.

I am confident that our friends from Russia will recognise several familiar flavours and melodies of our shared cultural legacy during tonight’s dinner. The spirit of the confluence of two great rivers – the Ganges and the Volga – continues to thrive in our time-tested friendship and will guide our cooperation in all spheres.

Your Excellency, tonight is a celebration of the friendship between our two nations, a friendship which has remained steadfast over the years and is destined to flourish for many more to come.

Your Excellency, ladies and gentlemen,

Allow me to extend our warm wishes for the good health of His Excellency President Vladimir Putin, continued progress and prosperity for the Russian people, and enduring friendship between India and Russia.

Thank you.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Madam President, Mr Prime Minister, friends,

First of all, I would like to express my deep gratitude to President of the Republic of India Droupadi Murmu, and, of course, to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, as well as to all our Indian colleagues for the exceptionally warm and cordial welcome, for the constructive and open dialogue, and for the fruitful joint work during our state visit.

We sincerely treasure our strong friendship with India. The foundation of this relationship was laid in the middle of the last century, when our country actively supported India’s struggle for national liberation.

Soviet specialists played an important role in shaping the future of the Indian people, assisting in the construction of major industrial, energy, and infrastructure facilities, and contributing to the development of the space programme.

It was 15 years ago, in December, that we adopted a joint statement elevating our interstate relations to a new, even more advanced level of a special and privileged strategic partnership. This strategic partnership continues to develop successfully based on the principles of equality, mutual respect, and consideration for each other’s interests, consistently gaining new, mutually beneficial content.

Our talks with our Indian friends yesterday and today were held in a truly open and constructive atmosphere.

The final policy statement we adopted outlines ambitious plans for future cooperation in politics and security, economy and finance, transport, energy, education, and culture.

I am confident that this document, along with other significant agreements reached, will give a strong impetus to the development of our bilateral ties. Equally important is the fact that Russia and India are working together, shoulder to shoulder, to build a just, multipolar world order.

We firmly believe that such an order must be based on the central role of the United Nations and on a balanced alignment of interests among all members of the international community.

Together with our Indian friends, we coordinate our work within BRICS, which India will chair in 2026, as well as in other multilateral formats.

Overall, we work closely together to foster an atmosphere of security, trust, and peaceful cooperation across the vast Eurasian region: between our countries, among the peoples of this region, and throughout the world.

I know there is a saying in India: “Together we go, together we grow.” These words accurately reflect the spirit, nature, and traditions of Russian-Indian relations. We will do everything to ensure that our strategic partnership continues to strengthen and evolve for the benefit of our two nations.

Once again, I would like to express confidence that we will continue to advance our friendship and our special and privileged partnership, and that our nations will enjoy further prosperity. I wish the friendly people of India wellbeing, and I wish Madam President and Mr Prime Minister good health and every success for the benefit of India and its people.

Media statements by the President of Russia and the Prime Minister of India

2025-12-05T20:17:14+04:00

Following Russian-Indian talks, Vladimir Putin and Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi made statements for the media. The statements were preceded by a ceremony for the exchange of signed documents.

Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi (retranslated): Your Excellency Vladimir Putin, my dear friend,

Representatives of the two countries, and our friends from India, good afternoon.

I am delighted to welcome President Putin to the 23^rd Russia – India Annual Summit.

President Vladimir Putin’s visit to India is taking place at a time marked by several historical dates in our relations. President Putin laid the groundwork for our strategic cooperation 25 years ago, and 15 years ago, in 2010, we upgraded our partnership to the level of a special privileged strategic partnership.

Over the past 25 years, President Putin has been relentless in promoting these relations by demonstrating his wise leadership and vision. Regardless of the circumstances, it is his leadership that has reinforced our mutual relations and enabled us to achieve new heights.

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to President Putin for his friendship and for his unwavering commitment to working with India.

Friends,

The world has faced numerous ups and downs over the past 80 years, during which humankind has had to endure many crises and challenges. And throughout this time, the friendship between Russia and India has successfully weathered these storms. These relations are based on mutual respect and deep trust and have invariably stood the test of time.

Today, we discussed our ties and cooperation in all their aspects with a view to creating an even more solid foundation.

We want to reinforce our economic cooperation and elevate it to a new level. This is the objective we share and it is our shared priority. To make this a reality, we have agreed to implement a programme for economic cooperation until 2030. It will provide for diversifying our trade and investment, making them more balanced and sustainable. At the same time, it will help unlock new dimensions in our cooperation.

Today, President Putin and I will be taking part in the Russia – India Business Forum. I am convinced that this platform will also help strengthen our business ties and open new doors for exports, joint manufacture and technical innovation.

Both countries have been proactive in working on a free trade agreement between the Eurasian Economic Union and our country.

Our cooperation in agriculture and fertilisers is extremely important for our food security and the prosperity of our farmers.

I am happy that our countries will work together to promote our mutual production of urea.

Friends, promoting connectivity between our countries is another priority for us.

We will redouble our efforts regarding the discussions on the North-South International Transport Corridor and the Vladivostok-Chennai Maritime Corridor.

I am confident that we will effectively cooperate in the interests of promoting polar trade via local trade routes. We have offered an opportunity to strengthen our cooperation in the Arctic, which will create new jobs for Indian young people.

At the same time, our deep cooperation in shipbuilding will help us boost our joint initiatives. This is yet another important example of our mutually beneficial cooperation, which is increasing the number of jobs and skills while strengthening regional connectivity.

Energy security is another important pillar of partnership between Russia and India. Our cooperation in the field of civilian nuclear energy, which is rooted in our history, has helped us uphold our commitment to providing clean energy, which is extremely important for both countries.

I have no doubt that our mutually beneficial cooperation in the field of critical minerals will also be important for a safe and diversified provision of resources to the world.

We also maintain our cooperation in such areas as clean energy, high technologies and modern industries.

Friends,

Our cultural relations and ties between individual representatives of our countries are of special importance for relations between Russia and India. Over the past decades, our peoples have demonstrated respect and admiration for each other’s cultures, and we have coordinated various measures to further strengthen this cooperation.

The recent opening of two Indian consulates in Russia is a significant step forward, facilitating contacts for all our citizens and bringing our nations even closer together.

This October, hundreds of thousands of pilgrims received blessings at the sacred relics of Buddha Shakyamuni in Kalmykia. I am confident that we will soon implement a 30-day visa-free regime for tourist groups, which will greatly enhance travel between our countries. This measure will not only bring our peoples closer but also invigorate our societies and unlock new opportunities. I am therefore pleased that today we were able to sign two key agreements to advance this initiative.

Our collaboration will also deepen in education and professional development, including through increased student and academic exchanges.

Friends,

Today, we discussed a range of pressing regional and global issues. On Ukraine, India’s position has been consistent from the outset: we stand for peace. We welcome all initiatives and efforts aimed at achieving a peaceful, long-term resolution of this conflict. India has always been ready to support such efforts, and we will continue to do so.

India and Russia have always supported one another and worked shoulder to shoulder in the fight against terrorism. The terrorist attack in Pahalgam and the cowardly atrocity at Crocus City Hall are connected by a common, hateful ideology. India firmly believes that terrorism constitutes a direct assault on universal human values. Our unity within the global community is the only effective way to combat this evil.

We cooperate closely within the UN, the G20, the SCO, BRICS, and other multilateral forums. We will continue this essential dialogue and cooperation across all these platforms.

Your Excellency,

I am confident that our enduring friendship will provide the strength needed to address global challenges. Together, we can help lead the way towards a more prosperous future.

Once again, I thank you and all members of your delegation for your visit to India. Thank you very much.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Mr Prime Minister, dear friend,

Ladies and gentlemen,

My sincere thanks to the President of the Republic of India, Droupadi Murmu, to you, Mr Prime Minister, and to all our Indian colleagues for the exceptionally warm and cordial welcome extended to the Russian delegation.

The discussions we have just concluded with our Indian colleagues, along with our highly productive one-on-one conversation last night – for which I thank you again, Mr Modi, for your generous hospitality – were held in a constructive and friendly spirit, reflecting the privileged partnership between Russia and India.

I would note that the Prime Minister and I have established a close working and personal rapport. We have met at the SCO summit in September, we maintain regular contact by telephone and personally oversee the development of our strategic cooperation across all key areas, as well as the progress of major bilateral projects.

Today, with the participation of our delegations, we conducted a thorough and comprehensive review of the entire spectrum of Russian-Indian cooperation. We also exchanged views on current international and regional issues.

The joint statement we have adopted outlines clear priorities for advancing our ties in politics, security, trade, the economy, and cultural and humanitarian affairs. As you have seen, this was complemented by the signing of a substantial package of intergovernmental, interdepartmental, and corporate agreements.

Many of these documents are aimed at expanding our economic partnership. This is only natural, as our nations are important partners in trade, investment, and technology. Last year, our bilateral trade grew by a further 12 percent, reaching a new record. While various estimates differ slightly, the consensus places the figure somewhere between US$64 and US$65 billion. We project trade will stand at a comparable level by year’s end.

That said, we believe there is clear potential to increase this volume to US$100 billion. To realise this ambitious goal, we have now agreed upon a joint Programme for the Development of Russian-Indian Economic Cooperation until 2030. This comprehensive roadmap provides clear guidelines. Our intergovernmental commission and the relevant economic ministries and agencies are tasked with removing barriers to the flows of goods and capital, implementing joint industrial projects, and deepening our collaboration in technology and investment.

Today, His Excellency the Prime Minister shared a comprehensive list of issues with us. It goes without saying that both Russia and India will be extremely diligent and responsive in reviewing them. Make no mistake, we will work on this matter.

Of course, having India create a free trade zone with the Eurasian Economic Union would help boost Russia-India business ties. The effort to draft an agreement to this effect is already in progress.

I must express my satisfaction with the fact that the two countries have been consistent in their commitment to switching to national currencies in mutual transactions. Their share in business deals has already reached 96 percent. Our two countries have developed resilient interbank channels for lending and financial transactions. Russian economic actors have been making wider use of the rupees they generate from export contracts. Major joint projects receive their funding in Russian rubles.

There has been positive momentum in our energy partnership. Russia is a reliable supplier of energy resources and everything India needs for developing its energy sector. We are ready to continue ensuring uninterrupted fuel supplies for the Indian economy to support its rapid expansion.

Of course, our bilateral energy cooperation goes far beyond this horizon. The flagship project to build India’s biggest NPP, Kudankulam, is underway. Two out of six reactors have been connected to the power grid, while the other four are in the engineering and construction stages.

Once this NPP reaches its full capacity, it will make a meaningful contribution to India’s energy mix, helping Indian companies and households access affordable and clean energy. We believe that building small modular reactors and floating NPPs could also be relevant, just as using nuclear technology for non-energy purposes, including in healthcare, agriculture and other sectors.

We are also working with our Indian partners to create new effective international transport logistics routes. This includes a project to create the North-South corridor linking Russia and Belarus to the Indian Ocean. Infrastructure development along the Trans-Arctic Transport Corridor, including the Northern Sea Route as its main artery, offers ample opportunities for expanding bilateral trade.

There are many other economic sectors in which Russia and India have built a positive track record. We are working on joint initiatives in manufacturing, machine building, digital technology, space exploration and other research-intensive domains.

For example, a business agreement that was signed as part of the visit provides for building a major Russian-Indian pharmaceutical plant in the Kaluga Region for producing high-quality anticancer medicine using cutting-edge Indian technology. At the same time, Russian companies will start producing their goods as part of the Make in India programme, which is Prime Minister Modi’s flagship project.

Prospects for strengthening interaction between Russian and Indian entrepreneurs and business communities are being discussed in detail at the business forum that is currently underway in New Delhi. Mr Prime Minister and I will attend its plenary session later today.

Russian-Indian humanitarian cooperation is ongoing in many spheres. Our peoples have been sincerely interested in each other’s traditions, history and spiritual values for centuries. Our scientific and educational contacts, as well as youth and public exchanges are actively developing. The regular cross festivals of Russian and Indian films invariably enjoy success. Mutual tourist flows grow every year.

The Russian RT channel will begin broadcasting to India today. This will certainly help the Indian audience learn more about Russia and Russians and acquire objective information about current developments in our country.

Our discussions on key global and regional issues have reaffirmed the similarity of our countries’ positions. Russia and India pursue an independent and sovereign foreign policy.

We are working together with our allies in BRICS, the SCO and other countries of the Global Majority to promote the shaping of a more just and democratic multipolar world order, and to protect the fundamental principles of international law enshrined in the UN Charter. These include the right of every country to its own path of development, the preservation of its own cultural and civilisational identity, respect for sovereignty and a delicate balance of interests of all members of the international community.

Russia and India, as the founding nations of BRICS, have done and continue to do a great deal to enhance the prestige of that organisation. As you know, India will assume the BRICS chairmanship next year. We will provide all-round assistance to our Indian friends in their work on the current BRICS agenda.

Of course, I would also like to say that Russia and India have traditionally worked closely together in the military-technical sphere. Our country has been assisting the modernisation of the Indian army, including the air defence, air force and navy, for over 50 years.

Overall, we are certainly satisfied with the results of our talks. Our plans include a meeting with President of India Droupadi Murmu. However, I can already express my confidence that this visit and the agreements reached will effectively promote the further strengthening of the Russian-Indian strategic partnership for the benefit of the people of India and Russia.

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Geeta Mohan: Do you work on projects like this?

Vladimir Putin: Of course, we do.

Geeta Mohan: Rejecting fossil fuel sources?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment: That's true.

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

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

Vladimir Putin: Sure.

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

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

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

Comment: Great principal.

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

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

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

Geeta Mohan: Thank you very much.

Can we have a photo with you?

(Taking a photo.)

Interview with Aaj Tak and Indian Today TV channels

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

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

Anjana Om Kashyap: Dear viewers,

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

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

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

Geeta Mohan: Yes, Anjana.

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

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

Thank you so much for joining us on our network.

How are you doing?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anjana Om Kashyap: May I ask you a question?

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

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

Vladimir Putin: About the Prime Minister?

Anjana Om Kashyap: Yes. And to him.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Geeta Mohan: Are there any specific agreements?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anjana Om Kashyap: Three specific questions, Sir.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Geeta Mohan: And the Kalashnikovs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anjana Om Kashyap: Five hours! Witkoff and Kushner?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment: Really?

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

Comment: It’s surprising.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vladimir Putin: No.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Geeta Mohan: You informed them during this meeting?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, during this meeting as well.

Anjana Om Kashyap: With Mr Witkoff?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Geeta Mohan: That’s an important answer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Geeta Mohan: Rupee and ruble payment then?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anjana Om Kashyap: Would you name them?

Vladimir Putin:No.

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

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

Geeta Mohan: How are you looking at reintegration then?

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

Geeta Mohan: Yes, of the Soviet Union.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We are very thankful to you for this interview.

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

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

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

Vladimir Putin: Thank you.

Russia Calling! Investment Forum

2025-12-03T16:03:38+04:00

Vladimir Putin addressed the plenary session of the Russia Calling! forum.

The 16^th VTB Investment Forum is taking place in Moscow on December 2–3. This year the central theme of the forum is Reaching Higher: Bold Choices for the New Economy.

* * *

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: I would like to bear out what the Minister of Finance has said: we are in favour of competition – I fully agree.

On the whole, regrettably, I will probably have to repeat what has already been said – all the best and most substantive points have already been articulated. Nevertheless, my statement retains its importance, as it confirms the complete consensus that exists in the implementation of our economic policy among the Government, the Presidential Executive Office, and the Central Bank.

The regions of the Russian Federation are not represented here. I can assure you that we work in close contact with the regions, with the business community, and overall, we operate in a sufficiently cohesive and, I believe, effective manner.

First of all, I would like to welcome the participants and guests of the plenary session of the Russia Calling! International Investment Forum. Good afternoon.

As is the good tradition, this event has once again brought together entrepreneurs and investors from dozens of countries for a substantive dialogue on issues pertinent to business and directly influencing the development of trade and investment ties with foreign states.

I am aware that the focus of your attention is on key trends in the global economy and world markets, as well as in Russia’s economy – on the specific tasks we are setting to advance business initiatives in our country, to launch new promising projects, and thereby to expand opportunities for profitable investment across various sectors. I will touch upon these topics briefly in my remarks.

As you know well, the modern world is characterised by high turbulence, largely provoked by the non-competitive practices of certain Western states. Exploiting their monopolistic position in specific markets and in the financial sphere, they impose illegitimate unilateral restrictions, seeking in this way to pressure sovereign states that pursue independent policies. In essence, their aim is to eliminate competitors and to preserve their former privileges in a rapidly changing world – that very slipping monopoly.

In the post-Soviet period, we often stated – and our Western partners at the time were keen to instruct us – that all difficulties should be overcome not through administrative or command methods, but through market mechanisms. Yet the imposition of non-market restrictions is precisely an attempt to preserve those very command methods of managing the global economy. It doesn’t work and it won’t.

Without a doubt, Russia does feel the external pressure, but our country and our economy are successfully tackling these challenges. We will continue to build a sovereign economic policy and to act in the international arena based on our own national interests and needs of the domestic business and our people, to fulfil our obligations to our foreign counterparties, and to advance cooperation with the countries that are interested in interacting with us.

Earlier, I mentioned that countries which act rationally and pragmatically make up the absolute majority. Over the past three years, we have significantly increased our trade with them, primarily our key partners, such as China and India, with which we are bound by many years of friendship and strategic interaction.

There are many representatives of the Chinese and Indian delegations in this audience. I would like to emphasise the fact that we aim to bring cooperation with the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of India to a whole new level and to expand its technology dimension. Numerous joint projects in energy, the manufacturing industry, outer space exploration, agriculture, and other areas are aimed at achieving this goal.

We have established a substantive dialogue on economic matters with President of the People’s Republic of China Xi Jinping. I will also discuss these matters, including expanding Indian imports, in detail with Prime Minister Narendra Modi during the upcoming visit to India. I am sure this import component of our strategy was addressed during this session as well. Considering trade balance-related issues this primarily concerns India

To reiterate, Russia is open to cooperation with foreign businesses in trade, the real sector, and the stock market. Our country offers great opportunities for entrepreneurs and investors, and stable key macroeconomic indicators ensure the safety of such operations.

We maintain a record-low unemployment rate of 2.2 percent. I think I will repeat what has undoubtedly been mentioned here. It was 2.2 percent in September. This figure is low not only for Russia but for most of the world’s largest economies as well.

The public finances remain stable. We made timely decisions regarding both revenue and expenditure of the federal budget. Key priorities, such as social commitments, defence and national security, as well as the objectives to achieve national development goals, have been financed in full.

The budget for the next three years has been drafted to mitigate the impact of external risks and increase the share of non-oil and gas revenues. It remains in line with the budget rules and stipulates a moderate budget deficit. Look at what is happening in some EU countries. We are planning 1.6, 1.3, and 1.2 percent of GDP for the coming years.

What else should be emphasised? Russia’s public debt, as has already been noted, remains below 20 percent of GDP – one of the lowest levels globally. This means that we continue to pursue a balanced, responsible fiscal policy and, together with consistent monetary policy measures, are achieving a slowdown in price dynamics.

In this regard, I want to stress that the decline in inflation has been one of this year’s major accomplishments. While inflation was estimated at double-digit levels in March, it now stands at below seven percent year on year. By the end of December, it is expected to be around six percent, that is, below the forecasts by both the Government and the Central Bank. I know that experts will now begin recalculating the figures using different parameters, but overall, this is the situation as it stands. And we expect this positive trend to continue.

Meanwhile, economic growth is slowing. Over the first nine months of this year, Russia’s GDP grew by one percent, with 0.6 percent in the third quarter. The full-year forecast places GDP growth in the range of 0.5 to one percent. Overall, this is what we expected. From the outset, when the Bank of Russia raised the key rate and the Government adopted its corresponding decisions, we anticipated a “soft landing.”

However, certain imbalances have emerged. In several industries, output this year not only failed to grow but actually declined. Are we satisfied with these trends? No.

Let me remind you that last December, the Government and the Central Bank were tasked with fundamental objectives. These include ensuring a transition to a balanced growth model, maintaining low unemployment and inflation, and simultaneously initiating structural economic changes, taking into account the policy of making our economy more formal and strengthening the competitive environment. We will discuss these matters in detail next week at the meeting of the Council for Strategic Development and National Projects.

First and foremost, we must strive for a more rapid pace of investment growth, increase allocations towards the development of production in the service sector, and launch new projects in industry, agriculture, infrastructure, high technology, tourism, and so forth. Over the past three years, investment has grown at an above-average rate: by 6.7 percent in 2022; 9.8 percent in 2023; and 7.4 percent in 2024. This year, the pace is more modest but remains positive overall.

What is the reason for this? In a number of economic sectors, corporate profits have declined, which is well known, meaning that the companies’ own funds for investment have diminished, whilst the cost of borrowed capital and bank loans – resources that domestic businesses have largely used to finance projects – has objectively risen. These are obvious and understandable factors.

It should be noted that in recent years our financial sector has managed to fundamentally reconfigure its operations – I want to emphasise this point separately – by replacing unreliable external sources of financing with domestic ones. As a result, the external debt of real sector enterprises has almost halved. I will tell you frankly, there was a degree of apprehension initially: would our economy and industry as a whole cope with this transition? They have coped.

Thanks to timely regulatory measures and the accumulated safety margin, the Russian banking sector is now operating confidently and stably. Whereas in 2022 the sector worked with a near-zero financial result, a profit of just 200 billion rubles, in 2023 this figure amounted to 3.2 trillion rubles, and in 2024, to 3.8 trillion roubles. According to the forecast of the Bank of Russia, by the end of 2025, the banking sector will have generated a profit of approximately 3.2 to 3.5 trillion rubles.

I am convinced that it is necessary to enhance the contribution of the banking sector to the development of the national economy, our territories, and residential communities, and to improve the return – the effect for real production – derived from the use of credit resources.

At the same time, it is imperative that bank funds, their profits, and the savings of citizens and companies are channelled towards the realisation of business ideas not only in metropolises and centres of business activity, but across all regions of the Russian Federation. To this end, every constituent entity has already implemented a regional investment standard. Development agencies have also been launched at the regional level. They are engaged in investor support, advising on how to register a land plot, apply for support mechanisms, or resolve infrastructure issues. However, projects, especially large-scale ones, often go beyond the boundaries of any particular region.

Also, in the case of foreign investments, it would be useful to have a federal perspective on where it is most appropriate for foreign partners to implement specific projects and which federal support measures they should use. For such initiatives, I propose establishing a unified investment support ecosystem that would allow entrepreneurs and companies to receive professional advice and assistance throughout the entire project lifecycle, from concept development to full implementation. I propose creating this ecosystem within VEB Corporation, with the participation of the Ministry of Economic Development.

Furthermore, it is essential to strengthen the role of the stock market as a source of investment capital, especially considering the strong interest of both individual and institutional investors in our financial markets.

For example, by mid-year, more than 37 million individual clients were registered on the Moscow Exchange, amounting to nearly half of the country’s economically active population.

Their combined assets exceeded 11 trillion rubles. At the same time, the number of institutional investors receiving brokerage services increased by more than one-third over the year to reach 50,000 with their portfolios exceeding 15 trillion rubles.

Of course, the current economic environment influences the Russian stock market. Its capitalisation has declined slightly and now stands at around 23 percent of GDP.

This year, only three companies have conducted initial public offerings. Among them was DOM.RF Corporation, our leading housing development institution, which entered the stock market. Mr Mutko, I congratulate you on this achievement. I am aware that you and your team conducted extensive work to do this, and it yielded successful results.

Clearly, the Russian stock market has significant room for expansion and new listings. Additional measures are required to increase its capitalisation so that its full potential can be leveraged for the benefit of the entire country. In this regard, I believe I can propose…

First. Investments in bonds and trust units are growing. However, rising debt is not the only instrument for expanding production and launching investment projects. For long-term development, attracting equity capital is essential.

To advance this objective, I ask the Government to develop in the near future a programme for initial and secondary public offerings by companies with public ownership. I also ask the ministries to map out sectoral plans for bringing major issuers to the stock market, providing, of course, specific and effective incentives for businesses that undergo public listing. This includes linking existing support measures to a company’s public status.

To illustrate: a borrower from the Industrial Development Fund, for instance, could become eligible for a reduced loan rate upon conducting an initial public offering, or IPO.

Second. It is necessary to enhance the efficiency and transparency of corporate governance in joint-stock companies so that their shareholders can have confidence in the security of their investments and in receiving a return.

I am aware that the Bank of Russia, together with the Moscow Exchange and with the support of the Ministry of Finance, has launched a shareholder value enhancement programme, drawing on relevant experience from Asian markets.

The programme focuses on the disclosure of key corporate metrics for investors, such as net assets, dividend yield, forward-looking statements, development strategies and so on. Participants in the shareholder value programme will form a pool of companies that will serve as a benchmark for other Russian issuers and as a mark of quality for investors.

I ask the Government to ensure that the largest joint-stock companies with public ownership join this programme by the end of next year, and to align their operational frameworks and management incentive structures with the goal of increasing shareholder value.

Naturally, we must proceed with due care. Ms Nabiullina is nodding her head – she likes it. I like it too. However, under current conditions, we must, of course, assess the actual position of our state-owned companies and fully account for all the challenges they face. Nevertheless, we must advance decisively along this path.

And, finally, third. It is important to further enhance the attractiveness of the capital market, improve investor confidence and provide for cash inflows. An increasing number of our citizens join the long-term savings programme which is an important source of long-term investments. They have already entered into more than eight million such agreements worth almost 560 billion rubles.

A year ago, I issued instructions at our forum to encourage so-called family savings. I can remind you what is all about. If parents open a long-term savings product for their children and invest funds there, then they can get a personal income tax deduction. The tax deduction amount is calculated based on the actual contribution up to 500,000 rubles per parent. So, the maximum amount per family for being eligible to a deduction will make up one million rubles. The relevant amendments have already been made to the legislation.

In addition, employers that co-finance their employees’ savings under the long-term savings programme are entitled to certain benefits. They will become effective starting September 1 next year. So we will see how these novelties can work and how businesses and individuals will evaluate their efficiency. Then, we will either fine-tune these measures or launch additional mechanisms for developing our stock market.

Friends, the feedback and permanent dialogue with the business community and investors is a key condition for improving the business climate and for strengthening investment dynamics as a prerequisite for a robust long-term economic growth. Opinions and proposals from both domestic businesses and our foreign partners, as well as an account of the best foreign practices and the assessment of our own experience, are important for solving the tasks and problems that our business community deems paramount, most important.

It is crucial that the Russia Calling! forum offers an excellent opportunity to hold an open and constructive discussion on all issues. I know that your discussion is very active. I am sure that it is very substantive and useful. I want to thank all of you, especially our foreign friends and colleagues, for being here, for showing interest in working with Russia. I wish you all the best.

Thank you for your attention.

Answers to media questions

2025-11-29T00:52:26+04:00

Following the state visit to Kyrgyzstan and the CSTO summit, Vladimir Putin answered questions from Russian journalists.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon. I am at your disposal.

First, I would like to express our gratitude to the leadership of Kyrgyzstan for organising this event and for the past year when Kyrgyzstan chaired the CSTO and hosted various events, which has certainly helped strengthen the organisation.

I believe that in the current turbulent situation it is a major factor of stability in our common space. This is important for Russia and very important for many CSTO countries.

We have coordinated everything without much difficulty, that is, all proposals advanced by the Secretariat. Everything we planned to sign has been signed. There were hardly any differences in any of the spheres we discussed. Everyone knows that it is necessary to work more closely together in the current situation. We do not threaten anyone, but we must be ready to respond to any actions that could be aggressive towards our countries.

There are many other spheres we are working in, and we will probably talk about this now. We have done good practical work in all of these vital spheres.

Overall, we can say, first, that we have achieved the desired result. And second, I see good prospects for the further development of our cooperation within the Collective Security Treaty Organisation.

As you know, Russia has taken over the CSTO chairmanship and will head the organisation for a year. I set out the priorities of our chairmanship during the expanded format meeting. I believe you are aware of this, so there is hardly any need to repeat it all. On the whole, we are very pleased with the results of our joint work.

Thank you. If you have any questions, which I am sure you do, I will do my best to answer them.

Pavel Minakov: Good afternoon, Interfax news agency.

The question concerns our priorities. So we are the chair of the Organisation, our slogan is “Collective Security in a Multipolar World.” Why was this chosen as the guiding principle for our chairmanship? Could you elaborate further on our specific priorities when we hold this position?

The second question also pertains to collective security. Prime Minister [of Armenia Nikol] Pashinyan has once again declined to attend the summit, while at the same time Armenia is conducting joint military exercises with the United States. The question is whether this poses a threat to our unity within the framework of the CSTO’s collective security. Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Let me reiterate: I outlined the priorities during the expanded-format meeting. This was done openly – you were likely present there, or at least, many of you have heard it.

There are numerous priorities: enhancing our cooperation, comparing the capabilities of our respective defence industries. As is known, since the time of the Soviet Union, this cooperation has been very extensive. We provide CSTO member states with preferential terms for the procurement of our arms and equipment. All of this is functioning and operating quite effectively.

It is perfectly clear that amid the special military operation, our capabilities for some components are currently not that great. That is to say, they are substantial, but we must meet our own needs. In specific sectors, we are achieving this in full, entirely.

I do not believe that our production capacities are excessive, but we not only meet our own needs but also continue to export our equipment, incidentally. This primarily concerns aviation technology – both aircraft and helicopters. Now we have achieved significant advancements – a revolutionary step for us, one might say – in the field of unmanned technology and unmanned aerial vehicles, drones. We are prepared to share all of this with our partners.

Another area of cooperation is enhancing the operational efficiency of CSTO management bodies. This is somewhat bureaucratic, yet it remains important, given that every country is interested in minimising expenditure and improving coordination.

We will continue, as before, to conduct corresponding joint exercises across all domains. This concerns not only cooperation between armed forces but also the work of security services.

Unfortunately, the threats posed by drugs and organised crime persist. All of this will remain within our focus. We intend to build on the work undertaken by our colleagues from Kyrgyzstan, as I have mentioned. There will be full and complete continuity. I am confident this will be to the benefit of every CSTO member state.

Concerning Armenia’s position, it, too, is well-known. It is as follows, as our Armenian colleagues inform us: “We support all decisions adopted by the CSTO, we consider ourselves members of the CSTO, but at this stage, we are abstaining from participation in the Organisation’s meetings.” That is their choice. If they deem this course of action possible for the time being, then so be it; we agree.

Since they remain members of the Organisation, we – Russia – maintain contact with them. As the country assuming chairmanship of the CSTO, we will, of course, maintain constant engagement with them in their capacity as members. Naturally, the decisions we prepare regarding each priority will be discussed and coordinated with them as well.

Leonid Kitrar: Mr President, Leonid Kitrar, Izvestia Multimedia Information Centre. I have a question about bilateral relations with Kyrgyzstan.

We are pursuing quite a few projects, among them in the energy sector. This year, Rosatom stated it was prepared to build a small nuclear power plant here. Was this discussed? Are there any concrete figures? What are the most promising areas in bilateral relations?

I have another quick question. Not long ago, there were issues with moving cargo between Kazakhstan and Russia. Are there similar issues here?

Vladimir Putin: I will start with bilateral cooperation.

I am grateful to the President of Kyrgyzstan for the invitation to come to Kyrgyzstan on a visit of high diplomatic status and for the hospitality accorded to our entire delegation.

Here is what we said during a press event following the visit. Indeed, our relations are following a very positive track, and our investors are working increasingly actively on the Kyrgyz market. Why has this become possible? I mentioned it briefly earlier, but it is crucial: this is happening in part because the current leadership of Kyrgyzstan has managed to ensure a stable domestic political situation, which is always extremely important for potential investors, because everyone hopes that the commitments undertaken by the recipient country will guarantee the implementation of all agreements. This is one of the most crucial matters. Kyrgyzstan’s leadership has succeeded in doing this. We wish them every success in strengthening domestic political stability and, as an EAEU and CSTO member, we will support and assist them in doing so.

Our relations cover many areas in addition to investment to include the mining sector and energy. As a reminder, Kyrgyzstan receives our resources at the lowest prices and exports are exempt from corresponding customs duties. Naturally, this makes our products highly competitive, to put it mildly, on the Kyrgyz market and provides strong support for the Kyrgyz economy. This includes oil and gas, but we are not limiting ourselves to this; we have plans that may include the construction of small NPPs.

As a reminder, Russia is the only country in the world that carries out such projects. Many are saying they are ready to do it, but so far we are the only ones to do it. If Kyrgyzstan decides to go ahead with this project – our colleagues are in contact with one another – we will implement these projects.

High-tech areas are also developing in the course of bilateral cooperation. I want to draw your attention to the fact that Yandex has been working here more and more actively. Hopefully, it will continue this way, meaning that Yandex is not only engaged in food delivery, transportation and taxi service; Yandex is keenly engaged in developing artificial intelligence. This is an extremely important and promising area for all of us. Yes, Kyrgyzstan is not a large country, but there is an educated part of society here, young people with good education, who have very good prospects. And this is important for us – to create a common space in this extremely promising area. So, naturally, we will work here, too.

Both us and Kyrgyzstan deem it very important to do everything so that Russian migration policy could reliably provide for the interests of native residents of the Russian Federation, our citizens, and our economy, as well as for the citizens of Kyrgyzstan who come to work in Russia. They should be ready for this, including in humanitarian terms; I mean above all their command of the Russian language, starting from an early age, from school age onwards.

In this regard, as you also know, we are assisting the leadership of Kyrgyzstan to promote the study of the Russian language. We will open schools here and work in the field of higher education. In general, there is a great scope for joint work. In Kyrgyzstan, as you know, the Russian language has the official status at the legislative level, which we appreciate very much. And we will go on working in all these areas.

Regarding cargo traffic. Yes, indeed, such a problem did occur. What caused it? I will not conceal the fact that, on my instruction, the Customs Committee – within the framework of the EAEU, our customs authorities are entitled to such actions – began random checks on the roads, so to speak. It turned out that a significant number of goods, a significant number of these lorries, as you said, cross the Russia-Kazakhstan border without any documents at all. Yes, we have a common customs space, a common market, and free movement of capital and goods.

But every such heavyweight, every such heavy lorry must have a certain set of documents agreed on between us – between the states. There aren’t that many of them, but they are a must. There should be a paper, a document about what is inside the lorry, and at least it should be clear who is the consignee of these goods. The first document clearly shows the customs value, what customs duty should be paid by the person who crosses our border with these goods, and who should pay VAT upon receiving the goods. As soon as the roadside checks started, it turned out that there were no documents at all. It is just illegal import, and forgive my manners, it’s just gushing into our customs territory. The Russian Federation is missing out on billions, tens of billions of rubles in our budget. Of course, I informed my colleagues about this situation.

We talked about this matter with President of Kazakhstan Kassym-Jomart Tokayev. He understood everything, and he has no questions or problems with that. We have agreed that we will do everything possible to ensure that this large number of lorries that have accumulated on our border, on the territory of Kazakhstan, move on to the Russian Federation.

Our customs authorities have agreed among themselves that the value of the goods being transported will be declared, and the final recipient will be indicated. And we will gradually let these lorries in. There will be no queue. Yes, it will actually be almost within the framework of the green corridor, at a minimum cost, let them pay at least something, to begin with. And starting next year, our customs officers will require all the necessary documents during random checks. If there are none, then the customs service will not send these goods back. I think that the customs authorities will come to an agreement, up to and including confiscation, probably.

You see, there are all kinds of goods in the lorries, from nails to diamonds and television sets. But let them at least write down shoelaces costing five kopecks, let them start paying something, let them declare the final consignee so that we can receive VAT, even if it is modest. We just need to put things in order.

Thousands of lorries have already passed through. I think the queue will be gone by the end of the year.

Pavel Zarubin: Good afternoon. Pavel Zarubin, Rossiya TV Channel.

The principal global topic of recent days has been the Trump peace plan. Naturally, we have many questions for you.

To what extent does the draft initially published unofficially take our position into account? Have we received an amended version of the document following negotiations between the United States and Ukraine? Consequently, when will Russian-American negotiations begin – which, as we understand, have not yet taken place regarding this document? When will Steve Witkoff visit you? What is your current assessment of the prospects for a peaceful settlement? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Regarding the draft agreement. There was no draft agreement per se; rather, there was a set of issues proposed for discussion and finalisation. In general, I have spoken about this on numerous occasions. Prior to my visit to the United States, before the trip to Alaska, we discussed this with American negotiators, and subsequently, a list of 28 potential points for an agreement was formulated. As I have already stated publicly, it was conveyed to us through certain channels, and we examined it.

Thereafter, negotiations were held in Geneva between the American and Ukrainian delegations. They, as I understand it, decided among themselves that all these 28 points should be divided into four separate components. All of this was passed on to us.

In general, we agree that this could form the basis for future agreements. However, it would be inappropriate for me to speak now of any final versions, as these do not exist.

Certain matters are of a fundamental nature, and overall, we observe that the American side is, in some respects, taking our position into account – the position that was discussed before Anchorage and after Alaska. There are, unquestionably, areas where we need to sit down and engage in serious discussions on specific points, and all such matters must be framed in proper diplomatic language. Because, generally speaking, one thing is to say that Russia does not intend to attack Europe. To us, that sounds ridiculous, does it not? We never had any such intentions. But if they want to have it formalised, let’s do it, no problem.

It is simply that there are individuals there – I believe they are either not entirely of sound mind or are a certain type of swindler – who seek to gain from this by publicly telling their population, their citizens, that Russia is preparing to attack Europe and that they must urgently strengthen their defence capabilities. Either they are serving the interests of the defence industry and private companies, or they are attempting to bolster their domestic political ratings against the backdrop of the dire state of their economies and social spheres. It is difficult to say what motivates them, but from our point of view, it is complete nonsense – an outright falsehood. Nevertheless, if this narrative has taken root in their public consciousness, if they have frightened their citizens who now wish to hear that we have no plans – no aggressive intentions – towards Europe, then very well, we are ready to formalise that in any manner they see fit.

Perhaps there is even merit in this, considering that we all wish to talk, to discuss, and to articulate matters of pan-European security. Probably so; we ourselves proposed this at one point. If our Western – let us once again call them “partners” – now want this, then very well, we are ready. But we all understand that this requires serious discussion, as every word carries significance.

Or, for example, one of the documents mentions that we should resolve the issue of strategic stability together with our American partners. For heaven’s sake – are we opposed to that? That is precisely what we proposed, having even suggested to the Obama administration that we should agree on certain matters. The response was, “Yes, yes,” and then, a month before the Obama administration left the White House, everything stalled. Now another treaty – New START – is expiring in February. If they do not wish to do anything, so be it.

From these papers, we see that, overall, there is a desire to revisit these issues. However, each of these issues is a separate, very serious area. We are certainly prepared for this serious discussion. Next week, an American delegation is due to arrive in Moscow.

Olga Matveyeva: Olga Matveyeva, Mayak and Vesti FM radio stations.

As a follow-up on the colleague’s question. Will you please name the main Russian negotiators?

And one more thing. There were reports on talks underway in Abu Dhabi. Does it mean a concurrent process is going on there? Could you tell us who is talking to whom and what is happening there? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Obviously, the negotiator from the Russian side is the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. When we really sit down at the negotiating table and start discussing each of the proposed items in substance and in detail, the Foreign Ministry – on our part, from the Presidential Executive Office – Vladimir Medinsky, Aide to the President who has been engaged in that from the outset. I also included my Aide, Yury Ushakov, to deal with current issues, to organise all this work, he is in touch with his American counterparts. But he cannot deal with all of this alone – the Foreign Ministry must step in and to some extent, the Presidential Executive Office. This is a big, very extensive set of issues that need to be discussed, formalised, and properly spelled out.

That is the way it should be done, I think. It’s not that I think so, but it is never done any other way.

As for the Abu Dhabi talks, yes, I have heard some information noise on this score. But there was nothing unusual, nothing secret happening there either. Our secret services, Russian and Ukrainian, have always been in contact with each other, even in the hardest times. And they are in contact now. What are they dealing with? They are resolving a number of humanitarian issues, primarily related to the exchange of prisoners of war. The Abu Dhabi platform is actively used for this purpose. We are very grateful to the President of the United Arab Emirates for the opportunities extended to us. Thanks to his efforts, hundreds of our men, our heroes, have returned to their homeland.

At the initiative of the Ukrainian side, one of such regular meetings was scheduled and took place in Abu Dhabi. On our side, one of Russia’s FSB leaders attended it. A representative of the US administration also came to this meeting. It was a bit unexpected for us, but we never give up on contacts. He spoke with the Russian representative and wondered if perhaps we should not wait until next week to continue contacts but rather hold a meeting in Moscow this week.

I only learnt about this when the plane landed in Bishkek, but nevertheless, I said that we were ready, you are welcome, at any time. The issue is so important for everyone and for us that at any time of the day or night – we will arrive tonight, we will return, so we can meet right on Thursday, or Friday, Saturday, Sunday – whenever they want. But we agreed that we would decide, and the administration of the US President would decide who should arrive and when.

The latest information was brought to my attention yesterday that President Trump had decided that, after all, as previously agreed – and there was such an agreement earlier – the meeting is proposed by the American side to be held in Moscow next week. OK, we are always open.

As to who will represent the United States from the American side, this should, of course, be determined by the President of the United States. Therefore, we are expecting them in the first half of the next week.

Andrei Kolesnikov: Andrei Kolesnikov, Kommersant daily.

Mr President, are you going to insist that the territorial issue, above all in Donbass, should be resolved here and now, and for good? Or, will you agree to postpone it, so to speak, until better days? One more question, with your permission: would you agree to return to G7, the Group of Eight, as one of the peace plan versions provides; that is, to all those people?

Vladimir Putin: As for G7 or G8, we have never asked to be there, we were invited there once and we worked there. It was a platform for coordinating certain positions. I must say, you know, please take note, even before the tragic events in Ukraine began, I stopped travelling there. Did you notice?

Remark: Yes, indeed.

Vladimir Putin: This is why, when the developments in Ukraine began, they said: “Well, we are not expecting you there.” And good riddance… I do not remember who it was, I think it was the Prime Minister who went there once. The first time I refused was because really, I do not invent anything, it was when the Government was formed after I was elected President, I think in 2012. However, we never reject contacts, we are always open for interaction. First, nobody invites us there, I have not heard of or received any official proposals. And second, we know how the great majority of that association, called the Big Seven, and I have already said it once that I do not quite understand why it is called the big seven: in terms of territory, population and contribution to the global GDP they are getting smaller and smaller. Well, it does not matter, they are our important partners anyway. In today’s situation I just cannot imagine how we can interact directly. Can you imagine it? Well, we've arrived, hello, and now we will be stare at each other, or what?

I believe that this should bring us to some normalisation. Maybe, if we implement all these proposals within the list that we have received from the US administration, maybe some conditions for bilateral or multilateral contacts will emerge, however, it is premature to speak about it.

Andrei Kolesnikov: And there was the second question …

Vladimir Putin: You know, I will tell you now very briefly, I think it will be clear at once what it is all about. We are still receiving proposals about ceasing hostilities there, there and there. When the Ukrainian troops leave the territories they occupy, then the hostilities will cease. If they do not leave, we will achieve it militarily. That’s that.

Yes, please.

Edmund Zhelbunov: Edmund Zhelbunov, NTV television company. A question on the progress of the special military operation.

Mr President, are the positive dynamics on the fronts continuing? If so, in which directions is the most active advance taking place? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: The positive dynamics persist in all directions. Moreover, our troops’ advance in each of these directions continues to pick up the pace, and quite noticeably. I would refrain from citing the precise number of kilometres, because I could be mistaken, but month after month, the size of the territory, so to speak, returned by our forces in all key areas is steadily increasing. In other words, the pace of our advance is accelerating.

However, the main problem for the enemy lies elsewhere: the widening gap between their losses and the number of personnel they are able to bring to the line of combat contact. In October, I believe, they suffered over 47,000 casualties, or about 47,500. Through mobilisation, or more precisely – forced mobilisation, they raised roughly 16,500, and an additional 14,500 to 15,000 returned from hospitals. If one calculates this precisely down to a tenth, the net deficit comes to around 15,000. In the previous month, the deficit was 10,000. Thus, the gap is widening.

We must also add those who desert the army. The scale of desertion is significant, and this is evident not only from our media or from Defence Ministry reports, but is also widely covered in Western media, and it is virtually impossible for them to hide this information. Therefore, there is little they can do about it, as they say.

In short, the dynamics remain positive in all directions.

Yes, please.

Yegor Piskunov: Yegor Piskunov, RT television channel. Thank you very much.

Mr President, are you aware of the fact that phone conversations between Yury Ushakov, Steve Witkoff, and Kirill Dmitriev have been leaked to the press? What do you think about it? The West, particularly numerous Western media outlets, has blown it up to a scandal. Witkoff has come under attack. What do you think about this? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: You know, speaking of leaks, that may be a fake claim, or maybe a conversation was actually eavesdropped on. Eavesdropping is a criminal offence. At least in our country, eavesdropping is illegal. You know how the joke goes, “they were instructed to spy, but they ended up eavesdropping.” Let them mind their own business. By the way, spying is a skill, too.

I will explain what I mean. I am not aware of what these wiretaps or leaks are all about. You see, we get up in the morning and work from morning till night. After the events ended, I joined you. Here is what I think the problem is all about. It is not about us. It is about the clash of opinions in the collective West and specifically within the United States regarding what is going on and what needs to be done to stop the war and to halt the hostilities.

I had a meeting with Mr Witkoff before the summit in Anchorage. After that meeting, I went to Alaska to have talks. Overall – I want to emphasise it – at least my impression was that we had an understanding of where we stood and what needed to be done to stop the hostilities.

Then we left because President Trump and I needed to return to our respective capitals, to think things over, to consult with our administrations, ministries, agencies, and allies. After that, we agreed to continue discussions.

[Sergei] Lavrov and [Marco] Rubio met in New York on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly and had a conversation. No conflict arose between Russia and the United States on these matters. We remained on the Anchorage platform. Suddenly, the United States imposed sanctions on two of our oil companies. Why? Frankly, I was not sure what was happening.

So, there is no reason for accusing Mr Witkoff of being overly polite with his Russian counterparts. I spoke with him, and then we had that meeting in Alaska, and then – boom – sanctions that undermine our relations were imposed on us. To reiterate, we are unclear what kind of message this is. That is the first point.

Second, Mr Witkoff is apparently travelling to Moscow on President Trump’s instructions to negotiate with us. It would be quite unusual if, in his conversations with [Yury] Ushakov, he had used cuss words to insult us, or said something extremely rude, and then reached out to us in order to improve his negotiating stance. That is nonsense. Not to mention that Mr Witkoff is, apparently, a well-mannered person; he knows he should create a proper environment for interpersonal communication. That much is obvious.

This brings me to the most important point. I have known Mr Witkoff for several months now. He and President Trump go back many years, maybe even decades. He is a US citizen, and he upholds the position of his President and his country. True, our dialogue is quite challenging. We are having a civil conversation. We are not spitting at each other. We are talking like civilised people do, but each one of us is upholding his own position. To reiterate, Mr Witkoff is upholding his position, the position of the United States and the interests of the United States as he sees them and as those who delegate him to negotiate with Russia see them. These people are not just President Trump. I think they also include people from the US military, diplomatic, and administrative spheres in the broad sense of the word.

Please go ahead.

Yelena Mukhametshina: Vedomosti newspaper.

Talks about confiscating Russian assets have intensified in Europe. I want to ask how Russia would respond to this. And do you agree with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s remark that the confiscation can lead to legal disputes, multiple lawsuits and the collapse of the euro?

Vladimir Putin: Hungary is an EU member, therefore, the Prime Minister of one of the EU countries knows better how this could affect the European currency. Clearly, this will have negative repercussions for the global financial system because confidence in the Eurozone will sharply decline, will plummet. And amid problems in the economy, where the locomotive of the European economy – the German economy – has been in recession for the third year running, I think this will definitely be quite an ordeal.

On my instruction, the Government of the Russian Federation is working on a package of retaliatory measures in case this happens. It is clear to everyone, and everyone says it bluntly, that it would amount to stealing someone else’s property. In this regard, I naturally have a question: who is teaching whom? Either the thieving elite of Ukraine, which steals the money of its taxpayers and the taxpayers of Western sponsors – we are now well aware of the corruption scandal in Kiev – is learning from the Europeans, or the Europeans are learning from the Ukrainian elite. In any case, both are theft. That is how we feel about it, and we are working on retaliatory measures. However, the Government will make them public later, if that happens.

Anton Vernitsky: Anton Vernitsky, Channel One.

After Donald Trump admitted the possibility for the United States to test nuclear weapons, you gave instructions, at the Security Council meeting, to the relevant departments and security services to explore the feasibility of testing Russian nuclear weapons. Has a final decision been made yet? If so, what is it? If not, when can it be made?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: I issued instructions to collect additional information about the actions of the American side, analyse it and submit proposals to me on what we should do in this situation. One of the proposals that we have received is to work together on this topic, that’s what we take from what we see. And we are ready to think all the issues concerning strategic stability over together with the US administration.

Anton Vernitsky: Could it be at the next negotiations, in Moscow next week?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, if this issue arises. Actually, even if it does not arise, we will, of course, raise this issue, because both the United States and we are perfectly aware that preparations for real nuclear weapons tests need time. And we certainly cannot let ourselves get into a situation where the United States will have had a test whereas we will be preparing for it for another year and a half. Naturally, we have to think about it. It was not us who said that, but we must be ready for any possible scenario. And I assure you, we will be ready.

Alexander Yunashev: Good afternoon, Mr President. Alexander Yunashev, Life.

Right now, during this visit, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov is not accompanying you…

Vladimir Putin: Do you miss him?

Alexander Yunashev: A little. Although he is not away on vacation, he has not appeared on your international visits for two weeks now. The media claim he has fallen out of favour allegedly due to an unsuccessful conversation with Marco Rubio. What do you say?

Vladimir Putin: This is absolute nonsense. He has not fallen out of favour in any way. He has his own work schedule, he reported to me, informed me of his plans, and he is implementing them. He is preparing for a meeting with our American partners.

Yes, please.

Anastasia Savinykh: Mr President, TASS news agency.

Allow me to return to the peace plan. There is an impression that the Western side, by proposing such swift, rapid meetings and insisting on them, is in some way pressuring Russia and you personally. Naturally, everyone wants to achieve peace as quickly as possible, but it seems such matters bear no haste.

In your opinion, is there a risk that if an agreement is railroaded or hastily assembled, there may arise a temptation later to interpret it rather loosely? You have just said that every word requires discussion. How long, in general, will this take?

Vladimir Putin: I deliberately drew your attention to the fact that every issue listed in the documents handed to us holds immense importance – each one is a key topic, do you understand? Therefore, this requires thorough consideration. Likely, some of our partners are eager to resolve these issues as quickly as possible. Why? Colleagues here have asked me about the developments along the line of contact, about the position of American negotiators. Well, what is happening? Take, for instance, Kupyansk – I will return to it shortly. Let us begin with the area of responsibility of our Centre group of forces: where are the main operations taking place? On the Krasnoarmeysk direction and around the city of Dimitrov. Krasnoarmeysk and Dimitrov are entirely encircled – just as Kupyansk was in its time. Seventy percent of Krasnoarmeysk is under the control of the Russian Armed Forces. In the southern part of Dimitrov, the enemy grouping has been cut off, it is being split across the entire city, and our forces are proceeding to systematically eliminate it.

Well, what is next? If you look at the map, shift your gaze further east, northeast – there lies Komsomolsk, and north of Komsomolsk – Kupyansk, Slavyansk, and a little further north, northeast – Seversk. In Komsomolsk, combat is ongoing within the city, and a significant number of buildings have already been liberated by our troops, with further advances underway.

As for Seversk, which, as I said, lies further northeast, our forces have approached this city from the east, south, and north. Fierce combat is taking place in the city – I believe out of 8,000 buildings, 1,700 are under our control. Do you understand, if they have approached from the north, south, and east, where is this all heading? This is a very difficult question for the Ukrainian side, for the Ukrainian armed forces.

If you look north – the city of Seversk: 1,700 buildings out of 8,000, and beyond that, further north (where our North group of forces is operating) – Volchansk is almost entirely in our hands, that is on the Kharkov direction.

Now take a look at the developments in the Zaporozhye Region. There, the enemy has spent the past ten years constructing a fortified area – they began this work back in 2014 and have reinforced it ever since – which is now facing our Dnepr group of forces. It is a heavily fortified area, and our Dnepr forces are actively operating against it. In several important sectors, thanks to the heroism of our soldiers, defences are being broken. But that is not the point. The point is that our East group of forces has broken through the enemy’s defensive lines and is rapidly advancing in the north of the Zaporozhye Region, along the border between the Zaporozhye and Dnepropetrovsk regions. I repeat: they are advancing very rapidly. They are already within 1.5–2 kilometres of Gulyaypole, an important logistics hub. Whether they take the city soon or somewhat later, they will undoubtedly continue their advance.

What does this mean? It means that the East group of forces is effectively enveloping the entire fortified area of the Ukrainian Armed Forces from the north. On one side, our Dnepr group is confronting them whereas the East group of forces is bypassing them from the north. This may lead to a collapse of the front in this sector.

Here lies the difference between those in the West who seek to achieve peace as quickly as possible, even at the cost of certain mutual concessions, including from the Ukrainian side, and those who prefer a different course. If the developments we witnessed in Kupyansk unfold in the areas I have just mentioned, the collapse of the front will be inevitable.

Some still choose to believe that Kupyansk… Let me remind you: on November 4, the head of the Kiev regime declared that the city would be in Ukrainian hands within five to seven days. We now know that the enemy forces there have been completely eliminated, the city is entirely under our control, and another 15 battalions – around 3,500 personnel – are encircled on the left bank of the Oskol River. According to some of our commanders, Ukrainian soldiers in that area now resemble homeless people. This is not a joke. Imagine trying to supply 3,500 people by drone: food, uniform replacements, ammunition. It is impossible. They have been stuck in these conditions for weeks and are now practically immobilised.

Those in the West who understand the implications of all this are the ones insisting on ceasing the fighting as soon as possible, even if it requires concessions from the Kiev regime. They understand: the front will begin to crumble in several directions, and then the Ukrainian armed forces will completely lose combat capability, including their most battle-ready units, as is currently happening near Krasnoarmeysk. “Enough: save at least the core of the armed forces and your statehood. That is what must be considered,” say those who hold this view.

And then there are others, those who still continue to believe that Kupyansk is somehow back under Ukrainian control and who insist on continuing the fighting until the last Ukrainian is killed. That is the difference in their approaches. The ones attacking Mr Witkoff are precisely those who align with this second point of view, those who want to join the Ukrainian establishment in siphoning off money while prolonging hostilities until the last Ukrainian dies. But I have already said publicly: in fact, we are prepared for this.

Please, go ahead.

Yekaterina Lazareva: Good afternoon, Mr President.

Yekaterina Lazareva, URA.Ru agency. I have a follow-up question. Back to the peace plans. There is Trump’s peace plan, and there is an alternative plan advanced by Europe. Is there an understanding of who to talk to, to negotiate with, and to sign final documents with on behalf of Ukrainian political leadership, or perhaps, the military leadership now?

Vladimir Putin: You know, signing documents with the Ukrainian leadership is pointless. I have mentioned this many times.

I believe the Ukrainian leadership made a fundamental and strategic mistake when it gave in to fear and chose not to hold presidential elections, after which the president lost his legitimacy. Russia is also amidst hostilities with Ukraine, but we held elections, presidential elections and, very recently, elections to municipal and regional bodies of authority. We did all of that, while they, for some reason, did not. As soon as a peace deal is signed, hostilities will stop, and the martial law will need to be immediately lifted. Once the martial law is lifted, elections must be announced immediately.

However, today, the current political leadership of Ukraine can hardly expect to be able to win the election without rigging it. It is almost impossible, I think. That brings to mind Stalin famously saying, “It does not matter who votes for whom; what matters is who counts the votes.” No one cancelled the use of the administrative resource. Still, they are facing a challenging situation.

Next, according to the Constitution, a referendum must be held on all territorial issues, after which the referendum must be confirmed by a Constitutional Court ruling.

What is happening with the Constitutional Court? I mentioned this earlier as well. As a reminder, when the political leadership requested that the Constitutional Court confirm the president’s powers, the Constitutional Court refused to do so and dodged the request. According to the Constitution, there is only one five-year term. That is it. It cannot be extended.

We could go into the legal details and intricacies, but extensions are not provided for even under martial law. Only the Rada can extend its own powers during wartime, not the president. So, as an officeholder, the president cannot sign it. He needs confirmation from the Constitutional Court. But when the Court was asked to confirm the president’s powers, and refused to do so, do you know what happened next? I am not sure I mentioned this before, but a funny thing happened next. The security service stopped letting him into his office. He came to work, and someone knocked on his door telling him to clear out. He ended by fleeing the country.

The Constitutional Court is not operational, and the President of the Supreme Court is doing time for corruption. Those in charge of anti-corruption activities are corruptionists of the first order themselves. The President of the Supreme Court was imprisoned on corruption charges. Meanwhile, the terms of the Constitutional Court members expired, and new members had to be elected. It is quite a lengthy procedure, you see?

So, as soon as martial law is lifted, presidential elections must be held, a referendum must be held, and a new Constitutional Court must be formed. That is a never ending story.

Well, of course, we want to work out a deal with Ukraine, but doing so right now is practically impossible, legally impossible. Whoever from their side can or is willing to talk, let them do so. What we need is for our decisions to be internationally recognised by the main global actors. That is all we need.

This matters, because there is a difference between decisions under which certain territories remain under Russian sovereignty have been recognised. If agreements get violated, it will constitute an attack on the Russian Federation, with all ensuing responses from Russia. Or, will it be interpreted as an attempt to restore law on the territory owned by Ukraine? These are different matters.

Without a doubt, we need recognition, but not from Ukraine as things stand today. I hope that in the future we will be able to work out a deal with Ukraine as well. There are enough right-minded people in Ukraine who are willing to build relations with Russia for the long-term historical perspective.

Kira Latukhina: Good afternoon. My name is Kira Latukhina, Rossiyskaya Gazeta.

Hungarian media have reported that Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban will arrive in Moscow tomorrow for talks with you. Could you confirm that such a meeting will take place, and what would be the purpose of his visit? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: We are in contact with the Hungarian side regarding a possible meeting. And we are always pleased to welcome any of our partners to Russia, including our European colleagues, despite their generally aggressive attitude toward us. Especially Viktor Orban. We know his position well. In my view, it is quite objective. He is one of the few people who assesses the situation based on real circumstances on the ground and formulates his political stance accordingly.

We also have bilateral matters to discuss. Our cooperation in the energy sector is extensive, not to mention the Paks Nuclear Power Plant. There are issues there requiring further clarification and coordination. This includes nuclear fuel supplies. For example, they used American fuel in Ukraine. We have nothing against that in principle, but in practice the fuel assemblies malfunctioned: the rods began to warp, leading to an emergency situation. Therefore, everything in this sphere must be thoroughly calculated; this is a very serious matter. But beyond that, we have many other bilateral issues. If Prime Minister Orban finds it appropriate to accept our invitation, we will be glad to see him.

Valentin Alfimov: May I, Mr President?

Valentin Alfimov, Komsomolskaya Pravda.

You have already partially addressed this, but I would like to clarify the legal aspect concerning Crimea and Donbas. In President Trump’s plan, it is stated that they recognise these territories as ours de facto but not de jure. How is that possible? As a lawyer, how do you see this distinction? How can something be recognised de facto but not de jure?

Vladimir Putin: This is precisely one of the issues that should be addressed in our negotiations with the American side.

Thank you for drawing attention to it. You are right, this is one of the key points.

Thank you very much.

All the best.

Press statements by President of Russia and President of Kyrgyzstan

2025-11-26T21:27:46+04:00

Vladimir Putin and President of the Kyrgyz Republic Sadyr Japarov made press statements following the Russian-Kyrgyz talks.

Earlier, the heads of state attended a ceremony held to exchange documents signed during the visit.

* * *

President of Kyrgyzstan Sadyr Japarov: Members of the press, ladies and gentlemen,

I once again cordially welcome President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin on his state visit to the Kyrgyz Republic.

Mr President, it is symbolic that your visit is taking place in the year marking the 25^th anniversary of the Declaration on Eternal Friendship, Alliance and Partnership between Russia and Kyrgyzstan. Kyrgyz-Russian relations are based on the centuries-old friendship between our nations, close cultural and humanitarian ties, and a shared history. I would like to once again assure you of the Kyrgyz Republic’s unwavering commitment to strengthening our allied relations and historical partnership with the Russian Federation.

I would like to emphasise that our partnership serves our long-term national interests.

During our informal meetings yesterday, Mr Putin and I discussed a broad range of current issues on our agenda. We noted with pleasure the high level of Kyrgyz-Russian cooperation and conducted a detailed review of the implementation of all our agreements reached during our meeting in Moscow in July 2025.

Today, we discussed a broad range of issues during an expanded-format meeting, which was attended by the heads of our countries’ key ministries and departments and held in a traditionally trust-based atmosphere. We noted progress in many spheres and issued instructions regarding certain issues. Overall, I would like to say that we have a highly positive view of our bilateral cooperation at almost all levels. Our government bodies have been instructed to build up joint efforts in order to add new promising spheres to our bilateral agenda and identify new points of convergence of our interests.

A new package of bilateral documents covering education, healthcare, migration, security, economic, and military-technical cooperation has just been signed in your presence. I am pleased to note that the legal framework between our countries now comprises more than 400 documents. There is probably no other foreign country with which we have signed such a large number of interstate, intergovernmental, and interdepartmental agreements.

Naturally, we regard the joint statement on deepening relations of alliance and strategic partnership, which defines the principal areas of our future collaboration, as a central achievement of the talks. We highly value the traditionally close cooperation between our countries within international organisations and integration associations, including the UN, the CIS, the EAEU, the CSTO, and the SCO.

Our two nations share similar approaches to many key issues on the international and regional agenda. I would like to express my gratitude to the Russian side for the fruitful joint work during our presidency of the CSTO this year. We look forward to comparable cooperation during the Kyrgyz Republic’s forthcoming chairmanship of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. We concur that the Russian air base in Kant is a vital component of the CSTO Collective Rapid Deployment Forces and a significant factor in maintaining regional stability in Central Asia.

Significant attention was also paid to trade and economic cooperation. I would like to underscore that Russia remains one of the Kyrgyz Republic’s principal trading partners, accounting for 22 percent of our total trade turnover. In other words, nearly a quarter of Kyrgyzstan’s foreign trade is conducted with Russia. We were pleased to note the progress being made towards our shared objective of reaching US$5 billion in mutual trade in the coming years.

Investment is of particular importance. Russian direct investment in the first half of this year alone amounted to US$110 million. We consistently welcome the interest of Russian businesses in the Kyrgyz market and are prepared to ensure a favourable operating environment for their success. According to our data, as of November 2025, more than 1,800 companies with Russian participation are operating in Kyrgyzstan, representing one-third of all foreign enterprises in the country.

In order to give this effort fresh momentum, we wholeheartedly support the initiative put forward by our Russian partners to establish an Association of Russian Investors in Kyrgyzstan. The association should become an effective platform for dialogue between our business communities, between Russian investors and the authorities of Kyrgyzstan.

We also discussed the results of the latest meeting of the Kyrgyz-Russian Intergovernmental Commission on Trade, Economic, Scientific, Technical and Humanitarian Cooperation, which was recently held in Bishkek.

We highly assessed the performance of the Russian-Kyrgyz Development Fund, one of the key drivers of our bilateral economic relations. Since its establishment, the Fund has invested over one billion dollars in Kyrgyzstan’s economy and has financed over 3,500 projects across all regions of the Republic. Taken together, its aggregate investment is twice as large as the Fund’s initial authorised capital. To date, the Fund is co-financing the construction of 14 hydropower and renewable energy facilities worth more than US$175 million.

We exchanged views on our cooperation within the Eurasian Development Bank and the Eurasian Fund for Stabilisation and Development.

We traditionally paid considerable attention to education, where we noted positive interaction as well. Over 16,000 Kyrgyz students are studying at Russian universities. The education of half of them is fully funded by the Russian side. We noted with satisfaction the large-scale plans for the scientific and technical modernisation of the Kyrgyz-Russian Slavic University, a leading higher educational establishment in the Republic. The agreement signed today to build a new campus of the university has launched this important project.

We are consistently implementing a major socially significant initiative, which we have formulated together with Mr Putin, to build nine [Russian-language] schools, three of which are scheduled to open in 2027.

We maintain a careful attitude towards the Russian language, the language of not only Pushkin and Tolstoy but also our great writer Chingiz Aitmatov. The humanitarian project Russian Teacher Abroad, under which teachers from Russia teach Russian in schools across Kyrgyzstan, has proved to be in great demand.

Many projects of great importance for our social development are being implemented with support from Rossotrudnichestvo and ANO Eurasia. Eurasia Park, the largest family recreation park in Kyrgyzstan and Central Asia, opened in Bishkek in August 2025 at the initiative and with full support from ANO Eurasia.

Acting on our instructions, Kyrgyzstan and Russia have started creating an educational space based on the integration of best practices of our countries’ educational systems.

We are actively developing and promoting cultural ties between our nations. Cross Culture Days were successfully held in Russia and Kyrgyzstan and were met with mutual admiration of the audiences. Kyrgyzstan’s House of Science and Culture in Moscow, which will open soon, will further strengthen our cultural ties. We are grateful to our Russian friends for their practical assistance in implementing this initiative.

We also discussed migration issues and reaffirmed our mutual interest in ensuring that our compatriots live in Russia legally and are guaranteed appropriate labour conditions and social benefits. We have also agreed to continue working in this vital sphere through our respective ministries.

Mr President, the results of your state visit to the Kyrgyz Republic allow us to look optimistically at the further development of Kyrgyz-Russian relations. I am confident that your visit has reaffirmed once again the special strength of the Kyrgyz-Russian alliance and strategic partnership and has given a powerful impetus to their further deepening.

It is with great pleasure that I am giving the floor to you, Mr President.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Mr President, ladies and gentlemen,

I would like, in turn, to thank the President of Kyrgyzstan for his invitation, and all our Kyrgyz colleagues for their hospitality and the warm welcome we have received. Special words of gratitude, Mr President, for yesterday’s informal evening, which afforded us the opportunity for a one-on-one discussion covering virtually all areas of our mutual interest and the development of our interstate relations.

I fully concur with Mr Japarov: today’s talks were highly productive and were held in a constructive spirit.

This is entirely consistent with the nature of genuinely friendly and neighbourly relations between Russia and Kyrgyzstan.

We held a detailed discussion on the entire spectrum of bilateral issues and exchanged views on pressing regional matters.

A significant outcome of this visit is the joint statement on taking Russian-Kyrgyz relations to a new, even more advanced level of deepened strategic partnership and alliance.

Furthermore, a package of intergovernmental and interagency documents was signed, aimed at expanding concrete, practical cooperation.

Naturally, priority during the talks was given to the further development of our economic cooperation. Last year, our bilateral trade reached a record high, exceeding US$4 billion. This year, the growth of mutual trade continues at a robust pace – around 17 percent. This is a commendable result.

We have all but ceased the use of foreign currencies in financial settlements and have established stable channels for credit and banking cooperation. The share of the ruble in commercial transactions has already reached 97 percent.

The Russian side is assisting Kyrgyzstan in enhancing its tax administration and system of goods marking. According to our estimates, this has already led to an increase in additional revenues to the Kyrgyz budget of more than US$1 billion.

Russia is a major investor in the Kyrgyz economy. Accumulated Russian investments amount to almost US$2 billion. Kyrgyzstan is home to around 1,700 business entities with Russian capital in key sectors such as energy, mining, agriculture, transport, and logistics. All this has been made possible thanks to the steady domestic policy pursued by the President of Kyrgyzstan and the nation’s internal political stability.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Mr President, ladies and gentlemen,

I fully concur with Mr Japarov: today’s talks were highly productive and were held in a constructive spirit.

This is entirely consistent with the nature of genuinely friendly and neighbourly relations between Russia and Kyrgyzstan.

We held a detailed discussion on the entire spectrum of bilateral issues and exchanged views on pressing regional matters.

A significant outcome of this visit is the joint statement on taking Russian-Kyrgyz relations to a new, even more advanced level of deepened strategic partnership and alliance.

Furthermore, a package of intergovernmental and interagency documents was signed, aimed at expanding concrete, practical cooperation.

Our countries maintain close cooperation within the Eurasian Economic Union. Together with our fellow member states, we are building common markets for goods, services, capital, and labour. The advancement of Eurasian integration is delivering tangible dividends to all members, Kyrgyzstan included. To illustrate, in the decade since Kyrgyzstan acceded to the EAEU, its GDP has grown by 150 percent, while its exports to other Union countries have quadrupled.

As the President of Kyrgyzstan has just noted, Russia finances the Russian-Kyrgyz Development Fund, which has channelled approximately US$1 billion into Kyrgyzstan, supporting more than 3,500 joint projects in the real economy.

Energy represents one of the most vital sectors of Russian-Kyrgyz collaboration. Our country fully meets Kyrgyzstan’s demand for petrol and diesel and does so on preferential terms, without levying export duties – a measure that provides direct economic benefit to the Republic.

Furthermore, Gazprom is a key supplier of natural gas to Kyrgyzstan and has joined the nation’s public gas supply programme. The Russian gas giant has allocated over US$400 million for this purpose, which has already provided 42 percent of the country with access to the gas network. This work is ongoing.

Russia also supplies electricity to Kyrgyz consumers. Our companies are engaged in the design and modernisation of hydroelectric power plants on Kyrgyz rivers. We plan to jointly construct a large solar power plant in the Issyk-Kul Region and a new, modern combined heat and power plant in the north of the country.

Concurrently, Rosatom is executing a broad reclamation programme for former uranium mining sites. We are also exploring the possibility of constructing Kyrgyzstan’s first nuclear power plant, utilising advanced Russian small modular reactor technologies. I must emphasise that these reactors meet the most stringent international standards for safety and environmental protection.

Russian-Kyrgyz humanitarian cooperation remains traditionally rich and multifaceted, with ties between our citizens continually strengthening.

Our collaboration extends robustly across culture, sport, public and youth organisations, and certainly education. More than 10,000 students from Kyrgyzstan are currently pursuing their studies in Russia; half of them, as the President noted, are studying in state-funded places.

Kyrgyzstan hosts branch campuses of several leading Russian universities. The Kyrgyz-Russian Slavic University in Bishkek alone serves approximately 7,500 students. The intergovernmental agreement signed today includes plans to construct a new academic building and other infrastructure on the university campus.

And, of course, it is encouraging that, alongside Russia, the Russian language, which holds official status under the Constitution, is widely and freely used in Kyrgyzstan. We greatly value this, and we welcome the support provided by the Republic’s leadership for its use across various spheres of life.

It is symbolic that on the eve of our visit, the Eurasian Centre for Russian Language and Culture opened in Bishkek, and a new Russian-language television channel, Nomad TV, began broadcasting in Kyrgyzstan.

I would like to emphasise that Russia will continue supporting efforts to improve the quality of education in the Russian language. We regularly supply schools and universities with teaching materials, and more than 150 educators have been sent to Kyrgyzstan under the Russian Teacher Abroad programme. I believe, and Mr President has also mentioned this in the course of our interaction, including in our informal conversations, that this is still not enough. I fully agree with you.

In addition, we are helping build new Russian-language schools in Kyrgyzstan. The first three institutions are scheduled to open in 2027, and in total, nine such schools will be built in different regions of the country.

Naturally, President Japarov and I also discussed in detail the expansion of bilateral cooperation in the military and military-technical spheres. We outlined plans for joint efforts in countering terrorism and extremism, combating drug trafficking, and fighting organised crime.

Both sides noted that the joint Russian military base in Kyrgyzstan makes a significant contribution to strengthening the Republic’s defence capability and, more broadly, to ensuring security and stability in Central Asia.

When discussing current foreign policy issues, we acknowledged that our approaches are similar or fully align. Our countries closely coordinate their positions within multilateral formats, including the United Nations, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, and the Commonwealth of Independent States.

We look forward to welcoming Mr Japarov in St Petersburg at the end of December for the traditional informal meeting of CIS leaders and the session of the Supreme Eurasian Economic Council.

In conclusion, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to our Kyrgyz friends and Mr President for the constructive and productive discussions.

Our joint work with Mr Japarov will continue today, and tomorrow we will participate in the regular session of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation Council. As you know, Kyrgyzstan has successfully chaired the CSTO this year and will hand over this responsibility to Russia on January 1.

I am confident that this visit and our talks will contribute to the further development of the multifaceted Russian–Kyrgyz partnership, for the benefit of our peoples and our countries.

Thank you for your attention.

AI Journey international conference

2025-11-21T16:35:52+04:00

The President took part in the 10th AI Journey, an annual international conference on artificial intelligence and machine learning being held in Moscow from November 19 to 21.

Prior to the plenary session, Vladimir Putin toured an exhibition of Russian companies’ achievements in artificial intelligence. The display featured a range of innovations, including the first Russian anthropomorphic robot developed by Sberbank, a suite of intelligent assistants based on the GigaChat large language model, and the Alice AI generative model from Yandex.

The President was also briefed on the application of artificial intelligence across various sectors, such as industry, sports, and healthcare, including the AI-assisted development of pharmaceutical drugs.

During his tour of the exhibition, Vladimir Putin was accompanied by Deputy Chief of Staff of the Presidential Executive Office Maxim Oreshkin, Minister of Digital Development, Communications, and Mass Media Maksut Shadayev, and President and Chairman of the Executive Board of Sberbank German Gref.

* * *

The 10^th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning, Artificial Intelligence Journey 2025

Chairman of the Management Board and CEO of Sberbank German Gref: Mr President, this year marks the tenth anniversary of the AI Journey conference. I would like to thank you from the bottom of my heart for regularly participating in it and supporting the advanced technology and the high-tech sector in our country.

Allow me to give you the floor.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Thank you very much.

Today’s events are titled “Artificial Intelligence Journey.” Mr Gref has just taken me on such a journey. How long did it last? Three hours? Two and a half? We apologise for making you spend this time discussing the agenda. Anyway, I am genuinely pleased to welcome to Sber’s headquarters all AI Journey conference participants, as well as wide audiences from around the world which, I believe, are joining us online. As is customary, I will share with you what Russia is working on and discuss new steps to create and apply advanced technologies, including as part of international interaction.

Since this conference marks its tenth anniversary, I would like to thank Sber’s Chairman of the Management Board Mr Gref, as well as the Russian Artificial Intelligence Alliance, for your persistent efforts to promote the values of progress and to bring together the efforts of the state, business, and science in order to accomplish the technological development objectives.

You have heard me say it many times before that it is important to not only appreciate the importance of what we are doing, but also to keep moving forward even after achieving intermediate results. We should strive to bring our joint work to a whole new level in order to match the pace and the daunting scale of ongoing changes.

At previous conferences, we discussed in detail generative AI and language models trained on vast amounts of data, including texts and images. Just a short two years ago, such systems could tackle fairly simple tasks, but today generative AI is being used to create intelligent assistants known as AI agents, as well as self-driving vehicles and robots.

Importantly, they are not just following predefined algorithms; but are capable of making increasingly autonomous decisions without human input. Those who possess and apply such products gain significant advantages in efficiency and productivity.

Clearly, generative AI technology is becoming core and strategic technology. Major companies and leading countries are vying to develop proprietary fundamental language models.

According to various estimations, the development of artificial intelligence may be one of the largest technological projects in human history. Meanwhile, the primary focus of investment is on expanding computing power and generating additional gigawatts of energy: resources essential for the reliable functioning of the rapidly growing digital infrastructure. This energy is required to train the next generations of even more efficient generative AI systems. As I have already noted, electricity consumption by data centres will more than triple in this decade alone.

Alongside rapid transformations across all sectors, the number of users of generative artificial intelligence tools is steadily increasing. In Russia, the vast majority of young people are already actively employing neural networks and language models for tasks related to their studies, jobs, and daily lives.

But something else is equally important. These models generate enormous volumes of new data and are becoming one of the key instruments for information dissemination. As such, they have the capacity to influence people’s values and worldviews, shaping the semantic environment of entire nations and, ultimately, humanity as a whole.

We cannot allow critical dependence on foreign systems. For Russia, this is a question of state, technological, and, one could say, value sovereignty. Therefore, our country must possess a complete range of its own generative artificial intelligence technologies and products.

First and foremost, this includes national language models: both fundamental and smaller, industry-specific ones. The entire spectrum of such models must be trained and fully overseen by Russian specialists at every stage, including the quality assurance of the final product.

Work on these complex systems should become a significant driver for strengthening the national engineering school in this crucial domain. We must develop unique competencies across the full cycle of creating fundamental language models: from their initial development and training to their adaptation for the needs of various industries. In fact, all countries seeking leadership, independence, and sovereignty in this field are following the same path.

Second, a key direction, encompasses the entire infrastructure required for the development and implementation of such national products, specifically the electronic component base, data processing centres, and computing capacities with a stable energy supply.

The tasks to which I am referring are complex and carry significant responsibility – we all understand and acknowledge this perfectly well. We will address them in collaboration with domestic companies. In this context, I would highlight that the products of Sber and Yandex are ranked among the best in the world. During the upcoming Direct Line at the end of this year, we will once again utilise Sber’s language model, which has already demonstrated its effectiveness in analysing and systematising the vast volume of public appeals.

Let me reiterate: it is not merely the presence of our own technologies that is important. What is crucial is ensuring their widespread practical application. We must achieve their comprehensive introduction in industry, transport, healthcare, public administration, and other sectors. On this subject, I would like to elaborate in slightly greater detail.

The National Strategy for the Development of Artificial Intelligence sets the objective that by 2030, the aggregate contribution of this critical technology to the country’s GDP must exceed 11 trillion rubles. To advance this objective, I ask the Government and regional heads to formulate a national plan for the implementation of generative artificial intelligence at the national level, as well as across industries and regions of the country.

Earlier this morning, the Prime Minister and I discussed this subject. He reminded me that the Government has already established an Analytical Centre on this matter, which is currently operational with a team of 50 individuals. Officially, the Ministry of Digital Development oversees this work. However, neither one nor the other is sufficient. This is no longer adequate; we need a real operational headquarters to lead this sector, if we want this work to proceed confidently and proactively across all the aforementioned directions – that is, across industries, regions, ministries, and agencies. We need a headquarters capable of setting tangible tasks, ensuring execution, and monitoring results.

This analytical group is highly commendable, but it lacks administrative resource. That is what is absent – administrative resource is needed. Therefore, I ask the Presidential Executive Office and the Government – the Minister and the Government as a whole – to consider how we should establish this very headquarters to lead not just the sector but this entire endeavour, leveraging the capabilities of all those who are either already interested or do not yet realise they should be interested. Together, we must make this clear.

I emphasise that the implementation of this plan will become a crucial tool for generating demand for national fundamental models, effectively forming an entire market for the application of generative artificial intelligence systems.

Products developed on the basis of this plan must be integrated across all key industries by 2030. This includes solutions such as intelligent personal assistants and AI agents, which should be employed in the majority of management and production processes.

By March 2026, the Government, ministries, and agencies must provide comprehensive information on the use of artificial intelligence in the economy, the social sphere, and the regions of the Russian Federation. The pace of introducing these technologies in the regions should become a key indicator in the annual digital transformation ranking. I would like to request that this ranking be compiled using the updated methodology as early as the end of next year, 2026.

In this regard, I would like to appeal to the heads of ministries and agencies, as well as to regional leaders. This is not about preparing reports, but about achieving concrete results. You must clearly understand the demand for innovation coming from companies and enterprises, maintain permanent contact with scientists and engineers, and create conditions for testing and practical application of advanced technologies. Such successful experience is presented in the demonstration area of our conference. I believe it is useful, and if anyone has not yet visited it, I recommend doing so.

What is crucial is that we must create a market for the practical application of artificial intelligence technologies. My colleagues and I have just been discussing this, and they have been telling me how this sector is developing. In principle, the situation is similar to that in any other sector, but we now have the opportunity, whether fortunately or unfortunately, to build this market almost from scratch. This requires establishing certain standards across various areas of activity and ensuring that users of artificial intelligence technologies pay for these services, thereby creating a financial base for further development. We need to get this process going and give it an impetus for development.

I would also like to note that there are already tangible examples of how the experience of one Russian region in applying artificial intelligence is becoming the foundation for transformations across the entire country. For example, nearly two thousand medical organisations from more than 70 regions have joined the Moscow digital healthcare platform. This system has provided doctors from various cities and towns with access to artificial intelligence algorithms for the automatic analysis of medical images and radiological examinations.

Administrative and legal barriers that hinder both the creation and the implementation of sovereign, domestic technologies must be lifted more rapidly. Let me remind you in this context that in a number of countries, attempts to impose overly strict regulation on artificial intelligence have slowed down the development of new products and ideas. Let me repeat: we must not follow this path and repeat other countries’ mistakes. At the same time, we must bear in mind that there are certain areas of activity, such as public administration, the work of special services and law enforcement agencies, where we must rely exclusively on our own domestic developments.

Naturally, all of this must be done in direct dialogue with the tech businesses. We must thoroughly and substantively discuss the most bold and innovative regulatory and legislative initiatives that may, at first glance, fall outside conventional approaches. If necessary, they should be tested within experimental legal regimes. Such regimes are already in effect in Moscow and Sakhalin, as well as in a number of other regions of the Russian Federation, and will soon be extended to one-third of Russia’s territory: namely, the entire Far East. And, of course, we must make wider use of so-called “soft law.” I am referring primarily to the Code of Ethics in Artificial Intelligence.

Furthermore, as I have already noted today, in order to augment the potential of domestic generative artificial intelligence technologies and train our own language models, we must ensure the stability and independence of the national digital infrastructure. This will, among other things, allow us to guarantee data sovereignty, so that user information remains within the borders of Russia.

In this regard, I propose working with the business community to implement a programme for the development of data processing centres for artificial intelligence needs and to ensure that start-ups, scientific organisations, and technology companies have easy access to these centres.

The development of such data centres is intended to serve as a catalyst for the emergence of new enterprises and companies, as well as for job creation in promising sectors. This includes the domestic electronics industry, the deployment of production of components and spare parts, and the development of software and engineering systems for data processing centres.

The most critical and fundamental task is to ensure a constant, stable, and reliable energy supply for data centres. Consequently, plans for their placement must be clearly aligned with the further development of our national energy infrastructure as a whole, which includes advanced, modern, environmentally clean coal generation and other clean energy sources, such as nuclear. This is our strategic asset and competitive advantage.

We have just discussed this with experts, and it transpires that the mere availability of energy sources is insufficient. Powerful, constant energy sources are required to address specific tasks, while for the rapid utilisation of processed and refined data, energy sources must be located close to the consumers of the deliverables. This is a serious challenge, but it is one we are equipped to overcome, as we are perhaps the only country in the world currently capable of, ready for, and already producing and utilising small nuclear power plants.

Thus, in Kuzbass, for instance, coal generation can be utilised, while certain tasks can be conducted at our large hydroelectric power stations. In locations with large nuclear units, specific research and preparation can be carried out. However, to guarantee the rapid delivery of necessary information – with timeframes, as I have just been informed, measured in seconds and fractions of a second – and to ensure operational efficiency, small nuclear power plants can also be deployed. The imperative is to execute this swiftly.

We possess unique solutions that can be utilised for powering data processing centres. We plan to transition to the serial production of small floating and land-based nuclear stations, as well as to continue the construction of data processing centres at the largest nuclear power plants. We are ready to offer such comprehensive products to our international partners as well.

Looking ahead, within less than two decades, we intend to build 38 nuclear power units, primarily in the Urals, Siberia, and the Far East. Their combined capacity will be practically equivalent to that of the entire current nuclear generation. The growing potential of our domestic nuclear energy sector will enable us to consistently expand the computational capabilities required for artificial intelligence.

Friends,

I would like to address international cooperation separately. We will establish a joint framework with our partners in the field of artificial intelligence. This work will be conducted both on the basis of bilateral agreements and within integration associations such as the EAEU, BRICS, the SCO, and other formats. Furthermore, we propose to actively pursue the harmonisation of our nations’ legislation regarding the implementation of artificial intelligence, utilising the best practices accumulated in this area within the BRICS platform.

Naturally, we intend to jointly implement research projects. In this domain, we already have tangible examples of cooperation. For instance, at the initiative of the International Alliance for Artificial Intelligence established last year, a profound scientific discussion is now underway about how artificial intelligence technologies will evolve in the coming decade and what impact they will have on industry, transport, and other sectors, as well as on people, families, society as a whole, and social processes. I instruct the Government to ensure that the results of this forecast are applied in practice to update and fine-tune our plans for the development of economic sectors and the social sphere.

Meanwhile, it is evident that digital progress will gain strength and momentum. In the foreseeable future, technologies that surpass the capabilities of existing systems will undoubtedly emerge, and this will happen very quickly; I am referring to generative artificial intelligence, among other things. I am convinced that the younger generation of our scientists and engineers will make a significant contribution to addressing these highly complex research and development challenges.

I am aware that Russian school and university students – winners and prize-winners of international artificial intelligence tournaments – are present in this hall today. Let us welcome them together.

Friends, I wish you every success in your future endeavours, and I wish the participants of the AI Journey conference meaningful and fruitful deliberations.

Thank you for your attention.

German Gref: Mr President,

I would like to once again thank you for your focus on technology. I owe you an apology for taking much of your time today to dive into what is probably the most critical, yet the most complex, technology. I do not think many national leaders are as deeply immersed in technology as you are. Thank you very much for the comments you provided and the tasks you issued.

Now is the moment for me to announce that we have decided to make publicly available as open source our advanced, indeed, our most advanced, flagship AI models, such as GigaChat Ultra Preview, GigaChat Lightning, the next-generation GigaAMv-3 speech-recognition model, the Kandinsky image generation models, and the Kandinsky 5.0 video model, which we presented at the conference today.

These models will be distributed under a license that will allow using some of them even for commercial purposes. This will be Europe’s largest open-source project. These models will be released in full, including all their weights, and made freely accessible.

We also presented today our humanoid robot, the first humanoid robot named Green, based on the GigaChat neural network. It has a good sense of direction in unfamiliar environments and can operate autonomously in such environments.

Without a doubt, this is a new phase in domestic robotics and artificial intelligence aka embodied artificial intelligence, or physical artificial intelligence, because its hardware is of applied nature and is built around AI.

We are in a new phase of autonomous robotics, and Russia must have a strong presence on this global market. Importantly, Russian companies, including our Artificial Intelligence Alliance partners and Yandex are working to advance this area of research as well.

What do all these trends and new models mean to each of us as heads of respective organisations, as citizens, and simply as people who daily come across artificial intelligence, everyday problems, and questions such as how and for what we should prepare our children at a time when every child has unrestricted access to an enormous number of AI models?

Without a doubt, these questions need to be reflected upon, and they call for transformations. We cannot delay these transformations. Our panel is titled “The Future with Artificial Intelligence.” Clearly, we will have to live alongside artificial intelligence and robots, where robots will be among us. All of that must be processed and properly planned so as not to stress out people or organisations, and to get ready for the upcoming changes in advance, because we can no longer fence ourselves off of them.

<…>

Vladimir Putin: We touched upon a critically important matter related to education when Mr Gref and his colleagues were immersing me in the world of artificial intelligence. All you need to do is press a button and things will happen, correct? A pupil at school, even a university student, can get the solution to almost any problem. Why use brains then? You know, it may sound like a joke at first glance, but, in fact, it is a serious matter. After all, students at schools, universities, and colleges must be taught to think, not just to push buttons to get answers. It is a challenging task, indeed.

A colleague of ours who took part in the presentations today, a young man, is a father of five children. I am not sure how he pulled that off. Good for him, five children is a great accomplishment. Let’s give him a round of applause if he is in this audience.

German Gref: He works at Yandex.

Vladimir Putin: Not only at Yandex. He is doing great on other fronts as well. Five children, well done. I asked him how he was going to teach his children to think, rather than press buttons.

You know, jokes aside… He’s a very intelligent person. He is conversant with matters that I myself do not quite understand, yet he was unable to answer that question. You see? This is no joke. It is not that simple in the emerging global system. We cannot afford seeing a select group of super-intellectuals – highly developed elite, an intellectual elite – form in our country, while everyone else will be reduced to “robots” pressing buttons.

This is a genuine challenge for the education system, the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Science and Higher Education alike. How do we encourage people to think? It is a challenge for the teaching staff and the entire education system. We need to develop an approach to education where a child solves math problems and uses capabilities offered by artificial intelligence. How do we do that? We need to engage them in playing chess and doing mathematics.

That is what I am asking you to do. Think about it, because the Ministry of Education alone will not be able to solve this problem. This is a serious matter for future generations and for Russia, in particular.

<…>

Vice-Chancellor of Sai University (India) and Dean of its School of Artificial Intelligence Ajit Abraham: First, I will take a few moments to summarise our AI foresight event. During the last AI Journey, as per the advice of President Putin, we organised a foresight session to understand some of the current challenging problems, future opportunities and finding ways how we can work together to solve cutting-edge problems, contributing to the community, to the country, and doing something great for the planet.

So, we had close to 270 researchers from industry and academia, from nearly 36 countries participating in this massive exercise during the last year. Personal interviews, sessions in different countries online, offline – all this helped us to bring all this knowledge together.

I would like to take this opportunity, on behalf of all the members and the participating nations, to thank Russia for chairing this session and for providing this opportunity for all of us to work together.

We have seen a massive transformation, how AI is changing the world: from machine learning to large language models to multi-modal models, to agentic systems, to contact server systems. We have our colleagues working in new areas like responsible AI, explainable AI, ethical AI, digital twins with cognitive capabilities, human and AI working together systems, something like that.

So, all these things are changing in a very big way, in the technological field. AI is going to change the way we live, the way we operate, the way we do business, the way we teach our students, the way we do many things in daily life.

I would like to quickly point out how scientific literature or should I say advancing scientific progress is going to be affected by using artificial intelligence. From understanding literature, if scientists wanted to do something new, it would have taken months to years to summarise a new area. But with generative AI, we can summarise this in a few days to a few weeks, starting a new area, formulating hypotheses, doing experiments, analysing data, augmenting data. Sometimes you don’t have the data but we can augment it using various generative AI tools. All this will definitely speed up scientific discovery, and we can even produce results within a few days to a few weeks, which would have taken sometimes months to years five or ten years ago.

So, I think AI is going to change things in a very big way and there could be questions about our own existence, whether scientists will lose their jobs. Apparently, no. Scientists will be working like a lab by doing multiple things, accessing areas, datapoints, problems. We can scale up our own productivity, our own research, contributing a lot of things to the community, which will all speed up scientific discovery and the way many things would progress on the planet.

Some of us could ask: will AI affect cognitive abilities? Will it take away critical thinking? But again, without that, without critical thinking, without reasoning, without cognitive abilities, we might not be able to challenge these platforms so that we can get the best fruits off these platforms.

It is taking on a very different dimension from smart homes to smart cities, manufacturing hubs, smart transportation systems, smart hospitals. Imagine that you walk into a hospital for a regular checkup, take some blood samples, use imaging, and you get predictive diagnostics that you are going to get a neurological disorder within the coming few months or a few years. That is how healthcare is progressing in a very different way.

In the Indian context, the Government of India is doing a lot of wonderful things. The AI mission invested about $1 billion in sending technologies from urban areas to rural areas, helping various stakeholders in various aspects from manufacturing, healthcare, agritech, media and legal tech. Across all these areas, the Government of India is doing wonderful things. Startup AI Mission is another big initiative by the Government of India training the youth. India has about 350 million young people, probably almost the size of the Russian population. So, the Government of India is trying to encourage entrepreneurship within this young talent. The International AI Alliance chaired by Russia is a new platform. As of now, we have membership from more than 20 different countries.

This is going to take AI in a very new direction in the coming months and years. I am sure it will again scale up in a very big way, providing massive opportunities for collaboration, networking and contributing something to the society at large. Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: I would like to underscore that, first and foremost, we are collaborating with our Indian friends and will continue to do so.

I am aware that India plans to host an artificial intelligence summit in February next year. We will gladly participate in this event. I hope and am confident that the initiative proposed by our Indian friends will be conducted at the highest level.

As for human cognitive capabilities, I have just mentioned, prior to your speech, that we must under no circumstances allow a situation where an intellectual elite emerges, capable of properly utilising artificial intelligence and developing itself, whilst the majority of the population merely uses artificial intelligence to press buttons and receive ready answers. Naturally, much is to be done to prevent this.

I briefly mentioned that we must make significant efforts, including the creation of national platforms based on our own foundation, our own intellectual framework, our traditional values, our history, and so on. What do I mean? When we speak of developing cognitive capabilities, these advancements must reach the overwhelming majority of our country’s citizens.

I have already mentioned that in schools today, one can press a button to instantly receive an answer to any teacher’s question, without the need to think. The same applies to foreign languages. Try convincing a young person today of the necessity to study a foreign language. Do you know the response? “Why bother? Just ask Alice or Mr Gref’s chatbots.” Boom! Everything is translated online. So why study a foreign language? You speak or listen, and everything is translated instantly. What is the point? But you understand that for every issue, we must find the right answer and instil this perspective, in this case, into the minds of young people.

What is the study of a foreign language? It is not merely about using it in daily life or professional activities. A young person must understand that mastering a foreign language immerses them in an entirely different world, offering the opportunity to live another life. It is one thing to read, say, War and Peace in the original, and another to read a translation. This is especially true for poetry. It is one thing to read Heine in translation, even a very good one, and another in the original. There are countless nuances, and a one hundred percent accurate translation is impossible because the subtleties of the author’s intent cannot be fully conveyed. But when you know the language, you immerse yourself in these subtleties, understanding, at least in part, the soul of the native speaker and the soul of that culture. This is an immense cultural value.

The same applies to chess. One can play online games: connect to a system, and the computer solves everything for you, winning against everyone. Does this bring satisfaction? Or do you realise it is simply deception, not your victory?

Earlier, a young lady spoke about how Sberbank assists athletes in ensuring fair judging. We discussed football, where fans know that mistakes are unfortunately frequent. This deceives the fans, and what joy is there for players beyond receiving their salaries? But when you win honestly, the emotions are entirely different.

This is tied to our cultural code: an honest approach to work, immersion in another culture. The pleasure derived from this is internal – emotional and intellectual. This is delicate work.

If together we can establish such an educational approach in schools, universities, and colleges, I believe we will maximise the benefits of artificial intelligence and achieve the greatest results.

German Gref: Mr President, thank you very much. Indeed, you have accurately identified the key areas requiring special attention. How can we maintain children’s motivation, and how can we sustain people’s drive for high-quality education? How can we explain to children that they are not developing their minds when, today, they can achieve results with the click of a button without exerting any intellectual effort? How can we ensure that the advent of artificial intelligence does not lead to the atrophy of cognitive function but, on the contrary, stimulates it?

These are the questions we must all answer together today. In fact, this was precisely the focus of the work initiated by you last year and carried out by scientists, as our Indian colleague, Mr Abraham, has just outlined.

I would like to thank our partner in the AI Alliance, Kirill Dmitriev of the Russian Direct Investment Fund, for his immense international efforts in organising all of this. Kirill has personally dedicated a great deal of time and effort to this endeavour. I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks to you, Kirill, and your organisation. Without your involvement, we would likely not have achieved such international collaboration.

I would now like to turn to our next speaker, Mr Chen Qiufan, a representative of China and a highly distinguished expert who has worked for over a decade in technology companies, including China’s largest firm, Baidu, and America’s largest, Google, where he headed the strategic research department. He then explored the role of a writer and, alongside a very well-known figure in the world of artificial intelligence, Mr Kai-Fu Lee, co-authored the book AI 2041. He is the author of numerous books and is one of the leading experts in the field of futurism.

Mr Chen, I would like to pose two questions to you.

The first question is: What is your view on the predictions made by Mr Kurzweil, one of the most renowned technological futurists, who claims that all those who live through the next six to seven years will not only have the chance to live to 100 and beyond but will achieve immortality? His latest forecast suggests this will occur some time between 2030 and 2035, around 2032.

My second question is: In your opinion, what will the life of an ordinary person look like in 10 to 15 years, say in 2041, the year you and Kai-Fu Lee wrote about in your fascinating books? What will become the key driver of trust between society and artificial intelligence?

It is well known that technology is advancing so rapidly that society struggles to adapt. What must we do to help people understand and pre-adapt, to grasp what and how they need to learn? How can we preserve the motivation our President spoke of and ensure our own relevance in the labour market and the world at large during these highly challenging and rapidly changing times?

President of the World Chinese Science Fiction Association Chen Qiufan: Thank you for introducing our book AI 2041.

I want to start by sharing a personal story. Two years ago, my mum, who is 70 years old, had a stroke at home while I was away. But luckily, my dad found her and took her to the nearest hospital, and she got everything she needed, all the treatment, and now she is fine.

But what if she had been by herself? What if the hospital had been too far away? And what if we could have an AI doctor in our pockets that could subtly monitor our everyday behaviour like our voice, our expression, the way we hold the phone and even our biomarkers? It could warn us about a stroke or some other disease before it happens. And not only that. If you need some medication, it could, based on all your data and your history, 3D-print the medicine and deliver it to your doorway within minutes. This is not only about saving lives, not only about curing diseases, but also about what Raymond Kurzweil mentioned: it will tremendously extend lifespans and increase the level of wellbeing.

Why does this matter so much? China, as a country, is as big as Russia, but has 1.4 billion people, so the resources are unevenly distributed. It is vastly different, distributed to mega-cities from the rural areas; but on the other hand, fascinatingly, we have almost 100 percent coverage of smartphones and we have 80 percent internet coverage. So, think about it. In the future, we can deploy AI models, hybrid with human expertise, and we can help everyone to improve their everyday lives with all this infrastructure and technology.

So, AI in healthcare is one thing. Also, like I mentioned before, a mutli-agent assistant on your phone could be your children’s personal tutor, could be your family’s finance manager, could be your yoga instructor or your therapist. Everything is possible. You don’t have to travel far away. You don’t have to go to a big city for all these resources.

And what is more crucial is, like Mr President mentioned, we can use the technology to reconnect the younger generation with history. For example, my fellow students from Hong Kong, they are now using generative AI and 3D printing to transform Chinese mythology figures into toys, which makes folklore and culture more accessible and relevant. Russia has as deep a history and culture as China. We can definitely use technology to strengthen their love for history and culture. My friend’s daughter, a fourteen-year-old girl, is using an AI tutor to read Russian literature, which is quite amazing, right? So, AI technology definitely helps us increase cultural exchanges.

So, going back to my mum, what is happening to her? During her recovery, my dad has been using AI as a tool to create all these funny little animations to cheer her up and make her laugh. So, this reminds me that in Chinese, “AI”, “artificial intelligence”, sounds almost the same as the word “love.” This reminds me, technology is always about love, about caring, about connecting people. I think that’s why the Chinese Government invests so much in supporting the development of AI technology, from infrastructure to legislation, creating tremendous impact across areas from education, healthcare, manufacturing to smart cities, etc.

As a science fiction writer, I really want to invite everyone to imagine a bright, optimistic and constructive future about the technology together. Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: If I may, I would like to first of all wish your mother a swift recovery on behalf of everyone here. That is the most important thing.

Second, Mr Gref has just recalled that some experts – and today we are speaking specifically about Chinese experts – say that it is possible, under certain conditions (I will not go into details now) to extend human life to 150 years.

In this context, I would like to note the following. There was a time when people lived 20, 30, maybe 35 years, and that was considered normal. Later, average life expectancy in some countries gradually increased – to 35, 45, 50 years – and that, too, became the norm. Today, in some countries, it has already reached 80. And we are working to ensure that average life expectancy rises in our country as well; it is slightly higher for women and a bit lower for men. We have set specific targets for increasing life expectancy, and we are moving in the right direction.

Perhaps it is indeed possible to reach 150 years. But, first of all, it will never feel like enough – just as there is never enough money. Never. And in my view, the main question is not how long one lives. The main question is how one lives and for what.

It is our traditional values that answer those questions. I say that without any irony. That is why, as I noted in my remarks and would like to emphasise again now, our national platforms must be built first and foremost on the traditional values shared by all the peoples of the Russian Federation.

German Gref: Mr President, thank you very much for your participation and your remarks. I watched our Healthcare Minister’s reaction when we started talking about 150 years and even immortality. I think we may indeed need to merge the Ministry of Digital Development and the Ministry of Healthcare if we want to reach 150 as soon as possible.

In fact, one thing is absolutely clear: humanity is entering a fundamentally new era at an extremely rapid pace. Today we discussed how the industrial revolution unfolded over 200 years. This revolution will be at least ten times faster – roughly 20 years. And 20 years, within a human lifetime, is a very short period indeed. And of course, in our view, we must make our contribution.

Mr President said: it matters not only how long we live, but how and why. We bear the responsibility for helping people enter this new era smoothly, without upheaval, without stress, and without losing this essential “how and why.” Together with our colleagues, we will do everything to fulfil this mission – perhaps this is our own “why and how”: to ensure technological progress, to strengthen the country’s competitiveness, but not to trigger shocks and stresses that would affect millions of people who, after all, have no direct involvement in the development of these technologies.

We are responsible for adapting these technologies so that people’s lives genuinely improve, so that medical care becomes more accessible everywhere across the country, so that education becomes more accessible, and so that digital services make life a little easier and a little happier.

To attain this objective, we are uniting a vast network of our partners and colleagues with a view to establishing an international alliance for the development of artificial intelligence. Mr President, last year you initiated the development and signing of an agreement in this field, and this year, with the assistance of our colleagues, we are expanding the number of countries that are signing the declaration and joining this alliance. Allow me to proceed with this ceremony.

(Ceremony marking the accession of new participants to the International Alliance for Artificial Intelligence. Representatives of national alliances and institutions for the development of artificial intelligence from 11 countries around the world joined the alliance in person and remotely: Brazil, Vietnam, India, Congo, Oman, Turkey, Chile, Egypt, Kenya, Tanzania, and South Africa. The total number of alliance members now stands at 28 organisations.)

Allow me to congratulate all the new members of the alliance, as well as the existing members. Thank you very much, colleagues, for undertaking this journey, and thank you for your commitment to international cooperation in the development of the most critical technology of the century. Thank you very much.

I would also like to express my gratitude to all the participants present here today. I would like to extend special thanks to the Presidential Executive Office and to Maxim Oreshkin, with whom we have worked closely on this. I would also like to extend my deepest gratitude to our Government, to the Ministry of Digital Development, to Dmitry Chernyshenko, to Dmitry Grigorenko, and to all our partners who have approached this matter very seriously.

Under the Prime Minister’s leadership, we endeavour to discuss this topic in detail every month to ensure we do not fall behind, so to speak, in the progress of this advanced technology. Today, we reported to the President that Russia is now among the seven countries in the world with an almost fully comprehensive technology stack – the most modern, state-of-the-art technologies possessed by the most advanced nations.

Your personal attention, Mr President, helps maintain the appropriate level of technological development, as well as the interest of students, scientists, entrepreneurs, and public officers at all levels. I would like to express my deepest gratitude to you for this. We will do everything to ensure our country continues to forge ahead with confidence.

Thank you very much.

Plenary session of the Russia – Country of Sports Forum

2025-11-07T12:05:28+04:00

Vladimir Putin delivered a speech at a plenary session of the 13^th Russia – Country of Sports International Sports Forum in Samara.

The Russia – Country of Sports Forum was established by Presidential Executive Order of July 27, 2009. This year, its theme is Sport for the Future: Winning Together.

The plenary session was held at the Vladimir Vysotsky Sports Palace.

Following his address, the President reviewed a presentation of a demonstration and educational centre for adaptive sports. Currently under construction in Samara, this facility is being built in fulfilment of the head of state’s instruction issued after the previous meeting of the Council for the Development of Physical Culture and Sport.

The centre’s grounds will feature more than 30 adaptive disciplines, which will help inform and attract a greater number of individuals with disabilities and health limitations to systematic participation in adaptive physical fitness and sport.

Vladimir Putin was given explanations by Pavel Rozhkov, President of the Russian Paralympic Committee, and Yekaterina Leshchinskaya, Chair of the Healthy Fatherland nationwide public movement for the promotion of sports and patriotic education.

Minister of Sport Mikhail Degtyarev presented the President with a unified sports kit for the national teams. The Golden Heritage collection, designed by Bosco, is crafted from domestic materials at a factory located in the Kaluga Region.

* * *

Address by the President of Russia at the plenary session of the 13^th Russia – Country of Sports International Sports Forum

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, friends.

It is a pleasure to welcome the guests and participants of the Russia – Country of Sports International Forum.

This year, the forum is being hosted by Samara – one of the most beautiful and distinctive cities in our Volga Region, renowned for its achievements and traditions, including in sports. Many athletes whose names are etched in the annals of world sport hail from Samara.

Naturally, a bright chapter in sporting history was written in 2018, when the city hosted matches of the FIFA World Cup, held right here at the Solidarnost [Solidarity] Samara Arena – the main venue of our forum, which has long served as a meeting place for like-minded individuals devoted to sport, its ideals, and values.

These qualities, your readiness for cooperation and dialogue, and your unity in achieving goals are reflected in this year’s forum theme – Sport for the Future: Winning Together.

We all recognise the importance of sport as a universal tool for developing a person’s physical, creative, and spiritual potential, and we understand that many challenges of the modern world can only be overcome together.

Russia, like most nations around the globe, advocates for broad international cooperation based on equality, a strict respect for mutual interests, and an appreciation for national cultures.

Sport has a lofty mission: to unite people and to build bridges between nations. This is one of the essential missions and core values of international sports organisations.

In this regard, I would like to thank our partners for their recent balanced and fair decision to reinstate the rights of the Russian Paralympic Committee.

Our position remains unchanged: athletes’ access to international tournaments must be equal and based solely on their sporting achievements. There is no place for politics in sport.

For Russia, these are not empty words. When preparing and hosting competitions at all levels, we have always warmly welcomed representatives of international sports associations, committees, and federations. We create all the necessary conditions for athletes who, through tremendous work and talent, have earned the right to represent their countries. In doing so, we are guided by sporting principles, not by the state of our political relations with any given country.

I will repeat: sport, along with cultural and humanitarian cooperation, must not become a hostage to conflicts or geopolitical disagreements.

It is worth reminding ourselves that the United Nations’ sustainable development agenda identifies sport as a key factor in achieving goals for healthcare, education, and social integration. Russia fully shares this approach and incorporates it into our own national development goals.

We prioritise developing mass sports infrastructure, making it accessible to people of all ages and abilities. We are building large stadiums and sports centres, as well as smaller facilities for daily use in schools, universities, parks, and courtyards. Russia currently has over 370,000 sports facilities, and we have no intention of stopping there. We will continue moving forward.

Modern information technology is also playing an increasingly important role in developing sports. Alongside traditional sports, new disciplines such as phygital sports and e-sports are gaining popularity both in Russia and globally. We are actively working in this area and are ready to share our experience.

We will continue to pay special attention to engaging children and adolescents in sports. The values and benchmarks instilled in a person at a young age often shape their entire adult life, and fitness and sport are always a path to success.

Friends, I wish you a productive forum and all the very best. Thank you all for being here today.

Thank you for your attention. Good luck and thank you again.

20th anniversary of RT TV channel

2025-10-18T10:42:16+04:00

Vladimir Putin delivered an address at a gala evening held at the Bolshoi Theatre to mark the 20^th anniversary of the RT television channel.

Ahead of the ceremony, Margarita Simonyan, the channel’s Editor-in-Chief, accompanied by participants in the special military operation and journalists, presented to the Head of State an RT film about those involved in the special operation. The President also met with the main characters of documentary films produced under the RT.doc project.

The RT international television channel commenced broadcasting in 2005. Its output is transmitted in English, Arabic, Spanish, French, German, and Serbian. The television network is complemented by multilingual digital platforms. Furthermore, RT maintains a presence on popular social media networks in Chinese and Hindi.

* * *

Address at the gala evening marking the 20^th anniversary of RT

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Ladies and gentlemen, colleagues, friends.

It is a great pleasure to welcome you to this magnificent hall of the Bolshoi Theatre for the celebration marking the 20^th anniversary of the Russia Today channel.

Today, I extend my congratulations on this milestone to everyone who has worked and continues to work for the television channel, and of course, to Margarita Simonyan – your leader, the steadfast Editor-in-Chief.

Dear Margarita, we all know – and everyone in this team certainly knows – how difficult this period is for you and what your family is presently enduring. Yet at work, you invariably demonstrate courage and resolve. I am confident you will overcome this challenge, too.

Margarita Simonyan: Thank you. I promise.

Vladimir Putin: Your friends, your colleagues – they have always been by your side and will remain so.

These past 20 years represent an entire epoch in the media landscape. Russia Today has matured from a concept into a global brand now recognised worldwide. I thank your dynamic, creative, and close-knit team for the high level professionalism, dedication to your craft and duty. For boldly, selflessly, and persistently upholding the truth in the global information space.

We recall how, in the early 2000s, leading Western media outlets exploited their hegemonic position. Often – or rather, almost invariably – under the guise of objective news, they disseminated content entirely at their discretion, attempting to impose not merely new rules but an entirely new civilisational paradigm based on false moral values into the minds and hearts of millions.

To this day, it remains nothing short of outrageous when terrorists who took hostages and orchestrated deadly explosions in our cities, schools, and hospitals were referred to as “insurgents” on prominent Western channels – as if the world should sympathise with these scoundrels and child-killers.

At that time, it was difficult for us to defend the truth, to uphold an accurate depiction of events, because beyond our borders, we lacked a powerful voice. Let me underscore that Russia’s sovereignty – for which we have fought, continue to fight, and will always fight – depends, among other things, on our ability to deliver objective, unbiased information to people across the planet.

This is why RT had to emerge – and it did, 20 years ago. The company faced a formidable task: to build its operations at a qualitatively new level, both substantively and technologically. I am genuinely pleased that we – that you – succeeded. And succeeded brilliantly: millions of citizens in different countries came to trust you. Moreover, it turned out there was enormous demand for news that differed from the endless propaganda which, frankly, today differs little from the well-worn Soviet-era clichés many in this hall remember. That’s how they work.

This is precisely why, I believe, true professionals, including those from the United States, Europe, and across all continents, wanted to collaborate with you. Not merely collaborate, but work with you. Not because of the money, of course, but above all because you provided these people with a platform to express their views and convey them to millions. That is why we saw among RT’s leading figures the legendary WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, the global television star Larry King, Ecuador’s President Rafael Correa, and many, many others.

You were rapidly gaining popularity and influence. As a result, your competitors began to envy you, and sometimes, in my opinion, not just envy, but fear you, which is a sure sign that you were one step ahead of them setting the information agenda and doing important and meaningful work. And when you made yourself truly known, those same competitors and the so-called ruling elites behind them showed their true colours. Margarita just told me about this. She regularly updates me on how they tried and continue to try to pin you down on international platforms.

For years on end, they have been lecturing us on how to live our lives, how the media should operate, how to understand democracy and what democracy is, what true freedom of speech is, and convinced us of the importance of competition, pluralism, and so on. What happened to these mentors when RT came on the air and hundreds of millions of people began watching a channel offering a different interpretation of ongoing developments?

The reaction of the elites I have just mentioned was primitive and straightforward: ban, cancel, and block. You know, when I served as director of the Federal Security Service of Russia, I tried to abolish this style of work even in an agency like the FSB. I was of the opinion that we should work more subtly by way of persuasion, we should mitigate threats differently, not the way it used to be done in the Soviet Union, which we referred to as “grab them and hold them back.” This is exactly what is happening, unfortunately, in the information sphere, with regard to your channel.

Accusing anyone of spreading propaganda and disinformation, or interfering in internal affairs does not require much effort. In fact, you were not imposing anything. You were simply offering an alternative and truthful point of view. And in doing so, you were upholding, among other things, the right of your viewers and listeners to choose. But your partners saw the very existence of such a choice as a threat to themselves. Over the years of RT’s development, you sincerely tried to build, and you did build, precisely this kind of partnership with your audiences. And you succeeded. Any monopoly inevitably comes to an end sooner or later, no matter how much those who maintain it pay to preserve it.

Today, in an increasingly multipolar world, intolerance of any sovereign and independent thought is more than just an anachronism. It is a huge obstacle to the development of mutual understanding and trust between peoples, which we all need. And this obstacle, like all others, will, without a doubt, be removed. There is no other way.

For two decades already, including thanks to RT, we have been listening to an entire palette of voices from all over the world. Residents of Asia, Africa and Latin America can now speak out, with your assistance, without regard to the approval by former colonial powers and former colonial authorities. It is very important that the RT TV channel provides its platform to journalists, scientists and experts from all over the world. And the main thing: people of different views, convictions and ethnic origin continue to watch RT and read your social networks despite prohibitions and technical obstacles. Even representatives of Western elites admit that Russia Today has a larger audience than their own TV channels.

Last year alone, the total number of views of the channel projects on social networks reached almost 24 billion and the total audience of the RT channels on the pay television platforms made up almost a billion of viewers. This figure gives us confidence that everything will go on developing in the same vein.

It is clear why. In Europe, in the United States as well as in other countries their citizens seek to preserve their national culture, the memory of generations, and oppose social inequality, destruction of the family institution and encroachments on children’s innocence. All this is consonant with the position of Russia on these issues and largely thanks to RT the world has learnt that our country firmly stands for traditional values and constitutes their stronghold in the contemporary life full of contradictions, conflicts and challenges. And we do not discriminate anybody at that, we do not prohibit anything, including in the areas that I have mentioned. We are simply trying to defend our point of view and our outlook on the modern world and the future.

I am sure that this similarity of views helps people on different continents believe in themselves, their strength and abilities.

It is hard to overestimate the contribution of Russia Today to our common struggle for a fairer and more stable world order, for preserving civilisational diversity, for the consolidation of more and more countries, people and nations around these creative ideas.

I would like to stress: you are performing difficult and intense work in your area both for the future of our people and for the future of millions of people on the planet, who are striving for real, genuine freedom.

Friends,

Journalists, camera operators, and colleagues from RT’s other media projects are consistently at the epicentre and forefront of events – perpetually on the frontline, both literally and figuratively. Fearlessness and a steadfast commitment to the truth are the defining qualities of the channel’s staff. We have witnessed this in Iraq, Syria, across the Middle East, and in various other conflict zones. Today, in the special military operation zone, you continue this tradition. Risking your lives, you report on the heroism and deeds of our soldiers and commanders.

There are countless examples demonstrating that RT employs individuals who are true to their profession, devoted to their Homeland, and unwavering in their convictions. Even foreign nationals – of whom there are many within the channel – while defending their own beliefs, assist in promoting these ideas in their own countries and among their own communities. They act with absolute honesty and openness.

Just before arriving here, onto the historic stage of the Bolshoi Theatre, we met and conversed with your colleagues working in the combat zone, filming documentaries about the heroes of the special military operation who are present in this hall. I would ask you to give them a special welcome. What was so striking? Both the fighters who have returned from the frontlines of the special military operation and the journalists working for the channel appeared as one family – because they are all courageous, heroic individuals fighting for their convictions. This is the true value of your work.

Friends,

Twenty years represent a significant milestone in the journey of your channel and your remarkable team. The world is changing rapidly: technology is transforming journalism. Social media sets new rhythms, and audiences increasingly consume news in digital formats. You are successfully meeting these challenges, remaining bold, open, and creative. RT possesses the most essential assets: experience, a professional team, and the trust of its viewers. RT fosters a free-spirited atmosphere, with many young people who represent the future, and, undoubtedly, new victories lie ahead.

I wish you continued growth, the discovery of new formats and themes in the fierce battle for hearts and minds. To prevail in this struggle, you must continue wielding your secret strategic weapon – high-precision, intercontinental in its reach – the truth.

The voice of truth, the voice of Russia, must resound loudly, confidently, and persuasively!

Happy anniversary! Happy birthday!

Margarita Simonyan: You mentioned, by the way, Rafael Correa – he is now in this hall.

Present in this hall are our friends, our colleagues from every continent, from a vast number of countries, who have come to congratulate us, including people whose ancestors would be proud of them, I’m sure. Here, for example, are descendants of Charles de Gaulle and Otto von Bismarck; here is the son of the current President of Nicaragua; there are members of the European Parliament – though I do not know what will happen to them when they return, yet nevertheless they made it here. I want to thank everyone.

I want to express a tremendous thank you, Mr President, to you for rightly noting that we work based on our convictions, that we defend our beliefs. It is a privilege to have the opportunity not merely to lie on the sofa and grumble, but to work for one’s convictions. This privilege we have thanks to you. I remember when you appointed me 20 years ago – it seemed to me the world had gone mad, and the main task was not to disgrace myself. It was impossible to imagine, firstly, that all this would be created, and secondly, that it would grow into such a colossal enterprise.

I want, in your presence, to bow. To bow to the people who work for RT – these are thousands of people who risk their lives. Yesterday, our colleague from Rossiya Segodnya was killed; a second is in critical condition, and doctors are now fighting for his life. This, unfortunately, is news that has become routine for us, it is part of our professional life. When we enrol in journalism school and receive our diplomas, we understand what we are signing up for. And yet, each time, it is always a tragedy.

What you all endure – what we endure when they fight us, as you rightly noted, Mr President – well, it rather makes us laugh. We are Russian people, even if some of us are Armenian. We grow tougher, as they say. So, it only makes us more spirited.

All the sanctions, the inability to travel somewhere, to watch something, to speak with someone – it is all such insignificance to us compared to the incredible honour and pride of serving our Motherland! Thank you, from the bottom of my heart, for this.

I congratulate everyone!

Greetings on 20th anniversary of RT TV channel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Congratulations on your success!

Plenary session of Russian Energy Week International Forum

2025-10-16T20:18:50+04:00

Vladimir Putin addressed the plenary session of the 8^th Russian Energy Week International Forum.

The theme of this year’s forum is Building the Energy of the Future Together.

Held in Moscow between October 15 and 17, Russian Energy Week brings together representatives from 85 countries, including government officials, senior corporate executives from energy companies, as well as experts and researchers. The business programme includes over 60 events.

Russian Energy Week is a key international platform for discussing pressing matters pertaining to the development of the fuel and energy complex and fostering multilateral energy cooperation in a multipolar world.

* * *

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, friends,

Welcome to the 8^th Russian Energy Week International Forum. You have already had a chance to do some networking here and exchange views. I doubt that I can tell you anything you do not know already. Still, allow me to share my position with you on several key matters.

It goes without saying that we are pleased to once again welcome to Moscow the heads of major international companies, specialists, and industry experts for a substantive dialogue on developing the energy sector.

This dialogue is of particular importance amid dynamic and profound shifts in the global market. In fact, energy companies and service providers, energy producers and consumers, and even entire countries are going through this exact stage in their development.

In my remarks, I would like to elaborate on some of the main trends in the present-day energy sector. Of course, I will not fail to share our perspective regarding the challenges the global and Russian fuel and energy sectors face.

The first major challenge is the restructuring of global energy relations. In many ways, this is a natural and objective process: new centres of economic growth emerge, and energy consumption in these regions increases accordingly. At the same time, we are also witnessing an artificial disruption of the energy system, driven by the aggressive and assertive actions of certain Western elites.

As is well known, many European countries, for example, have refused to purchase Russian energy supplies under political pressure. I have already noted the consequences of such decisions for these countries, particularly in terms of their economic and industrial potential.

The repercussions of these actions are evident within the European Union, including a decline in industrial output, rising prices due to more expensive imported oil and gas, and a reduction in the competitiveness of both European goods and the broader economy.

According to Eurostat, industrial production in the eurozone in July of this year remained 1.2 percent below 2021 levels. Germany, often referred to as the engine of the European economy, has also experienced a continued decline, with industrial output in July falling by 6.6 percent compared to the 2021 average.

However, the focus today is not on European challenges, but on the global energy market as a whole. As I previously noted, energy supply chains are undergoing an objective transformation, with logistics increasingly shifting towards the Global South – dynamic countries in the Asia-Pacific, Africa, and Latin America. This shift involves more reliable routes, the development of new hubs and ports designed to meet both current and future demands of energy consumers.

Energy demand is undoubtedly growing: the global economy continues to expand year after year, despite various challenges. While the pace of growth may fluctuate, overall demand remains positive. For instance, global oil consumption is projected to reach 104.5 million barrels per day this year, over a million more than last year.

The primary drivers of this growth are the rapidly expanding petrochemical industry, which is outpacing global GDP growth, and the transport sector. Many earlier plans to phase out internal combustion engines have realistically been delayed, meaning petrol-powered vehicles remain in widespread use and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. While the adoption of electric motors is indeed increasing, electricity still needs to be generated, it does not simply appear from a wall socket. It has to be produced using heating oil, coal, and other energy sources.

Russia maintains its position as a leading oil producer despite the mechanisms of unfair competition used against us. We account for about ten percent of global oil production and expect to produce 510 million tonnes of oil this year. This is approximately one percent less than last year. However, colleagues, I would like to point out that we are doing this in accordance with the agreement reached within OPEC Plus. In other words, it is a voluntary reduction.

The Russian oil sector is working steadily and making plans for the future. Our companies are not only reliably supplying the domestic market and developing oil refining but, taking into account the complicated situation beyond Russia’s borders, they are acting flexibly and have managed to develop new supply and payment channels. In the past, our oil and petrochemical exports mostly focused on one customer, the EU, whereas now the geography has expanded significantly.

As I have said, Russia continues to cooperate within OPEC Plus. Based on mutual interests, we are acting in concert with our partners to balance the global oil market. I would like to point out that this is being done for both producers and consumers.

We can report the results of these joint efforts. First of all, they concern the volume of market supply and the price situation. These parameters satisfy both oil producers and oil consumers, which allows the industry to launch new investment projects and, more importantly, create conditions for a more predictable development of the global economy. Predictability in the oil market is probably the most important element of this sector of the global economy.

As for the global gas market, the supply chains are changing as well, for objective reasons. Gas consumption has been growing steadily in the Asian-Pacific region, the Middle East and Latin America, where as the demand for gas in Europe remains below the 2019 level. Why is the demand for this primary energy source low? The reason is that industrial production is decreasing, the need for gas is lower compared to previous levels.

In other words, it might seem that the refusal of some European countries to buy Russian gas and the explosions at the Nord Stream pipelines have cut off our access to traditional markets and dealt a blow to a vital sector of our fuel and energy industry. I must admit that our gas exports initially slumped, but they have subsequently resumed growth. They have not fully recovered yet, but there is an obvious increase.

The EU’s gambit has only accelerated the shift of our supply direction towards more promising and reliable buyers – states that respect their interests and act rationally based on their national interests.

Our gas companies are reliable suppliers to these markets, just as they have always been in the past with respect to all other destinations. We are working with our partners as a team to expand the export potential of the Russian gas industry which, in addition to pipeline gas, includes LNG shipments.

We are increasing domestic consumption, which is critically important, including at gas chemical plants under construction in the Volga Region, Siberia, and the Russian Far East. We are expanding gas deliveries to urban and rural areas. Over the past five years alone, about 100,000 kilometres of gas distribution pipelines have been built. As a result, gas supply levels stand at nearly 75 percent and will certainly continue to grow. To be more specific, gas supply rates stand at 74.7 percent, up 6.1 percentage points compared to 2019.

The social gas infrastructure development programme is underway. Over the past four years, nearly one million households have been connected to pipeline gas and this number is expected to increase by another two million in the future. Gas pipelines have been brought to 1,393,000 plots of land, with nearly 989,000 connections completed.

Notably, Russia possesses unparalleled gas reserves. We keep production at a high level, but it is essential to keep working on replenishing our resource base, including through the development of hard-to-recover reserves.

Earlier this year, I instructed the Government to draft a special programme on this matter in the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Area, the focal point of our gas industry. I am asking our colleagues to complete this work within the established timeframe and to proceed with the implementation of the programme.

A few words about the coal sector. Despite negative forecasts by certain experts, coal still holds a significant share in the global energy balance. However, clear regional differences can be observed: while Western markets are curtailing the demand for coal, Asian countries are increasing its consumption.

Of course, the economic efficiency of coal-based power generation is the key factor to consider. However, given the shift of global business activity towards the Asia-Pacific region the coal market can be expected to remain large and significant for decades to come.

True, like any other market, it is ruled by cycles. Currently, coal producers have to deal with lower prices, and we are supporting our companies and their workforces by way of loan restructuring, among other measures.

I would like the Government to continue keeping the situation under control and to fine-tune support mechanisms in conjunction with the business community. However, the coal industry itself should also work to enhance its own efficiency and competitiveness.

Colleagues,

The second major global trend is the growing significance of the electric power sector.

Global electricity generation is projected to double over the next 25 years, with roughly 85 percent of this additional demand arising from countries outside the so-called developed economies, primarily in the Global South.

Russia’s energy system ranks among the largest in the world. Our power generation facilities have a total installed capacity of nearly 270 GW, and this extensive infrastructure operates with high reliability and efficiency.

At the same time, we are facing local electricity shortages, particularly in regions where large industrial, transport, and logistics projects are underway. Addressing these shortages will require the expansion of the power grid, the modernisation of generating equipment, and the commissioning of new power plants.

I would like to emphasise that the costs incurred by energy companies should not be automatically passed on to consumers through higher tariffs. More flexible approaches are needed, including regulatory innovations, demand management measures, and mechanisms to encourage investment in the fuel and energy sector. I expect the Russian Government to put forward proposals on these matters, which we will review and discuss in a dedicated meeting in the near future.

I would like to reiterate the instructions regarding the development of the retail electricity market. Its conditions and tariff structure must serve the interests of both generating companies and consumers, including businesses, organisations, and individuals. I urge the Government to finalise the Concept for the Development of Competitive Retail Electricity and Capacity Markets as soon as possible.

I emphasise once again: where energy is affordable, modern production will take root, new economic sectors will grow, and capital, technology, and skilled personnel will be attracted. This, in fact, is evident to everyone.

During a meeting in Vladivostok in September, we discussed the development of the fuel and energy balance for Russia’s Far Eastern Federal District. This comprehensive document identifies the optimal energy sources for each region, including coal, gas, fuel oil, and water resources, and establishes long-term energy supply volumes for the Far East.

I urge the Government to clarify the role of fuel and energy balances in the country’s strategic planning documents and, in coordination with our colleagues from the regions, to prepare such balances for all federal districts. On this basis, a modern system for the digital management of regional energy supply should be developed. I emphasise once again that this system must build on the use of different fuel and energy resources that are the most effective for each region of our country.

Next, I have already said that Russia’s energy balance is one of the greenest in the world, which our Russian colleagues have most likely mentioned here. In other words, the largest share of energy produced in Russia, or more precisely, 87 percent, has an extremely low, or zero, carbon footprint. I am referring to gas and nuclear power generation, renewable energy and hydropower generation.

Our companies are using green or durable power generation systems both in Russia and abroad. For example, Russian scientists, engineers and managers have helped implement over 400 hydropower projects in 55 countries. RusHydro, our leading company in this sphere, is building hydropower plants and water infrastructure in strict compliance with environmental safety standards and the norms of prudent water use.

Rosatom, which is another high-tech leader, has substantial experience as well. It accounts for about 90 percent – 90 percent! – of the global market of nuclear power plants, with 110 power units built to the Russian design around the world.

Russia is the only country in the world with competencies across the entire chain of nuclear generation. When implementing projects abroad, we not only build facilities but also work jointly with our partners to create the future of the energy industry and related sectors and to form a solid national personnel, research and technological basis for the development of states as a whole.

It is on this basis that we are building nuclear power plants in Egypt, Bangladesh and Turkiye. We intend to further develop our cooperation in the nuclear industry with Global South countries and within BRICS. We are working very actively in this sphere.

Experts believe that nuclear generation will become one of the main pillars of the future global energy balance. By 2050, the capacity of nuclear power plants across the world will almost double. Russia plans to launch nuclear power plants with the capacity of over 29 GW within the next decade and a half, including small nuclear power plants, which no other country is currently building. They may have such plans, but they remain on paper. In practice, Russia is the only country that is building them. We will build nuclear power plants in the Far East and Siberia.

I would like to emphasise that nuclear generation has an important role to play in producing power for consumers whose role is expected to increase dramatically in the future. I am referring to electric vehicles, industrial robots and automated customer service systems.

There is a growing demand for electricity in the digital economy, including AI and blockchain development tools, and data storage and processing. According to estimates, energy consumption at data centres around the world is comparable to electricity consumption of heavy industry.

Obviously, the areas I have mentioned represent a powerful development factor. To a great extent, they determine the countries’ global competitive ability, effectiveness of national economies and the quality of life. It means that our development plans for the Russian fuel and energy sector must take all these trends into account. It is what we try to do.

Among other things, I propose setting up local generation facilities – stations using locked-up resources as professionals call them – to fuel digital economy and data centres. Transportation of these locked-up resources is expensive and time-consuming, meaning it is more efficient to use them in the same location where they are produced.

I ask the Government to submit proposals on organising this sort of model. One of the tasks is to consider using advanced clean coal power generation to meet the needs of the digital infrastructure, data storage and processing centres, and so on. These facilities, located directly in our coal-producing regions, provide modern workplaces and help diversify local economies.

Friends,

Now, to the third aspect of the modern energy sector, or challenge, to be exact, that global market actors face. It is the technological sovereignty of the countries producing oil, gas and other energy resources. I am certain that you have discussed this during your meetings.

We have seen how the elites in the Western countries refused to maintain and service the equipment supplied to Russia for the fuel and energy industry in an instant. They officially refused to comply with their obligations. That was yet another confirmation of the fact that they are unreliable partners and their actions are directly bound to the political situation and sometimes, this political situation is used for dishonest competition.

Clearly, commercial entities – I am talking about Western companies – were forced to do that, frankly speaking. They had to do that under the pressure of their ruling political elites.

But the fact remains: Western technology and equipment for the fuel and energy industry may at any time become unavailable for geopolitical reasons – unavailable not only to Russia but to any other energy supplier that the West may consider an inconvenient competitor or simply a country that is not easy to deal with. We all must consider this reality of today’s world. I think everybody understands that.

This means that we should actively change the status of energy-producing countries from equipment buyers to technological leaders and build full-fledged energy sovereignty at the national level – from resource production and processing to product delivery.

You know, the Russian fuel and energy sector is well on its way to achieving technological leadership. In fact, it has become a powerful driver for our entire domestic industry and science. Our government agencies, energy companies, enterprises, and research institutes are all collaborating – discussing these issues and coordinating specific steps. By the way, just here, on the sidelines of Energy Week, a meeting of the Coordinating Council for Import Substitution of Oil and Gas Equipment was held.

This progress is reflected in the experience of our companies – I spoke with CEOs of some of them. Now, let’s be frank, initially some engaged in what we might call reverse engineering. But then they moved forward very quickly. And do you know what happened next? They see their former partners in Europe, who were once dominant here, being forced to downsize. Russia was a core market for them – one of their most important markets, not the most important, but one of the core ones for selling high-tech products.

When they were forced to leave this market, their production lines became unprofitable. They started laying off staff and began to lose their technological edge. Meanwhile, our specialists are driving growth and becoming technological leaders because our domestic market allows us to manufacture products at a good cost-effective level. Furthermore, we are now finding partners all over the world who are purchasing this equipment from Russian companies. Yesterday, they were buying from Europe; today, increasingly, they are buying from us – and this trend will continue. So, what was the result of their actions? In trying to punish Russia, they ultimately outmanoeuvred themselves. A classic case of cutting off your nose to spite your face, a totally absurd situation, but that is the current reality.

Today, domestic companies already cover the bulk of Russia’s drilling demand. We are expanding the production of extraction equipment and upstream chemistry, and we are rolling out our own technological solutions for field and infrastructure support. While previously, as I mentioned, much of this work was done by foreign contractors, it is now increasingly handled by our own Russian specialists.

Russia possesses enormous engineering potential and a significant body of scientific and practical knowledge in the fuel and energy sector. This expertise has stood the test of time and has proven its effectiveness in our harsh natural and climatic conditions. We have the skills, experience, and know-how to develop even the most complex energy sectors and to extract hard-to-recover reserves, which is especially crucial for the oil industry. And we will do this not only independently, but also in partnership with friendly states that clearly understand the geopolitical risks.

Russia stands for promoting comprehensive technology cooperation among energy producing countries while ensuring that these ties are immune to sanctions and external pressure. I am speaking about a genuine sense of partnership based on sharing knowledge, experience and creating industrial alliances. Moreover, all the stakeholders involved in this effort must benefit from this partnership.

As for equipment, you know the way things stand. I have just mentioned this, and I referred to nuclear energy. Russia is indeed second to none in this domain. We do not depend on anyone. Everything we make in the nuclear sector, we make it in Russia. And we will achieve the same level of self-reliance in all energy-related sectors, which also applies to oil and gas equipment.

Colleagues,

We have been increasingly hearing from business leaders and experts that the world is entering an era of energy realism. The reckless and I would even say irresponsible steps by some of the Western elites created a situation where the parameters of energy transition or the focus on comparing pollution from various kinds of fuel were relegated to the background. At the same time, access to fuel and energy, the availability of power grids and pipelines, and power grid capacity are playing an increasingly important role.

Against this backdrop, ensuring that extraction operations and reserves benefit from smart management practices while promoting technological development and advancing on the environmental agenda is becoming an imperative for supplying the domestic market, achieving the national development goals, as well as delivering on our international commitments. We have always acted this way, and of course, will continue to honour our obligations – this is one of our unquestionable priorities.

Russia is aware of the objectives and challenges it faces and will strive to consolidate its global leadership in the energy sector, while also promoting partnerships for building a fair and sustainable global energy model in the interests of future generations.

I do hope that holding the Russian Energy Week will serve as a meaningful contribution to our combined efforts. I wish all the participants and guests of this forum every success and all the best. You have surely had many useful meetings, conversations and discussions already. If so, this makes us happy. This means that the goals we had when inviting you to Russia were achieved.

Thank you for your attention. Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin answered media questions

2025-10-11T01:06:22+04:00

Concluding his three-day stay in the Republic of Tajikistan, the President of Russia answered questions from representatives of the mass media.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Good evening.

I will forgo any opening remarks or statements. If there are questions, I will gladly endeavour to answer them.

You are welcome to proceed.

Anastasia Savinykh: Mr President, good evening.

Anastasia Savinykh, TASS news agency.

You have been working here, in Dushanbe, for three days now, with approximately half of this time dedicated to the programme of your state visit to Tajikistan. You have spent many hours in negotiations with your counterpart, President Rahmon – both in a restricted format and within the delegation framework, the composition of which underscores the mutual commitment of our two countries.

Could you please summarise the outcomes of this state visit and highlight which areas are currently demonstrating the most active and dynamic development, as well as the prospects ahead?

If I may, a brief follow-up question on this topic: we have signed a programme with Tajikistan on developing labour migration. The Ministry of the Interior is opening representative offices both in Russia and Tajikistan. In your view, does this help regulate migration flows? Does it assist in minimising illegal migration and criminal activity, and are there plans to sign similar programmes with other countries in the region?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: I will begin with bilateral relations. Tajikistan is an important partner for us, both in general and specifically within Central Asia. Its significance lies in its position on the frontiers of the CIS – on the southern flank of the Commonwealth. While our two countries do not share a common border, this remains an issue of utmost importance for the security of the Russian Federation. It is not by chance that our border service personnel continue their work here, in close cooperation with their Tajik colleagues, and that our military base is stationed here.

Naturally, we have devoted considerable attention to reviewing all these matters. Indeed, we observe that the current government in Afghanistan is taking all necessary steps to normalise the situation in the country. Nevertheless, numerous challenges persist, as acknowledged by the Afghan leadership itself. Therefore, the border between Tajikistan and Afghanistan must remain entirely secure. That is the first point.

Secondly, we maintain substantial and serious economic cooperation. It suffices to mention our collaboration in the energy sector, including hydropower. Tajikistan, with its mountainous rivers, is one of the most robust hubs for this industry. Our projects – both those already completed and those under development – are well known. There are other areas of cooperation as well, including the extraction of mineral resources.

All this holds significant interest for our economies – mutual interest, I would clarify, for both Russia and Tajikistan. We observe the establishment of joint enterprises and continued investment from Russian businesses. I would also note Tajikistan’s competitive advantages in areas such as cotton cultivation and others. This is of considerable importance to us.

Of course, humanitarian cooperation is an essential area of our relations. It is extremely important that some time ago the President of Tajikistan proposed opening schools that not only teach Russian but where education is entirely in the Russian language and the curriculum is similar to that in our schools.

Many of our teachers are working here, and we will certainly help improve conditions for the branches of Russian universities that have opened here, and will also support the ambitions of young people from Tajikistan to study at Russian universities. One of the largest, if not the largest, quotas in the CIS has been approved for Tajikistan.

It is widely known, yet I would like to repeat that special attention is given in Tajikistan to the study of the Russian language and Russian culture. This includes theatres, but the most important thing is that the status of the Russian language has been enshrined in law. This is extremely important; it is the basis for the further development of our interstate ties.

As for migration, we are aware of the demographic situation in the Central Asian republics, of course. Several years ago, slightly more than five million people lived here [in Tajikistan]. The current figure is above 10 million. The population growth is rapid here, while Russia needs an additional workforce.

At the same time, we are interested in attracting the trades we need. This is the first point. And second, we want these people to live in good conditions, to respect our laws and rules and to be law-abiding citizens, as I always point out. Incidentally, this is primarily connected with knowing the language of the host country.

Nevertheless, there are quite a few problems, which the citizens of the Russian Federation point to. We must above all think about our own citizens. In this context, it is essential for the personnel of the concerned departments, in this case the interior ministries, to work in Tajikistan, I mean Russian police officers, and for their Tajik colleagues to work in Russia. This is extremely important.

Why? The reason is that they, as the legal representatives of the Tajik authorities, will be able to see for themselves what is going on, and second, will take part in adopting relevant administrative decisions together with their Russian colleagues.

In this case, the citizens of Tajikistan who live and work in Russia will see this in a totally different way. It is one thing when the police demand that they comply with some rules and laws, and it is quite another matter when law enforcement personnel from Tajikistan are involved. This will build trust on both sides and enhance the effectiveness of [law enforcement] efforts.

Kira Latukhina: Good evening, Mr President.

My name is Kira Latukhina, and I am from the Rossiiskaya Gazeta newspaper.

Two major international summits have been held – the CIS summit and the Russia – Central Asia summit yesterday. How successful are they? And to what extent do we need such a format as the Russia – Central Asia summit? How popular is it and what “added value” does it have?

Vladimir Putin: Some time ago, when the Soviet Union ceased to exist, the establishment of the CIS was announced. I believe that an overwhelming majority of our countries’ citizens did not have a very clear idea of what was going on – they believed that the CIS had replaced the Soviet Union. They believed that, in essence, very little would change. In reality, everything changed drastically.

Unfortunately, the citizens of our countries were not informed in detail about the changes underway. But we are living in conditions that have evolved historically. Apart from living in these conditions, we should see how we can improve this vast region, how to move forwards and what should be done so as not to lose competitive advantages that emerged following the establishment on the territory of the former Soviet Union of common logistics, common industrial cooperation projects, and a common cultural code, despite the cultural diversity of the Soviet Union’s nations. The CIS is called on to preserve all this.

It became obvious at a certain stage that the level of intra-CIS collaboration was not enough for addressing current complicated economic issues. For this reason, on the initiative of Kazakhstan and its President, Nursultan Nazarbayev, another association emerged – the EAEU, where its members are working within the framework of more profound cooperation between countries that deemed it possible, expedient and advisable to establish this association. But the CIS is not losing its significance; it essentially aims to maintain this common space, including its cultural and humanitarian aspects.

Regardless of the scale of cultural differences between the most diverse nations of the former Soviet Union, Soviet people had their own common and distinctive moral code, which is very significant. The CIS is called on to preserve the heritage of the Soviet Union, and it is accomplishing this objective rather successfully.

People-to-people contacts remain robust. Again, we are committed to preserving a seamless transport space, which is of paramount importance, and we actively support the Russian language as a language of interethnic communication. This is a fundamental element in uniting our efforts and preserving the competitive advantages that I mentioned earlier.

This collaborative spirit extends to addressing security challenges and combating the most dangerous types of crime, such as drug trafficking. If you examine the package of documents we adopted and signed today, you will see that it speaks directly to these priorities.

Ultimately, the preservation and strengthening of our unity is crucial for our shared future.

The situation in the Central Asian countries follows a similar logic, albeit with local specificities. We all recognise the region’s rich ethnic diversity. The further, the more each nation is developing based on its own foundation – its own economy, its own cultural code, its own traditions. Russia is developing in the same way. This makes it all the more important that we do not drift too far apart. We must maintain our shared conviction that something unites us – a great deal actually – because that is the reality.

Consider the movement of people: is there no surplus workforce in other countries? There certainly is. Yet Russia remains a primary destination for workers from the former Soviet space. Why? Because they feel that fundamental connection. They want to learn Russian – why? For the same reason. This underscores the need to actively seek out and nurture all the common ground we share and value so deeply.

Our shared history is an important unifying force. Today, we have discussed the common Victory over Nazism – a shared legacy and a source of pride for all our nations. We will talk more about it in our ongoing meetings. That is, while we are connected by the past and the present, we must constantly seek and build upon the things that will unite us in the future.

This format has been designed precisely to give special focus to this track of our foreign policy.

Alexander Yunashev: Good afternoon, Mr President.

Alexander Yunashev, Life.

Yesterday, you met with Ilham Aliyev. During these negotiations, were you able to outline pathways to resolve the current crisis in bilateral relations, or does a certain chill remain?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: You know, I would not even describe it as a crisis in interstate relations. Why? Because if this had been a crisis in interstate relations, we would not have seen growth in trade and economic ties. Yet despite everything we have witnessed and encountered, growth – significant growth – has continued. So, what kind of crisis in interstate relations would this be?

I would say it was more likely a crisis of emotions. It is clear why. We were confronted with a very grave incident, a tragic event – the loss of an aircraft and its passengers. Therefore, we needed to calmly analyse the situation; we required time to properly examine it.

It was necessary to conduct highly complex technical examinations – that is true. We had to locate the so-called black boxes, decode them, cross-reference all the data obtained by investigators from the Ministry of Defence, verify this information, and compile all the records gathered from air traffic control services – both ours and those of Kazakhstan. All of this had to be pieced together and analysed. This demands extensive, meticulous, highly responsible, and professional work.

I myself once, while studying at the Law Faculty of Leningrad University, undertook an internship at the transport prosecutor’s office, where I was assigned to an investigator handling such cases. I understand what this entails, you see. It is extremely painstaking, seemingly tedious work where mistakes cannot be permitted.

But in the end, we accomplished this. We agreed with Mr Aliyev that we would do everything to ensure this investigation was conducted objectively, including by the International Aviation Committee (IAC), which carried out its inquiry using all the materials provided to it.

The investigation is now nearing completion, and overall, the situation is clear. There may still be some details or nuances that specialists need to document properly. I discussed this yesterday with the President of Azerbaijan.

I sincerely hope that we have turned this page, that we will move forward, and that we will continue to develop our contacts without complications, implementing the major, truly large-scale plans that both our countries share in logistics, industrial cooperation, and, I would add, in the cultural and humanitarian sphere as well.

Let me remind you that Azerbaijan is largely a Russian-speaking country: Russian is studied practically everywhere there. This also reflects the country’s deep and enduring commitment to developing relations with Russia. I very much hope this will remain so in the future.

Emotions are inevitable, but it is always better to keep them under control so that they do not interfere with our work or hinder progress. I believe all of this is now behind us.

Please.

Yelena Shiryaeva: Thank you.

Yelena Shiryaeva, Mir TV Channel.

Back to the topic of the summit. Today, during the meeting, an agreement was reached to create a new format, CIS+. Is there an understanding which international partners are ready to join the organisation in this format, under what conditions, and, most importantly, what benefits will it bring to the people of our countries?

Vladimir Putin: Thank you for the question.

This is indeed an important decision, as it marks the organisation’s transformation from what was essentially a family gathering into a full-fledged international structure. There are many countries interested in participating in our work, in developing cooperation, finding shared interests, and addressing common challenges.

We have agreed to establish this CIS+ format, and we also decided to invite representatives of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation as observers. I believe these are very sound and timely decisions. They will undoubtedly strengthen both the CIS’s capacity and standing as an organisation. I have no doubt that we will soon see the benefits of this decision.

Thank you very much.

Please.

Andrei Kolesnikov: Good afternoon, Andrei Kolesnikov, Kommersant daily.

Prior to your visit to Dushanbe, one of the Deputy Foreign Ministers of Russia said that the potential of Anchorage has been exhausted. Do you agree with this assertion? Is that the end of the matter?

One more question, if I may. It has just been announced that Donald Trump did not receive the Nobel Peace Prize. In your opinion: should he have received it, did he deserve it, was he worthy of it?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Regarding the first part of your question. What exactly would you like to hear?

Andrei Kolesnikov: I can say, yes. I would like to hear that it has not, in fact, been exhausted.

Vladimir Putin: Do you understand the issue? We did not fully disclose what was discussed in Anchorage. We simply stated that, in general, there is an understanding – both on the part of the United States and the Russian Federation – of where we should move and what we should strive for in order to end this conflict, and by peaceful means at that. These are not simple matters.

We agreed with Donald that I, too, would need to consider the matter in Moscow and discuss it with our colleagues, as well as consult our allies. He told me the same.

These are complex issues requiring further elaboration. But we remain grounded in the discussions that took place in Anchorage. We are not changing our position on this and believe that some additional work is needed on both sides. However, overall, we remain within the framework of the Alaska agreements.

Now, regarding Trump. You know, it is not for me to decide who should be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. First of all, I doubt anyone here – among you, your viewers, or your listeners – would object. Let me clarify what I mean.

There have been cases where the committee awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to individuals who had done nothing for peace. In my view, these decisions inflicted enormous damage on the prize’s prestige. A person comes along – good or bad – and within a month or two, boom. For what? They had done absolutely nothing. Is that how it should work? It ought to be awarded for actual merits. Consequently, I believe, its prestige has been significantly undermined. But that is neither here nor there – it is not for me to judge.

Whether or not the incumbent President of the United States deserves the Nobel Peace Prize, I do not know. But he has genuinely done much to resolve complex crises that have persisted for years, if not decades.

I have said this before – I know for certain: regarding the crisis in Ukraine, he sincerely strives for a resolution. Some things have worked out, others have not. Perhaps much more can still be achieved based on the agreements and discussions in Anchorage. But he is certainly making an effort, certainly working on these issues – issues of achieving peace and resolving complex international situations.

The most striking example is the situation in the Middle East. If everything Donald has sought to accomplish, everything he has spoken about and attempted to achieve, is brought to fruition – it would be a historic event, truly a historic event.

If you noticed, I spoke yesterday with the Prime Minister of Iraq [Mohammed Shia Al-Sudani], who currently chairs the Arab League. We agreed with him that we would even postpone our meeting – between Russia and the Arab League. This was my initiative. I did this precisely because I did not wish to interfere with the process that has now, as we hope, been set in motion – incidentally, at the initiative and with the direct involvement of Trump – in the Middle East. Is that not an achievement? It is an achievement.

But I repeat, it is not for me to decide whether he deserves this prize or not, and whether the prize itself is worthy of such accomplishments.

Sargon Hadaya: Could you clarify something about Gaza?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, please.

Sargon Hadaya: Good afternoon, Mr President. Sargon Hadaya, Russia Today.

You have said that you will continue to cooperate with Arab colleagues on the Gaza issue. May I know in what format? And will Russia take part in various working groups, which will be set up on monitoring, on humanitarian issues – everything related to settlement and recognition of the Palestinian state?

Vladimir Putin: We have a very high level of trust with our Arab friends and with Palestine. I said it from the very beginning when I spoke at the Valdai Club meeting that we support the US, President Trump’s initiatives in this area at this track.

Still, the question of establishing a Palestinian state is one of the key issues. And, of course, this is the question for the future. As far as I understand – I haven’t yet looked closely at all the proposals – there is a question related to the transfer of power in the enclave to the Palestinian Authority after some time, its formation, there are questions related to ensuring security and the creation of local police.

You know, given the level of trust existing between Russia and our Arab, including and above all our Palestinian friends, of course, I think that our participation may be required. If our friends think it might help, of course, we will always be ready to take part in this process.

And we participated in it for decades. I think Russia has something to say and propose for resolving the issues, which will certainly arise in implementing the agreements achieved.

Welcome.

Pavel Zarubin: Good evening,

Pavel Zarubin, Rossiya TV Channel. Happy belated birthday to you.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you.

Pavel Zarubin: On that day, we were again wondering where you were and what you were doing, because normally nobody ever sees how you celebrate your birthday. In the evening, we saw you with the military at the Peter and Paul Cathedral in St Petersburg, in the sepulchre with the tombs of Russian emperors, beginning with Peter the Great. Why there? And why with the military at that?

Vladimir Putin: I think it is clear why I was with the military. Because Russia’s fate is largely, is always exclusively in the hands of the Russian people. And right now, our military are in the foreground, on the frontline – in the literal and figurative sense of the word. They are resolving the tasks fateful for our country – both the men at the front, on the line of engagement, and their commanders, of course.

As you have noticed, I met with the commanders of all our groups of forces that are active on the line of engagement. I invited them to the Peter and Paul Cathedral, the cathedral of the Peter and Paul Fortress, namely, to the sepulchre of our sovereigns, our tsars. And indeed, we first laid flowers at the tomb of Peter I.

Why? I think it is also clear. Because it was Peter I who laid the essential foundations of the contemporary Russian state, whatever you call it – the Russian Empire or the Soviet Union, but the basic essential foundations were laid exactly by Peter I.

Meanwhile, our military in general – both commanders, soldiers and officers on the ground – are, in fact, defending what Peter I created and what his successors continued to strengthen.

Russia’s fate has evolved differently throughout history – it has grown larger or became smaller in size at different times. Under Catherine II – her tomb is actually next to Peter I’s – Russia made the greatest acquisitions of territory, as you know. That is, on that day we paid tribute to those persons who had made a unique, fundamental contribution to the establishment of our state.

And then we just had a briefing with the military colleagues. They reported to me on the situation at each section of the front, the sections they were personally responsible for. Following the meeting, we had a luncheon together, while, in fact, continued the same conversation informally.

Pavel Zarubin: Traditionally, people come to someone’s birthday with gifts. Did they give you a birthday present?

Vladimir Putin: They did, indeed. There were different military-themed presents – figurines and books. Yet two of them are of special value. One of the commanders gave me two icons our soldiers had on them, and those icons saved their lives. The icons were indented by bullets, and the soldiers sent them to me as a present. I am very grateful to them. I will make sure to find them and talk to them.

Even now, taking this opportunity, I would like to convey to them, via the media, my most sincere words of gratitude. And may the Lord protect them as he did before.

Pardon, what? About which Tomahawks?

Stanislav Ivashchenko: The American ones.

Vladimir Putin: Go ahead.

Stanislav Ivashchenko: Stanislav Ivashchenko, Zvezda TV channel.

In Kiev, Zelensky threatens to strike Russia with Tomahawks, even targeting the Kremlin itself. There is even talk that this constitutes a form of posturing… blackmail against Russia.

Vladimir Putin: You did not misspeak – posturing as well. There is certainly an element of showing off here.

Stanislav Ivashchenko: In this context, a question. The Americans say that whether they will transfer the Tomahawks or not depends entirely on Russia’s negotiating position regarding Ukraine. If our negotiating position does not suit them, they will proceed with the transfer. Is our response to this ready?

Vladimir Putin: Our response is the strengthening of the Russian Federation’s air defence systems.

Konstantin Kokoveshnikov: May I ask about START?

Vladimir Putin: Go ahead.

Konstantin Kokoveshnikov: Good afternoon.

Konstantin Kokoveshnikov. Thank you for the opportunity to ask a question.

As is already known, you have proposed extending the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, which expires very soon, in February 2026. Judging by initial statements from Washington, Trump appears not to oppose this.

Are there any signals through closed channels, perhaps, that Washington is indeed prepared to hold such consultations? Will four months be sufficient to complete this process? Am I correct in understanding that a new personal meeting between you and your American counterpart will be required?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: We maintain contacts through the Foreign Ministry and the Department of State. Will these few months be enough to reach a decision on extension? I believe it will suffice if there is goodwill to prolong these agreements. Should the American side deem this unnecessary, it is totally not critical for us – everything in this regard is proceeding according to plan.

I have spoken about this before, and it is no secret: the novelty of our nuclear deterrent systems surpasses that of any other nuclear state, and we are advancing this very actively. What I mentioned in previous years is all being developed. We are refining these systems, and I believe we will soon be able to announce new weapons that were previously unveiled. They are materialising and undergoing successful tests.

Regarding the intercontinental components at sea and in the air, I reiterate: the novelty and modernity of our systems, as military experts say, are at a very high level, which we maintain. We are prepared to negotiate if this proves acceptable and beneficial for the American side.

If not – then so be it. It would be regrettable, as nothing would then remain in terms of strategic offensive arms control.

Please.

Anna Sedykh: Good afternoon.

My name is Anna Sedykh, Interfax news agency.

My question follows up on the Nobel Peace Prize topic. Zelensky stated that he would support Trump’s candidacy if he supplied Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine: essentially, a peace prize in exchange for weapons. How would you assess this “businesslike approach”?

Vladimir Putin: I do not think the Nobel Committee was interested in the opinion of the current Kiev regime’s leader when making its decision. This is the first point.

Second, linking the Nobel Peace Prize to arms supplies is absurd. It simply speaks volumes about the current Kiev regime’s level.

Thank you very much.

Anything else?

Olga Matveyeva: Olga Matveyeva, Mayak and Vesti FM radio stations.

At the Valdai Club meeting, you mentioned that one country is preparing to test nuclear weapons. Could you please clarify whether that country is the United States? If, as you said, Russia responds in kind and also conducts a nuclear test, wouldn’t that throw our countries and all of humanity back to the 1990s, when the entire world refused to test nuclear weapons? And wouldn’t this provoke a new nuclear arms race between Moscow and Washington?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: I think that, frankly speaking, a certain arms race is underway. Whether it will be a throwback or not is hard to say.

However, I never said the United States is preparing for such tests. I said that some countries are preparing. This is well known to specialists, because there is always a temptation to test the effectiveness of the combat fuel that has been stored in missiles for many, many years.

All of this is currently simulated on computers. Specialists believe this is sufficient, but some of those same experts think that full-scale tests should still be conducted. As far as we know, some countries are considering this and even making preparations. So I said that if they do it, we will do the same.

Is that good or bad? From the standpoint of ensuring security, it is good; from the overall perspective of deterrence and efforts aimed at – if not reducing, then at least containing – the arms race, it is probably not bad either.

But our proposal to extend the New START Treaty for at least one year is in the same context. Let everyone think about it.

Goodbye, thank you very much. All the best.

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.

Global Atomic Forum

2025-09-25T20:32:26+04:00

Vladimir Putin addressed the Global Atomic Forum taking place at the Atom Museum at VDNKh, Moscow.

The forum is being held as part of World Atomic Week, which marks the 80th anniversary of Russia’s nuclear industry and is themed “From a New Technological Paradigm to a New Worldview.”

Also attending the meeting were President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko, Acting President of Myanmar Min Aung Hlaing, Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan, Prime Minister of Ethiopia Abiy Ahmed, Vice President of Iran Mohammad Eslami, Deputy Prime Minister of Uzbekistan Jamshid Khodjayev and Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Rafael Grossi, as well as the heads of relevant ministries from major partner countries and international organisations. The meeting was moderated by Alexei Likhachev, Director General of Rosatom State Corporation.

Before the event, the leaders toured the museum exhibits.

* * *

Address to the Global Atomic Forum

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Ladies and gentlemen, colleagues,

We are gathered here for the Global Atomic Forum. I am delighted to welcome the heads of state and leaders of international organisations, and I look forward to substantive discussions on a range of issues concerning the present and future of the nuclear industry.

This kind of dialogue is especially important at a time when a growing number of countries and large companies view peaceful nuclear energy as a vital resource for long-term, accelerated development. Public attitudes are also steadily evolving, with nuclear energy increasingly recognised as an environmentally friendly technology that offers enormous opportunities.

Clearly, there are fundamental reasons for this paradigm shift. These are not limited to the reliable solutions that underpin the creation of advanced nuclear power units. Another critical factor is the emergence of a fundamentally new technological paradigm, the widespread adoption of artificial intelligence, and the consequent need for significant energy resources to process colossal amounts of data.

Indeed, electricity consumption by data centres is set to more than triple in the current decade alone. In this regard, I would note that Russia is already deploying such modular data processing systems at its nuclear power plants, as they are best placed to provide a uniform, constant power supply.

The demand for green technology which minimises the impact on the environment and climate is another significant factor behind the surge of interest in nuclear energy. To reiterate, nuclear power plants are the key source of clean low-carbon energy. They surpass other energy sources in terms of cost, environmental performance, and the ability to provide stable generating capacity.

According to the IAEA forecasts, by mid-21^st century, the total capacity of all nuclear power plants worldwide may increase by over 2.5 times to nearly 1,000 GW. Notably, the growth in demand for peaceful nuclear energy will be largely driven by the Global South and the Global East that are in the process of strengthening their technological and industrial potential.

We fully support the push for developing and using peaceful nuclear energy towards this end. We take pride in knowing that Russia is the only country around the world to possess expertise across the entire nuclear power technology chain. Thanks to their safety and resilience to external factors, nuclear power plants built to Russian designs are the most sought-after internationally.

In addition, we are developing small-scale land-based and floating nuclear power plant projects. Just now, the head of Rosatom told us about this [during a tour of the ATOM Museum exhibition]. Very soon, we will start their serial production.

Our principled approach ensures Russia’s leadership. First, we strictly honour our contractual obligations. I want to emphasise this. We fulfill all our obligations entirely regardless of political circumstances.

Second, we reject “technological colonialism” and do not make our partners dependent on Russian technical solutions. On the contrary, we help them establish their own sovereign national nuclear industries, including personnel training and the creation of competence centres. We enlist local companies, assist in the operation of power units, and ensure the supply of nuclear fuel and waste management.

More than that, we share our experience and knowledge in building other advanced industries of the 21^st century, such as nuclear medicine, digital systems, electric transport, and innovative materials. As a result, we help our partners make a genuine development leap, bring their economies to a whole new level of efficiency, and ultimately improve quality of life.

All of this represents an important public and social dimension of our work, a visible confirmation of the fact that equal access to technology, including in the sphere of peaceful nuclear energy, can ensure dynamic yet fair and sustainable global development.

Colleagues,

We view peaceful nuclear technologies as the foundation for extensive international cooperation and for fostering closer ties among nations. Russia is keen on establishing stable, long-term conditions for projects within the nuclear sphere.

Foremost, the absolute priority for our country is ensuring nuclear safety and the physical protection of nuclear facilities and installations, regardless of their location.

Therefore, it is imperative to further enhance safety and reliability requirements at every stage of the nuclear cycle, including uranium extraction, reactor operation, and the management of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste. Furthermore, regulation in this sphere must be carefully calibrated to maintain a balanced approach between the development of peaceful nuclear energy and the strengthening of the nuclear non-proliferation regime.

Moreover, it is evident that the construction of nuclear power plants requires significant funding, which necessitates a balanced distribution of risks and benefits among the key participants in such projects – states, investors, and consumers. I consider it essential to develop modern financing models for the construction of nuclear power plants and to involve international financial institutions and development banks in these undertakings.

In this context, I would add that earlier this year, the New Development Bank established by the BRICS countries confirmed its readiness to finance nuclear projects, while at the end of last year, on Russia’s initiative, a BRICS coordination mechanism – the Nuclear Energy Platform – was established.

A crucial issue is the long-term resource provision for nuclear power plants. To utilise peaceful nuclear energy sustainably, fundamentally new and more efficient technologies are required, and Russia is already engaged in developing such solutions.

Just before this session began, my colleagues and I were exchanging views informally before entering this hall. In this connection, I would also like to note that, according to OECD estimates, all uranium resources under an optimistic scenario will be fully depleted by 2090. This amounts to approximately eight million tonnes. However, in practice, this could occur as early as the 2060s. That is, this could happen very quickly – right before our eyes.

Given that a quarter of uranium reserves are found in deposits where uranium is a by-product, by 2030 – here I come to what I believe Russia can truly be proud of – we plan to launch in the Tomsk Region the world’s first nuclear power system with a closed fuel cycle. What does this mean? It is, in the full sense of the word, a revolutionary development made possible by our scientists and engineers. What does it mean in practice? It means that almost the entire volume – 95 percent of spent nuclear fuel – will be reused in reactors more than once. This mechanism will, in the long term, make it possible to virtually eliminate the problem of radioactive waste accumulation and, which is also extremely important, essentially remove the issue of uranium supply.

I should note that the full range of advanced materials for the closed fuel cycle will be tested at the International Research Centre now being established in the Ulyanovsk Region. We invite scientists from different countries to cooperate in developing technologies that, without exaggeration, open a new era in nuclear energy.

Friends,

Our meeting – the Global Nuclear Forum – is timed to coincide with two landmark dates: the 80^th anniversary of the national nuclear industry, and Nuclear Industry Worker Day, which is marked in our country on September 28.

Let me remind you – my colleagues and I have just discussed this, but I want to say it once again for a wider audience – the first decision in the Soviet Union on the development of nuclear energy was taken on September 28, 1942, during the Great Patriotic War, when the outcome of perhaps the most dramatic phase of that war – the Battle of Stalingrad – was still unknown. The battle was still on, yet the State Defence Committee decided to launch the work on uranium, and the work got going.

I would like to sincerely congratulate Russia’s nuclear industry workers, scientists, and former employees on the industry’s anniversary and the upcoming professional holiday. Without a doubt, I extend my congratulations to the forum’s guests – specialists from former Soviet republics – who are united by the traditions of the great Soviet Ministry of Medium Machine- Building. These traditions must certainly be continued.

I wish you new, great successes for the benefit of the people of our countries and, without exaggeration, all humanity.

Thank you for your attention.

Vladimir Putin congratulated Moscow residents on City Day

2025-09-13T21:40:18+04:00

The President took part in a festive event at the Zaryadye Concert Hall marking the 878^th anniversary of Moscow’s founding.

Speech on Moscow City Day

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Mr Sobyanin,

Friends,

As is the tradition, in early autumn, we mark Moscow City Day. I warmly congratulate Muscovites on this occasion. And not only Muscovites, but all those who sincerely love our capital and see it as one of the greatest cities in the world. I fully share this view – it is indeed so.

For millions of people, Moscow embodies the destiny and historic mission of Russia as a civilisational power. A city with a glorious past and great spiritual, cultural, military and labour traditions, today it stands at the forefront of Russia’s steady and confident progress, strengthening our sovereign and powerful nation.

The capital ranks second in the world among the largest urban economies, confidently charting a course for the future and laying a solid foundation for our success for years and decades to come.

I recall well when Mr Sobyanin proposed that Moscow should help revive Russia’s space industry – this was only a few years ago. Today, thanks to the efforts of the capital’s architects and builders, together with the Roscosmos State Corporation, the National Space Centre has been established in Moscow.

In a short while, Mr Sobyanin and I will go and see it. This is truly a command centre for Russian space exploration, a fully integrated engineering and technical complex bringing together science, education and production. Without doubt, it also strengthens Moscow’s role as a key national hub for accelerated technological, industrial and scientific development.

The key task today is to fully tap the potential of the new space centre and the capital’s entire infrastructure, to support the bold and ambitious projects of the young generation of researchers and engineers, and to join forces with companies, universities and enterprises not only in Moscow but also across the regions. In short, we must do everything to ensure that Russia remains among the leaders in space exploration and research, as well as in developing solutions for the emerging industries of the 21^st century.

It is also important that innovations are being tested under real-life conditions in the capital, paving the way for the rapid application of cutting-edge products in the city’s services – in transport, education, and healthcare. We are all well aware of a long-standing problem: something is invented here, discussed, described, and then we wait decades for it to be implemented – only to see it appear first abroad. We all learned this from school. Moscow is thankfully different. Here new technologies are introduced quickly, and this cannot but please us. Thank you, Mr Sobyanin.

A clear example is the use of digital and medical technologies in the recently completed reconstruction of 343 children’s and adult polyclinics across the city, and in the modernisation of dozens of hospital buildings, including the newly opened complex of the Children’s Hospital of St Vladimir.

Another important focus is the development of a fully-fledged unmanned systems economy in Moscow. Autonomous solutions are being actively tested in taxis, logistics, everyday services, water safety control, construction sites, firefighting, and street cleaning – all running on domestic software. Over the past six years, the capital’s IT sector has more than quadrupled. Just think about it: in six years – a fourfold increase, or around 80–85 percent growth annually. An excellent result indeed.

Moscow is now moving from experimentation to the large-scale use of autonomous transport. Just a few days ago, after two years of testing, the first driverless trams in Russia began regular service. The next step will be the automation of the metro.

Importantly, along with technical upgrades, new metro lines and stations are being built. Another four stations have opened today on the Troitskaya Line. The construction of the Rublevo-Arkhangelskaya and Biryulevskaya lines is ongoing, which will radically improve public transport accessibility for two million residents of Moscow and the Moscow Region.

I know that colleagues from other regions will hear me and say, ‘Of course, he has more money than the rest of Russia.’ There is always a lack of money everywhere; no matter how much we may have, our economy is large and we are always short of funds. The issue is selecting the right priorities. Moscow’s current mayor’s team has managed to identify the main priorities, focus on them, and thus achieve results.

The foundation for Moscow’s steady progress is laid as early as in school. It is therefore predictable that creating conditions for the harmonious and comprehensive development of children and preserving their health is a special focus for the Moscow Government.

This year, a large-scale renovation of school buildings has been launched. Modern gyms and open spaces, laboratories and IT classrooms will be created as part of the programme. We are talking about the creation of a completely new modern educational environment for Moscow’s schoolchildren and teachers.

To raise the quality of teaching mathematics and passing on knowledge about the world around us, new courses have been introduced in Moscow schools starting in September. They will help children as early as in primary school to learn to research and experiment, develop logical thinking and solve unconventional problems.

Moscow is indeed pursuing serious and meaningful projects in education as well as in culture and the arts. These projects are to become a source of advanced experience for the entire nation, serving the tasks of education and upbringing, enhancing a sovereign world outlook and fostering our traditions and values.

A world-class cinema cluster is steadily being formed, designed to accelerate the development of the entire domestic film industry. Moskino film park facilities are being constructed and launched, and soon the historic Gorky Film Studios will complete its revival.

Exhibitions, lectures, concerts, festivals and sports events are becoming an integral part of everyday life for all generations of Muscovites. Together with businesses and creative industries, Moscow is shaping a unique atmosphere and identity in the city, a place where people want to live, study, work, run businesses, feel proud of the past and move forward together with the rest of Russia.

Friends,

Moscow residents and our entire multiethnic nation have a cultural and moral code, along with a sense of high responsibility for the country’s destiny and a readiness to come to the rescue and lend a hand. This is evident in extensive charity, philanthropy and the volunteer movement, and, of course, in the support for our Armed Forces.

Tens of thousands of Moscow residents are valiantly fighting on the frontline. Just as it was in the past, Moscow has become a reliable home front for the Russian army. Over 500 Moscow enterprises manufacture critical products for the front. Wounded servicemen undergo treatment and rehabilitation in Moscow’s clinics. Hundreds of Moscow specialists – doctors, special services personnel, builders and managers – provide assistance to residents of Donbass and Novorossiya on a daily basis.

I would like to thank Moscow residents for their contribution to our just and sacred struggle, for their readiness to fight and work for the benefit of the Fatherland. It is the will and energy of the people that enable Moscow to stand on a par with the world’s largest cities, create 21^st century technologies, transform the city, its streets and districts, and successfully address social issues.

I believe that Moscow has every opportunity to achieve new quality levels and ensure confident, steady and long-term progress. I am confident that it will be this way.

I sincerely wish the capital city’s residents great achievements, victories, good health and optimism. And I wish Moscow Mayor Sergei Sobyanin and his creative and dedicated team success in setting new tasks and achieving even more ambitious goals for the benefit of Moscow and our great homeland.

Happy holiday, dear Muscovites! Happy City Day!

Thank you.