Website of the President of Russia: Videos: Meetings and Conferences

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 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.

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.

Plenary session of St Petersburg International Economic Forum

2025-06-25T18:26:06+04:00

Vladimir Putin took part in the plenary session of the 28^th St Petersburg International Economic Forum. This year’s theme is Shared Values: The Foundations of Growth in a Multipolar World.

The SPIEF plenary session was also attended by President of the Republic of Indonesia Prabowo Subianto, National Security Advisor, Commander of the Royal Guard of the Kingdom of Bahrain Nasser bin Hamad Al Khalifa, Vice Premier of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China Ding Xuexiang, and Deputy President of the Republic of South Africa Paul Mashatile.

The discussion was moderated by Nadim Koteich, a journalist, General Manager and presenter at Sky News Arabia.

The St Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF) has been held annually since 1997, and since 2006, has taken place under the patronage and with the participation of the President of Russia. In 2025, SPIEF events are being held on June 18–21, bringing together 20,000 guests from 140 countries.

* * *

Journalist, Sky News Arabia General Manager and presenter Nadim Daoud Koteich: Good evening, everyone.

Mr President, thank you so much. It’s a pleasure and an honour to be with you on this panel with your esteemed guests.

If anything, the St Petersburg International Economic Forum is again and again proving itself as a pivotal platform for discussions around global economy, global trends and geopolitics. There is no better time than now, being here and discussing what we are going to discuss after listening to these speeches – one by you and the rest by your esteemed guests.

Thank you again. Thank you so much.

This is a very interesting panel, if you look at the structure of the panel. We have China, we have Indonesia – a very important country from ASEAN. We have Russia, we have Bahrain – a very important and vibrant GCC country, and then we have South Africa, which is a founding member of BRICS.

And still some people would say Vladimir Putin is isolated. So, I don’ know, if this panel says something, it says how multipolar the world has become.

Mr President, the floor is yours for the first speech.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Mr Prabowo Subianto,

Your Highness Sheikh Nasser,

Mr Ding Xuexiang,

Mr Paul Mashatile,

Friends, ladies and gentlemen,

I am delighted to welcome all participants and guests of the 28^th St Petersburg International Economic Forum. The forum’s format traditionally fosters substantive and meaningful discussions on the most pressing issues. We are pleased that representatives from 140 countries and territories have joined this important dialogue.

This year, among the important topics – referred to by our colleagues as key discussion tracks – is the quality of growth in the context of a multipolar world and major global challenges. These include profound shifts in the global economy and demographics, such as the planet’s population dynamics, as well as social, public, and geopolitical tensions that manifest through crises and rapidly escalating regional conflicts, unfortunately visible today in the Middle East.

Finally, these include climate change and urgent environmental issues that demand our attention and response. And, of course, the transition to a new technological era driven by digital platforms, artificial intelligence, and autonomous systems capable of making decisions independently of human input is also a central focus.

The key question is how to ensure that positive technological advancements are accessible everywhere, so that new digital and technological solutions enable countries, regions, and cities to achieve new levels of development and progress. It is essential that the benefits of these technological breakthroughs are shared broadly, transforming society, reducing poverty, improving quality of life, and providing equal opportunities for every individual to acquire the knowledge needed to fulfil their potential. In other words, it is crucial to uphold the fundamental principle of justice.

In my speech, I will focus on the challenges Russia faces in these areas, the steps we are taking in collaboration with business, scientific, and public organisations, as well as the approaches we propose to support economic growth, not only within our country but also through creating joint mechanisms for global and regional development in partnership with our friendly nations.

I will start with the current state of the Russian economy. Despite a challenging international landscape, Russia’s GDP has been demonstrating an annual growth rate of over four percent over the past two years, which is above the global average.

Regarding the structure of this growth, let me share a specific indicator with you – the so-called non-oil-and-gas GDP. It excludes sectors related to hydrocarbon production. In 2023, Russia’s non-oil-and-gas GDP increased by 7.2 percent, followed by an additional 4.9 percent, or almost five percent, in 2024. These are solid figures exceeding the overall GDP growth rates.

In other words, commodities no longer play a defining role in Russia’s economic growth patterns. Moreover, the contribution of the commodities sector is even negative currently.

By the way, defence manufacturing was not the only driver of our overall GDP growth, as some may believe. Of course, it did play a role in this regard, but we must keep a close eye on the way this growth has been structured.

Over the past two years, the top performing industries have included agricultural production, manufacturing in general, the construction industry, logistics, services, finance and the IT sector, covering almost all the key, essential segments of the national economy.

What does this mean? It means that thanks to the efforts of tens of thousands of enterprises and companies, their teams, managers, and their proactive approaches, as well as the work of millions of entrepreneurs, the Russian economy has been steadily developing, achieving new heights in terms of quality, complexity and diversity. The idea of the Russian economy being completely commodity-based and dependent on the exports of hydrocarbons is clearly outdated; it is becoming a thing of the past. We are living in a different reality now.

Russia is the world’s fourth largest and Europe’s number one economy in terms of GDP. I am not talking about the per capita GDP, but about the sheer size of the economy. Still, this is a major milestone.

Of course, achieving this result is not enough. It is essential that we consolidate our standing as a major economy by offering a business-friendly environment so that businesses from Russia and our friendly countries can invest their assets here, as well as upgrade and expand their manufacturing capabilities in Russia.

Our key task this year is to ensure that the economy transitions to a path of balanced growth. What does that mean? We understand it to mean that we must achieve moderate inflation and low unemployment. According to statistics, annual inflation has already dropped to single-digit levels below ten percent. As of June 16, it stood at 9.6 percent. Of course, that is still high, but inflation targeting continues.

Certainly, this outcome is due both to the Government’s steady efforts to develop the supply side of the economy and to the responsible actions of the Central Bank. That said, I would like to highlight the following: inflation dynamics have been better than many experts expected and even better than the forecasts made by the Bank of Russia. This has made it possible to start cautious easing of monetary policy.

However, consumer price changes are only part of the picture. To reiterate, balanced growth means moderate inflation, low unemployment, and continued positive economic dynamic. It is important to keep all indicators of the health of our industries, companies, and even individual enterprises in focus.

I will say more about the labour market later. For now, I would like to note that in the first four months of this year, Russia’s GDP increased by 1.5 percent year-on-year, including 1.9 percent growth in April alone. At the same time, some experts point to risks of stagnation or even recession. That, of course, must absolutely be avoided.

I know that during the forum you have heard the discussions within the Government, and between the Central Bank of Russia and the Government. You have likely dived deep into the materials.

We need to pursue sound, well-designed fiscal, tax and monetary policies, aligning these mechanisms above all with the goals of supporting and stimulating growth, while, of course, maintaining macroeconomic, inflationary, and financial stability.

In other words, our strategic vector is precisely to actively and consistently transform the structure of the national economy, step by step. As I mentioned earlier, we have achieved a great deal in this area, but it is clear that moving forward is critically important, especially in light of the dramatic changes taking place in the world.

We discussed the need for additional measures on this issue at the Council for Strategic Development and National Projects back in December 2024. Working together, the Government, regional authorities, businesses, experts, and the scientific community identified key tasks to accelerate long-term growth and structural changes in the economy. Today, I will focus on these critical areas in a broader context.

Foremost among these is the transformation of employment and consumption patterns. We must create conditions that boost the economic activity of our citizens, enabling both young and mature individuals to realise their potential in the labour market, acquire new skills, build successful careers, and increase their incomes.

In other words, we are aiming for a transition to a high-wage economy, not driven by labour shortages that compel employers to raise wages to attract workers but grounded in improving job quality and boosting labour productivity.

Over the past four years, employment in Russia has grown by 2.4 million people. Since October last year, the national unemployment rate has stabilised at around 2.3 percent, reaching a historic low. Importantly, this positive trend extends to regions where employment challenges have traditionally been acute. Russian colleagues are well aware that this primarily refers to southern Russia and the North Caucasus, where unemployment has been reduced roughly by half – an excellent achievement.

This success is the result of a combination of sound macroeconomic policies, proactive regional government initiatives supported by federal employment programmes, and the broad adoption of modern technological solutions such as platform-based employment and digital marketplaces.

Some of our colleagues, including our guest from Bahrain, recently visited the Chechen Republic and witnessed firsthand its development. Indeed, Chechnya serves as a vivid example of this progress.

I would also like to highlight that employment is increasing notably among young people who are just entering the labour market and securing their first jobs. In terms of youth unemployment, Russia ranks among the best globally, with a rate of approximately seven and a half percent.

For comparison, youth unemployment stands at around 16 percent in France and 11 percent in the United Kingdom. Globally, youth unemployment remains one of the most pressing economic and social challenges. In Russia, however, we are clearly moving in the right direction. I believe we can confidently say that we are coping successfully with this issue.

Of course, there is still room for improvement. However, I want to emphasise once again that the progress made in this area is clear. This is particularly important because the impact of active youth employment extends far beyond the present moment. A strong start and being in demand in the labour market shape a young person’s successful professional career, their role in society, and greatly influence their decision to start a family, care for their parents, and raise children – not just the first child, but hopefully the second, third, and beyond. This is a vital matter for the country’s social, economic, and demographic development.

Next. Employment is growing in the sectors that produce final products, in high-tech economic areas, including the manufacturing sector, information technology, and tourism. Meanwhile, in supporting sectors such as trade, public administration, and finance, employment is objectively and justifiably declining. These – I believe some are aware, though perhaps not everyone – are very positive trends and a commendable indicator.

For reference, if we consider the dynamics: in the information and communications sector, there has been an increase of 353,000 people – a rise of 29.7 percent; in manufacturing industries – 10.2 percent. Conversely, the number of workers in trade, for example, has decreased by 170,000 people – a drop of three percent.

These are gradual but highly significant and important trends that reflect structural, qualitative changes. We intend to continue – through enhancing economic efficiency and implementing digital platform solutions – to facilitate a reduction in the share of employment in so-called supporting sectors. Naturally, we must provide those employed in these areas with alternatives.

To achieve this, we will encourage the creation of modern, more attractive jobs with high labour productivity that align with the new technological paradigm. Labour legislation must be further refined to meet its demands and, most importantly, in the interests of the people. The Government has prepared a package of such amendments, and I request the State Duma to adopt them without delay.

I reiterate: high-quality, structurally new employment is the key to increasing citizens’ and households’ incomes and reducing social inequality. Of course, this remains a challenge for us, but we are addressing it consistently. We have already accomplished much to ensure the accelerated growth of incomes for the least well-off citizens and have achieved – I wish to emphasise this separately – we have achieved a record reduction in the poverty rate in the history of the Russian Federation.

By the end of last year, it stood at 7.2 percent, and the positive trend continues. In the first quarter of this year – compared to the same period last year – the number of citizens with incomes below the subsistence minimum decreased by more than two million people.

Our Russian colleagues here today are aware, but I will repeat for our guests. In 2000, the poverty rate in the Russian Federation was 29 percent, and – let us be frank – as many as a 42.3 million people found themselves in this humiliating situation. By the end of 2024, this was no longer 29 percent but 7.2 percent, and not 42.3 million people, but 10.5 million people. Obviously, we must strive to reduce this figure further – and that is precisely what we intend to do: lowering it to seven percent and then to five percent.

However, the level of wages across the economy in Russia is still insufficient, and I would like to stress this as well. I have said that we need to set ambitious goals and create an economy of high wages. Let me repeat this once again because this is important – this should be done through higher labour productivity. Let me also note that the share of wages in Russia’s GDP increased from a little over 40 percent in 2021 to almost 44 percent in 2024.

So, what do we focus on? First of all, we made it one of our priorities to adapt educational programmes to the needs of the real sector. By the way, the recent downward trend in youth unemployment, which I just mentioned, shows that we are on the right track.

I would like to add that this year, shortly before our forum, Russia released the first official ranking of higher education providers by employment outcomes and graduate salaries. This indicates which professionals are most in demand in the labour market, and which universities offer the highest quality training and, importantly, produce the most sought-after specialists.

This ranking is also a key indicator of how effective a university’s management team is. I would like to ask the heads of relevant ministries and our colleagues at the federal and regional levels to review this ranking and use it as a tool for managing changes in professional training.

Next, to raise individual incomes, we must invest in professional development and retraining programmes, empowering employees to grow professionally, transition between companies or relocate to other regions. Increased workforce mobility doesn’t just benefit workers who seek higher-paying jobs and career advancement. It also fuels economic growth.

Equally critical is investing in modern equipment, embracing automation and robotics. In turn, these advanced technologies demand skilled professionals to operate and maintain them, creating well-paid jobs in the process.

I would like to emphasise that while higher wages primarily benefit workers – raising their living standards, improving family well-being, and creating better conditions for their children – they also strengthen the economy and the nation. Higher incomes and reduced inequality reshape demand. These things are deeply interconnected. When demand becomes more balanced, it stimulates greater consumption of domestic goods and services.

I am referring to essential industries such as tourism, public catering, and sectors that capitalise on our natural heritage, unlock the potential of cities and towns, and make urban spaces more comfortable and convenient for living, working and recreation.

In this regard, I would like to remind you that together with my colleagues from the Government, we have agreed to introduce a new taxation system for catering – with a flat VAT rate. Part of the tax revenues will go directly to municipalities, providing them with additional resources for local development projects and programmes, primarily to improve the quality of life in their communities.

We will also actively support the fast-growing sectors of the creative economy – those connected with science, culture, and arts. This includes architecture and design, film and music, publishing and software development, and all facets of what experts call the experience economy.

This year, a federal law came into force that provides a legal basis for promoting the creative industries. By the end of the year, 70 regions will begin implementing development standards for this modern segment of the economy and public life and will start building the necessary infrastructure.

To make this work more thorough and consistent, I am asking the Government, in conjunction with the constituent entities, to draft a long-term Strategy for the Development of the Creative Economy, and also to consider launching a federal project in this area.

Separately, I would like to mention the improvement of the Russian cities and towns’ tourist appeal. Historic buildings, churches, estates, and cultural heritage sites are the tangible embodiment of our national identity and uniqueness, true tourist magnets.

We have agreed that by 2030 we will renovate and refurbish at least 1,000 such sites across the country, giving them a second lease on life by opening museums, educational and exhibition centres, hotels, and so on.

A pilot programme for restoring cultural heritage sites with subsidised lending provided for such projects has already covered nine Russian regions. The next step is to expand it to cover the rest of the country.

For the allocated funds to have greater impact, I propose using the following solutions, namely, to combine the resources of two subsidised lending programmes – one for developing tourism infrastructure, and the other for preserving cultural heritage sites.

That way, additional low-interest funding can be attracted for restoring and overhauling historic buildings for business use, among other purposes. In addition, I propose extending the umbrella guarantee mechanism from the SME Development Corporation to cover these projects.

In addition, cultural heritage sites typically involve a complex investment and construction cycle. Those involved know what I am talking about. The process is time-consuming and should be reasonably shortened by cutting excessive formalities without compromising the preservation of historical monuments, of course.

I am asking our colleagues from the Presidential Executive Office to prepare, within the framework of the relevant interdepartmental group, solutions both for this matter and for the overall restoration of cultural heritage sites.

Earlier, I mentioned the tourism infrastructure development programme. Let me remind you that we are actively and carefully involving our national parks in the tourism sector, creating conditions for visitors, while ensuring respectful and careful treatment of nature and protected ecosystems.

This is another example of Russia implementing an environmental agenda: not chasing short-term profit at the expense of natural wealth but preserving and increasing it for the benefit of the people and society at large.

To follow up, let me add the following. Over the past decades, millions of tonnes of industrial and mining waste have accumulated in our country. Naturally, it is harmful to nature and people and creates problems.

I propose considering the launch of special projects to extract valuable components from this waste. The appropriate technologies are available, and all we need is to use them. That way, businesses can simultaneously generate revenue, help eliminate accumulated environmental damage and stimulate the development of domestic research and the manufacturing industry, as well as contribute to improving the environmental situation.

Colleagues,

The development of new production, high-tech, and service sectors, along with the expansion of economic activities – these are all elements of structural changes in Russia’s economy.

In this regard, the second key focus of our actions, which I will address today, concerns the new quality of the investment climate. Essentially, we are talking about a fundamental minimisation of business costs for entrepreneurs across all areas – from construction and utility provision for new projects to ongoing operational activities, including all forms of accounting and notarial services.

Here we are working in close cooperation with the regions, business circles, and experts. Together, we are ensuring that business and investment activity grows across the entire country, in every city, town, and locality.

Let me remind you of our target: the volume of investments in fixed capital in Russia should increase by no less than 60 percent by 2030 compared to 2020.

The Government has already launched a system to support investment in the regions. It provides comprehensive, end-to-end support for investors, right up to a facility’s launch, with access to all support mechanisms, including tax benefits and deductions.

We will carefully monitor this practice, make adjustments based on business feedback, requests, and needs, and, of course, learn from the regions that are leaders in raising investment, scaling up their successful experience and best practices.

As is tradition at our forum, I would like to share the results of the national investment climate ranking, maintained by the Agency for Strategic Initiatives. The ranking now covers more indicators – 82 compared to 70 previously – meaning it has become more detailed, thorough, and consequently more informative.

Russia’s capital, Moscow, continues to lead this ranking. It is followed by the Republic of Tatarstan and the Nizhny Novgorod Region, which showed the highest index growth this year. Both regions share second place with equal scores. Moreover, their current investment attractiveness parameters exceed those of Moscow in the previous year.

What does this tell us? That the benchmark for leadership is constantly rising. In improving the investment climate, we cannot stand still – we must always look ahead and set new targets.

Third place in the ranking goes to the Moscow Region and the Republic of Bashkortostan. In total, 57 regions improved their composite index over the past year. Special mention goes to the Chelyabinsk, Tver, Smolensk and Kaluga regions, as well as the Voronezh, Saratov, Sakhalin, Novosibirsk and Lipetsk regions, and the Altai Territory – they showed the highest growth rates.

I congratulate our colleagues, the regional teams, on these results and wish all regions further success in this important domain. Let us acknowledge their achievements.

(Applause.)

Thank you.

As I mentioned earlier, alongside supporting investments, we are improving the conditions for day-to-day business operations. As is well-known, this encompasses numerous tasks – from company registration to resolving insolvency matters.

The Government, together with entrepreneurs, industry experts, and specialists from the Agency for Strategic Initiatives, has launched a comprehensive initiative to develop a National Model of Target Conditions for Doing Business. While based on international methodologies – I emphasise – it takes into account our specifics and national development goals. This model should be finalised by September of this year.

What does this involve? Concrete, measurable changes that businesses can tangibly feel. For instance, by 2030, we aim to reduce by nearly half the time required for grid connection and decrease the time spent on preparing and submitting tax documentation by more than one-third.

The benchmark for the National Model is for Russia to rank among the top twenty business environments globally by 2030, subject to updated international methodologies, and to serve as an example for our BRICS partners and friends.

Above all, it is essential that the business climate allows us to expand and strengthen the foundations of our economy, rendering it both more resilient yet dynamic, with a focus on increasing the production of goods and services, as well as promoting them both domestically and globally – on international markets, for export.

I would like to emphasise that the competitiveness of our domestic industry, agriculture, services sector, and many other industries must be based on our own technological solutions.

This represents the third direction of structural transformations: Russia’s economy must become more technologically advanced. And this is not merely a desire – it is an imperative requirement of today, and indeed of tomorrow, a challenge that must be met if we aim to grow stronger. And we do.

We must fully unleash a new phase of the country’s technological development. The key instrument in this regard should be the national projects aimed at securing technological leadership. These were launched this year, and my colleagues and I have agreed that the measures under these national projects will be updated and expanded.

By 2030, combined public and private spending on research and development in Russia must increase to no less than two percent of GDP. Here, a special role is assigned to private business. Its investments in these areas must increase at least two-fold.

In this context, I would like to highlight the following. Nearly two dozen development funds and institutions are focused on supporting the technological modernisation of Russia’s economy. However, each of them has its own methodology and approaches. As a result, entrepreneurs have to process the same technical and other documentation in different ways.

On the other hand, it also occurs that development funds and institutions compete for the same projects. Yes, competition is certainly beneficial, but in this particular case, such “departmental” rivalry does not serve the cause – on the contrary, it diminishes the efficiency of financial and organisational resources.

Not long ago, we created a special working group under the Council for Strategic Development and National Projects chaired by head of Vnesheconombank Igor Shuvalov. I am asking our colleagues from this working group to analyse the technological activities of the development funds and institutions.

The objective is to eliminate overlapping functions, to coordinate the work of the development institutions, and to draft single requirements for business support procedures ranging from patent registration to the serial production of high-tech products.

Notably, over the past two years, the number of patent applications from domestic companies and research organisations has increased by 13 percent which is a good number. This includes growth in optical and computer technologies, consumer goods, and pharmaceuticals.

However, it is important to not only develop solutions, but also to quickly bring them to the market in the form of goods and services that are in demand both domestically and internationally and can improve quality of life and make life more comfortable and convenient.

We agreed that our colleagues from the Government will personally oversee the implementation of innovative technologies within their respective areas of responsibility and will fine-tune the regulatory framework to support experimenting, testing, and scaling of promising solutions.

Additionally, I believe the Government should compile an annual report on the dynamics of the country’s technological development. This report should assess the current level of technological sovereignty and breakthrough innovations in technological leadership, as well as the pace of their adoption across sectors of the economy.

Unfortunately, the current rate of commercialisation of inventions from the scientific and academic sectors remains low. For example, among small innovative enterprises created by universities and research institutions, only one in a hundred inventions reaches practical application. To reiterate, this number is too small and clearly insufficient. There must be more active cooperation between educational institutions, research institutes, and the business community. We must help them find each other.

We have a programme called University of Entrepreneurs. Within its framework, experienced businesspeople work together with students in specialised university-based workshops to develop cutting-edge technological solutions and products.

We already see the first results. More than 270 million rubles in extrabudgetary funding have been attracted to these projects, and the number of participating universities will double this year.

I am asking the Government to consider scaling up this mechanism and establishing collaboration across all stages from articulating a project idea to launching an independent business and creating joint ventures between scientific schools, universities, and companies in the real sector.

I have one more important point to make. It is necessary to expand the intellectual property market, specifically by expanding lending opportunities secured by patents and trademarks. These assets should become real business assets that help attract funding for creating or expanding production facilities.

By the way, Russia now has about one million active trademarks. Last year alone, Russian entrepreneurs registered nearly 77,000 new brands, primarily in the light industry, software, household chemicals, and some other products. That is a 12 percent increase over the last year, a solid and marked growth. We will continue to support new Russian brands. For instance, in a month, we will announce the results of the next round of the Rising Russian Brands contest (Znai Nashikh, or Proud of Our People) in Moscow.

A significant portion of applications to participate in this contest comes from small and medium-sized businesses, which especially need promotion and access to new markets. A small business, an individual entrepreneur, or simply a craftsman from a small town or village can now find customers for their products or services via marketplaces – something that was nearly impossible in the past. The audience and the customer base of such platforms is steadily growing, both in Russia and around the world.

Unlike most countries that depend on global platforms, Russia has good examples of successful domestic digital marketplaces. This is a real and meaningful achievement by Russian business, one that we can and should be proud of.

We will continue to create conditions that allow Russian digital platforms to grow and compete with international giants. A draft law has been prepared, which will be the first step towards building a modern regulatory framework for the platform economy. I am asking the State Duma to expedite the adoption of this draft law.

I should add that the digital platform sector also has its problems, including unfair business practices, violations of competition rules, and misuse of data. I am asking our colleagues from the Presidential Executive Office, together with the Government and industry representatives, to discuss these issues within the framework of the interdepartmental working group.

Please conduct a thorough analysis of the current regulation of traditional, offline retail operations that is brick-and-mortar stores, retail chains, and so on. Much of this regulation is now outdated: it was developed in a different technological era and simply does not correspond to today’s challenges and opportunities.

Lastly, marketplaces have access to a vast amount of market data, giving insight into the health of businesses. They understand what kind of support businesses need, whether it is advertising, product distribution, personnel recruitment, or access to loans.

It is certainly necessary to use these possibilities for developing small and medium-sized businesses across the country. I ask the Government to prepare proposals on coordinating and aligning information and other support tools for the promotion of business available to digital platforms and the state, including financial and guarantee mechanisms of the SME Corporation.

Further. Our own, independent solutions, including digital solutions, should be used to strengthen the foreign trade infrastructure. I mean logistics, insurance and payment systems.

We have already launched the state system of electronic carriage documents. All basic documents for cargo carriage by vehicles – the consignment note and the shipping manifest – can now be executed in electronic form. More than one and a half million such documents are issued every month.

We will adopt digital, platform solutions for the entire transport network of Russia, including road, air, rail, river and sea transport. In other words, we are talking about creating a National Digital Transport and Logistics Platform.

International transport arteries running across our country, including the Trans-Arctic Transport Corridor stretching from St Petersburg to Vladivostok via Murmansk, as well as others, will be developed based on such modern technological solutions.

As for payment infrastructure, we will keep on working hand in glove with our BRICS colleagues and create efficient, reliable and, I repeat, independent from external interference mechanisms and services.

In this respect, of course, the experience of our countries in creating and circulating digital national currencies is highly demanded. In Russia, the relevant pilot project has been underway for almost two years. All the basic operations have been tested, including opening and closing accounts, transfers between individuals and legal entities, and payment for goods and services.

Our present task is to make the use of the digital ruble massive among citizens, businesses and banks. I ask the Bank of Russia and the Government to accelerate the necessary procedures and set the deadlines for transition to a new stage of technological development in our financial area.

In this context, the fourth area of structural changes is bringing a new quality to foreign trade, both exports and imports.

The goal has already been set to increase non-oil-and-gas exports. To this end, we will develop relations with our partners, lift trade barriers, open new market niches, create infrastructure, and deepen investment cooperation.

Let me remind you that we agreed to develop long-term plans for cooperation with our key international partners. A good example of such an approach is the Strategic Interaction Plan with the People’s Republic of China, extending through to 2030. Similar plans, including one with India, are to be finalised in the near future.

We will continue implementing the International Cooperation and Exports national project. We will support initiatives from our international partners that use Russian technological platforms, which directly translates into increased demand for Russian technological solutions.

For example, in the coming years, major energy projects, including nuclear energy, mining and processing industries, will be implemented in the CIS countries, including Belarus, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan, as well as in Turkiye, Vietnam and a number of other countries. They are based on Russian technological solutions and involve Russian financial structures.

Increasing our non-oil-and-gas exports is just one of our foreign trade priorities. It is equally essential to systematically transform, change the structure of our imports – the products we purchase, while gradually increasing the share of labour-intensive goods and services that require significant labour resources, physical and manual labour.

Russia instead should focus on the production of more sophisticated, more complex goods and services with a high degree of automation and high added value, that will also contribute to improved quality of employment within Russia.

And of course, together with our EAEU partners, we will continue to fine-tune our customs and tariff policies in order to encourage the creation of new production chains and facilitate the transfer of advanced technological solutions to our countries. This will also help improve the quality of employment and create high-paying jobs here in Russia.

I ask the Government to join hands with businesses to conduct corresponding analysis and present their proposals on specific actions in this area in the following months.

Colleagues,

Russia’s finances, infrastructure, and the real sector of the economy are developing on the principles of technological effectiveness, flexibility, and the capacity for rapid response to external challenges, as well as to shifts in demand from our citizens and our foreign partners.

This approach is fully applicable not only to the civilian sector but also to the fields of defence and security, and to the activities of the defence industry. Our meeting has always focused primarily on economic development, economic growth, and the state of the economy. However, in today’s world, the boundary between the defence industry and civilian sectors of the economy is becoming increasingly blurred. In some countries, no such distinction exists at all.

The profound changes taking place in this area represent the fifth direction of structural economic renewal and, more broadly, the strengthening of our sovereignty. The key principles here are as follows.

First, technological effectiveness at every stage – from development and production to logistics, procurement, and supply to specific military units. It is necessary to continuously analyse technological and organisational innovations in the civilian sector and promptly apply them in the defence and security domains.

Wherever feasible, it is vital to achieve integration between the defence industry and the civilian sector, facilitating the production of dual-use goods – though in many cases, this does not require special measures, as certain items are dual-use by their nature – which are in demand in areas such as maritime and river technology, aircraft construction, the electronics industry, medical equipment manufacturing, agriculture, and beyond.

I would go further: we must move beyond the classification of companies as either exclusively defence enterprises or purely civilian ones. As I have just noted, the current trajectory is such that the most competitive actors are high-technology holdings capable of addressing both military and civilian tasks.

Second, the pace of change. Today, for global business leaders – including some of our own companies – the timeframe from concept to product launch has been reduced to quarters or even months. The period from production to consumer delivery is now measured in days rather than weeks. The defence and security sphere must adapt to these standards.

And of course, flexibility. This involves enhancing the role of commanders of military units and formations, as well as the heads of defence industry enterprises, including in decision-making – from maintenance and testing of new equipment and weapons systems to the development of effective tactics to achieve results. The importance of these levels is increasing.

I believe that colleagues in both the military and the defence industry sectors will agree with me on this point. It is also essential to establish a mechanism for the rapid spreading of such best practices. We are achieving this.

Fourth, economic efficiency in ensuring security and addressing defence-related goals. Compelling examples include the implementation of surveillance and monitoring systems using artificial intelligence, which has significantly reduced the number of offences, for instance, in Moscow. Additionally, the deployment of inexpensive unmanned aerial vehicles has proven effective in targeting expensive military equipment. We will, of course, take into account our own negative experiences. Everything is put to good use to make the necessary and correct decisions in our chosen area.

Overall, our defence industry has picked up a good pace. The enterprises have increased the output many times over and are mastering the production of new types of armaments and military equipment.

To reiterate, we will enhance combat capabilities of the Armed Forces on a new technological basis, modernise military infrastructure facilities, and equip them with cutting-edge weapons and equipment that have proven effective in combat conditions.

At the same time, we intend to develop military-technical cooperation with friendly countries. This includes not only supply or modernisation of equipment and armaments, but also joint developments, personnel training, and creation of enterprises and production capacities on a turn-key basis.

Colleagues,

Today, I have focused on five key areas of structural changes in the Russian economy. These tasks are the focus of existing national projects and state programmes. Their work must be constantly fine-tuned taking into account changes in the global situation and emerging opportunities.

I urge the Government to digitise and place under special control key indicators of structural changes in our economy, regularly monitor their dynamics, and adjust the measures we are implementing.

As I have mentioned earlier, the global economy is undergoing the most significant transformation over the past few decades. Countries around the world are increasing their capacities, reshaping the balance of power, and the economic landscape of the planet.

For example, in the early 21^st century, BRICS countries accounted for just one-fifth of the global economy. Today, this figure already stands at 40 percent of the global economy. Clearly, their share will continue to grow. It is a medical fact, as they say. It will happen inevitably, primarily due to the dynamic economies from the Global South.

This growth needs to become more sustainable and encompass as many countries as possible. To achieve this, a breakthrough development model is needed, one that is not based on the rules of neo-colonialism, where the so-called golden billion siphons off resources from other countries in the interests of a small group of the so-called elites. Not even in the interests of the people of these countries, but specifically in the interests of the elites.

If we look at how funds have accumulated, say, in the United States over the past decades, it was the elites who received the bulk of income. These are open data. Ordinary citizens and the middle class did not benefit from these windfall profits. This could be the basis for the ongoing changes, including in the political sphere.

We must strive to ensure that these changes are reflected in the quality of life of people in our countries, in research, education, technology, and infrastructure. These are the priorities that Russia has set for itself while implementing its own development agenda.

The strategic sectors and areas I have outlined today require stable, long-term capital inflows, including from international companies and investors. To ensure this, we need to create an open and equitable platform for global growth. This platform will bring together investment mechanisms, technological standards, financial and logistics services, trade instruments, and other solutions.

Let me reiterate: the task is not to modernise the outdated mechanisms of the era of globalisation – these have largely exhausted or even discredited themselves. Instead, we must propose a new development model, one free from political manipulations, one that takes into account the national interests of states. Naturally, this model must be focused on the needs of citizens and their families.

At the BRICS summit, which took place last autumn in Kazan, as I mentioned earlier, 35 countries – representing nearly two-thirds of the world’s population and half of the global economy – expressed a shared understanding of the approaches necessary for the future of the world.

Already today, BRICS countries are setting the benchmark in the development of so-called human-centric industries. The largest projects aimed at improving living environments are being launched. BRICS states are implementing large-scale initiatives in nuclear energy and aviation, in new materials and the IT industry, as well as in robotics and artificial intelligence.

Of course, special attention is being devoted to strengthening ties within BRICS. The mutual trade turnover of our countries has already exceeded one trillion dollars and will continue to grow.

All of this, in essence, constitutes the elements of a global growth platform, built on the key principles of BRICS: consensus, parity, mutual consideration of interests, and – most importantly – openness to all who wish to join this effort.

After all, the broader the circle of states involved in shaping and developing such a platform, the stronger and more effective it will be, and the greater the benefits it will bring to all who recognise their responsibility to future generations of their nations.

Russia invites its partners to contribute to shaping a new global growth model, to jointly ensure the prosperity of our nations and the stable development of the entire world for many years to come.

Precisely for this purpose, this year we held the Open Dialogue [The Future of the World: A New Platform for Global Growth] in Moscow, with representatives from over a hundred countries participating. We intend not only to make this format a regular one but also to build an entire ecosystem around it for discussing, refining, and implementing breakthrough ideas.

The global challenges facing the modern world undoubtedly demand a global response. Solving these problems on one’s own, let alone at someone else’s expense, is simply no longer possible – it is an illusion. Only joint action within frameworks such as BRICS and some other formats can ensure the progress of civilisation as a whole.

Thank you for your attention. Thank you very much.

Nadim Koteich: Mr President, thank you so much for the speech that actually set the stage for a very interesting debate after the rest of the speeches. I give the floor to the President of the Republic of Indonesia, Prabowo Subianto. The floor is yours.

President of the Republic of Indonesia Prabowo Subianto: Your Excellency, President Vladimir Putin, President of the Russian Federation,

Your Excellency, Prince Nasser bin Hamad Al Khalifa, National Security Adviser to the King of Bahrain,

Your Excellency Paul Mashatile, Vice President of South Africa,

Your Excellency Mr Ding Xuexiang, Vice Premier of the People’s Republic of China.,

Distinguished ministers, business leaders, ladies and gentlemen, participants of this forum,

I am honoured here today to be invited and to speak at this forum, the St Petersburg International Economic Forum 2025. This is a forum that combines and gathers leaders from the West, the Global South, the East, and where Eurasia meets.

Indonesia views this summit as an opportunity to forge strategic trust, an opportunity to make deals in an increasingly complicated geopolitical situation – deals that can benefit our shared survival and our shared success.

On this occasion, I would like to introduce myself. I am Prabowo Subianto, President of the Republic of Indonesia. I was inaugurated on October 20, 2024. This is my first International Economic Forum. So, I apologise if I am a bit nervous.

Indonesia is the fourth largest country by population. Every year there are five million new Indonesians arriving in this world. Every year, 5 million. That means every year a group of people the size of Singapore. In ten years, there will be ten Singapores in Southeast Asia. The size – I give this as an illustration of the size of Indonesia. This gives us great opportunity but also gives us great challenges.

Any leader of Indonesia must think how to feed five million more mouths every year, five million new school places, etc., etc., the hospitals, and more important, and most important, is the food. In my opinion, the duty of a government is first to protect its people. And to protect its people means to protect its people from hunger and from poverty and from the suffering from a challenging environment.

Therefore, when I took over the Government of Indonesia, my main priority was first, to achieve self-sufficiency in food. Number two, self-sufficiency in energy. Number three, to improve the education level of Indonesians to be able to compete in the challenging era of the 21^st century. And, fourth, to speed up the industrialisation of Indonesia.

Indonesia has been fortunate in being given by the Almighty Lord vast economic resources, but these vast economic resources, if not wisely managed, can actually be a curse to our people. We have vast forests. We have vast minerals. We have a lot of commodities that are useful for the world. But this has to be managed well.

Therefore, in my opinion, every country needs its own economic policy and its own economic philosophy. One of the big mistakes of many countries in Southeast Asia is that we tend to always follow the biggest and the most powerful power in the world. In the last 30 years we see the dominance of the neoliberal, capitalist, classical free market philosophy, which basically tends to be laissez-faire. And the Indonesian elite followed this philosophy. Therefore, in my opinion, we have not managed to create a level playing field for all our people.

There is vast growth. We have grown five percent continuously, especially the last seven years. Yes, 35 percent in seven years, but we have not managed to have this so-called trickle-down effect. The wealth remains at the top – less than one percent. This is not a formula for success in my opinion.

Therefore, my position is this. Each country must follow its own economic philosophy, the economic philosophy that is in tune and that can be accepted by each country’s culture and each country’s background.

Therefore, I have chosen the path of compromise, the path [that combines] the best of socialism and the best of capitalism. Pure socialism that we have seen does not work. It’s utopia. Pure socialism – we see many chances, and in many cases, people do not want to work. Pure capitalism results in inequality, results in only a small percentage enjoying the fruits of the wealth. But our path is the path of the middle way. We want to use the creativity of capitalism, innovation, initiative – yes, we need that.

But we need government intervention to overcome poverty, overcome hunger, to intervene and to protect the weak. Because there’s a danger in developing countries like Indonesia of what we consider the danger of state capture – the collusion between big capital, business and government officials, the political elite. In the end, the collusion between these two groups does not result in the alleviation of poverty and the widening of the middle class.

Therefore, we have chosen the philosophy which, in essence, and in simplicity, can be reduced to one sentence: The greatest good for the greatest many. That is our philosophy. Our Government must work to bring the greatest good to the greatest many, and in this case we have to have a clean Government, free of corruption. This, I think is the key to rapid development.

I am proud to stand here before you. In my seven months of administration, we have achieved an increase in rice and corn production of around 50 percent. This is the greatest increase in production in the aggregate in the history of the Republic of Indonesia. We have now in our government warehouses 4.4 million tonnes of rice, which is the largest reserve in the history of the Republic of Indonesia.

In just a few months of my administration we increased efficiency. We fight very strongly against corruption. We deregulate, we cut all the regulations which increase inefficiency. And we have seen the rapid results.

I believe that if Indonesia can play a good role, a positive role in international relations, for instance, our participation in BRICS – we thank the Government of Russia for supporting our bid to become a member of BRICS very fast (I think we were one of the fastest members to be accepted in BRICS).

Also, Madam President, former President of Brazil and President of the New Development Bank, we were also accepted as a member of the New Development Bank, also very fast. We thank also the Government of China for supporting us and the Government of South Africa. We believe that together BRICS can contribute significantly to stability and prosperity of the world.

I would like just to tell you a short story. It is not part of my speech, but I was asked why I did not attend the G7, but I attended the St Petersburg Forum 2025. And it’s not because I did not respect the G7; it’s because I gave my commitment to attend this forum before they invited me. That’s the only reason.

Please don’t read too much into the event. Sometimes political observers, they want to read: Is this a political statement, right? No. Indonesia, by tradition, [has always been] non-aligned, we respect all countries. Our foreign policy is very simple. One phrase: 1,000 friends – too few, one enemy – too many. We want to be friends with everybody. Only with friendship, collaboration can we achieve prosperity.

Thank you very much, President Putin, for inviting me. And because you invited me, I can be here today in this historic city, a city of heroism, a city of great patriotism, and as an amateur student of history, I follow the history of Russia and I know the significance of St Petersburg. I had the honour of attending the cemetery of the victims of the war a few days ago. Thank you very much for this invitation.

I have said many times at many forums that Indonesia has chosen the path of non-alignment. We consider that this world must develop into a multipolar world and is developing towards a multipolar world. The world of unipolar centrality is past. This is the trend of history. This is what's happening in front of us.

I value very much the leadership of Russia and also the leadership of China. I want to be very frank. In the present world, in the Global South, I think many from the Global South will agree with me, Russia and China have never had double standards. Russia and China have always defended the downtrodden, have always defended the oppressed, have always fought for the justice of all peoples of the world.

I say this from my heart. Indonesia wants to be a good partner and a strong partner. My experts tell me that in this first semester, our economic growth is more than five percent. Actually, it can really end up by the end of this year at nearly seven percent or even more. This shows that we have chosen the right path, and we are achieving our goals. I am very convinced that we will achieve our goals within a few years.

I have given the target: four years – self-sufficient in food. We are experiencing that we can be self-sufficient in food within this one year and we will be in a few years a net exporter of rice and corn. Also, now I have formed a sovereign wealth fund, which we call Danantara, which means the future energy of Indonesia.

This fund [aims] to protect the wealth of our children and grandchildren. The fund now has US$1,000 billion of assets under management. This year we have cash to invest of $18 billion. We want to work together with all strategic partners. We do not ask for assistance. We do not ask for handouts, we want to be a real partner, we want to achieve real prosperity together.

We are open for business. We invite all groups from everywhere, especially Russian entities. Before I was elected, I was an entrepreneur and I have good relations with Russian corporations. My brother has been active in this area for many, many years, I think more than two decades. We know Russian corporations and we would like to see Russia participate more in our economy.

I have mentioned our foreign policy. We have always been, and we will continue to be non-aligned. We thank Russia for helping us and for achieving the Indonesian – Eurasian Union CEPA, Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement. We have completed also negotiations with other groups: the block CPTPP, also with the European Union CEPA, and we also request to join OECD.

For us, the world and the planet are getting smaller. We will work together with you for peaceful collaboration, peaceful coexistence with all countries. We view with sincere regret, the escalation and increase of conflicts around the world, especially in the Middle East. We hope that all parties can come to a peaceful resolution as soon as possible.

I think, distinguished guests, I have come to the end of my short speech. I apologise if what I say is not what is expected of me, but what I say comes from my heart. Thank you very much.

Nadim Koteich: Thank you, President Subianto. I’m not sure if this is your first speech. It doesn’t look like it. Actually, you did a great job. Thank you so much.

I’ll give the floor to the representative of His Majesty, the King of Bahrain, for Philanthropy and Youth Affairs, National Security Adviser, Commander of the Royal Guard of the Kingdom of Bahrain and the honour guest of this year’s forum, Sheikh Nasser bin Hamad Al Khalifa.

The floor is yours.

Representative of His Majesty the King of Bahrain for Humanitarian Work and Youth Affairs, National Security Advisor, Commander of the Royal Guard of the Kingdom of Bahrain Sheikh Nasser bin Hamad Al Khalifa (retranslated): In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious and Most Merciful,

Your Excellency Vladimir Putin, President of the Russian Federation, a friendly nation of ours,

Your highnesses, your excellencies, ladies and gentlemen,

May the mercy and blessings of Allah be upon you!

First and foremost, I would like to express my deepest gratitude and appreciation to the Government of the friendly Russian Federation for the kind invitation extended to the Kingdom of Bahrain to attend this year’s forum. I would like to address special thanks to His Excellency, President Vladimir Putin, for his gracious invitation extended to me to participate in this important economic forum as an official speaker.

I would like to convey to Your Excellency greetings from His Majesty Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa, the King of Bahrain, may Allah bless him, and from His Royal Highness Prince Salman bin Hamad Al Khalifa, the Prime Minister of Bahrain, may Allah bless him.

It gives me great pleasure to recall His Majesty’s visit to Russia in May 2024. During that visit he met with Your Excellency. This meeting was an important stage in the development of our bilateral relations, relations of friendship and our mutual desire to strengthen those ties. This is evidenced by the participation of the Kingdom of Bahrain in this year’s forum as well.

Ladies and gentlemen,

The economic policy pursued by the friendly nation of Russia under the leadership of President Putin is the main driver of stable economic growth of Russia. This policy plays an important role in developing strategically important sectors of the economy, particularly, power sector and industry. This certainly has a positive effect on the international investment climate.

Russia is strengthening its economic ties with the countries of our region and beyond it. It also significantly contributes to creation of new trade and economic opportunities and their use in the world today.

I would also like to remind you, I beg your pardon, I am a poet, I love poetry, I would like to recite the words of Alexander Pushkin from his famous poem, The Monument: “And I shall for long years be loved by all the nation because for noble passions with my lyre I call.” And this wise policy, similar to Pushkin’s words, is your policy to the people. This policy is not measured by numbers only.

Indeed, we are currently attending an economic forum, but this forum is not only about numbers, it is also about the hope that it ignites in people and has a big impact on us.

Ladies and gentlemen,

The Bahrain’s Vision 2030 strategy, adopted under the wise leadership of the Kingdom, defines the framework of our economic development. Vision 2030 is not only a strategy, it is a roadmap for building a sustainable future in its own right. Thanks to it, Bahrain has embarked on a reliable path leading to achieving an optimal balance between economic growth and sustainability. This roadmap allowed Bahrain to attract foreign investments and strengthen its own economic potential.

Various strategic initiatives have been introduced to develop all sectors of the economy and, in particular, the digital infrastructure. Based on the achieved results, the Kingdom of Bahrain has begun to develop a new strategy designed until 2050. And this concept is based on an innovative approach, digitalisation and diversification of sources of income. And this strategic reference point testifies to the Kingdom's desire to keep up with the changes taking place in the world.

Clearly, we need to develop constructive international partnership and ensure comprehensive balanced development. The priority role of human capital is the main prerequisite for our progress.

In Bahrain, we believe that investing in people is the foundation of progress, this is why our country supports strengthening public-private partnership. This is very important.

In this regard, initiatives aimed at training the country's young specialists and ensuring their entry into labour market are extremely important. And this, in turn, allows us to create a flexible economy capable of adapting to changes and challenges.

Bahrain has put a lot of effort in creating a well-developed infrastructure, which allowed our country to become a leading digitalisation centre in the region. This allowed us not only to make business easier today, but also to create a favourable environment for innovations and creativity in various fields.

Today, the digital economy is the basis of Bahrain's strategy to building a knowledge-based economy. On the other hand, strategic partnership with friendly countries, including Russia, is a pillar for the development of the business environment in the Kingdom of Bahrain.

Bahrain is developing effective ties with all international actors, which allowed it to become a stable and attractive economic centre for investment. Bahrain continues its policy of attracting foreign investments by creating appropriate legislative benefits to create a favourable business environment.

Ladies and gentlemen,

The Gulf Cooperation Council as of now is an example of business support and development of an investment sector in the region. We pay much attention to that. We assume that innovations and creativity are two extremely important components of sustainable economic growth. This is why we believe the St Petersburg International Economic Forum is an efficient platform for setting forth ambitious initiatives and expanding cooperation horizons for investors and businesspeople from different countries.

Investment is not just about attracting funds. It is also about sharing creative ideas for implementing creative projects to shape a sustainable economy. That is why great importance is attached to supporting innovations and businesses to accelerate technological progress.

I have to point out that stronger economic partnership creates a favourable environment for supporting SMEs which serve as a driver of the economic development. This requires joining efforts both internationally and nationally and opens up new horizons for investment opportunities and for strengthening cooperation among states.

That is why we are pursuing a well-thought-out economic policy so as to build different industries and businesses including those in the innovation sector. We face a task of building a truly creative and competitive environment opening up new spheres for trade and economic cooperation with friendly nations.

In conclusion I would also like to once again thank you, Your Excellency President Putin, for your kind invitation and the excellent organisation of this forum. It testifies to Russia’s sincere desire to strengthen the international economic dialogue.

We consider the St Petersburg International Economic Forum an important platform for expanding our partnership with friendly nations, primarily Russia. We advocate cooperation for the sake of sustainable development which is in line with our Bahrain’s Vision 2030 concept.

Peace be upon you, as well as mercy and blessing of Allah.

Nadim Koteich: Thank you, Sheikh Nasser.

The address by the Vice Premier of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China Ding Xuexiang.

The floor is yours.

Vice Premier of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China Ding Xuexiang (retranslated): Mr President Putin,

Participants in the St Petersburg International Economic Forum,

Ladies and gentlemen,

Friends,

I would like to thank you for the invitation to participate in the 28^th St Petersburg International Economic Forum, which gained a very important subject this year – Shared Values: The Foundations of Growth in a Multipolar World. First and foremost, allow me, on behalf of the Government of China, to express my most heartfelt congratulations on the successful opening of the forum.

Ten years ago, President of the People's Republic of China Xi Jinping addressed the 70^th session of the UN General Assembly, noting that peace, development, equality, justice, democracy and freedom are universal human values and a noble goal of the United Nations.

Peace, as such, that will be able to overcome the differences between nations in terms of national or ethnic origins, social structure and ideological thinking, unite the whole world around the community of the common destiny of humankind. This received the broadest support and positive responses from the international community.

Actions of unilateralism and protectionism are intensifying, hegemony, dictate and harassment are rampant, geopolitical conflicts are escalating, and various risks are predetermined against the backdrop of rapid changes taking place in the world, which we have not seen for a century. Humanity is facing many common challenges.

Once again referring to important statements by President Xi Jinping, we consider it necessary to firmly adhere to universal human values, implement the concept of the Community of Common Destiny for All Mankind, implement initiatives of global development, global security and global civilization, and jointly promote establishment of an equal and orderly multipolar world, inclusive and universally accessible economic globalisation for the sake of a peaceful, secure, prosperous, progressive future of the entire world.

In this regard I would like to share the following ideas.

First. Global governance should be based on principles of joint consultation, joint construction and joint use. International affairs require a collective solution through dialogue. The fate of our planet must be managed by all states of the world, without exception. Genuine multilateralism should be adhered to, equal rights, equal chances and equal rules should be granted to everyone.

Eighty years ago, China, the Soviet Union and other countries of the anti-Nazi coalition won the Second World War at the cost of the lives and blood of their people, laying down standards of centric multilateralism.

Now, eighty years later, it is important for us to reaffirm our commitment to goals and principles of the UN Charter, firmly defend the world order under the auspices of the United Nations and the world order based on international law, to defend the authority of the United Nations and international justice and to promote the creation of a more just and rational system of global governance.

Second. An open diversified global economy must develop through joint efforts of the entire world. The implementation of the 2030 Agenda is suffering from grave problems caused by anti-globalism.

In this situation we urge to be guided by principles of mutual benefit and joint development and take practical steps to uphold multilateral trade system and international trade and economic order, to promote re-organisation and simplification of trade and investment procedures for the economic globalisation to yield more to all the parties.

China is striving to resolve the issues of the global economy unbalance and inequality. It stretched out a helping hand to over 160 countries and set up high-quality cooperation with 150 nations within the Belt and Road initiative with numerous landmark joint projects. It established the Global Development and South-South Cooperation Fund and made a significant contribution to global development.

We will continue to deepen our cooperation with emerging economies and offer ever more opportunities for the Global South partners for the sake of joint modernisation.

Third. The world’s civilisations should complement each other. The progress of civilisations requires mutual enrichment. We must strive to develop civilisations in the spirit of equality, mutual complementation, dialogue and tolerance; we must respect their diversity and people's right to choose their own ways, implementation of values, and to stand firm against the new ‘cold war’ and any instances of ideological confrontation.

The Chinese people advocate for openness and tolerance, and the Chinese civilisation is calling for harmony while retaining differences, from holding a conference on dialogue between Asian civilisations to adoption by the UN General Assembly of a resolution on instituting International Day for Dialogue among Civilisations. The Chinese concept is gaining an increasing consensus in the world.

Together with all its partners, China is ready to assist each civilisation to flourish in its authenticity with their beauty and achievements to be enjoyed by everyone. We must fully promote universal human values while ensuring the interests of our people.

Fourth. It is necessary to uphold peace and development across the globe. Peace brings forth a development potential while development contributes to lasting peace. We have to assume responsibility for peace on our planet and through dialogue, strive for strengthening mutual trust, settling conflicts and ensuring security, facilitate political settlement of international and regional ‘hot spots.’

China is always carrying the banner of peace, development, cooperation and mutual benefit. It is ready, jointly with all nations and peoples advocating for peace and development, to pass the torch of peace from generation to generation for the sake of long-lasting peace and common security.

Ladies and gentlemen,

Friends,

China and Russia, as permanent members of the UN Security Council and the world’s leading growing economies, are trustful friends in the spirit of time-tested friendship and reliable, mutually supporting partners.

Last month, President Xi Jinping made a state visit to Russia at President Putin’s invitation and attended the celebrations of the 80^th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War.

The two heads of state agreed to further strengthen political trust and strategic interaction and jointly called for defending the results of the Second World War and international justice.

Together with our Russian friends, we will implement the important agreements reached by our leaders, play a more essential role in promoting multipolar world and global development as well as in improving global governance.

We have to comprehensively raise the level, dimensions and stability of China-Russia relations. While following the general cooperation trend, we must create, on the basis of the Belt and Road Initiative, together with the EUEU, an interconnected cooperation structure with high standards, effectively tap into the advantages of the resource base and mutually complement production structures of China and Russia, expand high-quality and mutually beneficial cooperation in the economy, trade, energy, agriculture, aviation, space, artificial intelligence and others, to continuously consolidate the material basis for comprehensive strategic interaction for the well-being of our countries’ peoples.

It is crucial to maintain close alignment on numerous platforms including the UN, promote the enhancement of the SCO and BRICS, facilitate the Global South’s engagement in global governance so as to shape a more just, rational and flourishing multipolar world.

Ladies and gentlemen,

Friends,

China is currently pursuing, on all fronts, the building of a powerful state and national revival through China’s modernisation.

This year, despite the unfavourable external conditions, the Chinese economy maintains a positive dynamics. Its GDP grew by 5.4 percent in the first quarter, which makes China the leader among the world’s top economies. I will specially highlight the progress in China’s foreign trade under very uneasy conditions which demonstrates to the whole world the incredible viability and resilience of our economy.

We will intensively pursue a more active macroeconomic policy focusing on supporting employment, businesses and the stabilisation of market expectations, advance predictable and high-quality development in response to unpredictability and utter volatility of external environment and contribute to sustainable revival of the Chinese economy. China will open up even more regardless of any changes in the external situation.

We are unswervingly promoting high-level openness including through its institutionalisation for the sake of creating a better business environment based on market, legal and international principles. We will be happy to welcome to China businesses from across the world. We are ready to share with you the opportunities of China’s modernisation and development.

The path to a multipolar world will be challenging but it promises us a bright future. I urge everyone to be guided by universal human values and jointly unlock the beautiful prospects of a multipolar world.

Thank you for your attention.

Nadim Koteich: Thank you, Mr Xuexiang.

The floor is now for the Deputy President of the Republic of South Africa Paul Mashatile.

Deputy President of the Republic of South Africa Paul Mashatile: Your Excellency, President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin,

Esteemed heads of states who are present,

Your Excellency Prabowo Subianto, President of the Republic of Indonesia,

His Highness Sheikh Nasser bin Hamad Al Khalifa, representative of His Majesty, the King of Bahrain,

His Excellency Ding Xuexiang, Vice Premier of the State Council of the People's Republic of China,

Distinguished ministers and deputy ministers, diplomats, business leaders, and fellow delegates,

Ladies and gentlemen,

I would like to begin by sending warm greetings from the government of the Republic of South Africa, especially from our President Cyril Ramaphosa and the people of South Africa.

This forum, now in its 20^th year, remains one of the foremost platforms for global dialogue on economic corporation, investments, innovation, and inclusive growth. It is therefore an honour to be given the opportunity to address this distinguished assembly at the St Petersburg International Economic Forum, to convey our vision for a more inclusive, sustainable and prosperous world.

The 2025 theme – Strengthening Multipolarity for Sustainable Development – is not only timely, but central to the moment we find ourselves in. I would like to assume that you will concur with me that the concept of multipolarity has become increasingly relevant in the current global landscape, which is constantly changing. It calls for cooperation, dialogue, and respect for diversity amongst nations to achieve shared goals.

The South African government is certain in its belief that the adoption of multipolarity may result in the achievement of sustainable development and economic prosperity for all nations regardless of their size. It is laudable that as I stand here, I can confidently state that South Africa and Russia are committed to a multipolar world order and actively interact in forums such as BRICS and the G20.

Our cooperation covers various sectors, including trade, energy, and technology. Our aim should be to deepen bilateral connections and shaping global governance. Russia has long played a strategic role in the global economy, not only as a major energy producer, but also as a key actor in food security, industrial technologies, and science-based innovation. It is one of the largest exporters of grain, oil and gas. It is also a rising presence in sectors such as space exploration, nuclear energy – particularly for peaceful purposes – artificial intelligence, and advanced manufacturing.

Importantly, Russia’s increasing orientation towards Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America is reshaping global trade routes and creating new corridors for commercial and developmental cooperation.

These reconfigurations are part of a broader trend: the steady emergence of a multipolar global economic architecture. Despite the real challenges posed by geopolitical tensions, sanctions, and fragmentation of financial systems, Russia has demonstrated resilience. It continues to foster deep integration with the Eurasian Economic Union, expand its partnership under the BRICS framework and strengthen bilateral and multilateral engagement with emerging economies.

Our country, South Africa, like many others, has also faced numerous challenges on its path to development. The extent, to which individuals feel connected and share a sense of belonging in society, has also been a significant challenge, particularly in the light of the country’s history of apartheid and persistent socioeconomic inequalities.

However, with tenacity, drive and a commitment to diversity, we have achieved enormous strides in reducing poverty, inequality and creating social cohesion. We recognise that sustainable development is more than simply economic progress. It is also about providing opportunities for all our citizens to prosper and contribute to society.

As we look to the future, the importance of the Global South in shaping international economic governance is undeniable. Africa, in particular, is fast becoming a centre of global growth. With the population projected to exceed 2.5 billion people by 2050, a rising middle class, and a youthful demographic dividend, the continent has a potential to drive the wave of industrialisation, digital transformation, and sustainable development.

Africa is not in search of handouts, rather, it is pursuing equitable partnerships. It seeks equitable access to markets, capital, knowledge, and technology. This is where global platforms like the St Petersburg International Economic Forum become crucial for us.

At the same time, the Global South is increasingly demanding a voice in decisions that shape global trade and finance. The collective call is clear: development cannot be dictated; it must be co-created. Africa and the Global South are not merely passive recipients of investments or aid: they are active architects of a new more just international order.

Ladies and gentlemen,

The St Petersburg International Economic Forum has evolved over the years from a primarily Russian and Eurasian platform into a global meeting for policy makers, economists, CEOs, innovators, and thought leaders. The St Petersburg International Economic Forum provides a space for emerging economies to shape global economic discourse, influence trade rules, and negotiate developmental priorities.

In this regard, South Africa supports the increasing inclusion of voices from the Global South at the St Petersburg International Economic Forum. We support the growing participation of delegates from Africa, Latin America, and Asia. It is essential that this platform not only reflects actively but actively amplifies the aspiration and strategic interest of developing economies.

The St Petersburg International Economic Forum’s value lies in its unique capacity to breach geopolitical divides and promote dialogue beyond the dominant narratives. It enables countries with diverse histories, economies, and political systems to find common ground in promoting trade, innovation, and sustainable development. In an era of growing polarization, the St Petersburg International Economic Forum is a vital pillar for pragmatic cooperation.

South Africa is prepared to contribute to the promotion of cooperation and collaboration among nations, in order to benefit all. We believe that a more equitable, prosperous, and tranquil world can be achieved through collaboration.

This year, South Africa has the privilege of presiding over the G20. We have prioritised issues like debt sustainability, global financial reform, access to technology, and inclusive economic recovery. We are championing the representation of Africa in global decision-making structures, including the full integration of the African Union into the G20 framework. We are also working to ensure that global economic policy aligns with the goals of Africa’s Agenda 2063 – the African Union’s blueprint for inclusive growth and sustainable development. It promotes industrialisation, connectivity, regional integration, and the African continental free trade area.

We offer a compelling value proposition to global investors and partners. We regard ourselves as a gateway to Africa, rooted in a democratic governance, a robust financial system and world-class infrastructure. Our institutions are strong. Our people are resilient. And our vision is clear. We aim to be a centre of innovation, inclusive industrialisation, and green growth.

Moreover, South Africa brings to the table decades of multilateral experience, a commitment to peace-building and development cooperation, and a bridge-building role between advanced and emerging economies. We do not merely seek partnerships – we offer solutions grounded in African realities and global aspirations.

In doing so, South Africa hopes to cement G20 priorities in African reality, ensuring that the recovery from global crises does not exacerbate inequality but rather creates opportunities for inclusive transformation. We are pushing for a new international development-funded agreement that resolves historical inequalities, whilst also preparing the Global South to respond to future shocks with resilience.

Speaking of resilience, we need to reinvigorate multilateralism. The multilateral order is under pressure, and economic nationalism is on the rise. At the same time, we face collective challenges that require urgent cooperation: climate change, energy transitions, food insecurity, global health disparities, and digital inequalities.

It is in this context that we must reaffirm the principles of mutual respect, sovereignty, equality, and solidarity. We must resist a return to protectionism and instead build a global trading system that is transparent, rule-based, and inclusive.

Developing economies must have greater representation in global-standing setting institutions. We must accelerate the reform of the World Trade Organisation, the International Monetary Fund, and other Bretton-Woods institutions to reflect contemporary global realities. Through strengthening multipolarity, we are able to harness the collective power of our nations to construct a future that is more sustainable for future generations.

South Africa is prepared to do its share in promoting international cooperation and collaboration for the future of all nations. The future is not being written in board rooms in the Global North alone; it is being written in the towns of East Africa, in the innovation corridors of Southeast Asia, in the minds and digital labs of Latin America, and the energy, agriculture, and science sectors of Eurasia.

The St Petersburg International Economic Forum is one of the few remaining global platforms where this future can be shaped in dialogue. Let us then seize the moment; let us invest in partnerships that are equitable and mutually beneficial. Let us pursue sustainable growth. South Africa stands ready to work with all partners gathered here to forge a new era of cooperation, shared prosperity, and enduring peace.

Thank you very much.

Nadim Koteich: Thank you so much for the heavily loaded speeches that will only make my mission more difficult.

I’d like to start with President Putin. The overarching theme of this years’ forum is “Shared Values in a Multipolar World”. This is a very high ambitions’ ceiling. What does Russia bring to the table on that regard?

Vladimir Putin: I attempted to convey this in my speech. It seems to me that everything that Russia is doing is aimed at uniting the efforts of all our partners, friends, and everybody who wants to work with Russia to address these global civilisational challenges.

And above all, we seek to make global development balanced and consistent with the interests of as many countries as possible, to shape a multipolar world order where members of the international community would agree with each other and create tools enabling them to find solutions even in most complex conditions – solutions that would benefit everybody rather than certain groups or associations, military or economic blocs.

It is my opinion that today’s meeting, this event, organised by Russia, as you know, serves precisely this purpose.

Nadim Koteich: Sometimes, Mr President, this effort to build a multipolar world seems like more of a resistance of an existing order, rather than a genuine, consistent, coherent effort to create a multipolar world that you’re talking about. Is it an objective-driven effort or it’s only resisting current unfavourable kind of order?

Vladimir Putin: To my mind – and I have already spoken about it on various platforms in the past – changes are occurring regardless of whether we facilitate these changes or not. These are objective global development trends.

In my remarks, I also stated, as I have stated repeatedly, including at the St Petersburg Forum last year, that changes in the world are of a fundamental nature, occurring due to the emergence of new economic leaders.

Look how the so-called G7’s share in the global economy has shrunk in recent years. It continues to shrink year after year. And look how the share of BRICS countries is growing.

This is an objective process, independent of any clashes or acute armed conflicts worldwide. This process has continued for decades. And when they claim that Russia has only recently pivoted toward relations with the Global South and Asia – well, this is incorrect. We made this decision long ago, in alignment with persisting global and objective trends.

Our colleague from South Africa has just said that Africa will soon have a population of 2.5 billion. You know, this is a hard fact. It will happen and nothing can stop it. What will all these countries, peoples and continents strive to do? To improve the well-being of their peoples. They will definitely strive to increase their economic and humanitarian potential. These are inevitable things that are happening to our civilisation.

Our task is to give this inevitable process a civilised framework and to undertake joint efforts that will not only accelerate these trends but also render them more balanced. This is to ensure that decisions are timely, most effective, and mutually beneficial for all participants in this transformation, including, incidentally, those nations that are gradually yet inevitably ceding some of their former positions in the global economy.

We remain willing to negotiate with them as well, prepared to seek common ground on all matters, if they genuinely want this. But should they insist on preserving their monopoly at any cost, should they cling to the instruments of colonial influence in global affairs, then they must reconcile themselves with the diminishing position they inevitably assume through such conduct.

This encapsulates the purpose behind all our efforts – both in the national dimension, with due account for our domestic and foreign policy, and in collaboration with our friends and partners.

Nadim Koteich: And obviously, they have the tools to cripple this endeavour that you just summarised, Mr President.

So, I would ask President Prabowo of Indonesia.

Indonesia has always walked a fine line, has always, as you mentioned in your speech, been a non-aligned state. But, as the world becomes more and more complicated, can Asian countries – ASEAN countries – stay non-aligned, or is this more and more not an option? Or a very narrow option, as we go forward?

Prabowo Subianto: Thank you. I think, in my opinion, it is not easy, but it is a line that we are determined to maintain. As I said, we respect all the great powers. We respect our neighbours. And we really believe that the only way for prosperity is collaboration, cooperation, and peaceful coexistence. And this is what we try to achieve. We want to maintain good relations, and we try to convince all parties that the only way forward in this is that this planet is getting smaller, and we cannot afford the rivalry that is going nowhere. Especially if it goes into confrontation. So, no, I am convinced that we have to maintain this path of non-alignment.

Nadim Koteich: Mr Vice Premier of China, China and Russia are building with others this new order in the world. But if you look last year, things started to ease up between Moscow and Washington; there is more dialogue between President Donald Trump and President Putin. Is this a source of concern for you and China? How do you see the developing relationships between the leading powers in the world?

Ding Xuexiang (retranslated): Thank you for your question.

First of all, I would like to state our firm position to President Putin and all forum participants, our friends. China welcomes the restoration of contacts between Moscow and Washington. Russia and the United States are two leading world powers and permanent members of the UN Security Council. It would be abnormal for them not to maintain contact.

The restoration of contacts between Russia and the United States – the revival of this cooperation – would benefit the entire world by fostering greater global stability and supporting world economic recovery.

China-Russia relations are deeply rooted in history. China and Russia are each other’s largest neighbours, and the friendly cooperation between our countries is developing very well. It is founded on mutual benefit, aligned with historical logic, the cultural traditions and strategic interests of both nations. The China-Russia friendship remains unsusceptible to external influences and is not directed against any third country.

Under President Xi Jinping’s and President Putin’s strategic leadership, China-Russia relations have reached an unprecedented level in history and stand strong and unbreakable like a rock.

As you said, global powers have significant influence over the world order and play crucial roles in its protection. President Xi Jinping has repeatedly urged, across multiple international platforms, that major powers should exercise appropriate responsibility.

As far as I understand, the global powers must, firstly, actively fulfil their international commitments and lead efforts to uphold the UN-centric world order, while adhering to the principle of sovereign equality of states, big and small alike, and safeguard international justice and equity, honouring their pledge to reject hypocrisy and promote greater predictability in global affairs.

China is a responsible global power, invariably serving as a stabilising factor amid international turbulence. We are ready to collaborate with all nations in advancing prosperity around the world.

This is my answer. Thank you.

Nadim Koteich: Thank you so much.

Sheikh Nasser,

Bahrain is a very unique country. You have very good, exceptional relations with Washington, yet you are here today representing your country and His Majesty as a guest of honour in the St Petersburg forum. This is a very unique feature. Those who know Bahrain would say that this aligns with the history of Bahrain as a trade hub, as a political bridge. But how are you manoeuvring and navigating a more and more polar world, with the set of skills and experiences you have in the realm of bridging between East and West?

Sheikh Nasser bin Hamad Al Khalifa: Well, you have mentioned briefly the history. Let me take you back nearly 5,000 years ago. The job of Bahrain where it maintained the between East and West.

So, I believe Bahrain, with its geographic position in the region and certain service in the world, we have no choice but to be the arms and the bridges between the East and West. We have no choice but to follow our wise leadership, not just in Bahrain, but in the GCC in total, where we all share a new state of mind: it is the so-called the single-issue alliance. By single-issue alliance, I mean “I do not get my nation, and we do not get our region sucked into wars. I might agree with you in ten points, but disagree in eight, or vice versa. So, we take every point into verticals, and we discuss them.”

And, most important is how do we build on this relation? How do we maintain our relations? How do we seek to a better future? I’d always say: Our past is not better than our present, but I am sure our future should be better than our present.

So, this is what we are doing. We have seen great leadership here with His Excellence President Vladimir Putin, where he showed a stable, long-lasting enduring vision where does he want to take his country and move forward. We do the same. We always say that. We plan for the next generations.

Nadim Koteich: Thank you, Sheikh Nasser.

Vice President,

South Africa is, as well, one of these unique historical experiences in Africa and on the world stage. You said something very interesting about the St Petersburg forum being one of the very, very few places where shaping the conversation around geopolitics and geoeconomics is happening through dialogue. That is a very solid conclusion in today’s world. I’d like you to elaborate more – what did you mean by that, and why? What makes this one of the few and unique places for such a dialogue?

Paul Mashatile: Thank you very much for that question. I want to start by saying I think we should thank President Putin for his great leadership ensuring that, particularly, countries of the Global South should have platforms to be able to collaborate, share ideas, come up with new innovative plans.

As I said earlier, in South Africa we’ve taken a position that we should not continue to go to others for handouts. We should not be queueing for aid, but we should focus on development. And that countries of the Global South can do it. We can see it. We are developing, we are getting stronger; and I think we should keep it that way. So that is why I was saying that the St Petersburg International Economic Forum is a great platform and thank you to President Putin for this leadership. We are with you.

Nadim Koteich: Let me bring the conversation from values closer to the conflict areas in the world.

President Putin,

Israel said that they…I mean, the statements are normalising the fact that a country might kill the president of another country. That is basically the conclusion of last week’s statements. Yes, Ayatollah Khamenei is not a head of state, but he has enough gravitas to be considered the head of state and to be protected by the articles of international law. But when we normalise the idea – no matter where you stand on Iran – when we normalise the idea of a country killing the president of another country publicly, what kind of new rules are being set? They are obviously contradictory to the kind of values you’re trying to put forward, isn’t that so?

Vladimir Putin: You know, our colleagues have already spoken here, and I am making notes for myself for future reference. For example, I have noted what you have just said. You said the following.

During the discussion with my colleague from the People’s Republic of China, I noted your statement: “The Russian Federation and China are creating a new world order.” Russia and China are not creating a new world order; rather, we are only giving it form.

The new world order is emerging naturally, like sunrise. There is no escaping it. Our role is to help shape its contours, perhaps clearing the way for this process to become more balanced and aligned with the interests of the overwhelming majority of countries.

We strongly anticipate that all nations will come to recognise and eventually understand – as I have previously stated – that this approach to finding a solution proves far superior to coercive pressure or the neo-colonial paradigm in which humanity has lived for centuries, if not millennia.

Nadim Koteich: Would you allow me, Mr President, to go back to the question about normalising the talk about a country killing the president of another country, in the case of Iran and Khamenei and Israel within this conflict. I mean, it seems that those who are making the new values are not the Global South, obviously, not Russia, not China, it’s the Israelis. Are you comfortable with that?

Vladimir Putin: While I would strongly prefer that the issues you raised remain confined to rhetorical discussions, I must nevertheless ask for clarification. What do you mean regarding Israel?

Nadim Koteich: I mean, the new values now is that one country is setting the rules for another country that who has or doesn’t have enrichment, for example. One country is threatening to kill the president or the head of that country.

Are these values defendable in any way?

Vladimir Putin: To me, there is nothing new about it. This is the first.

Second, and I wish to emphasise it, the Russian Federation has consistently advocated for guaranteeing every nation’s security without compromising that of any other state. This remains our principled approach.

This may sound like a generalised answer but let me assure you: it is the actionable policy of the Russian Federation.

Nadim Koteich: Allow me for a very direct question about the situation.

Donald Trump is seeking what he calls the total surrender of Iran in terms of the nuclear project. Would Vladimir Putin seek the total surrender of Vladimir Zelensky in the same way?

Vladimir Putin: First, these situations are fundamentally different. Second, our objective is not Ukraine’s surrender. We insist that Ukraine recognise the established territorial realities.

Nadim Koteich: Sheikh Nasser, I’ll go back to you. You see, this conversation unveils the level of tensions on the global theatre. I will go back to the question about how GCC countries keep moving from one success to another, and Bahrain is one of these successful countries. Despite all of these turbulences, despite all of these flashpoints, in your close vicinity and globally, how do you do that, and what lessons can be drawn from that by others?

Sheikh Nasser bin Hamad Al Khalifa: Let me start by saying, ‘Praise the God’ for a wise leadership we have in our region. We always say, ‘the clever tries to solve the problem, but the wise avoids it.’ So, us in the GCC, and especially in your second home in Bahrain, I love that President Putin loved that quote, and you can use it, Mr President, no copyrights on that.

In our country, we talk numbers, we talk facts, we project our plans. As what we saw today from the President of Indonesia, this is a man who is expediting his KPIs by far. He thinks that he will reach in four years’ time that goal, but he reached it in one year’s time. We are sprinting in our region, and if you go back today, especially during that turbulent and eventful nights, look at the numbers, look at the numbers of our real estate, look at the numbers of our stock markets. There is a lot of confidence from the people, from the investors, with our leaderships over there.

Today, in that beautiful city, I sat with the top chairmen and CEOs of your top companies in Russia, and we exchanged the same vision, we exchanged the same purpose and the same spirit during these conflicts. We are only looking forward. We are only looking to de-escalate. We are only looking for a peaceful world. We are only looking for a better future. And, Mr President, we in the GCC and especially in the Kingdom of Bahrain, we live in a constant sunrise like you, but here we are literally in St Petersburg, every day there is a sunrise ahead of us. I still haven’t seen nighttime.

Nadim Koteich: Mr Vice President, as I mentioned earlier, South Africa has a very unique position in history in terms of how it evolved, in terms of how it fixed its wrongs and mistakes and then fixed its history. One of the things that came to my mind when I was preparing for this is the experience of de Klerk, the last president of the apartheid regime. The thing is that he made himself part of the change, and that saved South Africa a lot of blood and destruction and chaos. What lesson can be drawn from this history? When a regime or a state or an idea hits a wall, how can you advise these states or these regimes to change the same way South Africa changed?

Deputy President of the Republic of South Africa Paul Mashatile: Well, de Klerk is not a good example because he was defeated. He was forced to come to the table by the masses of our people. He didn’t come voluntarily. What we are saying is that leaders must recognise that we can resolve our differences through peaceful means but there are those who need to be directed to them, and I think the example of de Klerk is quite that. He was directed to the negotiating table by the masses of our people, and we were quite happy once he came. He had no option. He had to participate. He did try to portray himself like he’s Nelson Mandela. He’s not. He was directed there by Nelson Mandela to say, “We are going to negotiate peace,” and we want to continue to share this example with other countries.

We are quite involved now in the African continent, engaging in peaceful negotiations in South Sudan, in the DRC, and other places. So, yes, there is indeed value in negotiating, in discussions, but there are situations where the masses have to stand up, and they have to fight for their rights, and that’s what we did in South Africa.

Nadim Koteich: Mr President, you were shaking your head when we were exchanging this question. What are your thoughts on bringing adversaries to the table? Is defeat a prerequisite for dialogue, or we can bypass this phase and go to dialogue? And there are so many crises in the world that cannot afford a victorious end.

President of the Republic of Indonesia Prabowo Subianto: Well, I have to say here that Nelson Mandela is one of my greatest icons, my greatest hero. I think he’s an inspiration. He was put in prison for many years.

He was sentenced to death, threatened to be sentenced to death, accused of many things, and his famous statement was that he was willing to give his life for the principle of freedom. But the greatness of Nelson Mandela: when he got out of prison, he worked for reconciliation with his former enemies. So this is the greatness of Nelson Mandela, and this I try also to carry out in my domestic politics.

I reconciled with many of my former opponents. For instance, we had a very long rebellion, separatist rebellion in Aceh, very long, I think more than 30 years. But can you imagine that the former commander of the Aceh Liberation Army, fighting against us for more than 25 years, now he joined my party. He’s in my political party, and he’s now governor of Aceh, and I’m President of Indonesia. This shows that former enemies can come together, and I think this is the lesson of Nelson Mandela.

I want to say: I was a former soldier, and as a former soldier, I really know the value of peace and reconciliation. As a former soldier, I always try now, even before, I always try to negotiate. Negotiate, negotiate, negotiate. Better to talk than to kill each other. This is my position. Always talk, always negotiate.

Nadim Koteich: President Putin, on a more practical question concerning the crisis in the Middle East, now we will talk about Ukraine in a while, but the current crisis, it touches on geopolitics, energy, and it has repercussions that go beyond the parties involved in the struggle.

Is it a test for how the South can play a role in mending the fences between both countries, in putting some good imagination around the solution, architecting a solution that can be acceptable by two parties that are fighting, you know, head-to-head? Is this a test for what you are proposing and trying to create as political weight for the South?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, I believe it is quite possible. Experience and reality demonstrate that many states of the region maintain in some ways complex and in some ways stable relations with both Israel and Iran. This provides reasonable grounds to believe – and indeed to hope – that the Global South collectively, and regional actors specifically, can exert influence to help put an end to this acute phase of confrontation.

When I said that Russia’s principled position is that no country’s security should be guaranteed at the expense of other countries’ security, here we have (without delving into detail, as the context is clear), on the one hand, Iran’s uranium enrichment programme, Iran’s legitimate right to carry out such activity, its right to peaceful nuclear energy development; and, on the other hand, there is Israel’s security concerns. I am convinced that a mutually acceptable solution can be found. Countries of the Global South, especially countries of the region, can undoubtedly have a positive influence on this process, on this search for solution. I believe such a solution exists.

Nadim Koteich: Actually, today, the Russian Ambassador at the UN said that the only way forward is a political solution for the nuclear file between Iran and the Israelis. Are there any preliminary points about the solution or are we still too fat from that?

Vladimir Putin: In such situations, it’s always better not to run ahead so as not to upset the process. That said, in my opinion, there are certain points of common interest.

We have set forth our position to both parties. As you know, we maintain contact with Israel as well as with our friends in Iran. We do have certain proposals involving Russia.

I must emphasise that we are by no means positioning ourselves as intermediaries. We are merely putting forward ideas. Should these ideas prove to be appealing to both countries, we will be simply pleased.

I will repeat, we maintain contact with Israel. As you are aware, not so long ago, I spoke with Prime Minister Netanyahu, as well as with the President of Iran and the President of the United States, who are certainly directly involved in these developments. I presented them with my vision and a potential path to resolving the situation. We will see.

Our proposals remain under discussion. We maintain near-daily contact with our Iranian friends, so we will see how the situation unfolds. I would like to see our ideas among those implemented.

Nadim Koteich: Sheikh Nasser, during the King’s visit to Moscow, he explicitly talked about the role of Russia in maintaining peace in the Middle East. It was an initiative His Majesty put forward during the Arab Summit in Bahrain, in Manama. He was very particular about the role of Russia in achieving that peace, as a pivotal role. What role do you think Russia can play now, in the current crisis?

Sheikh Nasser bin Hamad Al Khalifa: Yes, you are right. During our previous visit, and after the Arab Summit that was conducted in the Kingdom of Bahrain, we have called out for World Peace Forum to end and to reach to a solution with every conflict. His Majesty is a leader of peace. He drives his country towards peace and ending conflicts, and so is President Putin. As you have heard from the President just now, that he continues talking, no mediation. I believe that mediation will always confuse the situation, but any suggestion, any words of wisdom these days are mostly needed. Avoiding the escalation, I think, is the key word of today.

Nadim Koteich: Thank you, Sheikh Nasser. I’ll go back to President Putin about Ukraine.

How is the war in Ukraine reflective of the values that the St Petersburg Forum is trying to put forward, to defend, to underscore?

Vladimir Putin: It is very easy to explain. And it is directly related to what we said before, what I said before. I said that no country’s security should be guaranteed at the expense of another country’s security.

From the early 1990s and for decades, we received repeated assurances that by no means, never, under no circumstances, NATO would expand eastward. After that, we have witnessed five, or effectively six, expansion waves. Despite our persistent objections, these were ignored. This is the first.

Without doubt, these represent rudimentary manifestations of the old, or even centuries-old, neo-colonial policy upgraded to a certain extent in order to align with contemporary trends, while retaining its fundamental nature. These are exercises of power politics that disregard the legitimate interests of the Russian Federation. This is my general assessment.

Regarding Ukraine, all developments there similarly constitute exercises of power politics. What am I referring to? The bloodstained anti-constitutional coup in Ukraine. What did this represent? More power politics. The previous US administration openly admitted it had invested billions of dollars in orchestrating the coup. These admissions were made publicly, without any constraint.

Our objective was to protect the population that historically and culturally identified with Russia, the Russian culture and its people – specifically, the residents of Crimea. Subsequently, we attempted to settle the situation in southeastern Ukraine, particularly in Donetsk and Lugansk. We made attempts.

However, once again resorting to power politics, our ideological adversaries, so to speak, chose to impose a military solution in Donetsk and Lugansk – in Donbass. It was not Russia that initiated hostilities. Following the anti-constitutional coup, part of the population in southeastern Ukraine rejected both the coup’s outcome and the authority of its perpetrators. It was against them that military operations were first launched.

We made attempts to achieve a peaceful resolution and to put together broken pieces, but our so-called “partners” (let’s put them in quotation marks now), as it was further revealed, initiated the peace talks for one purpose only: to arm Ukraine and continue these hostilities.

Ultimately, we had no choice but to recognise the independence of these republics – Lugansk and Donetsk. For eight years we refrained from such a decision, persistently pursuing diplomatic solutions. But eventually, we were forced to recognise their independence and extend our support, including military assistance, in order to end the war launched by our Western adversaries and by those whom they relied and continue to rely on now in Ukraine – the radical nationalists and neo-Nazis.

Therefore, responsibility for the tragedy in Ukraine lies not with Russia. It is the responsibility of those who refuse to reconcile with the global changes in the world.

Nadim Koteich: Mr President, I am in no position to challenge the narrative you put forward. Let’s say this is the baseline of what the reality is. Let’s assume this is the reality. Your army is advancing beyond the four areas that are considered Russian by Moscow. So, what is your endgame? How is your army going to go and for what effect?

Vladimir Putin: You mentioned the regions in Ukraine that we regard as part of Russia. I have stated on numerous occasions that, in my view, the Russian and Ukrainian peoples are essentially one people. In that sense, we see Ukraine as ours.

However, we also recognise the realities on the ground as they evolve. There are many individuals in the neighbouring country who are committed to asserting their sovereignty and independence, and we respect that. In fact, we have never denied the Ukrainian people’s right to independence and sovereignty.

At the same time, the foundation for Ukraine’s independence and sovereignty was clearly established in its 1991 Declaration of Independence, which explicitly states that Ukraine is to remain a non-aligned, non-nuclear, and neutral state. It would be constructive to revisit these core principles, as they formed the basis upon which Ukraine gained its statehood. That is the first and most fundamental point.

Secondly, from the very outset – when the conflict had already escalated significantly – we proposed to the Ukrainian leadership at the time that hostilities be halted immediately. We called for the withdrawal of Ukrainian forces from the regions where the local population had clearly expressed their desire not to remain within Ukraine, particularly in response to what they perceived as unconstitutional and anti-state actions. These people sought either independence or integration with Russia. Our proposals were rejected.

Furthermore, these are not purely political decisions, but rather the result of military logic. Military commanders assess terrain – rivers, hills, ravines – and determine the most strategic paths to advance while minimising casualties and achieving their objectives. As a result, the dynamics of military operations naturally lead to the presence of troops in various territories. There is an old saying, not quite a proverb, but a long-standing principle: wherever the foot of a Russian soldier steps is Russian land.

I do not want this to sound militaristic. But the truth is – and I want to emphasise this very clearly, as it is absolutely sincere – at every stage of the unfolding events, we proposed dialogue. We consistently urged our counterparts in Ukraine to stop and engage in negotiations.

We said: “Let us talk now, before the situation deteriorates further. Continued reliance on military action alone risks leading to more difficult circumstances, after which any negotiations would have to take place from a much less favourable position for you.” This scenario repeated itself more than once. I will not go into the specifics at this moment.

There are well-known political figures from other countries – thankfully still alive and well – who can personally attest to our repeated proposals to halt hostilities. On several occasions, after hearing our suggestions, they would leave Moscow for Kiev, but later on they would tell us: “We’re being accused of acting as Kremlin agents. That’s it, we are stepping back and will no longer be involved.”

Each time, the response we received was a firm “no.” And we warned: if this path continues, the consequences will be more severe. Still, they refused to engage. Why? Because certain actors, particularly in Europe, still operate with outdated, neocolonial mindsets. They believed that they could easily exploit the situation to their advantage by weakening, destabilising, or even dismantling Russia, all in the hope of reaping strategic or economic gains.

I am sure that this is why former Prime Minister Boris Johnson – undoubtedly at the urging of the former US administration and Mr Biden – travelled to Ukraine and advised against reaching any agreement with Russia. Yet the agreement was already on the table. During the negotiations in Istanbul, as I have said before, we had reached an almost complete consensus on nearly every issue. All that remained was to finalise the accord. I was prepared then to meet with the head of the regime and finalise it.

But no, they had to send Mr Johnson, clearly with the support of the then Biden administration, to dissuade Ukraine from signing the agreements. Instead, they attempted to secure what they called a “strategic defeat” of Russia on the battlefield. The result? New territories came under our control. The Russian Armed Forces are now advancing daily along the entire line of contact.

Look at what they have done – they entered our Kursk Region. First, they lost 76,000 people there. That’s a catastrophe for them – 76,000! In the end, as we said, we pushed them out. But they started posing a threat all along our state border with Ukraine, in two other neighbouring regions as well.

What has this led to? They already lack manpower, and now we’ve had to establish a security zone along large sections of the border, forcing them to divert troops – troops they can’t spare – from critical parts of the frontline.

I have said it before: combat units are only 47 percent manned. Just 47 percent. They are losing combat capability. And on top of that, they have stretched the line of contact by nearly 2,000 kilometres. We already had a 2,000-kilometre front, and now they have created new threats along the border, adding another 1,600 kilometres or so.

They have spread their armed forces thin. From a military standpoint, it’s hard to imagine a more strategically flawed decision. They are creating problems for themselves, and we are forced to respond.

You mentioned “some other territories.” Yes, that’s true. But specifically along the state border, they entered the Kursk Region, committing multiple crimes against civilians.

We pushed them out, inflicting huge losses in the process. And now we must establish security zones along the border because they keep launching artillery and drone attacks. What is this?

Nadim Koteich: How deep is the security zone?

Vladimir Putin: In the Sumy Region, the depth of our operations ranges from 10 to 12 kilometres. Around 8, in some others 10 or 12 kilometres. Then comes the city of Sumy, the regional centre. We don’t have an objective to take Sumy, but I would not rule it out either.

Why are we doing this? Because they are creating threats for us, constantly shelling border areas. This is the result of their utterly reckless, unjustifiable actions.

The only goal was political: to demonstrate that they still can receive something from their foreign sponsors. They have already received nearly $250 billion. But no, it’s never enough. They want more and more – and on top of that, half of it is being embezzled, if not more.

That’s why we are now operating in these territories. This is the logic of how the confrontation has unfolded and what has driven it.

Nadim Koteich: Thank you, Mr President.

I will later go back to some aspects of your answer – mainly about the nuclear aspect of what is happening. But I would like to go back to the other participants.

Indonesia, Bahrain and South Africa are three countries actively deepening relations with Russia. From what I understood, this conflict, unfortunately, and I hope I am wrong, might go longer, might go for long. How are you planning to mitigate the fallout of this conflict in terms of secondary sanctions, in terms of political reputation in the world, and in terms of pressure coming from your other allies. This is a very complicated situation you do not want to be in in any way but that is the reality. I will start with you, Mr President.

President of the Republic of Indonesia Prabowo Subianto: I really do not understand actually your question. What secondary sanctions?

Nadim Koteich: I will make it simple.

Prabowo Subianto: In Indonesia, we are very clear that we have always been non-aligned. In the Ukrainian situation, I think, two years ago, we proposed an immediate ceasefire in place and, I think, at that time, the reaction from the Russian side was quite open, was quite positive, in fact. But the reaction from the Western governments… I have to be fair, not all Western governments but many Western media virulently attacked my proposal. They said I was proposing the peace of the cemetery. That was what many Western journalists accused me of. So we will always propose a peaceful solution.

And at the time, I reminded everybody that, in Korea now, North Korea and South Korea, there is a demilitarisation zone supervised by the United Nations. The war in Korea is officially not yet over but there is a peaceful condition. So, that was what we proposed, to save the people of Ukraine on all sides – the people of the Russian-speaking areas. Just to save them. A cessation in place. We are far from the place but we want to promote a peaceful solution. So, I do not understand, who is going to impose sanctions on us?

Nadim Koteich: Sheikh Nasser, same question about the secondary sanctions on the friends of Russia. Let’s agree that this is part of the reality of the international dynamics and people take care of that, pay attention to that. How are you navigating this in terms of sanctions, in terms of reputation as well?

Sheikh Nasser bin Hamad Al Khalifa: Well, you mentioned it, the friends of Russia, but also the Kingdom of Bahrain, being the friend to the world, the link and the bridge between conflicts. We have always opened our arms as a…

I would never say that we are neutral. Neutral means siding with one side or another. I would say that we are peacekeepers, peace seekers. We are opening our arms. Bahrain is a platform for peace talks. So, what we try to achieve all the time by the guidance of His Majesty is we will always welcome – and you remember, Mr President, we actually offered that Bahrain is always ready for whenever there will be peace talks in your conflict then we are more than happy to host it.

So, if we can achieve that, then definitely we are benefitting something that we secure the world’s interest. Because, at the end of the day, with this conflict and what is happening from left, right and centre, I do not see any benefit out of it. I do not see one side as a loser and the other side as the winner. No one is going to get out of this victorious if we keep looking at the event-driven prospect of that whole image. But what we look for is how we can end up with a solution that is foresight in the future that builds our economy, that secures our generations, and how will we look and how will our world look in the next generation?

So, these are difficult questions to answer today because this is all in the future. But all that I know is today. If I go by every sunrise again, knowing what is happening today and what I see around me today, people are readjusting, people are reshuffling and people are expecting that, hopefully, with the leadership and the wise leadership of Mr Putin, something beneficial is going to happen.

So, I am an optimistic person. I look at these opportunities for my nation and for the better to everyone. So, if we seek together how we can bring these issues into solutions then we are on the right path. If we are not thinking this way, then we are definitely not thinking of a solution.

So, at the end of the day, let’s not get deep into these issues but let’s think forward and let’s readjust our posture of today and then this will shape our future together forward.

So, this is our navigating track, I think.

Nadim Koteich: Excellent. Mr Vice President, same question for you.

Deputy President of the Republic of South Africa Paul Mashatile: We are already facing tariffs as we speak. So, if we are going to face secondary sanctions, it is something that we have to deal with.

I did say earlier that the road to multipolarity is not going to be easy. All the things we want to do to ensure equality in the world, not being dictated upon, those things are not going to come easy. But it is always important that, in times of difficulty, friends must stay together, so that we face the challenges together.

I want to recall here the famous words of former president Nelson Mandela. In times of difficulties, when others tried to say, “Why do you go to this country?” He said: “We are not going to be dictated upon who our friends should be. We choose our friends, we work with our friends even in times of difficulties.”

So, the countries of the Global South must work together. We are already working together. We will face this challenge together, and I am sure we will succeed.

Nadim Koteich: Mr Putin, your satisfaction with the answers cannot be hidden in any way. Any comments?

Vladimir Putin: Listen, first of all, I never doubted it would turn out that way. Not because someone wants to cause harm to someone, or say something nice to them. This is not what it is about at all.

We have circled back to the beginning of our discussion, when I said that global changes take place naturally like the sunrise, you see. Everything is connected to that.

What did you say? “Russia and China are shaping a new world.” We are not breaking anything, you see? That is the issue. We are not creating problems for anyone. The Vice Premier of the State Council said, “The China-Russia friendship … is not directed against any third country.” That is true. That is exactly how it is. We are just formalising what is happening in the world naturally. It will happen anyway.

To bend under the pressure of those who want to preserve the old rules means to fall behind. But overcoming all the difficulties, including tariff wars, sanctions, and so on, means moving forward. We are friends with and cooperate with those who want to move forward, who accept this challenge, and are ready for it.

Nadim Koteich: In a previous answer about Ukraine, you mentioned the nuclear aspect of Ukraine in a very subtle way. To be honest, I have read some reports, most of them are in Russian media, that there is an assumption that Ukraine might opt for using a dirty bomb against Russia. Do you take these reports seriously? Do you have intelligence that supports this kind of probability?

Vladimir Putin: First of all, it would be a colossal mistake on the part of those who we refer to as neo-Nazis on the territory of present-day Ukraine. It might even be their last mistake. Our nuclear doctrine, common sense, and the way we operate in real life indicate that we always respond to threats posed to us in a symmetrical manner. We always respond and always symmetrically.

Therefore, our response would be extremely tough and, most likely, catastrophic for the neo-Nazi regime, and unfortunately, for Ukraine itself. I hope it never comes to that.

Nadim Koteich: From the tone of your answer, I can conclude that you take these reports seriously. Is there evidence supporting these reports? Like intelligence evidence?

Vladimir Putin: No, thankfully, we have no confirmation of any such intentions. However, we operate on the premise that someone with a sick imagination might come up with such ideas. I believe I have provided a comprehensive answer with regard to our potential response.

Nadim Koteich: You absolutely did.

We were talking about friendship a while ago and the friends of Russia in this panel. I would start from South Africa, then Bahrain and then Indonesia. And if China would love to comment on that, the floor is open.

Are you surprised that a friend of Russia, Iran, is under attack and Russia did not step up to help that ally? This is at least one of the narratives in the media. Where is Russia in this conflict? As friends, are you surprised?

Deputy President of the Republic of South Africa Paul Mashatile: President Putin has already indicated that he has been in discussions with Israel and also in discussions with Iran on these matters, and offered solutions. We think that is the correct way to do it. So we are not surprised; in fact, we support that approach that he is taking. South Africa is one of the non-aligned countries. We always advocate for peaceful solutions of this conflict. Our president has already issued a statement in that regard, [saying] that there should be negotiations. And that is really the route that we are going to pursue.

Sheikh Nasser bin Hamad Al Khalifa: Well, let me make it simple to you. I like making things nice and simple. To prove friendship, if I can make a Russian laugh right now, then I am a good friend of Russia. I hear one over there that laughed, so that's more than enough.

Nadim Koteich: Mr President, before I go back to you, Mr Putin, [will you comment] on that question, please.

President of the Republic of Indonesia Prabowo Subianto: My position is the logical one: each country is responsible and will defend its own national interests. So, being friends is being friends, trying to cooperate and trying to help each other. But being friends does not mean that every country must [sacrifice] their national interests for another country’s national interests. So it will be the decision of every country to defend and protect its national interests. That is my position.

Nadim Koteich: President Putin, you are taking some notes on that, and I would add one aspect, if you allow me.

Vladimir Putin: We put everything down, mind you. Every step is documented, every single step. (Laughter.)

Nadim Koteich: Am I in trouble?

Vladimir Putin: You will cope with them. And we will even help you. (Laughter.)

Nadim Koteich: So in Western media, there are reports saying the following, and I leave the opportunity for you to comment on that: actually, the Iran war is a good thing for Russia. First, oil [price] is up. Second, the West has one more problem on its table to take care of. And third, Ukraine is on the back burner, so all the news is on Iran rather than on Ukraine. How would you comment on that?

And what do you say for those who are saying that Russia is unreliable, a lie, because it did not step up for Iran?

Vladimir Putin: Those who promote narratives about Russia being an unreliable ally are provocateurs. They are provoking the situation. But it will not help them; they will not achieve their goals.

Because, first of all, conflicts only look similar. But as a former Defence Minister and to some extent a military conflict and an armed confrontation theorist – my distinguished colleague from Indonesia, who is now the President of that country – accurately noted – we have published his book on the art of war in Russian – “Every country is responsible for what happens within its borders.”

Now, regarding whether Russia is a reliable ally, or not. It has already been mentioned here that we must show certain solidarity, and that is true. But in every case, conflicts are, nevertheless, fairly unique.

I want to draw your attention to the fact that nearly two million people in Israel are immigrants from the former Soviet Union and the Russian Federation. Today, Israel is almost a Russian-speaking country. In modern Russian history, we have always taken that fact into account. That is the first point.

Second, we have traditionally had very good, trust-based, friendly, and allied relations with the Arab and Islamic world. Given that around 15 percent of our population is Muslim, we hold an observer status at the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. That is also a factor to reckon with. We must be mindful of these aspects.

We have friendly relations with Iran. First, we always fulfil our obligations – this also applies to the Russia-Iran track. We support Iran in its efforts to defend its legitimate interests, including its interest in peaceful nuclear energy. We have always maintained this position. Our principled stance on this matter and in this conflict has not changed.

Some say we should have done more. More in what sense? Launch military operations? We are already conducting military operations against those we see as opponents of the ideas that we defend, and those who pose a threat to the Russian Federation. Fundamentally, those forces are the same in Iran and in Russia. They are located somewhere in the rear areas, behind our backs. However, they are not the ones who are on the line of contact.

We have certain obligations, and we defend Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear energy not in words, but in actions. What does that mean? Despite the challenging situation surrounding Iran, we have built a nuclear reactor in Bushehr. We have signed a contract to build two more nuclear reactors. Despite the difficult situation, despite certain risks, we are continuing this work. We are not evacuating our personnel from there.

Moreover, relying on a certain level of relations with Israel and our improving relations with the United States, we raised this issue with Israel and President Trump. We will keep doing our work in Iran based on our view of Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear energy, and of us acting strictly within international law, and we request to ensure that our personnel remains out of harm’s way.

Prime Minister Netanyahu agreed with that, and President Trump promised to support our legitimate request. Does that not count as support of Iran? I believe it is direct support. In addition, we have adopted a particular stance at the UN.

I am deeply convinced that our position at the UN and elsewhere serves the interests of both Iran and the State of Israel.

Nadim Koteich: I would say probably enough with the politics, so one more question before you move to economy and other issues about AI.

The forum this year coincides with the 80^th anniversary of commemoration of the Day of Victory in World War II. Are you concerned that we are heading into World War III in any way?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, I am. I mean it. No irony, no jokes.

The conflict potential abounds and it is growing. Right under our noses – and this directly concerns us – there is a conflict that we are enduring in Ukraine. There are the developments in the Middle East as well. Without a doubt, we are very concerned about the events related to Iran’s nuclear facilities and potential ramifications.

Without a doubt, this requires us to not only focus on the unfolding events, but also to look for solutions, preferably peaceful, across all areas.

I mean it sincerely. This is one of reasons we have come together here.

Nadim Koteich: Vice Premier, back to you. We’ll talk more about economic endeavours now; it concerns you more than anything else as we agreed before at this panel. Sanctions are not only in the realm of politics or military. Some countries are even militarising education, militarising technology and innovation research. And this is a big worry for China, or it is a challenge that China takes very seriously. How are you mitigating that through the relationship with Russia and in the realm of your own sovereignty and decisions with other allies?

Ding Xuexiang (retranslated): Thank you for the question.

Let us take a look at the world in its entirety. Research, technology, and education are of great – unprecedented – importance for the progressive development of humanity.

All of that progress would have been impossible without cooperation between different peoples and countries, without mutual learning. That is why education, research, and technology are an indispensable factor for the further development of human society.

As you mentioned, lately – it is not a recent development – seven or eight years ago, certain countries started using diktat that was based on force. It has even come to the point where they obstructed international cooperation in research, technology, and education. This historical regression is causing serious damage to the sustainable development of humanity.

It is gratifying to note that China and Russia are making rapid strides and cooperating in education, research, and technology. One can safely say that our countries provide one of the best examples of cooperation.

Speaking about education, our cooperation is burgeoning across all areas, including student exchanges and language instruction, and has reached a very high level. Over 800 universities from our countries are forming 15 specialised university associations.

Speaking of the research and technology sector, we have created a joint institute for fundamental research and created top-of the-line joint laboratories. We are successfully carrying out joint mega-research projects and expanding mutual open access to research equipment. In other words, we have impressive results to show.

I believe that even without any particular “great power,” the world continues to move forward dynamically. Even without them, we would have made good progress. There is no need to worry about that.

China’s experience in recent years shows that the stronger the external pressure, the faster the progress and development. The Americans have been trying to block the development of our research and technology, and not just today or yesterday, they have been doing this for decades. But their attempts only make us stronger in the areas they are targeting. All current restrictions are doing is providing us with a strong incentive to pursue tomorrow’s development.

In May of this year, President Xi Jinping and President Putin held a productive meeting. They outlined new plans for advancing cooperation in education, research, and technology. I believe that once these agreements get implemented, they will further expand the scale of our cooperation and broaden its scope, especially in the fields such as artificial intelligence, low-carbon technologies, biotechnology, innovative materials, aviation, and outer space exploration. These are scientific and technological innovations. We will undoubtedly have an impressive package of achievements in these areas.

Our cooperation mechanisms are being improved. The governments of both countries are making every effort to promote cooperation in these sectors.

Thank you.

Nadim Koteich: Mr Putin, I listened very carefully to your speech and you mentioned investments, but it wasn't that clear about foreign direct investments. Where does Russia stand on that? Where do you stand on that? Do you still care about foreign direct investments? Do you see it as an opportunity or as a burden? Help us understand where Russia stands in this regard.

Vladimir Putin: We believe that private investment is what we need, and the Russian economy is unlikely to develop effectively without this. Well, this also concerns foreign investment in full measure.

We did not evacuate our investors (who worked here for a long time) from Russia, and we did not expel anyone from our country. Many investors quit of their own accord, suffering major losses. But our policy in this sphere has not changed.

Yes, in principle, our economic operators boast a sufficiently impressive investment potential, but we certainly welcome any foreign investment.

In the first quarter of 2025, fixed capital investment volumes soared by 8.7 percent. I know that certain problems facing Russia were discussed on the sidelines of the forum; this includes tensions linked with the high key interest rate, and investment will not be retained until the end of the year. Nevertheless, the Central Bank assumes that, in late 2025, the real economy will continue to borrow loans at 10–11 percent interest. We shall see how this works out. I would really like this to come true.

But we certainly welcome foreign investment, and we will do our best to create favourable conditions, so that our partners would feel comfortable here.

Our friend from Bahrain is present here. They have already reached an agreement with the Russian Direct Investment Fund on launching specific work. The first steps have been taken. These projects may not be very impressive, totalling about 15 billion rubles. We are working very actively with the United Arab Emirates in the field of sovereign funds. We are cooperating with Saudi Arabia and other countries. By the way, our partners and our friends did not make this decision yesterday or today; they made it several years ago. They trust their Russian partners and simply automatically (I would like to emphasise, automatically) co-invest in projects financed by Russia’s Direct Investment Fund – 10 percent.

They are doing this promptly, without inquiring about future results. This is a sign of their high trust, and we appreciate this very much. Later, they invest more and more. You should speak with Mr Kirill Dmitriyev who will provide the final statistics. This involes many billions of dollars.

It is possible to use this also through other sources and tools. We have virtually no restrictions for our foreign partners, in terms of applying their efforts and channelling their capital. I believe that this is a key trend in our cooperation.

Nadim Koteich: Having said that, there are two trends that I realised talking to Russian businessmen, either here or back in my country, UAE. A, there is a kind of rejection of buyback. You know, when the war happened, there were some foreign investments that were bought by Russians, and now these might want to buy back their investments.

Russia seems to be blocking that, because new Russian entrepreneurs bought and invested in these operations. The second trend that I realised is that people are a little bit worried about nationalisation. There are some nationalisation efforts taking place within Russia.

I heard, I mean, I read about one of the airports being bought back or even taken by force of court from the Russian owners. So, how do you see these two trends impacting the rebound of the Russian economy?

Vladimir Putin: Nationalisation cannot have a positive effect on Russia’s economic growth, and we realise that. As far as I understand, the case you mentioned is the case of Domodedovo Airport in Moscow.

I apologise for my language but the fuss surrounding this facility has persisted for quite some time. The dispute between the entities involved did not emerge recently. It has continued for many years before ultimately being resolved through judicial proceedings. This case has nothing to do with nationalisation.

Nationalisation is a process stipulated by law. We do not enforce this law or its provisions.

As I previously said during a meeting with the business community, in my opinion, the problem is that during privatisation, significant injustice occurred. Assets worth probably millions were privatised for a nominal price of one ruble. This is clear. From a standpoint of social justice, those decisions were far from perfect. However, it would be an even bigger mistake to reverse everything now.

Therefore, my opinion is, we must establish clear statutory limitations for such transactions and resolve this matter once and for all, conclusively.

The situation you described has nothing to do with de-privatisation.

Regarding the potential return of our partners, so-called “buyback,” several aspects also need careful consideration.

First, we need to identify which companies left our market, under what circumstances, and on what grounds. If some companies departed for political reasons, under the pressure from the political elites in their home countries, this makes them unreliable partners. Their withdrawal put their workers at risk of losing their jobs. This appears to have been the intended outcome. However, the negative impact was mitigated as Russian businesses took over management and filled the opening niches. Frankly, from this perspective, those decisions ultimately changed the quality of the Russian economy by enabling our business leaders to join the management of these companies or become owners.

However, where legally binding agreements exist that guarantee buybacks, well, Russian companies will have to honour these obligations. We support fostering reliable and stable business relationships, yet this has not always been reciprocated by all parties.

In light of these considerations, the Russian Government has received instructions to take action. I am asking members of the parliament to endorse the proposed regulatory improvements. It is necessary to ultimately decide on the return of international companies seeking to re-enter our market. We must support everything that benefits us.

Nadim Koteich (addressing Prabowo Subianto): Mr President, how is your country taking advantage of the current economic situation in Russia? You know, people have left, and businesses have left, too. There are opportunities in the market now for a country like Indonesia. How are you leveraging the situation?

Prabowo Subianto: As I mentioned, I have had good relations with Russian business entities and business groups, but mostly – I have to be very frank – they were interested and they are interested in coming into Indonesia. I think we have a lot of sectors that are still, let us say, at a ground level; they have a long way to grow, so basically, it’s mostly Russian groups that want to come to Indonesia.

But before this, our groups have joined ventures with Russian groups in commodities trading, oil and gas; and now we have opened our markets for Russian agricultural products. So, I think it’s not that we are going to take advantage, but we are going to look for all opportunities, because we have also been given a very heavy dose of tariffs. Everybody knows this, right? From the American market. So, we are forced to look for new markets – Africa, Latin America, Eurasia. We are in the process of concluding a free-trade agreement with the Eurasian Union. And the European Union, of course.

So, for us, it is a matter of diversity, but yes, we are confident; we have our strengths, we have our abilities and our relations with China are very good and very strong. So, we are optimistic, to say the least.

Nadim Koteich (addressing Paul Mashatile): Mr Vice President, there are many aspects of the economic relationship between South Africa and Russia, but one of the main aspects is the energy deficit in South Africa. You have been trying to mitigate or solve this problem by cooperating more with Russia in the realm of energy. So far, this hasn’t been as fruitful as you would want it to be, or as much as Russia is capable of helping. How do you assess this?

Paul Mashatile: Thank you for the question. Firstly, let me say that I have already had good meetings with both the prime minister and the president. We’ve agreed that we need to increase trade between our two countries. Currently, trade between South Africa and Russia is estimated at about $1.3 billion. We think this is quite low, so we want to triple that number in the next four or five years.

So, we have looked at various sectors. We’ve looked at the energy sector. Russia has a lot of good technologies in that space: we are looking at solar, gas, nuclear energy. Our ministers are already talking about the details. We have also talked about critical minerals, particularly, to support our local beneficiation efforts.

We also looked at agriculture. We are exporting citrus fruit to Russia. We are exporting wines. But we need to increase the volumes.

We have what we call the South Africa-Russia Business Council. They are also making deals on what we import from Russia. One of the businesspeople was telling me yesterday: yes, just sign the deal to import Russian vodka to South Africa, and obviously to the African continent.

So, the work has started. We all agreed that we need to do more; we need to increase trade between our two countries. What we have to do as well is cut the red tape. You know, some businesspeople are talking about bottlenecks: things that make it difficult for them to trade with their partners in South Africa: the financial situation, the currency, which our reserve bank is looking at, so that we make it easy for businesspeople to do business.

It is our commitment, and we’ve agreed on all these areas; as we speak, the ministers are already working on the details, including issues like water as well. They are also dealing with that, and infrastructure issues – railways, locomotives, signalling – really a lot of work is now happening. We’re going to see trade increasing between South Africa and Russia. We have started. Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: My colleague from South Africa said that vodka deliveries to the Republic of South Africa have been arranged. I would describe this as a correct and serious move. The reasons is that, as we say, if you drink vodka, you need something to eat with it. Therefore, vodka deliveries will certainly be followed by meat or grain supplies.

For example, we plan to set up a hub for the delivery of Russian wheat with our friends in Bahrain. I would like to remind you that Russia firmly holds first place in the world in wheat exports to the global market, which many Arab countries are interested in. We will proceed in this direction step by step.

As for energy resources, we have many possibilities in this sphere, including nuclear energy. I would like to remind you in this context that Rosatom is the undisputed leader in the world in the development of nuclear facilities. I believe it is currently building 22 nuclear power units across the world. This is more than anyone else is doing, which has put it ahead of all its rivals in the United States, Japan and other countries.

We are also considering joint projects in this sphere in other partner countries, including South Africa. There are many good and promising spheres apart from hydrocarbons, which goes without saying.

Nadim Koteich: There is no doubt that more vodka will help improve the mood in the world.

Vladimir Putin: At the very least, life will be more fun. That is for certain.

Nadim Koteich: Mr President, I will go back to the tensions in the Middle East, not from the geopolitical perspective, but from an oil-related aspect, which is the supply shocks expected in the market due to the Iranian-Israeli war that is taking place. Can Russia step in, or is your capacity constrained by sanctions and limitations?

Vladimir Putin: I have already told you what we are doing. What do you mean by step in?

Nadim Koteich: Can you step in to mitigate the supply shocks in the market due to the events? Can Russia do something about that, if this happens?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, of course. To begin with, it is not only about us. We strictly comply with all our arrangements in relations with our OPEC+ friends and partners. These countries deliberately limit the production of energy resources and their delivery to the global market.

On the other hand, production is being gradually increased as per our agreement. This is being done gradually, so as not to unbalance the global market but to ensure a balance of demand and supply, as we say in such cases, and fair prices that will be comfortable for both producer countries and consumer countries.

Of course, we see that the current situation in the Middle East created by a conflict between Iran and Israel has led to a certain price increase. But our experts believe that this increase is insignificant. How much is it now? US$75 per barrel, and the previous price was US$65. The price has risen by US$10 and has settled at the new level.

Many countries, including the Gulf states, can increase production and deliveries to the global market. But as I have said, we usually do this by agreement. I hope it will be like this now too. The United Arab Emirates are making a large contribution, and the Crown Prince has taken an extremely responsible stance on this matter. Once again, our decisions are always balanced. We will take a look at the matter together depending on the situation. There is no need for an immediate reaction so far.

Nadim Koteich: The latest sanctions on Russia aimed at the so-called shadow fleet, how will this impact the supply to Asia and other places, Africa? How would it impact Russia? How will it impact your friends as well?

Vladimir Putin: You know, the thing is, our adversaries and ill-wishers are constantly trying to come up with ways to damage us economically – and in the end, they are the ones who suffer most.

You just mentioned energy. According to our experts – and not just ours, I believe Eurostat also confirms this – the damage to the eurozone from giving up Russian gas alone is estimated at around 200 billion euros. They’ve lost 200 billion. Prices are rising across the board.

As for the so-called “shadow fleet” and related issues, our Chinese friend put it very well, in my view: wherever someone tries to strike a blow, we eventually come out stronger. Why? Because we always find an answer, a solution.

You mentioned tariff policies. Trade between the United States and China accounts for 20 percent of global trade. In the current situation, where debt levels, huge debt load across the global economy has already reached 300 percent – of course, this affects everyone. Any attempts to harm us, including through actions against the shadow fleet, will lead to broader problems. And mainly for those trying to, excuse the expression, mess with us. Because it will ultimately affect global prices and hit the very countries trying to do this because they are the main consumers. That is the outcome. As for us, we will find new markets.

Nadim Koteich: It is a very interesting tone in this answer. Let me ask you directly. This is my last question before I give one minute for each esteemed participant to finish, or to say some final thoughts. There are enough reports out there – credible reports – that this war is killing the Russian economy. Your inflation rate is very high. Your interest rate is very, very high. Your growth, by the most optimistic scenarios, will not exceed 1.5 percent this year. Is this war killing your economy?

Vladimir Putin: First of all, our debt is not growing – in fact, it is one of the lowest in the world. That is the first point.

Second, as for the idea of “killing” the Russian economy – well, to quote a well-known author, “Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated.” The same applies here.

The main indicator, after all, is GDP growth. Two years ago, Russia’s GDP grew by 4.1 percent; last year, by another 4.3 percent. If I remember correctly, global GDP growth was 3.3 percent. So we were growing faster than the global average. The United States grew at a rate of 2.8 percent, and the eurozone just 0.9 percent. Clearly, Russia is making real progress. And if you strip out everything related to hydrocarbons, our growth is even more significant: 7.2 percent two years ago, and almost five percent (4.9) percent in 2024.

But that is not the most important thing. It’s encouraging, of course, but what matters more is this: the structure of the Russian economy is changing. That is what is truly important. In our GDP growth, more than 43 percent now comes from non-oil-and-gas sectors, and not from defence either. A large share of our growth is concentrated in the core industrial sector, and not even in the defence-related part of it. I spoke about this in my remarks.

You know what truly encourages us? I consider this fundamentally important. We constantly talk about import substitution and have indeed allocated significant financial resources to substitute the products that have left our market due to sanctions or the departure of some Western companies. Currently, we are observing positive results: a growing range of products developed using domestic solutions and our own research and high technology development platform. The scope of these products is continuously expanding, which indicates a transformation in the Russian economy. This is one of our paramount goals and objectives.

Industrial production is expanding at a pace that exceeds Russia’s GDP growth. I believe in 2024, we recorded growth of approximately 7.2 percent. The first quarter of 2025, I believe, is already showing 1.6–1.9 percent. This upward trajectory remains steady.

These positive developments are occurring alongside rather low unemployment levels, with the current rate reaching a historic low of 2.3 percent.

Naturally, we are experiencing inflation as the price we pay for such vigorous economic growth. However, both the Central Bank and the Government are taking appropriate countermeasures, including maintaining the high key interest rate. You have probably observed the discussions in the Government and between the Government and the Central Bank. Yes, certainly, no simple solution exists but overall, we manage to address this challenge as well. After all, you see that the inflation rate is now in single digits. How much? I believe 9.6 percent. Ms Nabiullina will give me a nod. Around 9.6 percent, correct? Some are citing core inflation already at five percent. But I will not elaborate now. Two or three days ago, they lumbered me with an explanation of where these five percent come from. Ultimately, the Bank of Russia anticipates annual inflation around seven or eight percent. My personal expectation is seven. The trajectory confirms that Russia’s financial authorities’ measures are yielding tangible results.

There are plenty of challenges we must address. The Sberbank Chairman is smiling and nodding. He has a good reason to smile. Sberbank has achieved a margin of 5.7 percent. Major Western financial institutions typically report around 3.7 percent, you see? This is also a notable achievement.

There are aspects of the banking sector that require focused attention. But the overall financial landscape remains steady and predictable. I hope it will remain so.

Nadim Koteich: That was my final question. I will keep one minute around for each participant. If there is anything I failed to ask or something you have in mind. Mr President, go ahead.

Prabowo Subianto: I just like to thank President Putin and organisers of this forum for this great opportunity. I think we have learned a lot from each other. Thank you very much.

Nasser bin Hamad Al Khalifa: I will join my voice to you, Mr President. And I would like to thank His Excellency Mr Vladimir Putin, the President of Russia, for inviting us here to the beautiful St Petersburg, to listen to your wisdom and to share our thoughts with you all. Thank you very much.

Paul Mashatile: I would also like to thank President Putin for this invitation for us to participate in this important forum. It is my first time in this beautiful city of St Petersburg and we have learned a lot from the other leaders. We consider Russia and President Putin as our friend and ally. We look forward to continuing to work with President Putin and the people of Russia. I look forward to coming back to St Petersburg. Mr President, I have not had the time to see this beautiful city. Maybe tomorrow I might have some time to look around. But I look forward to coming back next year. Spasibo.

Nadim Koteich: President Putin, this is the second panel I have had the privilege and honour to have with you in less than one year. I cannot be more privileged. Thank you so much. You have always tolerated my questions and, you know, it is really a testament to your belief in open dialogue. Thank you very much, esteemed guests. Thank you everyone.

Vladimir Putin: Friends, colleagues, I would like to thank our moderator.

Thank you to my colleagues who took part in this discussion. I am confident that the audience enjoyed it — and not only the audience here as many statements will be circulated around the world. The remarks made today were noteworthy and engaging, which is important and corresponds with the intensity of the current events.

Thank you very much for being here with us today.

Meeting with heads of international news agencies

2025-06-20T13:05:22+04:00

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

First Deputy Director General of TASS News Agency Mikhail Gusman, moderator of the meeting: Mr President, colleagues,

First of all, I would like to say that I am honoured to moderate this meeting as a representative of the host organisation, TASS News Agency. I would like to express my gratitude to President Putin for accepting our initiative. Incidentally, this is your ninth meeting in this format.

It is notable that interest in these meetings is growing. I remember that my colleagues from Reuters told me after such a meeting last year that they did not recall so many breaking news reports published after a political meeting before.

You can imagine the interest in this year’s meeting. So many events took place over the past year, which seems to have flown by so quickly, that our colleagues were fighting for an opportunity to take part in this meeting, but not everyone managed to succeed. We have representatives from 14 leading news agencies with us today.

If I may, I suggest starting with questions and answers immediately because we know that you have had a very busy day today.

Shall we proceed?

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Yes, but first I would like to say a few words.

Mikhail Gusman: Certainly, Mr President.

Vladimir Putin: I would like to welcome everyone. Thank you for your interest.

We have just attended a short but very enjoyable concert, a high-quality performance. It is late, and we are in a good mood, so let us not prolong this. Let us all begin with the second octave C, which is a sign of professionalism for tenors, according to experts. Let us give each other the opportunity to do our best before retiring for the day. You will have a lot to do tomorrow and the day after.

Go ahead, please.

Mikhail Gusman: Our first speaker is our colleague from Vietnam, an outstanding journalist and General Director of the Vietnam News Agency Vu Viet Trang. It is worth noting that she is the first woman to head the Vietnam News Agency in its 75 years of existence. She enjoys high standing in Vietnam as a highly experienced and distinguished professional.

Ms Vu, the floor is yours.

General Director of the Vietnam News Agency (VNA) Vu Viet Trang: First of all, I would like to express our sincere gratitude to TASS News Agency for arranging this very special interview with President Vladimir Putin. And thank you for your time, Your Excellency.

Mr President, in your greetings to the 28th St Petersburg International Economic Forum, you affirmed that the discussions within the forum could help shape the future agenda and initiatives capable of changing the world for the better. Could you please elaborate on the initiatives and vision that the Russian Federation is pursuing to foster peace in the world built on mutual development? And what role does Russian cooperation with Asia and particularly South Asia, including Vietnam, play in advancing this agenda?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Everyone is familiar with our official agenda today, so I see no need to go over it. However, our goal is not as ambitious as trying to use this forum to exert influence on the international agenda or change anything. No, this forum has been held for a long time now, since the 1990s. It has been growing slowly and gaining more popularity.

As Mr Gusman just mentioned, with growing numbers of our partners joining us, the very fact of communicating and signing a considerable number of agreements, treaties, and memoranda is the ultimate purpose of our efforts in the current circumstances, which are, frankly, quite challenging. I do not think I need to explain what makes them so challenging, as there are armed conflicts, trade wars and so on out there. All of that hampers global trade. There is every reason to believe that forecasts predicting a slowdown in world trade are not without grounds.

If we think beyond the official agenda, our goal is to look for ways to overcome these challenges, one way or another, and to indirectly influence the global economic situation.

The forum will be attended by our colleagues from leading economies, which are significant in terms of the size of their economies and their influence on global economic processes. We expect that their involvement will be a factor in exerting a positive impact on these processes.

There is probably no need to repeat that we advocate for a just world order and for respecting the rules of the World Trade Organisation, rather than changing them month to month based on shifting political agendas. We firmly oppose all forms of trade wars, restrictions, and so on.

Our cooperation with Southeast Asia is making progress year in and year out. Trade is up. I will not cite absolute figures to avoid any inaccuracies, but growth is undeniable, and these are absolutely reliable facts that apply to all countries in the region, including Vietnam.

Regarding the region as a whole (I will speak about Vietnam separately in a moment), we consider it extremely promising, because the share of Southeast Asian countries in the global economy and their growth rates exceed the global average. We believe these countries are very promising partners.

We have special relations with Vietnam – everyone is aware of this – dating back to the 1950s and 1960s, especially during Vietnam’s quest for independence. Much time has passed since then, the world has changed, and our countries have changed, too, but the bonds of friendship and cooperation have remained intact.

We are pursuing many excellent joint projects, not to mention the well-known Tropical Centre and our energy cooperation, in which we are working both in Vietnam and the Russian Federation. We are willing to expand this cooperation, including by offering our Vietnamese friends opportunities to work in the Russian hydrocarbon sector.

However, our collaboration is not limited to that. We are cooperating in agriculture as well. It may seem unusual to some, but Vietnamese businesses have invested significant amounts – billions of dollars – into Russian agriculture. These projects have been functioning quite successfully in recent years. Our colleague is surely aware of the investments I’m talking about. We will continue to create all the necessary conditions to ensure Vietnamese entrepreneurs feel confident operating in Russia.

We have also made considerable progress in the humanitarian sphere, primarily professional training. Several thousand Vietnamese students are studying in Russia across various disciplines, both in higher education institutions and vocational schools. We will do our best to support this process, being fully aware that it benefits not only the Vietnamese side but also us, as we are building a strong human foundation for promoting future cooperation across all areas.

You may have noticed that during my last visit to Vietnam, the entire Russian delegation, including myself, met with graduates of Russian universities. It felt like we were back home in Moscow or St Petersburg. The atmosphere was very warm and friendly. These people are very enthusiastic and eager to work together, and, importantly, their capacity to do so is growing.

The most recent visit by General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam [To Lam] to Russia confirmed that our and our Vietnamese friends’ plans are absolutely realistic and achievable. I am confident that we will fulfil our goals.

Mikhail Gusman: Thank you very much, Mr President.

We will stay with the Asian region for now. I must admit, it is with a special feeling that I would like to pass the floor to our great friend, President of China’s Xinhua News Agency, Mr Fu Hua, who is sitting right next to you.

Aside from being a journalist, he is also a member of the Chinese Communist Party’s Central Committee, an expert in the history of the Chinese Communist Party and holds a doctorate in law. Last year, he attended the BRICS Media Summit in Russia. Overall, Xinhua is our long-term and reliable partner.

Mr Fu Hua, please.

President of Xinhua News Agency Fu Hua (retranslated): Thank you for the opportunity to ask a question. You have been a good friend of the Chinese people for a long time. Last time, you provided Xinhua journalists with a platform to speak, which was a great opportunity and we are grateful for it. Now, to the question that we would like to ask you.

In recent years, the comprehensive partnership and strategic cooperation between Russia and China have shown consistent growth, yielding considerable benefits in strengthening political trust. In your opinion, what other areas of cooperation exist for Russia-China relations to deepen further?

Last year, during the interview with Xinhua News Agency, you spoke about your family’s interest in learning Chinese. Could you elaborate on the significant role that, in your opinion, people’s diplomacy plays in strengthening the foundation of Russia-China relations?

Vladimir Putin: You know, when I mentioned that some of my family members are learning Chinese, I was referring to my granddaughter, who has a nanny from Beijing. She speaks fluent Chinese with her.

But back in the early 2000s, even before any significant and prominent events, my daughter decided she wanted to learn Chinese – simply out of her own interest. She found a tutor and started learning.

In addition to this, I can say that interest in learning the Chinese language is growing in Russia. This is not surprising, and there is nothing in this case that would make Russia-China relations any different from Russia’s relations with other countries when it comes to expanding contacts and economic activity.

Whenever economic activity expands, there is a demand for professionals who speak a foreign language – just as we once saw with English and earlier with German. In the 19th century, it was French, and this language is still considered a language of diplomatic communication. But what has become of its universal status? Unfortunately for French, it has been completely replaced by English.

As for growing contacts in all spheres, as I have said, this is encouraging the study of each other’s languages. We continue with student exchanges. For example, 51,000 Chinese young people are studying in Russia, and approximately 25,000 Russians are studying in China. Our universities, namely Moscow State University and Chinese universities, have established direct contacts.

We have also developed many humanitarian and cultural contacts. We regularly hold thematic years, the Year of China in Russia and the Year of Russia in China. If I remember correctly, we began this process with the Year of the Chinese Language in Russia and the Year of the Russian Language in China, which was no coincidence. I believe that we did well because it encouraged our peoples’ interest in each other.

Look, $240 billion is a substantial sum. It is true that China’s trade with Europe is larger, not to mention its trade with the United States. But Russia is becoming a major economic partner for the People’s Republic of China. Our mutual projects alone, including investment projects, have been estimated at $200 billion. All of them are realistic and will be implemented. I have no doubt about that.

Of course, we need professionals in the Russian and Chinese languages. That is a given, and we will certainly train them. In fact, we will redouble our efforts in this sphere, considering that China is the largest economy and Russia is the fourth largest economy in the world in terms of purchasing power parity.

I would like to repeat – I said this last year as well – that this course is not connected to Russia’s supposed turn towards Asia. No, this is a natural sphere of cooperation. The reason is the growth of our economies. We noticed this trend back in the early 2000s, if not at the end of the 1990s, and started developing relations with China. This did not begin yesterday. That is the point at issue.

We are not doing this for considerations of momentary advantage. This is being done in large part – I will say this openly – because of the growing volume and quality of the Chinese economy, and hopefully, the growing volume and quality of the Russian economy. We will probably talk about this later.

What priorities do we see in this sphere? One of them is funding, of course. We must ensure reliable financial flows for the growing volume of our trade, which has reached $240 billion. This is a decent sum.

Vladimir Putin: If the Federal Chancellor wishes to initiate a call and engage in discussions, I have expressed this many times – we do not refuse any contacts and always remain open to them. A year and a half ago – or perhaps two – such discussions with Chancellor Scholz and other European leaders were regular. However, at a certain point, when our European partners adopted the idea of delivering a strategic defeat to us on the battlefield, they themselves terminated these contacts. They ended them – fine, let them resume. We are open; I have reiterated this on numerous occasions.

Can Germany contribute more than the United States as a mediator in our negotiations with Ukraine? I have doubts. A mediator must be neutral. Yet, when we observe German Leopard tanks on the battlefield, and now we are discussing the Federal Republic’s potential supply of Taurus missiles for strikes on Russian territory – not just the equipment, but also with the involvement of Bundeswehr officers – naturally, serious questions arise. It is well known that if this occurs, it will not alter the course of the hostilities – that is beyond question – but it will completely destroy our relations.

Therefore, as of today, we view the Federal Republic, as well as many other European countries, not as a neutral state but as a party supporting Ukraine – and, in some cases, perhaps, as a participant in these hostilities.

Nevertheless, should there be a desire to discuss this topic and present ideas on the matter, I reiterate once again: we are always ready and open to this.

Mikhail Gusman: Thank you, Mr President. We remain in Europe. The Reuters agency requires no special introduction. Representatives from Reuters have attended virtually all the meetings that you have held.

Today, we are joined by Reuters Executive Editor Simon Robinson. He was, in fact, born in Australia but has worked across various regions – the Middle East, the United States, and Africa. This is his first time at our meeting, and he has some questions for you.

Reuters Executive Editor Simon Robinson: Thank you, Mr President, I’d like to ask a question, please, about Iran. Prime Minister Netanyahu in Israel has said that Israel’s attack on Iran may lead to regime change. And Donald Trump, the President of the United States, has called for Iran’s unconditional surrender. I wonder if you agree with the Prime Minister and the President?

Vladimir Putin: I do not quite understand your question. What is it that you would like me to agree or not to agree with? They stated such and such, and then you asked: “Do you agree with this?” Agree with what?

Simon Robinson: Do you agree with either of their statements that it could lead to regime change, and that Iran should prepare for unconditional surrender?

Vladimir Putin: As you know, Russia and I personally maintain contact on this issue with the Prime Minister of Israel and US President Trump. When you begin doing something, you should always assess whether you are closer to your goal or not.

We can see that society is consolidating around the national political leadership despite the complex internal political processes in Iran, which we are aware of, so there is no need to talk about this in detail. This happens almost always and almost everywhere, and Iran is no exception. This is the first point.

A second and very important point, which everyone is talking about, and so I will only repeat what we know and hear all the time, is that nothing has happened to Iran’s underground facilities. I believe that in this context it would be correct to join forces to put an end to hostilities and to find a way for the conflicting sides to come to an agreement, so as to ensure both the nuclear interests of Iran, including in the sphere of nuclear energy and other peaceful uses of nuclear power, as well as Israel’s interests regarding the unconditional security of the Jewish state. This is an extremely delicate issue that calls for extremely careful actions. However, I believe that a solution can be found.

As you know, we have taken over the project that was launched in Iran by German companies and completed the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant. The German companies withdrew from the country, and the Iranians asked us to take over that project. It was difficult because the German specialists were building it to their design, and Rosatom had to do a great deal to adapt it to the power units of the Russian design.

Nevertheless, we have accomplished that project, and the power unit is working successfully. We have signed a contract for the construction of two more power units. Work is underway, and there are Russian professionals at the construction site. There are over 200 of them. We have agreed with the Israeli leadership that their safety will be ensured.

Overall, we could work with Iran, taking into account its plans to continue using and further developing non-military nuclear technologies, in particular in agriculture, medicine and so on, which are not related to nuclear energy, but we could also work with it in the sphere of nuclear energy itself. What makes me think so? The reason is that there is a sufficiently high level of trust between our countries. We have very good relations with Iran. We could continue this work and ensure Iran’s interests in this sphere.

I will not go into detail now, because there are many nuances we have discussed with both Israel and the United States. We have also sent certain signals to our Iranian friends. In general, Iran’s interests in the field of non-military nuclear energy can be ensured and Israel’s security concerns can be lifted at the same time.

I believe that such solutions exist. We have put them forth to all our partners, as I have said, including the United States and Israel, as well as Iran. We are not trying to impose anything on anyone. We are simply articulating our perspective on a potential solution. However, the choice rests with the political leadership of these countries, primarily Iran and Israel.

Mikhail Gusman: Thank you, Mr President.

As you know, this year marks 75 years of diplomatic relations between Russia and Indonesia. The President of Indonesia is attending the economic forum in St Petersburg, and as far as I know, you are meeting with him tomorrow or the day after tomorrow.

But President Director of the Indonesian News Agency has got ahead of his President by meeting with you today. I would like to pass the floor to him.

Please.

President Director of the Indonesian News Agency (ANTARA) Akhmad Munir (retranslated): We are very proud today to witness President Prabowo’s visit to Russia. We also want to make a big contribution to the St Petersburg International Economic Forum.

We can see that President Prabowo is particularly close to Russia. Even before taking office, he has met with you, Mr President. We regard this as a very important official occasion for both our countries.

I also have a question: what priorities does Mr President have in relation to Indonesia as our relationship with Russia marks 75 years?

We are already making investments today. Our countries cooperate in tourism, the military sector, and trade. Indonesia is trying to attract investment, especially from major countries where Indonesia has special programmes for nickel production and the production of goods sourced from Indonesia. This is the first point.

Second, we would like to know how Russia can contribute to alleviating economic uncertainty in the world. There is also a situation concerning the axis in China, the axis in the United States, and the axis in other major countries.

I think that in the future, Asia will need to ensure economic stability, of course, including Indonesia, which has enormous potential in terms of its population and workforce, as well as its geopolitical position on the international stage.

Vladimir Putin: You are absolutely right in your description of the relations between Russia and Indonesia and my relationship with the President of Indonesia. It is true he found it possible to visit Moscow after the election but before his inauguration, and we appreciate this. It is indeed a very good sign indicating that under the current President, Indonesia intends to develop our links across the entire scope.

What can I say? Indonesia is developing rapidly, very fast. It is transforming into one of the world’s biggest countries. What is the current population of Indonesia? Almost 300 million people, correct?

Akhmad Munir: Two hundred eighty million.

Vladimir Putin: Two hundred eighty million, can you imagine? Many European countries, even we in Russia, consider themselves great powers. But just think that Indonesia has 280 million people and is growing steadily.

Do you see what is going on? The world is changing radically and dramatically, and the point at issue is not just the number of people. The point is that these countries and their economies have started changing rapidly. The structure of their economies is changing, and their aggregate GDP, economic growth rate and educational standards are growing.

All these countries will certainly work towards achieving a high level of income for their people. This will inevitably involve a package of measures these countries will implement in the economy, science and education. They are advancing to very serious, strong positions in the world and the global economy.

This is how we view Indonesia, especially in light of the good, friendly and trust-based relations we have developed over decades. Of course, there are traditional spheres of cooperation that we will maintain. But we will also strive to diversify our ties. I believe that our current trade is definitely not reflective of our capabilities.

We will certainly discuss all the spheres we consider to be of priority concern tomorrow, during our substantive conversation with the President of Indonesia. I would not like to get ahead of things, because he has arrived and we will meet in the morning, when we will have several hours to discuss all these issues in detail.

You have mentioned several problems, such as tariff and trade issues that exist between the United States and the People’s Republic of China. It is true that there is a trade surplus in favour of the People’s Republic of China, and the sides should probably try to balance it. But I agree with our Chinese friends that this should be done calmly at the negotiating table, where a satisfactory result can surely be achieved.

I have no doubt whatsoever that the United States will ultimately accept this view. As for what the current US administration is doing, it sets the bar for negotiations too high but ultimately resumes the talks and the search for mutually acceptable solutions. I believe that the same will happen in other spheres as well.

The President of China has proposed the Belt and Road Initiative, which aims to create conditions for interaction with all neighbouring countries, including those that are not geographically close but have similar approaches to the development of trade and economic ties. You know, this method really works.

Indonesia has started working within BRICS, and it is doing so confidently. We will do our utmost to help Indonesia join the BRICS Family, gain the necessary benefits from this collaboration, and feel that the BRICS Family and BRICS rules are having a positive effect on the development of your economy.

The BRICS countries, including Russia, are certainly interested in building up relations with Indonesia in the spheres that are a priority for you, primarily high technology. We have plenty to offer our Indonesian partners in this sphere, and I am confident that Indonesians have interesting ideas they can share with us. We will discuss all this in detail with the President of Indonesia tomorrow.

Mikhail Gusman: Thank you.

Mr President, you know, we have maintained very close ties with our friends from the Kazakhstani media for years; we keep in touch with our partners on a regular basis.

Some time ago, President of Kazakhstan Kassym-Jomart Tokayev established a major television and radio complex, incorporating, among others, the Kazinform news agency with its sprawling connections.

One of our friends and colleagues has joined us today. Askar Dzhaldinov used to head Kazinform in the past; today, he is deputy head of the television and radio complex, but continues to oversee news reporting.

I would like to give him the floor.

Deputy Director of Kazakhstan President’s TV and Radio Complex Askar Dzhaldinov: Mr President, thank you for the invitation.

My question is as follows. Economic cooperation between Kazakhstan and Russia continues to show a positive trend. What do you believe our countries can do to stimulate further growth in trade and economic cooperation, especially in light of the global challenges?

Vladimir Putin: In fact, we do have a special relationship with Kazakhstan – this is obvious, and everyone knows that. We are allies in the truest sense of the word. Our shared history within a single state and the enormous number of interpersonal and humanitarian ties between Russia and Kazakhstan are of great importance.

On a more general level, Kazakhstan is a member of the CSTO defence association and our economic union. We also cooperate within the SCO and other international organisations. All this is of great importance, because it creates conditions for further cooperation in the most important areas of mutual interest.

I must certainly mention energy: indeed, this has always been one of our most significant cooperation tracks. You know that we have begun to export energy resources, gas to Kazakhstan and are now thinking about expanding these exports. The gas infrastructure in the Soviet Union did not include relevant facilities in Kazakhstan because energy resources were shipped to the country from Russia. You do not have a pipeline system of your own because this is the way gas supplies were arranged within a single state. Gas was supplied to Kazakhstan from Russia, and we continue to do this.

Today, the President of Kazakhstan and I are discussing the possibility of expanding this energy cooperation. We are contemplating joint exports to third countries. We are considering the potential logistics of exporting Kazakhstan’s oil.

You know that the bulk of Kazakhstani oil exports are shipped via the Russian Federation. The Caspian Pipeline Consortium is used for that, along with other channels. Almost all of Kazakhstan’s oil is exported through Russia. But we understand that Kazakhstan is interested in diversifying its export routes, and we are ready to accommodate this and provide assistance. We also cooperate in Europe – at least we did until now.

Our work in space exploration continues, and this pertains not only to the use of the Baikonur Cosmodrome. It also encompasses the development of satellite constellations and joint research in the field of space exploration.

At present, we are managing almost 95 percent of our trade turnover – which is steadily increasing – in national currencies. This is a very positive indicator, offering us opportunities to avoid any deceleration in trade growth due to difficulties related to processing payments and mutual financial flows for goods and services.

I need not elaborate on our system of relations in the cultural sphere, particularly in education. It is developing very actively. I certainly expect this progress to continue: President Tokayev is a man who fully understands the importance of advancing relations with Russia for Kazakhstan, and we highly value this. We reciprocate and will continue to do so.

Finally, in the domain of law enforcement, we are working together to neutralise threats arising from organised crime and terrorism. We regard this as of paramount importance. I have already mentioned that we are members of a defence organisation – the CSTO. Here, our defence ministries cooperate on a permanent basis, functioning very effectively.

I would like to emphasise that this activity has never been, and is not today, directed against third countries. We are solely focused on ensuring security within the region of our responsibility, recognising that there are numerous factors causing concern, including, for example, the situation in Afghanistan. While Kazakhstan does not share a border with it, other countries do, and we are aware of incidents in previous years where terrorist groups infiltrated these neighbouring states, both yours and ours.

After all, we share the world’s longest state border – between Russia and Kazakhstan – the longest land border in the world. This holds considerable significance for us. We will continue to develop our relations with this in mind. Therefore, I would like to reiterate: Kazakhstan is undoubtedly one of the closest states to us, our ally.

I see no obstacles in the development of our relations – none whatsoever. We will continue to explore new areas of cooperation. As you are surely aware, we meet regularly with President Tokayev, he visits us, and I travel to Kazakhstan with great pleasure. At the government level, through our foreign ministries, consultations and interaction are ongoing without interruption.

Askar Dzhaldinov: Thank you very much.

Mikhail Gusman: Thank you, Mr President.

Seated to my right is our esteemed colleague and friend from the Spanish news agency EFE, Manuel Sanz Mingote, whom you already know. In Spain, he is recognised not only as an outstanding journalist but also as an expert in history and philosophy, and a widely respected public speaker. He has been looking forward to this opportunity for some time, so I would now like to invite him to ask you a question.

Mr Mingote, please go ahead.

Director of International Relations of EFE News Agency Jose Manuel Sanz Mingote (retranslated): First of all, I would like to join my colleagues in expressing sincere appreciation for the opportunity to be here and for your willingness to engage directly with representatives of news agencies. I would also like to thank TASS for its hospitality.

As you are aware, a NATO summit is set to take place in just a few days. Among the key topics on the agenda will be Europe’s rearmament efforts and its intention to significantly increase military spending.

My question is very straightforward: if you had the chance to address the members of this organisation, what would you say to them? What message would you convey, and what is your main objective? Do you view NATO’s rearmament efforts as a threat to Russia?

Vladimir Putin: We do not view NATO’s rearmament as a threat to the Russian Federation. Our security is fully self-reliant, and we are continuously enhancing both our Armed Forces and our overall defence capabilities.Whatever actions NATO takes inevitably pose certain risks, but we will effectively counter any threats that may emerge; there is no doubt about that. In this context, efforts to rearm or raise military spending to five percent of GDP by NATO member countries are meaningless. That is the first point.

Second, and this is an unfortunate but well-founded observation: for centuries, the notion of a threat from Russia has periodically resurfaced in the West. Western elites have long found it convenient to invoke this perceived threat as a tool for shaping domestic policy. By pointing to an imagined danger from the East, they could justify extracting more funds from taxpayers and deflect blame for their own economic mistakes. If we take a moment to look through the pages of history, we will see that this narrative has been repeatedly revived time and again.

It is evident that the current crisis in relations between Russia and Western Europe effectively began in 2014. However, the issue is not that Russia, as it were, incorporated Crimea, but rather that Western countries facilitated a coup d’état in Ukraine.

You see, we were constantly told previously: we must live by the rules. What rules? What kind of rule is it when three states – France, Germany, and Poland – travelled to Kiev and, as guarantors, signed an agreement between the opposition and the authorities led by President Viktor Yanukovich? The three states signed it, their foreign ministers – my colleague from the Federal Republic of Germany is looking at me. Mr Steinmeier – he was then the Foreign Minister – put his signature to it, and a few days later, the opposition carried out a coup, and no one so much as batted an eyelid, as though nothing had happened, you understand? And then we hear: we must live by the rules. What rules? What are you inventing? You write rules for others, but you yourselves have no intention of following them – is that it? Well, who would live by such rules?

This is where the crisis began. But not because Russia acted from a position of strength. No, those whom we until recently called partners began acting from a position of strength. And the former US Deputy Secretary of State, Ms Victoria Nuland, if I recall correctly, said outright: “We have spent five billion dollars. Well, we’re not about to walk away now.” Five billion dollars spent on the coup. Quite the revelation, I must say!

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, our Western partners have always acted from a position of strength, at the very least. It is clear why – and I have written about this, and not only me. Because the post-World War II international order was based on a balance of forces among the victors. But then one of the victors ceased to exist – the Soviet Union disintegrated. And that was it – the West began rewriting all these rules to suit themselves. What rules?

After Crimea, events unfolded in south-eastern Ukraine. What happened? The people in the southeast of the country did not recognise this coup. Instead of negotiating with them, the authorities began using the army against them. We watched this, observed it, tried to reach agreements – for eight years, do you understand? This was not five days. For eight years, we tried to broker agreements between the Kiev authorities, whose source of power was the coup, and what was then south-eastern Ukraine – that is, Donbass. Yet in the end, the current authorities declared: “We are not satisfied with the Minsk Agreements, meaning we will not implement them.” For eight years, we endured this, do you understand?

But I feel for the people: after all, they were subjected to abuse for eight years. Even now, the Russian Orthodox Church is being persecuted, and the Russian-speaking population continues to suffer mistreatment. Everyone pretends not to see what is happening.

In the end, we made the decision to put an end to this conflict – yes, by using our Armed Forces. But what does that mean? That we are planning to attack Eastern Europe?

There was once a well-known Nazi propagandist who said, “The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it.” This myth that Russia plans to attack Europe or NATO countries is exactly that kind of lie, an absurd fabrication that Western European societies are being told to believe. We understand how ridiculous this is. And those spreading this lie do not actually believe it themselves. Do you? Does anyone here genuinely believe that Russia is preparing to attack NATO? What nonsense.

NATO countries currently spend $1.4 trillion on defence, more than the rest of the world combined, including Russia and the People’s Republic of China. The population of NATO countries exceeds 340 million. Russia’s population, by comparison, is around 145–150 million. Our military spending is not even remotely comparable. And we are the ones supposedly planning an attack on NATO? It is absurd.

Everyone understands it is absurd. But people are being misled to justify inflated defence budgets – 3.5 percent, 5 percent of GDP – and to distract from failures in the economy and social sphere. Germany, for example, the leading economy in the European Union, is teetering on the edge of recession. And to this day, I still do not understand why the Federal Republic gave up Russian energy supplies. We continued gas deliveries to Europe via Ukraine, and Ukraine earned $400 million annually in transit fees. Yet Germany chose to stop receiving Russian gas. Why? There is no rational explanation. None.

Volkswagen is suffering, Porsche is in trouble, the glass industry is in decline, fertiliser production is struggling, too. For what? It’s like cutting off the nose to spite the face. It makes no sense.

So, if NATO countries choose to further increase their defence spending, that is their decision. But it won’t benefit anyone. On the contrary, it will only increase risks – of course it will. Still, these are NATO’s decisions, not ours. I believe it is irrational and pointless. There is no threat coming from Russia – none at all. It’s simply nonsense.

As Goebbels said: “The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it.” And some people in Europe apparently do believe it.

They would be better off saving their automotive industry and raising wages.

Mikhail Gusman: Thank you, Mr President.

I would like to turn to my long-time friend from Turkiye. In fact, all eyes have been on this country lately. On the one hand, Istanbul has become a major international negotiating platform, while, on the other hand, the summer season has started, and many people from Russia, and not only Russians, headed to Turkiye to spend their vacations there.

Serdar Karagoz represents Anadolu, Turkiye’s leading news agency. He chairs its board and is also its CEO. But there is one more thing I wanted to mention. I think that he made the wisest decision among our colleagues, since he is the only one who brought his wife along for this meeting. This is to say that we welcome this initiative. It can send our other colleagues a signal so that next time they come with their spouses too.

Serdar, go ahead, please.

Vladimir Putin: Either he brought his wife along, or his wife did not let him go alone. We do not know.

Mikhail Gusman: Let me be honest with you. We had a conversation, and it seems quite plausible that she was the one who refused to let him go on his own. He can confirm that this conversation happened.

Vladimir Putin: Let us assume, and hope, that your spouse wanted to visit Russia and St Petersburg. I hope she likes it here.

Mikhail Gusman: In addition, she speaks Russian.

Vladimir Putin: Wonderful.

Anadolu News Agency Director General Serdar Karagoz (retranslated): Thank you very much, Mr President.

My wife studied at a Russian university. It is true that she really wanted to come here, and we really enjoyed the wonderful concert. It was magnificent.

Art and literature have always been important for Russia no matter the conditions it faced throughout its history. But all while this effort to hold all these events in culture and arts in Russia carries on, there is also a de facto war between Russia and Ukraine. I would like to discuss how this war could end.

During this war, at one point, you signed an agreement with President of Turkiye Erdogan to create a grain corridor. You worked together to save millions of people from starvation and succeeded in addressing these complex matters in this challenging environment.

Last week, Mr Erdogan called for holding a peace summit in Turkiye, and Mr Zelensky instantly agreed. Mr Trump said: “If Putin comes, then I will come too.” The Kremlin told us that conditions for carrying out this initiative had yet to materialise.

In this connection, I would like to ask you whether you believe that leaders can play an important role in finding a solution to this crisis? What conditions must materialise to bring leaders together and put an end to this conflict?

Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: Regarding President Trump’s statement, I perceived it differently. Mr Trump said: “Putin is not going because I am not going. Why would he go if I’m not going?” And he is correct. In this regard, he is absolutely correct. This is the first point.

Secondly, he has also repeatedly stated that “if I were President, this war would have never happened.” I believe he is correct here as well. I will now explain why.

During one of my most recent telephone conversations with Mr Biden, I told him – I will not go into detail at present, though we naturally have records of these discussions – I informed him that we must not allow the situation to escalate into an open conflict, that all matters must be resolved peacefully, and that the current Ukrainian leadership must be compelled to address the demands of its own citizens in the southeast of the country: to cease the genocide of Russian-speaking people, to halt human rights violations there – an issue that the previous administration consistently raised: human rights.

Incidentally, I told him at the time: “You may think this will all be resolved easily now, but in time, it may become clear that it would have been better not to push the situation in the direction you are taking it.” I said this to Biden. And indeed, had Trump been President at the time, perhaps this conflict would not have occurred. I fully acknowledge that possibility.

Now, regarding high-level meetings. You know, I participated in the Minsk negotiations when we sought principles for a peaceful settlement, and we spoke for 17 hours straight, throughout the night. Indeed, we agreed on those principles, but the Western side did not implement them. The former Chancellor publicly stated that the goal was simply to buy time in order to arm Ukraine. She said this openly – no one coerced her. The former President of France confirmed the same. They said it themselves, you understand? So, it turned out that our so-called Western partners never intended to fulfil any of the agreements.

We must find a solution that will not only end the current conflict but also create the conditions necessary to prevent such situations from recurring in the long-term historical perspective.

When the conflict first broke out, we urged the Ukrainian side to reunify the breakaway region of Ukraine as provided for by the Minsk agreements, but they refused to do so. The armed conflict ensued.

Here is what we did. I mentioned this to UN Secretary-General [Antonio] Guterres, and said so publicly as well. You can provide any argument you want. You can blame Russia for starting an aggression as much as you like. But listen to me: you do not have to be an expert in international public law to grasp the logic I am about to unfold.

A portion of a country decided to secede from the mainland. Southeastern Ukraine – Donetsk and Lugansk – decided to secede. Were they within their rights to do? Strictly speaking, under international law and the UN Charter, they did have that right. The corresponding article speaks of the right of nations to self-determination. I believe the first article says that. You see, this is about the people’s right to self-determination. That is the first point.

Second, was this portion of the country under obligation to seek permission from central authorities in Kiev during that process? No, it was not. There is a ruling by the International Court of Justice regarding the precedent set by Kosovo. The UN International Court of Justice explicitly stated that if a portion of a country decides to secede, it is not obligated to ask the central government for approval. That is it.

So, Donbass seceded. Did we have the right to recognise their independence? We did not recognise them for eight years. For eight years, we tolerated that state of affairs and tried to come to terms [with Ukraine]. Eventually, they declared independence. Did we have the right to recognise them? Why not? We recognised them.

Having recognised them, we signed a mutual assistance agreement with them. Were we within our rights to do so? Of course, we were. And we did. Under that agreement, which was ratified by our parliament, we were under obligation to provide assistance, including military assistance. They officially requested our help, and we are providing that help.

Where did I make a mistake? At which step did I go wrong? You will not be able to find any, because there is no mistake. Each step logically followed the previous one.

With regard to the Kosovo precedent, I remember exactly what happened then. Western European countries and the United States exerted significant pressure on the UN Court, and it handed down that ruling: when a region secedes, it is not required to get consent from the central authorities.

That is all there is to it. You see? They did all of that with their own hands. And now they say, “How could you do this?” Well, this is how. If you could do it, why cannot we do it? It will not work like that. Rules must be consistent. Only then will they be stable and that is the guarantee of security for everyone, not at the expense of the security of others which is the key point, the key principle.

So, the point is that we are ready to hold talks. By the way, I said I was ready to sit down and talk with anyone, including Zelensky. That is not a big deal. If the Ukrainian state entrusts someone with conducting talks, fine, let it be Zelensky. That does not really matter. What really matters is who is going to sign the document? Listen, I have not made any of this up. You can say whatever you want about the legitimacy of the current government as part of a propaganda campaign. But when it comes to addressing serious matters, we are concerned with legal aspects, not propaganda.

What is the legal aspect? According to Ukraine’s constitution, the President is elected for a five-year term. There is no mechanism for extending presidential powers, not even under martial law. It clearly states so, go ahead and read it carefully: under martial law, only the powers of parliament, the Rada, can be extended. It says elections shall not be held under martial law. That is true. But does it say anywhere that the President’s powers can be extended. Nowhere. That is it.

Under Ukraine’s constitutional arrangements, that country is not a purely parliamentary or a presidential republic, but a mixed presidential and parliamentary one. What does it mean? It means that all branches of government are formed by the President. Everyone thinks it is a democratic society. A state can be structured in a way where all appointments are made by the President: all military leaders are appointed by the President, all ministers are appointed by the President, and all governors are appointed by the President. There is no election involved in this process. But if the head of state is illegitimate, the entire public administration system becomes illegitimate as well.

Why am I saying this? We do not care who conducts the talks, even if it is the current head of the regime. I am even willing to come to a meeting on a final stage, just so that we do not sit there dividing things up endlessly, but to come to a meeting and put a full stop to it. But that full stop – the signature – must come from legitimate authorities. Otherwise, the next person who will assume office will throw the whole thing in the trash. That is not acceptable. We are dealing with serious matters. So, I am not ruling out talks, but I am saying that a lot of preparatory work needs to be done first.

Finally, the key thing, or maybe not the key, but still very important. Before the conflict began, we were pleading with the Ukrainian authorities to comply with the Minsk agreements, but they refused. Then the special military operation began. Shortly after it started – we told them openly, “Withdraw your troops from the Donetsk and Lugansk republics, which we have recognised as independent states, and it will all be over the next day.” They said, “No, we will keep fighting.” Well, all right, here we are fighting…

Some time later – I have also mentioned this publicly – a Western colleague of mine asked me: “Could you imagine the Kherson and Zaporozhye regions..? You were fighting for Donetsk and Lugansk, and these two regions do not seem to be part of it.” I said, “That was the logic of the combat operations.” Then he asked, “Could you imagine withdrawing from there?” I said, “We might consider some form of Ukrainian sovereignty, but only with mandatory servitude, that is, a guaranteed right of overland pass to Crimea.”

Why? Because they keep threatening to destroy the Crimean Bridge. It is a simple matter. He asked: “Can I say this in Kiev?” I said, “Go ahead.” So, he went there and said it. They told him he was a Kremlin agent. He is a top government official from a foreign country. Sheer nonsense. They just rejected the idea outright.

Alright, fine. As requested by the people residing in that territory, we held a referendum, and this region is now an integral part of the Russian Federation. As I said earlier, the situation would get worse for them, and it did. Now, the issue is not just about Donetsk and Lugansk, but two more entities that are now subjects of the Russian Federation plus, of course, Crimea. Let us talk about that.

By the way, when we held talks in Istanbul in 2022 – many thanks go to President Erdogan – it may sound strange, but we have actually come to terms with them on everything. A draft agreement was put together that addressed denazification and territorial issues.

We came up with the language that was acceptable to us and Ukraine. But then those who want to increase defence spending in Europe and overseas came and said, “No, Russia must be defeated on the battlefield.” And everything we had agreed on was thrown in the trash. And from then on they have been pursuing that admirable goal.

The situation has changed. They say, “Let us talk.” Okay, let us open up those “packages” and resume talks. After all, we are not going to sit there day and night for a whole year. So, we are ready to continue these talks.

At the humanitarian level, the situation warrants such talks. We have agreed to exchange 1,200 POWs. We are bringing our people back home, which is a good thing. We have handed over 500 men and received 400 in return. I think it will be a fair exchange, and we will get back everyone we are supposed to get.

Sadly – and it is a painful and tragic matter to mention – we have returned over 6,000 dead bodies, even more than 6,000, and received in return, I believe, 57. That is, we’ve returned over 6,000 bodies of Ukrainian military personnel. We are ready to return 3,000 or so more. But again, these are sad, tragic numbers.

However, this is a humanitarian matter and, ultimately, a positive outcome of the Istanbul talks. Thank you very much for providing the venue, and thanks go to President Erdogan as well.

We are also ready to hold substantive talks on the principles of negotiated settlement. The Ukrainian side needs to be willing to hold them as well, though. Its Western sponsors and “allies” should stop pushing them to fight to the last Ukrainian, and instead urge them to face the existing realities and to work towards reaching agreements, not continuing hostilities. That is all.

We remain in contact. Our negotiating teams maintain contact. I just asked Medinsky, and he told me he spoke with his counterpart from Kiev today. They are basically making arrangements for holding a meeting after June 22.

But I must say right away that Mr Fidan – not to mention President Erdogan – is doing much to facilitate this settlement. US President Trump, in my view, is genuinely striving for a resolution as well.

We will, of course, take into account the positions of our friends from China, India, and other BRICS countries. We maintain contacts with them on this matter. They are also deeply concerned about this. Whenever I meet with the leaders from these countries, almost always they start our dialogue with this issue, and I inform them about the latest developments.

We are grateful to them for thinking about it and looking for ways to resolve this conflict. Believe me, we are willing to end it too, the sooner, the better, preferably through peaceful talks, in case we are able to come to terms. That is all.

Mikhail Gusman: Thank you, Mr President.

You certainly know Irina Akulovich – she heads, without exaggeration, our fraternal Belarusian agency. Her job is not as easy as it seems – with the head of state as demanding, strict and respected as Alexander Lukashenko, it is not easy to head a state news agency. But she is doing a great job. BelTA is an excellent agency, and we have very close ties.

I would like to give her the floor. Please.

BelTA Director General Irina Akulovich: Thank you for this assessment.

Mr President, you said at the outset that you are against wars and restrictions. The stance you take against wars and economic restrictions – I am referring to trade wars and economic pressure – is well known. The Belarusian leader holds the same view.

Nevertheless, we are where we are: Western sanctions against Russia and Belarus have prompted them to revise many of their economic ties. On the other hand, those restrictions gave rise to some interesting and promising projects in Russia and Belarus.

So, does the Union State of Russia and Belarus have a Plan B if the sanctions pressure increases, which, most likely, will happen?

Concerning the EAEU, Minsk will host the Eurasian Economic Forum in just ten days, and I would like to ask your opinion on this organisation. Is there a chance that it will expand?

Vladimir Putin: Regarding Plan B – most importantly, we have Plan A, which spells out what we need to do to expand our ties and promote economic growth, and how. Then there is Plan B: if something does not work, see Plan A. Everything will work out – there is no doubt about that.

I know it will because trade between Russia and Belarus has reached a significant threshold of $50 billion, and the growth continues – also through cooperation. We are looking for opportunities to extend our cooperation to fields we might have overlooked before, or where cooperation had remained at the Soviet-time level – in microelectronics, for example.

Although President Lukashenko was often criticised or mocked for preserving Soviet-type centralised economic planning – which is not exactly true anyway – he has effectively preserved industries that are more in demand than ever today, in the face of tough sanctions, including microelectronics facilities.

True, we need to further expand cooperation. Much needs to be done to accelerate development, something other countries have been doing for decades. But we have a good opportunity to make a fast and strong leap together.

We have opportunities for cooperation in aircraft industry. Belarus can produce small, modest aircraft on its own, with our collaboration, in some segments of the industry. It can also participate in deeper cooperation in aircraft manufacturing with final assembly taking place in Russia.

I don’t even need to mention agricultural machinery – everything is well known in this respect. The mutual cooperation in what is assembled in Russia – I don’t remember the exact percentage but it already exceeds well over 50 percent. I will not even enumerate everything else — we have many areas of engagement.

Concerning logistics: Belarus is one of the world’s largest suppliers of fertiliser but nearly all of it is now exported via the Russian Federation, through Russian ports.

There are issues we debate, and these debates continue non-stop – they are ongoing, truly non-stop. I will not go into details now, but in the end, we always find solutions because we sincerely strive to reach them. I believe we will continue this way.

As for the EAEU, it is definitely the most deeply integrated association in the territory of the former Soviet Union, which is integrated not in words but in practice. Some time ago, Kazakhstan initiated the creation of the EAEU, for which we are grateful to our friends, and this association is developing.

True, not everything runs smoothly there. True, we may not yet be ready for fully unified markets in some energy sectors, but we are moving towards this goal. We will get there, I have no doubt about it. The question is time, the pace, and so on.

You surely know about our ongoing discussions regarding energy supplies. We do find solutions in this area. Sometimes we even come up with quite original solutions – I don’t want to go into specifics now to avoid speaking about them publicly – but we do find them. I firmly believe that we will continue to do so.

I am very optimistic about cooperation within the EAEU, as well as about bilateral interaction, including the building of the Union State. We have accomplished a great deal in recent years. I don’t recall the exact percentage but we have achieved very high numbers if we count in percent, and we have practically completed nearly our entire plan.

You see, we have achieved great progress in customs and tax statistics. As is known, taxes and customs are fundamental to creating conditions for further economic cooperation.

Mikhail Gusman: Thank you, Mr President.

I would like to introduce another participant from last year’s meeting – Karim Talbi, Editor-in-Chief for Europe at the France Press Agency (AFP). He is a master of news reporting and enjoys undisputed authority within the agency. Additionally, he speaks Russian – I noticed that he listened to all your responses practically without using headphones.

Karim, please proceed.

AFP Editor-in-Chief for Europe Karim Talbi: Good afternoon.

May we return to Iran and Israel?

Vladimir Putin: Certainly.

Karim Talbi: If tomorrow Israel – with or without US assistance – were to assassinate Khamenei, what would be your reaction, Russia’s response, and your immediate actions? This is the first part of the question.

Vladimir Putin: Mr Talbi, if I may, I hope this will serve as the most appropriate answer to your question: I do not wish to even discuss such a possibility.

Karim Talbi: But they are openly discussing it – Mr Trump, Mr Netanyahu.

Vladimir Putin: I am aware of these statements. But I do not wish to even discuss this.

Karim Talbi: The second part of my question also concerns Iran. There exists a Strategic Partnership Treaty between Russia and Iran. While it does not stipulate Russian defence obligations towards Iran, there remains the matter of weaponry.

Given the current escalation, are you prepared to supply Iran with new types of weapons to enable its defence against Israeli strikes?

Vladimir Putin: You know, we once proposed to our Iranian partners cooperation in air defence systems. At the time, our partners showed limited interest, and the matter concluded there.

Regarding the Strategic Partnership Treaty you mentioned, it contains no clauses pertaining to defence cooperation. That is the second point.

Thirdly, our Iranian friends have not made such requests of us. Therefore, there is effectively nothing to discuss.

Karim Talbi: May I seek clarification?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, please.

Karim Talbi: If I am not mistaken, you have previously supplied S-300 and modified S-200 systems, meaning Russia does play a role in Iran’s air defence.

Vladimir Putin: You see, that is not quite the case. Our proposal was fundamentally different: to develop integrated systems – not individual deliveries, but systems. We ultimately… We did discuss this matter previously, but the Iranian side showed no particular interest, and the initiative consequently lapsed.

As for specific deliveries: yes, yes, we did conduct such transactions in their time. These bear no relation to the current crisis. They constituted what might be termed routine military-technical cooperation within international regulations. Neither has Iran requested anything from us that would contravene any established regulations endorsed by the Russian Federation, nor have we acted outside these boundaries. We have always remained fully compliant with both domestic and international legal frameworks.

Anything further?

Karim Talbi: Just one more question.

Mikhail Gusman: In the next round.

Mr President, I would like to introduce Mr Abdusaid Kuchimov, whom you know. He is the Director General of the Uzbekistan National News Agency (UzA), a prominent journalist who has led the agency for many years and the author of nearly 20 books of poetry. I suspect that he is not so much interested in asking a question as in reading his verses. But I suggested that he should save the reading for next time and only ask his question today. He agreed.

Said, you have the floor.

Vladimir Putin: Are his verses in Uzbek?

Mikhail Gusman: Yes, he writes wonderful poetry.

Director General of the Uzbekistan National News Agency (UzA) Abdusaid Kuchimov: Mr President,

You know that interest in Russia and everything related to it is extremely high in our society, due above all to our traditionally friendly historical ties and the similar mentalities of our people.

Second, our society appreciates and supports the titanic efforts you have been making jointly with President of Uzbekistan Shavkat Mirziyoyev to strengthen our cooperation.

Relations between Uzbekistan and Russia have reached an unprecedentedly high level. Of course, there are some shortcomings and drawbacks, in particular in the migration sphere, but we see that work is underway to address them.

In this connection, I have both a question and a proposal, if I may. I believe that the development of our relations in the long term depends on our young people’s attitudes towards each other and their interaction. A great deal is being done in this sphere. Our youth organisations are actively communicating with each other and taking part in various events.

However, I believe that there is a dire need for a large-scale and long-term programme of youth exchanges, with concrete projects and spheres of activity. This would help strengthen the bonds between our young people, promote their positive and friendly attitude towards each other for years to come based on the traditional values of our societies and our shared history, and address the issues I have mentioned.

Mr President, I would like to ask what you think about this.

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: First of all, I would like to confirm that relations between our countries are expanding and advancing steadily. When I responded to your colleague from Kazakhstan, I mentioned the possibility of developing trilateral projects there, including major nuclear energy projects, in both Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan. We are already working on them and have made good progress.

By the way, I pointed out at the beginning of our conversation, when we talked about Indonesia, that global development has accelerated. Indonesia now has [a population of] almost 300 million people. The world is changing rapidly. Thirty years ago, there were maybe 15 or 18 million people in Uzbekistan; today, there are 38 million. And every year, another million is added. Every year! That’s how rapidly things are changing.

We certainly realise that there are many social issues and labour market-related challenges. So, President Mirziyoyev and I agreed to address these migration issues jointly. Why? Because we are aware of the current state of the labour market. There is pressure on your side.

We agreed on what needs to be done: to prepare people who want to work in Russia in advance. This includes learning to speak Russian and studying Russian culture. We have a solid plan in place, and I hope that it will be implemented.

In this regard, working with young people is very important – and valuable in itself. I fully agree with you on this point. As far as I know, President Mirziyoyev’s assistant, Saida, recently visited Moscow and met with many of my colleagues in the Government and the Presidential Executive Office. She has been instructed by the President to focus on youth contacts, overseeing the youth track [of our cooperation].

There are specific proposals here, and we will certainly work on them together. Youth cooperation is one of the most important areas – I agree with you.

Mikhail Gusman: Thank you, Mr President.

I would now like to give the floor to the News Director for Europe and Africa at the Associated Press, who has joined us for the second time at this meeting.

Let me note that despite the ups and downs in Russia-US relations, our TASS news agency and the Associated Press have maintained consistent cooperation in many forms. AP colleagues have participated in virtually all nine of your meetings with global media.

So, Mr Jordan, please.

News Director for Europe and Africa at The Associated Press James Jordan: Thank you, Mr Gusman, for the introduction, and thank you, Mr President, for the opportunity to ask these questions directly to you. It is much appreciated.

In relation to the fighting between Israel and Iran, on June 13, a statement from the Russian Foreign Ministry condemned the Israeli strikes on Iran. It said: “Unprovoked military strikes against a sovereign member of the UN, against its citizens, peaceful cities and critical infrastructure facilities are totally unacceptable.”

It is a simple question: How does that sit in relation to Russia’s continued aggression in Ukraine? Yesterday, 28 civilians were killed in Kiev. AP journalists witnessed a tower block that had been destroyed by a Russian missile. So, how do those two positions reconcile themselves? Then, a follow-up to that. Do you have any plans to meet with President Trump or talk to him again by telephone?

Vladimir Putin: Regarding our actions in Ukraine, I have just gone into considerable detail in response to your Turkish colleague’s question, so I don’t think it makes much sense to repeat myself.

We believe we did not start the war in Ukraine – we are trying to end it.

The current Ukrainian leadership launched the conflict on their own territory. After the coup in Kiev, they deployed their armed forces, including heavy weapons and aviation, against the civilian population in what was then southeastern Ukraine, against Donbass, Lugansk and Donetsk.

They targeted residential areas directly. No one seems to want to remember that today, but this policy is what led to the current armed conflict between Russia and Ukraine. That is the first point.

Second, if your journalists had actually witnessed our missile strikes allegedly destroying entire residential blocks, they likely wouldn’t have lived to tell the tale. What they saw, if anything, was from a distance. The strikes weren’t on residential areas, but on defence industry facilities, on plants manufacturing military equipment. That’s exactly what we have been targeting and we are not keeping it a secret.

One of the main goals of the special military operation is the demilitarisation of Ukraine, to ensure it no longer possesses armed forces that pose a threat to Russia. We either need to reach an agreement to that effect – and in fact, we did reach such an agreement during the talks in Istanbul in 2022 – or we have to achieve it by other means.

Back then, we agreed on the permissible size of Ukraine’s armed forces, on types of weapons, on troop numbers, and we reached consensus on everything. But then, under pressure from Ukraine’s Western allies, those agreements were thrown out, as I said before. The decision was made to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian, all the way to so-called “strategic victory.”

That hasn't worked. And because peaceful agreements were discarded, we are forced to pursue our objectives militarily. That objective remains: to demilitarise Ukraine. We will not allow Ukraine to maintain armed forces that could, in the long term, threaten the Russian Federation and its people.

Those are the strikes your journalists have witnessed. And yes, if we cannot reach a peaceful solution, we will pursue our goals by military means. There’s nothing unusual about that.

I hope this answers your question.

As for the Foreign Ministry statement, I believe that it is clear and transparent, and it also includes references to international law. Regarding our actions in Ukraine and their compliance with international law, I have just outlined our reasoning. We believe that they are in full compliance with the UN Charter.

As for our Foreign Ministry’s assessments, you should determine for yourself what you regard as objective or far-fetched. I do not regard them as far-fetched at all. I hope you are satisfied with my answer to this part of your question.

Regarding my possible meeting with Mr Trump, such a meeting would be extremely useful, of course. I agree with the US President that it should be thoroughly prepared and should produce positive results.

We have chosen a good track, and we have held several telephone calls with President Trump. We highly respect his intention to restore relations with Russia in many spheres, including security and economic cooperation.

Look, our exports to the United States have been decimated, and our imports from the United States have been reduced by over four times. What was a modest US$27 billion has now been diminished to several billion dollars. However, our trade with the United States increased last year. Our trade with many European countries is decreasing, but it has grown with the United States.

Therefore, I hope that Mr Trump is not only a politician to whom the American people have entrusted the future of their country but also a businessman. I regard this as a significant advantage. He thinks several steps ahead, and since he has increased his own wealth, it means that he can do this well. This means that he considers the implications of different moves towards Russia, what this would cost American taxpayers and the US economy, and whether it would be beneficial or detrimental.

We see that American businesses are interested in developing ties with Russia. Contacts have been established with major US companies that would like to return to our market and to work together with us. Overall, this inspires cautious optimism. I hope that the US President and his team will recognise this and make decisions aimed at restoring Russian-US relations jointly with American businesses.

We also maintain contacts with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance. Overall, our relations will gradually… At the very least, conditions are being created for the restoration of our relations. We hope that this trend will persist. We are ready for this.

Mikhail Gusman: Thank you, Mr President.

I would now like to give the floor to Vugar Aliyev, Chairman of the Board of the Azerbaijan State News Agency – AZERTAC. As someone born in Baku, I must say that I asked Vugar to be the last to ask a question on this topic so that no one can accuse me of favouring a fellow countryman. This is why he is the last person to ask a question within this block.

Vugar, go ahead, please.

Chairman of the Board of the Azerbaijan State News Agency (AZERTAC) Vugar Aliyev: Good evening, Mr President,

Allow me to join those who have thanked you for this meeting.

I have a question regarding the shallowing of the Caspian Sea. You discussed this issue with President Ilham Aliyev during your visit to Baku, and after that, you instructed the relevant agencies in Russia to work on this matter.

Preliminary studies have demonstrated that water levels continue to recede. One thing to keep in mind here is that the Caspian Sea gets over 80 percent of its water intake from the Volga, but the volume of water coming from this river has been rapidly shrinking as well.

What is Russia doing in this regard?

Vladimir Putin: I can tell you that it was the President of Azerbaijan who raised this issue, and I instantly took it on board. This topic had somehow eluded me before, despite the fact that it is a major challenge that can even be described as a global issue. We know the tragedy of the Aral Sea and similar cases. Taking coordinated action in a timely manner is instrumental when dealing with these issues.

The Government has received the relevant instructions, and I know that the governments of Russia and Azerbaijan have been working together to come up with solutions and explore various options.

It is essential that we avoid any hasty moves or decisions. Instead, we must work in a steady and consistent manner. The extent to which we can counter natural processes is uncertain since, apart from human activity in the Volga’s delta, there are other factors at play here, some of which may be attributable to global processes. As far as I know, this has been a continuous phenomenon with the water level of the Caspian Sea rising and receding over time.

We need to identify these factors and do everything we can to prevent these developments from reaching a point of no return. We are working with our colleagues. I cannot share specific measures we intend to undertake right now, but I do know that our colleagues are hard at work on this agenda.

Overall, and since we mentioned Azerbaijan, our trade increased by seven percent in 2024, which is quite a positive result, I believe. We have the North–South project and several other promising initiatives in logistics and manufacturing, including shipbuilding. We are ready to place our orders with the Baku shipyard. There are things to work on, but all initiatives are constructive and forward-looking.

I hope that we deliver on all of them.

Mikhail Gusman: Mr President, thank you very much.

You know, my colleagues at the agency would not understand if I, representing TASS, did not ask a question. But to be honest, this is not even a question – it is more of a cry from the heart, our shared pain. Let me explain what I mean.

If we exclude military professions, journalism has arguably become one of the most dangerous occupations in recent years. Our colleagues are being killed in conflict zones across the world. We Russians – Russian journalists – have lost many of our peers. This is our grief, our sorrow – colleagues from VGTRK, colleagues from Izvestia. In truth, this concerns journalists worldwide, and it is indeed a shared tragedy.

In your view, what can and should be done by international organisations, such as the United Nations or UNESCO? There was a saying once: “Don’t shoot the pianist – he’s doing his best.” One must not shoot journalists. These are honest people who, unarmed, fulfil their professional duty with honour.

What measures must be taken to stop the killing of journalists? Over the past year alone, the number of journalists killed has risen by ten percent, and in just the first half of this year, the figure has already surpassed last year’s total.

Vladimir Putin: This is a question to which I may not be able to provide a comprehensive answer. It depends on the nature of the opposing sides – strange as it may seem, on their level of general culture and their humanitarian principles. Unfortunately, in times of armed conflict, casualties among journalists are likely inevitable.

However, the issue, of course, is not just that. The issue arises when such killings are deliberate. When people suffer, including those from your profession, due to circumstances – that is one thing. It remains a profound tragedy when someone is injured, maimed, or loses their life. But when it is done intentionally – that is unquestionably a crime. And here, without any doubt, we must all consider how the international community should respond.

After all, what is happening now? If a journalist is killed by one side in a conflict, that side’s allies pretend nothing has happened, while the opposing side raises an outcry – which is deliberately ignored by the former side. And then the same happens in reverse. Moreover, journalistic solidarity does not always prevail.

Certainly, decisions must be taken at the level of international institutions, including the United Nations. This is a serious matter that requires careful consideration.

I would also like to express my condolences to all the families affected – regardless of the side they are on or who was carrying out their professional duty. To all these families, I extend my deepest sympathies.

Mikhail Gusman: Mr President, thank you very much for these words of support; they are very important for all of us.

I must say that we have been working together for two days now: starting yesterday and continuing into today. To be honest, I can tell that our colleagues are just warming up. But that depends on your strength, and if you are still willing…

Vladimir Putin: Go ahead, please.

Maxim Guzman: In that case, colleagues, let’s not go in circles: whoever has something truly pressing on their mind, raise your hand and we will ask the President. But please, keep it short.

Serdar Karagoz (retranslated): Thank you very much, Mr President.

The head of the Iranian News Agency was supposed to be with us representing Iran today, but because of the war, he could not come. So, as a follow-up to the previous question – there was a deliberate strike that targeted the state broadcasting company headquarters in Tehran. A large number of journalists have also been killed in Gaza by Israeli strikes.

I believe the Iranians would have asked this question: Will Putin, will Russia support Iran? I would like to ask this question on their behalf now.

Vladimir Putin: Look, your colleague has just mentioned the Russian Foreign Ministry’s statement on the events between Israel and Iran. That statement laid out our approach. I have nothing to add.

We continue to interact with our Iranian partners: we had contacts today, and I am sure there will be more tomorrow, the day after, and beyond. Our relations are ongoing. This is my first point.

Secondly, as I said, our specialists are working [at the nuclear power plant] in Bushehr – 250 Russian employees and more rotating staff, the total number close to 600. We are not going anywhere. Is that not support? Iran has not asked us for anything else. We have given our assessments.

Please, who else?

Mikhail Gusman: Martin was one of the first to request a chance to ask a second question.

Vladimir Putin: Go ahead, Martin.

Martin Romanczyk (retranslated): Mr President, I would like to return to my first question because it is being actively discussed in German society. Olaf Scholz held many debates about sending the Taurus missiles [to Kiev] when he was our chancellor. Today, Chancellor Merz has not yet said publicly what would happen if Germany sent the Taurus missiles. How would the Russian Federation react to that?

Vladimir Putin: I have already spoken about this, but I probably did not express our views clearly enough. Sorry for that.

We all remember the back story of our relations. We know what happened in the 1940s and during the Second World War. We know how much effort both sides – both the Soviet Union/Russia and Germany – put in to heal the wounds of the past. We have largely succeeded. This is true for both East Germany – the German Democratic Republic, and West Germany – the Federal Republic of Germany. Suffice it to recall what Willy Brandt and his party comrades did. And Helmut Kohl has done a great deal as well.

The Soviet Union was against the division of Germany. The division of Germany after WWII was not our initiative. We were against it. Anyway, nobody doubts that it was Russia, the Soviet Union and Russia, that played the decisive role in the reunification of Germany and the fall of the wall in 1990. I hope that nobody in Germany has forgotten that.

I would like to emphasise what the speaker of the Russian parliament [Vyacheslav Volodin] wrote in a letter to his colleague in the Federal Republic of Germany. Throughout modern history, Russia has not taken a single step, I repeat, not a single step, that ran contrary to the interests of the German people and the Federal Republic of Germany.

However, the situation has changed. I would not like to provide my assessment of Germany’s current stance that is based on the view of many Western countries of the situation in Ukraine. That is a matter of political assessment. But it is quite another matter when we see German tanks in Ukraine; moreover, we saw them in the Kursk Region, which is Russian territory, something even Germany does not question.

But what is Taurus? This is a high-precision weapon, but the Ukrainian troops cannot handle it – they simply cannot do this. This much is obvious. You cannot use Taurus without satellite intelligence; only Western countries can do this. You cannot use the Taurus systems without German officers, as only they are trained to operate the Taurus.

What does this mean? This implies that Bundeswehr personnel will use German weapons to carry out strikes targeting Russian territory. What can this mean other than an effort to ensure that Germany is directly involved in the armed conflict with the Russian Federation? There is no other way to frame this issue. This is not our choice, and we do not want events to take this turn. However, if this is the choice of the Federal Republic’s leadership – fine. We will deal with this reality.

I will not delve into details, but it will do serious damage to [Russian-German] relations, to put it mildly, while failing to affect the situation on the battlefield, where the Russian Armed Forces have achieved a strategic advantage on all fronts without exception. No matter what anyone says, our troops have been making daily advances along the entire line of contact, with some units making more progress than others, but they are all advancing their positions every day. They will continue to advance even if the Taurus systems come into play. This is to say that you would destroy your relations with Russia without achieving anything on the battlefield. It is up to senior German officials to decide, if the people of Germany have given them this mandate, of course.

Besides, you know what is going on there – I mean along the line of contact. At least, I hope that you know. Maybe you cannot offer an unbiased take on these developments for political reasons, but everyone knows what is going on. I hope that your staff members who work there can also see it all.

You see, the staffing level for the main forces within the Ukrainian Armed Forces is at 47 percent, while assault units face an even greater shortage of troops. What can they do? What’s next? It is not a matter of whether Western countries supply weapons or not. While this is an important factor, if your troops are understaffed and have less than 50 percent of service personnel they need, it means that these units are simply ineffective and unfit for military action.

There is a massive mobilisation drive underway to forcibly recruit people into the army. You probably know this too. I understand that you must keep this to yourself for political reasons, but I hope you are aware of it. They had this agreement, which effectively amounted to a decision to recruit 18-year-old boys into the army and planned to mobilise 1,500 people. I think that they managed to find only a thousand, and 500 of them simply vanished. More and more people are deserting the army and their numbers are rapidly growing. They lose more personnel on the battlefield than they can recruit into the army. End of story. What lies ahead for them?

This is why we have been saying that we are willing to sit down and start talking – we agree to do this. We suggested a framework for an agreement in Istanbul back in 2022, and these terms were not as strict as they are today. Today, we are in a different environment, which entails corresponding terms and conditions. That said, we are ready to adhere to the Istanbul principles. But if they refuse to come to an agreement, the situation may get even worse for them. So instead of wasting time, they must sit down at the negotiating table and find common ground.

I am not making anything up. This is how things stand right now, objectively. Their staffing level is at 47 percent. Whether they get the Taurus systems or not makes no difference. Think about it: do you need to bury Russian-German relations for the sake of supplying these Taurus units?

Simon Robinson: Thank you very much, Mr President, for taking a second question. You said earlier that Europe and other countries have made mistakes in regards to Russia. At the end of this year, you will have been in office either as President or Prime Minister for a quarter of a century. When you reflect and look back, have you made any mistakes?

Vladimir Putin: He who is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at me. I suggest we end this meeting on that note.

Thank you.

Mikhail Gusman: Thank you very much, Mr President.

Meeting with the Trufanov family

2025-04-17T12:34:42+04:00

Vladimir Putin met in the Kremlin with Alexander Trufanov, his mother Yelena, and his fiancée Sapir Cohen.

They were joined at the meeting by Chief Rabbi of Russia Berel Lazar and President of the Federation of Jewish Communities of Russia Alexander Boroda.

* * *

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: First of all, I would like to greet you and offer my congratulations on the fact that we have this opportunity to talk to you, you now have this opportunity to be together, to be back home. Unfortunately, your father is not here to join you, which is a tragedy, but I do not think we need to focus on this matter right now. Thank God that you are alive and well.

I will not share any political assessments or perspectives regarding the ongoing developments. That said, everything that happened to you was a great tragedy, while the fact that you can now walk free is a result of Russia’s years-long commitment to maintaining stable relations with the people of Palestine, its representatives and all kinds of structures and organisations. I think we should express our gratitude to Hamas leaders and its political wing for accommodating our request and making this gesture. Setting you free was a humanitarian gesture on their part. I wanted to congratulate you on this occasion.

Of course, we will do everything to have as many cases like yours as possible and as frequently as possible so that all people who find themselves in a situation like the one you had to endure for so long can also be freed. (Turning to Alexander Trufanov.) How long was it for you?

Alexander Trufanov: 498 days.

Vladimir Putin: 498 days… Once again, I sincerely hope that all those who are currently going through what you have had to endure, are set free.

I am very glad to see you and would like to wish you all the best, family happiness and well-being.

Yelena Trufanova: Thank you very much. I would like to thank you in person, the Russian government in general, and the whole country for all the efforts you have made to secure our liberation. My mother and I were set free in late November 2023 thanks to Russia’s efforts, as well as your personal involvement. I learned about the death of my husband on the day that I was freed from captivity, and I also found out that my only son and my mother’s only grandson had been taken hostage. That was a very challenging time for me.

This year has been extremely challenging for me. I have been receiving support throughout this difficult time from distinguished Rabbi Lazar, the Embassy of the Russian Federation in Israel, and Russian Ambassador Anatoly Viktorov.

Throughout this time, we have been in contact and I have known that they are doing everything they can to secure Sasha’s release. And finally, he is back.

I would like to mention that the 80^th anniversary of the Great Victory is coming up. My grandmother, Sasha’s great-grandmother, was a frontline doctor. She also sustained wounds, was captured by the Nazis but managed to escape and met the end of the war in a partisan unit in Belarus. Sasha makes the fourth generation of our family that has been in captivity. I hope this part of our history will stop here.

Vladimir Putin: God willing. You have indeed a remarkable family history. Your grandmother…

Yelena Trufanova: True, my grandmother was in Nazi captivity; also, my mother, myself, and Sasha have been captives.

Vladimir Putin: Your grandmother fought during the Great Patriotic War?

Yelena Trufanova: Yes, she was a military doctor. She was wounded near Kursk and taken captive. She managed to escape and joined a partisan unit. With the partisans, she met the end of the war.

Vladimir Putin: Your family is directly related to the Great Patriotic War and bringing Victory.

(Addressing Alexander Trufanov.) Once again, congratulations to you on reuniting with your family and your fiancée.

Alexander Trufanov: It is very important for me to tell you that I am very grateful for the efforts you took to secure our release. I also want to say that at this moment, it is very important to me that the other hostages also be released. Because I know how they are feeling there and what they are experiencing, how difficult it is and how sad they are. They are like brothers to me. While they are still there, I feel like half of my own heart is still in Gaza. It will be extremely difficult for me to return to my normal life as long as they remain there.

Vladimir Putin: Absolutely.

Alexander Trufanov: Mr President, please continue to do everything you did for me and before that. I know you have done a great deal for them to become free and happy again like I am now when I sit next to my family and my people whom I love dearly. It is very important to me.

Vladimir Putin: We will work on that for sure.

Alexander Trufanov: Thank you very much.

Berel Lazar: If you remember, during our first meeting, when we spoke about this, you said: “I will do everything I can.” And I told his mother [Yelena Trufanova] that not only by praying to God… They found God in this story, I would say. But also the President’s promise made me certain that it would happen. During those difficult times, your support was very important.

Vladimir Putin: Indeed, we did everything in our power. We really tried. Thank God, we succeeded in your case.

<…>

Plenary meeting of the Future Technologies Forum

2025-02-22T01:42:40+04:00

Vladimir Putin took part in a plenary meeting of the Future Technologies Forum, underway at the International Trade Centre in Moscow.

The discussion participants are focusing on new materials and chemistry. This year marks the launch of a national technological leadership project titled New Materials and Chemistry. Its goal is to develop infrastructure and create conditions for the production of chemicals and biotechnological products, advanced composite materials, as well as rare and rare-earth metals.

Attending the plenary session were President of the Kurchatov Institute National Research Centre Mikhail Kovalchuk; Head of a laboratory at the Zelinsky Organic Chemistry Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences Valentin Ananikov (DSc Chemistry); Aide to the President of the Kurchatov Institute National Research Centre Vladislav Antipov; Head of the Laboratory for Materials Science and Studying the Properties of Materials at Luch Science and Production Association Nadezhda Potekhina (PhD Chemistry); and Head of a research group at the Russian Quantum Centre, Head of the Laboratory of Physical Properties of Hetero-Structures and Spintronics for Energy-Saving Information Technologies of the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology Alexander Chernov (DSc Physics and Mathematics).

Following the plenary meeting, Vladimir Putin met with Russian and foreign scientists. Prospects of cooperation in science and education were discussed.

* * *

The President’s remarks at the Future Technologies Forum

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Colleagues, friends,

Ladies and gentlemen,

It is a pleasure to welcome the participants of the Third International Future Technologies Forum. As has become tradition, this platform sets the stage for groundbreaking scientific exploration, where emerging ideas – still taking shape in laboratories and research centres – are discussed and refined. I have no doubt that very soon, these ideas will not only take form but also transform the world.

This year’s forum focuses on chemistry and the application of new materials – vast and, as is often said today, cross-cutting fields that play a decisive role in humanity’s progress, enabling engineers and designers to realise their most ambitious visions.

These areas are undergoing rapid changes, which, in turn, lay the foundation for even more revolutionary breakthroughs in healthcare, industry, microelectronics, in the creation of autonomous systems, in virtually every sector.

It is absolutely clear that, in order to become a leader in key areas of scientific and technological development, and this is the task we have set for ourselves, we need to achieve excellence in chemistry and new materials development. This means that we must offer solutions and products that are competitive in terms of pricing and quality and, most importantly, innovative. We need to possess our own technological keys that will enable us to produce and export not just raw materials, but high-standard goods to global markets.

Let me also note that our history has shown that we can tackle such significant challenges. In the 1960s and 1970s, hundreds of advanced plants were established and specialised scientific institutes and design bureaus were created, largely due to the efforts of Leonid Kostandov. While few people may know his name today, specialists will certainly recognise it. He served as the Minister of Chemical Industry of the USSR. In terms of total production volume, the Soviet chemical industry ranked first in Europe and second in the world.

However, this heritage has been largely squandered and wasted. I am stating this with deep regret. To be honest, I feel ashamed of this when I think of the people who spent their entire lives building the Soviet Union’s chemical industry, working for the sake of future generations, stayed overnight in their offices, or working on the move, from wherever they were. They spent their lives in railway cars, moving across the vast territory of the Soviet Union, from one republic to another. They scarcely ate or slept, to establish the country’s chemical industry.

Unfortunately, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, its core facilities halted production, and some were destroyed, their equipment thrown out and cut as scrap metal. Along with the degradation of our own chemical industry, we became strongly dependent on imports, losing a significant part of our industrial and technological sovereignty. So we know from our own negative experience what system-wide problems vulnerability in the chemical domain can create.

We literally had to reassemble many technological and production chains, and build new processing facilities to manufacture products with added value. For example, new facilities have been built as part of the Tobolsk Petrochemical Plant in the Tyumen Region. In 2019, a modern petrochemical plant, ZapSibNeftekhim, was launched. The construction of the Amur Gas Chemical Complex and other enterprises is underway. They will enable Russia to significantly increase the production of polymers, a key product of oil and gas chemistry, in the coming years.

I would also like to add that after cleaning up and reclaiming territory in Usolye-Sibirskoye, Irkutsk Region, we plan to create a modern federal centre for small- and medium-scale chemical production there. For those of you who is not really aware of the industry’s specifics, I will explain that refers to the production of small volumes of indispensable chemical products – resins, solvents and others – which are critical for the development of microelectronics, pharmaceuticals and many other critical areas.

Catalysts also represent a cross-cutting priority. These are indeed the very foundation of chemistry – substances that determine reaction rates. It is imperative to ensure not only their development, but also subsequent testing, pilot production, and ultimately the broad industrial utilisation and scaling-up of domestic solutions.

To support such endeavours, a dedicated scientific and technological cluster is already being established at the renowned Boreskov Institute of Catalysis in Novosibirsk. This constitutes a significant stride in advancing the entire Siberian scientific agglomeration as one of the key centres for creating future technologies in the field of chemistry.

Colleagues,

To keep pace with the dynamics of progress and global competition, we must exponentially enhance the potential of our domestic chemical industry and adjacent sectors, establishing a full cycle – from the exploration and development of new deposits, including rare and rare-earth metals, to the extraction and deep processing of mineral resources, through to the production of high-tech goods with substantial added value.

There is much work to be done here. In principle, we possess all that is required. What is needed is purposeful focus: creating conditions for businesses, investing in infrastructure. We still do not extract lithium. But how can we manage without it? This is self-evident to specialists. Yet we are capable of doing so. And we could have begun doing it 10–15 years ago.

These tasks must be addressed at an entirely new technological level, leveraging advancements in artificial intelligence and robotics, alongside other tools aimed at enhancing labour productivity – including within research. A major competitive advantage will be our access to affordable energy from one of the world’s largest networks of atomic, hydro, and thermal power stations, enabling the establishment of production facilities across numerous regions of our nation. Naturally, this must be implemented in strict compliance with the most rigorous environmental standards, employing modern, ecologically safe solutions.

The areas I am talking about are complicated and essential. That is why a new national technological leadership project has been launched in the sphere of new materials and chemistry this year. We plan to allocate almost 170 billion rubles for its implementation in 2025–2030 from the federal budget alone. In addition, the total investment of companies in the real sector of the economy could amount to about one trillion rubles. I believe this is quite realistic. Sometimes I meet with CEOs and owners of companies, and they have pretty ambitious plans. I like their attitude: people’s eyes are shining. That is great! We will support and further fine-tune mechanisms of support for private investments, including in the research and development sector.

I have said many times that external problems, sanctions, and all the challenges and difficulties we are facing played an important stimulating role for us. Russian companies are now increasingly often seeking the advice of our scientists, and they receive assistance from them. Moreover, domestic solutions often turn out to be more effective than their foreign analogues.

In order to ensure a modern legal basis for cooperation between researchers and qualified customers, the law On Technology Policy was adopted. It comes into force this summer.

I have already said and set the task to increase the financing of science up to two percent of the GDP. This should be done together with the businesses. It is of paramount importance to forward all additional investments to support promising and breakthrough areas of scientific and technological development. Thus, in the field of chemistry and new materials, it would be short-sighted and wrong to be satisfied with simple substitution of technological processes, which have already been mastered somewhere abroad. This is important, of course – everything must be taken into account and all the achievements must be used, but it is critical to develop our own platforms. Colleagues promised to show me at a specialised exhibition the progress we are making and future prospects.

As we agreed at the meeting of the Council for Strategic Development and National Projects last December, plans must be developed in all the key areas in order to ensure the country’s superiority, including in chemistry and modern materials science. It is important to select leading scientific organisations that will take responsibility for conducting fundamental research and companies that will be implementing technologies of the future, as well as to organise the training of personnel in chemistry to be able to cope with the tasks of technological leadership, at all levels of education – from schools to universities.

Regretfully, the number of chemistry teachers in schools is decreasing. The number of children who choose chemistry as their main basic discipline is decreasing. The percentage of chemistry teachers over 65 years of age is increasing. We need to look most thoroughly at what is happening in universities.

I ask the Russian Academy of Sciences, representatives of business, professional, scientific and educational communities to be involved in the formation of such plans as much as they can.

It is important that they continue to act coherently, as true partners, and be aware of the responsibility for the results. The implementation of all the national technological leadership projects, our plans for the Far East, Siberia, the Arctic, the development of all regions of the Russian Federation, and, of course, the solution of security issues and the improvement of the quality of people’s lives depend on them.

I shouldn’t even mention security; I have already spoken out publicly about it. The whole world is talking about the Oreshnik missile system. Look at the materials it boasts! The temperature on the warheads equals that on the surface of the sun. We realise that since the 1980s, we have been developing systems for a gliding block. We called it Avangard. The temperatures there are comparable, slightly less than on the surface of the sun. At the end of the 1980s, we set the task making such systems. We couldn’t because we didn’t have the materials for that. That was the problem. It flies and melts like a popsicle, and the control signal goes through. These are the results of working on advance materials.

Just as our joint agreements on MC-21–300 were closed down completely for no reason. Many thanks go to Rosatom specialists – they made materials for both the wing and the fuselage.True, the project moved a little to the right but we did everything with our own hands, with our own heads, and everything went well. We need to work together in all other areas in the same active and creative way.

I ask the Government to think about ways to regulate the interaction between our enterprises and those of our competitors in order to provide national producers with certain advantages. Yes, within the framework of the WTO, but nevertheless certain difficulties have been created for us, and we can regulate accordingly the return to our market of those who want to return, while offering and preserving advantages for our own producers. We need to do it in a subtle, careful manner, but it must be done without fail.

Mr Manturov, who is present here, is nodding his head. We discussed this matter with him. I have already spoken about this: just as in agriculture, when agricultural producers begged us: “Just don’t let anyone else into our market, we will do everything ourselves.” Except for bananas, of course. But they started growing bananas, too. It’s a bit expensive, though, and it’s not necessary. But in the area of industrial production, it is absolutely necessary to think everything through, to give it the most careful consideration so as not to lose the potential that was created thanks to our ill-wishers who had imposed sanctions against us.

I have already mentioned this, but to provide several further examples: to advance our machine and aircraft manufacturing, rocket and space programmes, we will require composite materials and alloys with unique characteristics – I spoke about this just moments ago. New plant protection agents – from an entirely different domain – in order to address food security challenges. Durable, long-term, safe systems for energy transmission and storage – for unmanned aerial vehicles, for new modes of transport. More resilient and energy-efficient materials for the construction industry, to adapt to climate change. Novel compounds, biomaterials, and prototypes of human organs and tissues – for implementing advanced medical treatments in healthcare.

I reiterate, I have cited only isolated sectors here. Yet the absence of progress even in one of these areas – and I wish to emphasise this particularly – will, as the saying goes, pull down by the thread all other initiatives. Let me recall the example of the MC-21–300 aircraft: we lacked the materials for the wings and fuselage. Consequently, the entire project stalled, and progress in other directions likewise decelerated. We have witnessed this first-hand. This is the experience of our work over the last two to three years.

Across all critical technological vectors, we must establish comprehensive coordination and absolute interconnection between every step and measure. I propose instituting a supra-departmental mechanism for managing technological development and request that the Government submit corresponding structural proposals.

Colleagues,

All our plans to forge solutions of the future in chemistry and materials science rest upon the immense potential of our scientific and engineering schools. Their traditions were established as early as the Russian Empire – I referenced the Soviet Union earlier, but these foundations were laid in the 19^th and early 20^th centuries, evolving further, as I noted, during the Soviet era.

I trust that Mr Mikhail Kovalchuk, who greeted me earlier – we exchanged a few words – and other participants of this plenary meeting will undoubtedly elaborate on how contemporary advancements in chemistry and materials science build upon achievements from space and atomic projects, as well as research into future energy systems of thermonuclear fusion spearheaded by Yevgeny Velikhov.

I consider it imperative to dedicate a new Russian Science Foundation competition for leading scientists to the memory of this eminent thinker and son of our Fatherland. The size of the five-year grant will range from 250 million rubles to half a billion rubles. Major domestic corporations will co-finance these grants and serve as direct customers for breakthrough technologies.

As for the areas of support, they will change every year. This year, I propose to announce such a competition for the creation of unique materials and products made of them for autonomous energy sources, power and energy plants, as well as for devices and information processing systems necessary for the development of artificial intelligence, among other things.

Quite obviously, this technology is already determining the development of all spheres, producing a real revolution, including in chemistry and materials science. Thanks to the introduction of artificial intelligence and computer modelling, our country needs – and it is quite realistic – to reduce the time of designing and introducing new materials to 5–10 years, and in the future to 2–3 years.

For this purpose, researchers and engineers should have a necessary array of data on existing materials and their components. I suggest we should build mechanisms of legal regulation of their circulation, including collection, storage, processing, transfer and use.

I would like to add that huge amounts of data and advanced knowledge about new elements and materials will be obtained in the course of research at domestic megascience facilities. They make it possible to study matter – experts know this – literally at the atomic level.

I would like to emphasise that some of the complexes in our country, such as NICA in Dubna or PIC in the Leningrad Region, are unique and have no analogues. In the near future we are planning the technological launch of another powerful facility – SCIF. It will significantly expand the functionality and the range of possibilities of the Russian research infrastructure. We certainly invite foreign scientists to collaborate. When I was in the Leningrad Region a few years ago, specialists from Europe were already working there, and from those countries where the use of nuclear energy was being phased out, and, accordingly, research in those areas was also being phased out, and they were happy to work with us. We hope that this practice will continue. Our doors are open and we are always happy to welcome our friends and colleagues.

I wish to emphasise that we fully recognise equitable and open international exchange in the scientific domain as one of the principal factors in fortifying a multipolar world. We will persist in advocating for the unification of efforts among researchers and engineers from Eastern and Southern nations to tackle large-scale experimental, theoretical, and, undoubtedly, practical challenges.

Thus, the BRICS group has effectively become a platform of global stature for social, economic, and technological development. Concurrently, we have no intention of establishing barriers to collaboration with Western scientists. We hope that Western politicians, too, will come to understand the detrimental effects of policies that constrain cooperation in the fields of science and education.

It is imperative that global development remains equitable and balanced. To this end, we must pursue further industrial and technological progress while simultaneously mitigating adverse environmental impacts, preserving the planet’s delicate ecosystem, and its flora and fauna. We will, of course, proceed from the necessity of applying precisely such technologies. It is no coincidence that advanced solutions in genetics, bio- and nature-like technologies, as well as the creation of materials replicating processes within living systems, now occupy a central focus of our attention.

In essence, we speak of the formation of an entirely novel phenomenon, a new reality – that of the bioeconomy. This subject is of paramount importance, a key determinant in the quality of global growth. I propose dedicating the next Future Technologies Forum to the bioeconomy, should our colleagues deem this feasible and worthwhile. We extend an invitation to representatives of science, education, and business from across the globe to participate. We remain open to cooperation.

Friends,

I am sincerely gratified that our nation is fostering candid and profound discussions among scientists, engineers, and business representatives. This testifies both to Russia’s openness and, unquestionably, to our steadfast commitment to issues of scientific and technological advancement.

It is safe to say that no expert would dare to predict the novel solutions that will emerge or be invented even in the near future. Yet there exists something we can assuredly accomplish: ensuring our substantive support for key technological avenues of critical importance and utility to citizens, society, and economic growth. It is precisely within this framework that we intend to proceed. I am confident that your discussions at today’s events are conducted in this spirit.

I thank you for your attention.

<…>

Meeting of the Supreme State Council of the Union State

2024-12-08T16:00:39+04:00

Vladimir Putin and Alexander Lukashenko held a meeting of the Supreme State Council of the Union State of Russia and Belarus in Minsk.

The meeting was timed to coincide with the 25^th anniversary of the Treaty Establishing the Union State.

A package of documents was signed during the meeting of the Supreme State Council of the Union State, includinge decrees of the Supreme State Council of the Union State “On Uniform Consumer Protection Rules” and “On Certain Measures to Combat the Illegal Import of Goods into the Territory of the Union State.” A number of resolutions of the Supreme State Council of the Union State were also signed, such as “On the Security Concept of the Union State,” “On Organising and Holding Events to Celebrate the 80^th Anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War,” as well as a number of resolutions, in particular, on the abolition of roaming on the territory of the Union State.

Following the meeting, a ceremony was held to sign interstate documents: the Treaty between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus on Security Guarantees within the Union State and the Treaty between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus on the Unified Electricity Market of the Union State.

The presidents of Russia and Belarus also made statements for the media.

***

Remarks by presidents of Russia and Belarus at the meeting

President of the Republic of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko: Mr Putin, members of the Supreme State Council, participants in today’s meeting.

I am delighted to welcome all of you to the capital of Belarus ahead of the 25^th anniversary of the Treaty Establishing the Union State.

Today, we can confidently state that back in 1999 we made the right choice. In fact, it is only through this allied tandem that we have been able to benefit from our shared experience and potential based on the principles of mutual trust and partnership.

Our bilateral relations, in their current form, demonstrate the strong and mutual bond between our countries, which is based on a shared language, the fact that our two countries have similar systems for training specialists in engineering and technology, while our people have a great deal in common in terms of their mindsets, cultural traditions and their shared history. This provides for a unique experience in international affairs, with two countries, two economies and a single economic space. This framework has stood the test of time and has proven its worth.

Faced with unprecedented sanctions pressure, we have succeeded in keeping the core sectors of our economies afloat and kept the financial system up and running, while unemployment has remained at an all-time low, and household incomes have been rising. Not only have we stood our ground, but we have become stronger.

Let me share just a few economic statistics with you.

Compared to 1999, our two countries have made great strides in terms of their GDP growth, which has increased by about 150 percent. Bilateral trade has been growing too. Last year, it reached $55 billion, and is expected to reach about $60 billion this year if it continues growing at the same rate.

That said, we must ask ourselves: Have we done or anticipated everything to perpetuate this progress and make it immune to any fluctuations?

We need our governments and all sectors of our respective economies to work together in a well-coordinated and responsible manner to overcome new challenges as they emerge. We must now deliver on new objectives in the current situation. In their reports, Belarusian and Russian government officials will elaborate on efforts to respond to these developments from a practical perspective.

I would like to outline several strategic directions for our further development.

Firstly, it is essential to address the persistent issues that have hindered our progress for many years. These challenges exist, and as the President of Russia remarked at a recent meeting in Moscow, there is no need for reticence – tell us what remains unfinished, the people will understand.

I believe that the primary objective is to implement a unified economic policy and ensure equal rights for citizens within our Union State. We have yet to achieve the level of self-sufficiency and independence necessary for long-term developmental planning, which would shield us from external factors and various challenges.

The mechanisms for addressing this task are evident: a harmonised industrial policy, unified approaches to food security, a shared energy market, the gradual attainment of technological sovereignty, and judicious import substitution. It is also crucial to eliminate the remaining barriers to bilateral trade.

We have already initiated joint ventures in sectors such as microelectronics, machine tool engineering, aircraft manufacturing, and shipbuilding; however, progress remains insufficient. Currently, there are only 27 import-substitution projects underway for the combined market of Belarus and Russia, with a total GDP estimated at two trillion dollars. This figure should, in my view, be exponentially higher. Both Belarus and Russia stand to gain from these projects.

In both nations, our collaboration has resulted in the creation of new jobs and the emergence of innovative products. Today, we will take another significant step in our union-building efforts by signing an agreement to establish a unified electricity market. For the establishment of an equitable economic environment, we are anticipating the prompt launch of unified markets for gas, oil, and oil products. Efforts are ongoing in these areas.

Regardless of the objectives we pursue in constructing our Union State, its foremost aim and target audience are our citizens – those who believe in us, trust us, and anticipate a responsive approach to their needs and demands. Consequently, ensuring equal rights for the citizens of Belarus and Russia is a pivotal topic.

Over the past 25 years, significant progress has been made in the areas of migration, social and labour relations, and healthcare.

There are no restrictions on movement within both states. Equal rights in employment, recognition of work experience, and labour protection have been secured. Issues regarding pensions and social insurance have been resolved. All citizens have access to urgent emergency medical care. Our experts estimate that approximately 60,000 Russian citizens received medical treatment in Belarus in 2023 alone. Support is extended to families with children and specific population categories.

What particularly pleases us is that for holidays, festivals, and in general, Belarus remains the most attractive destination for tourists from a vast country like Russia.

Much remains to be done, though. Everyone, without exception, should experience practical advantages provided by our union.

Transport and logistics come second. Belarusian exports went through Russian ports, which turned out to be a mutually beneficial arrangement. On the one hand, it has taken care of export logistics and, on the other hand, it has significantly boosted the Russian companies’ revenue.

However, there are still many untapped reserves. The Northern Sea Route project will be implemented next. We have done a trial run of transporting cargo along this route, and it worked out well.

Our Russian partners are working on a pilot project to build a high-speed Moscow-St Petersburg railway. We are looking forward to seeing it connect Moscow with Minsk. Mr President, your announcement that this railway will go from Moscow through Minsk to Brest inspired the Belarusians, because many people move between Minsk and Moscow, and we even had to add two more trains of late.

Military and political security is third. Ongoing developments make us place great emphasis on the defence capability of our respective countries. The Union State security concept and the interstate treaty on security guarantees that we signed today will take us to a whole new level of strategic alliance and coordination in the military sphere.

This will make it possible to prevent violation of the territorial integrity of Belarus and Russia, to preserve our sovereignty and independence and, most importantly, to guarantee peaceful life for our citizens. Mr President, our intention to sign this treaty got our Western “partners,” as you call them, into a state. This is probably not a bad thing. It caught their attention.

Fourth, planning and redistribution of labour resources. It is no secret that every year the Russian labour market takes in a significant number of Belarusians, which means that we, just like Russia, experience labour shortages. We need to coordinate our policies in this area and use efficient legal mechanisms that would take into account the interests of both sides.

Friends,

Importantly, we discuss quite special topics all the time. In May 2025, Belarusians and Russians, alongside other peoples of the former USSR and everyone who shares our values, will mark the 80^th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War. This is a crucially important commemorative date for our people who are bound by common history and share spiritual and cultural values.

Just like our ancestors did 80 years ago, on May 9, we will commemorate the victims of that terrible war on Red Square, and mark the important anniversary of historic victory of the Soviet people over Nazism.

Today, as always, we have a busy agenda that addresses specific concerns of the peoples of our countries. They focus on improving the functioning of our respective economies and strengthening the security of Belarus and Russia. Let me wish us all productive work.

Thank you for your attention. I turn the floor over to President of Russia Vladimir Putin.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Mr Lukashenko, colleagues,

As mentioned by the President of Belarus, today’s meeting of the Supreme State Council is special in that it has been timed to coincide with the 25^th anniversary of the Treaty on the Creation of the Union State, signed on December 9, 1999. Let me remind you – all of us know this well – that this is an achievement of the first President of the Russian Federation Boris Yeltsin, and Alexander Lukashenko.

This is a truly fundamental document that has guided Russia and Belarus over the past quarter of a century, during which they jointly accomplished a truly vast amount of work. I am referring primarily to their efforts to promote integration in the socioeconomic and humanitarian spheres, to harmonise the two countries’ laws, and to reliably ensure common defence and security.

Most importantly, the Russian-Belarusian relations of alliance and strategic partnership are based on the unshakeable principles of friendship and neighbourliness, mutual respect and regard for each other’s interests. Our countries and peoples are bound by a common history, family ties between many Russians and Belarusians, and a commitment to the same moral and spiritual values.

Trade and investment exchanges are actively developing within the framework of the Union State, multifaceted business contacts and cooperation ties are growing stronger, and conditions are being created for stable and sustainable growth of our countries’ economies. In a word, practical integration is bringing real tangible benefits to the citizens of our countries, enhancing the quality of their lives and well-being.

Taken together, this is clear proof of the correctness of our strategic policy of comprehensive cooperation and a common economic, humanitarian and defence space of Russia and the Republic of Belarus.

We appreciate the smooth operation of the practical cooperation mechanisms in the Union State. The Council of Ministers meets regularly, and the two countries agencies are conducting a coordinated macroeconomic policy with assistance from the Permanent Committee of the Union State, promoting interaction between industries and coordinating the functioning of our financial markets and banking systems. At the same time, we are paying special attention to minimising damage from the illegal Western sanctions and other restrictions.

The supranational Customs Committee and Interstate Customs Centre are working effectively. We discussed these issues for a long time; it was not simple to coordinate each other’s positions in detail, but ultimately the Russian party and our friends in Belarus have found mutually acceptable solutions and options. I am confident that our colleagues on both sides are satisfied with the operation of these mechanisms. They are clearly useful instruments in the current situation and are creating conditions for the sustainable growth of our economies and our progress.

Overall, the Supreme State Council’s decision on the Guidelines for Implementing the Provisions of the Treaty Establishing the Union State for 2024–2026 is being successfully implemented. It involves large-scale joint projects and events in key spheres, namely, industry, agriculture, energy, transport, culture and information policy. We also focus on science and education. To date, about 20 percent of the planned measures have been implemented.

The effectiveness of Russian-Belarusian integration can be judged by the growth of our trade. Alexander Lukashenko has already mentioned the figures we expect to report this year. It is a tentative result, but I believe that it is quite accurate. According to our statistics, mutual trade in January to September has increased by 8.4 percent and exceeded $37 billion, and the yearend results will be close to reaching the figures the President of Belarus has mentioned.

Russia accounts for over half of foreign trade of Belarus. At the same time, Belarus is the fourth largest trade partner of Russia; its share stands at nearly 9 percent.

Russia has invested over $4 billion in the Belarusian economy. There are about 2,500 companies with Russian capital operating in the republic. Our energy cooperation is growing stronger, and we continue to create joint oil and gas markets. We have coordinated and are ready to sign a treaty on the single electricity market today, as Alexander Lukashenko has stated. This will help reduce prices for end users in both Russia and Belarus. I believe that this is extremely important for our households and industrial facilities.

Built by Rosatom, the nuclear power plant in Belarus operates in keeping with its planned capacity and design specifications. Its overall output from the two units has exceeded 36 billion kilowatt-hours, including over 14 billion this year, up 20 percent compared to the NPP’s annual output in 2023. This is robust performance.

Bilateral cooperation in manufacturing has been growing in scale with a focus on import substitution and increasing the share of high value-added products, which is crucial today, and is set to play an even bigger role in the future. I hope they keep all their restrictions in place – this is what I have been hearing from some of my colleagues in the Russian Government all the time.

Of course, these restrictions have created some challenges for us. However, at the end of the day, Russian producers within the real economy have been benefiting from some breathing space in the domestic market, just as it happened with agricultural production some time ago. Overall, the positive implications outweigh the challenges we face in this regard.

We have also fine-tuned our cooperation and partnership in science-driven sectors, digital transformation and microelectronics, as well as in terms of digitalisation. Today, we will adopt a new resolution introducing streamlined tariffs for communication and data transmission services within the Union State. The new rules are expected to come into force on March 1, 2025.

Humanitarian cooperation has been gaining traction within the Union State too, with efforts to promote proactive exchanges in education, culture, sports and youth affairs. At a radiology centre in Dimitrovgrad, Union State residents can benefit from treatments based on proton therapy.

Higher education institutions specialising in engineering and technology have been holding various forums. Training specialists in these disciplines has special importance today for both Russia and Belarus. The Union State awards in science and technology, literature and art have gained a lot of prestige. We established a special award for young researchers for their achievements in the natural sciences, technology and social sciences.

We also suggest establishing an award for research in history, cultural and educational projects aimed at promoting patriotic education among young people.

Members of the Supreme Council,

Faced with unprecedented external pressure, Russia and Belarus have joined ranks on the international stage and have been unwavering in their commitment to supporting each other as true allies. We share coinciding or convergent approaches, as diplomats say, to the most urgent global and regional matters.

As you know, the October BRICS Summit in Kazan adopted a decision instituting a new category for BRICS partner states. We are delighted that our Belarusian friends have been responsive and confirmed their readiness to work with BRICS within this framework.

Russia and Belarus have been stepping up their cooperation in defence and security, as the President of Belarus has already said, as well as in military technology. Of course, this meets the fundamental interests of our two countries and their people.

A seamless air defence system is deployed across the defence space of the Union State, operated by a joint regional grouping of troops. Daily contacts are maintained between our law enforcement agencies. The military doctrine of the Union State has recently been updated. The updated security concept, submitted for the Supreme State Council’s approval, includes assessments of the current international situation, which is far from simple, and potential joint measures to counter the main challenges and threats.

The situation in the European region, in particular, in Ukraine, is definitely a cause of particular concern. The Western countries are deliberately exacerbating tensions in the region. In fact, their actions have led to today’s tragedy and continue to aggravate the crisis. Such irresponsible policies are pushing the world to the brink of a global conflict. We know that Belarus, the President of Belarus, supports a policy aimed at a peaceful settlement of this crisis. We are continuously discussing the matter, and we will definitely focus on some of its aspects during the exchange of views later today.

In this context, it makes perfect sense for us to sign an interstate treaty on security guarantees within the Union State today. The document defines our mutual allied obligations to use all available forces and capabilities to ensure both countries’ defences, and protect their sovereignty, independence and constitutional order, as well as the integrity and inviolability of the territory and external border of the Union State. This includes Russian tactical nuclear weapons, previously deployed on the territory of the Republic of Belarus at the suggestion of the President of Belarus.

Let me remind you that the November 19 Executive Order Approving the Basic Principles of State Policy of the Russian Federation on Nuclear Deterrence clearly indicates the possibility of using those weapons for defensive purposes in response to a possible attack with the use of weapons of mass destruction, or to repel aggression with the use of conventional weapons, which poses a critical threat to Russia’s sovereignty or territorial integrity. We continuously coordinate these issues with the leadership of Belarus, with the President of Belarus. I am convinced that this treaty will ensure that the security of Russia and Belarus are reliably protected and will thereby create conditions for further peaceful and sustainable development of both our nations.

As we said, next year, we will celebrate the 80^th anniversary of victory in the Great Patriotic War. It is important that both Russia and Belarus remember and revere the heroism of our fathers and grandfathers who fought shoulder to shoulder against Nazism. And we will certainly continue to make effort to ensure that future generations have a conception of the price they have paid to defend peace and freedom.

We are expecting Alexander Lukashenko to attend the anniversary celebrations in Moscow on May 9. Military crews from Belarus are also invited to take part in the parade on Red Square alongside the Russian military. In addition, I certainly hope to see Mr Lukashenko in St Petersburg on December 25–26 at the traditional informal meeting of CIS leaders and at the Supreme Eurasian Economic Council session.

In conclusion, I would like to express confidence that today’s meeting of the Supreme State Council will be productive, will promote the further dynamic development and integration of Russia and Belarus, and consolidate the security and defence potential of the Union State.

I would like to thank everyone who contributed to the preparation of today’s event and the preparation of the documents. It was an ambitious and very necessary work.

Thank you very much for your attention.

Russia Calling! Investment Forum

2024-12-09T12:36:34+04:00

Vladimir Putin took part in the plenary session of the Russia Calling! forum.

The 15^th VTB Russia Calling! Investment Forum is being held in Moscow on December 4–5, 2024. Its main theme is The Future of Capital and the Capital of the Future.

* * *

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, colleagues,

I am delighted to welcome the heads of leading Russian and foreign companies, investors and experts to Moscow. The Russia Calling! forum has once again brought together representatives of business communities from dozens of countries to help them make new contacts, map out promising projects, and of course, discuss the key trends in the global markets and the Russian economy.

I would like to begin with the situation in Russia.

As you are aware, our entrepreneurs, companies and entire industries faced serious challenges in 2022 as a result of actions taken by, let me put it mildly, some countries or more precisely, their leading elites. These countries have shown themselves to be unreliable partners. Many industrial and logistics chains, as well as cooperative ties that took decades to develop, have been endangered or even disrupted.

We often hear people from the political, military, or economic fields say that these countries set the task of inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia, including in the economy and technology, to drastically weaken our country’s manufacturing industry, finance and services, to create an insurmountable shortage of goods on our market, to destabilise the labour market, and to lower the living standards of our citizens. It is obvious that these plans have failed to materialise. Following a challenging period, the Russian economy has not only fully recovered, but is also living through qualitative structural changes, which is vitally important and, perhaps, is the most important outcome of our work in the economy over the past two to three years.

Russia’s technological, production and logistics potential is making strides. Ties with promising partners are getting stronger.

Last year, Russia’s gross domestic product grew by 3.6 percent, which is a well-known fact, and increased by 4.1 percent in January-October of this year. The growth mainly comes from the manufacturing industries and sectors with high added value. Thus, in a matter of ten months, our manufacturing industry has grown by more than eight percent, 8.1 percent to be precise. The automotive sector and mechanical engineering are growing faster than other sectors. The inflow of specialists to the high-tech sector with high added value and skilled jobs is increasing as well. In September, the number of the IT employees grew by 8.1 percent year-on-year, and by almost four percent – 3.9 percent – in the manufacturing industry.

Fall in unemployment in the regions where it was traditionally high and growing employment rates among young people under 25 is indicative of the structural changes in the labour market. We are aware, though, that youth unemployment is a problem in many countries around the world. We have it, too, or, rather, used to have it. The youth unemployment rate is below nine percent, although at some point, and even recently, it ran as high as 20–25 percent in some regions of the country. Overall, Russia has a record-low unemployment rate of just 2.3 percent. Compared to the majority of the world’s leading and developing economies, this figure is minimal.

For example, in many European nations, it stands at seven percent or higher, whereas in our country, I reiterate, it is slightly above two percent. As a comparison, to back up my statement: it is 7.6 percent in Italy, 7.3 percent in France, a little less in Canada – 5.4 percent, 11 percent in Greece, eight percent in Brazil, and 7.6 percent in Sweden.

The economic upswing has a positive effect on the budget system. From January to October this year, the country’s consolidated budget surplus, inclusive of extrabudgetary funds, amounted to approximately 2.5 trillion roubles. Meanwhile, spending – I want to emphasise this, and I believe that people present here understand what I am talking about – amounted to less than 35 percent of GDP, on a par with the 2021 levels. This evidences that both the Government and the Central Bank are pursuing a well-balanced strategy indeed. It means that, given the objectively increased spending on certain budgeted items, we are generally not padding public spending but working instead on enhancing its efficiency and following a responsible approach to budget management.

Our goal is to hold firm to the trajectory of long-term sustainable economic development, ensuring quality investment dynamics in the real economy by upgrading industrial facilities and boosting labour productivity. This is, clearly, the overall strategy of our development.

At the same time, obviously, it is imperative to avoid any misalignment in key macroeconomic indicators and prevent sectoral imbalances, which undeniably includes the necessity of controlling inflation. So far, as you are aware, it remains at a relatively high level, including when compared to the countries I’ve already mentioned. Our rate stands at 8.8 percent year-on-year. To achieve positive results here, coordinated joint efforts by the Government and the Bank of Russia are required. I would like to stress that this is not just a recommendation or a proposal – this is a guide to action, as I see it. Actually, our colleagues from the Central Bank and the Government understand this perfectly well, and coordination is in place.

It is crucial to correctly and wisely use all economic policy instruments in the fight against inflation, avoid any structural misalignments, including potential risks of increasing income disparity among citizens and reducing the revenue base of Russia's regions.

As I have already mentioned, the primary, fundamental response to the inflation challenge would be, undoubtedly, to increase supply of goods and services on the market so that their volume meets the domestic demand, both from citizens and businesses that are planning to upgrade and expand their production, expand their capacities, invest in construction, in purchasing equipment and implementing development projects.

In this regard, I would like to ask the Government to more clearly set the priorities concerning support measures for industries from the federal budget, and to continue fine-tuning the legal framework and removing excessive administrative barriers for businesses.

All these mechanisms must primarily work to expand production, open new production facilities, and strengthen Russia’s technological sovereignty. Yes, we must remember that we are operating under the objective conditions of inflation containment, adopting tough approaches to our budgetary policy, and we must adjust our credit policy accordingly.

I would like to note that since August, the retail lending portfolio has essentially stopped growing. At the same time, corporate lending continues to grow. I think there is no need to explain to this audience that in general, this is the result we have been aiming for, including when it comes to containing inflation. Corporate loans are still growing, which means that companies are implementing their investment plans, and in retail lending, of course, there has been a certain decline. And it was exactly the goal the financial and economic authorities have been trying to achieve.

I would like to ask my colleagues to closely monitor the dynamics and to work on preventing sharp fluctuations or decrease in the banking system’s loan portfolio, and also to ensure such portfolio structure, including loan terms, industries and sectors of the economy that are raising loans, that contributes to solving strategic tasks and achieving national development goals.

It is also important to pay attention to debt-laden companies with public ownership. We have been discussing this with the colleagues lately. The debt burden has significantly increased recently. Of course, we need to take into account the large-scale investment programmes of state corporations, as well as the social functions they perform. I will not go into details here. My Russian colleagues understand perfectly well what I am talking about.

I have already instructed the Government and the Bank of Russia to make a decision on managing loan portfolios of partially government-owned companies, so as to prevent an excessive debt burden and imbalance in the corporate lending market to the detriment of other industries and companies.

Please keep in mind that for many small and medium-sized companies, which are playing an increasingly prominent role in the economy, the availability of borrowed funds is crucial for investment. We have set a very specific goal – by 2030, we need to see investment in Russia rise 60 percent, in real terms, against the 2020 level.

Despite current challenges, Russian businesses continue to invest in fixed assets. Their investments continue to grow for the third year in a row despite all the problems we are facing or those that outside players have been trying to create for us.

I will cite a few figures. In 2022, investment grew by 6.7 percent; in 2023, the growth was 9.8 percent, and a similar pace was maintained in January-September 2024, up 8.6 percent.

To support businesses’ motivation to invest in development, to expand production capacities and create jobs, we will certainly continue to strengthen the capital market and help companies list their shares on stock exchange. By the end of the decade, the Russian stock market capitalisation should approximately double, reaching two-thirds of GDP.

I would like to note that this year alone, Russian companies completed 19 initial and secondary public offerings of their shares and were able to raise 102 billion rubles.

This is a good result indeed, but still insufficient on a national scale. To reiterate, the Russian capital market should be more actively involved in funding development projects and structural changes in our economy.

The Government and the Central Bank need to prepare a package of additional incentives for issuers of shares to make initial stock market listing a more attractive step. Among other things, it is necessary to stimulate the demand for securities, ensure effective protection of investors’ rights and companies’ information transparency.

In this connection, I would like to remind you that relevant instructions have already been issued in this regard, and we need to step up this work.

Colleagues, there is another matter I would like to point out.

Most of the entities entering stock market are small companies, while many large businesses, industry leaders, are not yet listed. This means that measures to support issuers should both take into account the needs of small businesses, promising startups, and encourage large businesses to place their shares.

For example, state subsidies or preferential loans for large businesses could be made conditional on their stock listing. This seems quite fair. Of course, we also invite investors from friendly countries to our stock market. As I have said more than once, Russia is part of the global economy, and we welcome reciprocal capital flows.

At the same time, we are making an emphasis on domestic sources of funding, so that our people and retail investors have an opportunity to invest their resources and earn money inside the country. These investments and their profitability would be no less attractive than opening bank deposits. Today, according to experts, over 32 million Russian citizens are interested in buying securities. The total volume of their assets exceeds nine trillion rubles.

In the last few years, important decisions have been made to ensure the influx of long-term money into the market and expand the range of relevant instruments. This year, a programme was launched to support voluntary long-term savings. Relevant contributions are insured and co-financed by the state, and a tax deduction can be obtained for the funds contributed. As of November 22, over 2.1 million depositors joined the long-term savings programme bringing in 145 billion rubles.

Let me remind you, that we have a more ambitious goal set in this respect: in 2026, the total amount of funds raised under the programme has to exceed one percent of GDP, that is constitute at least 2.3 trillion rubles, and to steadily grow onward.

I will add that type 3 individual investment accounts were introduced this year to accumulate citizens’ funds. They can be used for long-term investment and to conduct transactions on stock market while receiving tax benefits.

I suggest expanding the functionality of this instrument for the investor to be able to choose an account for dividends on shares registered on their individual investment accounts, that is, to use the income received as they see fit and, importantly, at any time. Of course, a regulatory instrument like this will increase potential investors’ interest in this work, in this case, together with the state.

I would also like to note that co-financing of life insurance will be launched on January 1, 2025. In fact, it is a combination of conventional insurance and investment, where a citizen simultaneously invests funds in assets, in shares, receives return on them, and at the same time insures their life and health. As we agreed, it is necessary to guarantee the return of these funds and provide for the amount of 2.8 million rubles to be guaranteed by the state.

In addition, tax incentives should be offered, primarily tax deductions on the amounts contributed. I would like to ask to draft relevant federal laws and adopt them in the near future.

Let me also add that there is a proposal to create a financial mechanism that would become a family savings instrument, allowing all working family members to receive a tax deduction. Accordingly, the amount of funds eligible for such a deduction should increase to at least one million rubles per year. I ask the Government and the Bank of Russia to determine the parameters for this family support mechanism and implement these decisions.

Colleagues,

The Russian banking system and stock market are developing dynamically on the basis of modern technologies. Approximately three-quarters of our adult population now use cellphones and the internet to transfer funds from their bank accounts and access various financial services. More than 80 percent of payments for goods and services within our economy are conducted via bank transfers.

At the same time, the Bank of Russia is gradually introducing the digital ruble. As part of a pilot programme, replenishing funds and making digital ruble transfers between individuals and legal entities have been tested. This project already involves over 9,000 citizens and 1,200 companies, with numbers continuing to rise. As agreed, from next year, digital ruble settlements will be mandated for use within the federal budget system, and by July 1, 2025, it will be available nationwide.

Here I would like to say a few words about the use of the ruble in international settlements. We continue to develop the necessary infrastructure to facilitate these transactions, making them more efficient for businesses and reducing related costs. Among other measures, we plan to introduce an experimental legal regime that will enable banks to fine-tune methods for remote client identification, while of course ensuring full compliance with anti-money laundering regulations.

Furthermore, we will adopt a flexible approach to tax registration of non-residents, following a model already successfully employed by our banks when opening accounts for such companies. I ask the Government to speed up the drafting of the necessary documents and call on the State Duma to ensure their swift adoption in the coming months.

It is worth noting that the level of digitalisation in Russia's financial services sector exceeds the global average, a testament to the high technological capability of this sphere of our economy. This confirms that Russia’s financial sector is forward-looking, capable of setting ambitious goals, and proactive in its approach.

Experts forecast that the introduction of national digital infrastructure in the financial sector will be one of the key long-term drivers of global economic growth. While some jurisdictions, such as the European Union, Australia, and Singapore, are still in the process of developing certain elements of this infrastructure, Russia has already successfully implemented all of its components, which are operating efficiently. This is not only a significant achievement for our developers and specialists, but also a substantial competitive advantage of our economy, providing a powerful lever for its development in the global context.

Russia’s leadership in financial technologies positions us well to forge flexible partnerships with foreign counterparts, promote integration projects, and leverage the complementary strengths of our respective economies. I am also referring to the investment platform we are developing with our BRICS partners. This work is in its early stages but all the parties involved agree on its potential benefits and good prospects. It is expected to become an important instrument for supporting our economies and providing financial resources to the countries of the Global South and East.

The rapid development of information technologies, which Russia is currently demonstrating, alongside our advanced solutions in the financial sector, will significantly contribute to the growth of this platform and play a key role in its success, which – I have no doubt – will be achieved. This success is essential for the further development of international business cooperation, the increase of mutual investments, and the creation of new production chains.

In this context, allow me to offer a few words on the investment climate in Russia. As you are aware, the World Bank is no longer operating in our country, therefore, it is unable to assess the domestic business environment. However, other independent bodies are fully capable of doing so. We undoubtedly possess the necessary intellectual potential.

This year, the Russian Agency for Strategic Initiatives (ASI) evaluated the business climate in our country and compared the results with those of other nations. In its new ranking, the ASI used the same methodology as the World Bank did. Over 800 criteria were taken into account, ranging from the process of starting a business to addressing insolvency issues.

The study has shown that Russia is among the global leaders in terms of investment climate. Moreover, Russia is ahead of all other nations in terms of the strength of its regulatory framework and the quality of public services. In specific areas such as business registration and real estate management, the country confidently ranks second.

Of course, certain areas still require additional efforts. We see and understand this, and we are fully aware of the need for further work. These efforts will be necessary from the Government, regional authorities, and the business community at large, with which the Government maintains constant contact. I am referring to the development of labour relations, the simplification of international trade procedures, rules of international trade, and the integration of engineering infrastructure. Significant progress has already been made in these areas, but there is still work to be done. Additionally, some other issues require our special attention.

I am sure our colleagues will organise comprehensive work and, in cooperation with the business community, will make significant progress in the near future.

Friends,

Russia is uniting the efforts of the state, society, and business to strengthen its economic sovereignty, achieve technological leadership, develop a sustainable, nationally focused banking system, and build a robust financial market. We extend an invitation to foreign partners from all countries who are interested in engaging with us in this endeavour in cooperating with us in this area. Such aspirations will, of course, be supported at all levels of government within the Russian Federation.

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

President and Chairman of VTB Bank Management Board Andrei Kostin: Mr President,

I would like to extend my sincere gratitude once again for your continued participation in our forum. This marks your 15^th address at our 15^th forum. As this is almost an anniversary event, the 15^th, and given the substantial changes in the composition of our audience over the years, I would like to take just two or three minutes to share the story of the forum's inception and your involvement from the very beginning.

The year was 2009, amidst the height of the global financial crisis, which originated in the United States. We now know that much of the ”darkness“ stems from there. At the time, I had a conversation with Josef Ackermann, whom I regard as one of Europe's most prominent investment bankers. The CEO of Deutsche Bank, he said to me, ”Andrei, make sure to tell Mr Putin that no great country can thrive without a strong investment bank.“

Upon returning to Moscow, I went to the President and told him, ”Mr President, while Russia is a great country, we lack a powerful investment bank; we need to establish one.“ The President's response was swift and unequivocal. He said, ”What can I do to assist?“

At that time, the investment market was dominated by foreign banks, such as Deutsche Bank, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, and Goldman Sachs. Russian investment banks were virtually non-existent, with only a few small boutiques, mostly founded by foreign citizens, such as Renaissance. And all these institutions organised forums for investors. I asked the President, ”Mr President, would it be possible for you to speak exclusively at our forum and not at others?“ And in 2009, the President attended our forum. He returned in 2010, and we were naturally concerned that following his re-election in 2012, he might not come again. However, he did, and since then, he has continued to participate year after year, transforming this forum into the prominent event it is today.

This forum has become, without a doubt, one of the most significant investment platforms, attracting the attention of financial experts not only from Russia but also huge attention from financiers across the globe. Today, we are joined by over 400 representatives from approximately 35 countries. While the profile of our participants has considerably changed over the years, I am confident that investors from the West are watching closely and listening attentively to President Putin's words here.

By the way, we took the opportunity to thank Mr Ackermann. We virtually ”kidnapped“ his team in Moscow – around 100 people. Initially, he took offence, but in time, he accepted the situation and even boasted once about having played a pivotal role in the creation of Russia's investment banking sector.

It was indeed a pivotal moment. Since then, the bank has firmly established itself as a leader in Russia's investment services market, exerting significant competitive pressure on Western banks, which have now exited our country.

This is why the forum has endured for 15 years. It is a crucial event, and of course, the President’s addresses remain the focal point. What distinguishes our forum is the open dialogue between the President and the audience.

I have heard from many forum participants that it is rare for a country's leader to answer all questions in the room for an hour or more – such a thing never happens. But it does happen here. Therefore, I suggest we now proceed to the second part of our forum – the Q&A session.

Mr President is ready to answer your questions today. However, please bear in mind that we are constrained by time, so I ask you to be brief. When asking your question, kindly introduce yourself, specify your country and your area of expertise. I am sure the President will be willing to address any of your queries.

Thank you.

Question: Good evening and thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to ask you.

Andrei Kostin: Where are you from?

Question: I am from Germany, I am the manager, CEO and the main shareholder of an investment company in Germany. So, thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to ask you a question, Mr President.

You repeatedly stated that economic sanctions are mutually destructive, and in particular, to those who have imposed them. And to be honest, I cannot agree more with that.

It is evident in Germany now that the current government now doesn’t have the best interest of the country’s economy, and, the thing is, they are quite hardly affected by the fact that German companies had to leave Russia. Numerous amounts of German companies.

So, my question is, to come back to my question, if the time changes, and the government, for instance, in Germany, or the governments in Europe would allow the companies to come back, to re-enter Russia, how would you treat them? Would you give them a second chance, or would the damage caused by the sanctions be irreparable?

So, that was my question and thank you very much for your reply.

Vladimir Putin: I think I said this at the last forum and in fact, I have mentioned it at any opportunity: we have never expelled anyone; we never tried to oust anyone from our market.

I do not think I am revealing a big secret either: despite the political pressure, many of our partners, including those from Western Europe and the United States, have not left the Russian market. Some of these companies continue to operate as before, probably about half of them; others have transferred management to the persons and entities they control. About one quarter of those companies have really left, while some continue to procedure to exit the Russian economy, including the largest German companies.

I am not saying that the German economy or European economies in general are going through a difficult period solely due to the severance of ties with Russia, but the severance of ties with Russia certainly plays a serious role. The Germans and other Europeans have lost stable and reliable supplies of Russian energy resources at affordable prices, but this is only a part of what it has led to, although a very important part. I will say a few more words about this right now, but other circumstances are involved, too.

They can no longer sell their products on our market; they cannot supply components to the industrial facilities in Russia that were built by foreign investors, including European ones. They can no longer use some of the transport routes, which used to bring a certain profit. The European currency, the euro, can no longer be used for transactions, and the use of the euro by the global economy as a payment instrument, as a reserve currency, in itself used to bring significant profits to the European economy.

You know the rest. Large companies are closing, in particular in Germany, while others are operating at a loss. As you know, glass manufacturing, chemical and fertiliser industries, agriculture are all suffering losses, serious losses, because they have lost the Russian market. Agriculture in Europe, in particular in Germany, has lost not only our energy resources, gas, which is the most important component in fertiliser production, but also Russian fertilisers. Whole industrial facilities are being closed, the metals industry, and as a result, further down the chain, the automotive industry – the most important sector of the economy.

As a result, according to the estimates of our and foreign experts, this year the eurozone economy will grow by about one percent, just over one percent, while Russia’s economy grew by 3.6 percent last year, and will add almost four percent this year, 3.9 percent or maybe even four percent.

As for Germany’s manufacturing industries, as far as I know – please, correct me if I am wrong – the manufacturing industries will decline by 4.6 percent, while in Russia, there will be a 4.4 percent upturn, with manufacturing industries adding over eight percent, 8.1 percent.

In addition to everything else, the Americans are prohibiting you from using the Russian market and our relatively cheap energy resources while creating profitable conditions for European investors, including German ones, in the US economy. Frankly speaking, behaving like this does not look like alliance, to put it mildly. But I do not want to go into these details. Germany knows this well. Will we create conditions for those who want to come back? We will not create special conditions. We have not pushed anyone out, we have not banned anyone; our doors are open.

The problem is of another kind. The problem is that over this time, in the past two years, companies from other countries have begun to actively fill many niches that were vacated after our European partners left. In addition, import substitution with Russian brands, the number of which is multiplying, is progressing very fast, at a pace we did not expect, to be honest.

So, it would be quite difficult to return to the places they used to occupy. However, we will not create any particular hurdles for this. The issue lies not with us but with the political decisions made at the level of the European Commission and in individual European countries, including Germany. You are welcome. It is not about us, it’s about you.

You know, I recalled something while I was talking. When I lived and worked in Germany, a friend of mine told me a story. If he hears me… I have not seen him for 30 years and do not know what he is doing. So, he was walking around Berlin, not just for amusement, but for work-related reasons. He came to the bank of the Spree River, and there was an old German man sitting there fishing. My friend asked him, ‘How are you doing, is the fishing good?’ The man turned around, looked up and said, ‘No.’ There was a pause. My friend asked, ‘Why?’ Another pause followed. This German fisherman turned around and said, ‘It’s an easterly wind.’ To this, my friend replied, ‘All problems and all dirt come from the east.’ The German sat there, thinking, then turned around and asked, ‘Are you Polish?’ Honestly, I am not making this up. My friend thought about it and said, ‘No, it’s worse than that.’ Now the German had to think about it. He raised his eyebrows, looked at my friend silently and did not reply at all.

Why did I recall this? Nowadays everything from the east is better than from the west. Look at the conditions created for the German economy here in Russia, and those created by your traditional allies and partners. We are now talking only about business environment.

Our doors remain open. For decades, we have maintained exceptionally warm relations with Germany, we understood each other very well. A hallmark of German investments has been their focus on long-term industrial endeavours rather than seeking immediate financial gains. Presently, we witness the challenges faced by Volkswagen. One must question why Volkswagen opted to exit the Russian market. Not only could it have thrived here, continuing to sell its products even with a high degree of localisation, but it could also have maintained the supply of components, thereby generating excellent revenue.

We have consistently engaged in market-based practices, refraining from implementing any form of non-market regulation, though it can hardly be called regulation. In fact, we have never subjected our German partners to the kinds of conditions found elsewhere, such as environmental investigations or similar matters. At present, it seems convenient to attribute all woes to Volkswagen's management, thereby sidestepping one's own errors. My reference here is to the governmental regulators responsible for pertinent decisions. It is not their responsibility; management bears the brunt of the blame. Now, Volkswagen employees are seen as culpable, with thousands striking due to factory closures and consequent job losses. To avert such outcomes, economic decisions should not be swayed by political motivations.

Finally, let us now address the most pressing issue. The paramount concern I wish to highlight is this: You represent the Federal Republic, do speak German! Why are questions posed to me in English? The crux of the matter is sovereignty.

Andrei Kostin: We lack a German interpreter.

Vladimir Putin: Come on! Tell me you didn't have a German interpreter.

Andrei Kostin: Let's proceed to the next question, please.

Vladimir Putin: Did you want to add something? Our colleague from Germany seemed inclined to add something.

Andrei Kostin: Perhaps you might convey something in German, Mr President.

Ladies, kindly pass the microphone to the gentleman from Germany who posed the question in German. The President appears to wish to comment, does he not?

(Speaking in German.)

Andrei Kostin: As the saying goes in The Diamond Arm [comedy]: an untranslatable pun.

Vladimir Putin: Our guest mentioned he had been forewarned about the absence of a German interpreter. My response was that the matter extends beyond interpretation; it pertains to sovereignty.

I recall attending Mr Schroeder's birthday celebration in Hanover. Though modest, it was dignified, yet everyone conversed in English, and even the Hanover girls' choir performed in English. It was quite disconcerting, you know? This is the essence of the issue. Sovereignty must reside within; that is where it all commences.

You know, I do not want to start this discussion. Our focus should be on the economy.

Andrei Kostin: Ok.

Sector One, please.

Waseem Hamad: Mr President, thank you very much. Waseem Hamad, CEO of a pharmaceutical company from the Sultanate of Oman.

My question is regarding Russia’s motivation for southward turn. How strategic and long-term is it? And if we take aside the large economies like China and India, does Russia have a tangible interest in pursuing economic relations with smaller economies in the Global South?

And my second part of the question, Mr President. If we assume a scenario of normalisation, not necessarily political, but at least getting back into normal business relations with the West, do you expect Russia to still consider the Global South as a priority? Thank you, Mr President.

Vladimir Putin: As you are, certainly, aware, everything that happens in security and politics stimulates the structural shifts in international relations that we are witnessing in the world.

When we say, or I hear someone say that Russia has pivoted to the East, or the Global South… Russia has not pivoted now to the Global South or East, no. Russia has engaged in this policy for a long time now, since the 2000s, mindful of the global development and global economic trends. We have been doing that for a long time now in an orderly and consistent manner.

Our relations with China are not impacted by events that are taking place, for example, in Ukraine. China has long ago become our largest trade and economic partner, even before that.

You just said that Russia will maintain relations with large countries, large economies, but what will happen if its relations with the global West get back to normal, though the global West does not exist, and it is becoming less and less global, because its share in global GDP never stops to shrink. As opposed to that, the share of the Global South and East continues to grow. According to the World Bank and the IMF, the growth rate of the developing economies will be double that of the countries that we are accustomed to refer to as the developed economies, and some economies are growing at quite remarkable rates.

Just look at Ethiopia. It has grown by, I think, 118 or about 120 percent in the past ten years, which is phenomenal.

Bangladesh boasts an 80+ percent growth. Many other economies in the Global South and East are developing at about the same rate, so we are naturally guided towards places showing economic growth with the growing number of our partners who are not looking over the shoulder to make sure they are acting in compliance with someone from the outside barking orders out at them.

By the way, speaking of restrictions, threats, and sanctions against third countries that cooperate with us. Do you have an idea of what is going on? The people who engage in this appear to have a good educational background, such as Oxford or Cambridge university, and should be intelligent people. However, watching them do what they do, I am not even sure they are. Or, perhaps, they are well-educated and intelligent, but something prevents them from reacting quickly and effectively to real changes around the world. What is standing in their way? You know, it is something what is popularly known as smug attitude, or snobbery. They think that they are entitled to do as they please and they will do everything as they planned, no matter what.

And the world is changing, and they cannot do everything. What I intend to convey is that their actions are accelerating the emergence of a multipolar world. This process is becoming utterly unavoidable and is indeed yielding certain results. A growing number of nations engaged in international discourse and economic activities are recognising that while aligning with premium, robust and technologically advanced markets is crucial, this alone is not enough anymore if we need and want to look ahead to the future. Therefore, we will undoubtedly be part of that future.

I am optimistic that relations with our Western partners will eventually normalise, primarily because it is in their interest and ours, of course, as well. However, despite this anticipated and, I trust, inevitable normalisation, a substantial portion of our collaboration with our current allies, or as we refer to them today, friendly nations will not merely persist but will also expand, because this is an unavoidable course of events.

Andrei Kostin: Thank you.

Who will go next?

Naila Mehrabova: Naila Mehrabova, a member of the Supervisory Board of Azersun Holding, Azerbaijan.

Mr President, thank you for your address and for joining us today.

In your view, what are the prospects for tapping the potential of BRICS countries to develop a collective digital infrastructure? Is it feasible to create a common international digital payment system within this framework?

Mr President, can independent developers aspiring to pursue this initiative rely on your support?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: This is an important and interesting subject. Together with our BRICS colleagues, we strive to pay due attention to it. I reiterate, this is not solely because someone is creating certain problems for us, which are, naturally, serious, and to a certain extent, we are hindered by problems with settlements, but also because – and this is the key thing – the global economy is developing, our relations are developing both with large and small economies, as I have just noted, answering a question from your colleague.

The number of partners is on the rise, and there is a collective desire not just for secure channels of economic interaction and settlements, but also for modern settlement mechanisms that would minimise expenses and bolster reliability of the international financial area. Naturally, this contemplates the adoption of modern technologies, including digital ones. Rest assured, we are committed to pursuing this path.

However, it transcends merely creating digital settlement systems.

We have proposed to our partners, and this was generally approved by everyone, to create within BRICS a digital investment platform that would also include settlements in digital units.

What course are we charting here? We have agreed to form a working group under the aegis of the BRICS New Development Bank, and this group is currently being established. We deliberated on this in Kazan with representatives from the People's Republic of China, along with our colleagues from India and Brazil – with all our partners. There is widespread agreement on this front.

Our aim is to create a digital platform that would facilitate investment in promising, growing markets across South Asia and Africa, in a manner that is both secure against inflation and enables regulators and central banks to respond in a swift and flexible manner to developments within our group.

That is, should there be a deficit, we could issue a corresponding electronic instrument. Conversely, in the event of a surplus, we could withdraw something from the market, and so forth. Basically, this is a relatively easy-to-create instrument; we merely need to reach consensus on its developmental trajectory and the directions for investment in specific countries and projects.

In my estimation, this is what our experts propose, this could be of significant interest both to the countries creating such an instrument and to those using it, meaning that the developing markets in Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia need these investments.

If we identify attractive, promising joint projects, invest in them, and subsequently reap the benefits from their operation, this instrument will prove to be exceedingly reliable and promising.

Naturally, in this regard, we are keen to engage a broad spectrum of our friends and like-minded partners. This includes one of our promising strategic allies, namely Azerbaijan.

Andrei Kostin: Mr President, as a follow-up, if I may. Recently, Mr Trump – who has not yet arrived at his White House (I say ‘his’ because some of our guests might not know that we have our own White House nearby where the Russian Government works, where sound decisions are taken whereas Washington makes various ones) – Mr Trump has said that if BRICS countries did not use the dollar, he would impose 100 percent tariffs against all those countries.

This is, perhaps, the first threat against countries in general. Earlier the Americans used to push around specific banks saying that they would keep punishing banks and companies. Perhaps, this is the first time they directly declared that countries will be punished and all products will be subject to a 100 percent tariff; this has come from a newly elected president.

As we all know, the Americans are very sensitive about this, because the US’ power is in the dollar, because the dollar is invested in. If there is no dollar with its position, then the US economy with its huge debt and everything the dollar encompasses, such as the enormous revenues of the banks, will collapse.

Do you think this step by the new president will finally undermine trust in the United States, its policies and financial system, and force BRICS countries and other states to dump the dollar and flee this system even faster in favour of creating new forms such as those being developed within BRICS?

Vladimir Putin: First of all, I agree that using the dollar as a world currency brings the United States unearned money in large quantities. According to our experts, somewhere over the last ten years they have made US$10 trillion out of thin air, just for the fact that the dollar is used as a world reserve currency; they did it on rates, deposits with their banks, and so on. Ten trillion is a lot, it means that they consume more than they produce. And this is very important.

In fact, the United States continues exploiting other economies of the world for its own benefit by using the dollar. Few think about that but this is a fact, and I agree with you on that. This is the first point.

Now, you have said the newly elected President Trump threatened to impose sanctions and introduce higher tariffs on those who do not use the dollar. As far as I understand, he did not say that. I take it that everything US-related elicits a certain response with us. Although I do not have much time to follow all the developments somewhere “overseas,” as far as I could see, I noticed this – he said that if someone prohibited or restricted the use of the dollar, then he would react accordingly. This is not the same thing. It is one thing to prohibit the use of the dollar, and another thing not to use it. You see, these are completely different things. That is my second point.

Third. After all, the president-elect has been out of the White House, which you mentioned, for four years now. Certain changes have taken place in the global economy and the US economy during that time. His successors, his political opponents, have done a lot to undermine the fundamental role of the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency. Above all, this is the outcome of their own making, since they used the dollar as a tool in their political and maybe even armed battles, in order to cause harm to other countries, which the current US government still looks at as its adversaries. We have never considered them our adversaries, but they suddenly decided that we are adversaries and began to impose restrictions on us. Since the share of the United States in the world economy is shrinking, meaning that the US dollar is losing its influence on global economic processes, other processes involving the use of other tools are naturally occurring.

For example, can anyone ban Bitcoin? No one can. Who can ban other electronic means of payment? No one, because these are innovative technologies, and no matter what happens to the dollar, these instruments will keep evolving one way or another, because everyone will strive to cut costs and increase reliability. It is an unavoidable process, and the dollar has absolutely nothing to do with it.

However, if the dollar gets used less and less around the world, and this will be the outcome of their own making, they will, of course, undermine the foundations of their economic power if they do so. This is absolutely clear, and I completely agree with you.

Finally, we never turned the dollar down. Did we ever? We were denied the opportunity to use it. We have a saying, they got what they fought for. They ran into problems with the dollar. Now, of course, is the time to ponder next steps. This all comes from smugness and arrogance in the economic sphere, among others, which is unacceptable. One needs to be aware of the global processes and build one’s own policy, including international policy, based on this knowledge.

Look at what is happening in a natural way. Even the unconditional allies of the United States are reducing their gold and foreign exchange reserves, both in US dollars and euros, by the way. Over the last ten years, the cut has amounted to about 13 percent, which is significant. This is a natural process, and no one will be able to reverse it, especially with the use of sanctions and coercive methods, which are destructive for the economy and for those who make such decisions in the first place.

Andrei Kostin: Thank you very much.

But you should probably suggest that he proceed with caution next time you talk to him.

Vladimir Putin: Mr Trump does not need anyone to give him advice or recommendations.

Andrei Kostin: I see.

Ok, colleagues, who is next? Could we have a question from sector four, please?

Question (retranslated): Mr President, good afternoon. Colleagues,

I represent a Chinese company from Qingdao, a state-owned, diversified conglomerate.

I have the following question for you. Recently, the Central Bank of Russia had approximately half of its foreign exchange reserves frozen. Yet, this does not seem to have had any serious repercussions. Does this mean that the reserves are not truly necessary? If so, why bother accumulating them?

Thank you.

Andrei Kostin: Thank you for your question.

Vladimir Putin: Indeed, it is a valid question: why accumulate reserves if they can be so easily stolen?

Incidentally, China holds substantial foreign exchange reserves invested in US securities. However, we observe that these are gradually diminishing.

Why accumulate them if they can be lost so easily? Initially, no one considered that it could be done with such ease. It was presumed that economic decision-makers acted with prudence and were aware of the risks involved in undermining international law in this domain.

Yet, the United States and Europe have made such a move. However, they have not completed the final act. They have frozen, but not outright confiscated, these assets from us. Consequently, we were compelled to implement certain measures: redirecting the dividends of Western companies operating in our country to the so-called C-type accounts, among other actions, which we are not particularly pleased with, as it is a forced measure.

Yes, indeed, over 200 billion is frozen in Europe, with another 100 billion, totalling around 300 billion. More in Europe – over 200 billion – and less in the United States. But, I reiterate, they have not yet taken the final step to appropriate these assets.

The question is: why accumulate reserves? Historically, they have served as a tool to mitigate the risks. In times of financial market fluctuations, when super profits arise, the state siphons off a portion of these profits. Then, when profits decline, the state utilises them to honour its commitments, especially in the economy and, foremost, in the social sector.

This serves as a stabilising mechanism, and we have been employing it.

But there is a pertinent question: what to do with these funds if they exist? Yes, this requires consideration. Typically, states accumulate reserves to avoid the so-called Dutch disease, where super profits arise unexpectedly, opportunistically, and the state starts using them, often inside the country, without fully appreciating the risks, causing a sharp rise in inflationary pressure. Because the domestic economy does not produce enough goods to match the sudden increase in money supply, leading to inflation or even hyperinflation. Hence, these reserves are traditionally invested in foreign assets, including foreign securities denominated in foreign currencies.

However, it appears that it is an unreliable method. So, where should one invest? In education, science, cutting-edge technologies, and real estate – which, incidentally, many of our Chinese partners and friends are already doing – investing in deposits and minerals. These tangible assets prove to be more reliable than the financial instruments of other countries, particularly since, as it turns out, they use these instruments for political ends. In my view, and I have already mentioned it today, this is to their own detriment. But it is their choice, and we must focus on what we must do to safeguard our interests.

I believe that investing in technology, education, science, and logistics is the most reliable course of action.

Andrei Kostin: Thank you.

Colleagues, next question, please.

CEO Bahram Bahramsiri: (in Russian) Good afternoon, Mr President.

(In English) I am Bahram Bahramsiri, the CEO of the North-South Corridor Development Group from Iran.

Considering your efforts of developing the North-South Corridor and the follow-ups with the previous and current president of Iran, my colleagues and I have worked hard in the past three years to form the private and public sectors of Iran in the form of concession for serious activity in the North-South Corridor. Therefore, we are very interested now in knowing your opinion on the following questions.

What is the prospect of cooperation between the private sectors of Iran and Russia in the development and optimisation of the North-South Corridor?

Is there a plan for joint investments of BRICS, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, and members of the Russian economic community in this Corridor?

And one more thing, how can Iran and Russia use each other’s economic potential? There is also talk here about the possibility of joint investment in shipbuilding.

Thank you very much for your attention.

Vladimir Putin: Regarding the development of new logistics routes, you know that this is an inevitable process in light of economic and trade growth. Of course, it has intensified because of the problems that are being created for us by external forces, including in logistics. We have to look for new routes, which we are doing, and we are finding them. But it is an inevitable process anyway because of the growth of global trade and the limitations of existing routes and their throughput capacity, as well as the growth of geopolitical risks.

Take the Suez Canal. The volume of freight transportation through it has decreased, which I regard as regrettable not only because this has affected the economy of Egypt, a friendly country that is sustaining heavy losses. Its budget revenues have decreased by nearly one third, which we are not pleased about.

The main reason for this is geopolitical risks and America’s active and aggressive moves in the Middle East. This has engendered a response from the resistance forces in that region. The economy and logistics routes have been affected. Many shippers are now sending their freight around Africa, and so on, for that reason, but also because the volume of trade is increasing and there is a growing interest in other routes, such as the Northern Sea Route along the Russian coast in the Arctic. The volume of transportation via this route has increased several-fold since the Soviet period, and we will continue to increase it.

We have a programme for building ice-class vessels and icebreakers. We have the largest icebreaker fleet in the world. In particular, we have seven nuclear-powered ice breakers and 34 icebreakers with conventional engines. We have seven nuclear-powered icebreakers, and we have plans for building more of them.

The climate is changing, and the number of days for unimpeded pilotage is growing. We see that many countries, first of all, our Asian partners, such as India, China and many others, are interested in using that route and in working on it. We have a programme for the development of ports in that region, with access routes and so on.

Certainly, the North-South Corridor has major significance in this context. It is already operational, and freight traffic volumes along this corridor are constantly growing. Freight consignments are delivered by motor vehicles, trains and ships navigating the Caspian Sea, and their volumes are constantly growing.

Speaking of our plans with Iranian friends, you are surely aware of the need to build a 162-km railway section between Rasht and Astara. We are committed to achieving this goal as we have coordinated and signed all documents to that end. There is a number of technical issues we need to resolve as per our agreement with our Iranian friends, they should be addressed by the Iranian side. We are talking about ensuring that rail tracks are laid on the land plots that should be free for the implementation of such projects.

Although there are certain challenges, it is clear that many consignors have a strong economic interest in reaching the Indian Ocean and the Persian Gulf, as this route enables direct and seamless freight traffic from the Baltic Sea coast, from St Petersburg to the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean.

Our northern and southern partners, including our Indian friends, are interested in this initiative. I am confident that these projects will come to fruition, although they will require substantial investment, the overall amounts of which have already been calculated. We already know how much this will cost, and the resources needed are available.

We are interested, of course, in attracting more and more participants and investors in these projects. There is great interest in them as they minimise geopolitical risks and create favourable conditions for stable operations.

Regarding bilateral relations, we maintain stable trade and economic ties, and we anticipate an increase in our trade volumes this year. We are implementing successful large-scale projects in the sphere of logistics, as we discussed earlier, as well as in energy and industrial cooperation. By the way, this also includes the security sphere.

Therefore, bilateral collaboration has good prospects, including cooperation with the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) that you mentioned. We have signed an agreement on a free trade zone, and I believe the Iranian leadership is interested in working more closely with the EAEU, including as a permanent observer. We fully support this, and we will pursue it.

Additionally, we have finalised a fundamental treaty that will regulate all issues linked with our future cooperation. I hope this treaty will be signed during the Iranian President’s upcoming visit to the Russian Federation.

Andrei Kostin: Thank you.

Colleagues, who is next? Please.

Sun Tianshu: Good afternoon, Mr President.

My name is Tianshu. I am the founder of the Russian-Chinese digital trading platform QIFA.

I have been living and working between Russia and China for exactly 31 years. Over the years, I have seen with my own eyes how you, with your wisdom and strong will, are building a new and modern Russia. I would like to express my deepest respect on behalf of Chinese businesses.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you.

Sun Tianshu: I have a rather simple question for you. These days, we see more and more new Chinese cars on the streets, but the majority of these cars are delivered from China fully assembled.

My question is, are there plans to partly or fully localise the production of Chinese cars in Russia, in order to expand Russia-China cooperation from trade to investment?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Indeed, we did not begin our relations with our Chinese friends in the car manufacturing industry yesterday. The actual work began in 2015. The discussion of these projects had begun even earlier but in 2015, I believe we launched the first production facilities in Tula and later in Kaluga.

First of all, the reason does not lie in the fact that, for example, German car manufacturers started to leave Russia. The reason is mainly that Chinese manufacturers offer better quality than European ones – and also at more competitive prices. This is the main reason.

We consider the measures against Chinese car industry that, say, Europe and other markets take, to be absolutely wrong and harmful for the global trade, global production and global car manufacturing. They are politically motivated and will not bring any good results because they will inevitably lower the competitiveness of those who are competing with China in this segment of the global economy and global production. Chinese goods have simply become better in terms of quality and more affordable, that is all. Our Chinese friends have managed to attract the most experienced, interesting and promising professionals, including from the countries that were once leaders in global car manufacturing. They have succeeded in creating truly competitive products.

Certainly, like any other country, I want to stress this, including the People’s Republic of China or any country in the world and any economy at all, we strive for ultimate localisation – that is, for manufacturing car parts in our own market, in our own economy and using our own facilities.

A well-known instrument called a special investment contract can be used for this purpose, with the level of support from the state being directly proportional to the level of localisation. This instrument is well known. I will not go into details right now regarding the percentage value of the perks available and the percentage of localisation required. But this process does exist.

We implement the same policy with our Chinese friends. Everybody is very understanding about this policy. The terms and scope of support from the state is the main issue. But we will reach an agreement with our Chinese friends on this matter, as we usually do in other areas of our cooperation.

I want to congratulate Chinese companies on their outstanding achievements in car manufacturing.

Thank you.

Andrei Kostin: Next question, please.

Arvind Abrol: Mr President,

Arvind Abrol, CFO, Sun Pharma Russia, one of the leading pharma companies working in Russia for more than 30 years.

Mr President, you know that Russia has experienced a colossal outflow of foreign investment, which has not ever happened in the world history.

So my question is that, what is your view, how Russia is going to adapt in the current situation? How is Russia going to adapt now? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: You know, Russia has almost fully adapted to this situation. Yes, the outflow of foreign investment was obvious. But first, investments in fixed capital are growing, as I have said just now, which is apparent. They are growing, in part, because we are creating new brands and supporting our own domestic producers.

This probably came as a surprise to those who imposed certain restrictions in the sphere of economic cooperation. They probably thought, as I pointed out in my address, that our enterprises would shut down and thousands of people would be left jobless. But our unemployment rate is 2.4 percent now. All our enterprises are working, and we are short of personnel.

Of course, it is necessary to secure the investment process. Overall, we have succeeded in doing so. For example, investments from friendly countries are growing. I will not provide the figures now, but they have increased substantially, and these channels cannot be closed because they are connected with economic interests. This is not being done out of political considerations, but it is happening.

I am confident that those who tried to prevent this now regret their previous decisions, because they have turned out to be ineffective. But those who made those decisions are not flexible enough to change their stance. Our Government and the Central Bank, apart from creating conditions for reliable investment and ensuring the safety of the invested funds, have also created a system for supporting the promising and most important spheres of economic development, including within the framework of national projects and the achievement of national development goals.

We have formulated these programmes, and we are trying to focus on the most important spheres of activity and to support high-tech sectors. The 8.1 percent growth in manufacturing is telling indeed. Moreover, such growth is not only due to the defence enterprises. The system has been effective in the economy and industry as a whole.

That is why we created the necessary conditions and ensured the liquidity of our financial institutions. Of course, there are questions about the 21-percent key rate, yet the volume of loans issued by Russian banks to economic operators, primarily, enterprises, continues to grow.

As I have said, we can obviously argue about complicated issues, but the fact is that the volume of investment is growing. This has become or has been made possible, in part, because we started by ensuring the uninterrupted, smooth and confident operation of Russia’s national financial institutions. The set of measures we used is no secret, in principle. Everyone can take a closer look at it. But overall, it is in these spheres that we have achieved the result you have mentioned, and I can repeat that this is indeed the case.

Andrei Kostin: Colleagues, we have been working for almost 90 minutes now. We will take two more questions at most. Who is the brave one? Go ahead, please.

Vladimir Putin: There are many brave ones.

Andrei Kostin: There are many brave ones, indeed.

Question: Thank you so much, Mr President, for the privilege to ask you a question. My name is Clever, my surname is Light. I am Nigerian – Africa’s largest economy, – and I speak English, as we were colonized by the British. I am the President of King of Kings Integrated Limited.

Vladimir Putin: Why does the Federal Republic of Germany speak English? They were never a colony. (Laughter.)

Question: And also the Vice Chairman of Infinity Citizens Limited. We deal in international trade, and we are also a government contracting firm.

My question, Mr President: we have seen recently a significant increase in Russia’s foreign policy contacts in Africa. I would love to know, Mr President, what these contacts are for, what are they about, and also I want to know what does Russia stand to achieve from this cooperation with these African contacts. Also, how far have you achieved these goals and objectives in Africa? And what do you think about the response from your contacts in Africa?

And lastly, I want to say Africa is with you, Mr President, thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you very much. Thank you, especially for the last remark.

Indeed, Nigeria is a major economy that is making big strides and has good prospects not only because there are lots of opportunities in the energy sector, but the economy in general is diversifying. We are very happy for you, we welcome you and we are confident that your country will keep up the pace in the future.

I have already mentioned the growth of trade, so I will have to repeat what I said earlier. The African continent has bright growth prospects. Indeed, we – and you especially – are aware of all the problems that Africa faces, but the prospects are very good.

By the way, these are not our assessments. These assessments were provided by the global expert community, including the Western expert community. Many of my friends from Germany and other European countries say that they are also willing to develop and step up their activity in Africa.

The urbanisation level remains below the world level which stands at about 65 percent. By the way, we, in Russia, have it, I think, at 75 percent, and Asia has the same level. What does this tell us? The urbanisation will continue to grow, no doubt about it. The population growth rates are very high, which means there will be a catch-up growth in living standards. It is inevitable. It means the latest economic tools and technology will be implemented. So it is just a natural process of expanding our cooperation with Africa.

Among other things, Africa is a rather outlying continent geographically, but is close to us in spirit, because Africa is home to courageous and freedom-loving countries that value their sovereignty and, based on it, make and, we are sure, will continue to make decisions in the best interests of their peoples and their countries. In this sense, Africa is our reliable partner.

We have numerous ties with the peoples of Africa. I am speaking, of course, about the years of struggle for independence and liberation from colonialism. Nothing has ever separated us from African countries or from the peoples of Africa. Everything that we have unites us.

We are particularly excited about the growth prospects of the African continent. Of course, we will do our best to raise the level of development. Unfortunately, the trade is not as large as we would like, about 25 billion, but the prospects are good.

During the two forums held at the highest level, we have had the chance to sense the African leaders’ frame of mind. No one of them is asking for anything. Everyone is talking about one thing which is to build mutually beneficial cooperation which we will, of course, do and we will create new instruments.

A decision was made to create a special fund for promoting cooperation with African countries. I am confident that we will step up bilateral efforts and our efforts to expand cooperation with various African associations. I am sure that the result will be very good.

Question: Mr President, good afternoon.

My name is Harun Çelik. I was born and educated in Turkiye, but for the past 15 years, I have been living in Russia and working at Baltikstroyalyans.

My question is as follows: There are various strategies worldwide for addressing inflation, ranging from ignoring the issue to stringent regulation of prices. In Russia, this responsibility predominantly lies with the Central Bank, which operates somewhat autonomously. Could you explain the rationale behind Russia's adoption of this particular management model in this context?

Thank you.

Andrei Kostin: Excuse me, are you from Turkiye?

Harun Çelik: Yes, I am.

Andrei Kostin: I see. That explains why inflation is a concern.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, you are right, the inflation rate is notably high. What is it currently in Turkiye – around 80 percent, correct? It fluctuates, but it is about that.

Less than 50 percent? Well, my congratulations. It was 80 percent just recently, and now it is below 50 percent. This is genuinely commendable progress and a positive trend. And the pace is impressive. So, I extend my congratulations to the country's financial authorities for achieving this result. Just recently, it was 80 percent, and now it is under 50. This is indeed good news.

Regarding how this matter is handled in Russia: as per Russian legislation, the Central Bank has its own set of powers, distinct from those of the Government of the Russian Federation, particularly in the domain of combating inflation and regulatory actions in this sphere.

The primary responsibility, the main weight of this task, rests on the shoulders of the regulator – the Central Bank of the Russian Federation. As you are aware, inflation has risen, as I mentioned earlier; it is currently at 8.8 percent, an increase compared to last year when it was approximately 7.5 percent, and now it is 8.8 percent.

Consequently, the Central Bank had to increase the key rate to 21 percent. There are critics, many of them, who argue that this stifles development. There are experts who contend that this measure is unavoidable. Some suggest that a 21-percent key interest rate compared to an inflation rate of 8.8 percent is excessive.

I will not venture an opinion on whether this is beneficial or detrimental. I merely wish to point out that, naturally, there are certain challenges for the real sector of the economy, yet lending to this sector persists. There are advantages and disadvantages regarding the placement and growth of income from households' money deposited in banks.

On one hand, this is positive; deposits have increased, and the incomes of individuals who have bank deposits are rising, which is beneficial. However, not everyone holds bank deposits. For those who do not have such possibility, to have accounts in the banks, the burden associated with inflation is challenging. In other words, the less affluent bear the brunt as prices climb. Without bank deposits, they do not receive additional income. And these individuals are likely to constitute a sizable part, if not the majority, compared to those with substantial bank accounts. This is also something to think about.

As for expanding production, manufacturers continue to have access to loans and are therefore able to invest, as I said in my address and repeated just now. But the most important factor here, the most important tool to fight inflation, is to ensure sufficient output of goods and services that the economy needs. This is a very important point, and it is essential to achieve a balance where the economy can grow, with goods and services supplied to the market in the right volume, of the right quality and at the right prices, and inflation is brought down to the stated target. Our inflation target was four percent by some year. I hope we will achieve it.

For that, it is essential to ensure a seamless, highly skilled and solid cooperation and collaboration between the Government and the Central Bank, even though they have separate and distinct powers under Russian laws, meaning that the monetary regulator’s independence is ensured by law. I think that we will continue to work in this way, in this paradigm, rather than mixing up the responsibilities of the Central Bank and the Government.

I see my role in directing them to work together to find the right balance in managing our credit and finance.

Naturally, much depends on the Government here, because many participants in economic activity are clearly struggling with difficulties caused by the recent key rate hikes. It is very important for the Government to correctly identify priorities for ensuring economic and technological growth. There are tools that the Government can use to ensure strategic interests of the Russian economy. I am not going to list them now, but there are many of them. We have the Industrial Development Fund and so on, where the state, the Government subsidise bank interests and so on. We have a substantial package of support tools.

It is necessary that the set of tools the Central Bank uses in pursuing its policy, and the set of tools the Government uses to support economic growth and technological progress of the country fit together.

This, in turn, requires solidarity between the regulator, the Central Bank, and the Government. So far, we have managed to achieve this. I hope that this process will be maintained in the near future, and that the final result will be economic growth and inflation containment.

Andrei Kostin: Thank you.

Colleagues, I wish to extend my gratitude to all participants at our forum today. I would also like to express my thanks to the speakers from our morning session: Elvira Nabiullina, Maxim Reshetnikov, and Maxim Oreshkin.

Vladimir Putin: However, I see a colleague has already taken the microphone. Go ahead, please.

Question (without translation).

Vladimir Putin: Mr Kostin said, ”we are finished,“ and the translation stopped immediately.

Andrei Kostin: Kindly activate the translation; not everyone has mastered Chinese.

Question (retranslated): Mr President,

I have been affiliated with the Greenwood International Centre for two decades. I recall attending the Eastern Economic Forum in 2018, where I heard your address and had the opportunity to engage with you. Once again, I am privileged to communicate with you on this occasion.

The Greenwood International Trade Centre currently encompasses around 14 countries, with 100 companies representing these countries being actively engaged in trade and commercial operations, including Turkish enterprises, and over 180 Chinese companies fostering relations with their Russian counterparts through our centre. We are reaching agreements.

Our centre is presently focusing considerable attention on the Chinese automotive industry. Chinese car manufacturers, including leading brands, are participating in this initiative. We would like to take this opportunity to invite you to Greenwood Park for a discussion and an exchange of ideas. Should you have the opportunity, we would be delighted to discuss specific issues with you in a congenial and friendly atmosphere. Your support and attention are invaluable to us. Looking ahead, we are keen to learn how Russia plans to enhance the overall investment climate and adjust its strategies within our business sector. We would also appreciate your insights on these matters.

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: We have developed a whole range of instruments that sustain a favourable environment for our potential investors. Foremost, among these are assurances for the protection of invested capital and the generation of returns. We are committed to advancing and supporting these two key areas.

I am confident that the progress made, particularly in the development of our relations and trade ties with the People's Republic of China, is self-evident. The trade turnover between Russia and China has reached unprecedented levels, exceeding $240 billion, in dollar equivalent. This is the best evidence indicating that the mechanisms in place – both in China concerning Russian investments and economic operators, and vice versa for Chinese entities and investments in Russia – are functioning effectively.

However, we continuously scrutinise developments in this domain. This success is largely attributable to the diligent oversight by the governments of the People's Republic of China and the Russian Federation.

Our predominant challenge today lies in the realm of settlements. There are no secrets here, and the reasons are apparent. Nevertheless, nearly 90 percent of our trade is now conducted in national currencies, namely the yuan and the ruble. Additionally, we are poised to leverage the electronic capabilities of our central banks. Significant expert-level collaboration is underway between our central banks, alongside the investment platform I mentioned within the BRICS framework.

We will employ all available tools to ensure that our cooperation is reliable, safe, and conducive to wider development opportunities.

Thank you for the invitation to visit your organisation. You mentioned creating a good atmosphere for discussions. I think I know what kind of atmosphere will be created and I would gladly visit you at some point.

Andrei Kostin: Thank you, Mr President.

Vladimir Putin: Let us move to this side of the audience as I take the last question.

Andrei Kostin: Who would you choose?

Vladimir Putin: It does not matter. There, somebody has a question. Go ahead, please.

Question: Good afternoon, Mr President.

I have been living and working in Russia for over 10 years. I have worked in the oil sector and in the automobile industry. I first saw you up close in Kaluga more than 15 years ago. Today, I am the official trade and economic representative of China’s Jiangsu Province in Russia.

As you are aware, interregional cooperation is an important factor of economic development. I would like to ask you about visas. What might Russia do in the next few years to simplify international travel, including for business, study and tourism?

What is Russia’s policy on supporting the families of foreign citizens who are long-term working residents in Russia, including visas for their minor children and their enrolment at educational institutions here?

I would also like to invite you to the Jiangsu Province. We in China say that above there is heaven, below there is Jiangsu. Jiangsu is waiting for you.

Thank you very much.

Andrei Kostin: Yes, going to Jiangsu first would be preferable.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you very much. You have asked an important question that is relevant for those who are doing practical work to develop our cooperation and the strategic partnership between Russia and the People’s Republic of China. It is thanks to people like you that we achieve the results I have mentioned.

You have pointed out several elements. One is visa support, which we provide. These issues are addressed on the principle of reciprocity in all countries. I believe that our Chinese friends and we are doing more for each other than we do in our relations with third countries, and we will continue to do this. That is the first point.

The second important element is regional cooperation. I fully agree with you on this point. The volume of interaction between regions in the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China keeps growing, which is logical, because people there know each other well, often exchange visits, understand the situation in their regions’ economies, and see what can be done for their development. I know this from my colleagues and from the heads of Russian regions that border on the respective Chinese provinces. Even the regions that do not have a common border with China are developing cooperation at the regional level.

It is extremely important to create the necessary conditions for those who are promoting our mutual interests on both sides, as well as to take care of their families.

I would like to note, though, that the families of foreign professionals who permanently live in Russia have the right to enrol at Russian educational institutions as it is. Moreover, unlike in many other countries, the family members of these professionals have the right to seek employment in the Russian Federation.

We should probably regularly review the situation in this sphere, looking for additional opportunities to support those who work in these spheres professionally, since it is easier for them to pinpoint problems because this is what they have been trained to do.

You have mentioned a Chinese proverb regarding the Jiangsu Province. Another Chinese proverb has come to my mind now: The higher you go, the farther you can see. You have risen high, and so you understand these problems better than many others. Thank you for drawing our attention to them. I have made a note for myself. We will see by all means what additional measures can be taken.

I promised to move to this sector. Please, pass the microphone there.

As I see it, this will never end; it can only be stopped.

Question: Respected President, thanks for this opportunity.

I am from India, Ankur Goel, CEO of ”Skwerup Capital Partners“.

So, since we know that BRICS is taking a new shift in terms of promoting and, you know, accelerating the growth for the SMEs, basically, how do you see the need for a fast dispute-redress forum where the small and the medium-sized enterprises can feel comfort while dealing cross-border, especially in the BRICS Plus countries? So, I would like to know your view on the issue.

Vladimir Putin: This is a very good proposal and we try to act on it. However, as you pointed that out, I will ask my colleagues who analyse the situation within BRICS based on the main areas of cooperation, and we will certainly bring it to the attention of our Brazilian colleagues, since they will preside over BRICS next year.

This is highly relevant to us because, under the import substitution programme, a large number of new Russian brands are entering the market to replace our former Western partners who voluntarily left the Russian market. They are making significant strides and achieving very success – not only in the mass production sector but also in the IT sector and in high technology in the broad sense.

By the way, in agriculture, the number of our producers is growing. In 1988, the Soviet Union imported US$35 billion worth of grain. Last year, we exported 66 million tonnes of grain. In many cases, producers, farms and so on are covering their costs. Therefore, in all Russian sectors, including in high-tech sectors, the demand for expanding sales in increasing. We are extremely interested in this.

I know that, at Prime Minister Modi’s initiative, India is pursuing the same policy. Everybody knows the slogan: “Make in India.” On our part, we are ready to open certain production facilities of our own in India.

Let me remind you that the largest investment in the Indian economy in recent times was made by Rosneft, which invested US$20 billion. The fact that the Prime Minister of India and the government are creating such reliable and stable conditions is largely due to the Indian leadership’s commitment to a nation-oriented policy across all areas, including the economy.

We consider investment in India to be stable and highly profitable. But we are also interested in supporting our own producers.

Thank you for this idea. We will certainly work on it.

Andrei Kostin: Colleagues, let’s wrap it up.

Thank you so much, Mr President.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you. And a big thank you to the organisers.

Valdai Discussion Club meeting

2024-11-12T19:10:26+04:00

Vladimir Putin took part in the plenary session of the 21^st annual meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club.

The theme of the meeting is Lasting Peace on What Basis? Common Security and Equal Opportunities for Development in the 21^st Century.

* * *

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

We are starting the plenary session of the 21^st annual meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club. We have spent four wonderful days full of discussions and now we can try to sum up some of the results.

I would like to invite President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin to the stage.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Thank you. Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, friends,

I am delighted to welcome all of you to our traditional meeting. First of all, I would like to thank you for taking part in acute and substantive discussions of the Valdai Club. We are meeting on November 7, which is a significant date both for Russia and the entire world. The Russian Revolution of 1917, like the Dutch, English and great French Revolutions in their time, all became, to a certain extent, milestones in the development path of humanity and largely determined the course of history, the nature of politics, diplomacy, economies, and social structure.

We are also destined to live in an era of fundamental, even revolutionary changes, and not only to comprehend but also to take a direct part in the most complex processes of the first quarter of the 21^st century. The Valdai Club is already 20 years old, almost the same age as our century. By the way, in cases like this they often say that time flies by quickly, but not in this case. These two decades were more than filled with the most important, sometimes dramatic events of truly historical scale. We are witnessing the formation of a completely new world order, nothing like we had in the past, such as the Westphalian or Yalta systems.

New powers are rising. Nations are becoming more and more aware of their interests, their value, uniqueness and identity, and are increasingly insistent on pursuing the goals of development and justice. At the same time, societies are confronted with a multitude of new challenges, from exciting technological changes to catastrophic natural disasters, from outrageous social division to massive migration waves and acute economic crises.

Experts talk about the threat of new regional conflicts, global epidemics, about complex and controversial ethical aspects of interaction between humans and artificial intelligence, about how traditions and progress reconcile with each other.

You and I predicted some of these problems when we met earlier and even discussed them in detail at the Valdai Club meetings. We instinctively anticipated some of them, hoping for the best but not excluding the worst scenario.

Something, on the contrary, became a complete surprise for everyone. Indeed, the dynamics is very intensive. In fact, the modern world is unpredictable. If you look back 20 years and evaluate the scale of changes, and then project these changes onto the coming years, you can assume that the next twenty years will be no less, if not more difficult. And how much more difficult they will be, depends on the multitude of factors. As I understand, you are coming together at the Valdai Club exactly to analyse all these factors and try to make some predictions, some forecasts.

There comes, in a way, the moment of truth. The former world arrangement is irreversibly passing away, actually it has already passed away, and a serious, irreconcilable struggle is unfolding for the development of a new world order. It is irreconcilable, above all, because this is not even a fight for power or geopolitical influence. It is a clash of the very principles that will underlie the relations of countries and peoples at the next historical stage. Its outcome will determine whether we will be able, through joint efforts, to build a world that will allow all nations to develop and resolve emerging contradictions based on mutual respect for cultures and civilisations, without coercion and use of force. And finally, whether the human society will be able to retain its ethical humanistic principles, and whether an individual will be able to remain human.

At first glance, it might appear that there is no alternative. Yet, regrettably, there is. It is the dive of humanity into the depths of aggressive anarchy, internal and external splits, the erosion of traditional values, the emergence of new forms of tyranny, and the actual renunciation of the classical principles of democracy, along with fundamental rights and freedoms. Increasingly often, democracy is being interpreted not as the rule of majority but of minority. Traditional democracy and the rule of the people are being set against an abstract notion of freedom, for the sake of which, as some argue, democratic procedures, elections, majority opinion, freedom of speech, and an unbiased media can be disregarded or sacrificed.

The peril lies in the imposition of totalitarian ideologies and making them the norm, as exemplified by the current state of Western liberalism. This modern Western liberalism, in my view, has degenerated into extreme intolerance and aggression towards any alternative or sovereign and independent thought. Today, it even seeks to justify neo-Nazism, terrorism, racism, and even the mass genocide of civilians.

Moreover, there are international conflicts and confrontations fraught with the danger of mutual destruction. Weapons that can cause this do exist and are being constantly improved, taking new forms as the technologies advance. The number of nations possessing such weapons is growing, and no one can guarantee that these weapons will not be used, especially if threats incrementally multiply and legal and moral norms are ultimately shattered.

I have previously stated that we have reached red lines. The West’s calls to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia, a nation with the largest arsenal of nuclear weapons, reveal the reckless adventurism of certain Western politicians. Such blind faith in their own impunity and exceptionalism could lead to a global catastrophe. Meanwhile, the former hegemons, who have been accustomed to ruling the world since colonial times, are increasingly astonished that their commands are no longer heeded. Efforts to cling to their diminishing power through force result only in widespread instability and more tensions, leading to casualties and destruction. However, these efforts fail to achieve the desired outcome of maintaining absolute, unchallenged power. For the march of history cannot be halted.

Instead of recognising the futility of their ambitions and the objective nature of change, certain Western elites seem poised to go to any lengths to thwart the development of a new international system that aligns with the interests of the global majority. In the recent policies of the United States and its allies, for instance, the principle of ”You shall not belong to anyone!“ or ”You're either with us or against us“ has become increasingly evident. I mean to say, such a formula is very dangerous. After all, as the saying of our and many other countries goes, ”What goes around comes around.“

Chaos, a systemic crisis is already escalating in the very nations that attempt to implement such strategies. The pursuit of exclusivity, liberal and globalist messianism and ideological, military, and political monopoly is steadily depleting those countries that pursue these paths, pushing the world towards decline and starkly contradicting the genuine interests of the people in the United States and European countries.

I am confident that sooner or later the West will come to this realisation. Historically, its great achievements have always been rooted in a pragmatic, clear-eyed approach based on a tough, sometimes cynical but rational evaluation of circumstances and their own capabilities.

In this context, I wish to emphasise once more: unlike our counterparts, Russia does not view Western civilisation as an adversary, nor does it pose the question of ”us or them.“ I reiterate: ”You're either with us or against us“ is not part of our vocabulary. We have no desire to teach anyone or impose our worldview upon anyone. Our stance is open and it is as follows.

The West has indeed amassed significant human, intellectual, cultural, and material resources which enable it to thrive as one of the key elements of the global system. However, it is precisely ”one of“ alongside other rapidly advancing nations and groups. Hegemony in the new international order is not a consideration. When, for instance, Washington and other Western capitals understand and acknowledge this incontrovertible fact, the process of building a world system that addresses future challenges will finally enter the phase of genuine creation. God willing, this should happen as soon as possible. This is in the shared interest, especially for the West itself.

So far, we – meaning all those interested in creating a just and stable world – have been using too much energy to resist the destructive activities of our opponents, who are clinging to their monopoly. This is obvious, and everyone in the west, the east, the south and everywhere else is aware of this. They are trying to preserve their power and monopoly, which is obvious.

These efforts could be directed with much better results towards addressing the common problems that concern everyone, from demography and social inequality to climate change, food security, medicine and new technology. This is where we should focus our energy, and this is what all of us should be doing.

I will take the liberty of making a number of philosophical digressions today. After all, this is a discussion club, and I hope these digressions will be in the spirit of the discussions we have been holding here.

As I said, the world is changing radically and irreversibly. Unlike previous versions of the world order, the new world is characterised by a combination or parallel existence of two seemingly incompatible elements: a rapidly growing conflict potential and the fragmentation of the political, economic and legal spheres, on the one hand, and the continued close interconnection of the global space as a whole, on the other hand. This may sound paradoxical. We have grown used to these trends following and replacing one another. For centuries, the times of conflicts and division were followed by more favourable periods of interaction. This is the dynamics of historical development.

It turns out that this principle no longer applies. Let us reflect on this. Violent, conceptual and highly emotional conflicts greatly complicate but do not stop global development. New links of interaction emerge in place of those destroyed by political decisions or even military methods. These new links may be much more complicated and sometimes convoluted, yet they help maintain economic and social ties.

We can speak from experience here. Recently, the collective West – the so-called collective West – made an unprecedented attempt to banish Russia from global affairs and from the international economic and political systems. The number of sanctions and punitive measures applied against our country has no analogues in history. Our opponents assumed that they would inflict a crushing defeat, dealing a knockout blow to Russia from which it would never recover, thereby ceasing to be one of the permanent fixtures in the international community.

I think there is no need to remind you of what really happened. The very fact that this Valdai conference, which marks a major anniversary this year, has attracted such a high-profile audience speaks for itself, I believe. Valdai is just one example. It just brought into perspective the reality in which we live, in which Russia exists. The truth is that the world needs Russia, and no decisions made by any individuals in Washington or Brussels who believe others should take their orders can change this.

The same applies to other decisions. Even a trained swimmer will not go very far upstream, regardless of the tricks or even doping they might use. The current of global politics, the mainstream, is running from the crumbling hegemonic world towards growing diversity, while the West is trying to swim against the tide. This is obvious; as people say, there is no prize for guessing. It is simply that clear.

Let’s return to the dialectics of history, the alternation of periods of conflict and cooperation. Has the world really changed so much that this theory no longer applies? Let’s try to look at what is happening today from a slightly different angle: what is the essence of the conflict, and who is involved in it today?

Since the middle of the last century, when Nazism – the most malicious and aggressive ideology, the product of fierce controversies in the first half of the 20^th century – was defeated through timely action and at the cost of tremendous losses, humanity was faced with the task of avoiding the revival of this evil and a recurrence of world wars. Despite all the zigzags and local skirmishes, the general vector was defined at that time. It was a total rejection of all forms of racism, the dismantling of the classical colonial system and the inclusion of a greater number of full-fledged participants in international politics. There was an obvious demand for openness and democracy in the international system, along with rapid growth in different countries and regions, and the emergence of new technological and socio-economic approaches aimed at expanding development opportunities and achieving prosperity. Like any other historical process, this gave rise to a clash of interests. Yet again, the general desire for harmony and development in all aspects of this concept was obvious.

Our country, then called the Soviet Union, made a major contribution to consolidating these trends. The Soviet Union assisted states that had renounced colonial or neo-colonial dependence, whether in Africa, Southeast Asia, the Middle East or Latin America. I would like to emphasise that in the mid-1980s, it was the Soviet Union that called for an end to ideological confrontation, the overcoming of the Cold War legacy, an end to the Cold War and its legacy, and the elimination of barriers that hampered global unity and comprehensive world development.

Yes, our attitude towards that period is complicated, in light of the consequences of the national political leadership’s policies. We have to confront certain tragic consequences, and we are still battling with them. I would like to highlight the unjustifiably idealistic urges of our leaders and our nation, as well as their sometimes naïve approaches, as we can see today. Undoubtedly, this was motivated by sincere aspirations for peace and universal wellbeing. In reality, this reflects a salient feature of our nation’s mentality, its traditions, values, and spiritual and moral coordinates.

But why did these aspirations lead to diametrically opposite results? This is an important question. We know the answer, and I have mentioned it repeatedly, in one way or another. The other party to the ideological confrontation perceived those historical developments as its triumph and victory, viewing them as our country’s surrender to the West and as an opportunity and the victor’s right to establish complete dominance, rather than as a chance to rebuild the world based on new and equitable concepts and principles.

I mentioned this some time ago, and I will now touch on it briefly, without mentioning any names. In the mid-1990s and even in the late 1990s, a US politician remarked that, from that point on, they would treat Russia not as a defeated adversary but as a blunt tool in their own hands. That was the principle they were guided by. They lacked a broad outlook and overall cultural and political awareness; they failed to comprehend the situation and understand Russia. By distorting the results of the Cold War to suit their interests and reshaping the world according to their ideas, the West displayed flagrant and unprecedented geopolitical greed. These are the real origins of the conflicts in our historical era, beginning with the tragedies in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, and now Ukraine and the Middle East.

Some Western elites thought that their monopoly and the moment of unipolarity in the ideological, economic, political and partially even military-strategic sense were the destination point. Here we are. Stop and enjoy the moment! This is the end of history, as they arrogantly announced.

I do not need to tell this audience how short-sighted and inaccurate that assumption was. History has not ended. On the contrary, it has entered a new phase. And the reason is not that some malicious opponents, rivals or subversive elements prevented the West from establishing its system of global power.

To tell the truth, after the collapse of the Soviet Union as a Soviet socialist alternative, many thought that the monopoly system had come to stay, almost for all eternity, and they needed to adjust to it. But that system started wobbling on its own, under the weight of the ambitions and greed of those Western elites. When they saw that other nations became prosperous and assumed leadership in the system they had created to suit their needs – we must admit that the victorious nations created the Yalta system to suit their own needs after WWII and later, after the Cold War, those who thought they had won the Cold War started adjusting it to suit their own needs – so, when they saw that other leaders appeared within the framework of the system they created to suit their own needs, they immediately tried to adjust it, violating in the process the very same rules they upheld the day before and changing the rules they themselves had established.

What conflict are we witnessing today? I am confident that it is not a conflict of everyone against everyone caused by a digression from the rules the West keeps telling us about. Not at all. It is a conflict between the overwhelming majority of the global population, which wants to live and develop in an interconnected world with a great deal of opportunities, and the global minority, whose only concern, as I have said, is the preservation of its domination. To achieve this goal, they are ready to destroy the achievements that are the result of a long period of movement towards a common global system. As we see, they are not succeeding and will not succeed.

At the same time, the West is hypocritically attempting to persuade us that the achievements humanity has strived for since the Second World War are jeopardised. This is not the case at all, as I have just pointed out. Both Russia and the vast majority of nations are committed to bolstering the spirit of international advancement and the aspirations for lasting peace that have been central to development since the mid-20^th century.

What is truly at stake is something quite different. What is at stake is the West's monopoly, which emerged after the collapse of the Soviet Union and was held temporarily at the end of the 20^th century. But let me reiterate, as those gathered here understand: any monopoly, as history teaches us, eventually comes to an end. There can be no illusions about this. Monopoly is invariably detrimental, even to the monopolists themselves.

The policies of the elites within the collective West may be influential, but given the limited membership of this exclusive club, they are neither forward-looking nor creative; rather, they focus on maintaining the status quo. Any sports enthusiast, not to mention professionals in football, hockey, or martial arts, knows that a holding strategy almost invariably leads to defeat.

Turning to the dialectics of history, we can assert that the coexistence of conflict and the pursuit of harmony is inherently unstable. The contradictions of our era must eventually be resolved through synthesis, transitioning to a new quality. As we embark on this new phase of development, building a new global architecture, it is crucial for us all to avoid repeating the mistakes of the late 20^th century when, as I have previously stated, the West attempted to impose its, in my view, deeply flawed model of Cold War withdrawal, which was fraught with the potential for new conflicts.

In the emerging multipolar world, there should be no nations or peoples left as losers or feeling aggrieved and humiliated. Only then can we secure truly sustainable conditions for universal, equitable, and secure development. The desire for cooperation and interaction is undoubtedly prevailing, overcoming even the most acute situations. This represents the international mainstream – the backbone course of events.

Of course, standing at the epicentre of the tectonic shifts brought about by profound changes in the global system, it is challenging to predict the future. However, understanding the general trajectory – from hegemony to a complex world of multilateral cooperation – allows us to attempt to sketch at least some of the pending contours.

During my address at last year’s Valdai Forum, I ventured to delineate six principles which, in our estimation, ought to underpin relations as we embark upon a new phase of historical progression. I am persuaded that the events which have unfolded and the passage of time have only corroborated the fairness and validity of the proposals we advanced. Let me expound upon these principles.

Firstly, openness to interaction stands as the paramount value cherished by the overwhelming majority of nations and peoples. The endeavour to construct artificial barriers is not only flawed because it impedes normal and advantageous to everyone economic progression, but also because it is particularly perilous amidst natural disasters and socio-political turmoil, which, unfortunately, are all too common in international affairs.

To illustrate, consider the scenario that unfolded last year following the devastating earthquake in Asia Minor. For purely political reasons, aid to the Syrian people was obstructed, resulting in certain regions bearing the brunt of the calamity. Such instances of self-serving, opportunistic interests thwarting the pursuit of the common good are not isolated.

The barrier-free environment I alluded to last year is indispensable not merely for economic prosperity but also for addressing acute humanitarian exigencies. Moreover, as we confront new challenges, including the ramifications of rapid technological advancements, it is imperative for humanity to consolidate intellectual efforts. It is telling that those who now stand as the principal adversaries of openness are the very individuals who, until recently, extolled its virtues with great fervour.

Presently, these same forces and individuals endeavour to wield restrictions as a tool of pressure against dissenters. This tactic will prove futile, for the same reason that the vast global majority champions openness devoid of politicisation.

Secondly, we have consistently underscored the diversity of the world as a prerequisite for its sustainability. It may appear paradoxical, as greater diversity complicates the construction of a unified narrative. Naturally, universal norms are presumed to aid in this regard. Can they fulfil this role? It stands to reason that this is a formidable and complicated task. Firstly, we must avoid a scenario where the model of one country or a relatively minute segment of humanity is presumed universal and imposed upon others. Secondly, it is untenable to adopt any conventional, albeit democratically developed code, and dictate it as an infallible truth to others in perpetuity.

The international community is a living entity, with its civilisational diversity making it unique and presenting an inherent value. International law is a product of agreements not even between countries, but between nations, because legal consciousness is an integral part of every unique culture and every civilisation. The crisis of international law, which is the subject of broad public discussion today, is, in a sense, a crisis of growth.

The rise of nations and cultures that have previously remained on the periphery of global politics for one reason or another means that their own distinct ideas of law and justice are playing an increasingly important role. They are diverse. This may give the impression of discord and perhaps cacophony, but this is only the initial phase. It is my deep conviction that the only new international system possible is one embracing polyphony, where many tones and many musical themes are sounded together to form harmony. If you like, we are moving towards a world system that is going to be polyphonic rather than polycentric, one in which all voices are heard and, most importantly, absolutely must be heard. Those who are used to soloing and want to keep it that way will have to get used to the new “scores” now.

Have I mentioned post-WWII international law? This international law is based on the UN Charter, which was written by the victorious countries. But the world is changing – with new centres of power emerging, and powerful economies growing and coming to the forefront. That predictably calls for a change in the legal regulation as well. Of course, this must be done carefully, but it is inevitable. Law reflects life, not vice versa.

Thirdly, we have said more than once that the new world can develop successfully only through the broadest inclusion. The experience of the last couple of decades has clearly demonstrated what usurpation leads to, when someone arrogates to themselves the right to speak and act on behalf of others.

Those countries that are commonly referred to as great powers have come to believe that they are entitled to dictate to others what their interests are – in fact, to define others’ national interests based on their own. Not only does this violate the principles of democracy and justice, but worst of all, it hinders an actual solution to the problems at hand.

In its very diversity, the emerging world is bound to be anything but simple. The more fully-fledged participants involved in this process, the more challenging it becomes to identify an optimal solution that satisfies all parties. Yet, once such a solution is achieved, there is hope that it will be both sustainable and enduring. This, in turn, allows us to dispense with arrogance and impulsive flip-flop policies, instead fostering political processes that are both meaningful and rational, guided by the principle of reasonable adequacy. By and large, this principle is spelled out in the UN Charter and within the Security Council.

What is the right of veto? What purpose does it serve? It exists to prevent the adoption of decisions that do not suit players on the international stage. Is this beneficial or detrimental? It may be perceived as detrimental by some, as it allows one party to obstruct decision-making. However, it is beneficial in that it prevents the passage of decisions that are unacceptable to certain parties. What does this imply? What does this stipulation signify? It urges us to enter the negotiating chamber and reach consensus. That is its essence.

As the world transitions to a multipolar reality, we must develop mechanisms to broaden the application of such principles. In each instance, decisions must not only be collective but must also involve those participants capable of making a meaningful and significant contribution to resolving the issues at hand. These are primarily the actors with a vested interest in finding a positive resolution, as their future security – and, consequently, their prosperity – depends on it.

There are countless examples where complex yet solvable contradictions between neighbouring countries and peoples have escalated into intractable, endemic conflicts due to the manoeuvrings and blatant interference of external forces, who are, in essence, indifferent to the fate of the conflict participants, regardless of the bloodshed or casualties inflicted. Those who intervene externally do so purely out of self-interest, without bearing any responsibility.

Moreover, I believe that regional organisations will assume a significant role in the future, as neighbouring nations, irrespective of the complexity of their relations, are invariably united by a shared interest in stability and security. For them, compromises are indispensable to achieving optimal conditions for their own development.

Next, the key principle of security for all without exception is that the security of one nation cannot be ensured at the expense of others’ security. I am not saying anything new. It has been set out in OSCE documents. We only need to implement them.

The bloc policy and the legacy of the Cold War colonial era run contrary to the essence of the new international system, which is open and flexible. There is only one bloc in the world that is held together by the so-called obligations and strict ideological dogmas and cliches. It is the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which continues expansion to Eastern Europe and is now trying to spread its approaches to other parts of the world, contrary to its own statutory documents. It is an open anachronism.

We talked on many occasions about the destructive role NATO continued to play, especially after the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Treaty Organisation, when it seemed that the alliance had lost its formally declared reason and the meaning of its existence. I believe that the United States recognised that this instrument was becoming unattractive and redundant, but it needed the bloc and still needs it to exercise command in the zone of its influence. That is why they need conflicts.

You know, even before the modern-day acute conflicts began, many European leaders told me: “Why are they trying to scare us with you? We are not frightened, and we do not see any threats.” This is an exact quote, do you see? I believe that the United States was aware of or sensed this as well, and regarded NATO as an organisation of secondary importance. Trust me, I know what I am speaking about. However, experts there knew that they needed NATO. How could they maintain its value and attraction? They needed to scare everyone and to divide Russia and Europe, especially Russia and Germany and France, by means of conflicts. This is why they pushed the situation towards a state coup in Ukraine and hostilities in its southeastern regions, in Donbass. They simply forced us to respond, and in this sense, they have attained their goal. As I see it, the same is taking place in Asia and on the Korean Peninsula now.

Actually, we see that the global minority is preserving and strengthening its military bloc in order to maintain its power. However, even the bloc countries themselves see and understand that the Big Brother’s harsh dictate does not help achieve the goals they are facing. Moreover, these aspirations run contrary to the interests of the rest of the world. Cooperating with countries that can benefit you and developing partner ties with those who are interested in this is a clear priority for the majority of countries worldwide.

It is obvious that military-political and ideological blocs are yet another form of obstacles created to hinder a natural development of a multipolar international system. I would like to point out that the notion of a zero-sum game, where only one side wins and all the others lose in the end, is a Western political creation. During the period of Western domination, this approach was imposed on everyone as a universal approach, but it is far from being universal and not always effective.

Eastern philosophy, as many here are deeply familiar with – perhaps even more so than I am – takes a fundamentally different approach. It seeks harmony of interests, aiming for everyone to achieve their essential goals without compromising the interests of others, the principle of “I win, and you win too.” All the ethnicities of Russia, throughout history, whenever possible, have similarly emphasised that the priority is not to impose one’s views at any cost, but rather to persuade and to foster genuine partnership and equal cooperation.

Our history, including the history of our national diplomacy, has repeatedly demonstrated the values of honour, nobility, peacemaking, and leniency. One needs only to recall Russia’s role in shaping the order in Europe after the Napoleonic wars. I am aware that some people there interpret this, to a certain extent, as an effort to preserve monarchy, and so on. But that is not the point now. Rather, I am referring to the broader approach taken in addressing these challenges.

The emerging community within the BRICS framework serves as a prototype for new, free, and non-block relationships between states and peoples. This also highlights that even some NATO members, as you know, are interested in closer cooperation with BRICS. It is likely that other countries may also consider deeper collaboration with BRICS in the future.

This year, our country held the chairmanship of the group, culminating in a recent summit in Kazan. I cannot deny that building a unified approach among many countries, each with distinct interests, is a challenging task. Diplomats and government officials had to invest considerable effort, employ tact, and actively practice listening to one another to reach the desired outcome. This required significant dedication, but it fostered a unique spirit of cooperation grounded not in coercion, but in mutual understanding.

We are confident that BRICS serves as a strong example of genuinely constructive cooperation in today’s evolving international landscape. Additionally, BRICS platforms – where entrepreneurs, scientists, and intellectuals from our countries meet – can become spaces for deep philosophical and foundational insights into the current global development processes. This approach embraces the unique characteristics of each civilisation, including its culture, history, and traditional identities.

The future Eurasian security system, now beginning to take shape across our vast continent, is founded on a spirit of respect and mutual consideration of interests. This approach is not only genuinely multilateral but also multifaceted. Today, security is a complex notion which encompasses more than just military and political dimensions; it cannot be achieved without socio-economic development and the resilience of states against a range of challenges, from natural to man-made. This concept of security spans both the physical and digital realms, including cyberspace and beyond.

My fifth point is about justice for all. Inequality is the true scourge of the modern world. Countries face social tension and political instability within their borders due to inequality, while on the international stage the development gap that separates the so-called Golden Billion from the rest of humankind may not only result in more political differences and confrontation, but also, and even more importantly, exacerbates migration-related issues.

There is hardly a developed country on this planet that has not faced an increasingly uncontrolled and unmanageable inflow of people seeking to improve their wellbeing, social status and to have a future. Some of them are simply trying to survive.

In wealthier societies, these uncontrolled migration flows, in turn, feed xenophobia and intolerance towards migrants, creating a spiralling sense of social and political unease and raising the level of aggression.

There are many reasons to explain why many countries and societies have been falling behind in terms of their social and economic development. Of course, there is no magical cure for this ill. It requires a long-term, system-wide effort, beginning with the creation of the necessary conditions to remove artificial, politically-motivated development barriers.

Attempts to weaponise the economy, regardless of the target, are detrimental to everyone, with the most vulnerable – people and countries in need of support – being the first to suffer.

We are confident that such issues as food security, energy security, access to healthcare and education, and finally, the orderly and free movement of people must not be impacted by whatever conflicts or disputes. These are fundamental human rights.

My sixth point is that we keep emphasising that sovereign equality is an imperative for any lasting international framework. Of course, countries differ in terms of their potential. This is an obvious fact. The same applies to the capabilities and opportunities they have. In this context, we often hear that achieving total equality would be impossible, amounting to wishful thinking, a utopia.

However, what makes today’s world special is its interconnected and holistic nature. In fact, sometimes countries that may not be as powerful or large as others play an even greater role compared to great powers by being more rational and results-driven in using their human, intellectual capital, natural resources and environment-related capabilities, by being more flexible and smart when tackling challenging matters, by setting higher living and ethical standards, as well as in administration and management, while also empowering all their people to fulfil their potential and creating a favourable psychological environment. This approach can bring about scientific breakthroughs, promote entrepreneurial activity, art and creativity, and empower young people. Taken together, all of this counts in terms of global influence and appeal. Let me paraphrase a law of physics: you can outperform others without getting ahead of them.

The most harmful and destructive attitude that we see in the modern world is supreme arrogance, which translates into a desire to condescendingly lecture others, endlessly and obsessively. Russia has never done this. This is not who or what we are. We can see that our approach is productive. Historical experience irrefutably shows that inequality – in society, in government or in the international arena – always has harmful consequences.

I would like to add something that I may not have mentioned often before. Over several centuries, the Western-centric world has embraced certain clichés and stereotypes concerning the global hierarchy. There is supposedly a developed world, progressive society and some universal civilisation that everyone should strive to join – while at the other end, there are backward, uncivilised nations, barbarians. Their job is to listen unquestioningly to what they are told from the outside, and to act on the instructions issued by those who are allegedly superior to them in this civilisational hierarchy.

It is clear that this concept works for a crude colonial approach, for the exploitation of the global majority. The problem is that this essentially racist ideology has taken root in the minds of many, creating a serious mental obstacle to general harmonious growth.

The modern world tolerates neither arrogance nor wanton disregard for others being different. To build normal relationships, above all, one needs to listen to the other party and try to understand their logic and cultural background, rather than expecting them to think and act the way you think they should based on your beliefs about them. Otherwise, communication turns into an exchange of clichés and flinging labels, and politics devolves into a conversation of the deaf.

The truth is that we see how they engage with other cultures that are different. On the surface, they show genuine interest in local music and folklore, seeming to praise and enjoy them, but beneath this facade, their economic and security policies remain neo-colonial.

Look at how the World Trade Organisation operates – it does not solve anything because all Western countries, the main economies, are blocking everything. They always act in their own interests, constantly replicating the same models they used decades and centuries ago – to continue to control everyone and everything.

It should be remembered that everyone is equal, meaning that everyone is entitled to have their own vision, which is no better or worse than others – it is just different, and everyone needs to sincerely respect that. Acknowledging this can pave the way for mutual understanding of interests, mutual respect and empathy, that is, the ability to show compassion, to relate to others’ problems, and the ability to consider differing opinions or arguments. This requires not only listening, but also altering behaviour and policies accordingly.

Listening and considering does not mean accepting or agreeing, not at all. This simply means recognising the other party’s right to their own worldview. In fact, this is the first necessary step towards harmonising different mindsets. Difference and diversity must be viewed as wealth and opportunities, not as reasons for conflict. This, too, reflects the dialectics of history.

We all understand here that an era or radical change and transformation invariably brings upheavals and shocks, which is quite unfortunate. Interests clash as if various actors have to adjust to one another once again. The world’s interconnected nature does not always help mitigate these differences. Of course, this is quite true. On the contrary, it can make things worse, sometimes even injecting more confusion into their relations and making it much harder to find a way out.

Over the many centuries of its history, humanity has grown accustomed to viewing the use of force as the last resort for resolving differences: “Might makes right.” Yes, sometimes this principle does work. Indeed, sometimes countries have no other choice than to stand for their interests with arms in hand and using all available means.

That said, we live in an interconnected and complex world, and it is becoming increasingly complex. While the use of force may help address a specific issue, it may, of course, bring about other and sometimes even greater challenges. And we understand this. Our country has never been the one to initiate the use of force: we are forced to do that only when it becomes clear that our opponent is acting aggressively and is not willing to listen to any type of argument. And whenever necessary, we will take any measure we need to protect Russia and all its citizens, and we will always achieve our goals.

We live in an intrinsically diverse, non-linear world. This is something we have always understood, and this is what we know today. It is not my intention today to revel in the past, but I can remember quite well the situation we had back in 1999, when I became Prime Minister and then went on to become President. I remember the challenges we faced at the time. I think that Russian people, just like the experts who have gathered in this room, all remember the forces which backed terrorists in North Caucasus, who supplied them weapons, sponsored them, and offered moral, political, ideological and informational support and the extent of these practices.

I can only scoff, with both ridicule and sadness, at what we were hearing at the time: We are dealing with al-Qaeda, which is evil, but as long as you are the target, it is fine. What kind of attitude is that? All this brings nothing but conflict. At the time we had a goal to invest everything we had and spend all the time at our disposal and all capabilities to keep the country together. Of course, this served everyone’s interests in Russia. Despite the dire economic situation in the wake of the 1998 economic crisis and despite the devastated state of our military, we came together as a nation to fend off this terrorist threat and went on to defeat it. Make no mistake about that.

Why have I brought this to your attention? In fact, once again some have come to believe that the world would be better off without Russia. At that time, they tried to finish Russia off after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Today, it seems that someone is once again nurturing this dream. They think that this would make the world more obedient and pliant. However, Russia stopped those aspiring to global dominance in their tracks many times over, no matter who it was. This is how it will be in the future, too. In fact, the world would hardly get any better. This message must finally get across to those trying to go down this road. It would do nothing but make things even more complicated than they are today.

Our opponents are coming up with new ways and devising new tools in their attempts to get rid of us. Today, they have been using Ukraine and its people as a tool by cynically pitching them against Russians and turning them into cannon fodder, all while perorating about a European choice. What kind of choice is that? Let me assure you that this is not our choice. We will defend ourselves and our people – I want this to be absolutely clear to everyone.

Russia’s role is certainly not limited to protecting and preserving itself. It may sound a bit grand, but Russia’s very existence guarantees that the world will retain its wide colour gamut, diversity and complexity, which is the key to successful development. These are not my words. This is something our friends from all regions of the world often tell me. I am not exaggerating. To reiterate, we are not imposing anything on anyone and will never do. We do not need that, and no one else needs it, either. We are guided by our own values, interests and ideas of what is right and what is not, which are rooted in our identity, history and culture. And, of course, we are always ready for a constructive dialogue with everyone.

Those who respect their culture and traditions have no right not to treat others with the same respect. Conversely, those who are trying to force others into inappropriate behaviour invariably trample their own roots, civilisation and culture into mud, some of what we are witnessing.

Russia is fighting for its freedom, rights, and sovereignty. I am not exaggerating, because over the previous decades everything, on the face of it, looked favourable and nice when they turned the G7 into the G8 and, thankfully, invited us to be members.

Do you know what was going on there? I witnessed it first-hand. You arrive at a G8 meeting, and it becomes immediately clear that prior to the G8 meeting, the G7 had got together and discussed things among themselves, including with regard to Russia, and then invited Russia to come. You look at it and smile. I always have. They give you a warm hug and a pat on the back. But in practice they do something opposite. And they never stop to make their way forward.

This can be seen particularly clearly in the context of NATO’s eastward expansion. They promised they would never expand, but they keep doing it. In the Caucasus, and with regard to the missile defence system – take anything, any key issue – they simply did not give a hoot about our opinion. In the end, all of that taken together started looking like a creeping intervention which, without exaggeration, sought to either degrade us or, even better for them, to destroy our country, either from within or from outside.

Eventually, they got to Ukraine, and moved into it with their bases and NATO. In 2008, they decided at a meeting in Bucharest to open the doors to NATO for Ukraine and Georgia. Why, pardon me for my plain language, why on earth would they do that? Were they confronted with any difficulties in international affairs? Indeed, we did not see eye to eye with Ukraine on gas prices, but we addressed these issues effectively anyway. What was the problem? Why do it and create grounds for a conflict? It was clear from day one what it would lead to ultimately. Still, they kept pressing ahead with it. Next thing you know they started expanding into our historical territories and supporting a regime that clearly tilted toward neo-Nazism.

Therefore, we can safely say and reiterate that we are fighting not only for our freedom, not only our rights, or our sovereignty, but we are upholding universal rights and freedoms, and the continued existence and development of the absolute majority of the countries around the world. To a certain extent, we see this as our country’s mission as well.

Everyone should be clear that putting pressure on us is useless, but we are always prepared to sit down and talk based on consideration of our mutual legitimate interests in their entirety. This is something that we urge all international dialogue members to do. In that case, there may be little doubt that 20 years from now, in the run-up to the 100^th anniversary of the UN, future guests of a Valdai Club meeting, who at this point may be schoolchildren, students, postgraduates, or young researchers, or aspiring experts, will be discussing much more optimistic and life-affirming topics than the ones that we are compelled to discuss today.

Thank you very much for your attention.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr President, thank you for this broad and multi-dimensional description of the world and Russia’s views on it. It is especially pleasant for us that it was at this platform that you presented your basic principles last year and you elaborated on them today.

I believe that it starts looking like a doctrine. We do not expect you to name it after the Valdai Club, but it is nice that it is being born here.

Mr President, we discussed many of the issues you have addressed here at our 21^st meeting. I would like – all of us would like to tell you about some of our ideas, which were not voiced at all our sessions, of course, because there were many of them, but the ones we discussed at the most important of them. You have mentioned one of them.

I would like to ask your permission to start with Ruslan Yunusov, a long-running member and colleague whom you know very well. He attended our session on artificial intelligence, a stand-out issue.

Ruslan Yunusov: Good evening, Mr President.

It is true that we discussed one of the issues you have mentioned today – artificial intelligence. We had a separate session at our meeting, called Artificial Intelligence – A Revolution or a Fashion Trend?

Before telling you about the results of that session, I would like to mention a unique event this year, namely the two Nobel Prizes awarded for achievements in the field of AI. They were awarded in both physics and chemistry, which has never happened before. Does this mean that we are witnessing an AI revolution? I would rather say “yes” than “no,” although the Nobel Committee’s decisions are often influenced by fashion trends.

Regarding the theme of our discussion, I would like to emphasise some of the aspects were discussed.

We began with an issue of concern to many. Will artificial intelligence replace human beings or not, especially in the fields that require a creative approach, like science and arts? What is the situation in science today? AI already has a role in the scientific process indeed. Many achievements have been made with AI’s assistance. At the same time, we also see that humans have not been removed from the scientific process but rather than the process itself has been accelerated and that the demand for skilled young scientists has increased. So, we do not see any risk here. We also discussed some aspects of an AI economy. During the Covid pandemic, around 2020, we thought that recovery from the global economic recession would be ensured above all by a driver such as artificial intelligence.

We discussed whether the forecasts came true or not. It is true that AI is making its way into the economy, in various economic sectors. But if we look at the figures, we will see that our optimistic expectations have not materialised. The result so far is more conservative than we expected. Moreover, these expectations have not abated, and we see the development of investment bubbles, which is fraught with negative economic effects in the future. At the same time, artificial intelligence as a technology will most likely continue to develop and will form the basis of the economy.

We have also engaged in discussions concerning security matters. Today, it is impossible to overlook the fact that terrorist and extremist organisations are extensively utilising artificial intelligence technologies for recruiting new members and in their broader propaganda efforts. Fake news and videos have become standard tools within their arsenals.

Conversely, artificial intelligence is also being used in anti-terrorist and counter-extremist operations. It aids in identifying these very extremist elements within society. Moreover, it serves to influence those harbouring doubts, steering them away from such dangerous paths, thereby preventing them from succumbing to extremism. This, too, proves effective.

We deliberated on the balance between the positive and negative aspects of artificial intelligence in this realm. It appears that the positive aspects hold sway, and we are hopeful that this balance will continue to tip in favour of the positive.

Naturally, at the Valdai forum, we cannot overlook the political dimension of artificial intelligence. Studies have been conducted where researchers evaluated the basic generative models of artificial intelligence for political inclinations. It emerged that artificial intelligence is not neutral; its political leanings are markedly skewed towards left liberalism, closely mirroring the views of its creators.

Furthermore, in recent years, artificial intelligence training has increasingly relied on synthetic data rather than real-life material, which has contributed to the radicalisation of these models’ perspectives.

In the coming years, we will witness the first university graduates who have integrated artificial intelligence into their academic endeavours. Previously, students engaged deeply with primary sources when crafting term papers and essays. Now, with a mere prompt to artificial intelligence, the result is produced. This shift is poised to diminish educational quality. More perilously, however, is the subtle influence artificial intelligence exerts, shaping the worldviews of the youth and instilling ideologies. These ideologies are often forged not within our country but abroad, or even further afield, across the ocean.

Summing up, we recognise the imperative to bolster control over the regulation of artificial intelligence. However, relying solely on prohibitive measures will not yield the desired outcomes. Instead, we must support and advance our domestic artificial intelligence technologies.

It is encouraging that we have established a robust foundation, and significant progress is evident. We must continue to build upon this, as it will likely form the cornerstone of technological sovereignty in this domain.

It is worth noting that Russia stands among the trio of nations globally with a comprehensive IT technology stack, which indeed underpins our sovereignty.

To conclude my brief remarks, our foreign guests have observed that certain countries have already imposed restrictions, if not outright bans, on the use of artificial intelligence technologies. For us, for Russia, this presents an opportunity. We have the potential to assert ourselves as a technological leader by exporting artificial intelligence technologies to our partner countries.

Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: I would also like to say a couple of words, if I may.

First, of course, artificial intelligence is a highly important development tool. AI development ranks among our priorities, primarily, of course, in the economic sphere and in other fields, including the use of big data. We are facing major workforce shortages and posting minimal, 2.4 percent, unemployment rates. This amounts to a shortage of human resources. In the future, we believe that these economic problems can be resolved by developing state-of-the-art technologies, and we prioritise the use of AI technologies in this context.

Do pros outweigh cons? Does the development of nuclear energy technologies spell more benefits or more negative consequences? Civilian nuclear technologies play a tremendous and highly important role in medicine, agriculture and transportation, and their role will continue to increase. I am confident that this will become particularly relevant in the context of climate change issues.

At the same time, there are nuclear weapons. This creates major threats for humankind. The same is absolutely true of AI technologies. How is this regulated, and how do people use them? This is a good question. Of course, many countries regulate this. As you say, certain countries ban them. I believe that it is impossible to ban them. AI will eventually make its way, no matter what, especially in conditions of greater competition. I am not talking about armed confrontation, but overall economic competition is increasing. AI will inevitably continue developing in conditions of a competitive struggle. In this respect, we can certainly join the ranks of leaders, considering our certain advantages.

Sovereignty is a highly important component. Of course, these platforms are mostly created abroad, and they form people’s world outlook; this is absolutely correct. We should realise this and expand our sovereign AI network. Of course, we need to use all available assets, but we have to develop our own aspects here.

Sber and Yandex are actively engaged in this area, and overall, their work has been quite successful. We will certainly persist in our efforts, there is no doubt about that, especially as AI begins to replicate itself, which is both fascinating and highly promising.

However, there are, of course, potential risks involved. We must recognise and understand these risks and adjust our work accordingly. As I mentioned, this is one of our most critical areas of focus. By “our,” I mean the state, industry specialists, and society as a whole, because the development of AI technologies inevitably raise many moral and ethical issues that require our full attention.

You mentioned the risk of forming radical views, and so on. Indeed, we must counter these risks by offering our own perspective and worldview on the events unfolding within our society and globally. This is something we will address together.

Thank you for highlighting this issue.

Ruslan Yunusov: Thank you very much. We will continue to analyse the developments in this area.

Vladimir Putin: By all means.

Ruslan Yunusov: And indeed, artificial intelligence in Russia should be trained on Russian data to ultimately reflect our culture.

Vladimir Putin: Absolutely. We certainly have the capability to do this, that’s clear. I am confident we will succeed, and it will provide strong support for our development, bringing us significant benefits.

Thank you.

Ruslan Yunusov: Thank you.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr President, when we have sovereign artificial intelligence, will it be able to offer us the Russian idea for the 21^st century?

Vladimir Putin: It can only assist us in addressing the challenges we face, and it is very important how we define these challenges.

Given that AI works with big data, we have all the necessary resources: intellectual and technological capabilities, along with abundant free energy. There is much for us to collaborate on, including tackling profound philosophical and fundamental issues that you mentioned.

We need to make use of all the resources at our disposal. It is up to us to decide whether we trust or not the results of research based on modern principles, which, among other things, involve the use of artificial intelligence.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Thank you.

We have also discussed a related topic: artificial intelligence and digitalisation go together with information and everything happening to it right now, and there are indeed many things happening: both positive and negative.

Our Indian colleague, Arvind Gupta, took part in this session.

Please, go ahead.

Arvind Gupta: Thank you.

My name is Arvind Gupta, Mr President, and I come from India. I work at the intersection of technology and society, and building a digital public infrastructure for population-scale problems.

Thank you, Mr President. You have already addressed some of the issues that my colleague Ruslan has talked about on AI. I thank you for listening to our summary. Our expert panels discussed the issue of something which is adjacent to AI – and I will in the end mention that – of information manipulation, surveillance, using technology and data, and the lack of transparency in all technology systems today.

Mr President, you know, the group discussed that internet was designed about 40–45 years ago to be a global public good. Unfortunately now, like many other things it has become very unipolar. It is controlled by a few big tech firms with their own ideological leanings. And some of these platforms or big tech firms are not allowed to operate in countries like India, Russia, Indonesia and many others for their roles in manipulation and surveillance.

The second issue we discussed, Mr President, was the algorithms that, again, that we discussed previously in the AI session also, really define how we think.

AI is actually becoming a new buzzword today, but the algorithms have been around for a long time. And they really define how we think, how we consume, how we elect our governments. You know, as all of us have agreed, they have a leaning towards an ideology and definitely are not neutral. So, the algorithms themselves are biased.

The other thing the group discussed was the whole weaponisation of information and data, and that, coupled with the biased technology platforms, is giving certain nation states massive power and it is influencing national security, democracy and the public order in general.

So, Mr President, you are aware that this has been the form of Western technology platforms, but India presented an alternate model during its G20 Presidency to these Western technology platforms. It is a platform which takes society into account. It is a bottom-up platform built around identity – a universal identity system, a universal payment system. It is actually used by more than a billion people in India, and more than 20 other countries use it. This is to present how India has created a different vision for technology from the Western vision that exists today.

Mr President, I must commend Russia for succeeding, making the MIR platform very successful in Russia in a very, very short time. That also shows the power of technological sovereignty that was just mentioned, that it can be done if the desire is there.

Mr President, the issue that you just discussed – I mean progress with this biased nature of technology and technology platforms, and the non-neutral nature with what is coming head on to us – the artificial intelligence era. Given that we let a few big companies control the Internet, how do we ensure that our culture, our society, our national interests are going to be protected in this whole era of artificial intelligence?

What kind of guardrails do we need to build from the start to have fair and responsible AI? How do we ensure that like-minded states work together for non-weaponisation of AI, for non-weaponisation of artificial intelligence?

Lastly, Mr President, we would like to hear from you how do we build trust in the information that we see in news and technology at large. That was one of the most defining things that the group debated and we are looking forward to hearing your view.

Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: Of course, this is a very important topic similar to the previous question about artificial intelligence, its use and development. There are several aspects here.

First, of course, the use of the internet should be based on sovereign algorithms. We must strive for this.

Second, it is very difficult for us as a state – it is possible, but it will be partly counterproductive – to prohibit everything. In Russia, the professional community arrived at the conclusion that it is necessary to decide on the rules of behavior in the internet, and independently adopted certain self-restraints, especially related to some possible destructive impact on society as a whole, especially on the children. It seems to me that this is a way to ensure the interests of the majority of people and society as a whole.

Of course, the internet must obey the domestic legislation of the country where work in this area is taking place. This is obvious.

What we witness is an information manipulation. Most unfortunate, this is happening. But, let me repeat: if the activity of the internet is subject to internal laws, to internal legislation, then we will be able to minimise possible negative consequences.

I understand that there are technological limitations and technological difficulties to implement all this. But if we take the relevant efforts together with the professional community, which sees where threats to society as a whole can emerge and works professionally to suppress these threats, then the state will by all means support these efforts.

For such countries as India, as Russia, this problem is quite solvable, because we have very good specialists, very good maths schools, and there are people who are already leaders themselves, if not their companies, then they themselves are leaders in this field. We have all the resources for this. I repeat once again, this is not a problem for such countries as India or Russia.

As for the Mir payment system, then yes, this can be regarded as success. It works well, reliably. It would work even better, in more countries, if there were no artificial obstacles created to hinder its operation. But even though these obstacles are being created, it is developing, and we will replicate success of this kind.

The theme of the internet has already become eternal, to my mind. You said that it was created to be used for the benefit of humankind. It was certainly created for other purposes but at some point, its intended purpose categorically changed. And it is necessary that activity in the internet, just like any human activity, be subject to the moral and ethical rules and laws of the states where this system operates.

I repeat once again: it is not always easy to do this in terms of technology, but we should certainly try to achieve this. Society must protect itself from destructive influence, but it should do everything to ensure that the exchange of information is free and that it benefits the development of a particular state, and indeed the entire international community.

We in Russia will aspire to this. I know that India is following the same path. We will be happy to cooperate with you in this area.

Thank you for paying attention to this. On the other hand, it is impossible not to pay attention to this and not to engage in this work. I wish you every success.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr President, do you use the internet yourself?

Vladimir Putin: You know, in a very primitive way: I press a few buttons from time to time to look something up.

Fyodor Lukyanov: But still, you do it, right?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, of course.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Using our search engines?

Vladimir Putin: Yours, yours.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Fine. Thank you, that’s comforting. (Laughter.)

We discussed in great detail the environment and the state of the world in terms of climate, among other things. I would like to ask our good comrade Rasigan Maharajh from South Africa to tell us more about it.

Rasigan Maharajh: Thank you very much, Mr President, also for updating us that the dialectic of history continues itself.

Environmental problems, as you mentioned as well, cannot be solved separately from redressing global inequality problems. The World Meteorological Organisation, the international weather body, recently noted that human-caused climate change has resulted in widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere. The year 2023 was the warmest on record by a large margin, with widespread extreme weather.

This trend continued into the first half of 2024 and continues. According to the WMO, the science is clear: we are far off track from achieving vital climate goals. The impacts of climate change and hazardous weather are reversing developmental gains and threatening the wellbeing of people and the planet. Greenhouse gases and global temperatures are at record levels. The emissions gap between aspiration and reality remains high.

The colonial and imperial phases of globalisation largely established the current wealth systems. And they are essentially premised, as mentioned by you in various parts of your update, upon unequal exchanges between the Global North and the Global South or, as you framed it, the Global Minority and the Global Majority.

Some colleagues – Hickel and associates working at the London School [of Economics] – calculated that the Global North extracted raw materials, land, energy and labour worth approximately $10.8 trillion in 2015. Just that number could have ended extreme poverty 70 times over.

Between 1990 and 2015, the 25-year period, the cumulative drain from the Global South was approximately $242 trillion. It is abundantly clear that unequal exchange is a significant driver of global inequality, uneven development and ecological breakdown.

Whilst the heroic struggles for national liberation challenged aspects of colonial and imperial subjugation, the institutional apparatus established after the Second World War, or the Great Patriotic War, has served to maintain the hegemony of the Global North, and specifically the advantages of the G7.

The global Covid-19 pandemic exposed the structural flaws in our international system, while reminding us, as you have mentioned as well, that no one is safe unless we are all safe. Our collective scientific and technological competences, however, generated rapid solutions that helped us save lives.

Notwithstanding, we are again witnessing attempts to weaponise intellectual property systems. There are thorough restrictions on how knowledge is shared and against the transfer of technologies. These must be collectively resisted and condemned. All countries should seek wider and deeper cooperation and collaboration to accelerate the co-construction of knowledge, to enable just transitions from the unsustainability of the extractive exploitation without receiving the benefits of this value addition.

Efforts at reforming international institutions that continue to facilitate the process of unequal exchange, however, generate more and more frustration and despair. Even as acknowledged recently at your successful 16^th BRICS Summit in Kazan – this was from the Secretary-General of the UN –the current international financial architecture is outdated, ineffective and unfair.

This was echoed recently, just to the west of us, in a global policy forum in Germany, which determined that these institutions have failed in their mission to prevent and mitigate crises and to mobilise sufficient financing for internationally agreed development goals.

Our common security can only be enhanced by actively reducing these inequalities in world systems, actively promoting knowledge sharing, and ensuring equitable opportunities for the development of all.

Now, I want to round up by saying that our very survival is at risk, should we fail to match our rhetoric with our actual practices and the resources to support all countries facing increased environmental degradation, climate change and ecological precarity. Enduring peace could be a collateral benefit of such progressive transformations. Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: Without a doubt, everything that you have discussed with your colleagues here at the Valdai Club clearly represents a critical area of research for humanity. We will not go into detail or debate the causes of ongoing developments now.

Clearly, climate change and global warming is what is happening. Why is it happening? Is it caused by human activity, or are there other factors at play, including outer space, or is it something that happens to Earth now and then, which we do not really understand? However, changes are clearly there. That is a fact. It would be reckless on our part to do nothing about it, and that is undeniable.

We in Russia know this first-hand because warming in our country is going at a faster pace than anywhere else around the world. Over the past 10 years, we have seen temperatures go up by 0.5 degrees, and even more – by 0.7 degrees – in the Arctic. We see this clearly. For a country with 60 percent of the territory in the permafrost zone, this factor has practical consequences. We have entire towns and cities, as well as production facilities and more, built on permafrost. This is a very serious matter with serious consequences for us. So, we understand what this is all about.

Incidentally, we have one of the world’s greenest energies, 40 percent of which comes from gas and nuclear generation, as well as hydrogeneration. Overall, low-emission energy accounts for 85 percent of the total energy generation in Russia, which makes it one of the greenest operations globally. Also, I believe Russia is home to about 20 percent of the world’s forests, which represents a significant absorption capacity.

We are pondering this and we have plans, which we made public some time ago, stating the year by which we will work to reduce man-made emissions. And, of course, we will work on it.

By the way, those who made the biggest fuss over this issue are, unfortunately for everyone and most likely for themselves as well, moving in exactly the opposite direction.

For instance, coal generation in Europe is sharply up. Not long ago, there was a lot of clamour in Europe against coal-fired generation. What they did after all is they have expanded it instead of shutting it down. This is strange, but it is a fact. Again, they did so for some far-fetched political reasons. But that is a separate topic.

Now, regarding artificial obstacles to the development of the emerging economies linked to the environmental agenda. These so-called green obstacles, which some countries have started creating for the emerging economies and markets, are nothing other than a new instrument they have invented to hinder development.

If they are concerned, really concerned about climate change, which is something we should think about, of course, they should provide sources of funding and technologies for the countries that are ready to work in this sphere, so that they can calmly adopt these innovative technologies without sustaining losses. Otherwise, they would be trailing behind progress.

Some rightly tell those who demand immediate conversion to innovative technologies that they themselves had used up all the sources of energy and had polluted everything, including the atmosphere, and now demand that we immediately move to new levels of power generation. They wonder how they can accomplish this. Should they spend all their remaining resources on purchasing innovative technology from them? This, again, is a tool of neo-colonialism.

Give people an opportunity to live and develop, if you really and sincerely think that we all must take care of this issue together. Provide the sources of funding and technologies instead of limiting access to them. I fully agree with you, if that is what you hinted at in your speech. It cannot be any other way, the way I see it.

The same goes for funding. As I have said, according to our experts, whom I fully trust, the United States cashed in $12 trillion out of thin air over the past 10 years simply because the US dollar is a global currency. They did it by printing and circulating more dollars, which usually get back to their banks and their financial system, which are getting an additional income and profit from that. It is a tactical position. They just make money out of thin air, and this is what everyone should bear in mind.

If they simply issue this money which represents windfall profit for them. This money should be used as a source of funding, including for the environmental agenda. Share your windfall profits with us, if you are really concerned about the environment. If that is what you hinted at, I can say that you are absolutely right, and it is difficult to argue with this approach. This is how it should be done.

Well, this is probably all I can say. I have nothing more to add to this. That is, there is much more to say, but I have outlined the main points.

Thank you.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr President, has President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev invited you to the climate conference scheduled for next week?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, he has.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Will you go?

Vladimir Putin: I have recently been there, and President Aliyev and I have agreed that Russia would be represented at a high level. Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin will participate in this event.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Excellent.

Let us segue to the next topic that concerns us all, since most of us here specialise in international affairs. You initiated the idea of Eurasian security. We have dedicated many discussions to this issue, and this year’s Valdai paper largely focused on it as well, and the session was quite engaging.

I would like to ask our friend Glenn Diesen from Norway to share the main takeaways with us.

Glenn Diesen: Thank you. Mr President, my name is Glenn Diesen. I am a professor of political economy from Norway. Our panel was on Eurasian security. I would like to outline three main points. The first was that the source of conflict today appears to be a conflict between unipolarity and multipolarity. To a large extent, this represents a new phenomenon in international affairs, as in the 19th century we had Great Britain as the dominant maritime power in conflict with the Russian Empire as the dominant land power. In the 20th century, we had the United States as the dominant maritime power against the Soviet Union. And in the present time it is somewhat different, as we have the United States again as the dominant maritime power.

But on the Eurasian continent we are now seeing the emergence of multipolarity, which also presents a lot of new opportunities because even the largest economy, China, does not really have the capability and does not even display the intention of attempting to dominate this continent. Instead, we see initiatives being put in place for a multipolar Eurasia. So, this puts us in conflict between the unipolar system attempted to be restored by the United States versus a multipolar system. And the global majority seems to obviously prefer multipolarity, which is why I think BRICS has been such a great attraction for many countries.

However, in our discussions we also discovered a consensus that there were some concerns or at least a desire for Eurasia to be an anti-hegemonic movement as opposed to being an anti-Western one, as the objective should be to harmonise interests and end this era of bloc politics as opposed to Eurasia merely becoming a bloc. And again, the attraction of the BRICS countries towards this Eurasian format largely rests on the idea that we could overcome bloc politics rather than succumbing to it.

The second point we had was that the appeal of Eurasia is also to a large extent the multivectoral foreign policy, that is, the ability to diversify economic connectivity with all the major poles of power. And this is seen as a necessity, a requirement to have more political independence, more autonomy in the economy and foreign policy, and not merely being a spectator in international affairs. And yet again, this is why most countries do not want to choose between competing blocs but instead find a way of harmonising. And again, the global majority wants Eurasian multipolarity, as this is a requirement for genuine multilateralism and not the false one, which is also being promoted under Washington.

And the third and final point was that multipolar Eurasia has certain systemic incentives for harmonising interests because the great powers in Eurasia have somewhat different formats for Eurasian integration, and different interests. We can see this also with Russia and China, but we also see that none can really pursue their objectives or formats for integration without cooperation with these other centres of power. So, this creates incentives to harmonise interests. It seems that this is also what has made BRICS successful.

I remember a decade ago many people expected Central Asia to be a clash point between China and Russia. Instead, we see it becoming an area of cooperation. So, this gives optimism to other parts of Eurasia as well. And this is drastically different from the alliance system, which is usually used to advance unipolarity. In your speech, you referred to the imperial impulse of dividing countries. So, under the alliance system, there is always an interest in having division between China and India, between the Arabs and the Iranians, between Europe and Russia, simply because this helps to divide the region into dependent allies and weaken adversaries.

So, in the spirit of harmonising interests I also had a question premised on the inability we had in Europe to establish a mutually acceptable post-Cold War settlement after the Cold War. And I think this has been a source of many of our tensions. We never established a system based on indivisible security. Instead, we returned to bloc politics and abandoned some of the hopes we initially had in the early 1990s by instead going with NATO expansion.

So, my question was if Eurasian multipolarity can offer a different format for cooperation between Russia and Europe as well. I ask this because a few years ago I had a book with the title Europe as the Western Peninsula of Greater Eurasia, and I was wondering about your opinion, if you see a possibility of this path forward. Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: I apologise. Could you please repeat what you said at the end? Please rephrase your question.

Glenn Diesen: My question was premised on the idea that across Eurasia we have seen many countries being able to overcome their differences, their political differences through economic connectivity. We see the deals the Chinese were promoting between the Arabs and the Iranians. And I was wondering if there were some format for Greater Eurasia in which Europe would be a part of this Greater Eurasia, if there was an ability to use BRICS or some other institution to also foster better relations between Russia and Europe, so [that] we can overcome this bloc politics in Europe, which we were never able to overcome after the Cold War.

Vladimir Putin: You know, once the Cold War was over, there was a chance to overcome the bloc mentality and bloc policy itself. I will say it again: when the Cold War was over, there was a chance to overcome bloc mentality and policy.

I mentioned earlier in my remarks that I am convinced that the United States did not need that. Clearly, they were afraid that this would weaken their control over Europe, whereas they wanted to keep it, which they did and have tightened it even more.

I think this will eventually weaken the vassal subordination system. I do not mean anything bad by what I am about to say, and, God forbid, I am not accusing or reproaching anyone of anything. We can see, however, that many European countries, nearly all European NATO members, are in fact acting against their own interests for the benefit of the US politics and economy.

In some US states, energy is 65 to 80 percent cheaper than in the EU countries. They are making deliberate taxation moves, such as reducing revenue tax, or creating favourable conditions for relocating entire businesses and industries from Europe to the United States. And some do relocate.

Sectors directly relying on primary energy sources, such as the fertiliser and the glass industries, to name a few, were the first ones to get affected by it. These industries have wound down their operations because they no longer made economic sense, and are relocating to the United States.

The second phase of restructuring affected the metallurgical industry, and now the automotive industry.

Governments can blame corporate management for inefficiency all they want, but the current state of affairs primarily stems from the government policies, and the management was forced to find ways to save their businesses and jobs in these circumstances, which it is not always doable.

So, the conflict of which we are, unfortunately, part, has made it possible for the United States to reinforce its leadership, to put it mildly. In fact, the countries have found themselves in a state of semi-colonial dependency. Frankly, I did not expect to see that happen, but it is their choice.

The same is happening in Japan, which is surprising. What have we done to deserve this? We have done nothing wrong, in word or in deed. But they have imposed sanctions on us. Why would they do that to us?

Now, the question is what we should do about that. We have not done anything wrong. There are colleagues from Japan here, maybe they have questions.

The situation with Europe is even worse. I have already said this, but I will indulge in recalling a conversation with former Chancellor Kohl in 1993, when I chanced to be present during his conversation with the then mayor of St Petersburg. I had not forgotten my German then and acted as the interpreter. He let the official interpreter go. “Take some rest,” he said. I stayed with them to do the interpreting.

As a man who only recently was an officer of the Soviet Union’s foreign intelligence service, I was surprised by what he said. Frankly, I listened, interpreted and was surprised, to put it mildly, because my head was filled with Cold War clichés, and I was a KGB intelligence officer.

Unexpectedly, Kohl said that the future of Europe, if it wanted to remain an independent centre of the global civilisation, could only be together with Russia, that we must join our efforts. My jaw dropped. He went on in the same spirit, speaking about his views on the situation in America and where and how the United States would direct its efforts. I will not repeat what he said, but he did not say anything bad about the United States. He spoke as an analyst and an expert, not as a German chancellor.

However, 80, 85 or even 90 percent of what he said is happening now. I can see this happening; all of us can see this. Of course, we must try to create a Eurasian security system. It is a vast continent. And Europe obviously can, and I believe that it must, become an integral part of this system.

You have said that China does not have the capability or the intention to dominate this continent. You also mentioned Central Asia; I will speak about it here too. I think our friends from China are certainly with us today. There is nothing about domination in the Chinese philosophy. They do not strive for domination. That is the point and the attraction of the concept or initiative which President of the People’s Republic of China Xi Jinping has formulated, the Belt and Road initiative. A common belt and a common road. This is not just a Chinese road; it is a common road. This is what we believe and how we act, at least in bilateral relations, that is, in the interests of each other.

What is happening in Central Asia? Many expected it to be a site of conflict or clash between China and Russia. This has not happened. You see, the point is that these are young states with economies that need to be developed. Demography is on the rise there, for example, the population of Uzbekistan grows by a million every year. A million every year, can you imagine that? It has a population of 27 or 28 million, and it grows by a million every year. The population of India grows by 10 million a year, as my friend, Prime Minister Modi, told me. But India’s population is 1.5 billion, while Uzbekistan has 37–38 million people, and will have 40 million soon, up one million every year. That is a lot. There are many problems there.

If the People’s Republic of China comes and helps these economies, this means that their economic cooperation helps stabilise their domestic processes and statehoods, which is in Russia’s interests. We want to see a stable situation and stable development there. This is in our interests as well. That is why there is no rivalry there; there is cooperation there. It is not hindering our traditional relations with that part of the world. The countries of Central Asia, which had been part of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union for centuries, not just remember but also value the special contacts and special ties between us. This is benefitting everyone.

If we are doing this to create a security system for the Eurasian continent… Incidentally, I see and hear that some European countries have again started talking about creating a common security system from Lisbon to Vladivostok, and have returned to the idea which, I believe, was proposed by Charles de Gaulle in his time. Actually, he proposed a common security system to the Urals. But it should be created all the way to Vladivostok, of course. So, the idea has been revived. If our colleagues decide to do this…

But the most important thing that you have said and I have mentioned, which is set out in the OSCE documents, is that the security of some must not contradict or infringe on the security of others. This is extremely important. If all of us do so, and if we increase the level of trust, as you said… The lack of trust is the main problem on the Eurasian continent and in relations between Russia and European countries.

You can criticise Russia as much as you want, and we probably make many mistakes as well, but when they tell us that they had signed the Minsk agreements on Ukraine only to give Ukraine an opportunity to rearm, and had not at all intended to settle the conflict peacefully, what trust is there to speak of? Come on, guys, what kind trust are you talking about? You have openly said that you cheated us, that you lied to us and played foul, and now you expect us to trust you? However, it is necessary to gradually revitalise the system of mutual trust. We can sit here talking about it all night, but this could be the first step towards creating a common system of Eurasian security. Can we do this or not?

Mr Kohl, whom I mentioned at the beginning, believed that this is not just necessary, but absolutely indispensable. I share this view.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr President, why do you think that Mr Kohl was more sincere than Ms Merkel, whom you mentioned and who spoke about the Minsk process?

Vladimir Putin: You know, we were just talking, the three of us. It was in Bonn where the German government was sitting, whereas Ms Merkel, whom you have mentioned, spoke in an atmosphere of a certain public pressure and in conditions of a crisis. The situation was different. Unlike Ms Merkel, who spoke in the presence of and for the media, Mr Kohl spoke calmly, freely expressing his views not just in the absence of the media but also in the absence of his interpreter whom he had sent away. That is why I proceed from the assumption that he was speaking absolutely sincerely.

Fyodor Lukyanov: One more question, if I may, on the same subject raised by Glenn and mentioned by you. In the neighbouring countries the population is growing, and in your remarks, you mentioned migration flows. This has been a very hot topic lately, including in our country.

Do you see this as part of Eurasian security? Do you discuss this with your Eurasian colleagues?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, certainly, we discuss this frequently.

I have already said that unemployment is at its all-time low today at 2.4 percent. In fact, this amounts to full employment. We have a labour shortage. And of course, we need labour to develop the economy.

Moreover, labour shortage is currently one of the main obstacles to our economic growth. We have half a million people or even 600,000 who can get a job in construction right now, and the industry will not notice. We need 250,000 people in manufacturing industry right now, and it would not cover all its needs either.

At the first stage we need to create conditions so that people who come to work for us are ready for this: they must have a good command of the Russian language, know our traditions – we have talked about this many times – know our laws, and not only know all of this, but be ready to abide by them.

This way, there will be no irritation or rejection on the part of our citizens; and we need, above all, of course, to focus on the interests of the people of Russia. This is absolutely obvious. I want my colleagues in the regions of the Russian Federation – the heads of regions, to hear me, as well as the law enforcement agencies.

As for the people that come to us: they must also benefit from a modern environment and live in dignity, enjoy all the benefits of civilisation in health care, education and so on. There are distortions here too. I will not go into details now, but we must work on this.

My colleagues, my friends, the leaders of the republics of the former Soviet Union and I discuss this all the time. And they themselves want to train people who would like to come and work for us, to prepare them for this kind of work in the Russian Federation.

What is needed for this? We must answer this question too. We need to create schools, we are now building schools, we are creating schools. We need to send Russian language teachers, who are in short supply and whom they would gladly accept and would accept ten times more. So here, too, the ball is to a certain extent in our court. They are ready and willing to do this. We will do this together.

However, in the future, hopefully in the not-too-distant future, we need to make sure that the Russian labour market receives, first of all, people with good education, well-trained professionally – and some of the people who come to us today would stay to work at home – and that we create manufacturing facilities there that would be included in the overall value-added chain for making of certain goods. We would give them orders, they would produce certain components, and the final assembly could be either with us or with them, and then people not only in Uzbekistan, but also in Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan would have jobs there, in their homeland, living in the environment of their native language, their culture. In general, we could work together this way.

To a certain extent, we need to restore the cooperation chains that we had in the Soviet Union, of course, on a new technological basis, on a new logistical basis. And then the overall system will be more sustainable, and growth rates for all participants in this process will be guaranteed. And there will not be such tension in this sphere.

We have just talked about artificial intelligence and other possibilities. We need to deal with labour shortages – of course, this is what all the experts are talking about – by relying new technological capabilities, and to adopt a new technological framework, improving performance and efficiency. I looks quite possible to me.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Thank you.

Mr President, something important happened yesterday, and the whole world was watching, holding its breath. The United States elected its next president. This will be already the sixth head of state for the United States on your presidential watch, but he was also the fourth. It happens, you know.

Did any of them leave any trace in your memory? Maybe you have positive or less positive memories about some of them. And whom did you enjoy working with?

Vladimir Putin: You know, they are all interesting people. I can hardly imagine a man getting the highest political office in one of the world’s leading countries while being mediocre, dumb or uninteresting.

What do I mean? In fact, domestic politics in the United States has been evolving towards more political infighting and more political tension with opponents and political rivals of the head of state using all kind of tricks to derail his agenda. Quite often, they use dirty tricks which are far removed from the kind of political culture they pretend to adhere to.

Remember all the attacks Bush had to face? He was called illiterate, not smart, or ignorant. But this was not true. We had a lot of differences and contradictions. I believe that in terms of US policy towards Russia, most of them focused all their efforts in staging what amounted to a covert intervention, once you take a general view of their actions.

However, as a person, I can tell you that George W. Bush, who was the Governor of Texas before becoming President, and was in charge of a very challenging state, a huge one, by the way – he succeeded in this position. Judging by my experience with him, he is just as smart as anyone in this room, no matter what they say about his low IQ, etc., and he was just as smart as any of his political rivals. And I know this for a fact, since I talked to him in person, and I spent a night at his ranch in Texas. I also met his parents many times who invited me to their home, and they visited me too.

Here is what I can tell you: when I talked to his father, who was former President of the United States too, but when we talked he was no longer President, of course – he told me quite honestly and in a calm voice: “We made a big mistake when we decided to stonewall the Moscow Olympics. This prompted Russia to do the same with our Olympics. This did not make any sense.” This is what he told me face-to-face: “This was nonsense, and a big mistake. Why are we doing all this?”

But so what? This did not change anything. Faced with outside pressure, the International Olympic Committee literally turned into a circus. They have gone the whole nine yards in transforming the Olympic movement into a marketing ploy, and are destroying it with their own hands.

But that is not what I am getting at – I am not talking about that now, I am talking about the people I have had to work with. Each of them is a remarkable person. They reached as high as they did for a reason.

Fyodor Lukyanov: What is the next President like from this point of view?

Vladimir Putin: You know, you can regard him in any way you like. After all, at the outset – during his first presidential term – everyone said that he was mainly a businessman and that he did not understand much about politics, that he could make mistakes.

But, first, I can tell you: his behaviour when he faced an assassination attempt really impressed me. He turned out to be a courageous man. And it was not just the raised hand and the call to fight for their shared ideals. It was not just that, although, of course, this was more of a reflex. A man shows himself in extraordinary conditions – this is where a man shows himself. And he showed himself, in my opinion, in the right way: he showed his courage, as a man.

As for politics during his first term in office, I do not know whether what I say reaches him, but still I will say it now. I am saying this absolutely sincerely: I have the impression that he was hounded from all sides, that they would not let him do anything. He was afraid to take a step to the left, to the right, to say an extra word.

I do not know what will happen now, I have no idea: this is his last term after all, so it is up to him to make his choices. But what has been said publicly so far is mostly… I do not want to comment now on what was said during the presidential campaign, I think it was said consciously trying to win votes, but whatever. And what has been said in terms of trying to restore relations with Russia, to help end the Ukrainian crisis, in my opinion at least deserves attention.

Availing myself of this opportunity, I would like to congratulate him on his election as President of the United States of America. I have already said that we will work with any head of state who has the trust of the American people. We will live up to this pledge.

Fyodor Lukyanov: And if he fulfils everything that he has been talking about all the time, and if calls you before the inauguration and says: “Vladimir, let us meet”?

Vladimir Putin: You know, I do not think it would be shameful for me to call him. I do not do this because there was a time when the leaders of Western countries have been calling me almost every week, and then suddenly they stopped. If they do not want to do it, so be it. As you can see, we are alive and well, and are developing, moving ahead.

If someone of them wants to resume contacts, I have always said and I want to say again: we have nothing against it. We are ready to resume our contacts and have discussions. But there are many people willing to have discussions, there is a whole audience here, but if not, we will have a discussion with you then.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Does this mean that you are ready to have discussions with Trump?

Vladimir Putin: We are ready, of course.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Good.

Well, since Trump is not in this room, I suggest that we have a discussion with those who are here. Let us start with Professor Feng Shaolei.

Feng Shaolei: Mr President.

I am very glad to see you once again. First, I want to convey the gratitude on behalf of my Chinese colleagues for the brilliant organisation of the Kazan Summit by our Russian friends.

I also want to say a big thank you to you for personally supporting our club, including for this lively and interactive discussion.

I have recalled that eight years ago at this forum I had the honour of asking you: what are your thoughts on the relationship between Russia, the United States and China? Your answer was spot on: you said that they should be mutually respectful and mutually beneficial. Eight years have passed since that time. There are so many changes taking place around the world. On the one hand, there is all this competition, and all these terrible sanctions. But, on the other hand, China has been there for Russia as its strategic partner, and there has been a lot of positive momentum in developing cooperation within BRICS.

Here is my question: what is your assessment of the current and future development of the Russia-China strategic partnership?

Second, will it be possible to bring relations between Russia, the United States and China back to normal in the new environment?

Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: Regarding relations between Russia and the Chinese People’s Republic, they have reached a historical high and are based on mutual trust, which is something we lack in our relations with other countries, above all with Western countries. I have already said why.

I know, if we had representatives here of those whom I am targeting in my remarks, they would have presented a lengthy list of claims against Russia and against me. But this is not the point right now. I just want to say that the level of trust between Russia and China is at its highest point in recent history. And this, precisely this, and our personal, friendly – genuinely friendly – relations with President of the People’s Republic of China, Xi Jinping, offers a solid foundation for enabling our two countries to forge closer ties.

I will not go into details now but still, 240 billion in trade does not make you the biggest trade partners, but it is still the fourth largest trade balance among China’s major trade and economic partners. This is quite a result already, and also a very important fact. And we really complement each other well. We started with energy, including nuclear energy. As our technological capabilities grow, we share these technologies, this is very important, and this importance is growing. Therefore, we are expanding our cooperation across the board, the palette of our capabilities, focusing more and more on high technology in all kinds of domains.

China has achieved a lot. I have already said – I do not remember if I mentioned this here during the previous session – but at other events I said that our experts believe that China has adopted and developed an economic model organically, based on its needs. This model has proved to be much more effective compared to many other leading economies around the world. Let us admit that Chinese specialists have been able to combine economic planning with a market economy, while at a political level, our friends have managed not to stand in the way of these specialists and let them do their job. This is very important. And the results are there. This goes to say that the Chinese economy outperforms other economies despite a slight deceleration in terms of growth rates lately.

Unfortunately, the United States adopted a double containment policy by trying to contain and deter both China and Russia. Why do they need this, considering that they have to focus on two fronts at the same time? Of course, it is clear that the United States views China’s growing economic might as a threat, a threat to their dominance.

In my opinion, if they want to work and be effective in their efforts, these are the wrong methods. They must change them. They need to prove that they have an edge through fair and open competition, which would enable the United States to trigger its internal resources and development drivers. But what has the United States been doing? It has been undermining its own development with all these bans and restrictions. It seeks to ban Chinese goods or Chinese technology on the US market. But what will come out of this? Higher inflation and higher manufacturing costs. This will be the result – nothing more.

As for our interactions, our cooperation with the People’s Republic of China can be quite complementary in the sectors where the United States has been trying to contain China.

For example, we started with the energy sector. And there has been a lot of momentum in the oil and gas sector, and in the nuclear industry too. We are proactively working together to build new units at nuclear power plants, and on oil and gas deliveries too. All this contributes to China’s efforts to achieve its energy security in a reliable and sustainable manner. In fact, we are neighbours, so there is no one who could stand in our way – no storms, or efforts to close down navigation routes. Nothing can stand in the way of our cooperation, since we share the same border. This way, we can guarantee supplies today and in the future.

I think that everyone would win and there would be no losers if the United States, for example, changes course in the way it treats both Russia and China by moving away from its double containment policy towards a trilateral cooperation framework.

Fyodor Lukyanov: There was another question on the topic of trilateral cooperation.

Vladimir Putin: This is what I have just said in the end of my reply. You missed my point.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Sorry, I got distracted.

Vladimir Putin: You had something else on your mind.

Fyodor Lukyanov: I believe General Salik from Pakistan had a question; I saw him raise his hand.

Naeem Salik: Thank you very much, Mr President.

My question is about the stability between the global powers. The New START Treaty is expiring in February 2026, and there appear to be no chances of its renewal or extension. No other treaty is being negotiated.

How do you see, at the end of this agreement, maintaining the stability of relations between the global powers?

Vladimir Putin: As you know, we have never turned away from continuing dialogue on strategic stability. It is no secret – this is well known not just in this room, but worldwide – that the United States and, if I may say, its satellites (there is no other way to call these leaders in present-day conditions) are following a course set from overseas with respect to Russia, often against their own interests. The United States has made it its goal to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia.

What does it mean to inflict a strategic defeat on a particular country? If it does not mean destroying that country, then perhaps it is about reducing it to an insignificant role. In that case, why do we need nuclear weapons? And yet, they say they want to engage in dialogue with us on strategic stability. How does that add up? And they are presumably rational, mature leaders. We are open to dialogue, but under current conditions, there are numerous complexities to consider.

Your colleague from China just raised a question about the dynamics within the Russia-China-US triangle. I deliberately chose not to delve deeply into this topic and opted to keep issues of international security outside the scope of my response.

Cooperation between Russia and China is a key factor in ensuring international stability in general but it also concerns strategic stability in the sphere of nuclear weapons. For years, we have been urged to “work with your friends in China” and get them involved in discussions about reducing their nuclear arsenals. In response, our Chinese counterparts have said, “What are you talking about? We have fewer carriers and warheads. What is there to reduce? Either you reduce your arsenal to our level, or we increase ours to match yours, and then we can discuss reductions together.” It is a logical stance, right? Anything else is simply nonsensical.

At the same time, we observe the nuclear arsenals of NATO countries, aside from the United States, expanding – specifically those of the United Kingdom and France. They are not merely growing; they are undergoing qualitative changes. Not so long ago, I was told, ”NATO is not a military political alliance; it is first and foremost a political alliance, and only secondarily, a military one.“ However, we see this is not the case. Indeed, the United States, whether intentionally or not – I suspect, intentionally – has shifted the military aspect of NATO back into the spotlight, collectively declaring their intention to inflict a strategic defeat upon us. And how can we overlook the nuclear arsenals of the UK and France?

This issue today is not straightforward; it is even more complex than it was 20 or 30 years ago. Yet, we recognise our responsibility as a nation. In terms of our capabilities, the number of carriers and warheads, and the quality of our modern weaponry, which we are enhancing – we are now on the brink of deploying our latest advancements, developments I mentioned five years ago, with tests nearing completion – we all understand this. In general, we stand ready for dialogue. However, it is imperative that the other side approaches it with honesty, considering all facets of our relations.

It is untenable to claim that while they aim to inflict a strategic defeat upon us, they simultaneously reassure their citizens, ”Everything is fine, business as usual. Don't worry, don't give it a second thought.“ It simply won't wash: a strategic defeat for us, yet they dismiss it as inconsequential. So, let us lay our cards on the table, engage in a calm, business-like discussion, free of double, triple, or indeed quintuple standards. We have suggested this numerous times. But each time we attempt to engage substantively, the conversation stalls. We shall see how the new administration will articulate its proposals, if any, on this matter.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr President, you mentioned a demonstration of the latest developments. Are there any state-of-the-art innovations in the pipeline?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, new developments are continually emerging. Just yesterday, I had a conversation with one of the heads of our major concerns, and he shared his ideas in this area. However, it is simply premature to discuss this further at this stage.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Thank you.

Professor Nogueira, Brazil, in the first row.

Paulo Nogueira Batista: Thank you for the opportunity. I am Paulo Nogueira Batista from Brazil.

I would like to ask you, Mr President, if you could expand a little on two topics you touched upon in your presentation and comments: BRICS and the US dollar.

What role do you see for BRICS in constructing alternatives to the unreliable and dysfunctional dollar system? Russia proposed during its 2024 chairmanship of BRICS a detailed, interesting proposal for a new system of cross-border payments based on national currencies.

How do you see this discussion going forward? Are you confident that we can move forward on this basis?

My second point is a more difficult one. Don’t you agree that payments in national currencies have a limit and that we ultimately must move step-by-step, gradually and carefully towards new means of payment and a new reserve currency? President Lula, by the way, made this point in his statement to the Kazan Summit, and I would like to hear your views on that.

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: You know, my position is based on the recommendations of our experts, and I have complete trust in them. They are undoubtedly world-class professionals. I have already discussed our proposal in detail. When an idea is presented, my role is to promote these ideas within the country, among experts, the Government, and the Central Bank, to ensure it is formalised appropriately. Once I have a clear understanding of the discussion, I present these ideas to our partners.

I presented one of these ideas to President Lula, and he expressed interest. He welcomed our experts to Brazil at a very high level, inviting representatives from the Central Bank and the Ministry of Finance, as well as almost the entire economic team. Our colleagues and friends in Brazil were genuinely engaged. Now, let me briefly explain what we are discussing.

We adopted a similar approach with other BRICS countries. I had productive discussions with nearly all the leaders, and in general, everyone found these ideas appealing.

So, what exactly are we proposing? What is new? We suggest establishing a new investment platform utilising electronic assets and advancing their development. Specifically, we are talking about creating an electronic payment platform designed to facilitate investments in emerging markets, particularly in South Asia, Africa, and parts of Latin America.

Let me reiterate our reasoning. We believe this is necessary due to significant demographic trends occurring in these regions: population growth and capital accumulation. Urbanisation remains relatively low, but it is certain to increase. As urbanisation expands, new economic growth centres will emerge, and people in these areas will strive to improve their living standards, with governments likely to follow suit in supporting these efforts.

In our view, these regions of the world will experience the highest growth rates. We believe that countries like China, the Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, some other countries will also see growth, but the regions I mentioned earlier will demonstrate much faster and more significant growth. They will require investments, technology, and skilled personnel. We are confident that by leveraging new investment opportunities and a new platform, we can help meet these needs.

Moreover, we can make these digital tools almost inflation-free, because in case of an oversupply we can withdraw some of them, and if there is a shortage, we can issue more and regulate them with the help of oversight on the part of central banks and the BRICS New Development Bank. The BRICS New Development Bank senior executives liked this idea as well.

There are different opinions, different approaches. Overall, some have more interest in these ideas, others less, but we agreed to create a working group at the expert level, at the government level. We will be addressing this issue now at the government level. We are in no hurry.

This is not a response to ongoing events. It is not even our way to counteract financial restrictions. I will say more about that later. No, it is just an idea for organising our work on promising and fast-growing markets. This applies to BRICS countries and beyond. We see this as an investment opportunity and an opportunity to tap into these markets, and for them, an opportunity to take advantage of our capabilities.

If it is impossible to do it any other way, we will rely solely on promising projects which we will implement and have them pay us back. This mechanism can be launched, and it will work well, we believe.

Speaking of today, the use of national currencies is already yielding positive results. For example, two-thirds of Russia’s trade and 88 percent of BRICS countries’ trade are now conducted in national currencies.

We are discussing ways to use digital tools for financial information exchange between our countries' central banks known as BRICS Bridge system which we discussed at the expert level with all our BRICS partners. The second system, also within BRICS, is for stock exchange settlements. I think this is the best solution today. This is what we are working on and should focus on in the near future.

I have heard a lot of discussions at the expert and journalistic levels about the need to consider creating a single currency. However, it is too early to talk about that, and it is not a goal we have set for ourselves. To even consider a common currency, we would first need to achieve a higher level of economic integration among our countries. Secondly, the quality of our economies must reach a certain level, ensuring they are similar and compatible in terms of structure and performance. Anything beyond that would be unrealistic and could even be harmful. Therefore, there is no need to rush into this.

I would like to conclude by reiterating something I often emphasise when answering questions like this. We never aimed to abandon the dollar, nor do we have such an intention. It is the political and financial authorities of the United States or Europe when they refuse to accept payments in euros. The euro has yet to establish itself as a global currency, and yet, they are undermining it themselves. It is absurd.

The issue with Europe is that economic decisions are often made by politicians who, unfortunately, lack expertise in financial economics. This harms their countries. As for us in Russia, we are not abandoning the dollar, nor did we ever intend to. We have simply been denied the use of the dollar as a payment method. If they choose to deny us, so be it. However, I believe this is a terrible mistake by the US financial authorities, because the strength of the US today is built on the dollar. And yet, they are cutting off the very foundation of their own power.

It seemed to me that the dollar is like a sacred cow, something that should never be disturbed. But no, they have taken it into their own hands and essentially cut off its horns, stopped taking care of it, and instead are exploiting it recklessly. What is this? Yet, it is their own doing. Payments in dollars have not declined drastically around the world just yet, nor has its role as a means of accumulation been significantly reduced. However, even among their closest partners, the use of the dollar is slowly diminishing, and this is becoming a clear trend. They are bringing this upon themselves.

We are not engaged in a battle, our proposals are not set against the dollar. In response to the challenges of our time, in response to new trends in the global economy, we are thinking about creating new instruments. First and foremost, as I mentioned earlier, our goal is to create a system, use the systems already developed in each country, that facilitates the exchange of financial information, and we will develop the instruments I have mentioned.

Thank you.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Aleksandar Raković, Serbia

Aleksandar Raković: Mr President, I am Aleksandar Rakovic, a historian from Belgrade, Serbia. It is my honour to see you, listen to you and talk to you again. My question for tonight for you is this: according to your opinion, what are the state and individual mechanisms that Russians, Serbs and other people around the globe must use to defend our traditional values and protect ourselves and our identities from the invasive and imposing Western ideology that we saw this year at the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games in Paris? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Regarding what transpired at the opening ceremony, to be honest, I didn't watch it at first. But then, I was informed that something noteworthy was happening, so I took a look. Frankly, I am at a loss as to what the organisers aimed to achieve, or why the International Olympic Committee permitted it. It was undeniably insulting to millions of devout Christians. Why is there a need to insult anyone, to affront their religious feelings? Those responsible might claim they did not mean any insult and see nothing insulting in their actions.

Yet, similar situations arise for followers of Islam when the Quran is burned or when illustrations, including comics of the Prophet, are published under the guise of freedom of expression. I shall reiterate what I have often stated: the freedom of one individual or society ends where another's begins. For if you feel like you can insult someone, insult their religious beliefs, and declare, ”This is my freedom; I do as I please,“ this logic could dangerously extend to acts as grave as murder – ”I want to kill.“ ”I want to kill.“ Off he goes and kills. ”This is my freedom in action.“ Is that justifiable? It's utter nonsense, of course.

People seem to have a lack of boundaries, or as we say, ”they don't see the limits.“ If you've got a vision, by all means, pursue it. But if you realise it might insult someone else, then perhaps it's best to hold back. It's that simple – a straightforward rule.

They seem to think it's acceptable to behave in such a manner. This is akin, by the way, to allowing men to compete in women's sports, which effectively undermines women's athletics. In my view, and I hope I'm not stepping on any toes here, some sports don't seem suited for women. I apologise if this offends women, and some might argue I'm mistaken. Fair enough, that's a separate discussion.

However, if women choose to participate in these sports –weightlifting, boxing, wrestling, for instance – let them compete amongst themselves. When a man, claiming to be a woman, enters the fray and dominates, even breaking noses, it essentially kills women's sports. Soon, it will be increasingly difficult for women to compete anywhere. It's all rather nonsensical.

Let those individuals compete amongst themselves. Those who identify as women, let them participate in their own category at the Olympic Games. Similarly, those who possess medical certificates indicating lifelong ailments and thus use performance-enhancing drugs, let's establish a separate competition for them. It's quite simple, really. What's the problem? It doesn't offend anyone, by the way.

And how should we safeguard our values? By employing all means at our disposal.

Wang Wen: My name is Wang Wen, I am from Chongyang Institute, Renmin University of China. I am so glad to see you again. My question is about Russia’s China policy in the coming four years, as well as the changes in the future international system, because we know that Trump is back.

Just imagine, if one day President Trump calls you and asks to join forces to compete with China, how would you respond? Would you accept President Trump’s suggestion about uniting with Russia and resisting China?

My second question is about the future international system, because you often mention that the international system is undergoing fundamental change.

So, in your view, what will the international order and framework look like in the future?

And in your view, in the future international order and system, what roles should Russia, China and the United States act upon in the future?

How do you propose to coordinate the relationship among Russia China and the United States? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: I will try to keep my answer brief. First, our cooperation and friendship with China are not directed against any other country, including the United States. Our relations with China are focused on fostering the development of our countries and ensuring the security of nations.

The same approach applies to our relationship with the United States. I find it unlikely that such a question would come from the President-elect, as I believe he understands that it does not reflect the current realities we face. Russia does not align with anyone against others. This would be especially unrealistic regarding China, with whom we have reached an unprecedented level of mutual trust, cooperation, and friendship, as I have mentioned before.

I believe that countries like China and Russia, which share thousands of kilometres of border and a deep history of coexistence within a shared region, possess a significant legacy of common values despite cultural differences. This is an extraordinary achievement that we should actively build upon today, preserving and strengthening it for future generations.

Regarding the possibility of restoring relations with the United States, we are open to it. However, much depends on the United States, as we have not damaged our relationship with them, nor have we imposed restrictions or sanctions against them. We have never contributed to fuelling armed conflicts near their borders, nor have we ever been striving for this. I want to emphasise that we never allowed ourselves to do things like that.

It remains unclear why the United States feels justified in doing otherwise. I hope they will eventually recognise that such things should not be done if we wish to prevent global conflicts.

The US President-elect, Mr Trump, has expressed similar sentiments. We will have to see how this will play out in practice, given that the presidency in the United States is influenced by certain established commitments and the interests of those who supported his path to power.

Jacques Chirac once told me, “What kind of democracy are we really talking about in the United States? Without a billion dollars in your pocket, you should not even think about running in elections, let alone actually participate.” That is the reality. And those who provide these billions naturally play a role in shaping the future team. If they back someone, they are able to influence those they supported as part of that team.

It is crucial for an elected leader to effectively establish contact not only with influential groups and the so-called deep state, but also with the public, with the voters themselves. If the leader fulfils promises made to the people, their authority strengthens, enabling them to become a more independent political figure, even in dealing with the influential groups that supported their coming to power. This is a highly complex process.

What will happen in the United States is something neither you nor I can predict. However, I sincerely hope that our relations with the United States will eventually be restored. We remain open to this possibility.

Please.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Thank you.

You mentioned Japan. Please, Mr Abiru.

Taisuke Abiru: Thank you. Taisuke Abiru, Sasakawa Peace Foundation.

Let me ask a similar question, but also related to Japan. The strategic situation in East Asia is getting increasingly tense, primarily due to the strategic rivalry between the United States and China. Russia is clearly on China’s side in this rivalry. The frequency of joint military exercises between Russia and China has noticeably increased in the region.

On the other hand, Asia is a region that has many values, and Russia’s strategic interests there should not be limited to relations with China. How is Russia trying to reconcile two challenges: on the one hand, its position in the US-China standoff in East Asia, and the preservation of space for Russia’s strategic multilateral interests in this region?

One more thing: How would you assess the future of Russian-Japanese relations in this strategic context, say, in five years?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Indeed, the situation in East Asia is not getting any calmer or more stable, but China has nothing to do with it. Of course, China is our closest partner, our friend, but I will try to be reasonable.

Is China creating any blocs? I am not trying to be China’s advocate here, but I understand that there are many interior problems there, but there are always problems between neighbours. We know – there is no secret here – that there are certain tensions on the Chinese-Indian border, but people with experience and skills who think about the future of their nations look for compromises and find them, like the Prime Minister of India and the President of China are doing now. They are having a dialogue, in Kazan at the BRICS summit as well, and I hope this will have a positive impact on the future development of Chinese-Indian relations.

As for the overall situation in East Asia: is China creating blocs there? It is the United States that is creating blocs: one bloc, a second, a third. NATO is formally interfering. Nothing good happens when closed military-political blocs are created under the obvious leadership of one major country. As a rule, all other countries work in the interests of this state, which creates these blocs. Let those who agree with everything so easily think about it.

Should issues arise – and neighbours always have issues – the goal is for the leaders of these countries to always strive to muster their strength, courage, and patience, as well as willingness to push for a compromise at the regional level, without resorting to external interference. If this attitude gains momentum, such compromises can always be arrived at.

Considering this, accusing China of harbouring aggressive intentions at a time when it is not China but rather the United States is creating aggressive blocs, appears to be an entirely flawed approach.

Now, with regard to the idea that Russia has sided with China rather than with those who are creating these blocs. Well, of course, we are on China’s side. First, because of what I mentioned earlier: we do not believe that China is pursuing an aggressive policy in that region.

Taiwan is the focal point of many developments that are unfolding in the region. Everyone formally agrees that Taiwan is part of China. But in practice, they are acting in a completely opposite manner and stoking tensions. Why? Is it not for the same reason they provoked the crisis in Ukraine? Are they not seeking to instigate a crisis in Asia and then tell everyone else, “Get over here! You need me to cope with this.” Perhaps, this is the logic that underlies the events in Asia as well?

That is why we support China. We believe it pursues an absolutely balanced policy, and China is our ally. Our trade volume is substantial, and we maintain cooperation in the sphere of security.

You mentioned that we are conducting exercises. Yes, we are. But is the United States not conducting regular exercises with Japan and other countries?

I pointed out once that we have not been using our strategic aviation since the late 1990s. It no longer made long flights in the neutral zone, at a time where the United States continued to do so. We watched, we watched, and we watched it until eventually we resumed our strategic aviation flights.

The same is true in this case: the United States has been conducting exercises there endlessly, and eventually we, Russia and China, started conducting exercises as well. Exercises pose no threat to anyone and are conducted with the sole purpose of ensuring our security. We believe they are a proper tool to stabilise the situation in Asia and around the globe.

The countries in that region have nothing to fear. To reiterate, our cooperation with China in general and in the military and military-technical fields, among others, is aimed at strengthening our security and is not directed against third countries.

Regarding Japan and our bilateral relations, I shall reiterate what I conveyed to your colleagues: we have not deteriorated our relations with Japan. Have we, in recent times, committed any transgressions against Japan? We have been engaged in negotiations, endeavouring to resolve the challenging matter of the peace treaty.

Incidentally, there were questions concerning potential compromises based on the Declaration of 1956, which the Soviet Union had ratified. However, it was subsequently renounced by the Japanese side. Still, at Japan's request, we revisited this Declaration and resumed our dialogue. Admittedly, it was no facile task, yet we listened to our partners and contemplated how to proceed based on the Declaration of 1956.

Then, quite unexpectedly, Japan imposed sanctions against us, positioning Russia as a threat – third or fourth on their list. What threat do we pose? Why are we perceived as a threat by Japan? Sanctions were imposed. What grievance have we caused you? Why such measures? Merely because of a directive from Washington? You might have simply replied, ”Hi, guys, we’ll think about it,“ without offending your partner, your ally. Was it imperative to comply without question? Why did you do that? I find it perplexing.

Thankfully, there remain astute individuals in Japan: they persist in cooperation, particularly within the energy sector. They do not forsake our companies and recognise the reliability of our engagements. Despite Japan's imposition of certain sanctions, we have refrained from retaliation. Japanese enterprises have collaborated with us and continue to do so; they wish to maintain this partnership, and thus they shall.

We now observe indications even from American companies that they wish to re-enter our market. They may return, albeit under new conditions and with inevitable losses. However, this is not our fault.

We stand prepared to cultivate relations with Japan for the ensuing five years and indeed the next fifty. Japan is inherently our partner, being our neighbour. Our shared history has seen varied epochs, including both tragic chapters and those of which we can take pride.

We in Russia love Japan; we love Japanese culture, we love Japanese cuisine. We have not dismantled anything. You may draw your own conclusions, and we shall not engage in tomfoolery or assign undue blame. We are ready; we welcome your return, and that is all.

That is all, I believe there is nothing more to add.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr President, is our strategic cooperation with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, like with China, also aimed at strengthening our security?

Vladimir Putin: We have an agreement with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and other countries, which was signed with the Soviet Union, but it naturally expired. In fact, we have returned to it, that’s it. There is actually nothing new there, whatever they may be saying.

Everything, practically everything, that was written in the treaty between the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the Soviet Union, just with some new nuances, is reproduced in the new treaty.

Yes, of course, it is aimed at ensuring security in the region and our mutual security.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Will we hold drills with them?

Vladimir Putin: We’ll see; we can hold drills, too, why not? The Treaty’s Article 4 is about mutual assistance in the event of aggression from another state. It has everything. I repeat once again: there are almost no updates from the treaty, which simply expired back in the days of the Soviet Union.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Thank you.

Question: Thank you, Mr President, for a brilliant presentation and this interaction. My question is about India-Russia relations. You have met Prime Minister Modi several times in the last few months. Prime Minister Modi, at one point in time, mentioned to you that this should not be an era of wars. How do you see that statement? How do you interpret that statement? What is the meaning of that statement for you? That's one.

Secondly, if you could also tell us, in this concept of Eurasian security, what role do you see for India? And thirdly, in this changed geopolitical environment, and you also mentioned the importance of civilisations, civilisational values, Russia being a civilisation state, India being a civilisation state, what are the new areas in which India and Russia can work together? Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: India has been our natural partner and ally for decades.

I believe everyone is very well aware of the role the Soviet Union and Russia played in India’s gaining its independence. We have supported the Indian nation for decades. Over this time, we have developed unique relations with the Indian nation in terms of quality and the level of trust. I will say this directly in this context. As far as we understand and feel, our Indian friends have the same nationwide consensus regarding the development of relations with Russia.

We are guided by this in developing relations with India in all areas. It refers to the economy as well which is developing at a good pace, and in different fields such as energy. By the way, we are ready: in addition to oil supplies, other supplies to the Indian market have increased many times over, which also concerns the possibility of LNG (liquefied natural gas) supplies. We are actively working in the nuclear energy sector and are building nuclear power plants in India. We have great respect for Prime Minister Modi’s Make in India idea, to his initiative Make in India, and we are ready to invest.

As for the energy sector, Russian investments are among the largest foreign investments: US$20 billion. We are ready to further develop this in the same vein.

At present, we definitely have to think about new technologies. We are thinking about this and will move in that direction. At our last meeting, the Prime Minister noted that the Indian agricultural producers have an urgent need to increase the amount and volume of fertiliser supplies. We have done this and are ready to increase them in view of the needs of Indian agriculture. There are many other areas, too.

India stands as a truly great nation, now the most populous in the world, with a 1.5 billion people and an annual increase of 10 million. It is galloping forward leading the charge in economic growth among the major global economies. To put it in numbers, India's GDP is expanding at a rate of 7.4 percent per annum.

India is, indeed, one of those nations poised to outpace even the most developed economies of our time. Thus, our perspective on the direction, scope, and speed at which our bilateral relations should evolve is firmly grounded in present-day realities. And the reality is that the scale of our collaboration is multiplying exponentially.

While our trade may not yet match that with China, it nonetheless approaches almost US$60 billion – 58+ billion, and it continues to grow with each passing year. This upward trend, notably, has persisted throughout the first nine months of this year.

Turning our attention to the resolution of acute crises, we hold the Indian leadership in high regard and gratitude, particularly the Prime Minister, who has been vocal in expressing his concerns regarding conflicts, including the Ukrainian conflict. His proposals for settlement are indeed within our purview, and we are, without reservation, thankful to the Prime Minister not only for his attention to these issues but also for his constructive suggestions and actions in this domain.

Overall, I believe that our relations with India have been advancing at a commendable pace, and we have every reason to anticipate that, based on our achievements thus far, we shall proceed at an even swifter pace. Incidentally, it is well acknowledged that our relations are also progressing traditionally in the area of security and military-technical cooperation. Just look at the number of Russian equipment that the Indian army has in service – we are advancing here with an established, indeed high, level of mutual trust.

We are not merely vendors of armaments to India; rather, we are partners in designing them. The BrahMos system is a testament to this partnership, having been transformed into a comprehensive surface, water, and air system. These developments serve India's security interests and are well known to all, raising neither questions nor ire from any quarter, but instead attesting to the high calibre of our trust and cooperation. We remain committed to continuing this collaboration in the immediate future and, I earnestly hope, in the years to come.

Fyodor Lukyanov: I saw someone raise their hand.

Vladimir Putin: May I say a few words here because we are running out of time?

Fyodor Lukyanov: “It is almost midnight.”

Vladimir Putin: Yes, and “still no sign of Hermann.”

Dimitris Konstantakopoulos: Konstantakopoulos Dimitris, Mr President, from Greece – a country, I am sure you will agree with me, that has no other options than to remain a friend and a brother of Russia for reasons which we cannot escape. They are part of our deepest cultural and historical identity. My question is the following: forty years ago, both the European welfare Keynesian capitalism and the Soviet hyper-centralised system collapsed. During the four decades that have passed, we have seen the multiplication of economic crises, wars, ecological problems, and many other problems. I wonder if the time has not come to orient ourselves towards a kind of planned economy at the national, regional and international levels. I do not mean the sclerosis of the past, so to say, a little bit of military socialism. I mean a system like the one you described, a combination of market and plan, a system like the one you tried to apply in your country just as it was some years after the October Revolution with a new economic policy, even to introduce some elements of socialism, as you referred to in your revolution at the beginning of your intervention. Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: The more acute the crisis, the more planning is required, because greater state intervention is required to address the emerging problems. But as wealth and accumulated resources grow, calls for a purely market-based approach become louder. Then, let’s imagine, liberals and democrats come in and start spending all that was amassed by the conservatives. Then some time passes, and crises of overproduction emerge again – notionally, or crises related to it, and the whole thing repeats over and over again, everything comes full circle.

Each country has the sovereign right to shape its own economic policy. China has found these opportunities. And do you know why it succeeded? Largely because China is a sovereign state.

However, many of today’s economies, for various reasons and due to their commitments within economic or military-political alliances, have voluntarily given up part of their sovereignty. As a result, they are unable to make independent decisions in areas like the economy or their security. I am not urging anyone to do anything; I am simply responding to your question.

At some point, having the drachma, a national currency, might have been a reasonable choice, because it would allow some regulation of social processes, even if through inflation, and help ease social tensions rather than placing the entire burden of economic challenges on the population.

However, Greece once chose a different path, subordinating itself to regulation through a single currency and economic decisions made in Brussels. That is not our concern; it is the sovereign choice of the Greek state. I cannot say what is the best way to proceed under these conditions. But some of my friends and colleagues from the European Union – yes, I still have a few – have told me that more binding decisions are now made in Brussels for EU member states than were made by the Supreme Soviet of the USSR during the Soviet Union’s existence.

This has both pros and cons, but that is not for us to judge. I tried to answer your question, though I am not sure if it is sufficient. That is my view on the matter.

Yes, please, go ahead.

Irina Abramova: Thank you very much, Mr President, especially since I am the first woman so far to participate in today’s discussion.

Not long ago, in 2023, the African agenda became a part of the Valdai agenda. This is critical, because what is discussed at the Valdai Club matters not only for intellectuals and experts, but for our entire country as well.

It is symbolic that one day after our work here concludes, the first Russia–Africa ministerial conference will open, also in Sochi.

At the BRICS news conference, you mentioned that Africa, along with Southeast Asia, was the new centre of global growth. Today, you reiterated this point.

Clearly, intense competition is underway for the African people. Russia is viewed very favourably, despite the belief that Russia withdrew from Africa in the 1990s. When you cross the border they ask you, “Where are you from?” You tell them you are from Russia, and they go, “Oh, Russia, Putin.” This is true across most of Africa.

In my view, this is because unlike the West, which exploited the [African] peoples for its own prosperity, Russia provided Africans with not only political but also economic sovereignty, and helped African countries create their economies and develop the humanitarian space, among other things.

Amid fierce competition from China, India, traditional players, and even Turkiye, the Gulf countries, and Iran, Russia needs to identify its own niche where it will be the best partner for the Africans.

As experts, we are also putting forward our own ideas about what matters should be prioritised. You have talked to dozens of African leaders, even more than once with some of them. Was there a single promising area that all African leaders mentioned?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: You know, Africa is a vast continent, and the economic development and security levels vary greatly.

I concur that we have virtually no disagreements with any African country. The level of trust and mutual affinity is high, mainly because the history of our relations with Africa has never been clouded by any shadow. We have never been involved in the exploitation of African peoples or engaged in anything inhumane there. On the contrary, we have always supported Africa and Africans in their struggle for independence and sovereignty, and their efforts to create basic conditions to promote economic development.

In this day and age, we need to approach this work differently. It is very important for nearly everyone if there’s something common with creating favourable conditions for development in the security sphere, because Western countries have retained neocolonial tools in their approaches to the economy and security. All of that taken together provided them with certain advantages and the ability to use these neocolonial tools. But people are tired of that, especially so since they do not see any significant benefits coming from it.

As I mentioned earlier, at our meetings, summits, and bilateral encounters, Africans never ask or beg for anything. They do not come with their hands out. Firstly, their countries are developing rapidly. Secondly, they know they possess resources and capabilities. And thirdly, they only ask for one thing: to establish natural and mutually beneficial cooperation. That is something we strive for, too.

Of course, we cannot do this at the state level in the same way it was done during the Soviet Union. We are trying to create conditions for our leading companies to operate, especially since our companies’ investment potential is very high – indeed, exceptionally high. There is the possibility of investing hundreds of millions of dollars, without exaggeration. In Egypt, for instance, we are building a nuclear power plant, investing nearly US$20 billion, just to give you an idea. We are ready to work in the same way with other countries and in other industries.

Of course, it is very challenging to work on economic matters if there are no conditions for security in place. After all, in Sahara-Sahel region, for example, people are still being terrorised by various semi-terrorist or terrorist groups. There is significant internal political instability across many countries, and practically everyone turns to us for help. We are happy to help, within the framework of international law.

At the same time, we are not trying to squeeze anybody out. Sometimes the Europeans blame us for creating conditions that force them out, but it is not our fault. They are simply not welcome there anymore, that is all. To prevent a security vacuum, they ask us to fill it. We try to help but very carefully, while still being effective enough to address this problem.

First and foremost, there is a lot that needs to be done in the economic sphere. We will try to work in this direction.

Meetings like the ministerial conference we are hosting tomorrow or the day after, are designed to create favourable conditions for this.

Personnel training continues in both civilian industries and the military sphere. Future armed forces personnel from these states study at our military educational institutions, as do future law enforcement personnel. To sum it up, we will work in all directions. Culture-wise, Russia shows great interest in the cultures of the African peoples, and this interest is mutual. We will work intensively, responsibly, and consistently in this area.

Question: I am happy to be the second woman reading a question to you, Mr President. I am from the Beijing Club for International Dialogue.

If we make this assumption and go back to two years ago, probably February 2022, what would you say to the Chinese leader about the Taiwan issue at that time?

And if we look forward to another quarter from now, 25 years, say 2049, what in your mind would the multipolar world look like? Isn’t a major force pushing towards the multipolar world be a unified country? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Let me begin where you concluded. I would like the world to be balanced and for the emerging multipolar system to consider, as much as possible – and as far as practicable – the interests of all participants in international dialogue. The aim is to establish a system that respects each other’s interests and to devise a mechanism for compromise. I remain hopeful that we can develop such a system; we must, in any case, strive towards it.

Are there forces advocating for this? Indeed, there are. Primarily, these include the BRICS nations. We recently discussed this, and the matter was addressed at the summit in Kazan. If I may, this is not a trivial matter.

These countries include your homeland – the People’s Republic of China, and also India, South Africa, Brazil – the largest nation in Latin America, and Russia, which I proudly represent today. Rest assured, the entire Russian people is committed to fostering a peaceful development of global affairs and creating conditions for all international participants to thrive. Admittedly, predicting the future is challenging, but our efforts must focus on this goal.

Now, let’s proceed. Would you please stand up.

Go ahead, please.

Question: Mr President, thank you for your insightful remarks and responses to the questions. You have previously noted the complexities involved in discussing means, including military resources. I have a question pertaining to this.

Russia has traditionally criticised the use of military force to address complex international issues, yet in 2022, Russia resorted to such measures. You have convincingly articulated the necessity for this action and Russia's right to employ military force in this instance. However, you cannot deny others the very right you claim for yourself.

Specifically, may I inquire about the Middle East? Which entities in this region does Russia recognise as having the legitimate right to employ military force and whose military actions does it deem unlawful under the current crisis conditions?

Additionally, a clarifying, perhaps technical question in this context: Within which borders does Russia recognise Israel? This question of borders arises, of course, when discussing aggression, self-defence, and the invocation of this fundamental right.

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: The question itself is not complex, although the situation is intricate. I shall address it in two parts forthwith.

Russia maintains that it is imperative to implement all resolutions passed by the Security Council and the United Nations General Assembly regarding Israel and Palestine.

This stance is not borne of convenience. It is a position that has been consistent since the Soviet era, and Russia has perpetuated this policy. Thus, if all Security Council and General Assembly resolutions concerning the establishment of two independent sovereign states are enacted, this, in my view, will provide the foundation for resolving the crisis, no matter how severe or acute it may appear today. That is all.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr President, I feel compelled to inquire, given our discussion on borders: within what borders do we recognise Ukraine?

Vladimir Putin: You see, we have consistently acknowledged Ukraine's borders as delineated by our agreements following the dissolution of the Soviet Union. However, I would like to draw your attention to the Declaration of Independence of Ukraine – supported by Russia – which stipulates Ukraine as a neutral state. It was on this basis that we recognised the borders. Subsequently, however, as you are aware, the Ukrainian leadership amended its Constitution to express a desire to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which was contrary to our initial agreement. This is the first point.

Secondly, we have never supported – nor do we support now – any state coups, including in Ukraine. We empathise with and support those people who opposed this unconstitutional coup, and we acknowledge their right to defend their interests.

I have discussed this matter with the UN Secretary-General [António Guterres] on numerous occasions, and there are no secrets here. I trust he will not take offence when I say this. He aligns with those who assert that we have breached the rules and principles of international law, as well as the UN Charter, by initiating hostilities in Ukraine. I have addressed this before, but your question provides an opportunity to reiterate the rationale behind our actions.

If we consider Article 1 of the UN Charter, which affirms every people's right to self-determination, then certainly the people residing in Crimea and the south-east of Ukraine, who objected to the state coup – an illegal and unconstitutional act – have the right to self-determination. Correct? Indeed, correct.

The UN International Court of Justice, when considering Kosovo, determined that a territory declaring independence is not required to seek the opinion or permission of the central authorities of the country it is part of at the time of the declaration. Is that correct? Indeed, it is, as this is the conclusion of the UN International Court of Justice.

Therefore, these regions, including Novorossiya and Donbass, had the right to make a decision on their sovereignty. Is that correct? Indeed, it is. This aligns with current international law and the UN Charter. If this is so, then we were within our rights to enter into appropriate interstate treaties with these newly established states. Is that correct? Indeed, it is. Did we do so? We did.

These treaties contain provisions on mutual assistance. We ratified them and undertook certain commitments. Subsequently, these newly formed states requested our assistance under those treaties. We possessed both the capability and the obligation to respond, which we did, in an effort to halt the hostilities initiated by the Kiev regime in 2014. We did not instigate any intervention or aggression; we are trying to stop it.

The [UN] Secretary-General listened to all of this, nodded quietly, and remarked, ”Well, yes, all right. But it is still you who attacked.“ I am not joking – this is verbatim. There is no rational response. Where is the flaw in this reasoning? What did I state incorrectly? Where did we contravene international law and the UN Charter? Nowhere – there are no violations.

And if this is the case, then Ukraine's border should be delineated in accordance with the sovereign decisions of the people residing in certain territories, which we refer to as our historical lands. Everything hinges on the developments that are currently unfolding.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr President, if we return to the initial point in your reasoning, should it be interpreted that the discussion of borders will occur once neutrality is established?

Vladimir Putin: If neutrality is not achieved, it is difficult to imagine any kind of good neighbourly relations between Russia and Ukraine.

Why? Because without neutrality, Ukraine will continue to be used as a tool in foreign hands, working against the interests of the Russian Federation. This would prevent the creation of the basic conditions needed to normalise relations, and the situation will become unpredictable. We would very much like to avoid that.

On the contrary, we are committed to creating conditions for a long-term resolution, so that Ukraine can ultimately become an independent, sovereign state – not a tool in the hands of third countries that is used for their interests.

Look at what is happening now, for example, along the line of contact or in the Kursk Region. They entered the Kursk Region – the losses are enormous. In just three months of fighting, the Kiev regime’s casualties exceed those of the entire last year – over 30,000. They have lost fewer tanks this year, about 200 so far compared to 240 last year, but that is only because they simply have fewer tanks left and are using them less.

Why are they still there, despite these heavy losses? Because they have been ordered from across the ocean to hold their ground at any cost – absolutely any cost – at least until the elections, to show that the Democratic administration’s efforts on the Ukrainian front have not been in vain. Hold at all costs, they are told. And this is the price they are paying. I see it as a terrible tragedy, both for the Ukrainian people and for the Ukrainian army.

These decisions are driven not by military considerations, to be honest, but by political ones. We have now encircled enemy forces and established two pockets in certain sectors, including the Kupyansk sector; I do not know whether the military have announced this or not so far. One pocket has been virtually sealed tight, with Ukrainian forces numbering about 10,000 pinned down near a reservoir. The Kupyansk pocket contains about 5,000 enemy soldiers. They are trying to establish pontoon crossings in order to extricate at least some of their personnel, but our artillery is destroying them immediately.

In the area under the responsibility of our Centre group, there are also two or three zones of encirclement—two for sure, and a third likely soon. Ukrainian military leaders see this happening, but the decisions are being made on a political level, not in the interest of the Ukrainian state or, even less, the Ukrainian people.

If this goes on indefinitely, it will not create favourable conditions for restoring peace, stability and cooperation between neighbouring countries in the long term, which is precisely what we should be aiming for. And that is precisely what Russia aims for.

This is why we say: we are ready for peace talks, but not on the basis of ever-changing demands that shift from month to month. We are ready to negotiate based on current realities and the agreements reached in Istanbul – grounded in today’s reality.

But this is not about a temporary truce for half an hour or six months to allow them to stock up on ammunition. It is about creating favourable conditions for restoring future relations and cooperation between two nations that are undoubtedly brotherly, no matter how strained things are by today’s rhetoric and the tragic events between Russia and Ukraine.

So our position is clear and consistent. We will continue to act and move in this direction.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr President, it is 11:18 pm now.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, I think it is time to wrap up.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Let’s have a few final questions, and then we will conclude.

Vladimir Putin: Go ahead.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Let’s go, Algeria.

Akram Kharief: Akram Kharief, from Algeria. Mr President, in regard to this horrifying genocide happening in Palestine, would Russia endorse and help the international community reintroduce the bill regarding the criminalisation of Zionism that was retrieved in the 1980s from the UN?

And the second thing, Mr President, you mentioned the Olympic Games and the case of the female boxers. I think we all know about that case, about the Algerian one. It is a lady; her father says she is a lady. Our society is a very conservative one, and this would never happen. Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: You know, if she is a woman, I wish her good health and continued success in sports. My earlier comments were not aimed specifically at her. What I intended to convey was that it should not be acceptable for someone to simply declare themselves a woman and then compete in women’s sports when, frankly, their physical characteristics suggest otherwise. Yet, some sports theorists argue that physical characteristics are irrelevant; as long as a person identifies as a woman, they should be allowed to compete accordingly. But where does that lead? You can see the point I am making here. This is my main concern.

Secondly, regarding Zionism, I have addressed this issue many times, emphasising that any response must be proportionate to the threat and actions on the other side. We firmly condemn all acts of terrorism, and the attack on Israel on October 7 was undoubtedly such an act. However, it is essential that any response remains proportionate.

Right now, it is crucial to focus on minimising the suffering of the Palestinian people, and ideally, to eliminate it altogether. The fighting must be stopped immediately, and efforts should be made to bring Israel and Palestine – in this case, Hamas – to an agreement. Escalating, assigning blame, or condemning will not resolve the immediate crisis; the top priority is to halt the violence. Israel is engaged in active warfare, and although it may seem there is little ground left to cover, the fighting persists, with Hamas forces continuing to fight. How long can this go on?

In southern Lebanon, a force of around 63,000 troops is positioned, with some already having entered the area, while the main contingent remains at the border. We must prevent this from escalating into a tragedy and instead focus on finding mutually acceptable solutions.

The question is, do such solutions even exist? Is peace achievable? I believe it is, as unlikely as that may seem. We even have ideas on the matter and are actively engaging with all parties to the conflict to explore options that could be acceptable to everyone involved. There may indeed be light at the end of the tunnel. This is something we all need to consider carefully now. It may sound optimistic, even naive, but I genuinely believe it is possible. We are in regular contact with nearly everyone involved, if not daily, then at least weekly.

Let us continue down this path. I am deeply concerned about undermining any of the efforts we are currently making. We are not alone in this; we are also in contact with some of our partners on this matter. There is a shared desire to move forward. I speak honestly when I say it feels like we are heading in the right direction.

I sense that today, nearly all the participants in this difficult process are not seeking further escalation or confrontation. On the contrary, they are thinking about how to reach some form of agreement. Let us focus on that now, shall we?

We are actively working on it. As strange as it may seem, despite our own conflict with Ukraine, many parties involved are approaching us with ideas and proposals. Since we maintain natural contact with everyone, we are doing our best to make a careful and modest contribution toward resolving these issues on this path.

Fyodor Lukyanov: You used to have a very good personal relationship with [Benjamin] Netanyahu. Has that relationship remained?

Vladimir Putin: I try not to spoil anything, but only to improve things. However, today’s circumstances are quite unique, to say the least, and they leave their mark on everything, including our relationship.

I had a good relationship with [Emmanuel] Macron, too – and it is true. I also talked with [Olaf] Scholz. But at some point, they decided that they did not need it. As I have already said, if they do not need it, fine. I had a good relationship with [Donald] Trump. I don’t know if he wants to talk now or not. I even had good relations with [Joe] Biden. We met in Switzerland, where we had a conversation, and we talked on the phone, called each other, joked, and laughed.

Fyodor Lukyanov: (Presenting a speaker.) Saudi Arabia.

Remark: I am glad to see you, Mr President.

Vladimir Putin: It is mutual.

Question: While I was listening to your speech here in this hall, I could not help but recall your speech at the Munich Conference in 2007.

Indeed, the world order has ceased to be unipolar. There are now three great powers: the US, Russia and China. In all likelihood, these countries will compete with each other. It is doubtful that there will be a hot war between them, because each of them has weapons of mass destruction. However, the West has already begun trade wars and sanctions. This could devolve into financial wars.

Therefore, Mr President, my question is this: Is Russia ready for these developments, especially if these wars are long-term, or do you think the world order has a development alternative? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: First, of course, India should be included in the list of great powers as well: it has 1.5 billion people, the highest rate of economic growth among major economies, and an ancient culture, as well as excellent growth prospects.

However, there are other rapidly developing countries as well, which have a great influence on current politics, on world development, and on the future of humanity. Look at what is happening in Indonesia, a country with a population of 300 million. What about some African countries? By the way, Saudi Arabia also plays a major role in the world energy sector. That alone is enough. One move or one word from the Crown Prince is enough to influence the world energy markets, and this influence is colossal.

As for the countries you have mentioned, you also spoke about competition between them. You know, healthy competition is always good; it has never hurt anyone. I am saying this without irony. It only helps one side or another build up its internal forces, and helps it develop.

There is nothing good about monopolies. Overseas, they say that there is only one case when a monopoly is good: it is good as long as you own it. Jokes aside, monopolies are actually harmful since they deprive those who benefit from them of the energy, willpower and ability to grow and prosper.

Therefore, there is nothing extraordinary in this regard. It is essential that natural competition does not prompt anyone to become aggressive towards others. It is instrumental that we abide by the rules as devised and agreed – and I would like to emphasise that they must be agreed upon – by all the parties involved in international affairs, and that they devise these rules for their own sake and in their interests. We must do away with what we call illegitimate restrictions and sanctions and ensure that they are not used as a competitive tool. I referred to them as illegitimate for a reason. In fact, they run counter to the existing international norms, WTO norms, etc. This is what makes them illegitimate. And how can they be legitimate? This is quite obvious. They are being used as part of a political agenda and serve as a tool for gaining a competitive edge.

Quite often, those who impose sanctions against Russia or China are the ones who suffer from them.

The scale of economic interaction between the United States and China is huge. Ok, the US imposed sanctions against China, so what’s next? It may well be that this backfires on the United States.

In Europe, for example, they have restricted some Chinese imports and imposed certain limitations. But what were the key economic development drivers for Europe? Ask the Europeans and they will tell you that they had two major advantages: relatively cheap Russian fuel and energy, as well as inexpensive consumer goods from China. But what will they get now? They are closing the taps. They stopped buying our energy resources, which used to be relatively affordable, out of their own free will. We can see that they are balancing on the brink of recession. And now they are about to stop importing Chinese goods, which are also relatively inexpensive. What will happen? They will have inflation. And the United States will go down the same road. They have quite a few challenges there already. They are facing three deficits: a US$34 trillion debt, a foreign trade deficit, as well as a budget deficit – I think it is about six percent. As for Russia, despite all the restrictions they have been imposing on us, our deficit is about two percent, in fact even below two percent. And they have six percent in the United States. They are the ones undermining their development drivers and institutions with their own hands.

This is to say that competition, when it is healthy and fair, is a natural phenomenon which can be accepted. But using illegal tools to gain a competitive edge is bad and is detrimental to those who use them. I do hope that this will dawn on reasonable people at the right political level so that we can reach common ground. As for how we can get there, I discussed this matter in my speech.

Thank you.

I suggest that we round up this meeting. Otherwise, we will stay here until morning.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr President, I believe it is time to wrap up. However, I hope you will indulge me, as I hold a degree in German philology…

Vladimir Putin: A “philologist-harmonist” [t/n – the story has it that a university graduate got his diploma with a mistake: his area of specialization read ‘harmonist’ instead of ‘Germanist’; in Russian these words are consonant].

Fyodor Lukyanov: Indeed, a ”harmonist.“ But you, too, were once a ”harmonist.“

Vladimir Putin: No, I am a lawyer.

Fyodor Lukyanov: I was quite concerned when you mentioned that you were beginning to forget the German language.

Vladimir Putin: I simply do not practise it. It is akin to a musical instrument – it requires daily use. The vocabulary begins to fade.

Fyodor Lukyanov: May I give the floor to Roger Koeppel? He is our primary representative of the German language here.

Vladimir Putin: Who?

Fyodor Lukyanov: Roger Koeppel from Switzerland. Please.

Vladimir Putin: Ah, yes, please. But this is Schweizerdeutsch.

Fyodor Lukyanov: He is quite capable of speaking Hochdeutsch too.

Roger Koppel: Thank you very much, Mr Lukyanov, Mr President. It was a very impressive, outstanding evening. I have never seen a leader of your stature communicating on this level for so long, so late in the evening. Congratulations. It is fantastic.

However, I want to challenge your term ‘collective West.’ I am probably considered to be part of the collective West. I do not consider myself to be part of any collective.

And I do not see a collective West, but I see a group of politicians with increasing problems. We see governments hanging by the ropes, we see a leadership crisis.

I had the summit meeting organised in Vienna with former Chancellor Schroeder and Prime Minister Orban. Chancellor Schroeder was the last guardian of the strategic autonomy of Europe, as you well know, and it was interesting, because I could see there was a huge interest in this kind of event, and I see there are rather seismic changes about in Europe. The landscape is changing, and this is where I allow a slight criticism of you.

With great power comes great responsibility, and I think you are neglecting the communication to the wider public in Western Europe, in older Europe, in the German-speaking part of Europe, because you, as a person, as a president, as a politician with your country, are an extremely important topic in politics. And if you communicate, if you encourage these people, this would have an effect. Without interfering in elections, but it would have an effect in helping to bring about changes that many people want in Europe.

And my question is, do you share this view and would you be willing to give interviews to independent journalists, without naming some of those present? Thank you very much.

(Laughter.)

Fyodor Lukyanov: You are familiar with this journalist.

Vladimir Putin: You mentioned Mr Schroeder. I have maintained, and continue to maintain, a very good personal relationship with him. He stands out as an exceptional figure within the modern European political sphere. I say this without irony or exaggeration. What makes him exceptional? He has his own viewpoint and expresses it openly.

When relations with Russia began to sour, he was not afraid to articulate his stance and state it publicly. He faced accusations of all manner of sins. I merely endeavoured to remain uninvolved, refraining from commentary.

What did he achieve, and what did we accomplish together? We built the Nord Stream pipeline, ensuring the supply of gas to Europe. What is the problem with that? At present, there is no Russian gas in Germany. The repercussions are severe, not solely because of this, but partly due to it. And as of now, we have yet to see any viable alternatives.

In conversations with our experts… allow me to share, although I did not express this before; I will only echo their sentiments. I hope not to offend anyone, God forbid. It may not sound particularly flattering. I still ask our colleagues, my colleagues, experts, ”What does Europe currently lack?“ The response is this: ”They lack brains.“ Not because they are unintelligent, no, but because economic decisions are being made by politicians unfamiliar with economic principles. These decisions are politicised, lacking thorough consideration and genuine rationale.

This pertains as well to the green agenda. Is the fight against climate change a commendable pursuit? Absolutely. Are we all concerned by it? Yes, indeed, and it alarms some. But it is unfair to the electorate to deliberately incite fear to advance resolutions that are not feasible. That, simply put, is unjust.

“The green agenda is good.” Yes, it is. Are new tools and technologies necessary? Yes, they are. Is it possible for an economy like Germany’s to survive solely on the new green technologies? It is not possible; they would have to reduce output or return to coal generation, like many European countries are doing now, including Germany itself.

Under pressure, they stirred up public opinion, frightening people. They excluded nuclear power generation and then coal energy from the equation, and now they do not need gas. Then they realised it was not a great idea, and we started supplying them with gas via different channels. Mr Schroeder did that. He did that not in the interests of the Russian Federation and not because he created sales conditions for us, or to benefit economically. He did it only in the interests of the German people and fought for the most favourable conditions of the supplies, and for creating these infrastructural possibilities.

Based on what has been happening in the German economy since these possibilities were lost, his work produced excellent results. Now that it is gone, we can see the result. Mr Schroeder made decisions that were unpopular from the perspective of internal economic policy. He consciously risked his political career. He had to make some unpopular decisions on cutting social expenditure, and so on. But economically, it was absolutely necessary. He knew it would entail unfavourable political consequences for him. And he still did it. He was a person who made decisions in the interests of Germany rather than in his own interests.

His strategy with respect to foreign policy relations was similar. If we look at the developments in Iraq, he was against the US intervention and he publicly stated this, just like Jacques Chirac, causing discontent among those who thought differently and those who issued orders from overseas. Eventually, he found himself out of the running. He was a very decent and consistent man. There are not many people like him. There are people like him in Europe but very few. I could count them on one hand.

I think it will be happening in Europe either way. People can see the reality with the gap growing between the so-called ruling elites who, for very different reasons, must consider someone else’s interests, so to speak, and the general population. We can see that. The nationally oriented political forces will see further growth as well.

Regarding the fact that, as you said, I avoid communicating with a wide audience in Europe, I do not think it is correct to directly address people in those countries whose leadership anathematises us and does not want to listen to any arguments.

We have relevant agencies working there – they are facing discrimination, too, despite the declared freedom of speech. Our journalists are not allowed to work anywhere: neither in Europe nor in the US. They close everything down or create a multitude of complications. Ask Margarita Simonyan, she will tell you how their journalists are treated. We have only one point of support there: Russia Today, and that is it. We do not have an extensive system like the Anglo-Saxons with their global media. We do not possess that. But they are trying to shut this down too, and they are afraid of it.

I am open to interviews as far as it is possible. As you know, I met with Tucker Carlson, and from time to time, I have contacts with Western journalists.

If we were to contact them directly, we would provoke an unhealthy reaction: each word would trigger a stream of consciousness.

Do you recall that the newly elected President of the US was accused of having connections with Russia? Later, they held hearings in Congress and created a commission to investigate his ties to Russia but found nothing. There was nothing, so there was nothing to be found. They did not prove anything. Yet they persisted in using imaginary ties to Russia almost until the last moment with unimaginable energy, which could have been put to better use. It is total nonsense. I do not want to create problems for anyone there. This is the third point.

Fourthly, all processes occurring within a country should remain within that country. This is how it will happen. These nationally oriented political forces will grow not because I say something to like-minded people in Europe, though there are many of them, as well as in the US, but because this is dictated by the laws of society’s internal development. This is the most solid foundation for future changes. They will undoubtedly happen.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr President, one last question. There is a recurring thought in Western commentary – I came across it again recently, just yesterday, or so…

Vladimir Putin: If there are thoughts, that is already a good sign.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Yes, there are. And it’s actually quite an interesting thought from those who seem to be somewhat positive. They write: “With Putin, nothing is possible, but sooner or later, he will leave, and then we will need to rebuild relations with Russia and integrate it back, because it will return to its previous path.” Do you think Russia will return to that path?

Vladimir Putin: Russia is following its own path, and I hope it will continue to prioritise its national interests. Of course, integration is important, and we have never rejected that idea. However, I would not want Russia to return to the trajectory it was on before 2022, as I mentioned in my speech. That path involved covert interventions aimed at subordinating Russia to the interests of other nations that believed they had the right to do so. Russia cannot exist in such a subordinate or semi-subordinate position. I believe that our people, the ordinary citizens, have come to understand this, especially after realising what our geopolitical opponents have been trying to impose on us.

The logic of events reveals that people have come to understand what was happening and what others were trying to impose on us, no matter how appealing it appeared or how condescendingly they offered their support. This realisation is at the heart of the remarkable, even unprecedented, consolidation of Russian society. It stems from a deep understanding of the country’s core strategic interests, specifically the strengthening of its independence, autonomy, and sovereignty.

During our presidential election campaign, I recall there was not much time to watch everything, but I did tune in to the TV for a moment. I saw a foreign correspondent – I do not remember which country he was from – approach a man on the street in Belgorod, in the Belgorod Region. You might even find this footage in the archives. The reporter asked the man, “Where are you going?” The man replied, “To the polling station.” The reporter said, “But it is dangerous, drones could strike, you might get hurt. Why aren’t you afraid?” The man, a middle-aged local resident, looked him in the eye, answered simply, “I am Russian,” and continued on his way.

Today, representatives from any ethnic group in the Russian Federation could respond in the same way. Whether from the Volga region, the North Caucasus, the northern parts of Russia, or any of the 190 ethnic groups across the country, the sentiment is the same. The events of today have brought about an unprecedented consolidation of Russian society and a deep understanding of what sovereignty truly means for our nation. This sense of unity and sovereignty forms one of the key, vital foundations for Russia’s future development and survival.

Thank you.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you very much both to you and our host. I appreciate it.

BRICS Plus/Outreach plenary session at the 16th BRICS Summit

2024-10-25T20:46:19+04:00

The capital of Tatarstan hosted a plenary session of the 16^th BRICS Summit in the BRICS Plus/Outreach format, bringing together leaders from CIS countries, delegations for Asian, African, Middle Eastern and Latin American countries, as well as several international organisations at the level of heads of their executive bodies.

Attending the meeting on the Russian side were Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, Deputy Prime Minister Alexei Overchuk, Deputy Chief of Staff of the Presidential Executive Office, Special Presidential Representative for Financial and Economic Cooperation with BRICS States and Interaction with the New Development Bank Maxim Oreshkin, Deputy Chief of Staff of the Presidential Executive Office – Presidential Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov, Presidential Aide Yury Ushakov, Head of the Republic of Tatarstan Rustam Minnikhanov, Deputy Foreign Minister, Russia’s BRICS Sherpa Sergei Ryabkov, and Ambassador at Large of Russia’s Foreign Ministry, Russia’s BRICS Sous-Sherpa Pavel Knyazev.

* * *

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Heads of state,

Ladies and gentlemen, friends,

I am delighted to welcome all of you to the BRICS Plus/Outreach-format meeting. This inclusive platform has proven its worth by enabling the BRICS group participants to engage in a direct and open dialogue with their friends and partners.

Let me remind you that heads of many African countries and senior executives from the key regional organisations were invited to attend last year’s meeting in Johannesburg. This time, the Russian chairmanship invited Russia’s closest neighbours and friendly countries with whom we share a common past, having lived within a single state. In addition, heads of state seeking to forge closer partnership ties with BRICS or even considering joining the group are also present here. There are also countries leading major multilateral structures here. Therefore, Europe, Asia, Africa and Latin America are all represented at this table.

According to our agenda, we will discuss the most pressing issues the international community is facing today, including sustainable development, eradication of poverty, climate change adaptation, exchanging technology and knowledge, fighting terrorism and transborder crime.

We will focus particularly on the peaceful resolution of conflicts, certainly including a serious discussion of the deteriorating situation in the Middle East.

It is crucial for BRICS members to discuss all these issues with countries from the Global South and East that share our approach. All our countries share similar aspirations, values and a vision of a new democratic world order that reflects cultural and civilisational diversity. We are confident that such a system should be guided by the universal principles of respect for the legitimate interests and sovereign choice of nations, respect for international law and a spirit of mutually beneficial, honest co-operation.

The transition to a more just international system is not easy. Its development is being hampered by forces whose thinking and actions continue to be aimed at dominating everything and everyone. Under the guise of a rule-based order they are imposing on the world, they are actually attempting to contain growing competition and prevent the independent development of countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America that they cannot control.

These forces are resorting to illegal unilateral sanctions, blatant protectionism, manipulation of currency and stock markets, and relentless foreign influence ostensibly promoting democracy, human rights, and the climate change agenda. Yes, they are using these tactics as well.

These twisted methods and perverse approaches – to put it bluntly – lead to the emergence of new conflicts and the aggravation of old disagreements. This undermines regional and global strategic stability, violates the principles of equal and indivisible security, and encourages internecine strife.

One example of this is Ukraine, which is being used to create critical threats to Russia’s security, while ignoring our vital interests, our just concerns, and the infringement of the rights of Russian-speaking people. Now they are not even hiding that their goal is to inflict a strategic defeat on our country. I will say bluntly that anyone harbouring such illusory plans has no understanding of Russia’s history, of our nation’s unity and cohesion forged over centuries, or our people’s moral fibre and fortitude.

But, as agreed, our discussion will primarily focus on the situation in the Middle East. This is another cause for concern, and precisely the case I was referring to: the escalation of a long-standing conflict that has not been extinguished for decades.

The current round of the Palestinian-Israeli confrontation is probably one of the most sanguinary in the long list of conflicts. Over 40,000 people, most of them civilians, have been killed in the ongoing hostilities in the Gaza Strip. I would like to emphasise that we have always come out against the use of terrorist methods.

The hostilities that began in Gaza a year ago have now spread to Lebanon. Other countries of the region have been affected as well. Tensions between Israel and Iran have increased dramatically. Taken together, this looks like a chain reaction that could push the Middle East towards an all-out war.

The humanitarian situation is rapidly worsening. The number of refugees and internally displaced persons has exceeded 1.5 million. Massive damage has been caused to infrastructure, apartment buildings, schools, hospitals and social facilities, and destruction is ongoing.

Russia has many problems of its own, of course, which are very important and which we must address, we are addressing them and will continue to do so. At the same time, we have always tried to make a substantial contribution to stabilisation in the Middle East. That is why, since the start of the escalation, we have joined forces with our BRICS and other partners to contribute to a settlement. As you may remember, our group even held a video summit in November 2023.

The immediate task is, of course, to launch a comprehensive political process for addressing the Middle East problem in its entirety. Violence must stop, vital assistance must be provided to the affected people, and their suffering must be alleviated. A settlement must be achieved on the basis of universally recognised international law, which actually stipulates the establishment of an independent Palestinian State that will live peacefully side by side with Israel.

Mending the historical injustice done to the Palestinian people would guarantee peace in the Middle East. The vicious circle of violence will not be broken until this problem is solved. People will continue to live in an atmosphere of permanent crisis, with inevitable outbreaks of massive violence.

I would like to repeat that the main condition for restoring peace and stability in the Palestinian territories is the realisation of the two-state formula approved by the UN Security Council and General Assembly resolutions.

As for the way we assess the present-day international environment, I would like to emphasise that the countries represented in this room have immense opportunities and resources at their disposal and play a prominent role on the international stage. In fact, they have been using their standing to enhance global security and promote sustainable development around the world.

In this context, many countries among us have put forward initiatives that have proven to be quite useful. Russia advocated the idea of creating an inclusive system of equitable and indivisible security for Eurasia free from any discrimination. This initiative consists of working together to guarantee genuine and reliable stability and enable all states and nations across the continent to develop themselves in peace.

Of course, the fact that this meeting is taking place on United Nations Day is a very powerful symbol. It was on October 24, 1945, that the UN Charter came into effect. It sets forth the principles which have served as the cornerstone of interstate relations and international law for almost 80 years now.

The United Nations must retain its central role in efforts to maintain peace and security and facilitate sustainable and steady development. Meanwhile, to ensure the effective functioning of the UN in the future, we believe it is important to adapt its structures to the realities of the 21^st century, expanding the representation of countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America, including those whose leaders are present here, in the Security Council and other key international bodies.

An effort to reform UN development institutions and global financial structures has long been overdue. Developing countries no longer play the role they used to have within the global economy. Everything changed over the past decades. However, this did not pave the way to any changes or shifts in the management of the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank or other multilateral development banks.

The founding fathers of the United Nations believed that its purpose was to enable nations to come together and agree on joint actions. In fact, it is only by working together that we can respond to global challenges and threats and deal with issues such as terrorism, drug trafficking, corruption, organised crime, including the criminal use of information technology, and of course foster steady economic growth for inclusive development and prosperity.

It is quite clear that the countries of the Global Majority will be the ones to bring about the next wave of global economic growth. Therefore, it is high time that we discuss the idea of setting up our own platform for unlocking the potential of our emerging economies. It must enable countries from the BRICS group, as well as those across the Global South and East, to attract more investment and focus on investing in infrastructure and technology projects.

It is essential to build alternative multilateral financial mechanisms and supply chains that are reliable and free from any dictate, to establish channels for exchanging advanced technology and expertise, to develop new international transport corridors and increase their capacity.

Russia is working together with its partners to enhance globally significant routes such as the North-South corridor and the Northern Sea Route, and we invite all interested countries to participate.

As we are well aware, climate has a special place in the sustainable development agenda. In this regard, it makes sense to focus on developing practical solutions to the problems caused by global warming. It is important to provide countries in the Global South and East with access to financing and technology, and to help them adapt to climate change.

I would like to emphasise that Russia seeks to participate in the global climate process in the most active way possible. Our country is one of the leaders in terms of its contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and its energy balance is one of the greenest in the world. The cumulative share of environmentally friendly gas, nuclear and hydro generation in Russia is 85 percent. Russia accounts for more than 20 percent of the world’s forests, which help to slow global warming by absorbing greenhouse gases.

Russia also makes a serious contribution to global food and energy security. Last year alone, we exported over 100 million tonnes of agricultural products, becoming a leading grain exporter. Russia also holds a leading position in the energy market.

We have initiated the creation of a grain exchange within the BRICS format. We believe that this mechanism will facilitate the establishment of a transparent and risk-free regime for trade in agricultural products, both among BRICS countries and with our other partners.

In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that Russia, like all BRICS countries, is open to cooperation with all countries of the Global South and East to promote inclusive and sustainable development and ultimately build a better world. It will be a world where every nation’s stance and interests are taken into account, their right to sovereign development and their identity are respected, and the absolute value of all cultures, traditions and religions is recognised.

I trust that today’s discussion will be constructive and substantive and provide insights for addressing the current regional and global agenda.

Thank you for your attention.

<…>

Vladimir Putin: Mr Secretary-General [of the United Nations Antonio Guterres] said that we all must live as one big family.

Mr Secretary-General, this is exactly the way we have been living our lives. Unfortunately, families often have quarrels and scandals and may have to split their assets, and sometimes their disputes become physical. BRICS sees its purpose as creating the necessary cooperation mechanisms and a favourable environment within the household we share. This is what we are doing, and this is what we will continue to do, including by working closely with the United Nations.

Thank you very much.

Colleagues, friends,

We will have a short break before continuing our work in the working breakfast format.

Thank you.

Expanded meeting of the BRICS Summit

2024-10-25T20:44:06+04:00

President of Brazil Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva (via videoconference), President of the People’s Republic of China Xi Jinping, President of Egypt Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, Prime Minister of Ethiopia Abiy Ahmed, Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi, President of Iran Masoud Pezeshkian, President of Russia Vladimir Putin, President of South Africa Cyril Ramaphosa and Minister of Foreign Affairs of the United Arab Emirates Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan participated in the expanded meeting of the BRICS Summit.

In addition, the meeting was attended by Brazilian Foreign Minister Mauro Luiz Iecker Vieira, President of the New Development Bank Dilma Rousseff, Chairman of the BRICS Business Council, President of the Russian Chamber of Commerce and Industry Sergei Katyrin, Chairperson of the BRICS Women’s Business Alliance, Chairperson of the Board of Directors of Global Rus Trade Anna Nesterova, and Chairman of the BRICS Interbank Cooperation Mechanism, Chairman of the VEB.RF State Development Corporation Igor Shuvalov.

On the Russian side, the event was also attended by Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Lavrov, Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Novak, Deputy Prime Minister Alexei Overchuk, Deputy Chief of Staff of the Presidential Executive Office, Special Presidential Representative for Financial and Economic Cooperation with BRICS States and Interaction with the New Development Bank Maxim Oreshkin, Deputy Chief of Staff of the Presidential Executive Office, Presidential Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov, Aide to the President Yury Ushakov, Minister of Industry and Trade Anton Alikhanov, Minister of Natural Resources and Environment Alexander Kozlov, Minister of Agriculture Oksana Lut, Minister of Economic Development Maxim Reshetnikov, Minister of Finance Anton Siluanov, Minister of Transport Roman Starovoit, Governor of the Central Bank Elvira Nabiullina, and Head of the Republic of Tatarstan Rustam Minnikhanov.

* * *

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Colleagues,

Heads of State,

Ladies and Gentlemen, friends,

We continue our work in an expanded format, and before we do that, we need to approve the agenda. All of you are aware of its items. Does anyone have any comments, suggestions or amendments in this regard? None? Then we shall assume the agenda has been approved. Thank you.

If you have no objections, I will open the meeting, or rather, continue our work.

We will review a few current aspects of BRICS activities, primarily in the economic and humanitarian areas, and hear reports from the heads of relevant BRICS bodies – President of the New Development Bank Dilma Rousseff, Chairman of the Business Council Sergei Katyrin, Chairman of the Interbank Cooperation Mechanism Igor Shuvalov, and Chairperson of the Women’s Business Alliance Anna Nesterova.

As we pointed out during our restricted-format meeting, global trade and the global economy in general are undergoing substantial changes. On the positive side, the centre of business activity is gradually shifting towards developing markets. A multipolar model is evolving, engendering a new wave of growth, primarily in the Global South and East countries, as well as in BRICS countries, of course.

However, there is still considerable crisis potential, not only due to rising geopolitical tensions but also because of the continuing growth of the debt burden in industrialised countries and the expanding practice of unilateral sanctions, protectionism and unfair competition. A direct result of this is the fragmentation of international trade and the market of foreign direct investments, especially in developing countries.

The raw materials prices volatility is high, with individual and corporate revenues declining in many countries due to rising inflation.

The implementation of the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development is stalling, with the least developed countries suffering the most from global economic instability, above all food and energy inflation.

As for the BRICS economies, they generally demonstrate sufficient stability, thanks to the responsible macroeconomic, monetary and financial policies of our governments. The majority of our countries expect to report outperforming growth rates. In particular, tentative estimates put average growth in the BRICS economies at 3.8 percent in 2024–2025, while global GDP is estimated to increase by 3.2–3.3 percent in the same period.

The share of BRICS countries in terms of purchasing power parity (PPP) will reach 36.7 percent in 2024, which is larger than the share of the G7 countries, which was 30 percent in 2023 and will only grow slightly in 2024.

It appears that a trend to retain BRICS’ leading positions in the global economy will be consolidated, primarily due to such objective factors as population growth, the accumulation of capital, urbanisation and greater labour productivity, bolstered by technological innovations.

To fully realise the potential of our growing economies and take advantage of the new wave of global economic growth, our countries need to strengthen cooperation in areas such as technology, education, efficient resource development, trade and logistics, finance and insurance. Additionally, we must significantly increase the scale of investments.

In this connection, we suggest establishing a new BRICS investment platform that would become a powerful tool for supporting our national economies and provide countries of the Global South and East with financial resources.

I would like to note that, this year, BRICS has managed to coordinate multiple initiatives aiming to accomplish critically important common objectives.

For example, this includes efforts to make supply and VAT chains more resilient, to counter protectionism, to expand e-commerce and to establish contacts between special economic zones.

We believe that launching a special mechanism for consultations between BRICS countries on issues related to the World Trade Organisation will help us chart a common position on formulating more equitable rules of the game in the global economy and overhauling the international financial system.

It is necessary to continue jointly promoting well-balanced approaches to issues linked with the global economy’s transition to low-emission development models and to counter attempts to use the climate agenda to oust rivals from the market. This is particularly true of emerging markets. The BRICS Contact Group for Climate and Sustainable Development is actively addressing these issues. We believe that BRICS’ initiatives on partnership regarding carbon markets and the climate research platform are highly promising.

BRICS countries are ramping up interaction in an effort to expand barrier-free e-commerce. The dynamic growth of online sales has increased the number of commercial disputes that need to be resolved promptly and fairly.

Russia’s chairmanship proposed sharing information about practices for launching online services to resolve e-commerce disputes with an eye towards creating joint framework procedures for pre-trial dispute resolution. I would also like to remind everyone about our initiatives to establish a BRICS Investment Arbitration Centre and to develop a convention on settling investment disputes, which will improve the protection of mutual investments.

The BRICS space is home to over 2,500 special economic areas. We believe it is important to establish direct links between management teams of these territories with preferential and easy-term regulations in order for them to exchange best practices on matters such as building logistics hubs, localising the industrial manufacturing, and creating favourable global competitive environment for investors.

Several BRICS countries are among the world’s largest producers of grains, leguminous crops, and oilseeds. In this regard, we proposed establishing a BRICS Grain Exchange, which would help discover fair and predictable prices for products and raw materials, since the latter have a special role to play in ensuring food security.

Once implemented, this initiative would help protect national markets from adverse external interference, speculation, and attempts to create artificial food shortages. Over time, we could also consider transforming the Grain Exchange into a fully-operational commodity exchange.

The contribution of BRICS countries to ensuring global energy security is undeniable. The association includes key energy producers and consumers. The joint energy research platform has been bringing good results as well.

Russia also advocates expanding cooperation in subsoil use. In July, the first meeting of the BRICS Geological Platform, which provided a venue for an expanded sharing of experience in mineral exploration and mining, took place in Moscow.

We believe it is quite practicable to create a separate BRICS platform for precious metals and diamonds, as this market is greatly overregulated by trade barriers in circumvention of the universal Kimberley Process Certification Scheme.

The BRICS Competition Law and Policy Centre has built a positive track record. We believe that we must continue working on this agenda, including by launching an interstate platform for promoting fair competition.

In September, Moscow hosted a meeting of BRICS Tax Administration Heads and Experts. It was quite a success. Our colleagues discussed important proposals dealing with creating a website to promote cooperation within BRICS on tax-related matters, as well as an online platform for digitising tax services. Russia suggested establishing a permanent secretariat within BRICS on taxes which would operate on a rotational basis.

Efforts to enhance transport connectivity between our countries deserve special attention, since they offer us additional opportunities for expanding and diversifying mutual trade. This year, we started a dialogue on this topic within BRICS. By establishing subgroups on transport and logistics within the Business Council, we made sure that this dialogue continues on a regular basis.

We are also discussing future projects, such as creating a permanent logistics platform within BRICS, reviewing transport routes, creating an online communications platform for the transport sector, and establishing a reinsurance pool.

Having hosted a meeting of healthcare ministers in October, we have achieved meaningful progress in promoting BRICS cooperation in this sector. This meeting defined our long-term vision for healthcare-related matters.

We established a nuclear medicine group, which will promote cooperation in the production of innovative radiological agents and diagnostics. Held in St Petersburg, the first BRICS forum on nuclear medicine was quite useful in this regard.

We have launched an integrated early-warning system for addressing large-scale outbreaks of infectious diseases. Russia has also put forward an initiative to create a BRICS research network on public health so that we can benefit from each other’s best practices for strengthening our national healthcare systems. It is essential that we persist in our efforts to develop and expand the Vaccine Centre and the Tuberculosis Research Network within BRICS.

On a separate note, I would like to mention the publication of the BRICS medical journal’s first edition, which offers a platform for doctors, researchers and medical students to publish their innovative ideas.

BRICS cooperation in science and technology significantly contributes to bridging the global digital divide and advancing artificial intelligence, alongside other emerging technologies.

I would like to underscore Russia's proposal to establish a BRICS alliance in the realm of artificial intelligence. This initiative aims to regulate artificial intelligence technologies, including measures to prevent their unlawful use. In Russia, the business community has adopted a code of ethics in this area, which could be joined by our BRICS partners and other nations.

We welcome the arrangements on common approaches to the formation of a system of scientometric databases, as well as the expansion of cooperation areas and the number of participants in the Network University.

I should also mention the decision to establish BRICS Geographer's Day, which will now be celebrated annually on August 18. A scientific expedition to the nature reserves of the Krasnoyarsk Region and the Republic of Khakassia in Russia has already been scheduled to coincide with this date.

During Russia's chairmanship, we placed special emphasis on the development of contacts in the cultural and humanitarian sphere. The International Film Festival and the BRICS Cultural Festival were successfully held, and the Alliance of Folk Dance and the Association of Film Schools were established.

Large-scale BRICS Sports Games have proved to be a valuable initiative. This year, Kazan hosted the fifth such games across 27 sports. For the first time, they were organised in an open format, with athletes not only from BRICS countries but also from more than 80 other countries participating in the competition. These Games clearly demonstrated that Russia possesses a modern infrastructure base and manpower potential to organise major world-class sporting events. To further develop the BRICS Games, we propose devising a special intergovernmental programme and establishing a coordinating authority to implement projects in the field of physical fitness and sports.

This year, inter-parliamentary dialogue within the framework of the group has significantly intensified. A new format for meetings of chairpersons of legislative committees on international affairs has been established.

Broad prospects are emerging for cooperation among regions, cities, and municipalities. During the thematic forums held in Moscow, Nizhny Novgorod, and Kazan, discussions were held on the prospects for collaboration in the sphere of sustainable development of municipalities, efficient management of the urban economy and infrastructure, and increasing the accessibility of urban services.

Colleagues,

I thank you for your attention and invite my colleagues to express their views on the above-mentioned outcomes of the work on the economic and humanitarian tracks.

<…>

Vladimir Putin: Once again, I would like to thank you for your substantive contributions and for this insightful and interested discussion.

We had a detailed conversation on setting our priorities in terms of forging a stronger strategic partnership within BRICS and went on to outline our plans for future cooperation. In fact, we share close or convergent positions on most topical global and regional matters.

It is essential that all BRICS partners remain committed to working closely together to create a more democratic, inclusive and multipolar international system. We have a shared understanding of the fact that together we can undertake the most ambitious and large-scale projects and initiatives.

We heard interesting reports from the heads of BRICS financial and business structures. As a founding member of the New Development Bank, Russia wants it to expand its project activities in all the countries which have the status of NDB shareholders and in the countries of the Global South and East.

We support the BRICS Business Council’s proactive efforts to promote cooperation among our major corporations, as well as SMEs in trade, manufacturing, agriculture, energy and transport.

In addition, we believe in the importance of working together within the BRICS intrabank cooperation mechanism as a way to combine our efforts in supporting economic projects dealing with essential social matters, undertaking regional development programmes and building infrastructure. Creating incentives for using national currencies in trade and investment remains high on our agenda.

Of course, we all praised the BRICS Women’s Business Alliance, created with the purpose of assisting women in promoting business, facilitating contacts and implementing promising projects.

Overall, very good results have been reported for cooperation between BRICS countries this year. Jointly, we have advanced in all three dimensions – politics and security, the economy and finance, and cultural and humanitarian contacts. We have laid solid groundwork for the future.

The final declaration, which has been prepared for our approval, reflects our common views on the global situation, the results of Russia’s BRICS Chairmanship, and the guidelines for our interaction in the long term.

I would like to ask our colleagues once again if they have any objections or remarks regarding this declaration. If not, I propose we consider the declaration adopted. I would also like to add that we plan to circulate it at the UN as our common document.

It has already been noted that Brazil will assume the BRICS Chairmanship next January. I am confident that Brazil’s chairmanship will ensure continuity in the work of our group while also supplementing our cooperation with interesting new initiatives and ideas. All of us will provide all-round assistance to our Brazilian friends.

In conclusion, I would like to thank you once again for our constructive and fruitful joint work and to declare the expanded meeting of the BRICS Summit closed.

Tomorrow, we will hold a BRICS Plus/Outreach format meeting to discuss the current aspects of our group’s interaction with many other Global Majority countries. This evening, I invite you to a reception, which will also be attended by the delegations that will take part in the joint meeting tomorrow. The time before the reception can be used for bilateral meetings.

I would like to thank you again for our joint work. Thank you very much.

Restricted-format meeting of the BRICS Summit

2024-10-25T20:44:00+04:00

President of Russia Vladimir Putin, President of the People’s Republic of China Xi Jinping, President of Egypt Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, Prime Minister of Ethiopia Abiy Ahmed, Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi, President of Iran Masoud Pezeshkian, President of South Africa Cyril Ramaphosa, President of the United Arab Emirates Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Brazil Mauro Luiz Iecker Vieira attended a restricted-format meeting of the BRICS Summit.

On the Russian side, the meeting was also attended by Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, Deputy Prime Minister Alexei Overchuk, Deputy Chief of Staff of the Presidential Executive Office, Special Presidential Representative for Financial and Economic Cooperation with BRICS States and Interaction with the New Development Bank Maxim Oreshkin, Presidential Aide Yury Ushakov, Minister of Finance Anton Siluanov and Central Bank Governor Elvira Nabiullina.

* * *

Opening remarks and beginning of speech by President of Russia at BRICS Summit meeting in restricted format

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Colleagues,

Heads of State,

Ladies and Gentlemen, friends,

I am sincerely delighted to welcome you all to Kazan. Our meeting opens the 16^th BRICS Summit, the first since the group’s enlargement. The centrepiece of Russia’s chairmanship programme, this meeting is themed Strengthening Multilateralism for Just Global Development and Security.

I would like to emphasise that Russia has taken a very responsible approach to organising the joint BRICS activities this year.

We have sought to strengthen the group’s influence, enhance its role in global affairs and in addressing pressing global and regional problems. We have done everything possible to deepen multifaceted cooperation between our states in three broad areas: politics and security, economy and finance, and cultural and humanitarian contacts. It goes without saying that we have made every effort to ensure the smooth and fullest possible integration of the new members into our group formats.

Right now, in a restricted format, we suggest considering the most important items on the global agenda and exchange views on cooperation between the BRICS countries in the international arena, including in the resolution of ongoing regional conflicts.

We will also discuss the implementation of two important decisions from our previous summit in Johannesburg. First, I am referring to deeper financial cooperation within BRICS. The other decision, which is equally important, concerns the group’s further expansion. It would certainly be wrong to ignore the unprecedented interest in strengthening ties with BRICS displayed by the countries of the Global South and East. Over 30 nations have expressed such aspirations in one form or another. At the same time, it is crucial to maintain balance and ensure that the effectiveness of BRICS mechanisms is not diminished.

In Johannesburg, we agreed to develop modalities for a new category of partner states and to draw up a list of countries eligible for this status. It is important to reflect this decision in the final Kazan Declaration.

Colleagues, if there are no objections regarding the agenda, I declare the restricted meeting of the BRICS Summit open.

I am counting on fruitful work and a traditionally constructive and earnest dialogue on all issues pertinent to our interaction.

As per the established procedure, I would like, as the head of state chairing our group, to be the first to make a statement, after which all other heads of delegations will have their say.

I would like to request that you respect the agreed time limit of seven minutes for your statements. Are we in agreement? Thank you.

So, heads of state, ladies and gentlemen, friends,

We are all witnessing the dynamic growth of BRICS and the strengthening of its authority and influence in global affairs. The BRICS states possess truly immense potential in terms of political power, economy, science, technology, as well as human development. Furthermore, we are united by shared values and a common worldview.

It would be fair to say that BRICS is a group of like-minded sovereign states that represent different continents, development models, religions, and distinctive civilisations and cultures. All our states advocate equality, neighbourliness and mutual respect, the assertion of the noble ideals of friendship and harmony, commonwealth and well-being. We have assumed responsibility for the future of the world not in word but in deed. We are exerting a truly beneficial influence on global stability and security and making a substantial contribution to addressing pressing regional problems.

This is the essence of the BRICS strategy on the global stage, which responds to the aspirations of the largest part of the international community, which we refer to as the global majority. This approach is especially relevant in the current conditions when truly radical changes are underway across the globe, including the shaping of a multipolar world.

<…>

Plenary meeting of the Interrelation of Times and Civilisations – Basis of Peace and Development international forum

2024-10-12T11:56:43+04:00

Vladimir Putin attended the plenary meeting of the Interrelation of Times and Civilisations – Basis of Peace and Development international forum in Ashgabat dedicated to the 300th birth anniversary of Turkmen poet and philosopher Magtymguly Pyragy.

Before the meeting, President of Turkmenistan Serdar Berdimuhamedov held a welcome ceremony for the heads of delegations attending the international forum.

The Russian delegates attending the event included Deputy Prime Minister and co-chair of the Russian-Turkmen Commission on Economic Cooperation Alexei Overchuk, Deputy Chief of the Presidential Executive Office and Presidential Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov, Presidential Aide Yury Ushakov, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to Turkmenistan Ivan Volynkin, and Head of the Republic of Tatarstan Rustam Minnikhanov.

Vladimir Putin had a brief conversation with President of Pakistan Asif Ali Zardari on the sidelines of the forum. The leaders exchanged mutual invitations for official visits to Russia and Pakistan, respectively, and confirmed their countries’ intention and political interest in strengthening bilateral ties across all areas.

Vladimir Putin also talked with Speaker of the Turkish Parliament Numan Kurtulmus and reaffirmed that he was looking forward to meeting with President of Turkiye Recep Tayyip Erdogan at the BRICS summit in Kazan.

* * *

Address by the President of Russia

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

The Interrelation of Times and Civilisations – Basis of Peace and Development international forum, dedicated to the 300th birth anniversary of the outstanding Turkmen thinker, philosopher poet and public figure Magtymguly Pyragy, is of great importance today.

Magtymguly Pyragy is rightfully regarded as a great humanist and the founding figure of Turkmen poetry and literature, with his creative legacy forming an integral part of the world's greatest cultural treasures.

Magtymguly was one of the first to reveal the beauty of the Turkmen language in all its diversity and richness. He had a unique poetic style, expressing thoughts concisely, but with a depth of meaning and aphoristic clarity. Many of his poetic lines became popular catchphrases – aphorisms, proverbs, and sayings. Magtymguly’s books were not only read, they were kept at home as sacred relics.

There is something I would like to highlight: during the Second World War — or, as it was known in the Soviet Union, the Great Patriotic War, relatives of Turkmen soldiers would quote his poems in their letters sent to the frontlines, trying to reassure the warriors and inspire courage and valour. I will quote one of those phrases for you: “All our tribes are marching under the righteous banners from all sides.”

Magtymguly’s works have been translated into Russian. It is reliably known that the poet actually lived for a long time in the village of Funtovo near Astrakhan. The area has been densely populated by Turkmen diaspora groups since the late 17^th century to the present day. In 2019, a school built there at Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedov’s initiative was named after Magtymguly. Astrakhan has a monument to Magtymguly; in September, a bust of this outstanding poet was unveiled in Moscow.

Far ahead of his time, Magtymguly never halted his creative and spiritual search and always strove for knowledge and truth. Due to his genius, he was able to anticipate the future of his land and people. In his works, Magtymguly invariably called for purity, justice and equality, not only in relations between individuals, but also between states and nations. A visionary thinker, he advocated the high ideals of friendship and good neighbourliness, and tried to convey these thoughts to future generations, calling for harmony and responsibility, tolerance and understanding, respect and solidarity.

This message remains relevant and meaningful to reasonable people today, and it holds even greater significance amid the current global challenges, when unprecedented threats stem from civilisational divides and ethnic and religious conflicts. International relations have entered an era of profound transformation, and a new world order is emerging that reflects the world's diversity. This process is inevitable and irreversible.

Emerging powerful centres of economic growth, financial, and political influence are increasingly evident, particularly within the Global East and the Global South at large. These newly established centres are committed to preserving and strengthening their sovereignty and socio-cultural identity, while pursuing harmonious development in accordance with their traditions and based on national interests.

In the spirit of Magtymguly's philosophical views, the global majority nations, which both Russia and every other country participating in this forum are part of, advocate for a more equitable distribution of wealth and the consistent democratisation of the international landscape. We firmly believe that universal peace and comprehensive development can only be achieved if every nation's views are taken into account and every state's right to have its own sovereign policy, worldview, traditions, and religious beliefs is respected.

I’d like to emphasise that Russia endorses the broadest possible international dialogue concerning the parameters of interaction in our emerging multipolar world. It is open to discussing the establishment of a new world order with all our friends, partners, and like-minded people, including within the frameworks of the CIS, the EAEU, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, and BRICS.

In this context, we are preparing for the forthcoming BRICS and BRICS Plus/Outreach format summits scheduled to be held in Kazan from October 22 to 24. We would most certainly welcome our host, Mr Berdimuhamedov, along with many other leaders attending this forum, to join us at the events in Kazan.

Before concluding, I would like to take this opportunity to extend special gratitude to the current leadership of Turkmenistan – the President and the national leader of the Turkmen people, Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedov – for their commitment to the principles articulated by Magtymguly and their significant contribution to maintaining peace and stability in our shared region, as well as to expanding multifaceted cooperation and partnership.

Thank you for your attention.

Plenary session of Russian Energy Week International Forum

2024-09-26T20:25:19+04:00

Vladimir Putin and President of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo took part in the plenary session of the Russian Energy Week International Forum.

This year, the 7^th edition of REW, themed Energy Cooperation in a Multipolar World, brought together over 4,000 participants from more than 50 countries.

* * *

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Ladies and gentlemen, friends, colleagues,

I am delighted to welcome you all to Moscow, to the 7^th Russian Energy Week.

This forum has long become a permanent fixture in the business schedule of the global energy sector, once again bringing together the heads of leading companies and industry organisations, government officials, prominent specialists, experts, and journalists.

This year, more than 4,000 participants from over 50 countries will be discussing the most important issues on the energy agenda, and the challenges that both producers and consumers of energy resources are facing around the world.

In addition, this forum is an excellent opportunity to establish new contacts, make deals and exchange views on the long-term prospects of the fuel and energy sector.

Modern energy is one of the key sectors enabling global development. Its smooth operation based on transparent and predictable rules, when deposits are developed and resources are extracted, processed and supplied to the market without interruption, creates a solid foundation for economic growth, social progress, and improvement of the people’s living standards.

Unfortunately, this truism is being increasingly disregarded by those who resort to illegal sanctions, believing that such tactics can give them benefits and advantage in the energy market.

What are we talking about here? Historically, the main elements of the supply infrastructure of the global energy market happened to be consolidated in the West. I am referring to innovative mining solutions, logistics, insurance of resource supply, and the system of payments for these operations. Taken together, this constitutes a global energy platform on a par with technologies.

The Western elites believed that they could close access to these services for the countries they regard as inappropriate politically, thereby pushing them to the curb of progress, or more precisely, squeezing them out of the market. I believe that many would agree with me that all these instruments are being used above all for unfair competition.

The reason for this is obvious: the West does not want competition because it cannot handle it, because it loses the competition if it plays fair, which is why it resorts to discrimination presenting it as so-called Euro-Atlantic solidarity, the protection of human rights, and the like. There are many other pretexts.

What does this lead do? By closing access to its platform, the West has only encouraged the development of alternative solutions, alternative logistics, insurance and international settlement systems, as well as technological innovations. Of course, it is not a simple process, and it involves hard work by those involved, but the process is going on progressively.

I would like to emphasise that these solutions are mostly immune to external influence. And since they are being gradually shaped on a fundamentally new technological basis, they are becoming more effective by the day and, which is even more important, more widespread, first of all in the countries that are gathering momentum and demonstrating a high economic development pace.

I have said many times that the modern world has entered an era of fundamental and irreversible changes. A multipolar development model is emerging, starting a new wave of global growth for the rest of the 21^st century. And this growth will be concentrated not in Europe or North America. Of course, the European and the US economies rely on a very solid and powerful foundation, and of course, they will keep running, and it will be quite a while before they run out of steam completely. That said, Europe and North America will no longer operate as the main growth drivers. They are gradually losing their weight in the global economy. This growth will shift to BRICS countries and the states that are willing to join our association and view equal cooperation with due respect for national interests as the promising way to proceed.

I have already said this before but let me repeat it for this audience one more time. These are objective, international data. In 1992, the G7 accounted for 45 percent of global GDP, while BRICS had just 22 percent. As of the end of 2023, the G7’s share declined to 30 percent, while BRICS increased its share to 36 percent. And this trend is gaining traction.

Let me note right away that, according to international experts, several BRICS countries, including the People’s Republic of China, the Russian Federation, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia will enjoy positive, albeit quite modest, economic trends. Once again, this is what experts have been saying, including international experts. At the same time, the countries of what we call the Global South will lead the pack in terms of – I would like to stress it − economic growth rates. For now, their per capita GDP is quite low, and so is the share of people living in cities, but they have a high birth rate. This group primarily includes countries in South and Southeast Asia, as well as Africa, including Equatorial Guinea, whose President, His Excellency Teodoro Obiang [Nguema Mbasogo] is taking part in this plenary session. I would like to ask you to greet him. (Applause.)

To reiterate, BRICS – and Russia is chairing this organisation this year – sees its mission as combining economic capacities and creating a broad space of opportunities for everyone who is interested in harmonious and mutually beneficial cooperation. I would like to emphasise that it is mutually beneficial, that is, cooperation that benefits the interests of all our nations.

We intend to build an effective development platform for countries that are promising growth centres now or will become ones – a platform free from malign outside influence, with unimpeded access to resources, technology, personnel, finance, trade and investment. In particular, I am referring to the energy sector, which, as I said, is crucial for economic growth and social progress.

Russia, despite the challenges it is facing – everyone knows what they are, and in fact, everyone is facing challenges, so we have our own, too, and they are serious enough – nevertheless, Russia remains one of the leading participants in the global energy market. Over the past two and a half years, Russian companies have successfully redirected their exports of oil, petroleum products, and coal. Previously, the Asia-Pacific region accounted for about 39 percent of our energy exports, but by the end of last year, its share exceeded 60 percent.

In general, friendly countries account for over 90 percent of Russia’s energy exports today. At the same time, in physical terms, with the exception of natural gas (it is also clear to experts why), they have practically remained at the 2021 level.

Russia is expanding the geography and scale of its energy cooperation. New routes are being created to connect to fast-growing receptive markets, including the countries of the EAEU, the CIS, and southern Eurasia. Gas exports through the Power of Siberia pipeline are increasing, and LNG exports continue to grow.

In fact, LNG from the Russian Arctic has become one of the anchors, the main type of cargo shipped via the Northern Sea Route. We will definitely continue to develop our own LNG services and technologies, create centres for its transhipment, storage and trade. We will ensure enough tankers for our LNG projects; we will definitely augment the capacity of our Arctic and Eastern seaports, improve communications and enhance the Northern Sea Route infrastructure.

My Russian colleagues know what I am talking about – how they are being roadblocked in what they do. Indeed, this partially hinders the implementation of our plans, but they will be implemented, nonetheless.

In general, we are expanding international transport corridors. Freight traffic on these routes is scheduled to increase by at least 50 percent by 2030 compared to 2021.

In particular, we are further developing the Eastern Operating Domain. The throughput capacity of the Baikal-Amur Mainline and the Trans-Siberian Railway, which is nearly 180 million tonnes this year, will grow to 270 million tonnes in ten years, which will allow us to transport large volumes of fuel and energy products and refined products from our regions in Siberia to markets of the Global South.

Financial infrastructure, or more precisely, the system of payments for Russian exports, is a separate matter. There are certain difficulties here. To resolve that problem, we are switching to settlements in national currencies, which is of great interest to our partners. There are many problems in this sphere as well, which we are aware of, but we are gradually settling them. For example, the share of the ruble in our foreign trade transactions is approaching 40 percent. Between 2021 and 2023, the share of the ruble in export payments has grown nearly threefold to 39 percent, and the figure reached 39.4 percent in the first six months of 2024.

At the same time, as part of our cooperation with BRICS countries, we are involved in the creation of our own payment configuration that will provide conditions for servicing all foreign trade efficiently and independently.

I would like to add that Russian energy exports help friendly countries restrain the growth of import prices, maintain their energy security and economic stability, as well as compete more successfully in the global market.

We are resolved to continue to move forward, and we will not limit cooperation to trade in resources. Russia is ready to help strengthen the technological sovereignty of its partners in the energy sphere by creating comprehensive scientific and production chains. This is what we are doing in terms of cooperation in the peaceful use of nuclear technology. Rosatom is building nuclear power plants abroad and simultaneously training local personnel – engineers, workers and managers for the new facilities. In fact, we not only build power plants but, as Rosatom says, create new power generation and economic sectors for our partners.

I am confident that this combination of intellectual and resource potentials of different countries and our advance to new levels of international cooperation will create additional opportunities for the national school of research and for developing engineering, services and, of course, the entire energy sector in Russia.

Colleagues,

Last year’s energy consumption in Russia again set a new record that exceeds the Soviet-era indicators. You are well aware that growing energy consumption is the most unmistakable sign of economic growth.

At the same time, our energy system, one of the world’s largest, not only meets the growing demand from businesses, the economy, and the social sphere, but also is in the process of qualitative transformation. Over the past 15 years, the total capacity of the Russian power industry has increased by 18 percent, while the power plants themselves have undergone an in-depth overhaul, becoming more advanced, effective, and environment-friendly.

For example, natural gas, an ecologically clean and effective hydrocarbon, accounts for 48 percent of Russia’s energy balance and for over 85 percent, if we throw in the nuclear and hydraulic power industries that have a minimal carbon footprint.

What I mean is that our energy balance is one of the “greenest” in the world; this is an absolutely obvious fact. Unlike certain Western countries that use the climatic agenda to promote their essentially neo-colonialist interests, we are implementing a fair and orderly energy transition in practice, a transition that takes into account our natural conditions, the socioeconomic development of our cities and the entire national territory, as well as the structure of this country’s energy and fuel balance.

We will continue to follow this approach in the future. We will continue to upgrade and strengthen our energy system, which has entered upon a stage of retooling and conversion to new technological solutions.

Among other things, we are creating a substantial scientific and practical potential in a number of promising areas, such as renewable energy sources, small nuclear power plants, thermonuclear fusion, as well as hydrogen generation and production of motor vehicles, ships, and rail transport burning this kind of fuel.

True, research and technologies are at different stages of implementation in this regard. But to reiterate: it is important to be aware of this outlook and make plans for the future.

As you know, I have instructed the Government to extend the planning horizon for Russia’s energy strategy until the middle of this century. This strategy sets forth an ambitious and comprehensive plan to expand our generating capacity at a national scale. All these undertakings imply long cycles, and we must be forward-looking when working on them, and this is exactly the way we have been treating them.

Major, system-wide projects with long investment cycles will define these efforts, including, as I have already said, projects to master new technology, develop deposits and build the necessary infrastructure, power stations and grids.

I would like to remind my colleagues in the Government that we will need to draft a revised Energy Strategy in the coming months, and then carry it out, one step at a time, by focusing on our priority long-term objectives to develop Russia’s fuel and energy complex. As far as I know, the Government is currently in the process of coordinating these parameters among the agencies.

I talked at length about these priorities a year ago, during the previous Energy Week. Let me remind you that our key priority is to satisfy demand on the domestic market and to ensure stable and affordable power supplies to our regions, cities and companies. Let me put a special emphasis on the fact that the fuel and energy sector must play its role in ensuring that all the 2030 national development goals are fulfilled.

According to the available estimates, power consumption will grow at an [annual] rate of two percent until the end of this decade, which is about the same level as for the rest of the world. During this period, we intend to launch 27 gigawatts of new power generating capacity, including thermal, hydro and nuclear power plants.

We will promote connectivity between the power grids in the Urals, Siberia and the country’s east, while paying special attention to supplying power to Russia’s Far East. Power consumption there has been growing at a rate exceeding the national average, and it is expected to increase even more as manufacturing expands and as new housing, infrastructure and social facilities are built. Our energy sector must be able to meet this demand, including by using modern coal power generation, with low environmental stress.

I have already issued instructions to draft a long-term development programme for the Far Eastern Federal District’s energy sector. Just like the national Energy Strategy, it will cover a period until 2050. I would like to ask the Government to fast-track the approval procedures for this document.

Increasing the reliability of power supply to the regions is a separate matter. This year, we have applied a fundamentally new approach: we have introduced territorial grid organisations. Starting in 2025, these organisations will operate in each region of the country and will be responsible for power supply. They will also take over abandoned facilities (unfortunately, there are some) and address the consequences of accidents on networks, among other responsibilities.

I would like to ask the Government, together with the heads of the Russian regions and energy companies, to analyse the effectiveness of territorial grid organisations on a regular basis and to draw up a plan for increasing the reliability of power supply for each region, with transparent financing sources developed in advance. All tools must be used, from regulatory agreements and infrastructure loans to concession mechanisms and service contracts.

I would also like to mention the gas industry, which is undergoing serious changes. It is not only reorienting exports from the west to the east but also significantly increasing supply to the domestic market, including under the social gas supply programme launched in 2021, which is progressing at a good pace. I would like to thank the Gazprom management for this. Of course, our largest gas company, Gazprom, plays a leading role in this.

I would like to ask the company and its management, together with the Government, to prepare a ten-year plan, the implementation of which will ensure the corporation’s sustainable development and the creation of infrastructure necessary to change the geography of supplies. Let me reiterate, it must take into account our extensive plans to supply gas to all Russian regions and increase gas processing within the country.

We all understand what I am referring to when I discuss redistribution of routes. Those who were once our buyers have decided to give up our relatively inexpensive energy resources and switch to a more costly alternative. Well, that is their choice; let them rely on this expensive resource.

Next, the growth of hydrocarbon processing volumes at Russian plants and complexes is another priority task for the domestic fuel and energy complex. It is crucial to provide a raw material base and the necessary resource extraction. We have already identified special tax incentives for this.

Thanks to state support measures, offshore fields, such as Prirazlomnoye in the Arctic and projects on Sakhalin, are being developed. Hard-to-recover reserves are being developed: the Palyanovskoye oil field in the Khanty-Mansiysk Autonomous Area and the Yuzhno-Neprikovskoye field in the Samara Region. New oil and gas provinces are being introduced in Eastern Siberia and the Arctic. I mean large projects, like Vostok Oil in the Krasnoyarsk Territory, and the Utrenneye and Shtormovoye fields on the Gydan Peninsula. The coal mining centre in the Far East is expanding its capacity. The Pacific Railway will also start operating next year. It is a private railway going from the Elga field in Yakutia to the port of Elga in the Khabarovsk Territory.

Let me repeat, it is essential that the exploration of Russia’s unique reserves makes it possible to develop domestic processing enterprises, creating maximum added value right here, in Russia.

We have launched a state programme to upgrade oil refineries. Its goal is to provide the economy, cities, all populated areas and people with high-quality fuel, lubricants, bitumen, and other products. I would like to ask the Government to closely monitor how this programme is implemented and to work specifically on every enterprise, on the timing of repairs, and renovation of production.

Special focus must be placed on the development of oil, gas, and coal chemistry. According to estimates, the demand for these products will only grow both in Russia and around the world. Moreover, these sectors are highly profitable. The price from raw materials to final goods in the chains can grow up to 12 times.

Russia implements projects in this sphere, which are large even by global standards. The country’s largest petrochemical plant, ZapSibNeftekhim, is operating, and the Amur Gas Chemical Complex, which will become the most powerful Russian enterprise for the production of basic polymers, is being built. There are other large projects as well. It is important that there be more such projects, that new production facilities are opened in various regions and modern, well-paid jobs are created. I have already drawn the Government’s attention to this and would like to repeat it again: these business initiatives must be supported.

Furthermore, it is clear that, under current conditions, the reliable operation of production fields, pipelines, refining facilities, and power plants, as well as the fuel and energy complex in general, is dependent on the availability of our own specialists, technologies, and competencies in the equipment used for producing and delivering resources, power engineering, and so on.

A national project to be launched next year will serve as a major system-wide instrument of support for domestic initiatives. It is called New Nuclear and Energy Technologies. This national project will set ambitious goals, namely, to consolidate Russia’s global leadership in the nuclear sector. It aims to consolidate that leadership, as our current standing is indeed global. This is evident from the volume of work that Rosatom, our leading company, is doing.

Ensuring the country’s technological sovereignty across all spheres of the fuel and energy complex is the goal of this new national project. I ask my colleagues in the Government, together with our business and academic communities, to elaborate all the details of this national project with a view to launching it without delay.

Colleagues,

Russia’s fuel and energy complex is a modern, dynamic industry. It successfully meets current, including global, challenges and strengthens the raw materials, technological, and industrial sovereignty of our country; it supports and develops trade and cooperative ties with responsible foreign partners.

Russia is fulfilling its obligations to supply energy resources to the world market and plays a stabilising role within it, participating in such authoritative formats as OPEC Plus and the Gas Exporting Countries Forum. Incidentally, we cooperate with the country represented by our guest in both organisations, and we will certainly continue this collaboration with our partners.

I am confident that the strategic and long-term tasks facing our energy industry will undoubtedly be accomplished. This means that our energy companies, their workforce, and the industry as a whole will be provided with stable and reliable work for many years to come. They will make a significant and tangible contribution to achieving Russia’s national development goals and improving the quality of life for our citizens. And, of course, they will continue to contribute to balancing the world energy markets for the sake of sustainable global development.

Thank you.

President of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo (retranslated): Your Excellency President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin,

Your Excellencies heads of delegations and representatives of the organisations present in this audience,

Ladies and gentlemen,

It is a great honour for me to speak at the 7^th Russian Energy Week International Forum themed “Energy Cooperation in a Multipolar World.”

We are grateful to the hosts for inviting Equatorial Guinea to participate in this exchange of experiences and best practices to address challenges in the energy sector and to expand international cooperation, being mindful of the important role that the energy sector plays in the national economies.

I would like to express my deep gratitude to the Government and the people of the Russian Federation, as well as to my good friend President Vladimir Putin, for the warm welcome and hospitality extended to us the moment we arrived in Moscow, a wonderful city with a long history.

Your Excellency, ladies and gentlemen,

This forum is taking place in an international setting marked by economic and financial crises sparked by a decline in hydrocarbon prices and the repercussions of the COVID-19 pandemic, which we must address as a team and stand together as we seek solutions.

Indeed, we live in an era of major changes and challenges. We are faced with the realities of a world in transition in terms of the structures that bolster our economy. In this context, the energy sector plays a crucial role as a pillar supporting our state. Considering this, our current positions will have long-term consequences for generations to come.

Equatorial Guinea is determined to deepen energy cooperation with Russia and other friendly countries. Our country is rich in natural resources, such as oil and gas, and is open to forging strategic alliances with willing partners.

We strive to build a future where our respective economies will benefit from genuine cooperation based on mutual trust and shared benefits, which will be advantageous for our societies.

This is why we encourage Russian companies and companies from other friendly countries to cooperate with us not only in energy production, but also in the exploration and development of our oil and gas resources. Such partnerships should not be limited to the production of resources but should include knowledge transfer, technological training, and the promotion of modern energy infrastructure development.

Our goal is clear: we want Equatorial Guinea and our partners to streamline the use of our respective energy resources while using the latest technologies available in this sector.

Your Excellency,

Ladies and gentlemen,

While discussing the energy sector’s progress, we cannot overlook one of the most pressing problems facing the world: energy poverty. Millions of people do not have reliable access to energy. To address this, the Republic of Equatorial Guinea is cooperating with its African partners, working as part of the strategic partnership and the Central African Pipeline System finance committee. We invest in building energy infrastructure to stimulate the economy and improve the living standards of our societies.

Equatorial Guinea believes that energy cooperation should be guided by a fundamental principle: to ensure the stability of energy markets, protecting the most vulnerable segments of the population from market volatility.

On the other hand, Equatorial Guinea strongly supports strategies and efforts to stabilise global energy markets. In this regard, we call on all international stakeholders to work together to reduce uncertainty and promote appropriate market policies. Energy should not be a weapon that divides us, but a means to achieve common prosperity. It is our collective responsibility to ensure that the least developed countries are safely protected from fluctuations in energy prices and are not excluded from the benefits of energy and advanced technology.

In addition, while, as oil producing countries, we all share the same markets, not all of us enjoy the same advantages. To address this, the national oil company of Equatorial Guinea, GEPetrol, took over the management of several oil projects that were previously managed by ExxonMobil. The new arrangement enabled GEPetrol to spur the country’s hydrocarbon sector and begin shipments of crude oil from those projects in July this year.

Your Excellency,

Ladies and gentlemen,

Today, there is an ongoing debate about the phase-down of fossil fuels. The idea behind decarbonisation is to reduce our carbon footprint. However, it should be noted that Equatorial Guinea is not among the countries with the highest carbon dioxide emissions. On the contrary, our emissions have almost no impact on climate change.

However, meeting the global decarbonisation targets is a major challenge for the Republic of Equatorial Guinea. Nevertheless, we are required to switch to carbon-free sources. Furthermore, Equatorial Guinea does not possess the same kind of advanced technology supporting decarbonisation that more developed countries have access to. Therefore, we cannot accept or support the energy transition that leaves the least developed countries behind.

It is necessary to acknowledge and accept the fact that the pace of adaptation to new market conditions will vary across the globe.

Your Excellency, ladies and gentlemen,

Ensuring a prosperous future for energy is our shared responsibility, which implies collaborative efforts – efforts that Equatorial Guinea is calling for – that are based not just on energy production, but also on a shared resolve to promote stability in energy markets. This will lead all of us to a fair technological transition.

Cooperation is impossible unless it seeks to achieve common goals and is based on mutual benefits. More than that, it is impossible to talk about cooperation without a consensus based on considering each other’s interests and respect for other countries.

I would like to close by wishing the 7^th Russian Energy Week International Forum, just like all the previous ones, every success. May the outcomes of the discussions and your proposals lead to a world free of injustice in the energy sector.

Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: Friends, colleagues,

You have a full working week ahead of you. A week of contacts and meetings during which you will sit down and discuss the issues that brought you to Moscow. Without a doubt, your work during the forum and, more broadly, your current efforts are impacted by the political developments around the world.

Politics and the economy are closely intertwined, especially in a critical and fundamental economic sector such as energy. This link can be traced to the early days of human history. It is obvious. Now, it has become clear to the point where even those who are not involved in the economy or politics are aware of it.

However, we have here the people who are accustomed to doing concrete things, rather than telling others what they should be doing and how. We have businesspeople in this audience. The outcomes of your work will have a significant impact on both the economy and politics.

I wish you success in this joint event and hope that your efforts will be as free of politics and as pragmatic as possible. I wholeheartedly wish you success.

I would like to thank our foreign guests for coming to our country, Russia’s capital, Moscow, in these challenging times.

I wish you all the best, every success, and prosperity. Good luck.

Thank you.

The fourth Eurasian Women's Forum

2024-09-18T20:36:32+04:00

Vladimir Putin addressed the plenary session of the fourth Eurasian Women's Forum.

Organised by Russia’s Federation Council and the Interparliamentary Assembly of CIS member states, the Eurasian Women's Forum is the largest international platform where women leaders from all continents gather to discuss their role in the modern world and coordinate approaches to global issues.

Over 1,500 people from 126 nations are attending the forum this year. The 2024 EAWF is themed Women for Strengthening Trust and Global Cooperation.

The plenary session of the fourth Eurasian Women's Forum is held at the Tauride Palace in St Petersburg.

* * *

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Ladies and gentlemen – I see that there are also men in this room,

Friends,

I extend my warm greetings to the participants and guests of the fourth Eurasian Women's Forum. Welcome to Russia and to St Petersburg.

Your forum is one of the most highly respected international platforms demonstrating the potential and capabilities of modern women and their truly colossal role in virtually all spheres of life.

I would like to emphasise that your meetings reflect on the most crucial aspects of modern development and promote the ideas of unity for sustainable development and universal security. This is more important now than ever, and this is what millions of people across all continents desire. Humanity is facing extremely complicated issues, which can only be resolved together and based on respect for each other’s interests.

The previous forums paved the way for many concrete initiatives, including stronger interaction within the framework of BRICS, APEC and W20. Incidentally, we have just now discussed these issues with the President of Brazil. I bring you best regards from Brazil.

I am convinced that women’s commitment to the ideas of cooperation and peace has brought success and popularity to your forum. Each time, it brings together greater numbers of participants. This year, female leaders from 126 countries came to St Petersburg. Additionally, multimillion online audiences have joined the discussions focusing on a variety of sensitive topics.

Delegations from all Russian regions which represent our multi-ethnic nation, our rich culture and centuries-old traditions are attending this forum as well. Russian women bring to light the soul of Russia, its beauty, appeal, warmth, graciousness, and magnanimity.

The forum provides an opportunity to show the broad international female community that Russia is an open and hospitable country that appreciates dialogue, trust, and friendship, and that we respect the diversity and uniqueness of other countries and peoples.

The great interest in the Eurasian Women’s Forum is also grounded in the fact that its agenda transcends the typical discussion of women’s role in society. The forum brings together accomplished women who have achieved top results in their professional careers. Your experience in creative, managerial, intellectual, humanitarian, and educational activities undoubtedly matters a lot for billions of people worldwide, which fact made this forum a global platform for developing proposals to address the most pressing issues.

The forum’s already high standing continues to rise. Your voice is heard, and governments around the world heed it. Your recommendations are taken into consideration by major international organisations.

To reiterate, this participation and energetic work are crucial if we want to build a multipolar, just, and genuinely free world. Everyone among us shares these ideas and does everything possible to shape a new progressive global space.

This forum is devoted to matters of trust and global cooperation. As always, the female eye has captured the most important matters. Humanity is in need of a robust foundation of trust, openness, mutual understanding, and contacts across various fields in order to be able to address challenging social issues, to ensure economic prosperity and technological development, and to overcome poverty, inequality, and diseases.

Most importantly, to be able to develop equal indivisible security principles that every country needs. For many years now, Russia has been urging the world to unite in order to discuss and to adopt such principles. I am convinced that you are supportive of our initiatives and will promote them in your respective countries.

Speaking before an audience of female leaders from around the world, I would be remiss not to recognise the immense contribution that Russian women are making towards achieving our national development goals. More often than not, they drive the efforts to carry out projects that are critically important for improving the quality of life and standards of living in our country, supporting families, protecting their interests, and, more broadly, upholding our traditional values.

I would like to take this opportunity and thank all women of Russia for their work for the good of society and their incredible energy of creation. I am confident that heads of states that are represented at the forum share my sentiments and can express gratitude to women from their respective countries, because life has provided us with compelling evidence that progress, well-being, and harmony which are mandatory pillars of a truly prosperous world cannot be achieved without women.

Friends,

Russia is traditionally respectful of women. In this regard, our state policy relies on the National Strategy of Action in the Interests of Women. Several initiatives have been put forward towards this end, and proper conditions are being created for women to succeed professionally while remaining guardians of the hearth and lynchpins of large families with many children.

We know that combining these roles is a challenge, but our women cope with it and, despite being confronted with rigorous workloads, they manage to remain beautiful, caring, and charming ladies. They possess a secret that men are unable to fathom.

Here is what I would like to add to this. Women in Russia work in almost all fields. Female entrepreneurship is making wide strides. Last year alone, the number of female entrepreneurs grew by almost a third to six million women now running their own businesses in Russia.

In every field of choice, women are highly responsible operators who strive to discover the truth of the matter they are dealing with, to think outside the box, and to take every nuance into consideration when making decisions.

I wish productive work to the participants and guests of the forum. I am convinced that the 4^th Eurasian Women’s Forum will be a success and bring good results, give rise to new ideas and projects, and boost cooperation and mutual understanding on our planet.

I wish you good health and all the best. I wish you success for the benefit of peace, creation, and progress.

Thank you for your time.

I hope you will have the chance to get to know St Petersburg.

Thank you very much. All the best!

<…>

Plenary session of United Cultures Forum

2024-09-13T17:40:19+04:00

Vladimir Putin addressed the plenary session of the 10^th St Petersburg International United Cultures Forum.

The events of the 10^th St Petersburg International United Cultures Forum will last until September 14. The anniversary year’s theme is the 21^st Century Culture: Sovereignty or Globalism?

The plenary session was held in the General Staff building of the State Hermitage Museum in St Petersburg.

* * *

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Ladies and gentlemen, friends,

I am glad to welcome you in Russia, in St Petersburg.

It is the tenth time now that our northern capital city welcomes cultural representatives from around the world. Every meeting of this kind, like the culture itself, embodies the Zeitgeist and raises acute, vital and most important issues.

The Forum of United Cultures is a substantive answer to the most complicated challenges that our countries and nations are facing today. Even its name recognises the civilisational diversity of the world, people’s natural right to identity, respect for traditional values and religions and, of course, the countries’ unconditional equality in shaping the global cultural agenda.

These approaches and principles were envisaged in the Declaration adopted at the last year’s forum. Their relevance in our time is higher than ever.

The importance of humanism and dialogue, mutual respect and trust in the world is shared by the global majority. However, it is unfortunately under constant pressure and the threat of dilution, primarily due to unprecedented politicisation of the cultural sphere, which is being turned into a weapon in geopolitical schemes, and due to constant attempts to push it to the sidelines and to belittle the importance of national value systems and everything that does not coincide with the agenda promoted by the globalist elites and the ruling circles in some countries.

Russia has identified its main values and enshrined them in the Constitution, the country’s Basic law. We protect these values and everyone who shares them, who, like us, believes that the people’s right to speak their mother tongue and keep the faith of their fathers, to live in harmony with nature under its natural laws is sacred.

Without exaggeration, the result of these efforts will determine both the future world order and prospects for culture. We believe that it should and can exist without gross interference and without cancel culture, that is, the cancellation of culture itself.

There is a good reason that diplomacy is called an art. It takes more than knowledge and talent to master it. Diplomacy is also culture: a culture of actions, emotions, and speech. It is what gives an understanding of what can or cannot be said or done in order to avoid irreversible consequences.

Culture has always been a kind of a fuse for the world. It seems to have melted through in some countries. Today, many high-ranking politicians have lost their moral boundaries, breaking taboos that remained even during the most tense moments of the Cold War. In countries where such elites rule, people start gradually to accept xenophobia and then extreme forms of discrimination and persecution on national, ethnic, or religious grounds as a matter of course.

We all know how quickly the ruling regimes get dehumanised in situations like this, and what it means for particular families and people of different ages. We can see this.

This is why I have recently signed a Presidential Executive Order on providing humanitarian support to people who share traditional Russian spiritual and moral values. We are not fighting against any other values – we support our own. This is the difference in approaches between us and our opponents.

This decision was made in response to the growing flow of requests from countries where people are essentially being deprived of freedom of choice, mainly families with children, against whom local authorities impose perverted ethical standards.

There are also many requests from cultural figures who do not want to restrict their creativity to the Procrustean bed of quotas and criteria and to create in compliance with neoliberal standards alien to them.

These standards are being actively spread in some media, thus forming what is called mainstream. If authors are interested in their work being published or released, they must follow this mainstream. If there is a shadow of dissent or doubt in these works or even in private statements, then the writer, director, or actor will be ostracised or cancelled.

Moreover, we can see more often how the value agenda promoted by Western elites ignores and sometimes deliberately insults global religions and cultural traditions of entire regions of the world. I believe that most countries and peoples do not like this approach. They see the future of culture in mutual respect and trust, as well as in equal international cooperation in this area.

In hosting this forum once again, especially during such challenging times, we remain deeply convinced of the essential need for dialogue between cultures. Your voices, friends, must be heard.

No amount of aggressive propaganda can stand against genuine art, because true artists have an acute sense of the times and the needs of society. They can discern real from false values and recognise those who genuinely fight for peace, prosperity, and friendship among nations, as opposed to those who cloak self-interest, superiority, and destructive ambitions and their exceptionalism behind noble words.

Your creative, scientific, and educational activity holds tremendous potential for fostering peace and countering division. It helps maintain bonds between people and has the power to heal the wounds inflicted by conflicts and wars. That is why it is so important for you to have opportunities to communicate, exchange ideas, and collaborate on joint projects.

As one of the most diverse nations in the world, Russia is genuinely pleased to offer you this platform, including through today’s forum.

We understand that the cornerstone of cultural development is continuous interaction and mutual enrichment. The unity of diverse cultures and traditions holds immense creative power. This unity shapes our national identity and embodies core national values such as mutual support, justice, compassion, historical memory, continuity of generations, strong family bonds, patriotism, and civic duty.

For our international audience it is important to emphasise that Russia emerged as a multinational state from the very beginning. This rich diversity is deeply ingrained in our traditions and forms the foundation of both our shared identity and spiritual strength.

We place great emphasis on cultural development. Museums, theatres, community centres, and libraries are constantly being modernised, and places of worship are being restored. Public spaces like embankments, parks, and public gardens are also being revitalised. This effort not only enhances the cultural landscape but also plays a crucial role in the development of all our regions.

During my recent visit to Tuva, I observed the growth of the local religious community. Across the country, we are building hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of new mosques, churches, and synagogues. This cultural and religious revival is progressing rapidly, in ways that were unprecedented in both Tsarist and Soviet Russia.

We are making significant efforts to protect cultural heritage sites and are planning to adopt a long-term programme that will be implemented not only through government funding but also with the support of private benefactors. We have experience in this area and plan to build on it. We recognise the importance of restoring historic estates and churches, as they are tangible representations of our centuries-old history and national identity.

Cultural and humanitarian ties, cooperation in art and education, and youth exchanges are key priorities of Russia’s BRICS chairmanship. This organisation represents a model for a multipolar world, where principles such as mutual respect, independent development paths, and practical implementation of the UN Charter’s key principle, sovereign equality among states, prevail.

This year, Russia also holds the Commonwealth of Independent States chairmanship. Both through the CIS and BRICS, an unprecedented number of projects are being implemented. The business agenda of your forum includes meetings within the framework of these organisations.

Just yesterday, for instance, as far as I know, a meeting of the culture ministers from participating countries took place. I’m pleased to welcome you all here – colleagues, ladies, and gentlemen – and to thank you for your contribution to strengthening inter-culture dialogue, for your dedication to infusing it with vibrant, creative content and innovative ideas.

I believe the time has come to establish a new, shared international infrastructure for national cultures. In today’s world, the most successful societies are those where people are driven and inspired by culture, and where they can rely on a strong foundation of their values, history, and traditions.

Friends, colleagues,

Last year, we had in-depth discussions on many issues of shared interest. I hope you will understand that, unfortunately, I will not be able to engage in such discussions right now. However, I am confident that everything taking place at the forum and across the various platforms organised by the participants has been both highly engaging and valuable.

We are always pleased to welcome you to Russia – not just at this forum, but also at many events Russia hosts across various areas related to both our culture and the global culture, which our nation’s culture is an integral part of.

Thank you for your attention, and I wish you all the very best.

Thank you very much.

Plenary session of the 9th Eastern Economic Forum

2024-09-07T18:03:53+04:00

The President of Russia took part in the 9^th Eastern Economic Forum plenary session.

The forum’s slogan this year is ‘Far East 2030. Combining Strengths to Create New Potential’.

Vice President of the People's Republic of China Han Zheng and Prime Minister of Malaysia Anwar Ibrahim also participated in the session. The discussion was moderated by Deputy Editor-in-Chief of the Russia 24 news channel Alexandra Suvorova.

* * *

Alexandra Suvorova: Good afternoon.

It is my great honour and privilege to welcome you to the Eastern Economic Forum’s plenary session. This year, the main theme is Far East 2030: Combining Strengths to Create New Potential.

Mr President, you have repeatedly emphasised the importance of developing Russia’s Far East as a priority for the 21^st century. What has been achieved so far and what do we need to accomplish moving forward? How is Russia building relations with its colleagues within the Asia-Pacific Region (APR) and its regional associations?

During this session, we will try to answer these questions together. But before we do that, Mr President, I would like to give you the floor and invite you to address this gathering from the podium.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Mr Anwar Ibrahim,

Mr Han Zheng,

Ladies and gentlemen, friends.

I am delighted to offer warm greetings to all the participants and guests of the 9^th Eastern Economic Forum.

It has become a tradition for Russia and the city of Vladivostok to host this event in early September, bringing together businesses, technology providers, research teams, senior executives from major corporations, government officials, specialists, experts and entrepreneurs who are interested in Russia’s Far East and recognise the immense opportunities this unique Russian region offers for launching creative undertakings and engaging in mutually beneficial partnerships.

As you know, and as our moderator Aleksandra pointed out, we have designated the development of the Far East as a national priority for the 21st century. The significance and correctness of that decision have been confirmed by life itself, the challenges we have recently encountered and, most importantly, the objective trends that are gaining momentum in the global economy, when the main business ties, trade routes and the overall development are increasingly shifting towards the East and the Global South.

Our Far Eastern regions offer direct access to these growing emerging markets, helping us overcome the barriers which some Western elites are trying to create worldwide. The most important thing, as I have already mentioned, is that the Far East is a huge area for implementing business initiatives, launching complex projects and creating whole new industries.

In fact, the Far East has become a crucial factor for strengthening Russia’s standing in the world and our flagship in the new global economic reality. The further development of the Far East will largely determine the future of our country as a whole.

This subject – the image of our future – is the key focus of nearly 100 events, panel sessions and roundtable discussions at the Eastern Economic Forum. Overall, representatives of more than 75 countries and territories are taking part in the forum’s events.

It is extremely important that such discussions are complemented with substantive business dialogues and result in the adoption of investment decisions and trade agreements. I would like to say that over a thousand agreements worth in total more than 10.5 trillion rubles were signed during the previous three forums.

In short, the Eastern Economic Forum has rightfully become a respected venue for establishing reliable business contacts and discussing the strategic development of the Russian Far East and the Asia-Pacific region as a whole.

In my address I will tell you about some of our planned actions in this sphere, our proposals for our foreign partners on strengthening investment, trade, industrial and technological cooperation in the Asia-Pacific region, as well as about our achievements and plans in the economy, infrastructure and social sphere of the Far East, including for improving the quality of life for our citizens in this region.

Let me remind you that back in 2013 we launched a new strategic programme and a governance framework for promoting comprehensive development in Russia’s Far East. And this approach has proven its worth. Over the past ten years, over three and a half thousand manufacturing, infrastructure, technology and educational projects have been launched in this region. Over the same period, fixed capital investment has been gathering momentum in Russia’s Far East, with the growth rate exceeding the national average by a factor of three.

This investment brought about tangible results. There are about 1,000 new enterprises here, and these efforts helped create over 140,000 jobs. In terms of industrial output growth, the region has been above the national average by 25 percent since 2013.

Let me also remind you that there are currently 16 priority development territories in Russia’s Far East. There is also the Free Port of Vladivostok. We introduced a preferential regime for the Kurils, and established a special administrative district on Russky Island – this is where this meeting is taking place. By the way, this district has offered a pathway for re-shoring assets worth over 5.5 trillion rubles back to Russia from offshore and foreign jurisdictions. More than 100 companies are currently registered here.

We will make sure to continue this advancement and will work tirelessly to improve the business environment in Russia in general, as well as in its Far East, including by relying on innovative and effective practices when working with foreign investors.

For example, we announced the initiative to establish international priority development territories in the Far East at the 2023 Eastern Economic Forum. Foreign investors, primarily from the friendly countries, of course, must benefit from a globally competitive environment.

We have plans to establish our first international priority development territory here in the Primorye Territory. Our Chinese partners, as well as the Republic of Belarus, have shown great interest in this undertaking. Belarus could even contribute to building a new deep-water port here. I would like to ask the State Duma and the Government to step up their efforts to draft a law for launching these international priority development territories.

There is another regulatory solution designed to facilitate and expand our ties with our foreign partners. Starting on September 1, 2024, Russian law allows for the use of foreign standards in construction and design. Of course, this applies to countries where quality and safety requirements for permanent structures are just as high as here in Russia. I hope that this approach serves its purpose, including within the Far East’s international priority development territories.

Developing Bolshoi Ussuriysky Island in the Khabarovsk Territory should serve as a model for working with our foreign partners, attracting investment in construction projects and creating jobs. This project provides for creating major logistics centres and border checkpoints, as well as expanding its road network.

Last May, during the state visit to the People’s Republic of China, we agreed to collaborate with our Chinese colleagues on this project. I am certain that it will provide a good powerful impetus to the development of Khabarovsk and the entire region. I am asking the Government to finalise all the organisational and financial issues in order to begin fulfilling this plan as soon as 2025.

Of course, electricity supply is one of the key issues when it comes to launching business initiatives in the processing industry, in housing construction and in transport network upgrade, across all areas, in fact.

The Russian Far East is experiencing an increase in energy consumption. The current rate is 69 billion kilowatt per hour annually, and by the end of the decade, we expect it to be around 96 billion. Even today, there are areas, residential areas and major Far Eastern investors who face the shortage of power and have to wait for the launch of new stations, which delays construction, the operation of industrial facilities and infrastructure.

I have already instructed the Government, our major energy companies and business circles to develop a long-term development programme for energy capacity in the Far East, and work on respective project financing mechanisms.

This programme aims to eliminate the expected deficit of electric energy in the Far East, primarily by launching new generation facilities like, for example, the Nizhne-Zeiskaya HPP in the Amur Region, which will not only provide electricity to the region and the Eastern Operating Domain but also help protect territories and residential areas from flooding. I am also asking you to consider building nuclear power plants in the Far East. We discussed this with our colleagues yesterday.

I want to emphasise that the power development plan must consider both current and future needs of businesses and the public, as well as the long-term objectives of the constituent entities, cities and smaller residential areas.

This also applies to strengthening transport and logistics capabilities of the Far East and the entire country. The largest and most significant project here is, of course, the expansion of the Eastern Operating Domain.

In the past ten years, more than 2,000 km of railway tracks have been built and more than 5,000 km have been renovated on the Trans-Siberian Railway and the Baikal-Amur Mainline. We have built and renovated more than 100 bridges and tunnels, including those across the Lena, Bureya and Selenga rivers. By the end of this year, the carrying capacity of the Eastern Operating Domain railway network is expected to reach 180 million tonnes.

This year, we launched the third stage of this highly important transport artery, and the works are currently underway.

I want to emphasise that our objective is to eliminate railway bottlenecks and build over 300 facilities, including routes supplementing the Severomuisky, Kuznetsovsky and Kodarsky tunnels, as well as a bridge across the Amur River. This is a much more ambitious goal. It is crucial to start planning for the future today.For example, we will need to lay a second set of tracks along the entire Baikal-Amur Mainline and electrify this railway.

Over the next eight years, we will lay 3,100 kilometres of tracks along the Eastern Operating Domain. To put this into perspective, this is the same volume of tracks that were laid during the first and second stages of expanding BAM and the Trans-Siberian Mainline combined. This is also comparable to the construction of BAM in 1974−1984.

Today, we are implementing a project whose scale exceeds the largest Soviet-era infrastructure investment project completed by all Soviet republics pooling all their resources.

Just like the Trans-Siberian Mainline, the new transport corridor between St Petersburg and Vladivostok will serve as a vital continental artery.

Expanding freight traffic volumes and improving the quality of vehicle traffic are not the only goals. When completed, the new corridor will also promote inbound tourism: the entire route passes through numerous Russian regions.

The corridor is being developed in stages. In December 2023, we opened a modern motorway between Moscow and Kazan. By late 2024, this route will reach Yekaterinburg and later Tyumen. We will also build bypass roads in Omsk, Novosibirsk, Kemerovo and Kansk.

In the future, when the modern road reaches Vladivostok, the auto transport corridor will be over 10,000 kilometres long, including routes for accessing checkpoints on the Russian state border.

In this connection, I would like to remind you of the objective set out in the Address to the Federal Assembly, specifically, the reduction of queues at the border and reducing the time in which lorries undergo checks, which should not exceed ten minutes.

We aim to achieve this result at the first five Far Eastern border checkpoints by 2026. It is worth noting that railway checkpoints are already processing freight at the border promptly.

Let me stress this: a truly large-scale effort has been launched at both the Eastern Operating Domain’s railway network and at all of Russia’s major road infrastructure facilities. This effort involves specialists, engineers, and designers from many regions of our country. They are proving through their hard work and responsible approach to business that Russia is ready and able to handle large-scale construction projects, and do it quickly and with high quality, and to implement infrastructure and transport projects on a national and global scale. These projects include the development of the Northern Sea Route as an international logistical route. Over the past decade, the freight traffic flow on this route has increased by an order of magnitude, from just four million tonnes in 2014 to over 36 million tonnes last year. This is 400 percent more than the Soviet-time record.

We will continue to boost the freight traffic, including by developing actively Arctic deposits, rerouting cargo flows from west to east, and expanding the transit.

The large-scale plan for the development of the Northern Sea Route is currently being implemented. We are building icebreakers, expanding our satellite cluster in orbit, strengthening the coastal infrastructure, and upgrading the network of emergency and rescue centres. Coastal cruises were launched on the Northern Sea Route two years ago to familiarise ourselves with new logistical routes. Today, this arrangement includes 14 ports in the Northwest, the Arctic, and the Russian Far East.

It is worth noting that the capacity of Russian ports within the limits of the Northern Sea Route exceeded 40 million tonnes at the end of last year. However, we believe that this is just the beginning. We will continue to increase their capacities, upgrade the cargo transshipment mechanism, and expand the nearby and far-off rail approaches to these ports. One of our goals is to increase the capacity of the Murmansk Transport Hub to 100 million tonnes and potentially even higher.

Let me note that our Eurasian integration partners are also interested in developing the Murmansk Transport Hub. For example, the colleagues from Belarus I have mentioned are giving careful consideration to the prospects for expanding the port infrastructure and their terminals on the Kola Peninsula. Of course, we also invite other countries to take part in this project. I know that there is an interest in this work.

Let me add that Russia implements all its transport and logistical initiatives using advanced engineering, digital and environmental solutions. This creates additional demand for the output of Russian machine-building and iron-and-steel plants, and for services of the construction and other industries, research institutions, and hi-tech businesses.

It is with this approach based on the latest solutions and the greatly improved technological, economic and educational capability of the country as a whole, that we must address the tasks of strategic development of the Far East, including the further strengthening of the region’s basic mineral resources sector.

Today, the Far East accounts for 100 percent of the country’s tungsten, tin, fluor spar and tincal production, 80 percent of diamonds and uranium, over 70 percent of silver, and 60 percent of gold. However, mining in the main production areas, including Yakutia and Chukotka, began long ago and their resources are objectively limited, while the demand for them is growing, both for export and on the domestic market.

We must ensure the resource sovereignty of our country and provide a reliable basis for the sustainable supply of affordable raw materials and fuel to the national economy, to our regions, cities and towns, as well as create a foundation for the production of new materials and energy sources. As I mentioned earlier, we must accomplish this by utilising more effective domestic technologies and scientific solutions in the fields of ecology and mineral resources management.

During our forum last year, we instructed the Government to prepare separate programmes for exploring the resources of the Far East and Siberia and to incorporate them into the Geology. Revival of a Legend federal project.

These programmes have been prepared. According to our estimates, every ruble of federal funds invested in exploration will attract at least 10 rubles of private investment. But the main thing is that these investments will pay back and produce a huge profit, as well as have a comprehensive effect throughout the production chain. However, this job must be completed within the given timeframe and with due regard for the investment planning horizon.

I ask the Government to include the funding of these programmes in the draft three-year federal budget in the amounts necessary for achieving our goals.

As I said, the Far East has the potential to increase the state of geological exploration severalfold, including when it comes to the exploration for and production of high-tech raw materials such as titanium, lithium, niobium and rare earth metals, which we will need for the economy of the future. Most importantly, we have all these elements.

These industries have a huge potential for the growth of our Far Eastern regions, for creating jobs, enhancing the availability of various services, strengthening ties and improving logistics efficiency.

We will support the development of innovative and creative industries, and the infrastructure for the big data and AI economy in the Far East. In particular, we will establish a zone here where civilian purpose drones will be created.

We will continue to build up the scientific and educational potential of the Far East so as to use the advantages of technological progress to full capacity. New projects to build university campuses in Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk and Khabarovsk have been launched in the region, but this is clearly not enough for the Far East.

I propose launching several more projects, namely, to build new campuses in Ulan-Ude, Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky and Chita. We will also complete the second phase of the campus at the Far Eastern Federal University in Vladivostok. These campuses will have all the necessary conditions for study, work and accommodation of the students, as well as youth entrepreneurship platforms and business clubs.

We will also upgrade our Arctic universities. The project to build a campus in Arkhangelsk will be followed by a similar project in Murmansk.

Innovative engineering schools will be created at university campuses. Two such schools have already opened in Sakhalin and Vladivostok. Their task is not only to train professionals for our industries, agriculture, transport, the services sector and AI spheres, but also to propose unique solutions for broad implementation in management, the social sphere and economic sectors.

A RusHydro science and technology centre has been functioning efficiently on Russky Island for two years. It is focused on innovative global energy research, and its solutions are being actively used in the retooling and modernisation programme of the energy sector in the Far East.

Our leading companies will contribute to the establishment of another major innovative science and technology centre at the Far Eastern Federal University on Russky Island. It will specialise in research and practical solutions in the fields of marine engineering, biotechnology, biomedicine and other promising spheres.

I urge our colleagues in the Government and in the Primorye Territory to use the Far Eastern concession mechanism for the implementation of that project, as well as to explore ways to attract scientists from other research centres in Russia and other countries to that centre. What I have in mind are competitive incentive programmes and benefits packages for professionals and their families.

Colleagues,

We realise that the successful implementation of our plans in the Far East and nationwide depends primarily on the people and Russian families.

I have already noted that we cannot rely on outdated logic, where new plants and factories were built first and then the authorities started thinking about their employees. This unfair logic simply does not work in a modern economy, an economy of the future that revolves around people.

This is why we have launched major social initiatives together with new economic plans in the Far East. We have also activated the unified subsidy mechanism, which helps fund the construction of schools and kindergartens, outpatient clinics and hospitals and sports centres, improve the urban environment and implement infrastructure modernisation projects. Almost 2,000 social and infrastructure facilities have been built to date.

The unified subsidy has become a powerful financial lever for the Far Eastern concession mechanism. It aims to attract private investment in social projects. Businesses are already planning to invest over 120 billion rubles for this purpose. We are currently implementing 36 of these initiatives, with work already underway.

For example, we are building a year-round alpine skiing resort here in Primorye, as well as a national museum and theatre in Ulan-Ude. Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky will receive a new community centre, and an art museum will be completed in Khabarovsk. We are building new sports facilities in Magadan and Chita. We are completely modernising municipal lighting systems in Chita and Birobidzhan. Of course, we will continue to support the Far Eastern concession project and to adjust its mechanism to meet the needs of the people and the capabilities of the business community.

I would like to note separately that, today, the system of public-private partnership helps build schools, airports, bridges and motorways, and to upgrade municipal transport networks across the country. However, the volume of these projects remains small, accounting for less than three percent of the GDP or 4.4 trillion rubles.

To intensify the development of this sector, it is necessary to upgrade specialised legislation. We should also adjust the mechanism of public-private partnership to ensure transparent risk distribution for all the parties involved, including state agencies and businesses. These risks should be distributed equitably, including during the implementation of socially important projects.

Considering the experience and achievements in implementing technological sovereignty projects, I suggest that the VEB.RF Development Corporation becomes a mandatory participant in public-private partnership projects. It should oversee the risk allocation system and confirm the profitability of projects for the state and businesses. Mr Shuvalov and I have discussed this issue, and the corporation is ready for this. Just like the Projects Funding Factory, it should incentivise private investment.

I ask the Government and VEB.RF to chart specific parameters of transactions and their scale within the system of public-private partnership, with the participation of VEB.RF being a requirement.

Next, it is extremely important to attract private investment that aligns with the long-term development plans of our industries and territories, as well as our cities and towns. It is for their comprehensive development that we are actively promoting master plans, which are a fundamentally new mechanism for improving the quality of our people’s lives. Many are aware of this, in particular, our Russian colleagues.

These plans have been approved for 22 administrative centres and urban conglomerates in the Far East, where over four million people live. In particular, a master plan has been prepared for a satellite city of Vladivostok, which will have a cohesive development strategy for the development of a huge conglomerate comprising Vladivostok, Artyom and the Nadezhdinsky District. Its implementation is slated to begin in 2025.

What are the specific features, essence and novelties of these master plans? To understand them, we need to examine the previous situation at the local level. There was poor coordination between economic and urban planning services. Construction, housing and utilities, and social infrastructure were operating by themselves, which led to unbalanced decisions and disjointed urban spaces.

Today, the region and local administrations have held a series of discussions with the public and businesses, which helped pinpoint problem areas, assess the development potential of all aspects of their cities, and prepare individual long-term development models for each of them.

In fact, it was for the first time that one document comprised all socioeconomic and spatial development models that included the construction of transport, housing and utilities, energy and other infrastructure. As I said, the integral part of these plans is to improve the quality of people’s lives. It is our main goal.

Many elements of these Far Eastern master plans are still at the design stage, but we can say confidently that 70 facilities will be completed this year. In future, the implementation of these master plans must be accelerated.

The Ministry for the Development of the Russian Far East and Arctic has compiled a special rating of regions and agencies that are particularly active in this sphere. The current leaders in the implementation of these master plans are the Sakhalin and Magadan regions, the Republic of Buryatia, and the Kamchatka and Khabarovsk territories. I would like to thank our colleagues for their significant progress and ask them to continue building momentum.

At the same time, I would like to note that we will monitor the implementation pace of the Far Eastern master plans every year and recognise the best regional teams and federal agencies. This will allow other colleagues to learn from their success and adopt their best practices.

I should add that decisions have been made regarding additional budget loans for Government-approved master plans. Thirty billion rubles have already been allocated – as additional funding, I want to emphasise that. I propose allocating 100 billion rubles from the approved loan limit for 2025–2030 specifically for the master plans of our Far Eastern and Arctic cities, which will exceed the limits that the regions will receive as regular disbursement.

We should not forget about the urban development plans as we develop new national projects that are currently in their final stages. Moreover, it is necessary to allocate funds for specific sections, primarily for such national projects as Infrastructure for Living, Effective Transport System, Family, Long and Active Life, and Youth and Children.

What else is important? Half of the expenses under the master plans of the Far Eastern cities are covered by non-budgetary sources – that is, business investment and backbone enterprises that are willing to build outpatient clinics and kindergartens, sport facilities, roads, utilities networks, and restore cultural monuments, and so on.

As I said, we will certainly support such business investment. I am confident that, as the transformation of the cities and towns gains pace, the share of private investment will undoubtedly grow as well, including from our strategic partners such as large enterprises that take an active role in city renovation under their own social responsibility programmes in their present locations. We should take advantage of their results, capacities and experience when implementing the master plans.

Our strategic partners could, for example, fully fund a social infrastructure facility in a city, a town or a residential area where their investment projects are located. After this social facility is transferred to the municipality or the region, these investors will receive compensation in the form of tax rebates, concessions and other privileges. I am asking the Government to outline the parameters of this mechanism.

I want to stress that the experience of the Far East will serve as the basis for scaling up this master plan practice. As stated in the Address to the Federal Assembly, by 2030, these strategic documents will be developed for 200 Russian cities and towns. We will be scaling up this effort, from 22 areas in the Far East today to 200 areas nationwide, including the backbone cities that contribute to strengthening Russia’s technological sovereignty.

To continue: A comfortable urban environment and large-scale social infrastructure are essential components of modern residential developments. Far Eastern investors involved in implementing these projects are entitled to benefits envisaged for priority development areas under the Far Eastern Quarter mechanism, which is currently being applied in pilot mode in seven regions. It is planned to build 1,800,000 square metres of housing for almost 70,000 people with its help.

Generally, let me note that the amount of housing built in the Russian Far East every year for the past five years has grown by about 100 percent. This is a good indicator. It is expected that 5,600,000 square metres of housing will be completed by the end of this year.

An important and indeed decisive role in this sense has been played by the Far Eastern mortgage scheme. As you may know, we have extended it to participants in the special military operation. Loans issued at the record low interest rate of two percent are also available to young families, where the parents are under 36 years of age, as well as to recipients of the Far Eastern Hectare, employees of defence plants, teachers, and doctors. The same mortgage plan – on the same terms – is available in the Arctic regions.

We have extended these programmes until the end of 2030. I know that the Government discussed the terms of this mortgage plan for the future. I suggest that we put a full stop here and leave the interest rate for the Far Eastern and Arctic mortgage plans unchanged at two percent per year.

Let me add that since last year, families in the Primorye Territory that have a third child are entitled to a higher sum for mortgage repayment – one million instead of 450,000 rubles, as in the rest of the country.

We have agreed that the same payment of one million rubles should be introduced for families with many children in all Far Eastern regions, where the birth rate is lower than the average for the Federal District. I ask my colleagues to speed up the approval of relevant laws so that this measure enters into effect as of July 1 of this year, that is, retroactively.

I would like to dwell separately on issues that are of great importance for families and our citizens who live far from the “mainland,” so to say. I mean hard to access small towns and villages in the Russian Far East and the Arctic.

Our goal is to ensure regular and uninterrupted supplies for these communities, while also reducing delivery time and costs. Last year, we passed a law governing the supply of essential goods to the northern territories, which enabled us to switch to a centralised approach when planning these deliveries at the federal level, while the regions coordinate the way it is implemented on the ground.

The transport sector views shipping and handling essential goods as an utmost priority. We can issue budget loans for buying and delivering these essentials to the northern regions. There is also an effort to develop the core elements of the transport and logistics network we use for these deliveries, including roads, railway stations, seaports and river ports, and airports.

Starting in 2025, a single sea operator will be tasked with overseeing deliveries to the northern territories. For now, this project will run in pilot mode. This operator will handle cargo shipments in Chukotka. Moving forward, the project will also cover Yakutia, the Kamchatka Territory, as well as the Arkhangelsk Region and the Krasnoyarsk Territory.

Healthcare services for people living in remote communities, cities and villages, are a separate topic. Some settlements in Russia’s Far East can only be accessed by rail. And they lack specialists for offering health check-ups and occupational health assessments, and providing other healthcare services.

A mobile diagnostics centre will start operating across five regions of Russia’s Far East this September, and next year eight more regions will be added to this scheme. This train will be a real outpatient clinic and a pharmacy on wheels with advanced equipment and specialist doctors.

They will be able to carry out a wide range of tests and to seek advice from their colleagues at Russia’s leading research centres, while using AI when drafting medical opinions. Of course, they will offer professional healthcare services, considering that all people in Russia need them regardless of where they live.

In this context, I would like to thank Russian Railways and all the doctors, nurses, railway workers and other specialists who are taking part in this noble undertaking. People really need it. I would like to ask the Government to help this company and ensure that this cutting-edge train-based medical facility and pharmacy does its jobs in an uninterrupted and effective manner.

There is one more thing. We will continue our efforts to develop local air service in order to bring cities and villages in Russia’s Far East closer to one another. As I have already said, we expect annual passenger traffic on domestic flights within the region to reach four million people. I have instructed the Government to approve a plan setting forth specific steps and initiatives to achieve this. It goes without saying that the effort to draft it has been too slow, which means that all the decisions we need in this regard must be taken without delay.

The air fleet is, of course, a major issue. We must build our own planes that are reliable and meet our quality requirements, and they must be produced in sufficient quantities. In this context, I am asking the relevant entities to step up their efforts to develop a passenger version of the Baikal, a light multi-purpose aircraft. It must enter serial production soon. Meanwhile, you must keep in mind that its price and characteristics must be competitive so that the airline tickets when using these planes are affordable for our people. Otherwise, we will have to offer subsidies of some sort.

Friends,

In the past few years, the Far East has gained popularity among young people seeking interesting careers, as well as trained specialists looking to showcase their skills and expertise in various fields.

Over the past eight years, the Far East has experienced a consistent rise in the number of young people between the ages of 20 and 24, thanks to our targeted support measures.

For example, we increased lump-sum payments under the Country Teacher, Country Doctor and Country Paramedic programmes. Today, teachers and doctors who relocate to Far Eastern villages and towns receive two million rubles each, while each nurse and paramedic receives one million rubles. We have already agreed to extend these programmes until 2030 and to maintain the double rate of regional payments for the Far East.

Another decision concerns the Country Culture Worker programme, which aims to support the employees of rural clubs, art centres, libraries, music schools and museums. In effect, these people protect our cultural sovereignty and identity, our traditional values, and educate young people.

I ask the Government to start implementing this programme from January 1, 2025. Of course, we need to stipulate higher regional lump-sum payments for culture workers moving to Far Eastern communities, and we should also involve them in the Far Eastern Mortgage programme.

I would like to add that we will continue to establish new museums in the Far East. As part of this work, I would like to instruct the concerned officials to perpetuate the memory of the Kuril amphibious landing, one of the final battles of World War II. This event symbolises the courage of our officers and soldiers who captured the seemingly impregnable enemy fortifications.

Colleagues,

Dedicated, courageous people with strong spirits where the ones who wrote the history of Russia’s Far East, a huge region that accounts for almost 40 percent of our national territory. They studied and defended this land, preserved and perpetuated the traditions of its indigenous people, added new locations to the map of Russia, built cities, factories, roads and developed mineral deposit sites.

Among our forefathers who developed the Far East there was a sense of devotion to serving their cause and their Fatherland. And the love of their Motherland enabled them to pursue grand and ambitious designs and objectives. Even today, their heroism, self-sacrifice and accomplishments inspire so many of our people, and all these specialists − doctors, teachers, cultural workers, whom I have just mentioned, university faculty members, business owners – everyone working in Russia’s Far East or who plans to dedicate their lives to this region, including officials in regional administrations and municipalities.

Launched in 2022 in this region, the Muravyov-Amursky Programme provides for training public administration officials. We have expanded it to include the Arctic region. It has been quite popular and competitive with up to 80 applications per scholarship. People who are young and ambitious can see that developing the Far East and the Arctic is one of the most interesting and promising objectives for our country. We will make sure to extend this programme at least until 2030.

Let me reiterate that government bodies at all levels, as well as the business community, NGOs and people in general will have to make a meaningful contribution to carrying out new national projects and programmes. Through these efforts, these undertakings will acquire a Far Eastern dimension and will facilitate the development of this region considering its strategic importance for Russia, as well as improve the quality of life there.

Of course, we will expand ties between Russia’s Far East and our country in general with our foreign partners, friends, states and corporate entities, who are interested in promoting steady, lasting and mutually beneficial cooperation. This would enable us to further strengthen Russia’s international standing.

I am certain that together, we will succeed in these endeavours.

Thank you for your attention.

Alexandra Suvorova: Thank you, Mr President.

I will give the floor to our guests a bit later. But first I have a few clarifying questions.

A look at Rosstat figures for 2023 shows that only slightly more than 7.8 million people live in the Far East. The same year, the number of population increased due to migration in three regions – Kamchatka, Yakutia and Chukotka. You also said that the number of young people moving there had increased over the past eight years. Nevertheless, the situation cannot be called stable: as you said, migration inflow increased in 2021, and there was a migration outflow, even though a small one, in 2023.

You pointed out in your address that one of the measures expected to encourage people to stay in the Far East was the master plans we are discussing now.

What else do you think should be done to improve life in the Far East?

I understand that talking about this could take long.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, talking about this could take long. We certainly should do more than we have been doing so far. This is obvious. But at least we can focus on two main aspects.

First, we must start improving conditions now and create interesting and promising jobs. And second, we must make life more comfortable for the people in the region.

But the most important thing is for every person and family to see that it is a long haul, that our planning horizon is long, and that living and working here hold a promise for them and their children. It is important to have prospects, because overall we would like to see more young people moving here, people who are our future and who have ambitious goals. We must create conditions for them to realise their ambitions. This is the main thing.

Alexandra Suvorova: I have another clarifying question. You have sad that the experience of master plans in the Far East will also be applied in other regions. How exactly will this be done?

Vladimir Putin: I have already said that novelty – if we can call it that – consists in combining spatial and economic development. How was the work organised in the Soviet period in both the Russian Far East and Siberia? They built an industrial plant and a shantytown in the vicinity. And that’s all.

Alexandra Suvorova: A backbone enterprise.

Vladimir Putin: Right, this is how it is called up till now. A backbone enterprise! A plant is built and some shanties nearby, where people could live. The BAM, incidentally, was being developed in the same way. Very many enterprises and regions developed that way, too. A plant plus something in the vicinity for people to live in. It was only later, when people began living under these conditions, that [the higher-ups] gave some thought to what could be done additionally to make their life worthy of human beings.

The new approach we are proposing is different in that it is necessary to do both things in parallel. As soon as we start building a facility, we should plan for where and how people will live, what they will do [in their free time], and what should be done in the area of education, culture, and health services. These projects must be implemented right away.

In certain places…I will not even name them now – I wanted to, but, I think, OK, I’ll refrain from doing that because it is certain that far from all has been done the way they wanted to. If I say something now, others will comment: this and that has been left unfinished. This may be so and something has really been left unfinished, but the principle is that you get going right away and in parallel, creating the infrastructure for life and developing production facilities and the economy in the broad sense of the word.

Alexandra Suvorova: Thank you.

And now, as I promised, I give the floor to our guests.

Vladimir Putin: Excuse me, I’ve already said that we are trying to develop 22 populated localities based on this principle. In the next few years, it should be extended to some two hundred populated localities across this country.

Alexandra Suvorova: Thank you.

Now I give the floor to the Prime Minister of Malaysia.

Mr Ibrahim, please come to the podium and we are looking forward to your opening remarks.

Prime Minister of Malaysia Anwar bin Ibrahim: (Speaks Russian) Hallo.

Dear President Vladimir Putin,

Vice President of China Han Zheng,

Excellencies, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen.

First and foremost, I would like to express my gratitude to President Vladimir Putin for inviting me to this pre-eminent and momentous forum here in Vladivostok. It is also momentous for me on a personal level because, believe it or not, this is my very first visit to Russia.

More than 50 years ago, when I was still an active youth leader, I flew Aeroflot and transited through Moscow airport on my way to Belgium for the International Youth Conference. We were not allowed to disembark – only to the transit hotel. So I never got the chance to set foot on Russian soil.

And it is a real pleasure to be finally in Vladivostok, where history blends seamlessly with progress, and where the vastness of Russia meets the boundless promise of the Asia-Pacific.

As a crossroads of commerce, this city has been shaped by diverse influences, reflecting a rich heritage of Russian and East Asian traditions, making Vladivostok a concept of cultures. Beyond its economic significance, Vladivostok holds a distinctive place in Russian history as a vital seaport and the eastern terminus of the legendary Trans-Siberian Railway. This city truly embodies Russia’s connection with the East.

Here we find a powerful symbol of our gathering – a convergence of geography, ideas, aspirations and futures. Since its inception in 2015, the Eastern Economic Forum has consistently drawn visionaries and leaders from around the world. This is fitting, as Northeast Asia, which includes the Russian Far East, is a region of vibrant economic dynamism and immense potential. Indeed, it contributes about a fifth of the world’s GDP. I would therefore like to thank President Putin for his vision and leadership in establishing this forum, which continues to foster meaningful dialogue and collaboration.

Ladies and gentlemen,

Russia is not just a strategic and economic reality that commands attention. Indeed, as a cultural, intellectual and scientific force, Russia’s prominence on the global stage transcends the confines of commerce and geopolitics, reaching deep into the very fabric of human history and thought. Russia’s pre-eminence stems not from military might or economic leverage, crucial as that may be, but from the enduring power of ideas, the beauty of artistic expression and an unwavering pursuit of knowledge. These achievements form the bedrock of the remarkable soft power earning Russia a place of global respect and admiration, influencing the hearts and minds of peoples around the world.

For me personally, this influence is most powerfully felt in literature. I say this with an honest conviction because having drunk deeply from the wellsprings of English and Malay literature in my early education, and then later having immersed in the works of Dante, Shakespeare and Milton, I do believe that life would be so much poorer without literature, particularly Russian literature.

In this regard, I can’t sing enough praise for the great Russian authors and poets who have explored the profound complexities of life, unparalleled insight, and whose works have had a lasting impact on my understanding of society and the human condition. For instance, the works of Fyodor Dostoevsky and Leo Tolstoy, just to name a few, delve into the moral and philosophical dilemmas that define what it means to be human. While Dostoevsky challenges us to engage with the intricacies of faith, doubt and the human soul, Tolstoy invites us to reflect on the nature of power, responsibility, and the passage of time, transcending the literary significance.

The appreciation of Russian literature manifests the depth of this great nation’s impact on global thought and its capacity to inform our understanding of our own ideas and our roles within the currents of history. Furthermore, the appeal and power of Russian literature extends beyond its philosophical underpinnings. Writers like Chekhov, Pushkin, Pasternak and also my favourite, Anna Akhmatova, have brought to life the joys, sorrows and struggles of everyday existence with the realism that has resonated with me deeply.

Ladies and gentlemen,

In its pivotal role in advancing human knowledge through science and technology, Russia has consistently pushed the boundaries of possibility. From pioneering efforts in space exploration to groundbreaking work in nuclear physics and cybernetics. As you have heard it yourself, the vision and the plan as expounded by the President covers a comprehensive area which is developmental as much as it is human. These contributions reflect a deep-seated commitment to understanding and mastering the natural world, underscoring Russia’s importance in the collective progress of humanity.

We are witnessing a troubling trend of protectionism that threatens to fragment the global economy. The rise of tariffs, trade barriers and restrictions on technological exchange constitute troubling developments. In this regard, the rise of the Global South does not signify merely a shift of economic power, but a reconfiguration of global influence, encompassing countries across Asia. China, India, Africa and Latin America – the Global South is on a trajectory to play a pivotal role in reshaping the future of the world economy.

According to recent estimates, the Global South now accounts for roughly 40 percent of the world’s economic output and is home to about 85 percent of the global population. By 2030, it is projected that three of the four largest economies will be from the Global South. This rise is a reality that presents both challenges and opportunities.

For Malaysia, it is essential there are strong ties to share the growth and to contribute to a more balanced global order. Like Russia, we see the potential of these developing economies and we are committed to fostering partnerships that can drive mutual prosperity. In this vein, Malaysia is actively pursuing opportunities within the Global South and joining fellow nations that seek to create a new paradigm of development, one that is more inclusive, equitable, sustainable and resilient.

In a world of increasing complexity, our future prosperity depends on our ability to adapt, innovate, and build relationships that cut across traditional boundaries. The Global South is rising, and Malaysia intends to rise with it.

Being an open economy, Malaysia prides itself on doing business with the entire world and we have benefited greatly from being a vital node in globalised supply chains. Central to this effort is the MADANI Economy Framework, which has implemented structural reform initiatives to trailblaze a more sustainable, inclusive future path for our nation.

In Malaysia-Russia bilateral relations, one area ripe for collaboration includes Islamic finance, where Malaysia is regarded as a global leader, boasting a robust ecosystem of institutions that not only adhere to sharing our principles but also drive innovation in financial investments. Russia, with its sizable Muslim population, stands at a threshold of enormous potential in Islamic finance. I believe that the introduction of Islamic banking in Russia can facilitate joint projects and attract significant investments from Muslim majority nations.

In agriculture, Russia has made remarkable strides, becoming a significant global player in this sector. As one of the world’s largest grain producers and exporters, Russia plays a crucial role in ensuring global food security. Russia’s agricultural exports have been instrumental in stabilising global markets amid ongoing supply chain disruptions.

Turning to education and research, Russia has a long-standing reputation for excellence, particularly in STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics). Russian universities have consistently ranked among the best globally, producing world-class scientists, engineers and researchers. The recent establishment of the Russian-Malaysian High Tech Centre in Malaysia underscores our commitment to fostering technological innovation and academic excellence.

In facilitating cooperation in developing high-tech solutions, particularly in energy efficiency, data transmission and smart city technologies, we can harness our collective strength to drive innovation and address the challenges of the 21^st century. Additionally, the striving for cutting-edge advancements such as AI and semiconductor technologies should be guided by humanistic and altruistic values to ensure that tech rivalry and inequity do not result in hindrances to free trade in a more fragmented geopolitical landscape.

Ladies and gentlemen,

As the upcoming ASEAN Chair, Malaysia will not only focus on strengthening existing ASEAN mechanisms and institutions, but also find synergies with other regions and key dialogue partners to foster development and prosperity. In forging ahead with this approach, our utmost priority will be the need to reinforce the paramount principles of ASEAN centrality, which constitutes the linchpin for consensus building that in turn binds member states in cohesive action.

We will intensify our engagement with other subregions and leverage ties with our strategic partners, including Russia. In light of this, in applying to join BRICS, Malaysia aims to diversify our economic diplomacy efforts and enhance collaboration. I would like to take a moment to express my profound thanks and gratitude to President Putin for his gracious invitation for me to attend the forthcoming BRICS summit in Kazan in October.

We are entering an era marked by intense superpower rivalry, significant global economic upheavals, as well as trade and technology as tools to consolidate power bases against the growing existential threat of climate change. Together, we should continue to cooperate, speak in a unified voice and exchange ideas, strategy and best policy practices, to build a future of even greater peace and prosperity in Asia and the world.

Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen,

As we chart the path forward together, let us remember that the true strength of our partnership lies not only in the agreements we sign or the projects that we jointly undertake, but in the shared vision and mutual respect that bind our nations.

(In Russian) Thank you very much.

When we are part of the globalised world, we believe in continuing our trade relationship with all. We have traditionally, cumulatively very strong investment and trade with the United States and Europe. We are building a greater collaboration with China, by forging stronger bonds. China remains one of our major, key partners.

Russia has traditionally been a good country with which we work well diplomatically, but as I said to President Putin last night, there are vast opportunities in Russia considering its resilience, its capacity to expand in all sectors.

Now, being in BRICS would allow us to benefit and share. Malaysia is now a hub for semiconductors in the region. There are some fields that we can share, but there are a lot of other areas, and I think the Global South network of BRICS will give us an opportunity to leverage, to ensure that there are fair trade practices, that the international financial infrastructure is not monopolised by one country or one region. Essentially it will be beneficial not only to Malaysia, but I think to the Global South and naturally to the whole world.

(Speaks Russian) Thank you.

Alexandra Suvorova: Mr Ibrahim, first, I would like to congratulate you on coming here at last.

I would very much like to talk about the mysterious Russian soul and philosophy that you touched upon in your speech, but we will have to focus on topical issues, including BRICS, also mentioned by you: Malaysia would like to join the association.

Could you be more specific about the benefits of this decision?

Prime Minister of Malaysia Anwar Ibrahim: I met with a number of leading Russian companies yesterday and this morning. As a matter of policy, we do not accept unilateral sanctions, as the Vice President of China mentioned. Of course, we are careful so that we are not seen as confronting any power or economic power, in particular.

So, we focus on economic zones in the country, and as for the Russian companies, I have told them that we are an independent country, and we want to be engaging with Russia more effectively. I was delighted that many of them are coming. When I asked them, “When are you coming or what are you planning?” Some were saying, “We will go next week.” And a group will come in October.

So, there is interesting progress and interest. Of course, we are fortunate because our relations with China are currently stable. In the last quarter, we had growth of 5.9 percent, with inflation of 2 percent, and with huge investment also from the United States, particularly, in the digital and energy sectors, and from Germany, in particular.

So, I think we will do whatever is necessary. You know, we can learn from the comprehensive plan package that President Putin mentioned. And there is enormous potential. Russians should not in any way feel that we are influenced by others’ prejudice.

There is this potential and this special relationship that Malaysia wants to offer to Russia as a friend of ours.

Alexandra Suvorova: Mr President, speaking about the BRICS summit, due to take place in Kazan already in late October, what are you expecting from the summit that will involve new BRICS members?

I’d like to remind you that in late 2023, Russia’s trade with BRICS partners reached $294 billion. Regarding trade, what do you think about its future development, and how do you evaluate the current pace of settlements in national currencies? Has de-dollarisation become a well-established trend, or is this a timeserving consideration? What do you think?

Vladimir Putin: First of all, I would like to say that we are not conducting a policy of de-dollarisation. We did not renounce settlements in dollars; they denied us such settlements, and we were simply forced to look for other options; this is it. However, this is not most important.

The most important thing is that the currency of any country reflects its economic might. The larger the economy, the more partners it has. Consequently, the national currency of any particular country becomes more popular during settlements. Naturally, when there are many partners, any economy wants to use the currency of this country. This is why the use of any country’s currency depends on the role of this country’s economy in the global economy.

Naturally, after World War II, the United States, successfully took advantage of the war’s economic results, implemented the Marshall Plan for Europe and established one single financial system, the Bretton Woods system. Later, it made slight adjustments to this system and set up another one. It established the dollar as the common global currency. I want to repeat, this depended and still depends on the country’s economic might.

As Mr Prime Minister has just said, the global economic situation is changing. The countries of the Global South, as well as the BRICS countries, account for over 50 percent and about one-third of the global GDP, respectively. I would like to emphasise that priorities in using certain currencies are also changing naturally.

For example, as much as almost 65 percent of transactions we carry out with our BRICS partners are denominated in our respective national currencies. This is a natural process. However, the financial and political authorities in the United States have facilitated this process by acting in this unscrupulous, unprofessional manner.

I think that they have already understood their mistake but feel that it would be too late for them to change course. It seems that they believe that recognising their mistake would be somehow inappropriate for them, let alone changing the way they act. After all, they can see that the tools they use are ineffective. We simply switch to our national currencies. But it is too late for them to back out. It could be that only people who will replace the current generation of politicians will be able to do something about it. In fact, changing something amounts to recognising your mistakes. This could be a challenge for them.

Why are they acting this way? They probably expected everything to crumble here. This is why they made it impossible for us to use the US dollar. But we are dealing with objective trends, and they are simply pushing them forward, while at its core it is the economic growth that defines the effort to rely on other currencies.

We all know very well that today, China is the world’s number one economy by purchasing power parity. Of course, the US has a powerful and robust economy with its own unique structure, but the People’s Republic of China has a bigger economy. The United States is the world’s second largest economy. And the gap between the two is growing by the year. This is why the yuan has been used in international transactions. The United States ranks second, and India is the world’s third largest economy. Russia is the fourth economy of the world by purchasing power parity. We got ahead of Europe’s economic powerhouse, Germany, and left Japan behind not that long ago. These are not our projections – they come from international experts.

Let me reiterate that Japan, Germany and the United States have a lot of advantages, primarily in terms of the way their economies are structured, as well as their high technology and so forth, but the size of their economies also matters, since it creates opportunities for investing in the most promising sectors and undertakings.

Therefore, let me reiterate that this is a natural process that has nothing to do with momentary political considerations. Still, the authorities in Europe and the United States have simply accelerated these processes by acting in this unscrupulous and unprofessional manner.

As for our relations with BRICS countries, we are developing them and have been quite successful in these efforts. Russia, China and India are the so-called founding fathers of this association. We were the ones who launched this process back in 2005 by forming RIC – a platform for Russia, India and China. Brazil joined us down the road, followed by South Africa. We have recently expanded this framework to include new participants.

This is also a positive process. In fact, more than 30 countries around the world have expressed their readiness to work with BRICS, and some of them want to be part of this association. The new BRICS countries are self-sufficient emerging economies with their own unique culture. These are very interesting countries. There is no doubt that they will have a positive impact in terms of developing this organisation.

Alexandra Suvorova: Thank you, Mr President.

I will now turn to Vice President of the People’s Republic of China Han Zheng, who represents another BRICS country. You have the floor.

Vice President of the People's Republic of China Han Zheng (retranslated): Good afternoon, President Putin, Prime Minister Anwar,

Forum participants, ladies and gentlemen, friends.

I am happy to be with you at the 9th Eastern Economic Forum.

First of all, I would like to convey best regards from President Xi Jinping and the Government of China on the beginning of the forum.

Vladivostok is a window of cooperation with our partners in the Far East. It was at President Putin’s initiative that Vladivostok hosted the first Eastern Economic Forum in 2015. Thanks to its consistent development, it has become an important venue for finding consensus and solutions to development issues.

Its theme this year is Far East 2030. Combining Strengths to Create New Potential, which reflects the current situation and requirements of regional countries. Our shared goal is to promote cooperation and build up mutual trust to the benefit of all.

The Chinese-Russian relations of comprehensive partnership and strategic interaction are growing sustainably in the new age under the strategic guidance of President Xi Jinping and President Putin. This year, our heads of state met in Beijing and Astana, where they set out the plans and parameters of the further development of our bilateral relations and multifaceted cooperation, with the 75th anniversary of our diplomatic relations as a new reference point.

Out two countries have joined efforts to overcame all difficulties in this volatile international situation. We are moving steadfastly on our own path and tackling our problems in order to bring practical benefits to our people and to contribute to the revival and growth of the global economy.

Northeast China and Russia’s Far East are geographic neighbours with close ties between our people. These regions have mutually complementing advantages in trade, investment, energy and transport connectivity, and so they are natural partners.

China has been the largest trade partner and source of foreign investment in the [Russian] Far East for years. Trade between China and the Far East reached $33.8 billion in 2023, an increase of 54 percent.

Currently, China's Northeast is comprehensively cultivating a new frontier of China's openness to the outside world, which is in line with Russia's Far East development strategy. The leaders of our two countries attach great importance to cooperation between China's Northeast and the Russian Far East, and pay personal attention to it.

Given this, we should note the 8^th China-Russia EXPO, which was successfully held in Harbin in May. President Xi Jinping sent a congratulatory message to it, and President Putin personally attended it, which served as a strategic guide for bilateral cooperation. The connectivity between the development of these regions and expanding their cooperation is very timely and promising.

We are ready to follow the important agreements at the highest level together with the Russian side, to strengthen interconnectivity at an accelerated pace, both in terms of cross-border infrastructure and harmonisation of the rules and standards, to increase the scale and quality of cooperation, to strengthen the foundation for long-term sustainable development of China-Russia relations in the new era, and to make our contribution to the prosperity and stability of the region and the world.

Ladies and gentlemen, friends,

Against the background of tremendous changes in the international environment unseen in the past century, aspirations for peace, development, cooperation and win-win remain an unstoppable trend. The concept of the Community of Common Destiny for Mankind – the Global Development Initiative, the Global Security Initiative and the Global Civilisation Initiative launched by President Xi Jinping, represent China's solution to global governance, bring confidence to the world and give impetus to collective efforts to confront challenges and achieve common development.

We stand ready with the countries of the region to consolidate efforts, strengthen cohesion and cooperation, and jointly promote peace, stability, prosperity and development of the entire region. In this regard, I would like to propose the following.

First, it is necessary to adhere to the principles of openness and inclusiveness, which are the leitmotif of the modern world. Cooperation in the spirit of openness is the trend of the era. China unswervingly pursues the strategy of openness with a focus on mutual benefit and win-win, promotes development of an open world economy, opposes protectionism and attempts to disrupt and break chains. It stands against unilateral sanctions and increased pressure. We are ready to build up and enhance cohesion with the countries of the region based on the principles of openness, justice and mutual respect and seek joint development.

Second, we should promote mutually beneficial cooperation. It is a major development driver in the region. The unique resources and high complementarity of Northeast Asian economies are the foundation for broad cooperation prospects. We should actively search for new points of the convergence of interests, highlighting our advantages, acting jointly to protect our stable and smoothly operating value chains, and strengthening our interaction in the new sectors such as artificial intelligence, the digital economy and green economy to the benefit of the cooperative development of regional countries.

Third, we should ensure comprehensive development and security. Security is an earnest of development, and development is a guarantee of security. China is firmly committed to worldwide peace, is stimulating global development and is resolutely opposing hegemonism and all manifestations of the position-of-strength policy, the Cold War mentality, interference in the internal affairs of other countries and double standards.

Ensuring peace and stability, which have been maintained in Northeast Asia by and large, is anything but simple. We are ready to join efforts with all parties to stimulate dialogue and exchanges and to build up mutual understanding for protecting regional security in the long term.

Ladies and gentlemen, friends,

During the recent third plenary session of the 20th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, we set forth an ambitious plan for the comprehensive deepening of reforms and promoting China’s modernisation. Our modernisation is proceeding on the path of peaceful development and is benefitting the entire world. China will continue to promote high-quality development and high-level openness, offering new possibilities for the region and the world through the example of its development.

We are ready to join efforts with our partners to promote global modernisation, are focused on peaceful development, mutually beneficial cooperation and global wellbeing, and we are ready to contribute to the modernisation of our region and the world as a whole.

In conclusion I would like to wish fruitful work to the forum participants.

Thank you.

Alexandra Suvorova: We are grateful to Vice President of China Han Zheng for his address.

Mr President, I, of course, cannot overlook the current topical news agenda, and quite often, it does not concern the Far East and our expanding collaboration with the Asia Pacific region. For over a month, the Armed Forces of Ukraine have been hitting border territories of the Russian Federation, and several Russian regions are under attack.

What do you think about the overall situation in the special military operation zone on various fronts, as well as in border regions? How grave is the nuclear threat now that the Armed Forces of Ukraine are also attacking the Kursk and Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plants?

Vladimir Putin: When we talk about these issues, we should, first of all, think about the people who are certainly experiencing serious ordeals and suffering from these terrorist attacks. It is the sacred duty of the Armed Forces to do everything possible for expelling the enemy from these territories and reliably protecting our citizens. Of course, the entire country should do its best to support the people.

Regarding the military aspect of the matter, I have already said that the enemy wanted to make us nervous, to start rushing around, to redeploy troops from one sector to another and to stop our offensive in key sectors, primarily Donbass. The liberation of Donbass is our high-priority goal. Did the enemy succeed? No, it accomplished nothing.

First, our Armed Forces stabilised the situation and started gradually pushing the enemy from border territories. Second, nothing hampers our offensive, and this is the most important thing. On the contrary, by redeploying its sufficiently large and well-trained units to border areas, the enemy weakened its positions in key sectors, and our troops expedited their offensive operations.

We have not made such impressive territorial gains for a long time. The day before yesterday, the Vostok group seized a triangle measuring seven by five kilometres during one strike. The Centre group is operating very successfully in the Donetsk and Pokrovsk sectors. We are gaining several square kilometres, rather than several hundred metres, there – four by five, three by five kilometres, etc. This is the second thing.

And last but not least, the enemy has been sustaining enormous losses in personnel and equipment. I will not list everything now. The Russian Defence Ministry provides this data, and I consider it objective as it can be confirmed by several sources. On the one hand, there is a risk of crushing the most crucial sectors of the front as the losses may lead to the entire armed forces losing combat capacity. This is exactly what we are trying to achieve.

This is my overall assessment. As to what is happening daily, naturally, the General Headquarters and the Defence Ministry report to me several times per day every day.

Alexandra Suvorova: You have already noted that people are the most important asset – both people living on those territories and people defending them.

Yesterday, here in Vladivostok, you visited the home station…

Vladimir Putin: I am sorry, I missed one thing. You also mentioned the attacks on a nuclear power plant.

Alexandra Suvorova: Yes, the Kursk and Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plants.

Vladimir Putin: Those were very serious terrorist attacks. One can only imagine what will happen if we give a commensurate response, what will happen to this part of Europe.

Alexandra Suvorova: Speaking about the events yesterday, you visited the home station of the Primorye Flotilla in Vladivostok and said that recently, you had spoken on the phone with the Commander of the 155^th Marine Brigade whose servicemen are currently serving in the zone of the special military operation. When you had asked the Commander about any everyday issues, he had said there were none. But yesterday, when you spoke to his superior, issues were actually raised – in particular, problems with housing.

How often do you see similar inconsistencies?

Vladimir Putin: It was not an inconsistency. There are actual problems there… Problems always exist, but the Commander of the 155^th Marine Brigade did not raise them because in Snegovaya Pad, a place he had chosen himself for future personnel housing, the construction is underway and local officials are helping. But, of course, it is important to fulfill these plans in due time, and I am sure that they will be.

Some other commanders pointed out actual pressing problems that need to be solved as soon as possible. I also spoke to the Commander of the 810^th Marine Brigade of the Black Sea Fleet. They also need housing to be built for the military personnel serving in the border zone right now. Their operations are very successful. These guys are simply heroes.

Incidentally, regarding the issue as a whole, one of the adversary’s objectives was to saw panic, destabilise the internal political situation in Russia, impart uncertainty to our actions, and so on. But what has this led to? On the contrary, it has led to society’s consolidation, as is always the case in Russia in such circumstances. This is evidenced by the fact that the number of people, our men, who feel the need to protect the Motherland, who sign contracts with the Armed Forces, has grown exponentially.

As for the social guarantees, our country must by all means get things done, deliver on all objectives, rather than just think about it. The commander of the 810^th Marine Brigade of the Black Sea Fleet told me about this. But the local authorities, I mean the Crimean authorities, are ready to do everything to provide land and they will do this shortly, if, of course, the Defence Ministry is short of land of its own, but it does have enough land.

I have instructed the Defence Ministry and the General Staff to submit relevant proposals. The necessary resources will be assigned.

Alexandra Suvorova: You said that Kiev might agree to hold talks with Russia after the collapse of its provocation in the Kursk Region. So it turns out that there were, after all, some prospects for a peaceful solution before that?

Vladimir Putin: We have spoken about this time and again. We have coordinated practically all parameters of a possible peace agreement with representatives of the Kiev government. More than that, the head of the Kiev delegation at the talks – he still heads the faction of the ruling party in parliament, the Verkhovna Rada – initialed these agreements. Of course, it was necessary to specify some points, but on the whole it was a signed official document.

Then Mr Johnson arrived in Kiev – it is a known fact, and the UK authorities confirm it – so he came and ordered the Ukrainians to fight till the last Ukrainian, which is what is happening today, in order to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia. But this is failing. The official Ukrainian authorities said in public that had they performed what we had agreed on with them rather than obeyed their masters from other countries, the war would have come to an end long ago. But they have chosen a different path, and you can see the result.

Are we ready to negotiate with them? We have never refused it. However, not on the basis of some ephemeral demands but on the basis of the documents that were agreed and actually initialised in Istanbul.

Alexandra Suvorova: Is there an insight as to which country may be the mediator this time should the talks take place further on?

Vladimir Putin: We respect our friends and partners, whom I consider to be sincerely interested in resolving all the issues pertaining to this conflict. This is primarily the People's Republic of China, Brazil and India. I am in constant contact with our colleagues on this issue. I have no doubt that the leaders of these countries – we have trustful relations with them – are genuinely keen to help sort out all the details of this complicated process, which, of course, I would like to recall, began with the coup d’état in Ukraine in 2014. After all, that’s where it all began!

We have always been told about human rights, about some international law principles which must be observed by everybody. And what does this mean: an anti-constitutional and bloody coup, what is this? This led to the fact that part of the population of the country did not agree with the results and, in general, with this coup, and began to fight for their rights. Finally, everything boiled down to the current conflict.

That’s what it is all about, but they prefer not to recall it. However, we know what the matter is, and we will certainly defend our interests and the interests of those people who are close to us and who are speakers of the Russian language, people of Russian culture, and Russian traditions, whom, by the way, our guest today spoke so vividly about.

Alexandra Suvorova: Mr President, we all understand perfectly well that in general, and you have just mentioned this, negotiations are possible not directly with Kiev, but with its Western handlers. But in the case of negotiations, do you think that they can still be trusted?

After all, if we look even at historical facts, Russia has been deceived, we can say, more than once. This includes the cases of NATO's eastward expansion and the Minsk agreements. It was not us who breached them. Have we made any conclusions?

Vladimir Putin: You see, is there any other way? Yes, we understand who we are dealing with. They are people who do not value and treat without any respect the interests of other countries and nations. Such people, unfortunately, exist – they easily break all the commitments they have made, even signed documents.

So, what is to be done? We just need to look for such forms and guarantees that could work somehow or to any extent. Still, the core security guarantee is the growth of the economy and military potential of the Russian Federation itself, reliable and sustainable relations with our partners and allies.

Alexandra Suvorova: Thank you.

Mr Ibrahim, we just discussed with President Putin the fact that Russia had always tried to find a peaceful solution to the crisis.

As an observer, why do you think the Istanbul talks failed?

Anwar Ibrahim: I mentioned to President Putin last night that I happened to be on a visit to Istanbul and President Erdogan asked me to extend the visit for a day because he was busy monitoring the development of the progressive negotiations, and actually I knew and I thought at the time that the issue would be over because, apparently, both parties agreed on the principal parameters.

I am of course of the view that you must secure peace and it would help immensely not only these two countries but the entire world. Because it is disrupting the global chain of supplies, et cetera.

But you must start from somewhere and, as I understand, the parameters set down in Istanbul were the basis for the understanding and you work from there. Both sides agreed and I think President Putin is right, we believe that we must begin somewhere with the parameters that are fair and just. And one cannot renege on the commitment on these issues. I think most countries should then insist that some basis, particularly what was agreed upon, must be honoured so that we can secure peace as soon as possible.

Vladimir Putin: (addressing Alexandra Suvorova) You’ve said that we failed to reach an agreement in Istanbul during the talks mediated by President Erdogan. But we managed to agree – that’s the trick! – as evidenced by the signature of the head of the Ukrainian delegation that initialed that document, which means that the Ukrainian side was generally satisfied with the agreements reached. The document did not come into force only because the Ukrainians were ordered not to do this. The elites in the United States and some European countries felt the desire to seek Russia’s strategic defeat.

They thought they could use the opportunity to bring Russia to its knees, dismember it or whatever else they were planning to do. They thought here it is, manna from heaven for them, and they will achieve all their strategic goals that they had been craving for dozens or hundreds of years. That’s what it was all about. Boris Johnson came and said: “Don’t do it. Just fight till the last Ukrainian.” And fighting they do, to this very day.

I sometimes have a feeling that people at the helm in Ukraine are some kind of aliens or foreigners. As a matter of fact, they are not thinking properly – I’m serious – given such enormous losses they have sustained. I don’t understand what else they will be doing. They will have to once again lower the conscription age to enlist kids, as Nazi Germany did with the Hitler Youth. But this isn’t going to solve anything, you see.

Alexandra Suvorova: This is going to be total mobilisation, sweeping one and all.

Vladimir Putin: Their mobilisation is total as it is, but the next step is to call up students and so on, to completely bleed the country. Let me say it once again: they make you feel as if Ukrainians are not their own people. Well, in a way it makes sense: the families of the ruling elite live generally outside Ukraine. They can simply hop on a plane and be gone. They don’t think too much about what will happen with their country. All they have been doing is duping the people with nationalist slogans.

But let me repeat. If indeed they express the desire to negotiate… – we have never refused to talk, but only on the basis of the agreements that were reached and initialed in Istanbul.

Alexandra Suvorova: Thank you.

Let us go back to what we are discussing today.

Mr Ibrahim, there is such a thing as the “Malaysian economic miracle” which was made possible by the special economic areas that you have created.

What is your business environment like? Are Russian companies welcome?

Anwar Ibrahim: I met with a number of leading Russian companies yesterday and this morning. As a matter of policy, we do not accept unilateral sanctions, as the Vice President of China mentioned. Of course, we are careful so that we are not seen as confronting any power or economic power, in particular.

There is this potential and this special relationship that Malaysia wants to offer to Russia as a friend of ours.

Alexandra Suvorova: Thank you.

Mr President, speaking of our special arrangements in the Far East that include the free port of Vladivostok and the priority development areas, how competitive are they compared to similar arrangements in the Asia-Pacific region? Are you satisfied with their performance?

Vladimir Putin: We are striving to create competitive advantages and competitive environment. I will not go over all of them now, since everyone, especially the people sitting in this room, are well aware of them. That includes priority development areas, free [economic] areas, the free port of Vladivostok, and much more. Lots of incentives have been created. When we discuss this with the Government, the Finance Ministry gets nervous and keeps saying that we have created enough incentive and there is no need to come up with more. Enough is enough.

Here is what I would like to share with you: Vice President of the People’s Republic of China spoke about our joint work in Harbin which hosted the economic forum [EXPO]. He was sent there by the President of the People’s Republic of China, our good friend, Mr Xi Jinping. I am also personally grateful to him for taking part in this forum which was quite engaging. Here is what I would like to share with you. Our guest and our audience will find this quite unexpected.

Alexandra Suvorova: Will you let us on a secret?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, I will. Our Finance Ministry will be surprised as well.

Alexandra Suvorova: I am sure Mr Siluanov got nervous.

Vladimir Putin: No, no, they are cool and there is nothing wrong with their health.

Here is what I wanted to share with you. I spoke with our diplomatic mission in Harbin the other day and asked them what else can we do to make more Chinese investors come to the Far East. He said that the Chinese authorities do not put any limits on their entrepreneurs: they are free to go, invest, and do the work. But the environment that the Chinese authorities have created in Harbin is more favourable than the one we have in the Far East. That is the snag.

The Chinese authorities have long been involved in promoting special economic area and have long been creating specific conditions for growth. We need to take a closer look at the incentives that the Chinese authorities have created in their country, including the regions that border on Russia, in order to lure in businesses from other countries, including the friendly nation of China, for it to come and invest in our economy.

We need to scrutinise everything we have done in terms of creating attractive environment and supplement some of the existing tools with innovations to get the interest of the entrepreneurs and businesses and have them come and work in Russia.

Proper conditions are being created, and they are fairly good overall, but there is room for improvement. I just gave you an overview.

Alexandra Suvorova: Mr Zheng, I would be remiss not to ask you what is being done to keep Chinese businesses in China and to prevent them from coming to work in Russia. What is being done to keep them within the borders of China and away from Russia?

Vladimir Putin: Why are you asking provocative questions?

Alexandra Suvorova: It is a provocative question, that is why.

Vladimir Putin: They stay in China, and we should, on the contrary, lure them in.

Han Zheng (retranslated): First of all, the Chinese government encourages our investors to invest in the global economy, including the Russian economy and the economy of the Far East.

President Putin has brought this subject up earlier: let us look at China-Far East cooperation. We discussed this issue during our meeting in Harbin as well. This issue needs to be considered from two sides. On the one hand, northeastern China and the Russian Far East enjoy high levels of cooperation, and the basis for cooperation is solid. These two regions are on track to see their cooperation expand.

As far as I know, trade between northeastern China and the Russian Far East has exceeded $60 billion in the first seven months of this year which accounts for more than 40 per cent of the total trade between our two countries. So, the cooperation prospects are very good, even excellent.

On the other hand, we need to look into the future. First, we need to consolidate the ongoing positive trend between these two regions. There is a solid foundation for cooperation, and the Russian Far East has strong potential for cooperation, including transport logistics, agriculture, energy and the mining industry. Our range of cooperation is quite wide, and we need to consolidate the results of cooperation in these traditional sectors.

This is not enough, however. We must look to the future and expand our areas of cooperation. This includes green development, digital economy and, I think, maritime industry. Culture and art as well, of course. That’s because there is a great potential for cooperation in these areas.

Let me share with you my experience, an adventure. On President Putin’s instruction, this morning I visited two Russian university campuses and a musical conservatory branch in the Primorye Territory. This trip had a profound effect on me. I specifically went and saw these places. Students, from year 3 at school to year 3 at university, were masterful performers of classic music and ballet dancers performing Swan Lake. I was astonished to see those kids.

We have a very high level of cooperation between our countries in these areas, and I am glad to say that the number of Chinese students coming to Russia to study art has been growing by the year. As far as I know, already 40 students have come from the province of Heilongjiang this year.

Therefore there is a mutual interest in these two regions to boost cooperation. The Chinese Government always supports all Chinese firms, be they state-owned or private, to invest in the world economy, the economy of the Russian Far East and the economy of Russia. So we have wide horizons of cooperation.

Thank you.

Alexandra Suvorova: Thank you.

Mr Ibrahim, we have heard two secrets here. We would like to hear another one from you. Please tell us if Malaysian business would be interested in coming to the advance development areas, the Vladivostok free port, to fully operate here?

Anwar Ibrahim: For the region, Russia is also something new to us. This is my first visit, and a number of discussions have taken place. Russia as a whole, of course, has been given enough attention. There has been growing trade and investment jointly, of course, in the energy sector, the industrial complex and also digital technology. We are sending more students to Russia, and this can be explored specifically. We are not as powerful as China. We are trying to be but it will take time. Thank you.

Alexandra Suvorova: Mr President, if you look at data furnished by the Ministry for the Development of the Far East, investment into the region has totalled 4,200 billion roubles already. Is it big or small?

Do you think that the rate of investment will remain unchanged given that Yury Trutnev yesterday asked you to raise the target to 12 trillion roubles by 2030?

Vladimir Putin: I think it’s a lot, but it’s not enough.

Alexandra Suvorova: As usual, it’s good, but we need more of it.

Vladimir Putin: Yes. Mr Trutnev routinely reported to me about last year’s results and we routinely took part in launching new projects and enterprises. There is a view that this investment can be increased by at least 1.5 trillion to 12 trillion.

I think this is absolutely realistic.

Alexandra Suvorova: Thank you.

Mr President, again, back to the recent events. At the end of August, Pavel Durov, founder and head of Telegram, was detained in Paris. The court eventually decided to keep him under judicial oversight and ordered him to pay a certain amount.

So, what do you think of the actions by the Fifth Republic’s authorities, and did Moscow oppose to what Paris has now done?

And I can’t help but ask. It was written a lot in the same Telegram channels that you had a meeting with him in Baku. Is this true?

Vladimir Putin: I met Mr Durov once in Moscow many years ago, and he was just talking about his plans – I meet with the business community on a regular basis, and he was also at one of the meetings, it was in the Kremlin, I don’t remember when, but many years ago. I repeat, he was talking about his plans of business development. Since then, I have not seen him, we have never had any contacts with him. I don’t really understand why we should meet in Baku. I did not even know that he was there, I had no idea about it.

If there is a desire – a lot of businessmen are present here – everyone knows, I never refuse, we regularly hold such meetings both within the framework of associations of our entrepreneurs, and individually, considering certain projects, especially if business has a need for some guarantees from the state. I, the Prime Minister, federal ministers, regional authorities – I always encourage them to do so, we do not shut ourselves off business people. So, if he had a wish, he could meet with me in Moscow. I don’t know anything about that either. I assumed that he lives in Moscow, I think. I don't know where he is travelling…

Аlexandra Suvorova: Not in Moscow, in Dubai.

Vladimir Putin: Well, in Dubai, they are people of the world, billionaires, they can afford going anywhere. We have not had any claims against him. But I know that many countries did have complaints, given that the platform is used in a certain way by some people and some entities that can damage the economy or security of certain countries through their activities. I think that the Russian Government may have had some concerns about it as well. But this is something that all platforms of this kind do. If they do this to Durov, then others should probably be plugged up, arrested, or put under house arrest or some other kind of detention involving judicial restraint.

Therefore, the actions of the authorities themselves are not very clear to me, as they are selective by nature. I mean the French authorities.

Аlexandra Suvorova: Thank you.

We now return to the subject of today’s meeting.

Mr. Ibrahim, according to last year’s results of, your country received a record number of Russian tourists, 110,000 people. This represents a 37 percent increase over the previous year, and it is evident that this is not the limit. In order for the figure to grow, do Malaysian Airlines plan to launch direct flights from Russia to the country’s resorts?

Anwar Ibrahim: Yes, of course, we should not preclude Aeroflot from going to Malaysia. Firstly, we have become more attractive to Russian tourists. You know that there has been a huge increase this year. I think the issue of flights is one consideration. We have an agreement in principle. We are working on this as fast as possible. And, of course, to introduce Malaysia to the Russian public. I think that, once they get to know the country, it is peaceful, it is economically vibrant – and it is a very beautiful country.

I do not want to compete with Russia or China. At least what we have in Malaysia you do not have in Russia but what you have in Russia we do not have in Malaysia. So, it is important for both countries to increase the tourist traffic because they will see things they have not seen in their countries. And I really hope that there is that potential for Russians to come and we do encourage it.

I mean Malaysia is a friendly nation. There is no prejudice. We are not dictated by any power. And we want to have that sort of special relations with Russia as we have with many countries. I think once you go there you will find out that Malaysia is truly Asia.

Alexandra Suvorova: Mr Ibrahim, we could tell you what to come and see in Russia, but what should Russian tourists see in Malaysia? What is the real Asia, in your opinion? Who, if not the Prime Minister, should be asked this question?

Anwar Ibrahim: Being culturally vibrant society, we have a strong ethnic indigenous and also Malay population. We have a large number of Chinese ethnic minorities and Indians and indigenous tribes. We have a range of virgin jungles and beautiful beaches. As for the climate, we don’t have winter so you can swim throughout the year. That, of course, is to my mind an advantage.

I always have difficulties traveling because you always have to ask questions, is it going to be winter, is it going to be summer, is it going to be hot, or wind, so you have to change clothes. In Malaysia, you can come comfortably, and as long as you are wearing something, you are fine.

Alexandra Suvorova: Your words about how nice and warm it is in Malaysia have made a lot more people smile here.

Vladimir Putin: I’ve been to Malaysia and I would like to confirm all that the Prime Minister just said.

Alexandra Suvorova: Mr President, speaking about tourism, you travel a lot around Russia, and domestic tourism has been developing as well. According to Government data, 83.5 million Russians, or 23 percent more than in 2021, chose Russia as their travel destination in 2023. The Far East Federal District is a leader welcoming over 6 million tourists last year.

What is the economic effect of this rapid growth in domestic tourism?

Vladimir Putin: Tourism in many countries is one of very effectively developing economic sectors. Here’s a simple fact: there are around 5 million of our tourists in Türkiye. Tourism is an important source of income for this country. It is becoming a more efficient economic sector for many countries. This should be true for Russia as well, given our enormous potential for domestic tourism. That’s why our Government adopted a programme for the development of domestic tourism.

We have covered this ground already today, and I won’t be revealing anything new if I say that we must upgrade and build infrastructure and protect the environment to minimise the ill effects of tourism on the nature.

Russia has a lot of programmes such as, for example, “The Five Seas and Lake Baikal”. Many have heard about them, I believe. We subsidise building small hotels, including both residential and non-residential structures for temporary use, and so on. This is producing results, thank God. A region with such gigantic potential as the Far East, is attracting and will be attracting more tourists.

It’s great that our people are prioritising their own country. They should stay in the country of their native language and culture and avoid the trouble of crossing borders and passing customs and so on, while enjoying our nature, history and traditions. This is captivating.

But we need to do a lot to support this choice.

What this means for people in tourist areas is higher living standards next to higher incomes at all levels, bigger budgets at all levels, and people stand to gain from this. The more attractive a region is, the more money businesses are willing to invest, so this is a win-win situation for all. We will do what we can to develop domestic tourism further.

Alexandra Suvorova: But this is over a long term. If you even look at the figures that we have today, I think they basically show that everything is going very well in the country’s economy. Our unemployment rate is 2.4 per cent, a record low. But at the same time, if you take a second look at the statistics, there is now a shortage of personnel in the key sectors of the economy.

How can we fill the gap? Because, say, as of January, 47 per cent of industrial enterprises had a labour shortage. Does this low unemployment rate mean that the economy is developing at a good pace, or does it say that physically there are too few of us?

Vladimir Putin: It is never all good.

Alexandra Suvorova: But there is always something to strive for.

Vladimir Putin: Well, yes, I have already said, I was reminiscing about Faust the other day: “Stay, beautiful moment, do not pass away.” This is, in general, not our way of doing things. One must always strive to achieve new milestones, and everything is never good. But on the whole, Russia’s economy is undoubtedly developing steadily. Last year we were happy about our GDP growth of 3.4 per cent. In the first half of this year – yesterday my colleagues and I discussed what we are going to talk about today – I mentioned a figure of four per cent. I was corrected by [Deputy Head of the Presidential Executive Office] Maxim Oreshkin: No, in the first half of the year we had a 4.6 per cent growth.

Of course, this is a good figure for our economy. I think there will be a correction towards the end of the year, but on the whole we can expect at least a repeat of last year’s result, and, most likely, this growth will be even greater. This is the main indicator of the state of the economy. But, as I said, everything is never good. Malaysia’s inflation rate is two per cent, and unfortunately, we have more. We have a target of somewhere around four per cent, but it reached over nine per cent recently, 9.2 per cent. It’s true that we are witnessing a downward trend now. Inflation is less than nine per cent now, 8.9 per cent, to be exact. And that’s a good thing.

As for the fact that there are not enough of us physically. Well, yes, even Alexander Solzhenitsyn, whom Mr Prime Minister [of Malaysia] recalled, said that the main task of the state is to preserve the people. We need, of course, to address demographic problems and take care of families with children and so on. But the labour market is indeed in a unique position, two something per cent, 2.4 per cent, I believe. This has never happened in our history. It is related to the needs of production, the real sector of the economy.

How can this issue be addressed? First, of course, I repeat, it is necessary to take care of the population, to increase the birth rate, to create conditions for people to have a large family, to make it fashionable to have many children, as it used to be in Russia in the past – seven, nine, ten people in families.

And the second direction is to increase labour productivity so that more results can be achieved with fewer workers.

In what way, how can labour productivity be improved? The Vice-Chairman of the People’s Republic of China mentioned some ways and tools. We need to introduce artificial intelligence, we need to introduce modern methods of production management, robotisation. I recalled Japan, which we overtook in terms of purchasing power parity and became the world’s fourth largest economy, slightly displacing it. But I think, there are ten times more robots per thousand workers there. You see? Ten times more. We have a lot to work on in this respect. Here you are – robotisation, biology, genetics, especially in agriculture. We have a lot to attend to. And we will move in all these directions.

And human resources. Of course, we need to train personnel. This is the most important task for the state, and that is why a new national project has appeared, which is called Personnel.

Alexandra Suvorova: I will move on to the next economic issues.

Mr President, we are meeting a week before another meeting of the Russian Central Bank. The previous such meeting decided that the benchmark rate would be increased to 18 percent. Andrei Kostin, who is now in attendance, said on the sidelines that he is expecting the rate to remain at 18 percent.

Meanwhile, the volume of non-mortgage loans issued by Russian banks increased by 3.5 trillion roubles over 12 months, with monthly rates remaining very high. Corporate lending also increased by 2.3 percent in July according to Central Bank data. How would you explain this paradox?

Vladimir Putin: The paradox of a high rate and…

Alexandra Suvorova: That we’ve got a high bank rate and high rates of lending.

Vladimir Putin: Experts believe this is down to two things. First, consumer lending is high because individuals are not too sensitive to the high rate. This is one point.

Second, turning to corporate lending, to begin with, firms have their business plans put together and they continue to take out loans despite the rate hike. What is more, we decided to adopt measures to support individual industries. There are state-wide tools that are about subsidising lending rates for certain projects and industries. So here is your explanation.

Alexandra Suvorova: By the way, Governor of the Central Bank Elvira Nabiullina said there is no risk to financial stability adding that the economy reached levels of overheating in the first six months of 2024 that had not been seen since 2008.

Are they any risks to the stability of the national economy, and if so, what will be done to cool it?

Vladimir Putin: That’s what they are doing to cool it – by hiking the key rate, abolishing the subsidised mortgage, apart from the IT, Far East, Arctic and Family options. That’s how this cooling you mentioned is ensured.

There is another tool, namely, the stable work of the Government and the Ministry of Finance to balance the budget out.

Alexandra Suvorova: Speaking about investment, we’ve already discussed the figures in the Far East. According to the Federal Service for Statistics, however, capital investment grew around 9.8 percent. Of note, this is after the surge in 2022. The trend continues today. Do you think this investment rate will continue, and what may hinder it?

Vladimir Putin: It won’t be easy to keep it up in light of the circumstance that we have just discussed with you. We must try to, though. The special support measures I’ve mentioned are being designed for that purpose.

But I repeat, it won’t be an easy task keeping investment at that level. The Government should have a plan to support businesses to avoid visible and significant collapses that could damage the entire economy.

Alexandra Suvorova: Let us turn to another topic which is not directly linked to what we have been discussing here today, or the Russian economy, or its Far Eastern policy. I am referring to the election campaign in the United States. I cannot fail to ask you this question.

You have talked about having a preferred candidate in this race, but he is no longer running for President. What do you think about the new candidate, and when the results are announced in November, will you call the new head of state to congratulate him or her?

Vladimir Putin: I have not talked with representatives of some European countries and the United States on the phone for quite a while now, even if we never rejected these contacts. They are the ones who are refraining from them. Of course, we have been able to use various channels for exchanging certain types of information, primarily through our Foreign Ministry.

As for my preferences, it is not up to us to decide. After all, the American people will have to make their own choice. As I have already said, we favoured Mr Biden, the current President, but they took him out of the race. That said, he advised his supporters to support Ms Harris. So, we will act accordingly and lend her our support.

This is the first point I wanted to make in this regard.

Alexandra Suvorova: Do you have to follow this kind of advice?

Vladimir Putin: My second point is that she has a very contagious laughter, which shows that everything is fine for her. And if this is the case… Take Trump – no other President has ever imposed so many restrictions and sanctions against Russia. But if everything is so great for Ms Harris, maybe she would refrain from acting this way?

Alexandra Suvorova: Or maybe she will lift these sanctions.

Vladimir Putin: At the end of the day, it is up to the American people to decide, and we will respect the choice they will make.

Alexandra Suvorova: Speaking about the United States, Russia and the United States carried out a prisoner swap in early August. What countries made this possible? Does this mean that we can have dialogue with the West, after all? And let me elaborate on this question. In his interview with TASS News Agency, Russia’s Ambassador to the United States, Anatoly Antonov, said that there are over 60 Russians who are still imprisoned in the United States. Do they have a chance to return home?

Vladimir Putin: For us, all citizens of the Russian Federation are equal at all times whenever they need support from the Russian state, and we will always treat them this way. This is the first thing I wanted to say in this regard.

Second, on the exchange that we had, many countries contributed to these efforts, to this mission. Take this journalist from the United States – I mean the person who pretended to be a journalist, while he was clearly performing an intelligence mission and pursued the corresponding objectives. At the initial stage, the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia contributed proactively to these efforts, and we are very grateful for this initiative because eventually it enabled Russian nationals to return home. President of Türkiye Erdogan offered his good offices for reaching a final deal, and so did several Arab countries, as well as several other countries which demonstrated their good will.

At the end of the day, I think that all the stakeholders in this process achieved a positive outcome which served their respective interests. Importantly, our citizens came back home, including those who performed special missions abroad in the interests of their Motherland.

Alexandra Suvorova: Thank you, Mr President.

Mr Ibrahim, let us return to the subject of today’s meeting and discuss prospects for expanding trade with Russia. The day before, during the meeting with President Putin, you noted that the potential is there and we must do it. According to the Ministry of Economic Development, we have free trade agreements between the EAEU, which includes Russia, and Iran, Vietnam, and Serbia, and it was decided to sign a similar agreement with Mongolia. Talks are underway with Indonesia and a number of other countries. Does Malaysia plan to sign one as well?

Anwar Ibrahim: We believe in free trade where there are no restrictions. I have assured President Putin last night that whatever avenues are being introduced we will continue. I mean, we still have good relationships with Iran and most of these countries. And if the premises are right, encouraging free trade, we will pursue. There is no issue at all in my mind, even now without the special regime.

You can see this new wave of interest from both sides in Malaysia and Russia. Now, with the agreement, we would of course further facilitate and assist the business community. In fact, we are inviting delegations representing banks, the aerospace industry and some others to come.

What is important, it is my the assurance, that you will see faster change and more positive change in terms of the trade, and also exchanges between Malaysia and Russia. We are determined to achieve this as soon as possible.

Alexandra Suvorova: Thank you.

Mr President, in your remarks you mentioned the ways of addressing the projected power shortages in the Far East. Speaking of the country in general, is there enough power generated overall?

Vladimir Putin: It depends on the region. In Siberia, for example, there is a surplus of power, and the Far East experiences shortages, which will, unfortunately, snowball if we do not take appropriate measures in time. In European Russia, we also need to think about timely repairs and deep modernisation. Such plans are in place. Some of them are work in progress, while others have been approved. Most importantly, they should be acted upon in a timely manner. It is also important to perform well in this sphere and to make timely decisions.

Alexandra Suvorova: I have one more question about the energy sector, though it may be related to international markets. The agreement on Russian gas exports to the EU via Ukraine will expire later this year. The head of the Kiev regime has already made it clear that he was not going to renew it.

What is your take on Europe’s energy prospects, and do we hear the voices of those who will be impacted?

Vladimir Putin: The head of Gazprom is sitting across from me in the front row, as is the head of VTB.

Alexandra Suvorova: I have a question for German Gref as well.

Vladimir Putin: Mr Gref is here as well which is good, meaning that everyone is interested in developing their respective businesses in the Russian Far East.

Strange as it may seem, we are not turning down the idea of transit via Ukraine, because we, including Gazprom, plan to fulfil our obligations to our customers, with whom we have signed long-term contracts. Transit is among the mandatory components of the joint work. The transit contract expires on December 31, 2024.

If Ukraine says no to transit, well, we cannot push them into doing so. Our main consumers in Europe are clearly unwilling to do so, even though they provide all kinds of assistance and support, including military and financial, to Ukraine.

With Ukraine turning our transit down the volume of gas coming to Europe will drop. Gas will be supplied through other routes, in particular TurkStream. Some of it may go through Blue Stream to Turkiye as well. Although this gas is used for domestic consumption, it will nevertheless help improve energy stability in Europe.

However, this is their choice. I am not sure how it will affect them. We mind our business, and let them mind their own. I cannot find proper words to describe the attitude towards their allies and partners demonstrated by many people in the United States and Ukraine. It is very strange, and I cannot get my head around it. They up and blew up the gas pipeline in the Baltic Sea. They blew up both Nord Stream 1 pipelines and one Nord Stream 2 pipeline. The second one is fully functional, though. What stops the German government from pressing the button, coming to terms with us and turning it on? How much is it? 25 billion cubic metres through one pipeline?

Gazprom CEO Alexei Miller: it is 27.5.

Vladimir Putin: 27.5 billion cubic metres of gas would immediately go to Europe, to Germany. I have no idea why they are not doing it. They can get gas via Ukraine, and they can get it through TurkStream, but they cannot get it through the pipeline that runs along the bottom of the Baltic Sea. In my opinion, this is some kind of professional deformation, schizophrenia, nonsense. Why?

Well, if they do not want to, so be it. We will gradually build up our supplies to other regions around the world. We have a good gas shipment project with the People’s Republic of China. We have had it for a long time now, even before the crises in Europe and Ukraine broke out. Next year, we will reach our design capacity of 38 billion cubic metres, plus another 10 billion cubic metres will go from the Far East, the Sakhalin-Vladivostok gas pipeline, to the People’s Republic of China. We are considering other routes as well.

Let me repeat, this has nothing to do with the events in Ukraine, it is simply our agreements of many years ago, and we will implement them all. Plus, we will develop gas liquefaction. Yes, they are trying to create problems for us here as well. Mr Leonid Mikhelson [head of Novatek] knows this better than anyone else. But still this is evolving, and Russia’s share in the supply of liquefied natural gas to the world markets is gradually increasing. It is not as big as we would like it to be, but we will still do it, despite whatever problems they are trying to create for us.

What is the challenge here? No matter who or how anyone tries to shut down our energy sector, it is impossible, because production is at its highest point in line with the needs of the world market. It is simply impossible, do you understand? It is impossible. Let’s imagine that tomorrow they would shut down everything – our gas, oil, and so on. The world economy will not withstand such a shutdown. The prices will skyrocket, but they will still buy, they cannot do it without it. That’s the whole point. After all, when our ill-wishers and those who impose illegal restrictions, about which the Vice President of the People’s Republic of China spoke, do it, they do it from a pure heart, but not from a great mind, as they say in such cases, because there is no result. What is the only thing that guides them? Arrogance and overconfidence. And the result is the opposite of what they expect.

So we will resolve our issues – yes, with some losses, perhaps, but we will resolve them all the same. And those who do not want to cooperate with us – well, let them suffer losses. We see what is happening in European countries. Many of them are on the brink of recession. And the situation will get worse because those who supply them with energy resources care first of all about their own national interests, the United States for that matter. Well, they are supplying them two or three times [more expensive]… Or by how much? 50 or 60 per cent more than our energy resources cost, I mean gas, first of all. Of course, the European economy, including Germany’s, which was designed to rely on our energy resources, is undergoing very serious trials. Many industries are simply closing down. That’s the whole point.

But it is not our choice, we are ready, you are welcome. Agree with Poland to open up the pipeline systems, they do exist. It was the Poles who shut down the Yamal-Western Europe pipeline. Now Ukraine is closing it, and the Nord Stream 2 route along the Baltic Sea bed is not turned on. Well, if they don’t want to, they don’t have to. It will be a loss for them. For us, there will be a certain reduction in revenues, but it’s no big deal. Gazprom will supply more gas inside the country. That’s good, too. We will be developing social gas distribution.

Alexandra Suvorova: I will elaborate on another gas distribution. Incidentally, speaking about Gazprom: Mr Miller specified the gas volume that used to pass via Nord Stream lines.

Do you think Gazprom has any chances to restore the previous supply volumes to external markets in view of the projects being implemented in Central Asia, Iran and China?

Vladimir Putin: I have already mentioned that we are reaching design capacities of supplying gas to the People’s Republic of China. As for supplies to Central Asia and Iran, this also has nothing to do – I want to make it clear – directly with the developments in Ukraine. It is just because the economies of these countries are enjoying a rapid growth – they need additional resources, as simple as that.

For instance, Uzbekistan – I have already mentioned and this is a well-known fact – has a population growth of a million per year. Do you realise this? More than a million per year. There are already 37 million people there, soon it will be 40 and so forth. The economy is growing as well, do you understand this? And they have obligations on external markets. Of course, the republic needs additional resources. Two years ago, the temperature reached minus 21 degrees Centigrade, the first time in history, probably. Of course, they need the resources which we have.

We will agree on our actions with Turkmenistan, of course. Iran has long been asking us for supplies. This is a very convenient place for us, too, as it is not far from us. We are contemplating this project and I believe it is quite feasible. And let’s not forget the markets neighbouring with Iran are huge – there is a colossal need. Different opportunities exist, and we will explore different markets, we will make swap arrangements, will liquify as I have already mentioned, and so forth.

We will be gradually restoring sales volumes – no doubts about this. And we will develop our own economy. We lack gas-fired power generation in many regions, including the Far East. We need to unite the gas transportation system’s European part with the Far Eastern one to ensure corresponding gas crossflows.

This is all part of our plans. All of this will be implemented.

Alexandra Suvorova: Thank you.

Let’s go back to power engineering.

Mr Ibrahim, Malyasia is the second largest oil and gas producer in Southeast Asia. By the way, the famous Petronas twin towers located in the country’s capital have been named after the country’s major energy company.

How do you assess the situation on the global oil and gas market in general? And does Malaysia consider any joint projects with Russia in the energy sector?

Anwar Ibrahim: Then we are discussing the issue of energy transition, where I think Russia has an upper hand, we are discussing that. We are, of course, still continuing exploration because there is a deadline for us, of course, to ease our dependence on traditional sources – dependence on oil and on coal.

But still, for now it is important. I mean, we cannot deny the fact that the import of coal from Russia comes to about $600 million, so temporarily this energy is still required until we are able to transition to green energy. But for now, the focus is there.

We still remain an important player and we will therefore have some sort of synergy, working relations to ensure that the transition to hydrogen and green technology would be of immense benefit in our attempt to progress as a country that is not totally dependent on fuel.

Alexandra Suvorova: Thank you.

Mr President, in your remarks, you have already talked about the Northern Sea Route and the proactive efforts to develop it. Among other things, it operates fuel shipments. You have said that this indicator, I mean shipments, is expected to reach 150 million tonnes by 2030.

In your opinion, are we building infrastructure and ships for this route at an adequate pace? For example, yesterday, you visited the location of a future shipyard for building merchant ships near Vladivostok.

Vladimir Putin: This matter must be front and centre for us. It mostly deals with operating shipments, but this includes the ships transporting these goods, as well as the vessels that enable these ships to sail this route. I am referring to the icebreaker fleet.

Russia has a unique icebreaker fleet. We have 34 diesel icebreakers of various classes and capacity, as well as seven active nuclear icebreakers. Another four are under construction, or, to be more precise, we are already building three new nuclear icebreakers and the construction of the fourth one will start in early 2025. Seven plus four makes 11. There is also another icebreaker – a very powerful one. In fact, it is extremely powerful with, if I am not mistaken, 136,000 horsepower, if we measure its output this way. I am talking about the so-called Lider project. Its construction is already underway here in Vladivostok at Zvezda shipyard.

This fleet will be able to ensure year-round shipments, since the new icebreaker, especially the Lider, is not only very powerful, but also wide enough to escort ship convoys. This is the first thing I wanted to say on this topic.

Second, we need to build ships for transporting these goods. Of course, we will expand our shipbuilding capabilities in Russia’s European regions too, just as we discussed yesterday with VTB CEO, Mr Kostin, as well as representatives he delegated to the United Shipbuilding Company. There is potential for developing shipbuilding capabilities in the European part of Russia as well.

But you were spot on when you said that yesterday we visited the site when a new shipyard will be built. I am certain that we will build it, just as we built Zvezda in the Far East, in Vladivostok, despite all the formidable challenges we had to face. We must build infrastructure, port facilities, and we need to be able to offer the corresponding maintenance services at these ports, while also ensuring safe navigation, protecting the environment, etc. All this forms a single whole, we have plans and projections for all these undertakings, and we are moving in this direction. I am certain that we will deliver.

Climate change is a factor. Coupled with the capabilities we have thanks to our icebreaker fleet, I am confident that we have everything it takes to ensure year-round navigation along the Northern Sea Route. This is instrumental for the Russian economy, as well as for the global economy and for our friends and their economies. In particular, the People’s Republic of China has been eager to work with us in this sector. We will be happy to welcome everyone willing to contribute to these efforts. There is no doubt that we will succeed in this undertaking.

Аlexandra Suvorova: By the way, let’s talk about construction, but this time about housing.

Mr President, to what extent is the need for it in the Far East covered? We know that the preferential mortgage programme is still in place here whereas it has been cancelled elsewhere in the country. As I promised, I am quoting Herman Gref’s words that the withdrawal from the preferential mortgage programme had been delayed, as he said.

Do you think that today we have solved the housing problem in the country as a whole if we have closed the preferential mortgage programme?

Vladimir Putin: Mr Prime Minister quoted Tolstoy and Chekhov.

Аlexandra Suvorova: But I quoted Mr Gref.

Vladimir Putin: And you are already quoting Mr Gref – he is also among the classics.

As for construction: I believe we have achieved outstanding results in construction. We have never had such an amount before, like last year’s results: 110 million [square metres of housing]. Actually, our goal was to reach 120, but 110 is already a very good figure.

Of course, due to the fact that the preferential mortgage has ended, this cannot but affect the housing construction market, but, I repeat, it is now supported by preferential mortgages for the Far East, the Arctic, family mortgages, and IT preferential mortgages. Still, the Government’s idea and action boil down to cooling down this market, as you have said.

Аlexandra Suvorova: I also quoted it one more time – that’s what Nabiulina said.

Vladimir Putin: Well, that’s good. But, in general, of course, this effect is expected for the market not to overheat and macroeconomic indicators not affected. But nevertheless, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that we have a very good track record in construction. We can quote Mr Mutko more often – we used to quote him more often – he is also a great expert in expressing himself vividly and aptly on certain issues. Anyway, he is working very well.

Аlexandra Suvorova: “From the bottom of his heart.”

Vladimir Putin: Yes, from that very bottom, and the result is good enough. I am saying this with no irony, no jokes. Because the result is 110 million square metres built, including the work of his corporation [DOM.RF“], that he heads.

What I want to say is that we have a very good backlog – 160, maybe even a little bit more, 163–165 million square metres –the backlog of construction that has been started. Therefore, I think there will be no failure next year.

Alexandra Suvorova: Mr President, I have another question for you, before we move on to other topics. In fact, this has been one of the most hotly debated topics lately. A law making it legal to mine crypto currency is scheduled to come into force in November. Federal Law FZ-259 governing digital assets has already come into force.

Does this mean that Russia is about to emerge as a global leader in crypto currency and that we will have more laws and regulations down the road to regulate this sector?

Vladimir Putin: I think that Russia is already one of the global leaders when it comes to mining crypto currency. This is attributable to the surplus energy capacity we have in Siberia. But certain challenges have surfaced in this sector recently, and we had to address them.

Of course, we are happy for the businesses working in this sector. They have been able to earn hefty profits. However, we must make sure that the surplus electricity in Siberia does not turn into a deficit. This could hold back the development of Siberian regions.

Mining is great, of course, but building housing, manufacturing facilities and social infrastructure, as well as ensuring power supply for future manufacturing facilities is just as important, or perhaps even more important than that. This is why the Government has taken a decision with the intention to make sure that this sector operates in an orderly manner.

As for the digital currency and the digital ruble, the Central Bank has made a decision on this matter. It is now a matter of expanding this sector. Our national currency exists in several forms, and the digital ruble is one of them. Both economic operators and our people will be able to use it.

Alexandra Suvorova: Thank you. Let us turn to another topic, just as I have promised.

Mr Ibrahim, we cannot fail to mention the conflict in the Middle East. What could be a possible solution here?

Anwar Ibrahim: As I have consistently said, we cannot use the narrative of many in the media or Western capitals that it all began with the October 7 Hamas attack. It all began with colonisation. It all began with the Nakba in 1948. It all began because of the reluctance to accept the resolutions of the United Nations consistently, and because of the continued harassment of settlers in the West Bank.

I think we need to put the narrative right. Do we want the solution? Yes. And I commend, of course, the Russian position, the Chinese position – Foreign Minister Wang Yi has taken the initiative. And many countries, I think the majority of countries, have taken a position, including on the recognition of the State of Palestine.

But why is it not happening? Because of the intransigence of Israel and, unfortunately, with total support from the United States, in fact giving them a standing ovation when atrocities are being committed.

That is why I ask my colleagues, even in the West, where is the humanity? Where? Why do we talk about justice? Why do you preach to us about human rights and democracy? Why is there a contradiction when it comes to treatment of issues happening in the world?

What we need in this world now is a consistent, coherent message. Yes, we respect freedom. Yes, we respect the dignity of man and woman. Yes, we must oppose all forms of colonisation. Because what is the issue in Palestine now? Not only in Gaza, but all Palestine. It is the issue of dispossession. You conquer, you take people’s land, you dispossess, you kill them, you detain them, you take over their houses, you treat them as if they were in an open-air prison. And this is known.

That is why, and I do know since we come from small country, we know our limits. So we thank our dear friends here for their support. But it is creating so many problems not only for the Muslim world but those who believe in freedom and justice. It is creating problems for us because people are saying: Why are you not doing anything more when people are being killed daily? That is my point.

So I just hope and pray that there is finally sanity that would prevail among those who have influence in the world because they are finally accountable. No country, no person can continue to do this gross injustice and tolerate the atrocities and think they are safe. I do not believe that this can ever be accepted. We want justice to all mankind and, of course, we cannot deny justice because of their different colour or different religion or different creed. Justice means justice for humanity, and it is time that Palestine and Palestinians are treated as human beings, not as slaves or second-class people.

Thank you.

Alexandra Suvorova: Mr President, staying on the topic of the Middle East conflict, Moscow has conveyed its position to both parties on multiple occasions. But have they heeded our message? I am talking about the two sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Vladimir Putin: I share many of the things we have just heard from our guest. Russia is not guided by any momentary considerations in this regard. We have always proceeded from the existing solutions. I believe that these approaches provide a foundation for the settlement process, primarily the two-state solution.

By the way, many people around the world share this view. As strange as this may seem, this is what many people in the United States believe too. Unfortunately, this remains an outstanding issue, while it underpins the current escalation and the ongoing confrontation. Among other things, present-day challenges stem from the attempts by the United States to privatise the settlement process, but the United States cannot be regarded as a neutral actor. This is where the problem lies.

Let me reiterate that we will do everything in our power, just as I said during my recent meeting with Mr Abbas when he visited Moscow, to contribute to resolving this lingering crisis with all its hardships.

As for the humanitarian issue, of course, we are trying to find solutions on matters involving hostages. In fact, we have been able to achieve tangible results on this front, and cannot but welcome these developments. We will try to keep moving in this direction.

Alexandra Suvorova: Thank you.

Let’s move on to another topic. Mr Ibrahim, you have noted and reminded in your opening remarks that Malaysia is going to chair ASEAN next year. What will the association prioritise in its work and how will it arrange its cooperation with Russia?

Anwar Ibrahim: Because that region, sub-region, is the most peaceful in the world right now and economically most vibrant. The secret, of course, is centrality, is independent foreign policy position. We refuse to be dictated by any powers. And we maintain excellent relations with our neighbors. With Thailand, we are having a special economic zone to promote and ensure there is more economic activity in the poorer sectors in north of Malaya and south Thailand. With Singapore, we have a special economic zone in Johor, which would encourage more business and investments. And with Indonesia, we have excellent relations. I was just in Brunei. And even on issues that are considered to be quite… contentious, our decision is to continue with bilateral mechanisms, multilateral mechanisms.

The only issue that we have to confront is Myanmar. It’s not spreading in terms of its military activities, but it’s causing some problems. For example, Malaysia has to contend with 200, 000 refugees from Myanmar. And I think my position as ASEAN Chair, is, of course, to try and resolve. We don’t want to dictate. The problem, the failure sometimes in dealing with Myanmar, is its military junta. You want to ensure democratic transition. I think what is important for Myanmar is peace. Get all the parties to speak and talk to each other, and maintain peace.

Then they’ll decide for themselves what form of government they want to have and do not dictate. And our problem with Myanmar in the past was to try and dictate to them what sort of government they should have. So in our five-point consensus, we think that just respect these fundamental rules and we would move. But on a different note, a different level, although we do have growing issues particularly with the Philippines and China, our position is always to encourage the Philippines to continue to engage actively and try to resolve in the true spirit of ASEAN. And if we need to assist, we will continue to engage with our friends because we always feel that there is a way for the future, you know.

And I think more so, taking that position because of centrality, we do not want this region to be, again, a contentious region for the superpowers. If we have a problem in the region, we resolve it in the region. And we do not support any intrusion of other powers into the region. If we have problems, we try and resolve them. And that’s why I think my presence here in Vladivostok is to convey that message, that I think, contrary to some of the perceptions, we feel that our task is to ensure that we serve our people, that economically it has to be vibrant, and we want to show a new tradition and diplomacy that engages with most countries, and Russia included. Some countries in the West may have a problem with Russia, they will deal with it.

As far as we are concerned, we do not have a problem. We have some issues we want to discuss, we bring them up, you see. So I think we would start that tradition. So in ASEAN cohesion, we want to maintain that sort of relations. We may choose to disagree. I mean, I have very good relations with Premier Li Qiang. Excellent. It does not mean that we can agree on every issue, but we disagree as close friends. They talk about the more contentious issue with the South China Sea, and they keep on hoping. You have a problem with China because of the border. We have a problem with every single country. In ASEAN, I mean, those bordering Malaysia, because Malaysia is central. We have a slight border problem with Thailand, with Indonesia, with Singapore, with Brunei, with the Philippines. Is that a problem? No, it’s not a problem. These are issues that we discuss.

It does not in any way seem to be antagonistic. Why is it when it comes to China, you expect us to go and quarrel with them? I think we will continue to negotiate. Yes, we agree, and on some issues we disagree. But in my experience now, I’ve taken over almost two years now as Prime Minister, I don’t have a problem with China. So why must countries outside our turf insist that you have a problem? I don’t. Now, you have a problem, you deal with it. So I think that should be the ASEAN position, to focus on the fundamentals. Yes, on economy. Yes, on technology. Yes, on AI. Yes, on AI, energy and tourism, and I think you’ll be a great example of a sub-region that is peaceful and economically vibrant. Thank you.

Alexandra Suvorova: Mr Zheng, I have a question for you.

Last yea, the trade turnover of China with ASEAN exceed $911.5 billion, according to the General Administration of Customs. How do you see and assess the potential of economic growth in the People’s Republic of China?

Han Zheng: China has been pursuing the reform and open-door policy for 40 years. And more than 20 years passed since China entered the WTO. Both President Putin and Prime-Minister Anwar Ibrahim expressed very valuable opinions.

For many years, the Chinese economy has been developing well. Although it is the world’s second biggest economy, the GDP per capita is a little bit higher than 12,000 US dollars a year. But China’s contribution to the global economy growth has amounted to 30 percent for many years. China has already become a primary trade partner for more than 140 countries and territories.

President Putin and Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim shared very valuable proposals. I believe that eradication of poverty in China contributes to the development of the global economy by itself as its population amounts to 18 percent of the global population. Therefore, eradicating poverty in our country is a contribution to the development of the global economy.

Cooperation and exchanges of our country with other partners have always been executed based on mutual benefit and very friendly atmosphere, this is why our cooperation can be called very successful. President Putin made a very good point that mutually beneficial cooperation is something that needs to be maintained.

You are all aware of the fact that the 20th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China convened its third plenary session recently where a decision was made on comprehensive deepening of the reforms and advancing Chinese modernisation. This is a clear signal that China will go on with reforms and expand openness. As I have already noted in my remarks, China always clearly regulates the agreement between openness and reforms, this is why I believe that China’s development is a contribution to the global development and China’s development provides huge opportunities to the entire world.

Alexandra Suvorova: Thank you.

We are gradually reaching the end of our plenary session.

Mr President, we basically discussed what the Far East will look like in six years. And what will mark a success for you? What is the most important?

Vladimir Putin: Growth of population. (Applause.)

We need to create the environment, we spoke so much about today, to increase birth rate and the desire among young people, to come here to this wonderful, brilliant region with good prospects and cast in their lot with it.

Alexandra Suvorova: Thank you.

I would like to address he last question to all participants in our today’s discussion. It sounds as follows: what primary challenges do our countries face today? Could you name them, please? And what are the potential responses to those challenges?

Mr Ibrahim, let’s start with you.

Anwar Ibrahim:Normally, you start with the senior guy, and the most senior in office is President Putin, out of respect.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you. The question about the future, isn’t it?

Alexandra Suvorova: Sure.

Vladimir Putin: Russia has to ensure economic growth using its own technological solutions with highly-qualified, trained and motivated personnel. This is the first point.

And, as for all of us together, referring to the countries of the Global South in a loose sense – we definitely need to ensure global leadership in the economy. And in the light of the trends of the global economic growth and development rates of our countries, this objective will definitely be reached.

Alexandra Suvorova: Thank you.

(Addressing Anwar Ibrahim). Same question.

Anwar Ibrahim: The issue is, of course, the economy, but how we view the economy is not unbridled capitalism of the past. It has to be a more humanistic approach towards development, which means, of course, economic growth, more investments, more trade, but at the same time, more compassionate, more care towards the welfare of people. Poverty, I think the Vice President has mentioned, housing, that President Putin has mentioned, I think these are issues that have been largely ignored.

So the experience in some countries in the West, where we see phenomenal growth, but abject poverty and poor housing conditions, low quality of education, which is not our option. Having a growth that is sustainable means protecting the environment, having good housing, quality education, and also anticipating the pace of change fast enough in modern times, that is a new direction in terms of training of our young in digitalisation, in AI, with values that are in deficit in the world today.

I strongly believe that we want to progress as a country, as a nation. We cannot ignore humanity’s values and ethics. It is a deficit in this world. That is why you see so many calamities, gross injustice, and racism, even fanaticism, atrocities committed in the name of religion, because we do progress what dehumanises ourselves.

That is why I started by referring to a lot of great literary works by Russian figures,

because they always emphasise issues of ethics, morals, and humanitarian ideals.

Now, with that, I think we should learn from one another and we should not learn the excesses of the past, particularly when it comes to gross injustice, and we should continue to grow and modernise our society. Thank you.

Alexandra Suvorova: Mr Zheng, the same question to you: what primary challenges do our countries face today?

Han Zheng: Mr Xi Jinping said that building a community with a shared future for mankind is the most important task and challenge for all of us since cultures, religions, peoples are different in various regions and all these peoples are at various development stages, all of them have different needs. Building such community is our big common challenge.

Alexandra Suvorova: Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: I believe we are coming to an end, and for my part, I would like to thank our guests for their bright and thoughtful remarks, participation in our work and attention to the developments in Russia and Russia’s Far East.

Alexandra Suvorova: Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: I would like to address the audience. It mostly consists of economists or civil servants who are involved in discussion of these issues. I have to say that I am deeply convinced that entrepreneurship means creation, first and foremost. If we treat this as a creative process, we will definitely achieve all the goals we set and resolve all the tasks we are facing. I would like to thank you for taking part in this work and wish all of us success in implementing our plans!

Thank you very much!

Alexandra Suvorova: Thank you. For my part, as a moderator, I would like to quote you, Mr President, and sum up the session, in essence: the Far East is the priority for the entire 21^st century.

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: And many thanks to our moderator. Thanks a lot for the joint work.

Alexandra Suvorova: Thank you.

Meeting with participants in the World Youth Festival

2024-03-12T15:24:54+04:00

Vladimir Putin held a meeting with participants in the World Youth Festival.

Before the conversation, the President, accompanied by Head of the Talent and Success Educational Fund Yelena Shmeleva, adviser to the head of the Federal Agency for Youth Affairs Anton Pashkov and head of the regional cooperation department at the Movement of the First Ksenia Yanova, toured the World Youth Festival International Airport exhibition space located on the premises of Sirius University. The interactive exhibition format provides an opportunity for guests to become involved in various educational, HR, or development projects and offers insights into Russia’s youth policy achievements.

While visiting the pavilion titled Vladivostok is the Youth Capital of Russia, the President was shown products from Primorye businesses and goods created by youth teams from other regions.

Vladimir Putin also visited the display zone called Gardens by the Takeoff Runway, which showcases Russia’s best practices in creating opportunities for younger generations. While visiting the Gallery pavilion, the President saw the first open library repository of Sirius University. In the Museum of the World zone, he explored works created under the Without Borders: Artists of Donbass project.

* * *

Excerpts from the transcript of the meeting with World Youth Festival participants

Moderator Anton Pashkov: Mr President, the whole world is here with us – 190 countries that have come to Russia. Despite some difficulties that arose in some countries, despite some logistical difficulties, they fought for the right to be here at the World Youth Festival. And of course, most of all they were looking forward to meeting you. Especially when they watched your heartfelt address at the opening ceremony, they kept asking when they could meet with you – and this day has arrived. Let me give you the floor.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Thank you.

The first thing I want to say is that we are very glad to see you all. Welcome to Russia.

Further. We are very glad that so many people came from almost 190 countries around the world, from all continents. But what I want to emphasise is that we are not competing with anyone, we do not want to prove anything to anyone. We are just glad to see our friends. It is very important to note that we are not holding this meeting or similar forums for show. This is not a promotional but an essential event. And its essence is to bring together people who think approximately like us, approximately, because all people cannot think the same way, who adhere to approximately the same principles and values as we do, and who want to work together to achieve a positive result for themselves, for their loved ones, for their countries. We are open to this work.

As I just said at the closing ceremony of this major event, which turned out to be a major event, we really hope that you enjoyed it.

And of course, our meeting today is intended to produce feedback from you, and we would like to hear your advice on what should be done so that other meetings of this kind can be held, maybe not in such a broad format, but to follow up on what was accomplished at this International Festival, so that we can move toward achieving our common goals, common development goals.

Honestly, I am interested in hearing your views both on the results of the work and on what could be done as next steps.

That about does it for my opening remarks.

<…>

Vladimir Putin (replying to a question from China Youth Daily reporter Li Ruoyi): Yes, indeed, the situation is complicated, and there are many problems and hot spots.

We do not need to go far to find proof. We are in conflict with our neighbours; hostilities are raging, and this is quite a problem. It is always a tragedy when people fight each other, when people are killed and wounded, etc. Is the situation any better in the rest of the world?

The same thing has happened basically throughout the history of humanity to one extent or another. The question is how to live in such conditions, and what you can count on.

Of course, we should always think about a better future. Of course, we should strive to create conditions for reducing the number of conflicts and expanding the scale of cooperation.

Clearly, there are problems in the economic sphere, the social sphere and the sphere of security. But if young people like you that are involved in various areas of activity meet, listen to each other and hear each other, then politicians will be more inclined to make decisions that lead to conflict resolution, that lead to peace and stability for the future.

In my opinion, this is the role that young people have to play, and in the future – this is clear – one generation replaces another, this is only natural. If you establish permanent contacts at this point in your professional growth, including those with young people from various countries (even those countries that do not have good relations today), then you will have a stable foundation for a constructive future together.

<…>

Vladimir Putin (answering a question from Belgian anaesthesiologist Matyas Kovacs about advice for young people who want to move to Russia and understand the Russian soul): Thank you for mentioning the Russian soul. It is a complicated substance. In any case, we have something that distinguishes us from other countries.

What is it? We coexist and develop within a tapestry of cultures, religions, and traditions. All of this together forms a space that enables us to engage – year after year, decade after decade – in the exchange not only of a genetic code, as seen in the emergence of numerous mixed families in Russia, but also of a cultural code.

In this way, a certain unity is created, a unified Russian nation, rooted in values we now call traditional, even if our understanding of them may not be entirely complete.

Russian culture, in this sense, is unique to some extent. It is captivating, diverse, and warrants closer acquaintance and understanding, particularly for those residing beyond Russia’s borders. By understanding it, they will be able to work with us openly, helping to create mutual benefit for both themselves and those with whom they cooperate.

By the way, Belgium – as you probably know – emerged on the world map as an independent state to a large extent due to Russia and Russian influence.

This is no longer important today; but what matters is that we have our own prehistory of positive relations with many countries worldwide.

Regarding your profession, it is indeed a noble pursuit, as I have emphasised on numerous occasions and want to reiterate now. While acquiring formal knowledge is essential for becoming a proficient anaesthesiologist or doctor, true excellence and talent necessitate possessing certain character traits and a soul as you mentioned today. To wholeheartedly dedicate oneself to others, empathy is paramount. In this regard, you will undoubtedly find good partners here.

We have our achievements in the medical field, though continuous efforts are required. Significant steps have been made in cardiovascular surgery and in some other areas. We have extensive programmes to combat cancer and diabetes. So, we have some remarkable accomplishments in these crucial areas.

I know about cases of cooperation despite restrictions imposed by various countries for political reasons. I know examples in your field of specialists persisting in their work, undeterred by such barriers, because their humanistic principles prevail. Moreover, I have come across situations where people faced quasi-political obstacles but despite any propaganda or differing perspectives on the processes involved, I have heard the commitment to patients in Russia, expressed as “we will always be there for you.” You know, we respect such people very much. Rest assured that this sentiment will always be reciprocated from our end.

<…>

Caleb Maupin:My name is Caleb Maupin, and I am the leader of the United States delegation. I am representing the Centre for Political Renovation, and I would like to just thank you from the bottom of my heart for that dynamic interview that you gave to Tucker Carlson, in which you showed, many, many young Americans, a different kind of leadership, because our politicians and our leaders in the United States, they speak in soundbites, they speak in terms of scandal and gossip; but you presented a long-term vision, a scientific view of statecraft. And by getting through to young Americans, you made a difference. Many people who would never have listened to anything you had to say, or heard another prospective, heard you because of that interview.

Now, getting to my question, things between our two countries are not good at this point. You know, before we left, we had to have a press conference at the United Nations. We are concerned about being prosecuted. There are three Americans that have already been charged and are facing prosecution, possibly 15 years in prison, simply because they attended a conference like this in Russia. The Uhuru Movement, they are called. We are concerned, because I know that I speak for the majority of the American people when I say that we do not want our tax money dumped into this conflict in Ukraine any longer. We do not want our country to continue to deteriorate internally while our leaders waste money on prolonging this war.

I am frightened by what the Biden administration is doing, not just in Ukraine, but also on Taiwan, on the Korean Peninsula. And I really do see gatherings like this as a potential road to peace

And what I have seen at this festival has blown my mind: The amount of young volunteers that you have here, people who have stepped up, who love their country and want to just come forward and put together dynamic events like this. What kind of role can events like this, and young diplomacy activities like this, play in helping set the stage for maybe changing the dangerous direction our leaders in the United States are taking things, against the majority of wishes of the majority of people in our country? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: The United States is a big and unique country in its own way. It took the people of America only 300 years to turn it into a superpower; this is a relatively short period, by our standards. This is an obvious fact.

We also know outstanding American politicians; we know outstanding American businesspersons and cultural figures. All this is incontestable.

Our countries were allies during both world wars, while fighting Nazism and fascism. What has happened since? We know that after the war and after their allied relations, the United States and the Soviet Union started dividing the world. They successfully carved it up, built international relations and created the contemporary system of international law under this balance of power. Later, the Soviet Union disintegrated for a number of reasons, which I won’t go into now, but it was mainly because of domestic reasons. Only one superpower, the United States, remained. How did your elite take advantage of this monopoly, this world domination? That’s the question.

I believe the United States has failed to cope with the burden of responsibility it took on. The United States created a monopolist system and tried to make it stronger. I am talking about the US ruling elite, not the people of America. While strengthening their system of monopoly, they soon realised that the overwhelming majority of counties did not like it very much. Everyone eventually saw that this emerging world order was encountering greater resistance. Everyone, many countries, including your allies, by the way, see this. They are just keeping quiet now; they are afraid to say more than they should because of their economic dependence, and dependence in many other areas, and this includes their media outlets in some ways. Believe me, I know what I am talking about: even America’s allies don’t really like it.

Then, the problems and setbacks started piling up. First, the United States’ ruling elite decided that, given their monopoly on the right to rule the world, they no longer needed the system of international relations that was created after World War II. They believed it didn’t suit them because the global balance of power had changed and it became necessary to rebuild the system of international law in accordance with their needs.

What I mean is that in the case of the events in Iraq, for example, everything was done without the authorisation of the UN Security Council, the same as in Syria and in former Yugoslavia. I will not go into the reasons now, but there were no UN Security Council decisions there, were there? There were not. It was the United States that let the genie out of the bottle. But if they are allowed, why are other countries not allowed to defend their core interests in the same way?

What happened in Yugoslavia? My colleagues have repeatedly said to me: “Well, yes, we did it without Security Council approval, but the war had been going on there for so many years – eight years of bloodshed, something had to be done.” And when Russia started to protect its people in Donbass, where there was also war and extermination of civilians – children, women, old people – why can’t Russia do that, stand up for its people? And not somewhere thousands of kilometres away from its national borders, but right next door, right around the corner. Moreover, people have requested and have been waiting for this help.

I do not want to go into details now, I just want to ask: is there an understanding that the world cannot be governed from one centre, and that this is even harmful to this centre, because it starts to undermine its foundations? In my interview with your journalist, Mr Carlson, I was just talking about the dollar being undermined, and they are banning transactions in dollars. Why they are doing this, your bosses, is totally incomprehensible. That is, clearly, they want to achieve a quick result, but they do not achieve anything, they only undermine the power of the dollar. This is the opposite of the intended result. And it is like this in many areas. I believe that this is a wrongheaded policy.

But if we return to your question, young people, of course, can do a lot. I don’t want to wade into domestic political affairs right now, I don’t want to characterise the way presidential candidates are acting. This is part of the domestic political culture of the United States, nothing more. But young people, of course, can do their part in building interstate relations. How? Very simple.

Simply by expressing their position inside the country within the confines of the law and the Constitution of their country or countries. This is the only way to act. We are by no means calling for any acts of disobedience. But in a democratic country, can a person express their position? Yes, they can. This is what you should do, and I think that this will create non-government forms of contacts that will foster equitable relations at the state level as well.

Thank you for your question.

<…>

Vladimir Putin (answering a question from Amir Khawas from Egypt on the Russian volunteer community): With regard to how volunteer movements are organised, we have talked about the Russian soul today, and I want to say without any joke or irony: the people of Russia do have this sense of compassion in their souls. It is passed on from parents – from mothers, from fathers to children, and so on, from generation to generation. And that is why this desire to help others, the desire to support in general, I repeat, corresponds to our spiritual traditions. But concerning volunteerism itself – even in the most difficult times, at the turning points of Russia’s history, the hardest times, there were always a lot of volunteers, including during the Great Patriotic War, the Second World War. A lot of people volunteered to go to the front, just as many people are still taking part in combat operations today, in order to finally end the war that was unleashed in Donbass back in 2014.

Speaking of today, the volunteer movement started with preparations for the Olympics right here in Sochi in 2014. Later, there was another powerful boost to this during the fight against covid, you are certainly aware of that, when many young people risked their lives (and some of them indeed were lost) selflessly helping other people, giving them a hand, helping them to fight the disease or to avoid it.

Of course, we began to support this movement by setting up respective platforms to help those who voluntarily committed themselves to serve society or to hold specific, large events. We are very happy that millions of people, and now there are millions of them, are involved in this constructive joint effort.

As for working together, you are certainly aware that these platforms are currently being promoted in our country. We are delighted to invite you to join. You graduated from a university, and I do not know your plans, whether you want to go back to your home country, Egypt in this case, or get further education in Russia and do something together. And if you intend to promote volunteerism in your country, you can use our experience or at least all the positive things that we have achieved, we will be happy to share.

I can only wish you success. This is a noble cause.

<…>

Dasha Kukarskikh: I am a theatre and film actress. A year ago, our team, the team of the “2022” project, which was recently released on Channel One, visited the new territories, the city of Mariupol, and shot the first feature film.

My question is this. In fact, I am very interested in what films you grew up on that made you so big-hearted, a person who understands and appreciates people. And, perhaps, how your tastes have changed by the age you are now.

Vladimir Putin: Films like today’s Cheburashka, but made back then: kind, a little sentimental, inspiring the best human qualities such as kindness, creativity, helping your neighbour. Films like that.

By the way, there were a lot of films like this, and there were a lot of good cartoons, made by Soyuzmultfilm, as you know. Of course, we need to pass on all this to our children, because what is being done today is probably very technologically advanced, with everything flashing before your eyes, all the shooting, shouting, exploding; everyone trying to catch each other but they can’t, and when they do, they always aim for the head. Perhaps these are action films that are in demand on the market. Are they always in demand among children? I don’t know, I am not sure about that.

Anyway, all people in my generation grew up watching those films. And later, of course, they studied War and Peace and Dostoevsky in our schools. I must say frankly that, of course, you begin to understand this at an older age. And of course, as a person grows up and gains experience interacting with people, they develop their own views on what is good and what is bad. They begin to look differently at the classics, at modern literature or works of cinema. Nothing unusual happened to me here; it was like with everyone else.

And I wish you all the best in your work. The fact that you addressed the problems, as I see, of those who live in this region [Donbass], is very important, because these are acute problems, and people certainly need the support of creative and talented people who can convey how people live in a vivid, intelligible and emotional way.

Thank you.

Davis Akampurira: Thank you so much. My name is Davis Akampurira from Uganda. Your Excellency, I am a former student union president in my country, and also served in various youth leadership positions in my country, and I’m also a farmer.

Your Excellency, first of all I would like to thank you for what you have been doing for Africa, especially do with scholarships and other things, but also I want to thank you for, over time, talking about injustices in international politics, in particular, the manifestations of neocolonialism.

I would like to say that in this struggle, you have done this not for your own interests, or the interests of the people of Russia, but for the people of the world. I would like to thank you for that, Your Excellency.

Another point, Your Excellency. I would like you to tell us, maybe especially tell me and people of Africa, how can we work together with Russia, to see how we can solve some of the challenges that are affecting our people? We also see that we can work together with the people of Russia, to see that everything is solved in the world. Thank you so much.

But also, if I can conclude with personal privilege, Your Excellency, I would like you to mentor me. I would like to be your son from Africa. Thank you so much.

Vladimir Putin: What can I say to you, my son?

(Laughter in the audience.) First, I would like to address you not only as a son, but also as a president because you are the president of a student union, so I will allow myself to address you as ”Mr President.“

You know, if you are not joking, in North America, in the States, in Europe, many people, serious, literate, profound people believe that to a large extent the well-being of these countries is based on the exploitation of other people. Today's prosperity is based on the exploitation of Africa to a large extent – the exploitation of natural wealth and human resources. They are straightforward about this, honestly.

I don't think we need to fall into some kind of extremism here, or demand remorse. But what is absolutely necessary is to take these circumstances into account, because it is only by taking this into account that we can achieve a correction in today's unfair economic world order.

I'm getting into complicated subject matter. It may be difficult for people who are not initiated in this to engage and understand it all at once, but I will not talk in detailed or sophisticated terms. Today's economic world order is unjust. It is no coincidence that at the World Trade Organisation, the government heads of most countries in the world cannot agree on anything even after many continuous sessions. Why? Because the rich countries do not want to create a system of international economic relations that will open markets for developing economies and create liberal conditions for their development and growth. Year after year, countries with developing economies try to make changes in this world economic order, but they are constantly barred at almost every step.

We were attending the Russia-Africa summit in St Petersburg, and you must have noticed what the African leaders said. By the way, despite the shouts and creating these conditions for them, for the African leaders not to come to Russia, almost all of Africa came anyway. And not just because we have a very good background of relations, but because Africa is developing and wants to be truly independent and does not respond to others yelling at them. The history of our relations is very kind and very good and has deep roots.

At this forum, for example, my African colleagues mentioned that they, the countries of Africa, now have such a cumulative debt which, by definition, cannot be repaid. Whatever you do, you can’t repay it. But such terms for their financial relations were formulated, and African countries were forced to take loans on these terms, as if the Western financial community did not understand that it would never be possible to pay this money back.

You know, there was a similar case in the history of mankind, in the history of Europe. After the First World War, the greedy rulers, the then greedy rulers of France and Great Britain, created such financial terms for Germany and imposed such indemnities and such conditions for repayment of debts, they believed, to the Entente states that it was by definition impossible to repay those debts. And this was one of the reasons for Hitler’s rapid rise on the political scene. Because he was telling his people: “Look at what these bandits are doing! They imposed on us such conditions under which we will never, from generation to generation, the Germans will not be able to pay off and become a normal country. We have only one way – to fight for our interests with weapons.” This is not the only reason, but one of the major reasons.

Why are such conditions being created for Africa today, by imposing such financial obligations? Of course, this does not mean that we should always follow the path of resistance and fight for our interests with arms. But we must do everything to change the current situation, to make it much more fair, understandable, transparent, and therefore more stable, as I just said in my closing remarks at the forum, here in the next room.

There is one more point that I would like to highlight. In the course of numerous contacts with African leaders, even from those countries where the economic situation is very difficult today and people have a very hard life, sometimes malnourished, but none of them – none, I want to emphasise this – asked for anything directly. No one extended out a hand, no one asked for anything: give us this, or give us that. Everyone was talking about only one thing: let us establish fair, honest joint economic work.

I want to tell you that we are ready, of course, to support our African friends when needed. You may have heard that we have now sent free grain to several African countries, and even paid for the shipping of this grain. Where it needs to be done, we are ready. But, of course, we are even more interested in fruitful joint work on equal terms. Africa expects this both from the world and from Russia. And of course, these are the principles that will guide us in our work. Africa has a great future.

<…>

Vladimir Putin (replying to a question by Yegor Oryel, a specialist on artificial intelligence on the introduction of artificial intelligence): We can be proud of our achievements in this area. Why? Because our so-called electronic government is probably much more advanced than others, and we have achieved much greater success than many other countries. And, of course, this is the result of the work by these people that you mentioned, including Dmitry Chernyshenko, who is one of the organisers of these events. We have taken definite steps forward in this area but, of course, this is not enough yet.

Naturally, we must work with our colleagues inside the country and abroad on this technology, and probably harder and more intensively than before. This is true because – should I say the obvious? – because the future is clearly moving to this. The development of artificial intelligence creates tremendous competitive advantages for any country that develops this technology. We will certainly do this.

We are doing this now, and we will continue to do it. This process raises many ethical issues but we have grounds to boast in a good way in this respect because, as you certainly know, we are negotiating this with our leading companies and have reached agreements on it. They are creating the tools for self-monitoring in this area, on this platform, if you want to describe it in more precise or broader terms. This is critical because it is impossible to stop the development of artificial intelligence. This is an obvious fact.

I am not inclined to agree with those who see this as some kind of end of the world scenario, who think there will be a point of no return. They believe humanity will not be able to go back to a human world, that after this point of no return it will enter a different era, an era of machines that will rule the world. However, it all depends on us, at least for today.

This, in part, depends on the solution to the issues that have already been raised here by our friend and partner from the United States and our friends from other countries, notably, that we must come to terms with each other. This is so because if it gets out of control, it could do irreparable damage. It’s true. I have talked about this. When humanity realises the existence of some real dangers for itself if this technology gets out of control, I think the time for agreement will come. This will happen in the same way as conditions matured at one time for agreements on the non-proliferation and control of nuclear weapons. It is perfectly clear that we will have to come to terms on this at the international level. It seems to me that common sense will prevail, and we will be able to come to terms.

It is impossible to stop the development of technology. This suggests the conclusion that we must move forward and be among the leaders.

<…>

Aleksandra Deletic: Mr President,

My name is Aleksandra Deletic, I am from Montenegro. I am General Secretary of the True Montenegro (Prava Montenegro) political party.

And most people in Montenegro, and the president of our party Marko Milacic would also like to join me in asking this question: do you think that this youth festival has helped the world to see the pressure that Western countries and democracies are putting on the Russian Federation by introducing sanctions. One such country is Montenegro. Despite the fact that most of the residents do not agree with this policy, I would like to point out that in Montenegro, former president Milo Djukanovic is directly responsible for this policy, which is a betrayal of his own homeland. Do you, as one of the major leaders of a world power, believe that we can cooperate to achieve common interests?

And before you answer, on behalf of the Montenegrin delegation and the people of Montenegro, I would like to apologise for the sanctions that have been imposed on the Russian Federation. Thank you for your attention. Thank you for your time.

Vladimir Putin: You know, Montenegro has always been a country close to us, and the people who live there are close to us in terms of faith and culture. We understand the situation Montenegro is in, so, as you understand, joining the sanctions has no effect on you, it is all purely populist. And the former leader of Montenegro – he was not only a leader, but I think he was also a businessman, and it is not even clear what was more important – whether he was a leader or a businessman. Well, that is not important. What is important is something else, and this is what I want to answer.

You have just spoken about sanctions, about the fight against sanctions, and how today's event affects this. I want to emphasise once again what I said at the very beginning. We organise events of this kind and this youth festival not as tools to fight sanctions. Our government is fighting sanctions, and quite successfully, as you can see.

We do not organise events of this kind to prove something to anyone, or to argue or compete with anyone. We hold events in order to find friends, to create conditions for communication between young people, so that they get more information about us, about Russia, and once they have this information, they can, like many of the participants in our meeting today, make plans for cooperation between specific people and specific professions, specific enterprises, perhaps, create new formats and interactions and help countries, even those countries that are in conflict with each other today, to find ways out of these challenging situations. This is what our event, including today's event, is dedicated to.

We are very pleased that you are here, and we are grateful to you. Thank you very much.

<…>

Vladimir Putin (commenting on the speech by Andrei Savelyev, former resident of Kiev who moved to Crimea after the coup in Ukraine, joined the militia, volunteered in military hospitals; he came to the festival as part of the Donbass delegation): I want to thank you for your stance. The moment you stood up and spoke in such confident, masculine voice, I immediately saw the calibre of the person I was talking with.

I appreciate your stance because your actions are, somewhat paradoxically in today’s circumstances, aimed towards the well-being of both Ukraine and Russia, for the benefit of their peoples. I am confident that people like you, as I have previously said publicly, are essential contributors to the inevitable reunion, perhaps, at least, on a spiritual level.

However, for this to happen, it is necessary to eliminate any obstacles in the way. The biggest of these hindrances is the disgusting manifestation of nationalism, a poison that continues to afflict the lives of numerous peoples, including those in Ukraine today.

For those unfamiliar with the details, for our foreign colleagues and friends, let me explain. The young man has just mentioned the Banderites. Who are they? They are followers of a certain Bandera who collaborated with Hitler during the Second World War and was involved in the mass extermination of millions of victims, including Jews (1.5 million), Poles, Russians, and Belarusians. The scale of the atrocities is staggering.

Later, in the middle of the war, when it became evident that Hitler’s forces were losing, Bandera’s supporters tried to switch sides and join the Allies. It was at that time that the Nazis started to press down on them.

But this is an absolutely established historical fact: these people collaborated with Nazism, the Nazis and participated in the extermination of the civilian population. In contemporary Ukraine, these figures have been elevated to the status of national heroes. Their portraits are paraded like icons in major cities, they receive salutes and serve as symbols of the present-day Ukrainian state. This is precisely what we are fighting with the help of people like the comrade present here.

Christian Wagner (retranslated): My name is Christian Wagner, and I am from Hamburg. I studied to become a professional worker, a builder, then moved to China and continued my studies there. I am taking part in a festival in China, and we are strengthening cooperation with the Eurasian continent, as well as with all continents and all regions. Cooperation between Russia and China is an important, a key point. In my experience, the German people want friendship with the Russian people, and we can see mutual sympathy and solidarity between the two peoples. We feel a sense of solidarity, primarily at the level of young people.

My question is this. How can you use this opportunity to improve mutual understanding and ensure and strengthen European sovereignty? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: You concluded your question with your wish to strengthen European sovereignty, as I understand. However, you know, this is exactly what Germany’s problem is today. It is not even a problem, but perhaps a disaster for today’s Germany. Where did it come from? Today’s authoritative and respected German politicians, like Mr [Wolfgang] Schäuble, said several years ago that after World War II, Germany had never been sovereign in the full sense of the word. This was not me who said this, but German politicians. It is also clear why: due to a range of restrictions imposed after World War II and the restrictions imposed by the victorious countries.

First, I have already publicly stated that today’s generation of Germans is not responsible for what the Nazis and fascists did in Germany, in Europe, and in the world as a whole. But we must do everything to prevent anything like this from happening in the future; that is a must. This is perhaps the special responsibility of the German nation.

I would also like to note that we always had a golden age in our development and achieved success when we, Russians and Germans, united our efforts. Whenever Germany and Russia were together and worked together, we achieved great and clear success.

Unfortunately, it is not the case today. However, I believe that sooner or later, the deep national interests of Germany and the German people will inevitably bring to the top politicians who will adhere to this viewpoint and prioritise national interests.

Of course, I think that as a multipolar world is being built within the system of relations that is taking shape and developing, fundamental changes will take place in Europe. Today we hear calls for Europe to have its own armed forces and greater independence. This is not me saying this; European politicians are expressing these views. This means that, despite the well-known hierarchy in the Western world, the desire to be independent and to protect one’s sovereignty still breaks through to the surface. It is an inevitable process for all of Europe, and I am sure that it will be the same in Germany. But you need to be patient and work to solve current problems.

And, of course, if young people, regardless of their political views, wish to achieve this positive outcome, they must unite. Thank you for thinking about this.

Anton Pashkov: Mr President, we have been working for an hour and a half now. Could you give us heads up as there are too many questions.

Vladimir Putin: Let us go on…

Ksenia Yanova: Let us continue.

Come on everyone, you have a unique opportunity.

Vladimir Putin: Please.

Anton Pashkov: Let me choose. Here, the young man has been holding out his hand for a long time.

Anastasia Gubernatorova: Good afternoon, Mr President.

Let me begin. The young man can continue after me. Please excuse me.

Vladimir Putin: That is right, March 8 is coming, International Women’s Day.

Anastasia Gubernatorova: Thank you very much.

My name is Anastasia Gubernatorova, and I represent the Belgorod Region.

I would like to start my question by thanking you personally, Mr President, for supporting the residents of the Belgorod Region after the recent events.

We highly appreciate the contribution you’ve made for every one of us. We feel that you stand with us, and that our country is with us. I think everyone here will agree. We can feel that we are together and that soon everything will be the way we want it to be, and we will build our future together with you.

Of course, I would like to note that the volunteer movement in the Belgorod Region is growing, and it is very gratifying and important for us to understand that you appreciate our work and put it on a par with those who are changing this world. It was also very important for us to see that platforms for the development of the volunteer movement in our country and the world are expanding. Thank you for this opportunity to exchange experiences and share some of our practices with volunteers and volunteer organisations, with caring Russian people who help us every day. These are families and young people from kindergartens, schools, colleges, and universities who write letters to our military every day. These are the people who send humanitarian aid. These are all those who are always with us and always support us. Once again, thank you very much for this. We thank you for supporting the residents of the Belgorod Region and thank you on behalf of the people living in the city of Belgorod.

Please, tell us if there is a way to add new platforms for exchanging experiences and practices with other regions, so that people from other countries and regions can also share with us. This is very important for all of us present here. Thank you once again for this opportunity.

Vladimir Putin: As for these platforms for exchanging experiences, we already have three or four of them, such as Mashuk and Tavrida. There will be 12 in the near future. We understand how important this work is and will create conditions to provide more opportunities like this.

However, I would like to say something because you are from Belgorod and mentioned the situation there. Perhaps not everyone knows this, and I will not go into detail, but you and the people of the Belgorod Region will understand. Shelling civilian targets and attacking squares and civilians with multiple launch rocket systems is, of course, a war crime.

This is the way we will deal with what has happened, and we will not leave those who did it in peace.

In general, I would like to thank you and all the residents of the Belgorod Region for your courage, for your readiness to fight, and for your patriotic attitude to what is happening. Of course, I would also like to thank all the volunteers who are making a huge contribution to the common cause.

Thank you very much.

<…>

Vladimir Putin (answering a question from Milos Tanaskovic from Serbia on relations between Russia and his homeland): You know as well as I do, and probably even better: relations between Russia and Serbia are special and have historically deep roots. I always talk about this with special warmth, because for centuries – I want to emphasise this – the Serbs have been Russia’s most reliable allies. We know, remember, and appreciate this.

<…>

Noah Shenk: My name is Noah Schenk, I’m representing the United States on behalf of the Centre for Political Innovation.

Mr President, I’d like to say, I’d like to echo my partner’s sentiments in saying thank you so very much for allowing us to come here.

But I’d also like to say that it is little bittersweet for me to be here, because, for example, during the opening ceremony there was a moment when we were all joining hands, and there was a woman in front of me and there was a man in a wheelchair, and he was sort of closed off. And I watched her reach her hand down and grab his hand and they joined hands. And I felt the warmth of humanity, I felt the human spirit, and I see that all over this festival, I see so many people joined together celebrating humanity. I see so much optimism. I see so much hope. I see so many young people ready to unleash their potential and push humanity forward.

And then I thought, back home, I thought about all the people at home who can’t afford to get an education, who ruined their lives with drugs because they live in a society that doesn’t care for them. I started to tear up because there are these two sides, and the more I thought about it, the more I realized: this is the difference between a collapsing society in the West, and the rising society that is in the BRICS nation and the new emerging economy today.

So that brings me to my question here today, which is: do you see a world where the West could begin to join the new economy, begin to join BRICS? And if so, what do you think that would look like?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, until today, everyone had been striving to join the West. Even Russia once aspired to join the G7, the G8. Then we realised that it made no sense, because no one takes our interests into account there. This is our Western partners’ problem and mistake.

I tried to convey this idea to your compatriot when answering the previous question from our American guest. You know, you just talked about some purely social problems: education and healthcare. I must say honestly that this is not only the United States’ problem, although, of course, it is probably strange to hear this for so many people. Many, say, from Latin America, try to get to the United States any way they can. This flow of migrants, which irritates a large number of Americans, is known to everyone. But there are many such problems in other countries – in rich and developed ones.

In fact, healthcare problems are very acute for Europe as well. The United States has so far created conditions for the best use of knowledge and abilities of highly skilled specialists from all over the world, including from Europe; salaries are higher, so European specialists move there to live. The world is unfair, that’s true, and people without the appropriate income cannot get a normal education and have no right to expect medical care. People can die right on the doorstep of a medical facility if they do not have insurance in the United States. Unfortunately, there have been incidents like this, and more than once; we know about these tragic cases.

This does not mean that everything is well in other countries, that they have reached social balance and social justice. I have already said today that our common task is to put all people in equal conditions, but this is a difficult goal. However, I believe, I am sure, that if we are going to create a multipolar world, where we are not only independent from each other, but also help each other, then social issues, including education and healthcare, will be resolved more easily and more effectively. Because by joining forces, we achieve better results.

<…>

Vladimir Putin (commenting on the remarks by Julia Mtsweni from the South African Students Congress on the importance of youth participating in decision-making within BRICS): You know, BRICS was born in Russia, it all happened gradually. At one of the international events held in St Petersburg, I suggested to our Chinese and Indian friends that the three of us should get together for a meeting.

This is how the RIC association – Russia, India, and China – came into being. Then Brazil joined later to make it BRIC, followed by South Africa making it BRICS. Now it is an influential and representative association, a magnet that attracts many countries around the world, because, as our friend from the United States noted, these countries are gaining momentum. I have already cited this data.

The global GDP of the BRICS economies is greater than that of the G7 countries, and the gap is widening and will continue to widen. This is a fact, nothing can stop it, and even if someone wants to reverse this trend, it can no longer be done, and it will keep increasing.

But you are right. Of course, we must hear what the young people have to say. This is why we – it was Russia’s initiative – have created a youth platform. With what you just said in mind and the fact that we chair BRICS this year, we will do our best as chair to ensure that young people from the BRICS countries can sit with us at the same table and take part in our discussions.

<…>

Vladimir Putin (answering a question from Valeria Montejo from Colombia on how leaders make unconventional decisions and take responsibility for the consequences): You know, I believe, you should always have an inner compass, which can show the right direction when we think about the future rather than a current event. A person who was in politics once famously said, “The difference between a politician and a statesman is that a politician thinks about the next election while the statesman thinks about the next generation.” (Applause.) But we always have to choose, and, clearly, when we choose, we know that not everyone will be happy with the choices. However, we have to think about the outcome and work for the good of the country and the people, for the future of the state. This is not an easy process.

We, in Russia, had a statesman, a military leader, by the way, of German origin – Marshal, or Field Marshal Munnich, who said that Russia is a country that is directly governed by God, because if it isn’t, it’s not clear how it continues to exist. I agree with the first part: Russia is a country that is directly ruled by God. As for the second part, my years of working in my current position suggest that Russia exists because of the Russian people and other peoples who inhabit this vast territory, their talent and devotion to their country and their confidence in the future and the future of our children.

<…>

Israa Skan: Hello everyone,

I am truly honoured to stand before you today and extend my heartfelt gratitude to you, Mr President, for this splendid festival you have organised.

So, my name is Israa Skan, I am 21 years old, and I am from France. And I am deeply inspired by the cultural richness of Russia and all the other countries showcased at this event.

Russia holds a special place in my heart, as I am planning to pursue my master’s degree focusing on the Middle East and the North African Region with the key interest in its relations with Russia.

As a young woman inspired to navigate the world of diplomacy, I am eager to seek your guidance. What advice would you offer to young women worldwide who show a similar interest in diplomacy? Additionally, considering the huge success of this festival, are there any plans to make it a recurring event celebrating culture exchange and understanding? Spasibo bolshoye. Thank you very much, Mr President. Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: As for forums like this, we will, of course, continue holding them and making them even more informative, eventful, colourful, and attractive.

As for women in professions, in Russia, women play a remarkable role in public life, but regrettably there are not so many women in the Government. One of them is present here. Ms Golikova, please rise. (Applause.) Tatyana Golikova oversees social issues, medicine, and culture. But generally, there are many women at different levels of authority in this country. In fact, the more of them there are, the better, because women possess certain traits related to the performance of their professional duties. They tend to be more amenable to discipline and meticulous in the positive sense of the word.

What can I advise? It’s not up to me to advise women. It’s more trouble than it’s worth. It’s better not to mess with them. (Laughter.) But then, I can always add that this is not a piece of advice but just thinking out loud.

No matter what a woman does, she must, of course, always remain feminine, she must remain a loved one and create a certain atmosphere around her and, of course, in the family. A woman’s destiny is procreation, and this is an absolutely unique natural gift. We all feel an immense respect for it and support it; we have a large-scale programme to support motherhood and childhood. I am not being lyrical about it, this is a serious matter both for France and for all of Europe, for the advanced economies, and for Russia as well. Falling birth rates are a serious challenge for all countries, including in the economy.

Women’s role is unique in this regard, but at the same time, all of us (I mean us men) expect women to remain attractive, charming, and tender. But how can a woman do all that – both make a career and maintain an attractive appearance – I don’t know, it’s a female secret which I am not even trying to probe.

I wish you all the best!

Anton Pashkov: Thank you very much, Mr President, for this frank conversation and for your time.

Vladimir Putin: I want to ask my African “relative” and our Italian friend to come up here. (The three of them pose for a photograph.)